Democracy and the Canadian charter notwithstanding clause: Are they compatible?

Abstract

The argument is presented that the state's use of the override (s.33) clause in the Canadian Charter to infringe certain rights and freedoms is constitutional only when in accord with s.1 (where it can ‘be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’). The argument is supported by textual analysis of the Charter and reference to the intent of the framers that s.33 be used to protect democracy. The Charter thus integrates human rights, democracy and the rule of law so as to make them inseparable. The ‘rule of law’ requires that the courts be a check on the legislature and not vice versa. Only then will the values and guarantees enshrined in the Charter be protected and enforced for the benefit of every member of Canadian society as they must be if the state is to meet the international law criteria for a democratic state.

Notes

1. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982), available at http://www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd (accessed 26 January 2004).

2. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Quebec Assn. of Protestant School Boards [1984] 2 S.C.R. 66 at p.74.

3. Jean Chretien, Statement made at the 1981 First Ministers Conference, in D. Johansen and P. Rosen, ‘The notwithstanding clause of the Charter’. Report BP-194E prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Research Branch prepared for members of the House of Commons and the Senate (1989, revised 1997), available at http://www.parl.gc.ca (accessed 26 January 2004).

4. R. McMurtry, ‘The Search for a Constitutional Accord: A Personal Memoir’ (1982) 8 Queen's Law Journal 28 at p.65.

5. P. Weiler, ‘“The Evolution of the Charter”: A View from the Outside’, in P. Weiler and R.M. Elliot (eds.), Litigating the Values of a Nation: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Toronto: Carswell 1986), p.57.

6. G.A. Beaudoin, ‘Dynamic interpretation of the Charter’, in J.E. Magnet, G.A. Beaudoin, G. Gall and C. Manfredi (eds), The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Reflections after Twenty Years (Markham: Ontario: Lexis Nexis/Butterworths 2003), at pp.175–98.

7. R. Knopff, ‘How Democratic is the Charter? And does it Matter?’, in Magnet et al. (note 6) p.214.

8. Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2002] 4 SCC 429 (emphasis added).

9. S.C. Grover, ‘The Equality and Liberty Rights of the Destitute: A Canadian Case Example’, The International Journal of Minority and Group Rights, Vol.12(1) (2005), pp.43–61.

10. Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General) (note 8), Majority opinion per McLachlin CJand Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ,at para.79.

11. Gosselin v. Quebec (note 8), Majority opinion per McLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ at para.82 (emphasis added).

12. R. Knopff and F.L. Morton, Charter Politics (Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson 1992), pp.225–6 (emphasis original).

13. Knopff (note 7) p.215.

14. Ibid. p.213

15. Operation Dismantle Inc v. Canada [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441.

16. Ibid., majority opinion per Justice Wilson, p.472.

17. Johansen and Rosen (note 3).

18. M. Bastarache, ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Domestic Application of universal values’ in Magnet et al. (note 6) pp.371–80.

19. R. Wieruszewski, ‘United Nations Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures and the Strengthening of Democracy’, Paper prepared for the UN Office of the High Commissioner (Seminar on the Interdependence Between Democracy and Human Rights) Geneva, 25–26 November 2002, available at http://www.unhchr.ch, p.3.

20. M.R. Cuadros, ‘Promotion and Consolidation of Democracy’, Expanded working paper prepared for the UN Economic and Social Council (Sub-commission on the protection and promotion of human rights), 10 June 2002, available at http://www.un.org; S. Gutto, ‘Current concepts, core principles, dimensions, processes and institutions of democracy and the inter-relationship between democracy and modern human rights. Paper prepared for the UN Office of the High Commissioner (Seminar on the Interdependence Between Democracy and Human Rights) Geneva, 25–26 November 2002, available at http://www.unhchr.ch; UN Department of Political Affairs, ‘The UN system and the promotion of democracy: Achievements and challenges’, Paper prepared for the UN Office of the High Commissioner (Seminar on the Interdependence Between Democracy and Human Rights) Geneva, 25–26 November 2002, available at http://www.unhchr.ch.

21. Viscount Sankey, cited in B. McLachlin, ‘Canada's Coming of Age’, in Magnet et al. (note 6) p.360.

22. Knopff (note 7) p.204.

23. R v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45.

24. See S.C. Grover, ‘Oppression of Children Intellectualized as Free Expression: A Reanalysis of the Sharpe Possession of Child Pornography Case’, International Journal of Children's Rights, Vol.11(4) (2004), pp.311–31.

25. S.C. Grover, ‘Negating the Child's Inclusive Right to Security of the Person: A Charter Analysis of the s. 43 Canadian Criminal Code Defense to Corporal Punishment of a Minor’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law; Vol.10(4) (2003), available online at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n4/ grover104.txt.

26. UN Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, Nobel lecture delivered in Oslo, 10 December 2001. Cited in UN Department of Political Affairs (note 20) p.14.

27. B. McLachlin, ‘Rules and Discretion in the Governance of Canada’ (1992) 56 Sask. L.R. 167 at p. 176.

28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948], available at http://www.un.org (26 January 2004) at preamble (emphasis added); Cuadros (note 20) draws our attention to the fact that: ‘The expression “rule of law”, in the context of the Universal Declaration, should be understood as a reference to a constitutional rule of law, whereby the power and limits of governmental authority, as well as … rights and freedoms … , are recognized and established in a legal corpus that takes precedence over subordinate legislation’ (p.6).

29. Koffi Annan (note 26) p.3.

30. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (note 28) at Article 29, para.2 (emphasis added).

31. Note that international human rights instruments do contain an override indirectly when they defer to domestic law in certain provisions rather than holding each state in all respects to universal international human rights standards (i.e. the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) defers to domestic law in the definition of ‘child’ with some restriction pertaining to the issue of child soldiers, available at http://www.unesco.org (accessed 26 January 2004). For a history of s.33 of the Canadian Charter and the influence of lobby groups in its ultimate formulation see Johansen and Rosen (note 3).

32. Johansen and Rosen (note 3) p.3.

33. F.P. Church's ‘Yes, Virginia There is a Santa Claus’. First printed in the Editorial page of the New York Sun newspaper (1897), available at http://www.geocities.com.