Article 3 of the Canadian Charter of the rights and freedoms

The article 3 of the Canadian Charter of the rights and freedoms is the article of the Charte of the rights of the Constitution of Canada which devotes in the constitution the guarantee of the Right to vote for all the citizens of the Canada, as well as the right to be eligible at the time of the elections to represent their fellow-citizens.

This right is one of those which cannot be affected by the provision of exemption , thus preventing the Parlement of Canada or any provincial government to withdraw the right to vote with the citizens, who, according to the courts, can exert it in a rational way. However, any decision concerning the people who can exert this right in a rational way is prone to the limits envisaged with the article 1 of the '' Charte ''

Text

Under the heading of the Democratic rights , the article is read as follows:

3. Any Canadian citizen has the right to vote and is eligible with the federal or provincial legislative elections|Article 3 of the Canadian Charter of the rights and freedoms

Interpretation

In general, the courts interpret article 3 in a way more generous than a simple right to vote. As he is written in the stop Figueroa C. Canada (2003), the article is interpreted like a constitutional guarantee of “ to play a big role in the electoral process, ” what in return encourages the “ respect of the diversity of the beliefs and the opinions ” by the government. However, that does not mean that the lobbys have a total freedom to promote their beliefs and opinions. Since the voter must be likely to make the balance of different ideas before taking part in an important way in an election, the Supreme court, in the stop Harper C. Canada (2004), maintained laws limiting the amount that the same group has the right to spend at the time of an election (in order to prevent the monopolization of the countryside).

Vote

No formal right to vote existed in Canada before the adoption of the Charte . There was no mention of it, for example, in the Canadian Déclaration of the rights . Indeed, in the stop Cunningham v. Tomey Homma (1903), the court judged that the government could legally withdraw the right to vote with Canadian-Japanese and the Sino-Canadians (though the two groups concerned acquired this right before the coming into effect of article 3).

The article generated a certain jurisprudence having had for effect to extend the range of the right. In 1988, article 3 was used to grant the right to vote with the federal judges and the patients in the psychiatric institutions. An example more discussed is the stop Sauvé C. Canada (2002), which granted the right to vote with the captive . They could exert this right for the first time at the time of the federal election of 2004, in spite of the public opposition of the chief of the Conservative party Stephen Harper.

Cut districts

Although not clarified in the Charter , the Supreme court judged that article 3 guarantees a certain amount of equality in the exercise of the vote. In the reference on the provincial electoral constituencies (1991), it was judged that the electoral constituencies were to have approximately the same number of voters, although the perfection is not obligatory. The reasoning behind this extension of the range of article 3 is that reflects the original objective of the article, i.e. to allow the “ representation effective. ” The concession which the perfection is not necessary is resulting owing to the fact that the perfection was not practical, considering the limits which a better representation forces the geography on the layout of the limits as well as a general desire to offer to the minorities. Although the districts of the Saskatchewan were considered to be valid in the stop of 1991, those of the Island-of-Prince-Edouard were considered to be unconstitutional by the courts and the electoral map of the province had to be redrawn.

Referendums

Although the range of article 3 was extended to include the size of the districts, it was not widened until guaranteeing the right to vote at the time of a Référendum. In Haig C. Canada (1993), the Court judged that since article 3 was written in precise reference to the election of representatives, the right could not include the participation in a “ means of collecting opinions. ” It was also noted that contrary to the elections, the governments are not held to organize referendums; they are not either held to respect the result of a referendum. Thus, the way in which a referendum is organized is entirely with the discretion of the government.

Source

Random links: