The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the work of Pierre E Trudeau. It was adopted in 1982 by the United Kingdom Parliament at the request of the Canadian Parliament at the time of the patriation of the Constitution. It was not approved by a referendum vote, nor by any provincial legislature, and the Quebec national assembly voted against repatriation and the Charter. Its amendment formula is so complex that an amendment to the Charter is very difficult. Nevertheless, it is the supreme law of Canada, and applies both federally and provincially.
The Charter is interpreted by the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the federal government (effectively, the Prime Minister). The Meech Lake Accord of 1987 proposed that judges be appointed by the federal government upon nomination by the provinces. However, largely due to the opposition of Pierre E Trudeau, the agreement did not receive the support of the legislative assemblies of all provinces and never took effect.
In recognition of this judicial power, and to preserve to the parliaments (federal and provincial) their traditional powers (parliamentary sovereignty), the Charter provides (the notwithstanding clause) that the last word on the application of most of the provisions of the Charter falls to the federal parliament and provincial legislatures:
33 (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
So, today a Charter largely written and only adopted by the federal government is interpreted by judges appointed only by the federal government.
André Burelle was advisor to Pierre Trudeau, before being removed at the time of the patriation of the constitution, and he supported the Meech Lake accord. Mr. Burelle wrote an article in Le Devoir in 2023 ( Des limites au gouvernement par les juges ) which explains the importance of retaining the notwithstanding clause.
Here are the most relevant extracts from his text:
(ORIGINAL)
Aux partisans d’une Cour suprême qui s’autorégulerait de la sorte, je propose de lire ce que nul autre que Thomas Jefferson a écrit sur les dangers de despotisme inhérents au gouvernement par les juges...
« Vous semblez attribuer aux juges le rôle d’ultimes arbitres dans tout débat de nature constitutionnelle : une doctrine que je considère comme dangereuse et qui nous expose au despotisme d’une oligarchie. Nos juges sont aussi honnêtes que le commun des mortels, mais sans plus. Ils partagent les mêmes passions que nous, la même tendance à l’esprit de clocher, la même quête de pouvoir et de privilèges attachés à leur fonction....
En clair, la bonne façon de contrer à la canadienne le gouvernement par les juges dénoncé par Jefferson consiste à inscrire dans la Constitution du pays l’obligation faite aux magistrats de tenir compte des droits collectifs des peuples fondateurs et des provinces dans l’interprétation des droits et libertés des individus garantis par nos chartes. Elle consiste aussi à prévoir un usage de la disposition de dérogation, si aux yeux des élus du peuple les juges ne tiennent pas ou tiennent insuffisamment compte de ces droits collectifs dans l’interprétation des droits individuels protégés par nos chartes.
Malheureusement, sans la reconnaissance constitutionnelle de ses droits collectifs offerte par l’accord du lac Meech, il ne reste au Québec que le recours à la disposition de dérogation pour protéger ses droits collectifs contre une cour tenue d’interpréter la Charte canadienne dans une perspective multiculturelle allergique aux droits des peuples fondateurs du pays. (original)
TRANSLATION:
To supporters of a Supreme Court that would self-regulate in this way, I suggest reading what none other than Thomas Jefferson wrote on the dangers of despotism inherent in government by judges...
“You seem to attribute to judges the role of final arbiters in any debate of a constitutional nature: a doctrine that I consider dangerous and which exposes us to the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as ordinary mortals, but nothing more. They share the same passions as us, the same tendency towards parochialism, the same quest for power and privileges attached to their function....
Clearly, the right way to counter the Canadian style of government by judges denounced by Jefferson consists of enshrining in the country's Constitution the obligation imposed on magistrates to take into account the collective rights of the founding peoples and the provinces in the interpretation of the rights and freedoms of individuals guaranteed by our charters. It also consists of providing for the use of the notwithstanding provision, if in the eyes of the elected representatives of the people the judges do not take or take insufficient account of these collective rights in the interpretation of the individual rights protected by our charters.
Unfortunately, without the constitutional recognition of its collective rights offered by the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec is only left with recourse to the notwithstanding provision to protect its collective rights against a court required to interpret the Canadian Charter from a multicultural perspective allergic to the rights of the founding peoples of the country.
There is continuing pressure, often coming from anglophones in Quebec, but also from anglophones in the ROC (Rest of Canada) to limit or even remove the notwithstanding clause. Francophones are, and will increasingly be, a minority in Canada. The Charter does not recognize the country's French-speaking minority, nor the role of Quebec in protecting French. In these circumstances, in the absence of recognition of their collective rights (one of the objectives of the Meech Lake agreement), it would be wise to take into account the advice of André Burelle.
Marc Ryan
Author