Some people argue that Canadians were better off before they had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in a Constitution. What do you think?

Students should discuss the different effect on individual rights of the previous Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter. The former was a normal piece of government legislation that could be ignored and overridden at the whim of government. In fact it often was, with the result that citizens had little predictability of the extent of their rights or the certainty of their enforcement. The Charter, however, entrenches the rights in a constitutional document which supersedes all other legislation. All government actions must conform to the Charter to retain their validity as enforceable actions and the Charter cannot easily be amended to dilute the rights as happened with the Bill of Rights.
Students may like to take the alternative approach and argue that the Charter has entrenched only opportunistic attempts by individuals and groups of individuals to gain guaranteed rights and freedoms, which would have been available in the Common Law under principles of equity in the appropriate circumstances. Some may also argue that the Charter focuses more public attention on the receipt of guaranteed rights than on the, arguably, equally important acceptance of responsibilities in a society.