THe constitution act (1982), and the Meech Lake/CHarlottetown accord.

[urbanpoet]

I was thinking...

ppl say the political consequences of the constitution act generated the mech and charlotte town accords.

people also say that the constitution act created the opposition that defeated these accorsd.

SO far all i can think of is Aboriginal and Quebec culture rights.

are there any others?

[Leafless]

I was thinking...

ppl say the political consequences of the constitution act generated the mech and charlotte town accords.

people also say that the constitution act created the opposition that defeated these accorsd.

SO far all i can think of is Aboriginal and Quebec culture rights.

are there any others?

That's why some Canadians think the Charter is not worth the paper it's written on.

Repatriating our constitution is what our premiers agreed to for possible changes at a later date that could be for the betterment of all Canadians if the situation developed.

This could have been a political conspiracy all along just to get the constitution back to Canada and make changes to appease Quebec.

This is why Meech and the Charlottetown accord failed because no one especially wanted to open and fiddle with our constitution for what Quebec was after.

But the constitution was amended regardless, giving Quebec important concessions over the status of all other Canadians creating in effect 'official discrimination' against Canadians collectively. Aboriginals to were given IMO, unreasonable guarantees.

What all other Canadians gained was not much that we didn't already have under our old federal and provincial human rights code.

But the other important factor regarding the charter is that the 'federal government has the exclusive power to advance the equality status or use of English and French' and IMO this means French or relating to Quebec again if it chooses. This is strange though because provinces like Quebec, are suppose have power over the language in their respective provinces.

[jbg]

I was thinking...

ppl say the political consequences of the constitution act generated the mech and charlotte town accords.

people also say that the constitution act created the opposition that defeated these accorsd.

SO far all i can think of is Aboriginal and Quebec culture rights.

are there any others?

That's why some Canadians think the Charter is not worth the paper it's written on.

Other reasons go to the very provisions of the Charter itself:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

( freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c ) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association

This "swiss cheese" provision effectively blows out the entire "fundamental freedoms" provisions by subjecting them to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Presumably, in a majority government, the PMO can "demonstrably justify" anything.

But the other important factor regarding the charter is that the 'federal government has the exclusive power to advance the equality status or use of English and French' and IMO this means French or relating to Quebec again if it chooses. This is strange though because provinces like Quebec, are suppose have power over the language in their respective provinces.

Making QC's "special status" even clearer would have further undermined Canadian unity, as insufficient as it is.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Since no one but politically correct MSM believes in "multiculturalism", this provision should have no support or validity.

Remember, I'm a Yank who knows little about Canada. Just my $0.02 (American).

[bk59]

But the constitution was amended regardless, giving Quebec important concessions over the status of all other Canadians creating in effect 'official discrimination' against Canadians collectively. Aboriginals to were given IMO, unreasonable guarantees.

What amendments were made, and / or what concessions were made that give Quebec any special status that the other provinces do not have? If Quebec has special status, why did Quebec not sign the constitution?

What all other Canadians gained was not much that we didn't already have under our old federal and provincial human rights code.

Old federal and provincial human rights codes were pieces of legislature that could have been changed or repealled at any time by the federal or provincial governments. The Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms which the federal and provincial governments cannot override or change without amending the constitution. Previously governments could have taken away many of these fundamental rights with very little effort.

But the other important factor regarding the charter is that the 'federal government has the exclusive power to advance the equality status or use of English and French' and IMO this means French or relating to Quebec again if it chooses. This is strange though because provinces like Quebec, are suppose have power over the language in their respective provinces.

Having the federal government use both official languages does not have anything to do with Quebec per se. Is there something that the federal government has done in relation to this clause that you find offensive?

[bk59]

This "swiss cheese" provision effectively blows out the entire "fundamental freedoms" provisions by subjecting them to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Presumably, in a majority government, the PMO can "demonstrably justify" anything.

This has not been the case. In fact, several laws (or more specifically sections of laws) passed by Parliament have been struck down for violating section 7 of the Charter. When they violate section 7, then the Courts look to see if that law can be justified by section 1 (i.e. is the section a reasonable infringement on the right to life, liberty and security of the person). In general, once something violates section 7, it is very hard for that section to then remain in effect because of section 1.

It is not the Parliament or the Prime Minister that gets the final decision to see if something is reasonably justified per section 1. There is no vote on that or executive decision. The courts decide whether or not the law can justifiably be used to limit rights and freedoms. This is the huge difference between the Charter and what came before the Charter. Section 1 is not nearly as big a problem as your post indicates.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Since no one but politically correct MSM believes in "multiculturalism", this provision should have no support or validity.

Remember, I'm a Yank who knows little about Canada. Just my $0.02 (American).

I would be curious to know what your definition of "multiculturalism" is (since so many people seem to have so many different definitions). I look at that section and just see a recognition that many people in Canada come from different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. It reinforces the idea that you cannot discriminate based on different religions or that it is not justified to deny people their cultural celebrations. Realistically, these things are probably covered by other sections of the Charter. Then again, section 28 about how the Charter applies equally to males and females is probably also redundant. These sections are there to reinforce certain ideas of equality, nothing more.

[Charles Anthony]

ppl say the political consequences of the constitution act generated the mech and charlotte town accords.

people also say that the constitution act created the opposition that defeated these accorsd.

This has been discussed earlier in the following aptly-named (so as to appear in the forum SEARCH function) thread created a week earlier:

Constitution, Charter, Meech Lake & All That -- Night of the Long Knives

which was provoked by an earlier thread:

Funny Video

What amendments were made, and / or what concessions were made that give Quebec any special status that the other provinces do not have? If Quebec has special status, why did Quebec not sign the constitution?

The answer can be found with this post from Aug91 from the above threads.

[bk59]

What amendments were made, and / or what concessions were made that give Quebec any special status that the other provinces do not have? If Quebec has special status, why did Quebec not sign the constitution?

The answer can be found with this post from Aug91 from the above threads.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I know the history behind why Quebec did not sign. My question is really for Leafless. I'd like to know what special consideration he thinks Quebec got out of the constitution, and why he thinks Quebec did not sign the constitution if it supposedly got perks that the other provinces did not get.

[jbg]

This "swiss cheese" provision effectively blows out the entire "fundamental freedoms" provisions by subjecting them to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Presumably, in a majority government, the PMO can "demonstrably justify" anything.

This has not been the case. In fact, several laws (or more specifically sections of laws) passed by Parliament have been struck down for violating section 7 of the Charter. When they violate section 7, then the Courts look to see if that law can be justified by section 1 (i.e. is the section a reasonable infringement on the right to life, liberty and security of the person). In general, once something violates section 7, it is very hard for that section to then remain in effect because of section 1.

It's not at all clear that Section 7 is modified by Section 1, given its relatively absolute language, and the procedures mandated for a deprivation. Section 2, creating the "Fundamental Freedoms" is more likely affected by Section 1, inasmuch as the "procedure" for modifying those rights is adhering to "democratic" processes, i.e. Parliament.

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Since no one but politically correct MSM believes in "multiculturalism", this provision should have no support or validity.

Remember, I'm a Yank who knows little about Canada. Just my $0.02 (American).

I would be curious to know what your definition of "multiculturalism" is (since so many people seem to have so many different definitions). I look at that section and just see a recognition that many people in Canada come from different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. It reinforces the idea that you cannot discriminate based on different religions or that it is not justified to deny people their cultural celebrations. Realistically, these things are probably covered by other sections of the Charter. Then again, section 28 about how the Charter applies equally to males and females is probably also redundant. These sections are there to reinforce certain ideas of equality, nothing more.

My definition of "multiculturalism" is the fundamental denial of their being a Canadian culture, and declaring, as Trudeau more or less did, that Canada's culture is the equal of the inputs of the national origin of its various peoples. In particular, the inputs and traditions from the origin of Canada as an English colony were devalued, to the extent that the monarchy has almost less status in Canada than in republican United States.

[bk59]

It's not at all clear that Section 7 is modified by Section 1, given its relatively absolute language, and the procedures mandated for a deprivation. Section 2, creating the "Fundamental Freedoms" is more likely affected by Section 1, inasmuch as the "procedure" for modifying those rights is adhering to "democratic" processes, i.e. Parliament.

The language of section 1 makes it clear that it applies to the entire Charter. That is, it applies equally to all sections. So section 2 is no more affected by section 1 than any other section. To limit a freedom or right in the Charter then you do have to adhere to a democratic process (Parliament). In this respect you are right. But that is not enough. The limits must be "justified in a free and democratic society". This justification must be made before the courts if any citizen challenges a law that limits rights or freedoms. Even if a majority in Parliament creates limits those laws could still be made invalid. Historically, that is in the years since the Charter came into effect, the courts have been very careful to limit what can be justified. These limits have to pass through both the Parliament and the courts. The hurdles that must be jumped to use section 1 are sufficient to ensure that it isn't just a "swiss cheese" provision. In my opinion anyway.

My definition of "multiculturalism" is the fundamental denial of their being a Canadian culture, and declaring, as Trudeau more or less did, that Canada's culture is the equal of the inputs of the national origin of its various peoples. In particular, the inputs and traditions from the origin of Canada as an English colony were devalued, to the extent that the monarchy has almost less status in Canada than in republican United States.

OK, I see where you're coming from. In my opinion, the multiculturalism protected by the Charter is not a denial of a Canadian culture, but rather a statement that says no culture can be discriminated against. That would include the traditional Canadian culture (including both English and French cultures). I think it would be impossible for someone to use the Charter to somehow limit a Canadian tradition. Unless it somehow violated someone's rights under another section of the Charter.

[Leafless]

But the constitution was amended regardless, giving Quebec important concessions over the status of all other Canadians creating in effect 'official discrimination' against Canadians collectively. Aboriginals to were given IMO, unreasonable guarantees.

What amendments were made, and / or what concessions were made that give Quebec any special status that the other provinces do not have? If Quebec has special status, why did Quebec not sign the constitution?

What all other Canadians gained was not much that we didn't already have under our old federal and provincial human rights code.

Old federal and provincial human rights codes were pieces of legislature that could have been changed or repealled at any time by the federal or provincial governments. The Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms which the federal and provincial governments cannot override or change without amending the constitution. Previously governments could have taken away many of these fundamental rights with very little effort.

But the other important factor regarding the charter is that the 'federal government has the exclusive power to advance the equality status or use of English and French' and IMO this means French or relating to Quebec again if it chooses. This is strange though because provinces like Quebec, are suppose have power over the language in their respective provinces.

Having the federal government use both official languages does not have anything to do with Quebec per se. Is there something that the federal government has done in relation to this clause that you find offensive?

The amendments to our constitution that give Quebec special status are all relating to the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' Sec.16 to 22. But language rights can be bounced or supported pertaining to Equality Rights, Sec.15. in other areas of society.

Federal official languages of Canada are English and French. Since English is the majority language of Canada, charter legislation does little to advance English language rights nor does the government go out of its way to protect them, say in Quebec for instance but fanatically protects French language rights outside of Quebec.

French rights as an official language is a different story.

Quebec unilaterally designated it's language 'official in 1974'. This minority language is supported in the charter as an official language also. This gives Quebec and its french language special status over all languages in Canada including English that does not have it's majority language 'designated provincially official' in any English province in Canada.

------------------------------------

I doubt very much if under the old federal/provincial human rights legislation would at any time fail like you suggest unless you can prove otherwise.

------------------------------------

It is dangerous to have changing federal governments able to change or support its vision of what is right in the way of advancing human rights pertaining to culture without a national referendum.

This is why existing charter legislation relating to language is seen by many Canadians as discriminatory.

[bk59]

The amendments to our constitution that give Quebec special status are all relating to the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' Sec.16 to 22. But language rights can be bounced or supported pertaining to Equality Rights, Sec.15. in other areas of society.

Sections 17, 18 and 19 were all in the original Canadian Constitution in 1867 (see section 133). So this just restates what was always the case.

Section 20 says that wherever there is a large enough English community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in English, and that wherever there is a large enough French community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in French. This gives no special status to any province.

Sections 21 and 22 say that previous constitutional provisions and previous rights remain in effect. Since you have limited your argument to the Charter, I don't see how this favours any particular province. Unless you want to go digging around the rest of the Constitution looking for something.

Section 16 (which I have deliberately left until last) makes the two languages officially the languages of Canada and says that the federal government can promote their use. You haven't convinced me that Quebec enjoys special status because the French language is encouraged by the federal government. After all, there are French speaking communities outside of Quebec. Plus, what right or power does Quebec gain from this?

Federal official languages of Canada are English and French. Since English is the majority language of Canada, charter legislation does little to advance English language rights nor does the government go out of its way to protect them, say in Quebec for instance but fanatically protects French language rights outside of Quebec.

The federal government protects the rights of English and French speakers to get services from the federal government in their choice of language. The federal government is protecting those rights in all provinces. What other rights are being protected in Quebec, but not elsewhere?

Quebec unilaterally designated it's language 'official in 1974'. This minority language is supported in the charter as an official language also. This gives Quebec and its french language special status over all languages in Canada including English that does not have it's majority language 'designated provincially official' in any English province in Canada.

English has been designated the official language of some English provinces. Like Ontario:

English is Ontario's official language

Yes, Quebec favours the French language within its borders. But it always could do that, and the Charter did not change that fact. The fact that they made French their official language in 1974 proves this.

I doubt very much if under the old federal/provincial human rights legislation would at any time fail like you suggest unless you can prove otherwise.

------------------------------------

It is dangerous to have changing federal governments able to change or support its vision of what is right in the way of advancing human rights pertaining to culture without a national referendum.

Before the Charter, federal and provincial legislatures could have changed any law they wanted. Including human rights legislation. That is a fact - they had the power to do so if they wanted, and only with a simple majority. Now they cannot do that, unless the Constitution is changed. Your second point actually supports the validity of that - you don't want a new government changing human rights to suit their desires. However, that's not really what happened with the Constitution. There was no national referendum directly, but most of the provinces signed on. That is two levels of representation across the country. And realistically, opposition to the Constitution seems, forgive me for saying so, limited to a relatively small number of people.

This is why existing charter legislation relating to language is seen by many Canadians as discriminatory.

Nothing you have said shows how the Charter has been used to discriminate with regard to language. If Quebec is discriminating within its own borders then address that problem. But that has nothing to do with the Constitution, other than that the Constitution has always given Quebec the right to do that.

[jbg]

Section 20 says that wherever there is a large enough English community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in English, and that wherever there is a large enough French community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in French. This gives no special status to any province.

Sections 21 and 22 say that previous constitutional provisions and previous rights remain in effect. Since you have limited your argument to the Charter, I don't see how this favours any particular province. Unless you want to go digging around the rest of the Constitution looking for something.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the attempt to prevent Quebec from enforcing this provision the first time the SCOC gave effect to the "notwithstanding" clause?

[bk59]

Section 20 says that wherever there is a large enough English community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in English, and that wherever there is a large enough French community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in French. This gives no special status to any province.

Sections 21 and 22 say that previous constitutional provisions and previous rights remain in effect. Since you have limited your argument to the Charter, I don't see how this favours any particular province. Unless you want to go digging around the rest of the Constitution looking for something.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the attempt to prevent Quebec from enforcing this provision the first time the SCOC gave effect to the "notwithstanding" clause?

I just have a few questions, since I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.

1. When you say "enforcing this provision" which provision are you talking about? Section 20?

In case you are referring to section 20... As I have tried to point out to Leafless, this section only applies to institutions of the federal government. Quebec has nothing to do with this section. The section just says that the federal government, under the listed conditions, must provide services in both official languages.

2. What do you mean when you say the SCC "gave effect to the 'notwithstanding' clause"?

The notwithstanding clause can be used by provincial governments or the federal government so that a law that would otherwise violate certain sections of the Charter would remain in effect. It effectively takes away the court's ability to say "this law violates these sections of the Charter so it should be struck down". So courts do not use the clause, the federal or provincial governments do.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question or not... is there a specific case name or issue that you are thinking of?