The funny thing about the Charter, is that section 1 basically means you never really know what your constitutional rights are, because they are all subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Cha...

That seems pretty equivalent to the "compelling government interest" which can supersede the rights of US citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Please re-read that article. Compelling government interest alone is not enough to pass strict scrutiny.

Sure, I said "similar" not "identical". Being narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means, as determined at some hypothetical point in the future by the judgement of justices a laymen is forced to trust, gives me minimal comfort.

All of the other things in the article are at a Federal level. I think it's just trying to show a general pattern of limiting freedoms that has seeping into Canadian politics.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I understand that, since Quebec is the only province that doesn't endorse the Charter of Rights, it is probably a moot point if Bill 78 holds up such challenge.

Not that I support the Bill, far from it. What I support is Quebec signing the Charter.

All Canadians have these rights, regardless of the provinces endorsement.

Unless Quebec successfully separates, its citizens and governors are subject to the Charter. Endorsement or not.

As far as I know the bill was overturned after the ruling party lost the election. It does show a willingness to handle these kind of situation with "emergency laws". Then there was also this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombud...