Restrictions can be placed on certain activities following a conviction involving: (1) the use of weapons in the commission of a criminal offence; (2) driving a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs; (3) electoral corruption.
[6] A person convicted of one of these offences can be subject to a prohibition on driving a motor vehicle for a certain period of time.
Similar mandatory prohibition orders are imposed for offences involving a motor vehicle which cause bodily harm or death and for street racing.
[7] For offences other than impaired driving/.08 or street racing, or not involving bodily harm or death, the sentencing court has discretion to impose driving prohibitions.
All provinces will cancel the driver licence of a person convicted of certain driving offences under the Criminal Code.
[8] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that even if a Canadian citizen has committed a criminal offence and is incarcerated, they retain the constitutional right to vote.
The restrictions are aimed at healing the corrupted electoral process, which itself is a constitutional value, and therefore can be justified for limited periods.
[14] The issue of disenfranchisement gained awareness in 2000 after the "excruciatingly close" presidential election, wherein 2% of the voting-age population was prohibited from participating.
However, Section 2 of this Amendment allows states to remove voting privileges from anyone who has participated in "rebellion or other crime.
The Civic Participation and Rehabilitation Act, allowing for ex-felons to vote, has been introduced at the beginning of every legislative session since 1994, but has never made it to the floor of Congress.
Critics state that the overly broad prohibition of all felons from owning guns serves no "public safety" benefit since, "Many felonies are not violent in the least, raising no particular suspicion that the convict is a threat to public safety" according to UCLA law professor and firearms expert Adam Winkler, "Perjury, securities law violations, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, and a host of other felonies do not indicate a propensity for dangerousness.
It is hard to imagine how banning Martha Stewart or Enron's Andrew Fastow from possessing a gun furthers public safety.