| Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [ ] |
| Preamble |
| Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms |
| 1 |
| Fundamental Freedoms |
| 2 |
| Democratic Rights |
| 3, 4, 5 |
| Mobility Rights |
| 6 |
| Legal Rights |
| 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
| Equality Rights |
| 15 |
| Official Languages of Canada |
| 16, 16.1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
| Minority Language Education Rights |
| 23 |
| Enforcement |
| 24 |
| General |
| 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 |
| Application of Charter |
| 32, 33 |
| Citation |
| 34 |
Section Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a section of the Charter that constitutionally guarantees all Canadian citizens the democratic right to vote in a general federal or provincial election and the right to be eligible for membership in the House of Commons or of a provincial legislative assembly. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (also known as The Charter of Rights and Freedoms or simply the Charter) is a Bill of rights entrenched in the Country to "Dominion of Canada" or "Canadian Federation" or anything else please read the Talk Page Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "voting tablet" and figuratively "right to vote" probably from suffrago "hough" and originally
Section 3 is one of the provisions in the Charter that cannot be overridden by Parliament or a legislative assembly under Section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause. Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. Section 3's exemption from Section 33 provides extra legal protection to the right to vote and it may prevent Parliament or the provincial governments from disenfranchising any Canadian citizen or resident of the provinces in a federal or provincial election by federal enactment for ideological or political purposes, among others. The Parliament of Canada (Parlement du Canada is Canada 's legislative branch, seated at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. Nevertheless, the right to vote and to run in an election is subject to other reasonable limits prescribed by law under Section 1 of the Charter. Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that confirms that the rights listed in that document are
Contents |
Under the heading "Democratic Rights," the section reads:
| “ | 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. | ” |
Generally, the courts have interpreted section 3 as being more generous than simply providing a right to vote. As stated in the case Figueroa v. Canada (2003),[1] the section has been viewed as a constitutional guarantee to "play a meaningful role in the electoral process," which in turn encourages governmental "respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions. Figueroa v Canada (Attorney General, 1 SCR 912 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to participate in a federal election under section " This does not mean, however, that interest groups have complete freedom to promote their beliefs and opinions. An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organized collection of people who seek Since the voter must have an opportunity to balance various ideas in his or her own mind before meaningfully participating in an election, the Supreme Court has, in the case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004),[2] upheld laws that limit the amount of money a single group can contribute in the election (to prevent a monopolization of the campaign). See also Canadian electoral system, Timeline of Canadian elections The Parliament of Canada (Parlement du Canada has two chambers. The Supreme Court of Canada ( French: Cour suprême du Canada) is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal in the Canadian Background The 1974 Election Expenses Act prohibited third party interest groups defined as any individual or group other than a candidate or a registered political party
No formal right to vote existed in Canada before the adoption of the Charter. There was no such right, for example, in the Canadian Bill of Rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and Bill of rights enacted by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker 's government on August 10 Indeed, in the case Cunningham v. Tomey Homma (1903), it was found that the government could legally deny the vote to Japanese Canadians and Chinese Canadians (although both groups would go on to achieve the franchise before section 3 came into force). Cunningham v Homma [1903] AC 151 CCS 45 is a famous decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that upheld a British Columbia Japanese Canadians are Canadians of Japanese ancestry and are largely concentrated on the west coast especially in and around Vancouver. Chinese Canadians are Canadians of Chinese descent and constitute the second-largest Visible minority group in Canada standing at 1346510 which [3]
The section has generated some case law expanding the franchise. In 1988, section 3 had been used to grant suffrage to federal judges and those in mental institutions. Suffrage (from the Latin suffragium, meaning "voting tablet" and figuratively "right to vote" probably from suffrago "hough" and originally A psychiatric hospital (previously called insane asylum, mental hospital; or derogatorily looney bin, nut house or Funny Farm) is A more controversial example is Sauvé v. Canada (2002),[4] in which it was found that prisoners could vote. Sauvé v Canada (Attorney General, 3 SCR 519 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that Prisoners have a right to vote A prison, penitentiary, or correctional facility is a place in which individuals are physically confined or interned and usually deprived of a range of They did so in the 2004 federal election, despite public opposition from Conservative leader Stephen Harper. The Canadian federal election 2004 (more formally the 38th General Election) was held on June 28, 2004 to elect members of the Canadian House of The Conservative Party of Canada ( Parti conservateur du Canada) colloquially known as the " Tories " is a conservative WikipediaManual of Style (biographies#Honorific prefixes --> Stephen Joseph Harper PC [5]
Although one cannot see this on the face of the Charter, the Supreme Court has also ruled that section 3 guarantees a measure of equality in voting. In Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) (1991)[6], it was found that constituencies should have roughly the same number of voters, although perfection was not required. Reference re Prov Electoral Boundaries (Sask, 2 SCR 158 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to vote under section 3 A constituency is any cohesive corporate unit or body bound by shared structures goals or loyalty The reasoning behind this expansion of section three's meaning was that it supposedly reflected the original purpose of the section, namely to allow "effective representation. " The concession that perfection is not required stemmed from the fact that perfection would be impractical, given geographical limits in drawing boundaries and a general desire to give minorities more representation. Geography (from Greek γεωγραφία - geografia) is the study of the Earth and its lands features inhabitants and phenomena While Saskatchewan's constituencies were found to be valid in the 1991 decision, Prince Edward Island's were later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the province's electoral map had to be redrawn. Saskatchewan (səˈskætʃəwən) is a prairie province in Canada, which has an area of 588276 Prince Edward Island (ˌprɪns ˌɛdwɚd ˈaɪlɨnd ( PEI or P
While section 3's reach has been expanded to cover the sizes of constituencies, it has not been extended to guarantee the right to vote in a referendum. National Referenda are seldom used in Canada, and have tended to fail In Haig v. Canada (1993),[7] it was ruled that since section 3 was designed in specific reference to electing representatives, the right could not include participation in a "device for the gathering of opinions. Haig v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer 2 SCR 995 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the protection of the right to vote under section 3 " It was also noted that unlike elections, governments do not have to hold referendums, nor do governments have to commit themselves to the result of a referendum. Thus, how a referendum is administered is within governmental discretion.