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

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. 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.

Back to the Future: Historical Political Science and the Promise of Canadian Political Development

“…Many of these dealt with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . By the turn of the millennium, the Supreme Court of Canada had produced a sizeable jurisprudence that could be plumbed by scholars wanting to understand how judicial decisions are made (McCormick, 2004; Smithey, 2001; Songer and Johnson, 2007; Songer and Sinparapu, 2009; Wetstein and Ostberg, 2005), how courts have changed (or not) patterns of political behaviour and mobilization (Abu-Laban and Nieguth, 2000; Clarke, 2006; Hausegger and Riddell, 2004; Hennigar, 2004; Kelly, 2001; Morton and Allen, 2001; Scholtz, 2009; Vengroff and Morton, 2001; Webber, 2009), and how the Charter has (or has not) transformed the way in which rights are discussed, understood, and deployed as political resources (Brodie, 2001; Green, 2000; Macfarlane, 2008; M. Smith, 2002). Nor was this spike of interest confined to the Charter.…”

A Historical Institutionalist Understanding of Participatory Governance and Aboriginal Peoples: The Case of Policy Change in Ontario's Mining Sector*

“…One possibility is that situations similar to the ones mentioned above will result in future litigation and prompt the SCC to provide further clarity regarding the constitutional right of Aboriginal communities to consent to mineral development on their lands. The changes to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 included a bill of rights (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, referred to as the Charter), which under the auspices of the SCC, has had a significant impact on Canadian institutions, federal‐provincial relations, and areas of social and public policy (Hiebert, , ; Clarke, ; Smith, ). Since 1982, the SCC has signaled its willingness to nullify or amend legislation it deems inconsistent with Charter principles.…”

Dialogue or compliance? Measuring legislatures’ policy responses to court rulings on rights

“…Useful conceptions of dialogue are not necessarily limited to the inter-branch interaction that determines legislative policy outcomes, which is the focus of this article. Even inter-branch dialogue can come in many forms, including the actual arguments government lawyers make before the courts (Clarke, 2006) or the decision to appeal lower court rulings (Hennigar, 2004). Nor must we consider the dialogue over rights as always beginning with a court ruling.…”