Talk:Constitution of Canada

message: I'm starting to put some work into this article and so far made a few changes that may prove controversial. Particularly, I've removed the British legislation from the list of "frequently cited" parts of the constitution. I did this because those two acts, at least in Canadian Constitutional law, are not cited that much at all. I don't deny they are important parts of the constitution but nevertheless they are more historical than anytihing else. They aren't given that much analysis in Courts. If anyone disagrees with any of my changes I hope we can work it out. -- PullUpYourSocks 22:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier discussions

message: I forgot to log in when I did it, but I added to the article a list of the documents that form the Canadian constitution. These are the acts and orders listed in the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the further ammendments to those acts. --Q Canuck 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I added this section after recently seeing the actual vandalized constitution in a new public display at the Ottawa archives where I work. I think it's a fact not known by most canadians that both original copies of our constitution are physically damaged - one by rain and one by paint.Bennyxbo 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: :Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: This is now the second time I have had to remove a fictionalized entry on privacy. Here are the facts: 1) there was no ammendment to the constitution in 1989; 2) there is no s. 7(b) in the Charter; 3) protection of private property was specifically not included in the Charter; and 4) s. 8 is the only protection of privacy. While the section that keeps being added also refers to the privacy commissioner (which is the only non-fiction in the entire proposed section), that has nothing to do with the constitution. Singularity42 (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Privacy" section 

message: "Even Magna Charta [sic], which does have constitutional status in Canada, was occasionally called into service in legal argument. [citation needed]"
One such case is Christie v. AG of B.C. et al. (2005)
In the Reasons for Judgment, the B.C. Supreme Court stated: "[The Act] constitutes indirect taxation and is a tax on justice contrary to the Magna Carta and the Rule of Law…
I am prepared to grant the following declarations: A declaration that the Act is ultra vires in the Province of British Columbia to the extent that it applies to legal services provided for low income persons."
Someone should correct the spelling error, also.
Ilnyckyj (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Carta 

message: I created Empire Conference as a redirect to the  article. It is linked from this article, suggesting that it may need to be turned into a dab. Not sure which "Empire Conference" is meant here though. Anyone who can sort out a dab please do so. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire Conference

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no legal requirement that any constitutional amendment be approved by the provinces at this time, much less "ratified". What really happened is that Québec's premier objected to the newly-decided amending formulae after a first ministers' conference. SCC has said that convention suggested that general consensus be sought from the provincial governments before asking the UK to table a constitutional amendment, but as this was not a legal requirement, I think we ought to clarify our language for the sake of being precise. Jagislaqroo (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and good catch.  Just to be clear - constitutional conventions can be legal requirements.  But the term "ratified" in this context does, as you say, suggest that there was a prior amending formula in the constitution that required provincial sign-off.  The term a bit of an Americanism. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ratified by all provinces except Quebec" 

message: Given that the article is incomplete if it does not let the reader know whether or not the amendment procedure introduced by the 1982 act excludes royal assent for any particular amendment to the Constitution under Part V of the Act, is the inclusion of that information stalled for lack of secondary sources? Qexigator (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is royal assent excluded? 

message: Magna Carta has been in the lead from August 2012. The article's section for  "Sources of the constitution" does not include Magna Carta, nor does the Magna Carta article support singling out Canada in that respect. Editors here will be aware that so far as Canada's constitution is concerned the surviving elements traceable to Magna Carta derive from English Common Law as part of UK law as at 1867.  The book cited in the article's lead (Nathan Tidridge, Canada's Constitutional Monarchy: An Introduction to Our Form of Government, Dundurn Press, 2010) confusingly refers to other documents as "Magna Carta" and does not actually state that the Magna Carta of 13th century England is the basis of the Constitution of Canada. The article for List of Canadian constitutional documents states that the 1982 act's preamble may "entrench" key British documents like the Act of Settlement, 1701, the English Bill of Rights, 1689, and the Magna Carta, but the Supreme Court has ruled that Canadians cannot claim specific rights mentioned in those documents, and that their provisions with regard to civil rights or the constitutional order are to be taken foundationally. If it is to be mentioned, then let it be removed to the main body with a fuller explanation per the given source (Tidridge). The History section now has the unsourced statement : The Magna Carta, which has constitutional status in Canada, was occasionally called into service in legal argument. Since 1982, however, the arguments have been easier to make, because lawyers have been able to cite the relevant sections of the constitution rather than rely upon legal abstraction. Magna Carta is not mentioned in the article on the  Constitution Act, 1867. Qexigator (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Based" on Magna Carta, not 

message: There are several problems in the lead:
*"the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions."  I suggest we remove this as it is vague and not what the source says (Russell).
*"Canadian constitutional law relates to the interpretation and application of the constitution."  Same thing in other countries, no reason to mention.
TFD (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: While I know that other countries (Britain, Canada etc.) call it the War of Independence, here in the US it's called the "Revolutionary War". I edited the part where it referenced that just to include what it is called in the US. Bubba2018 (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the article is about Canada, and is written in Canadian English, it's unnecessary to include the American name. I've removed it as such. If there is any doubt as to what it refers to that can be cleared up by clicking the link. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is notb called the "American War of Independence" in the US. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Referring to The Constitution Act, 1982, the History of the Constitution" section states: 'The act also codified many previously oral constitutional conventions and made amendment of the constitution in general significantly more difficult.' As a U.S reader of one branch of English I found this sentence conflicted (at worst) or in need of a comma (at best). After reading the entire article and this lively talk page, I'm proposing '...made amendment of the constitution generally more difficult. Perhaps a process dependent on internal provinces and new code consensus rises to the level of "significantly more difficult' but eliminating even a rubber stamp dependence on an overseas parliament would empower on some level. Changes in a U.S. constitutional system that requires super majorities, values capitalism over human conditions and required 203 years to ratify our most recent amendment, might benchmark 'difficult' but 'significantly more difficult' depends on the relative experiences of Canadians, pre and post-1982. Wclaytong (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally more difficult or significantly more difficult to amend?