Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms document
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms document
Canadian charter of rights and freedoms document
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Canadian charter of rights and freedoms document
The Canadian Constitution, is the supreme law of the land, has evolved countless of times throughout history. Within this paper, I will focus on two vital dates: The Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982. Canada’s Constitution Act is made up of written laws (statutes), conventions and Canadian court decisions (Mcconnell, W. H. 2015). The Constitution Act of 1867, was formerly known as the British North American Act (NBA), together with amendments made to it since enacted, became the Constitution Act of 1982. Immigration is one of the few areas covered in the Constitution that gives both federal legislators and provincial legislators to enact laws.
Section 95, under the Constitution Act of 1867 gave jurisdiction to provincial legislators along
…show more content…
A way for a court judge to determine if the law is unconstitutional is by checking the two fundamental parts of the Constitution. The first is the Division of Powers, which sets out the powers, responsibilities and limitations of each government. The second is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CRF). CRF provides a safeguard for individuals so that the government does not arbitrarily, or unintentionally, infringe upon the rights of the individual (Ed Corrigan, …show more content…
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only guarantees fundamental freedoms for Canadian citizens, but it also includes landed immigrants and refugees (Ed Corrigan, 2015). Under section 2 of the Human Rights and Freedom, everyone is entitled to democratic rights (S. 3-5), mobility rights (S.6), legal rights (s.7-14), equality rights (S.15), and language rights (S.16-22) (Government of Canada, 2016). Section 6 is very important for immigrants because it guarantees mobility rights for all permanent residents. This allows the freedom of movement within Canada and does not allow for the restriction of newcomers to just reside in one specific
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
Canada has had a long and storied history especially in the 20th century. A key part of this history is Canada’s road to autonomy. The first step on this road is Canada’s role in fighting and ending World War I. The second step is Canadian involvement in the United Nations’ early days to the mid 1950’s. The last step on the road to autonomy is the Constitution Act, 1982. These three moments in time form the backbone of Canada’s road to autonomy.
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately became the heart and soul of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal battle’s surrounding the United States Bill of Rights have been to make it a truly national document – such that states may not violate its provisions. The Fourteenth Amendment finally made this possible. A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions.
On June 6, 1919, after over a month of striking in Winnipeg, the federal government amended the Immigration Act “[allowing] officials to deport any alien or Canadian citizen not born in Canada for advocating the overthrow of the government by force.”1 Canada, as a democratic country, was/is based upon the idea of allowing the people to influence the decisions that impact their own lives2. However, the government’s eventual decision to deport strikers and strike leaders displayed a lack of adherence and respect for the democratic system. The government contradicted itself as a democracy by ignoring the people instead of intervening to reach a peaceful and fair solution. The government overturned the political freedom3 it was meant to promote and foster by threatening to deport anyone who opposed the status quo. Looking at the amendment carefully will reveal that the changes to the Immigration Act only allowed the deportation of ‘aliens’ and immigrant citizens, but not ‘true Canadians’. This particular change in the Immigration Act displayed bias towards foreigners. Although not on the government’s mind, this was extremely...
The Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders both faced many obstacles and concerns when working towards creating the best possible form of government for their respectable nations. The Federalist Papers seek to counter the Articles of Confederation whereas Canada’s Founding Debates is a discussion between supporters and opponents of Confederation. Between the Founding Fathers and Canada’s Founders in the Founding Papers chapter Federal Union, there are many common concerns about the future of the country. When there is a change in how a country is structured, it brings concern over group rights and interest being ignored for the common good, and it is very
Robert, Jean-Claude, Dr. "Immigration Acts (1866 - 2001)." Canada in the Making. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013. .
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
The Indian act, since being passed by Parliament in 1876, has been quite the validity test for Aboriginal affairs occurring in Canada. Only a minority of documents in Canadian history have bred as much dismay, anger and debate compared to the Indian Act—but the legislation continues as a central element in the management of Aboriginal affairs in Canada. Aboriginal hatred against current and historic terms of the Indian Act is powerful, but Indigenous governments and politicians stand on different sides of the fence pertaining to value and/or purpose of the legislation. This is not shocking, considering the political cultures and structures of Aboriginal communities have been distorted and created by the imposition of the Indian Act.
The federal and provincial government’s bona fide ability to implement bounds on the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Citizens of this great nation is an absolute necessity. The confines permitted by the ‘reasonable limits clause,’ ‘notwithstanding clause’ and the need for increased powers in extreme circumstances demonstrate society’s inherent need for confines to prevent disorder and mayhem. If the governments were unable to invoke restraints, chaos and anarchy would prevail. However, the need to ensure that the limitations do not unreasonably infringe of rights and freedoms of Canadians is equally important. If governments began to continuously and unreasonably infringe the rights and freedoms, individual Canadians would become a communist state such as North Korea.
Systemic discrimination has been a part of Canada’s past. Women, racial and ethnic minorities as well as First Nations people have all faced discrimination in Canada. Policies such as, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, provincial and federal Human Rights Codes, as well has various employment equity programs have been placed in Canada’s constitution to fight and address discrimination issues. Despite these key documents placed for universal rights and freedoms Aboriginal and other minority populations in Canada continue to be discriminated against. Many believe there is no discrimination in Canada, and suggest any lack of success of these groups is a result of personal decisions and not systemic discrimination. While others feel that the legislation and equality policies have yet resulted in an equal society for all minorities. Racism is immersed in Canadian society; this is clearly shown by stories of racial profiling in law enforcement.
Canada and Quebec have always been in conflict from the confederation of 1867 to the Supreme court judgement on the secession of Quebec in 1998. Quebec faces several challenges in terms of constitutional relations with the rest of Canada. Quebec is seeking a special status to preserve and protect its culture and language, while the rest of English-speaking Canada accepts the view of provincial equality. There have been attempts to recognize Quebec's concerns through constitutional amendments, but these attempts have not lived up to Quebec's expectations and for the most parts have failed. Quebec has threatened Canada throughout history with separation from Canada. These threats have not been ignored, the rest of Canada realizes the devastating impact economically and politically if Quebec did separate but they cannot reach a compromise. Canada has as tried to encourage Quebec not to separate from Canada. In 1995 Quebec held its second referendum on sovereignly and the separatists narrowly lost the province wide. The province brought the case to the Supreme court of Canada to rule on the legal guidelines of unilateral secession under Canadian and international law, in the end some say the federalists (those not wanting to separate) came out on top. In this essay I will discuss the various historical attempts made by government to keep Quebec a part of Canada. I will also attempt to explain the impact of the Supreme Court Ruling on the Quebec secession. Many argue that the federalist won in the decision but that statement is debatable. Both Quebec and the rest of Canada won in the ruling. I believe that English Canadians should spend some time getting to know their French neighbors and vice ...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Every year, over 250,000 people make Canada their new home. Attracted by its education system, economy and universal healthcare system, there are few other places in the world like it. All Canadians are guaranteed equality before the law and equality of opportunity, regardless of where they are from. However, some might argue that Canadian policy has not been put into practice as well as it should be. Is the concept of true equality a far-fetched idea? It seems that Canada has taken great measures to promote the integration of immigrants socially, but can the same be said for their integration economically? Politically? To judge whether or not Canada has been successful at promoting the integration of immigrants in these realms, a deeper understanding of Canadian policy must be considered.
Stoffman, Daniel. Who gets in: What's wrong with Canada's immigration program, and how to fix it. Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002.