Slashdot Mirror

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

S.8 protects a persons right to be secure against unreasonable searches and/or seizures. There is no constitutional warrant requirement. If there was a constitutional warrant requirement s.8 would state "Everyone has the right to be secure against warrantless search or seizure". However, the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the position that all warrantless searches are prima facie unreasonable. What this proposition enunciates is that when a search is conducted in the absence of a warrant (prior judicial authorization) the search will be presumed to be "unreasonable" and therefore a violation of s.8 of the Charter.

> both in the U.S.A. abd Canada. You have to remember
> in both countries the constitutions we set up so that
> originally only the rich could vote.

Care to back that assertion up with facts?

You can start here -- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/

There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet.

on my cubicle that says "Anyone found breaching my privacy will be prosecuted AND/OR sued under the Privacy Act"

Per your helpful citation, there is another possibility:

"To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work"

Google is diplaying portions of the copyrighted work.

430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
. . . . .

Interestingly enough, Canada seems to have much broader protections of freedom of speech. Don't know if this is implemented in practice, though.

No, no we're not!
Learn here.

There's nothing in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, or any of the other documents that basically amount to our bill of rights and constitution that bans this kind of power. There's only one clause in the document that's even remotely applicable:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

That's it. That's the entire clause. No subsections, no footnotes, no need to define terms, no need to qualify it with a 4-page essay pontificating exactly what constitutes "unreasonable". You'd do well to read the document: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/, especially since it's the legal grounding for the gay marriage issue... clause 15, if you're wondering.

See... there's not really any definition of "unreasonable" in the document, and as a result, the government can pretty well do whatever they want without violating our rights, as long as it can be justified as a reasonable measure being taken. What really gets me here, however, is that the powers TFA is talking about are already within their capabilities. They have been for a very long time. Remember Echelon? Take a look at what the CSE is responsible for within that organization. :)

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Too many comments are dealing with the idea that Canada is somehow superior, because this legislation doesn't suck as badly as some copyright legislation sucks in some other countries.

Don't forget that on the whole, our copyright laws still suck, and this bill will make them suck more. The law professors in this article don't like bill C-60; and neither do I! This isn't a non-issue. Copyright is everywhere!

Between literature, music, arts, crafts, and physical performances, there's very little that *doesn't* fall under copyright in Canada. Martial arts are a physical performance, dancing is a physical performance, blacksmithing is a craft, stained glass is an art, and programming is a form of writing. Mathematics is copyright. Photographs are copyright. Music is copyright. As for me, almost every single creative pasttime I enjoy is affected by copyright; and I think this holds true for many others as well.

And remember, copyright doesn't just protect rights, it also limits them! The first person to record an particular form of expression gets all the rights to that form of expression; and everyone else loses out! Natives are losing their rights to tell their old stories, because someone else is writing them down, and copyright doesn't apply until a work is "fixed" in a tangible format. The same could happen to ancient martial arts and dance forms, now that videocameras are common. If it hasn't been recorded yet, it's first come, first served for the rights to perform those ancient rituals. :-(

In Canada, you don't have the right to read books out loud. In fact, there's a specific exemption for teachers under the Fair Dealing section of the Copyright act that lets them read "portions" of a book to their class. There are also special exemptions for religious worship, which is probably unconstitutional these days. There's the notion of "moral rights"; which forbid you from doing anything with an author's work that might reflect badly on the author. In one famous case, the Eaton Centre had bought an unsafe mobile from an artist, and moved bits of it so they wouldn't fall. The artist successfully sued, because they changed his work of art without his consent.

Me, I think copyrights in Canada were too stiffling to begin with, and they're just getting worse.

But don't just take my word for it. Read Bill-C60, read the current Copyright Act, and do your civic duty by informing your MP of your viewpoint (for or against) this piece of historic legislation.

Hurry, and let your MP know your opinion before it's too late to voice one. :-(
--
AC

P.S. Why can't anonymous users reply to posts anymore? :-( Slashdot isn't working for me. :-(

Publication bans and hate speech bans are two things our Constitution prohibits, but your courts seem to have no problem allowing.

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.

i hate to pick *but* the Bill of Rights isnt worth the paper its written on, you should instead quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms located at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ which actually holds legal weight.

Assault at least with Canadian laws is written as any behaviour that applys a force to an unconsenting person. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html

Which has been interpreted as uttering threats, or even touching a person in prior cases. So according to that, this could have lead to assault charges. Mind you, it is very minor and is up to the discretion of the judge to follow through, but the police would have every right to lay the charge if it was reported.

If a lawyer wants to get even more vicious, he could also add theft and vandalism to the list of charges.

If society adopts a set of norms, such as public politeness and respect for each other, and the majority of the public enforces it, you eliminate at least half of the need for intrusive government, both legislative and judicial.

You and I both hope for a utopia, but realistically, is it even possible?

"b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#libertes

Yes, it would really suck if we had both laws on the books, but there is nothing even on the horizon that would similarly compel people to give up their passphrases like that here in Canada.

You miss my point -- once upon a time, there was no RIP in the UK, either.
This law is useless without a Canadian equivalent to the RIP. Therefore, the Canadian government will be forced to implement an RIP-equivalent law within a year or two of implementing the "all your connections are subject to permanent sniffing" law.

It seems he could go to jail for ten years if convicted, or a cop could just walk up and throw him in the slammer for 18 months without a trial, if he did this in Canada.

Well get your government to fix the laws.

Canadian Copyright Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39417.html
Sect 30.6

Buy the copy, use the software. Ignore the EULA.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/
Section 80.

Looks pretty clear cut to me.

When the law clearly states what is not infringement there is a question.

What bill is making this unclear? I'll write my MP again.

Canada was in the mid-range of firearms ownership. Nearly 22% of Canadian households possessed at least one firearm. Possession was highest in the United States (48.6%)

I can understand why it should not be called theft in court, but piracy is defined as "copyright infrigement" in every dictionary I own, so Wikipedia is clearly wrong there.

No, it's not.

Since the topic is Canadian law, the relavent reference is found in the Criminal Code (C-46), under the subheading Piracy, sections 74 and 75, as quoted below:

Piracy

Piracy by law of nations
  74. (1) Every one commits piracy who does any act that, by the law of nations, is piracy.

Punishment
  (2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

AND ALSO


Piratical acts
  75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,

(a) steals a Canadian ship,

(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship,

(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or

(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Note: there is no reference to piracy in the Canadian Copyright Act (C-42). None of the definitions relate "piracy" to "copyright infringement". The proper use of language is crystal clear.

Since accusing someone of a criminal act without proof is a form of defamation of character, calling somone a "pirate" is probably grounds for a lawsuit, unless you happen have proof that they attacked a ships on the high seas.
--
AC

I can understand why it should not be called theft in court, but piracy is defined as "copyright infrigement" in every dictionary I own, so Wikipedia is clearly wrong there.

No, it's not.

Since the topic is Canadian law, the relavent reference is found in the Criminal Code (C-46), under the subheading Piracy, sections 74 and 75, as quoted below:

Piracy

Piracy by law of nations
  74. (1) Every one commits piracy who does any act that, by the law of nations, is piracy.

Punishment
  (2) Every one who commits piracy while in or out of Canada is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

AND ALSO


Piratical acts
  75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,

(a) steals a Canadian ship,

(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship,

(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or

(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Note: there is no reference to piracy in the Canadian Copyright Act (C-42). None of the definitions relate "piracy" to "copyright infringement". The proper use of language is crystal clear.

Since accusing someone of a criminal act without proof is a form of defamation of character, calling somone a "pirate" is probably grounds for a lawsuit, unless you happen have proof that they attacked a ships on the high seas.
--
AC

Copying for "private use" is legal in Canada - see Canada Copyright Act Part VII p.80 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9786/.

Private use means not for selling, renting, distributing or performing. - looks like "listening" is OK.

From The Copyright Act ( R.S. 1985, c. C-42 ):

"80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

"(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

"(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

"(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

"(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

"(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

"(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

"(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."

Canada most certainly does have fair use exemptions to copyright. But regardless of that fact, the levy was designed as a way for corrupt scumbags to steal from consumers, it has nothing to do with fair use in any way.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39129.html#rid-3 9149

"How about DAT? minidisc? Those are digital recorders too, are there levies on those?""

Here is the law that enforces the levy. It just says "blank audio recording medium". I don't see how a CD is a blank audio recording medium any more than a hard drive is, but let's not tell them that. Before we know it we're paying the levy on RAM too. ;)

One problem with your analysis:

Application of Charter

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect
of all matters within the authority of Parliament
including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and
Northwest Territories; and

b) to the legislature and government of each province in
respect of all matters within the authority of the
legislature of each province.

Private entities aren't subject to Charter review. Of course, that doesn't mean that Telus won't get their ass beat down by a Human Rights Tribunal or some such.

(IANAL, but when your wife's a law student, you pick up a lot by osmosis.)

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

The Canadian Constitution (1982) guarantees freedom of expression (including on the internet) as a fundamental right

No, it doesn't! It includes it as a fundamental freedom: meaning that it can be set aside whenever he government deems that it should be. The distinction is very, very important!

For example, copyright law removes my freedom of expression in certain ways; for example, to create works of art which are too similar to other existing works of art.

Hate speech law limits my freedom of expression to communicate anything that may promote hatred towards an identifyable group.

The criminal code section regarding blasphemous libel (yes, that's still in the criminal law to this day!), limits my ability to make religious statements which the state deems malicious and untrue. It's a forbidden form of speech.

The criminal code section on solitication forbids public communication for the purposes of prostitution. Prostitution itself is not illegal; (although making a living from it is), but talking about it publicly is. It's a forbidden form of expression.

Polygamy is illegal, even though it is a part of many old religions. So is performing or participating in a mass marriage. It's a forbidden form of religious practice.

And it gets worse.

There is a section in the criminal code labeled simply "corrupting morals". You can be jailed for producing or possessing "obscene" objects. You can be jailed for "immoral theatrical performances".

You can even be jailed for wearing clothing that is unfashionably ugly: or as the state puts it "so clad as to offend against public decency or order".

All of these are fobidden forms of expression.

In general, all these laws mean that you can still be jailed in Canada today for having a different set of moral or religious values than your neighbours, Charter protections notwithstanding.

Remember, Charter freedoms aren't guaranteed freedoms; and even our Charter rights can still be overridden by the "notwithstanding" clause.

We don't really have very strong freedoms of expression here in Canada: it's not quite a crime to be unpopular, but it is a crime to have your behaviour deemd "immoral", which is very close to the same thing...
--
AC

P.S.: For reference, the Canadian Criminal Code can be found at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/text.html

It should be required reading for all citizens; in my opinion, if only so people know just how wierd some of our laws really are...

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered.
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.

See the Copyright act section 80
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9796

At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.

It is an infringement of copyright for any person to

(a) sell or rent out,

(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

(c) by way of trade distribute, expose or offer for sale or rental, or exhibit in public,

(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or

(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),

a copy of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer's performance or of a communication signal that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it.

As far as your antagonism against Christianity goes, it sounds like you were more oppressed by the state than by the church and have misplaced your anger.

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

The purpose of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is to provide Canadians with a right of privacy with respect to their personal information that is collected, used or disclosed by an organization in the private sector in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and free flow of information.

The purpose of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is to provide Canadians with a right of privacy with respect to their personal information that is collected, used or disclosed by an organization in the private sector in an era in which technology increasingly facilitates the collection and free flow of information.

Note the religous bias of section 32.2(3), gives special rights to members of religious groups that aren't permitted to the general public: (emphasis mine...)

"(3) No religious organization or institution, educational institution and no charitable or fraternal organization shall be held liable to pay any compensation for doing any of the following acts in furtherance of a religious, educational or charitable object:"

Why should the "Church of Copyright Infringement" get to perform "sacraments" that the rest of the general public are denied? It doesn't make any sense!

Bear in mind also section 32.2(1)(d), which says you can only legally read a "reasonable section" of a book out loud. No poetry readings in the park allowed!

"d) for any person to read or recite in public a reasonable extract from a published work;"

I think our current system of copyright sucks; but read, and judge for yourself.
--
AC

Try going over the legislation with your brain instead of a comb before calling me names. First, what I said was: no business can refuse to provide service if the customer refuses to provide information that is not vital to the transaction, not that a private company must provide you service. They cannot refuse that service just because you refuse to give non-essential information. Here, I'll link you to the legislation I was referring to:

As for the powers of the Privacy Commissioner, well, no, she can't throw anyone in jail or fine anyone. However, she is regarded as the "expert" in the law. Having her on your side in a court case would be almost as good as a video camera showing the violations. She can also make life costly and hellish for companies by doing an audit on them, which does fall within her power.

So, before you flame, make sure you know what you are talking about. I've actually read through this legislation several times. Obviously you haven't.

Inuit (or Inuktitut, if one wishes to be technical) is not an official language of Canada. Only English and French are.

Reference the Official Languages Act.

"The exemption in section 80 applies only when a copy is made for the private use of the person making it. This expressly excludes selling, renting out, exposing for trade or rental, distributing, communicating to the public by telecommunication, or performing in public the copy made. This means that making a copy of a CD of the latest release by the hottest star to give to one's friend is still an infringing action, as it is not a copy for personal use. In the same vein, distributing this same copy to friends online is prohibited." (page 23)

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Limitation

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

[...]

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

[...]

7.(3) For the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, and despite the note that accompanies that clause, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual only if the disclosure is...

...(c) required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records;

So, if Videotron complies to submit the information by subpoena, PIPEDA doesn't protect you.

Also, if you end up getting sued, PIPEDA won't protect you from the debt collectors either because clause b of that same section states...

...(b) for the purpose of collecting a debt owed by the individual to the organization;

PIPEDA is not a law that allows you to hide from the enforcement or administration of any other law.

Essentially, Videotron won't fight the subpoena request because they are owned by Quebecor, a media company that is a CRIA member...

Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.

In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Especially look at #15.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html

Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

Limitation

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

[...]

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

[...]

If it were, then why is Ahenakew being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.

The act itself (Look at Section 319) specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action) 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.

The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.

If it were, then why is Ahenakew being charged under the hate speech laws? He didn't incite action. He simply went off on an anti-semitic rant. He's a jerk and his views are terrible but they didn't contain an incitement to act. And he's being charged for hate speech.

The act itself (Look at Section 319) specifies 4 elements that are necessary for a charge.
To get charged you have to:
1) communicate statements, 2) in a public place, 3) incite hatred against an identifiable group, (not necessarily action) 4) in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

In other words you can be charged if your statement is likely to cause a breach of the peace even if you had no call to action in your statement.

The only problem with the act in regards to free speech that I can see is the odd distinction between public and private statements. If someone makes a bunch of statements in public that qualify as hate speech as they're likely to cause a breach of the peace, that's a crime. But if they make the same statements at a private invitation only dinner event and the statements a breach of the peace is still the likely result that's okay? Doesn't make a lot of sense at first glance.

You are quite correct that the print shop case was based on the Ontario Human Rights Act and not the Charter. I shouldn't have glossed over that information. Again, my point was not to argue at this time that the decision was unlawful or even unjust, I'm simply trying to point out how many people just don't trust assurances of religious liberty. It isn't because they're paranoid nutjobs. The Ontario Human Rights Act and the Charter are quite distinct legally, but the issue is the same both in that section of the OHRA and the judicially inserted section of the Charter. As a result, it just doesn't wash with many people if you try and say "but that was a totally different law". They see that their concerns about religious freedom were poo-pood, and then it turns out that their concerns were at least partly justified.

It's also of concern that the Charter specifically guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and that at the moment at least all law in Canada is subject to the Charter including the Ontario Human Rights Act. In theory at least the OHRA can say whatever it likes and if the Charter disagrees, the Charter trumps.

Again, I am well aware that Professional Associations can set their own standards. However these standards are subject to the Charter. This was deemed a legitimate infringement of religious freedom by the courts and that is what makes people suspicious when they are assured that their religious freedoms will not be infringed. It's not as if professional associations can enforce any behaviour they want. The BC Medical Association cannot require that all doctors refrain from expressing pro-life views. They simply require that they provide information about abortion services to patients when they're working. They're punished for writing pro-life pieces in the newspaper.

You seem to be stuck on defending the decisions that the courts came to. That was not the subject I was arguing. I'm simply suggesting that the lack of trust in government assurances has some basis in reality.

I have a good knowledge of Canadian law, government and it's roots in English Common law and French Civil law in Quebec. I see no reason to descend to insults. I'm not advocating mob rule or the end of the rule of law. Court rulings are not as simple as Courts ruling on the basis of laws enacted by the legislature. How do you interpret the Charter? On the strict literal interpretation of the words? By basing your decisions on the framers intentions? Or by interpreting the charter on the basis of evolving standards in society? Depending on your answer court decisions will be hugely different? (We don't use the first option or the second option in Canada, although both are legitimate ways of doing it based on our legal history).

The tyranny of the majority is a concern, but if you think about it how does our constitution protect us from it? The constitution was created by the majority. It can be changed to say absolutely anything by the majority. Doesn't the constitution just guarantee that laws aren't enacted in haste that compromise the principles that the majority agrees on?

It may be annoying however it's the law that the currency must be accepted. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-52/text.html. There are limits put on the amount of small currency you can pay with however the guy could have come in with a thousand dollar bill and demanded change for it (in Canada).

There's no limit on coins, that's just an urban legend.

There is a coin limit in Canada

I'm well aware of the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. There is no conflict between being a constitutional monarchy and being a democracy. Canada and most other constitutional monarchies are true democracies insofar as the monarch does not, and cannot without provoking a constitutional crisis, exert actual control. The Queen's actual powers are extremely limited. Beyond appointing the governor-general and the lieutenant-governors, she exercises power only in the very rare situations in which she refuses royal assent to legislation or where, no party having a clear majority, she decides who to ask to form the government. The queen does not, in practice, have the power to originate legislation or to act outside the framework of the law.

Be very careful where and how you claim that the Queen holds no authority over Canada. That notion is quite probably seditious.

Wrong. It is not sedition to make a correct statement, or even an incorrect statement, about the powers of the sovereign. Sedition requires the intent to change the government by force. This is not merely a general definition; it is the definition given in the Criminal Code of Canada.

In Canada, as in any parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is chosen indirectly, by the party that forms the government.

No, the PM is appointed by the Queen, or by her representative, the Governor General. She chooses, by tradition alone, to accept the suggestion of who to appoint.

Again, by tradition alone, she (or her direct representative, since the Constitution was passed) usually chooses enact the laws that parliment recommends. She (or her agent) is not required to do so.

The head of state is of course the Queen, whose role is now entirely ceremonial.

Be very careful where and how you claim that the Queen holds no authority over Canada. That notion is quite probably seditious (arguing directly against the powers of the Sovreign). Sedition is an offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison, according to section 59 of the Criminal Code (See Section 59 of the Criminal Code at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/text.html for details).

The facts that you have nothing to say about a purely ceremonial figure and that the Prime Minister is not directly elected does not make Canada any less a democracy.

No, Canada is very much not a democracy; it is a constitutional monarchy. To claim otherwise is to deny the legitmacy of the rule of Her Sovreign Madgesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Like I've said, that's still illegal here. The very fact that it is illegal, indicates quite clearly that we do not live in a democracy.

The Queen has, however, chosen to allow us to behave, for the most part, as if we were living in a democracy. That's probably why you're so confused.
--
AC