Talk:Constitution of Canada

Earlier discussions
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)

In some of the wikipedia articles on the Constitution of Canada, including this one and Amendments to the Constitution of Canada, I have noticed that there is a suggestion that provincial legislatures can make amendments to the Constitution of Canada unilaterally. It is my understanding that this is not true and these articles may be misrepresenting the actual amending formula. The amending formula states that provincial legislatures may make laws amending to the constitution of the province (such as the Quebec legislature did in 1968, abolishing the Legislative Council and renaming the Legislative Assembly to the National Assembly), but not that they may make amendments unilaterally to the Constitution of Canada itself. It is my understanding that any amendment whatsoever to the Constitution of Canada requires the support of Parliament at least. Some confusion may be caused by the complex amending formula and its different levels of support required for different types of amendments: some amendments require unanimous consent of Parliament and the provincial legislatures, some require the 7/50 formula, some require only Parliament and the legislatures of the provinces affected, and some can be made by Parliament alone, but none can be made by a provincial legislature alone. If I am correct and these articles incorrect, the articles should be changed appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.250.111 (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the previous question, yes: Provincial legislatures have the right to unilaterally amend the Constitution under s. 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982. They may make amendments with respect to the "constitution of the province." To explain what that means I need to first mention that the Constitution of Canada is actually composed of three overlapping "spheres." You have a federal constitution, which governs the structure and organization of the federal government and parliament. You have the provincial constitutions, which govern the structure and organization of the provincial ones (note that for the most part, those sections that deal with their structure usually say something like "whatever the Feds have, the provinces have something similar mutatis mutandum"). Finally, there is a "national" constitution, which is basically those components and parts which govern everyone. The Federal Parliament has the power to unilaterally alter its own federal constitution/structure (minus some reservations such as the office of the Queen, the Senate, etc which are protected by other more stringent formulae). The provinces may, likewise, alter their own provincial structure/constitution (minus some explicit exceptions again, such as the office of the Lieutenant Governor and some language laws). Efylinx (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List
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)
 * It's a good list, but it should be moved to List of Canadian constitutional documents. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree .. but that article seems a list of historical pre-patriation constitutional documents. There's a whole slew of stuff that isn't considered part of our constitution anymore, and none of the 1982 and forward documents. I could try merging the current documents onto that page, and making a "historical" section for a good deal of what's there now? --Q Canuck 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For historical stuff we have a List of documents from the constitutional history of Canada CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Okies, I'll work on merging the information when I have some time. --Q Canuck 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of British acts that are part of Canada's constitution includes documents that are pre-1867, and much more than the Act of Settlement, as per section 129 of the BNA, 1867. No provincial or Dominion act can repeal or contradict an act of the British parliament. This was true until 1931 when the UK then gave up the right to legislate for Canada with the Statute of Westminster as well as permitting Dominion and provincial laws to contradict British laws.

For instance, the notion that public law is common, not civil, law in Quebec was established in the Quebec Act and has not been mentioned since, yet it is still cited as valid constitutional law (probably per section 129 of the BNA). This is the case because later British acts did not repeal the Quebec Act in full (few laws fully replace previous laws) and certain provisions remain law. The question is whether, because of the above process, is it now just statutory law or has it acquired the aura of constitutional entrenchment.

All told this was a very messy way to create a constitution. You really need a constitutional expert to compile a list of extant laws which form part of Canada's constitution. -- G. Csikos, 30 April 2007

Vandalism
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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg
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 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)

"Privacy" section
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)

Magna Carta
"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)


 * Be bold. :) Singularity42 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the Prime Minister
The article currently states "(Even today, there is no mention of the person called “Prime Minister” anywhere in the Canadian Constitution.[citation needed] " noting the citation needed.

This is incorrect. While no where in the Constitution will you find a reference to the WHAT a Prime Minister is, you will find a reference from 1982 regarding the Prime Minister being mandated to attend certain meetings once a year.

I could pour through the text and find the reference, but given that this line has no current citation anyway, I'm going to remove it (Since it *IS* inaccurate) if no one has any objections? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the text sounds fine to me. —fudoreaper (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been a couple of days with one agreement and no nays, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Thanks! Dphilp75 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool man. Thanks for the correction, which is subtle, but accuracy matters in Wikipedia.  Good eye. —fudoreaper (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * TYVM. I hate to admit it, but little errors like that drive me nuts.  Largely because its fun little facts like this that one can bring up in a debate to, well, crush your adversaries... ;) Dphilp75 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha ha. That kind of attitude makes sense in Wikipedia. If you really wanna crush your enemies, though, you should go further and quote the part from 1982 that mentions the PM for the first time. Show that the PM is mentioned by name in constitutional documents.  That would really be the way to win trivia competitions! ;) —fudoreaper (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010

(UTC)


 * Ok, I added it! ;) Not thoroughly happy with the language, but if someone would like to clean it up, I'd be all for it! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, awesome! I took your request for cleanup help, and changed it a bit, too, to integrate it into the surrounding text better.  Again, good work with the sourcing. Hrm, we couldn't link to these sections of the Act somewhere on the web, could we? That would be the ultimate... —fudoreaper (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez, you just want it all don't ya? :P Added! :) Dphilp75 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister is mentioned in two documents, to my knowledge.

The first is in the Letters Patent, 1947 s. XIV: "And whereas great prejudice may happen to oOur Service and to the security of Canada by the absence of Our Governor General, he shall not quit Canada without having first obtained leave from Us for so doing through the Prime Minister of Canada." (This is one of the three offices constitutionally empowered to act in the name of the Crown, the main one of course being the Governor General, who is authorised to exercise a broad range of executive powers in the Constitution Act, 1867 "on behalf and in the name of the Queen" and to exercise nearly all the monarch's powers and authority for Canada in the Letters Patent, 1947, and the third the lieutenant governor for each province who is authorised to summon the legislative assembly (s.82) and for Quebec appoint new members of the Legislative Council (s. 75) "in the Queen's name" — but "on behalf of the Queen", the difference being that the CA, 1867 is explicit in locating the Crown only in the executive government and Parliament of the "One Dominion", the provinces being merely divisions of the Dominion established at Union, and not federating Dominions retaining Crown sovereignty as the Australian states did at Federation.)

The CA, 1982 invests the Prime Minister of Canada with the responsibility to convene constitutional conferences in ss. 35.1, 37.1 (repealed), and 49. Kiwehtin (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Empire Conference
I created Empire Conference as a redirect to the SS Narva 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)

"Canada was still legally a colony instead of a fully-fledged member of the sisterhood of nation-states"
I added dubious to the following sentences in the article: "In the interim, the British Parliament periodically passed enabling acts and other legislation to retroactively legitimate the actions of the Canadian Parliament and government. This was never anything but a rubber stamp, but it did mean Canada was still legally a colony instead of a fully-fledged member of the sisterhood of nation-states." The sentence is in the sixth paragraph of the "History of the Constitution" section of the article, and deals with the fact that the Statute of Westminster was never ratified in full in respect of Canada until the Constitution was patriated in 1982.

First, I know that the British Parliament had to enact any changes to the Canadian Constitution, but I was not aware that they had to enact enabling legislation in support of other actions of Canada's Parliament. Does anyone have any more information on this, and more importantly, can they point to relevant sources?

Second, and this is the real issue, assuming the first sentence is correct, I'm not sure about the conclusions reached in the second sentence (other than the rubber stamp metaphor). Not only do I doubt that there is a legal definition of colony that would apply in such circumstances, but I am also not sure that this fact situation meant that Canada was a colony until 1982 as the term is normally understood. This is the sort of thing that would have to be pretty clearly and unambiguously sourced to remain in the article. Hopefully someone can point us in the right direction. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The British North America Act, 1871, especially section 5, may be what is being referred to by "retroactively legitimate", but I don't know of any similar British legislation. I agree that it does not support the conclusions stated without citations to support them. Indefatigable (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right - that might be the sort of thing the author of the sentences in question had in mind. However, that 1871 Act is constitutional in nature, and I don't think there is any dispute that Canada had to get Westminster to rubber stamp constitutional changes prior to 1982.  I'm not aware, however. of any times where the British Parliament passed legislation (enabling or otherwise) for Canada that was not constitutional in nature.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, a sentence later on in respect of the 1982 patriation says: "Ratified by all provinces except Quebec, this was the formal Canadian Act of Parliament that achieved full and final political independence from the United Kingdom. Part V of this Act established an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution, the lack of which (due to more than 50 years of disagreement between the federal and provincial governments) was the only reason Canada's actions still required quarterly approval by the British Parliament after ratification of the Statute of Westminster in 1931." (underlining added) What is this quarterly approval? As in every four months?  Does anyone know? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the 1982 Constitution has that phrasing - but does the British North America Act? Because we're all taught that Canada was made a Dominion, which was a new category of imperial organization, concocted so that we were not the "Kingdom of Canada" so as not to offend the yanquitos.  Doesn't sound much different than "home rule" although that term didn't come along until the Irish revolts of the early 20th C.  And colonial legislation had, SFAIK, a different process for ratification/approval than Dominion legislation.  Maybe true colonies were monitored/governed by the Colonial Office, whereas "we" were by Parliament (maybe the Home Office?).  Not sure about that quarterly approval thing, i.e. how long that remained in practice - did the British Parliament really, four times a year, review all legislation of the Canadian Parliament?  I know there were Law Lords appeals right up into the '70s.  Whatever the case I submit that it's the wording of the British North America Act that has primacy for describing what we were in 1871-1982, and that the wording of the Constitution Act of 1982 is a post facto descriptor, and indeed political in its overtone of describing us as a colony (as justification for hte Act).  We certainly weren't a Crown Colony in 1982....Skookum1 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What phrasing are you referring to? BTW, the appeals to the JCPC, not the Law Lords, ended in 1949 (although cases that were already in the pipe prior to 1949 maintained appeal rights until they concluded). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I may be way out of my element commenting on this, but I thought I'd do a little searching on the topic. I found this phrase curious, ...Canada was still legally a colony instead of a fully-fledged member of the sisterhood of nation-states. Is there really a bright line between "colony" and "fully-fledged member of the sisterhood of nation-states"? First I thought of the UN. Well, Canada was admitted to the UN in 1945 (UN Member States). Then I thought about international treaty-making and found an interesting webpage: International Treaties: Canadian Practice. In particular this paragraph (footnotes in parentheses):


 * The Government of Canada gradually intervened on its own initiative in discussions relating to the negotiation of international treaties and conventions(2) and over the years the country increasingly took independent action in its external affairs.(3) After the First World War, the federal government acted on its own authority internationally and the British authorities merely ratified the treaties put before them.  In 1931, under the Statute of Westminster, Canada and a number of other British dominions, acquired full independence(4) and with it authority to act internationally with all the attributes of a sovereign state.  Full power over foreign affairs was thus conferred on Canada and section 132 of the Constitution Act, 1867 became obsolete.


 * However, the 4th footnote, following "acquired full independence", says, Except with respect to amendments to Canada’s Constitution, which remained under the British Parliament’s jurisdiction until 1982. I realize y'all are talking about this above already, but I thought this source might be of interest. It seems to me that British control of amendments to Canada's constitution hardly disqualify Canada as a "fully-fledged member of the sisterhood of nation-states". I would think other nations have similar, minor "power dependencies" among one another, here and there, no? Perhaps it is just a matter of wording things better. Pfly (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me like a case of bad and misleading wording. Certainly Canada still had to approach the UK Parliament to pass a constitutional amendment until the constitution was patriated in 1982, but this was just a formality — the UK had no real authority to refuse such a request, or to dictate the content of our constitution; that authority already rested with us, and the only reason we had to go to them for rubberstamping at all was because we had the obvious difficulties reaching the final patriation agreement. And as already noted, the Statute of Westminster 1931 ensured that Canada had complete legislative authority over our own affairs; even then, we effectively already had it in practice and that just made it official. So while you could certainly make a case (albeit still a POV one) that Canada was still legally a British colony prior to Westminster, there's no real basis for such a claim after that. It's kind of like a company or institution that begins operating some time before its "official opening"; it simply took us a bit longer to agree on how to formalize an independence that we already had in actual practice. There are better ways to express the situation than the disputed paragraph, certainly. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and Pfly has found a good source for the constitutional rubber stamping. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The questionable text has been removed and Pfly's source added. Thanks all. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ratified by all provinces except Quebec"
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)
 * 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)

Is royal assent excluded?
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)

"One of the oldest working constitutions in the world"?
Dear all, the Canadian constitution clearly isn't "one of the oldest working constitutions in the world", regardless its being based on the Magna Carta. Is it possible to fix this wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.17.36 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is, although the reference to Magna Carta is a bit overblown. Canada's current constitution dates to 1867, although with amendments made by constitutional processes, just like other constitutions such as the US Constitution.  By my count, the countries with older constitutions than Canada are:  Britain (unwritten, no definite start date, but 1688 is a good possibility);  San Marino (similar unwritten history, but 1600 is an important date);  US (1788);  Sweden (start point of 1810, although major changes since then);  Norway (1814);  Switzerland (1848;  two new constitutions since then, but continuous constitutional development); and Denmark (1849).  None of the other European countries has a constitution which pre-dates 1867, having been interrupted by wars, coups, and conquests.  (For example, in 1867, France was under the Constitution of the Second Empire.  Since then, there's been one commune, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Republics, and the Vichy French State.)  Similarly with the Americas south of the Untied States:  although many countries have dates of independence prior to 1867, their constitutional history has been interrupted by wars and coups, with none with a constitution in continuous operation since 1867.  Same for Africa and Asia, because of the colonial history.  Even Thailand, which was never colonised, has had a chequered constitutional history.  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the use of the words "one of" suited to one among the six others named above as the oldest current working constitutions, among the total of 193 UN member states? Maybe, but why single out Canada in that respect, when it would also be descriptive of those other six: UK, USA, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark? If it is to be mentioned let it be removed from the lead to the section on Sources, which starts from 1867. Qexigator (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence or a citation or both. The definition above strains the meaning of "oldest constitution" and requires a long & convoluted re-definition of "working" that is clearly outside the scope of this article. Unless a citation can be provided, the statement "One of the oldest working constitutions in the world" should be deleted as an unsupported assertion based on original research. Ojalaquellueva (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it an extraordinary claim? What other countries have constitutions which pre-date 1867? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Another point seeming to be overlooked is that large portions of Canada's constitution remain unwritten, and that the constitution predates the 1867 written document. For example, democracy and the position of prime minister were nowhere written in a Canadian constitutional document in 1840, and this remains the case today. In fact, the 1867 document acknowledges the preexisting unwritten constitution and legislates that it is to continue. That being said, some reliable sourcing should be found as the point has been brought up for dispute, however the phrase is certainly not outlandish. trackratte (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not in the Constitution because it does not need to be. The Constitution is the foundational document of Canadian law, not the legal code in its entirety. It is not necessary for it to detail every point and nuance of Parliamentary procedure and Rule of Order. There are other official documents that detail these necessary rules, and as long as they are consistent with the constitution that is sufficient. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the 1867 Act is not the constitution, as the constitution is made up of unwritten principles and written legislation, which is verifiable in multiple Supreme Court rulings. Thus, the constitution actually predates 1867. trackratte (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No the written and ratified Constitution of Canada is the Constitution, what you are claiming is a baseless OR/POV statement. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually it is very thoroughly supported. The fact is the statement that 'only the written constitution is the Constitution of Canada' is simply false.
 * "In Canada, the Constitution is not found in one single document... much of Canadian constitutional law is found outside the Constitution Acts . In fact, some of Canada’s most important rules are not matters of law at all" (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Parliament of Canada)
 * Section 88 of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that the pre-1867 constitution remains in effect until otherwise modified:"88. The Constitution of the Legislature of each of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to the Provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union until altered under the Authority of this Act."
 * "Canada's Constitution is made up of written laws or statutes, as well as customs or conventions, and also British and Canadian court decisions." The Canadian Encyclopedia
 * "the Court may have regard to unwritten postulates which form the very foundation of the Constitution of Canada " (The Supreme Court of Canada).
 * "When we think about what counts as constitutional law, we generally look exclusively to two sources: the text of the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. As any first-year student will learn in constitutional law, this gaze is an under-inclusive one" (The Chief Justice of Canada).
 * " The Canadian Constitution is composed of written and unwritten statutes, customs, judicial decisions, and tradition . The written part of the Constitution consists of the Constitution Act, 1867, which created a federation and the division of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments, and the Constitution Act, 1982" Parliament of Canada
 * "it may be surprising to learn that Canada’s Constitution is composed of both written rules and unwritten principles...Unwritten constitutional principles are an essential part of Canada’s Constitution". University of Alberta's Centre for Constitutional Studies trackratte (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fascinating, but still incorrect. You are speaking "Constitutional Law", which are rulings where the court has interpreted the Constitution to make a decision. These rulings, like all Canadian law, are under the Constitution, not an entrenched part of it. According to the |Canadian Department of Justice Website "The Constitution of Canada includes the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Constitution Act, 1982." It make no mention of any other document or "unwritten postulates" of any sort. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And as the Chief Justice of Canada has said, "As any first-year student will learn in constitutional law, this gaze is an under-inclusive one". Your view is directly contradicted by constitutional experts, and as the head of the supreme court states, is an uninformed POV that any first year student in the matter would be quickly disabused of. trackratte (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, you confuse Constitutional Law with the Constitution itself. As I have already explained the are not the same thing, as any first year law student would know. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's clearly not true. And there is a difference between "the Constitution", which includes "unwritten postulates which form the very foundation of the Constitution of Canada", and the "Constitution Act, 1867" which is one of many written documents within the Constitution. trackratte (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Complete nonsense, The Constitution of Canada is the written document exclusively and entirely. Anything else is your own WP:OR invention. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually we have an overwhelming number of reliable resources that say the opposite...so by definition not OR. trackratte (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I believe has already been explained to you at least twice before, those articles you reference are about constitutional law. Constitutional law consists of laws and legal ruling derived by interpretation of the Constitution, they are part of the legal process, but not an entrenched part of the Constitutional document. Constitutional law can be established and changed by a simple vote of Parliament, but changes to the Constitution must follow the established Constitutional amendment process. They are not the same thing. Please re-read the thread above in case you have forgotten. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just copied from above: " The Canadian Constitution is composed of written and unwritten statutes, customs, judicial decisions, and tradition ", and "it may be surprising to learn that Canada’s Constitution is composed of both written rules and unwritten principles... Unwritten constitutional principles are an essential part of Canada’s Constitution ". So, no, the Constitution is not just "the written document exclusively and entirely" (your words). I suggest perhaps participating in areas you have some sort of proficiency in, or at the very least the necessary research skills. Although I enjoy debate, this isn't one, and this isn't linked to improving an article either, so unless you have something to add with any sort of academic rigour, I'm about done. trackratte (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is only one source that is relevant to this topic and that is the [| Government of Canada] which makes no mention of any "unwritten" elements of the Constitution of any sort. Either the Canadian Government is wrong, or you are. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * --Moxy (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moxy, yes thanks, I have a copy here on the shelf as well. I was happy he had taken the time to put that together.
 * Media, no, not at all. You obviously do not understand the processes behind those web-pages, nor the basic research skills necessary to discern quality and reliability of different references and thus the weight that should be attributed to them. For example, there is a marked difference in weight that should be attributed to a bureaucratic website when compared to a law article written by the Chief Justice of Canada. trackratte (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Childish insults don't help your argument Trackratte. It is not a "bureaucratic website" it is the legal code of Canada. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This one? Or this one? The former you linked is a bureaucratic website, and the latter is one of several written documents forming the written part of the constitution. Also, "legal code of Canada" does not make any sense in that context. I'm assuming you meant the constitution of Canada. Anyways, good luck in your future research. trackratte (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That is your POV and both wrong, and irrelevant. And good luck to you too. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! trackratte (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the prominent claim in the lead that "it is one of the oldest working constitutions" requires a reference or at least a mention of dates, otherwise it smacks of original research if not speculation. As a compromise, I suggest the lead sentence should specify that "the constitution has been in force since 1867" or some other defensible date. That would be factual and useful for the layman, and at the same time, the experts will recognise what document that claim is based on. 86.154.101.56 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

"Based" on Magna Carta, not
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)

Now see revision.. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead
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)

It is notb called the "American War of Independence" in the US.
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)


 * 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

Generally more difficult or significantly more difficult to amend?
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)