The constitutional notwithstanding clause set out in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter of Rights or the Charter) has been controversial since its emergence from a November 1981 Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers. The controversy became more pronounced at the time of the 15 December 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the Ford and Devine cases dealing with the signage provisions of Quebec's Bill 101 (Charter of the French Language) and the subsequent adoption by the Quebec National Assembly of Bill 178 (An Act to Amend the Charter of the French Language). This legislation contained a section 33 override clause (in this case affecting Charter of Rights guarantees of freedom of expression (section 2(b)) and equality rights (section 15)). After setting out the content of the section 33 notwithstanding clause, this paper will trace its development in 1981 and describe the potential use then ascribed to it by its drafters, parliamentarians and others. The paper will then go on to point out actual instances when the notwithstanding clause has been invoked. Finally, it will present a number of arguments for and against the use of the clause.

Identifies how and why 'dialogue' can describe and evaluate institutional interactions over constitutional questions concerning democracy and rights.

The Oxford Handbook of the Canadian Constitution provides an ideal first stop for Canadians and non-Canadians seeking a clear, concise, and authoritative account of Canadian constitutional law. The Handbook is divided into six parts: Constitutional History, Institutions and Constitutional Change, Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian Constitution, Federalism, Rights and Freedoms, and Constitutional Theory. Readers of this Handbook will discover some of the distinctive features of the Canadian constitution: for example, the importance of Indigenous peoples and legal systems, the long-standing presence of a French-speaking population, French civil law and Quebec, the British constitutional heritage, the choice of federalism, as well as the newer features, most notably the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section Thirty-Five regarding Aboriginal rights and treaties, and the procedures for constitutional amendment. The Handbook provides a remarkable resource for comparativists at a time when the Canadian constitution is a frequent topic of constitutional commentary. The Handbook offers a vital account of constitutional challenges and opportunities at the time of the 150th anniversary of Confederation.

The first comprehensive examination of how the Charter influences political choices on social policy.

Consolidated as of April 17, 1982.

In Governing with the Charter, James Kelly clearly demonstrates that our current democratic deficit is not the result of the Supreme Court’s judicial activism. On the contrary, an activist framers’ intent surrounds the Charter, and the Supreme Court has simply, and appropriately, responded to this new constitutional environment. While the Supreme Court is admittedly a political actor, it is not the sole interpreter of the Charter, as the court, the cabinet, and bureaucracy all respond to the document, which has ensured the proper functioning of constitutional supremacy in Canada. Kelly analyzes the parliamentary hearings on the Charter and also draws from interviews with public servants, senators, and members of parliament actively involved in appraising legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the Charter. He concludes that the principal institutional outcome of the Charter has been a marginalization of Parliament and that this is due to the Prime Minister’s decision on how to govern with the Charter.

The controversy raises challenging questions about the role of a powerful judiciary in a democracy. In Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy, a series of essays commissioned by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, some of Canada's foremost commentators - academics, politicians, and Supreme Court judges themselves - take up the debate. Some tangle over the pivotal question: should judges have the decisive say on issues involving entrenched rights that have profound implication for the policy preferences of elected bodies? Others examine related issues, including Supreme Court appointment procedures, interest group litigation, the historical roots of the notwithstanding clause, and the state of public opinion on Canada's courts. Those interested in the power of the judicial branch will find much in this collection to stimulate fresh thinking on issues that are likely to remain on the public agenda for years to come. Contributors include Joseph F. Fletcher (Toronto), Janet Hiebert (Queen's), Gregory Hein (Toronto), Peter W. Hogg (York), Paul Howe, Rainer Knopff (Calgary), Sébastien Lebel-Grenier (Sherbrooke), Howard Leeson (Regina), Kate Malleson (London School of Economics), E. Preston Manning (Reform Party of Canada), Hon. Beverley McLachlin (Supreme Court of Canada), F.L. Morton (Calgary), Pierre Patenaude (Sherbrooke), Peter Russell, Allison A. Thornton (Blake, Cassels and Graydon), Frederick Vaughan (emeritus, Guelph), Lorraine Eisenstat Weinrib (Toronto), Hon. Bertha Wilson (emeritus, Supreme Court of Canada), and Jacob Ziegel (Toronto).