Is The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms Perfect?

The entrenchment of rights in the Canadian Constitution comes after long experience with a system of parliamentary supremacy. The American judicial tradition of treating the written constitution as fundamental law cannot have an instant Canadian counterpart. Thus, it does not follow that the Canadian courts will necessarily claim a role comparable to that of courts in the United States, nor is it clear that the representative bodies in Canada would tolerate such a judicial assertion of power. Opposition by government bodies to the Charter have already occurred in Canada, where the Parti Quebecois government of Quebec invoked the “notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” clause for the purpose of protecting their language laws from attack under the charter. This report will attempt to note some of the common and distinctive features of the text of the two constitutions as well as to how they differ.

This charter means that everyone no matter what race, religion, sex, national origin, age or mental and physical abilities they have they are protected. The charter allows people to have basic human fundamental rights that most government rules and regulations were restricting before it came into act. The freedom of speech, religion and to associate yourself with whoever you want are just some of those rights that are being offered with the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Finally the last achievements that Pierre Trudeau did that assisted in making Canada better are the legalization of laws on abortion, homosexuality and lotteries.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is entrenched into the constitution offers a guarantor of individual sovereignty, which states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental

F.L. Morton examines the political impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by comparing pre-Charter practices to post-Charter developments in five different areas: judicial behaviour, public policy, interest group behaviour, federalism, and executive behaviour. Morton presents the Charter through its continuity and change, beginning with the move away from Britain’s “unwritten constitution” and distinguishing the doctrine as constitutional supremacy that still depends on public opinion. He argues that due to the Charter’s constitutionality, Canadian courts are able to have a more active and influential role in interpreting and enforcing the listed rights which is a negative development in Canadian democracy.

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

Apart from the other laws in Canada’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important law that affects every Canadian’s rights and freedoms. It was created in 1981 by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to provide legal protection for the most important rights and freedoms. These rights include fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, and legal rights. Most but not all articles included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are protected in the constitution. However, if a Canadian feels that their rights are violated, they can challenge laws and unfair actions using the justice system. In my opinion, I believe the Canadian Charter of Human Rights somewhat protects Canadians’ rights and

Pierre Trudeau made Canada what it is today in a positive manner by creating the Constitutions Act as well as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Constitutions Act started in 1982. The act allowed everyone to have fundamental freedoms. Those fundamental freedoms included: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of association as stated in the Constitution Act of 1982. The Act also includes mobility rights that include: every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada itself with no troubles at all, and to move into any province with no troubles. The constitution act had equality rights as well, some in which were and are that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to protection of themselves and their families, as well as living with no discrimination based on their race, origin, nationality, religion, sex, age, or disability. The Constitution Act included the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right and freedom to reasonable limits allowed by the law and can be certainly justified in a free and

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Canadian constitution, which became part of the constitution in April 1982. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and contains the basic rules about how the country operates. The charter sets out the rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. Occasionally, individuals have their rights denied or violated by the government (both federal and provincial), and even the police that some people thought are tasked with the responsibility of upholding the charter of rights and freedoms. However, this notion is erroneous, as the police are not responsible for such.

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the

Signed in 1982, it is what we have based our government and laws around. It contains many provisions that allow us the freedoms we use everyday and sometimes take for granted. Individual rights make up the largest part of it and are promises made by the government of what we have the right to do. The Charter includes fundamental freedoms such as, freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly. It also included a plethora of other rights as well, like the right to enter and leave the country freely. It also dictates how some parts of the government should be run, like when parliament must meet. While many other countries do not have the same rights and freedoms we have, this helps our quality of life. In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are also collective rights for our First Nations and heritage groups. Furthermore, Canadians quality of life is improved and they are protected with the Charter of Rights and freedoms and everything inside of

Canada today faces a major challenge when it comes to access to justice. The civil, criminal and family justice system has become very complicated, slow and extremely expensive for majority of Canadians. These issues are particularly glaring to low income earners, people with disabilities and other minorities. Canadian justice system have become incapable of providing solutions that can addressing problems brought to it. With the creation of the Canadian charter of right and freedom, access to justice became more of an equality issue. It moved from simply being the capacity to litigate, to the quality of outcome or outcome focused. While there have been efforts to reform the system, our courts continues to lack institutional structures that can address change and create a more equitable judicial system both in capacity and outcome.

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

In 2011, three legal and constitutional scholars, Peter Aucoin, Mark D. Jarvis and Lori Turnbull set out to write a book detailing what they believed to be obvious and egregious errors in the way in which the current form of responsible government as it was practiced in the Canadian federal government, fell short of operating within basic democratic parameters. Canada has a system that is based one the Westminster system, in which its the Constitution act of 1867 is influenced by British principles and conventions. “Democratizing the Constitution reforming responsible government” is a book that makes an analysis for the reform of responsible government in Canada. The authors believe that from the unclear rules, pertaining to the role and power of the prime minster foresees for a failing responsible government. In this essay the functions of the government , conventions of the constitution, the a proposal for reform will be addressed.

obligation from the other citizens and government. The right to vote means that the government