The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute enacted in 1960 that provided Canadians with a statutory rights.
Like the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Bill of Rights is said to be "quasi-constitutional". (See Winnipeg School Division No.1 v. Craton, and Insurance Corp. of B.C. v. Heerspink)
Criticism and Support of the Act
Some people have staunchly criticised the Bill of Rights. They consider it to have failed for several reasons. First, it was no more than a statute enacted by Parliament. It was not constitutionally entrenched and so could not be used to invalidate other laws. Second, even if it was entrenched, the Bill predated section 52 of the Constitution which authorized the courts to strike down laws that conflict with the constition. For these two reasons the courts were unable to remedy most rights violations. Third, the Bill only had jusrisdiction on matters of the federal government perscribed in section 91 of the Constitution thus could not apply to any laws created by provincial governments.
Other people have hailed the Bill of Rights. First of all, these people see the Bill of Rights as foundational for the eventual Charter of Rights. The Charter was an entrenched document; the Bill of Rights is not. Secondly, the Bill of Rights have never been repealed. It is surprising to some that the Supreme Court of Canada still uses the Bill of Rights in its adjudication.
Quasi-Constitutional?
While only considered quasi-constitutional to some, because of its nature as a statute (as opposed to superstatute), the document contains a unique provision. This provision is often forgotten by many who tend to neglect the importance of the document. This section reads as follows:
"3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.
Exception (2) A regulation need not be examined in accordance with subsection (1) if prior to being made it was examined as a proposed regulation in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Instruments Act to ensure that it was not inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part."
See also
External link
 | This Canadian government–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |