Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:03:41.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the Democratic Dialogue, and Towards a Federalist One: Provincial Arguments and Supreme Court Responses in Charter Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2006

Jeremy A. Clarke
Jeremy A. Clarke*
Affiliation:
Queen's University
*
Jeremy A. Clarke, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A vigorous debate surrounding the “democratic dialogue” has done much for the understanding of our post-Charter parliamentary democracy. At the same time, it has diverted valuable attention from the settlement of the Charter with Canada's other constitutional pillar: federalism. This paper argues that the reconciliation of the Charter's national standards with the provincial diversity recognized by our federal Constitution is given expression by a federalist dialogue, occurring alongside, and even before, its democratic counterpart. An examination of several recent cases before the Supreme Court in which provincial policies have been impugned by the Charter provides evidence that provincial governments and the principles of federalism have a role to play in Charter interpretation, and that this role is often conceded by the Supreme Court in response to provincial factums. This discussion does not conclude the grand questions of federalism in the Charter era, but it does raise some definitive questions to propel the debate.

Résumé

Résumé

Le débat rigoureux concernant le « dialogue démocratique » a grandement contribué à la compréhension de notre démocratie parlementaire post-Charte. Au même moment, cependant, ce débat détourne de l'attention de la conciliation de la Charte avec l'autre pilier constitutionnel, le fédéralisme. Cet article défend que la réconciliation des standards nationaux de la Charte avec la diversité des provinces, reconnue par notre constitution fédérale, prend voix par le biais d'un dialogue portant sur les principes du fédéralisme qui se manifeste parallèlement, et même avant, son analogue démocratique. Une étude de plusieurs cas récents devant la Cour Suprême dans lesquels les politiques provinciales ont été contestées par la Charte démontre que les gouvernements provinciaux ainsi que les principes du fédéralisme ont un rôle à jouer dans l'interprétation de la Charte, et que ce rôle est souvent accordé à la Cour Suprême en réponse aux mémoires provinciaux. Par elle-même, cette discussion ne résolut pas les grandes questions du fédéralisme dans la Charte, mais elle soulève néanmoins des questions importantes qui relancent le débat.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 293 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzenstat, Janet et al., eds. 1999. Canada's Founding Debates. Toronto: Stoddart.Google Scholar
Alberta (AB). 1986. Jones, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Alberta.Google Scholar
AB. 1990. Mahe, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Alberta.Google Scholar
AB. 1991. Electoral Boundaries, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta.Google Scholar
AB. 2004a. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta.Google Scholar
AB. 2004b. NAPE, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Alberta.Google Scholar
Banting, Keith and Simeon, Richard. 1983. “Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution.” In And No One Cheered: Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution Act, eds. Banting, Keith and Simeon, Richard. Toronto: Methuen.Google Scholar
British Columbia (BC). 1991. Electoral Boundaries, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia.Google Scholar
BC. 1997. Eldridge, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia.Google Scholar
BC. 2004a. Auton, Factum of the Appellants [on cross-appeal], the Attorney General of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Services Commission.Google Scholar
BC. 2004b. NAPE, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1983. “The Politics of Constitutional Conservatism.” In And No One Cheered: Federalism, Democracy and the Constitution Act, eds. Banting, Keith and Simeon, Richard. Toronto: Methuen.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1991. Disruptions: Constitutional Struggles from the Charter to Meech Lake, ed. Williams, Douglas E.. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1992. The Charter Versus Federalism: The Dilemmas of Constitutional Reform. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Cairns, Alan C. 1995. Reconfigurations: Canadian Citizenship and Constitutional Change, ed. Williams, Douglas E.. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.Google Scholar
Canada. Minister of Supply, and Services. 1985. Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada (Macdonald Commission). Report: Volume 3.Google Scholar
Funston, Bernard W. 1993. “The Impact of the Charter on Policy Development in the Northwest Territories.” In The Impact of the Charter on the Public Policy Process, eds. Monahan, Patrick and Finklestein, Marie. North York: York University Centre for Public Law and Public Policy.Google Scholar
Ghai, Yash Pal. 2001. “Constitutional Asymmetries: Communal Representation, Federalism, and Cultural Autonomy.” In The Architecture of Democracy, ed. Reynolds, Andrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew A. 2004. “Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ Debate: Canadian Federal Government Responses to Lower Court Charter Decisions.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Hiebert, Janet L. 1996. Limiting Rights: The Dilemma of Judicial Review. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Hiebert, Janet L. 2002. Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament's Role? Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. and Bushell, Allison. 1997. “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn't Such a Bad Thing After All).” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 35 (1): 75–124.Google Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2001. “Reconciling Rights and Freedoms during Review of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Centralization Thesis, 1982–1999.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 321–55.Google Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2005. Governing with the Charter: Legislative and Judicial Activism and Framers' Intent. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer and Morton, F.L.. 1985. “Nation-Building and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In Constitutionalism, Citizenship and Society in Canada, eds. Cairns, Alan and Williams, Cynthia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer and Morton, F.L.. 1992. Charter Politics. Scarborough: Nelson Canada.Google Scholar
Koller, Arnold. 2003. “Welcome Note.” In Federalism in a Changing World—Learning from Each Other: Scientific Background, Proceedings and Plenary Speeches of the International Conference on Federalism 2002, eds. Blindenbacher, Raoul and Koller, Arnold. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
LaSelva, Samuel V. 1996. The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism: Paradoxes, Achievements, and Tragedies of Nationhood. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Magnet, Joseph Eliot. 1995. Official Languages of Canada: Perspectives from Law, Policy and the Future. Cowansville, QC: Les Éditions Yvon Blais, Inc.Google Scholar
Makin, Kirk. 2005. “Supreme Court averse to risk, professor says; Bland judgments result of anemic debate, constitutional scholar tells conference.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 16, A4.Google Scholar
Mandel, Michael. 1994. The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada. Revised edition. Toronto: Thomson.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 1993. “Constitutional Rights and Interest Advocacy: Litigating Educational Reform in Canada and the United States.” In Equity and Community: The Charter, Interest Advocacy and Representation, ed. Seidle, F. Leslie. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Maioni, Antonia. 2002. “Courts and Health Policy: Judicial Policy Making and Publicly Funded Health Care in Canada.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 27 (2): 213–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Kelly, James B.. 1999. “Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37 (3): 513–27.Google Scholar
Manitoba (MB). 1990. Mahe, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Manitoba.Google Scholar
MB. 1997. Eldridge, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Graeme G. 1993. “The Impact of the Charter on the Public Policy Process: The Attorney General [of Saskatchewan].” In The Impact of the Charter on the Public Policy Process, eds. Monahan, Patrick and Finklestein, Marie. North York: York University Centre for Public Law and Public Policy.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. 1995. “The Effects of the Charter of Rights on Canadian Federalism.” Publius 25 (3): 173.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. 2001. “Dialogue or Monologue.” In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, eds. Howe, Paul and Russell, Peter H.. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press (IRPP).Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Allen, Avril. 2001. “Feminists and the Courts: Measuring Success in Interest Group Litigation in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 55–84.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
New Brunswick (NB). 1990. Mahe, Mémoire de l'intervenant, le procureur général du Nouveau-Brunswick.Google Scholar
NB. 2004a. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of New Brunswick.Google Scholar
NB. 2004b. NAPE, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Newfoundland [and Labrador] (NL). 1997. Eldridge, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
NL. 2004a. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador.Google Scholar
NL. 2004b. NAPE, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador.Google Scholar
Nova Scotia (NS). 2004a. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.Google Scholar
Ontario (ON). 1990. Mahe, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.Google Scholar
ON. 1997. Eldridge, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.Google Scholar
ON. 2004. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Ontario.Google Scholar
Prince Edward Island (PE). 1991. Electoral Boundaries, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island.Google Scholar
PE. 1997. Remuneration of Judges, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island.Google Scholar
PE. 2004. Auton, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island.Google Scholar
Quebec (QC). 1991. Electoral Boundaries, Mémoire de l'intervenant, le procureur general du Québec.Google Scholar
QC. 2004a. Auton, Mémoire de l'intervenant, le procureur general du Québec.Google Scholar
QC. 2004b. NAPE, Mémoire de l'intervenant, le procureur general du Québec.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2001. The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism or Democratic Dialogue? Toronto: Irwin Law.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1983. “The Political Purposes of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Canadian Bar Review 61: 30–54.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan (SK). 1987. RWDSU, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
SK. 1990. Mahe, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
SK. 1991. Electoral Boundaries, Factum of the Respondent, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
SK. 1997. Remuneration of Judges, Factum of the Intervener, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
Smiley, Donald V. 1981. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council.Google Scholar
Smiley, Donald V. 1987. The Federal Condition in Canada. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Solski (Tutor of) v. Québec (Attorney General) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 201.Google Scholar
SCC. Auton (Guardian ad litem of) v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [2004][a] 3 S.C.R. 657.Google Scholar
SCC. Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E. [2004][b] 3 S.C.R. 381.Google Scholar
SCC. Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General) [1997][a] 3 S.C.R. 624.Google Scholar
SCC. Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Prov. Court of P.E.I. [1997][b] 3 S.C.R. 3.Google Scholar
SCC. Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158.Google Scholar
SCC. Mahe v. Alberta [1990] 1 S.C.R. 342.Google Scholar
SCC. RWDSU v. Saskatchewan [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460.Google Scholar
SCC. R. v. Jones [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284.Google Scholar
Swinton, Katherine E. 1990. The Supreme Court and Canadian Federalism: The Laskin-Dickson Years. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Vipond, Robert. 1991. Liberty and Community: Canadian Federalism and the Failure of the Canadian Constitution. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar