Talk:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality

Near the end of the Interpretation and Enforcement section is the paragraph Legal organizations have also been formed and frequently intervene in cases to assist courts in the process of interpreting the Charter. Notable examples would be the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). The word "assist" suggests that these groups are objectively and dispassionatly rendering assistance to the judges, like they are groups of court clerks. In fact, like any other intervenors, they are attempting to bring the judges around to their point of view.

Also, the three organizations listed can be considered as having a liberal orientation. To balance this paragraph, it should either list an equal number of conservative organizations like the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canada Family Action Coalition, the Home School Legal Defence Association and the REAL Women of Canada, or no organizations at all. The paragraph should be rewritten as Legal organizations have also been formed and frequently intervene in Charter cases in an effort to secure favourable rulings. Vgy7ujm 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "assist the Court" is invariably used to describe what interveners do. I can see your point; the word "assist" might imply that the interveners are acting out of pure altruism. But the phrase "assisting the court" is not entirely a fiction; courts do find it helpful to get different perspectives on a legal issue. I took a stab at editing the paragraph in question to meet some of your concerns [1]. (I also edited the article intervener to address the point [2]). Incidentally, I took out the words "have also been formed", because most of the groups mentioned were in existence long before the Charter. --Mathew5000 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the issue you raised of the groups listed "having a liberal orientation", the reality is that such groups tend to intervene more frequently than conservative groups. For example, have a look at this dissertation, particularly Appendix 4:3 (beginning at page 100 of the PDF). It lists the number of appearances of each group during the time period analysed. You will notice that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Labour Congress, and LEAF each appeared several times while REAL Women of Canada appeared only once (at p. 97 of the PDF, Appendix 4:2). --Mathew5000 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared more times than REAL Women of Canada (6-1 according to the appendix in question). However, the argument being advanced also has a great number of weaknesses:

• The period measured in question as proof that liberal interveners intervene more only represents a three year interval on the Court (1997-1999)
• The period measured only represents the number of interveners before the Supreme Court of Canada, which does not hear all Charter related cases; just a fraction of them. I.e. it does not examine the number of times, for instance, REAL Women was intervener before other appeal courts, superior courts or trial courts.
• Furthermore, the courts only allow certain interveners to present arguments. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has a vested interest in how the Charter affects a very broad and diverse spectrum of Canadian law (e.g. Criminal law), whereas REAL Women does not have such a broad interest or mandate.
• While it is also true that Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared more times than REAL Women in the time period in question, it also ignores the fact that government attorney generals tend to intervene far more often before the supreme court. I believe the Court heard interventions from the Canadian Attorney General 33 times in that time period alone. In other words, the government has had the opportunity to advance legal arguments far more than other intervenors, especially the so-called Liberal ones.
• Lastly, REAL Women of Canada is not representative of all conservative groups. There must be an examination of how many other conservative groups intervened to make a fair comparison.Ben 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are discussing a short paragraph in the ‘Interpretation and enforcement’ section of the article. It isn’t exactly the place for a more in-depth discussion of the influence of intervener groups. I'm not saying that the points you're making are inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I would say they should go either in the article Supreme Court of Canada or the article intervener. For purposes of the Charter article, I would say it's enough to have a brief mention of the role of intervener groups. Now to address your bulleted points in order:

• There are lots of studies quantifying interventions by groups over longer time periods. Not sure how many of them are online but you could find them quickly at a library. In particular look for papers by Ian Brodie or Peter McCormick. You will find that so-called conservative groups have not intervened as often as so-called liberal groups; it is not just an aberration pertaining to the years 1997-99.
• I agree that the SCC hears only a fraction of Charter-related cases, but its decisions are obviously most influential. In any event, I would be very surprised if it turned out that REAL Women and other ‘conservative’ groups were intervening at lower levels of court at a higher rate than at the SCC.
• Given the context within the article, if the CCLA “has a vested interest in how the Charter affects a very broad and diverse spectrum of Canadian law” as you say, then that’s an argument in favour of mentioning it at this point in the article, while perhaps not mentioning the so-called conservative groups which do not intervene as much.
• The paragraph in question is about non-governmental intervener groups. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that the AGs also intervene in constitutional cases even if their jurisdiction is not directly involved in the case at hand, as you point out.
• There has been some interesting academic work considering what types of groups have intervened in Charter cases, and what effect they have had. For example, look at this book review. As I mentioned, the consensus has been that so-called liberal groups have had much more success as interveners in Charter cases than so-called conservative groups.

For those reasons, I would argue that Wikipedia’s NPOV principle does not require ‘equal mention’ of both liberal and conservative groups in this paragraph of this article. --Mathew5000 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Matt. The scope of the paragraph is indeed noted. The point of my response was to establish that the previous argument you have made is not sustained by the thesis your referred to. I am sure that there are numerous studies "quantifying interventions by groups over longer time periods". However, none have been mentioned or cited except for a thesis which examines a relatively small period of time in the Supreme Court's history. Moreover, the conclusions that can be drawn from that research should be interpreted with caution and with relatively little weight:

Despite how influential the Supreme Court is and can be, which is not at all in question, the vast majority of cases occur at lower levels, that it at the provincial appeal courts, provincial superior courts and trial courts and sometimes the federal courts. The provincial appeal courts and superior courts can also be influential and their opinions are just as legally binding. Many of the intervenors mentioned are far more interested in the consequences of the courts' decisions and interpretations of Charter law. It is not unheard of that they intervene, and far more often, at these lower levels. For instance, I can recall that in that same period REAL Women was also intervening in Rosenberg and CUPE v. Canada, which did not get appealed to the Supreme Court.

Also diminishing the conclusiveness of the evidence presented is the fact that not all cases are appealed, and those that are aren't always given leave to appeal.

Something that also hasn't been considered is whether the number of interventions made by these groups at the Supreme Court are statistically significant, especially when compared to interventions by government officials. The thesis also mentioned that the Attorney Generals were also far more likely to be cited by Supreme Court justices than other intervenors.

It would be a unwise to base an assessment of the frequency or influence of an intervener by just looking at the data cited and based on the Supreme Court. It is also inappropriate to compare apples and oranges (e.g. the CCLA and REAL Women).

As mentioned before, there are supposedly studies that advances one point or another. However, it is insufficient to state that they exist (just like the truth is somewhere out there). We are not here to go on a fishing trip; we are here to be critical of the conclusions and arguments that are being advanced. We cannot and is not our duty to seek evidence; that is the duty of the person making a contention.Ben 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ERA comparison

"...similar to that of the Equal Rights Amendment in the US. However, the Equal Rights Amendment is currently unratified. This may be because the American Amendment received an unfavourable reaction from the religious right, and there was no comparable opposition to the Charter's section 28..."

The ERA reference is very relevant to this section but I've changed this part to dump the the 'religious right" argument for NPOV reasons. The actual Equal Rights Amendment page here at wikipedia never mentions them as a reason for it's failure so it seems odd that it is the primary reason listed here for its failure. James 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

According to an interview with Jean Chretien, 17 April 2007 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070417.wdionchart0417/BNStory/National/home) when it was his turn to sign the document, his pen broke and he swore under his breath. On hearing the comment, the Queen had a hard time keeping her composure and her resulting, beaming smile, captured on camera and broadcast in the news, had been assumed for 25 years to be nothing more than her showing her pride and approval of the Charter.

Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Clauses

re: Alberta

I'm almost 100% sure that Alberta never actually used the notwithstanding clause to uphold heterosexual marriage, they just threatened to. Can someone confirm this? Inanechild 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• In 2000, Alberta amended its Marriage Act[3] to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The law included a notwithstanding clause in an attempt to protect the amendment from being invalidated under the Charter.

Well, you're both right, actually. So we may want to clarify this section. The crucial point here is that the Albertan government simply doesn't have the authority to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause on this issue. The definition of marriage is a purely federal jurisdiction (Sec. 92 & 93) and the Notwithstanding Clause cannot override matters of jurisdiction. So, while they may have cited the Clause, they don't have the legal power to invoke it: ipso facto they haven't actually "used" it. It's a rather humourous legal situation actually: not only are they violating the Charter under the obvious Sec. 15 "Equality" provisions (and probably under Sec. 26 as well -- which isn't covered by the Notwithstanding Clause), but they don't even have the jurisdiction to violate those sections even if they wanted to! The Supreme Court could throw out something like this on its coffee break. --Todeswalzer 19:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Quebec

The wiki page says that "In the past, the notwithstanding clause was invoked routinely by the province of Quebec (which did not support the enactment of the Charter but is subject to it nonetheless)." I know that Quebec used the notwithstanding clause for Bill 101 but I'm not aware of any other use of the clause. I think that the phrase "invoked routinely" is misleading. Gfk 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a confirmation of what I was remembering:

The use of this clause is most noted for its inclusion in the Quebec language law, known as Bill 101, after sections of that law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1989 the Premier of the Province of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and freedom equality (section 15). This allowed the Province of Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial signs in languages other than French.

The only other use of the notwithstanding clause to date was with respect to a labor law passed by the Province of Saskatchewan. In this case the law was later ruled to be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, making the use of the clause unnecessary. Recently, Ralph Klein, Premier of the Province of Alberta has declared that he will implement the nothwitstanding clause to prevent any Supreme Court of Canada order that allows marriage between same sex partners.

Ref: http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/notwithstanding.htm

Since the clause has been used exactly once I'm going to change the wording of the sentence to remove "invoked routinely." Gfk 18:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong on this point, Gfk. The Quebec National Assembly (legislature) did invoke the override routinely between 1982 and 1985. For discussion, see this Library of Parliament research report. --Mathew5000 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Child pornography

One of the most controversial uses of the Charter has been in the defense of child pornography distribution in British Columbia. Scott Newark, senior policy advisor to Stockwell Day, said that the Charter helps only murderers, pedophiles and judges in relation to this affair. Others have raised concern about Charter interpretation of terrorism legislation, such as in the Maher Arar controversy. Discussions about these issues could maybe be added in the criticism section. [4] ADM (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Just because Scott Newark, a Conservative policy advisor, made some unrealistic comments back in 1998 and 2004 (seriously - striking down child pornography laws under the Charter? - that's the very definition of a s. 1 limit) doesn't make the criticism noteable. Keeping in mind that that over eleven years later, Newark's criticisms haven't come true, I can't really see the need to now suddenly add them to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding clause

In Features, immediately after listing all the Charter rights, the article states:

These rights are generally subject to the limitations clause (section 1) and the notwithstanding clause (section 33).

This is somewhat misleading, because the notwithstanding clause only applies to sections 2 and 7–15, whereas the limitations clause applies to everything. While the next paragraph does clarify the scope of the notwithstanding clause, I think the quoted bit is not an accurate summary. Perhaps it can be re-phrased? --Ultra Megatron (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Done (although there still might be a better way to word it). Singularity42 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Charter and Voting Rights

A Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Decision was posted on the CBC website.[5]. It discusses, among other matters the role of the Charter with respect to voting Rights in Municipal Elections. The applicant is referred to on a biography page: Kurtis Coombs.

Essentially, reference is made to the difference between Constitutional Elections (Federal and Provincial) and "legislatively created" (Municipal) elections.

Pete318 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename for every Charter subarticle

Who the hell wants to type out the full spelling of the number of the section into search? Why are the spelled-out numbers capitalized? Let's rename Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and do the same for the other articles. It's already been done for Section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. LastOthello (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Language rights

I have a problem with the feature section, Language rights

It says generally, the right to use either the English or French language in communications with Canada's federal government and certain provincial governments. Specifically, the language laws enshrined in the Charter include

• Section 16: English and French are the official languages of Canada and New Brunswick.
• Section 16.1: the English and French-speaking communities of New Brunswick have equal rights to educational and cultural institutions.

under Section 16 - English and French are the official languages of Canada. Why is New Brunswick mentioned? under Section 16.1 - Only New Brunswick has equal rights for english speaking and french speaking communities, to educational and cultural institutions???? Really?l santry (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. The federal government is officially bilingual, Quebec only has French as an official language, and the remaining provinces only have English as an official language. The articles on the specific Charter sections explain in more detail. Singularity42 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is true, though it should also be said that all three territories give French official language status as well, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba give official recognition, at least on a dejure basis. However, when the charter was written New Brunswick was the only one to insist that this be included as such. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Trudeau allegedly enacting the Charter

Resolved

"Hence, the Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enacted the Charter in 1982."

Technically, this is not correct. The Charter was enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request of the Parliament of Canada.Ben 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? In Canada we would say that things like this are enacted by the Government of Canada, which includes both The House of Commons (Parliament), and the Senate. Being a constitutional monarchy, a session of Parliament is opened with the Speech From The Throne, which is read by the Governor-General. This is ceremonial, but important. Constitutional matters, I am almost sure, require the direct approval of the Queen, but what does the Parliament of the Uinited Kingdom have to do with it? Did they debate the Canadian Charter? It is true, though that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't "enact" anything. (Edit: Never mind, the change has been made, with links to the relevant details. Still, the Queen officially signing the Canada Act, in Canada, which included the Charter, was a major memory for most Canadians, and it's odd that it isn't mentioned.) 77Mike77 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, what the OP means is that the Charter (or, more specificially, Canada Act 1982, is an Act of the British Parliament, not an Act of the Canadian Parliament. It is an Act of the British Parliament that essentially created the modern Canadian constitution and created an ammending formula that kept the British Parliament out of it. This is discussed in more detail at Patriation and Canada Act 1982.

In any event, this is a very dated thread from 2007. The OP's requested change to the article was made long ago. This thread should be considered resolved. Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)