Not the same thing.
The Charter of rights of Freedoms applies to both citizens and foreign nationals alike. It just contains the certain rights (like the right to vote) which are limited to citizens.
The US government lawyers on the other hand have stated that _the whole_ of the US Constitution (including the right to a lawyer if arrested) doesn't apply to foreign nationals. And they didn't seem to be offering up what, in its place, _does_ give them any rights.
The Supreme Court. Personally, I have no problem with that.
I don't call the withholding of the right of access to a lawyer (for one thing) particularly "liberal".
Only if they invoke the notwithstanding clause (with the issues related to that which I mentioned on my last post). Day-to-day Acts of Parliament can (and do) get overturned by the Supreme Court on account of the fact that they violate the Charter.
You mean the checks and balances that are protecting the non-citizens who apparently have no rights?
I follow it quite closely, thank you. I'm a regular listener to CBC Radio One, for example. That includes a lot of discussion of both domestic and foreign (incl US) goings on. But one doesn't need to be a legal expert to believe that the withholding of basic rights from non-citizens is wrong.