Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Citizenship and the Canadian Charter

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Migration, Regionalization, Citizenship

Part of the book series: Politikwissenschaftliche Paperbacks ((POLWIPB))

Abstract

Cette communication s’intéresse à l’impact qu’a eu la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés sur la citoyenneté canadienne. Ici, le concept de citoyenneté est compris au sens large comme comprenant quatre dimensions: statut légal, accès à des droits, implication dans une activité politique et un sens d’identité et solidarité partagé avec d’autres. Afin de mesurer l’impact de la Charte sur ses quatre dimensions de la citoyenneté, la communication analyse quatre jugements récents de la Cour suprême du Canada: Lavoie c. Canada (2002), Sauvé c. Canada (2002), Chaoulli c. Québec (2005) et Nguyen c. Québec (2009). Finalement, la communication suggère que la jurisprudence basée sur la Charte a fait la promotion d’un modèle de citoyenneté libérale, contrairement à celle des modèles communautarien et républicain.

Significant parts of this paper were developed and originally published in Emmanuelle Richez’s Ph.D. thesis entitled The Impact of Charter-based Judicial Review on Pan-Canadian Cultural Citizenship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are also references to witnesses and parties to proceedings, as well as to members of the public.

  2. 2.

    It remains to be seen whether the Court’s recent 6-3 judgment in Lavoie v. Canada (2002) signals a change in this respect. We discuss this judgment in more detail later in the text.

  3. 3.

    Among others, Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman break citizenship down into four understandings: immigration and naturalization policy, structures and institutions, civic virtues, and citizenship identity (1994). Similarly, Peter Schuck alludes to the political, legal, psychological and sociological aspects of citizenship (2000). Linda Bosniak distinguishes citizenship as legal status from citizenship as a form of political activity, a system of rights, or a form of identity and solidarity (2000). Finally, Jane Jenson identifies three dimensions to the ‘citizenship regime’: rights and responsibilities, access, and belonging (2006).

  4. 4.

    See the essays by John Borrows, Rebecca Johnson and E. Neil McKelvey (Johnson et al. 2000). See also John Borrows (2001).

  5. 5.

    The notion of judicial-legislative dialogue was first coined by Peter H. Hogg and Allison A. Bushell (now Thornton) (1997). It was then criticized and clarified by different legal scholars: Christopher P. Manfredi and James B. Kelly (1999), Janet Hiebert (2002), Matthew Hennigar (2004) and James B. Kelly (2005).

  6. 6.

    It should be disclosed that one of the authors, Christopher P. Manfredi, served as an expert witness for the Government of Canada in Sauvé.

  7. 7.

    Section 15(1) of the Charter postulates that “[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

  8. 8.

    Section 1 of the Charter states that “[t]he Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The Supreme Court developed a test for the application of the limitation clause in R v. Oakes (1986) and clarified it in Egan v. Canada (1995): “First, the objective of the legislation must be pressing and substantial. Second, the means chosen to attain this legislative end must be reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. In order to satisfy the second requirement, three criteria must be satisfied: (1) the rights violation must be rationally connected to the aim of the legislation; (2) the impugned provision must minimally impair the Charter guarantee; and (3) there must be a proportionality between the effect of the measure and its objective so that the attainment of the legislative goal is not outweighed by the abridgement of the right. In all s. 1 cases the burden of proof is with the government to show on a balance of probabilities that the violation is justifiable” (Egan v. Canada 1995, para 182).

  9. 9.

    Chief Justice McLachlin’s judgment essentially agreed with Justice Bastarache’s reasoning on this point. In addition, she rejected the idea that non-citizens could avoid the “discriminatory” effects of the legislation by becoming citizens. In her view, “forcing some people to make such a choice violates human dignity, and is therefore inherently discriminatory.” (Lavoie v. Canada 2002, para 9)

  10. 10.

    See supra note 9.

  11. 11.

    The province of Quebec has two public school systems: the French and the English systems. In both public systems, education is free from kindergarten to the collegial level. However, access to the English public system is limited to rights-holders under s.23 of the Charter. Non rights-holders can only receive English education in the private school system by paying a fee.

  12. 12.

    The most famous articulation of this point is by James Madison in Federalist No. 51. “If men were angels,” Madison argued, “no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (2005, p. 356).

  13. 13.

    Having found an unjustifiable infringement of s.3 of the Charter, Chief Justice McLachlin determined that it was unnecessary to decide this issue (Sauvé v. Canada 2002, para 63).

  14. 14.

    The European Commission on Human Rights determined that criminal disenfranchisement is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights (Goodwin-Gill 1994, p. 128).

  15. 15.

    The Canadian universal healthcare system provides medical coverage to all Canadians on the basis of need rather than on the ability to pay. It consists of an interlocking set of federal and provincial legislation.

  16. 16.

    A poll commissioned from Environics Research Group/Focus Canada for the Association for Canadian Studies revealed that 7 out of 10 Canadians thought the Charter was very important to Canadian Identity. Only the Canadian healthcare system ranked higher as a symbol of Canadian identity. For more details see Jack Jedwab and Chris Baker (2003).

References

  • A-G. Canada v. Sauvé; R. v. Belczowski. [1993] 2 SCR 438, 153 NR 242.

    Google Scholar 

  • A.G. (Que.) v. Quebec Protestant School Boards. [1984] 2 SCR 66, 10 DLR (4th) 321.

    Google Scholar 

  • An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language, SQ. 2002, c 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia. [1989] 1 SCR 143, 1989 CanLII 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1985. Politics. Trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustine-Adams, Kif. 2000. Gendered states. A comparative construction of citizenship and nation. Virginia Journal of International Law 41 (1): 93–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axworthy, Tom, and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, eds. 1990. Towards a just society. The Trudeau years. Markham: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banting, Keith G. 1998. The past speaks to the future. Lessons from the Postwar Social Union. In The state of the federation 1997. Non-constitutional renewal, ed. H. Lazar, 39–70. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, Ronald, ed. 1995a. Theorizing citizenship. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiner, Ronald. 1995b. Why citizenship constitutes a theoretical problem in the last decade of the twentieth century. In Theorizing citizenship, ed. Ronald Beiner, 1–28. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belczowski v. Canada. [1992] 2 FC 440, 90 DLR (4th) 330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State). [1997] 1 SCR 358, 143 DLR (4th) 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bill of Rights. 1789. US Const amend I-X.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, William James. 1997. Foreigners. Insiders, outsiders and the ethics of membership. Review of Politics 59 (2): 259–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrows, John. 2001. Uncertain citizens. Aboriginal peoples and the supreme court. Canadian Bar Review 80 (1/2): 15–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosniak, Linda. 2000. Citizenship denationalized. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 7 (2): 447–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, Alan C. 1991. Constitutional change and the three equalities. In Options for a New Canada, eds. Ronald L. Watts et al., 77–100. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, Alan C. 1992. Charter versus federalism. The dilemmas of constitutional reform. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canada, Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. 2002. Building on values: The future of health care in Canada (Final Report), (Commissioner: Roy J. Romanow).

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act. 1982. being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). 2005 SCC 35, [2005] 1 SCR 791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, RSQ, c C-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of the French Language, RSQ. 1977. c C-11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhry, Sujit. 2005. Worse than Lochner? In Access to care, access to justice. The legal debate over private health care insurance in Canada, eds. Colleen M. Flood et al., 75–100. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada. 1991. 1 SCR 139, 77 DLR (4th) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant, Benjamin. 1874/1819. De la liberté des anciens comparée à celle des modernes. In Œuvres politique de Benjamin Constant, ed. C. Louandre, 258–286. Paris: Charpentier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan v. Canada. [1995] 2 SCR 513, 124 DLR (4th) 609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge v. British Columbia. [1997] 3 SCR 624, 151 DLR (4th) 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, Colleen M., et al., eds. 2005. Access to care, access to justice. The legal debate over private health care insurance in Canada. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General). [1988] 2 SCR 712, 54 DLR (4th) 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genovese, Michael A., ed. 2010. The federalist papers. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin-Gill, Guy S. 1994. Free and fair elections: International law and practice. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosselin (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General). 2005. SCC 15, [2005] 1 SCR 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haig v. Canada; Haig v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer). [1993] 2 SCR 995, 105 DLR (4th) 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Insurance Act, RSQ, c A-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennigar, Matthew. 2004. Expanding the ‘Dialogue’ debate. Canadian Federal Government responses to lower court Charter decisions. Canadian Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, Janet L. 2002. Charter conflicts: What is parliament’s role? Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, Peter W., and Allison A. Bushell. 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 

  • Hospital Insurance Act, RSQ, c A-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin toy ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney general). [1989] 1 SCR 927, 58 DLR (4th) 577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isin, Engin F., and Bryan S. Turner. eds. 2002. Handbook of citizenship studies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedwab, Jack, and Chris Baker. 2003. Canadian identity. Bilingualism, Multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights. Association for Canadian Studies. 2003. Web. http://www.ocol-clo.gc.ca/docs/f/Canadian_Identity.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2011.

  • Jenson, Jane. 1997. Fated to live in interesting times. Canada’s changing citizenship regimes. Canadian Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 627–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, Jane. 2006a. Introduction. Thinking about citizenship and law in an era of change. In Law and citizenship, ed. Jane Jenson. Vancouver: UBC Press (n.p).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, Jane. ed. 2006b. Law and Citizenship. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Rebecca, et al., eds. 2000. Gerard V. LaForest at the Supreme Court of Canada, 1985–1997. Winnipeg: Canadian Legal History Project, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba.

    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 F. L. Morton. 2000. The Charter revolution and the court party. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship. A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, Will, and Wayne Norman. 1994. Return of the citizen. A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics 104 (2): 352–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie v. Canada. 2002. SCC 23, [2002] 1 SCR 769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration). [1999] 1 SCR 497, 170 DLR (4th) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazar, Harvey, ed. 1998. The state of the federation 1997. Non-constitutional renewal. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen’s University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libman v. Quebec. [1997] 3 SCR 569, 151 DLR (4th) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louandre, Charles, ed. 1894. Œuvres politique de Benjamin Constant. Paris: Charpentier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madison, James. 2005. Number 51 checks and balances. In Hamilton et al. (2005): 355–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, Michael. 1989. The Charter of rights and the legalization of politics in Canada. Toronto: Wall & Thompson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, Christopher P. 2001. Judicial power and the Charter. Canada and the paradox of liberal constitutionalism. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, Christopher P. 2004. Feminist activism in the Supreme Court. Legal mobilization and the women’s legal education and action fund. Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, Christopher P., and James B. Kelly. 1999. Six degrees of dialogue. A response to Hogg and Bushell. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 37 (3): 513–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredi, Christopher P., and Michael Lusztig. 1998. Why do formal amendments fail? An institutional design analysis. World Politics 50 (3): 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmor, Theodore. 1998. Expert Witness Report. Law. University of Toronto. 9 Nov 1988. Law.utoronto.ca. Web. Accessed 15 Nov 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, T. H. 1950. Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, Eric. 1996. Illiberal citizenship? A critique of will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights. Queen’s Law Journal 22 (1): 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1926/1861. Considerations on representative government. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, Patrick J. 2006. Chaoulli v. Quebec and the Futures of Canadian Healthcare: Patient Accountability as the ‘Sixth Principle’ of the Canada Health Act. C.D. Howe Institute. 2006. Web. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/benefactors_lecture_2006.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2011.

  • Morton, F. L. 1985. Group rights versus individual rights in the Charter. The special cases of natives and the Québécois. In Minorities and the Canadian state, eds. Nevitte Nevitte and Allan Kornberg, 71–85. Oakville: Mosaic Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. v. H. [1999] 2 SCR 3, 43 OR (3d) 254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevitte, Neil, and Allan Kornberg, eds. 1985. Minorities and the Canadian state. Oakville: Mosaic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen v. Quebec (Education, Recreation and Sports). 2009. SCC 47, [2009] 3 SCR 208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oenen, Gijs. 2002. Turning on the citizen. Modern citizenship and its cultural hazard. Citizenship Studies 6 (2): 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Service Employment Act, RSC 1985, c P-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan). [1991] 2 SCR 158, 81 DLR (4th) 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reference re Secession of Quebec. [1998] 2 SCR 217, 161 DLR (4th) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Peter. 1992. Constitutional Odyssey. Can Canadians become a sovereign people? Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Peter. 1994. Canadian constraints on judicialization from without. International Political Science Review 15 (2): 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Darrach. 2000. SCC 46, [2000] 2 SCR 443.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Mills. [1999] 3 SCR 668, 244 AR 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. v. Oakes. [1986] 1 SCR 103, 26 DLR (4th) 200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé v. Canada. [1993] 2 SCR 438, 1993 CanLII 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer). 2002. SCC 68, [2002] 3 SCR 519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, David. 1995. Economic citizenship and deliberative democracy. An inquiry into constitutional limitations on economic regulation. Queen’s Law Journal 21 (1): 125–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, Peter. 2000. Citizenship in federal systems. American Journal of Comparative Law 48 (2): 195–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senate, Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. 2003. The Health of Canadians—The Federal Role (Final Report), v.6 (Chair: Michael J. L. Kirby).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solski (Tutor of) v. Quebec (Attorney General). 2005 SCC 14, [2005] 1 SCR 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General). [1998] 1 SCR 877, 38 OR (3d) 735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudeau, Pierre Elliott. 1990. The values of a just society. In Towards a just society. The Trudeau years, eds. Tom Axworthy and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 357–385. Markham: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vriend v. Alberta. [1998] 1 SCR 493, 156 DLR (4th) 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, Ronald L., and Douglas M. Brown, eds. 1997. Options for a new Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Science, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Emmanuelle Richez Ph.D.

  2. Faculty of Arts, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Prof. Christopher P. Manfredi Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Emmanuelle Richez Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof. Christopher P. Manfredi Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuelle Richez Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Englisches Seminar, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany

    Katja Sarkowsky

  2. Univ. Augsburg FB Politikwissenschaft, Augsburg, Germany

    Rainer-Olaf Schultze

  3. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Sabine Schwarze

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richez, E., Manfredi, C. (2015). Citizenship and the Canadian Charter. In: Sarkowsky, K., Schultze, RO., Schwarze, S. (eds) Migration, Regionalization, Citizenship. Politikwissenschaftliche Paperbacks. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06583-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation