Toronto

You know, something occurs to me:

How do they do street numbers on Yonge? Are there no two identical street numbers? How high do the numbers go?

[Nic Name]

Ziggy,

I'm not involved in your sector, but my cousin worked for Cebra (now Merx) so is very familiar with epost.

I signed up for epost early on, but find it quite "experimental" as Canada Post tries to find its place in cyberspace.

Most of the folks here in the Cellar might think that it is typically bizarre that the Postal Service's e-billing service actually snail mails passwords in separate envelopes from user names. (I don't know if they're still doing that, but they were when I signed up.)

They just don't trust email. Like snail mail is really secure.

[Nic Name]

dham,

Each municipality is responsible for its own street numbering system, so two similar numbers on Yonge Street would not exist in any city or town.

As the Yonge Street continues through rural areas outside urban municipalities, it is under Provincial (State) jurisdiction and is called Hwy. 11.

[Nic Name]

With the current situation in the USA, where people are taking the fifth and refusing to give evidence, invoking their constitutional right not to be required to give evidence that might incriminate themselves ...

it might be interesting to compare our rights in Canada, which are included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of our Constitution Act.

SELF-INCRIMINATION.

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Essentially, everyone in Canada can be compelled to testify as a witness (except in a criminal prosecution against that person in respect of the offence) and is entitled to the protection of the Charter that such testimony is inadmissable as evidence against that witness in other proceedings.

In a current situation such as Enron's Ken Lay's appearance before committees, he would be required to testify if subject to subpoena in Canada, but his own testimony could not be used as evidence against him in subsequent criminal proceedings against him.

Big difference from the Fifth Amendment protection of the Constitution of the USA.

[Undertoad]

He can get the same thing here if the prosecution is willing to grant him immunity. If they aren't granting him that, they probably figure he won't give evidence against others anyway.

Just curious - what is the wording of your "freedom of speech" bit?

[Nic Name]

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

It may be worth noting that Canadians don't have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

[kaleidoscopic ziggurat]

i agree, nicolas.. the snail mail password mailing was rather silly, but that's long gone by now. the system continues to get better... it certainly was klunky in its previous iteration and even now there are some major flaws but its getting better all the time... i personally continue to recieve all my bills through snail mail.

on freedoms: i doubt very many canadians could recite even a piece of our constitution or charter of rights. i don't know if its ironic or what... we can't even tell how free we are, though i can't recall being repressed recently.

I didn't remember the wording, but there was something I wanted to point out about that. Thanks for posting it.

You'll notice how it very clearly does <b>not</b> say that the right to freedom of speech may not be revoked. I have to wonder why they did that.

The First Amendment's text is as follows:

<b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</b>

Now, I'm not trying to get into a pissing war or anything (my freedoms are better than your freedoms!), but I find the wording curious on the Canadian Charter. Not to say that I think they're planning to revoke anything, but rather - I have to wonder why they <b>didn't</b> put in some wording about it being "inalienable" or "unrevokable" or something. Is unrevokable even a word?

[Nic Name]

Irrevocable. Our freedoms are subject to legislation that can be enacted, if it specifically states that it is notwithstanding the Charter of Freedoms. Now that is quite different than the American constitutional protections, which limit government legislative powers.

The War Measures Act suspends the Charter of Freedom with a declaration of a state of emergency or war.

During the FLQ Crisis in 1970, the Prime Minister invoked the War Measures Act because of a Separatist/Terrorist threat in Quebec.

From a speech by Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, October 16, 1970

The War Measures Act gives sweeping powers to the Government. It also suspends the operation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I can assure you that the Government is most reluctant to seek such powers, and did so only when it became crystal clear that the situation could not be controlled unless some extraordinary assistance was made available on an urgent basis.


The authority contained in the Act will permit Governments to deal effectively with the nebulous yet dangerous challenge to society represented by the terrorist organizations. The criminal law as it stands is simply not adequate to deal with systematic terrorism.


The police have therefore been given certain extraordinary powers necessary for the effective detection and elimination of conspiratorial organizations which advocate the use of violence. These organizations, and membership in them, have been declared illegal. The powers include the right to search and arrest without warrant, to detain suspected persons without the necessity of laying specific charges immediately, and to detain persons without bail.


These are strong powers and I find them as distasteful as I am sure do you. They are necessary, however, to permit the police to deal with persons who advocate or promote the violent overthow of our democratic system. In short, I assure you that the Government recognizes its grave responsibilities in interfering in certain cases with civil liberties, and that it remains answerable to the people of Canada for its actions. The Government will revoke this proclamation as soon as possible.

When questioned by the press, Trudeau uttered his famous line, "How far will I go? Just watch me."

[Edited note:]

Could This Happen Today?

The War Measures Act was repealed in 1988. It was replaced with the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act allows the federal government to make temporary laws in the event of a serious national emergency.

The Emergencies Act differs from the War Measures Act in two important ways:

1. A declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament
2. Any temporary laws made under the Act are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Thus any attempt by the government to suspend the civil rights of Canadians, even in an emergency, will be subject to the "reasonable and justified" test under section 1 of the Charter.

<b>That</b> is pretty scary. I'd hate to look at a copy funny during one of those times. Glad we don't have that here in the US - in Canada, they'd probably offer me a warm drink and all that good stuff, whereas the over-eager cops here would beat my ass to a pulp.

[Edited-in Reply, so as to match Nic's post]

That's definitely a <b>Good Thing &trade;</b> - however, are there any clauses or amendments that state that the right <b>may not</b> be revoked? And if not, that's just what I find curious - I don't imagine that the Canadian Government has any devious plan, so why would they leave it out?

[kaleidoscopic ziggurat]

well i'm not so certain about this particular government... chretien has practically turned it into a dictatorship.

Which begs the question -

Could Canada become the next Nazi Germany?

[kaleidoscopic ziggurat]

of course.. we'll have mounted moose brigades and we'll destroy your country with our phearsome powers involving bacon mysticism.

That gave me a hearty laugh.

Seriously though, I don't think the rest of the world would let *that* type of expansion happen, but I more or less mean domestically. Could all of your rights wither away under a self-appointed dictator? Interesting to think about, if nothing else.