Started on: 3/24/14 10:14 PM
C LASS N OTES FOR : P OLI S CI 3NN6
McMaster University, Winter 2014
M ONDAY , M ARCH 24, 2014
1. Section 3 - Democratic Rights
2. Who can claim benefit?
a. You have to be a Canadian Citizen to vote and run for office for parliament and
b. There is a guarantee of the right to do something
c. These one as citizens allows you to do something in this context.
3. Limitations of section 3
a. Section 33
- The notwithstanding clause does not apply on the right to vote
- The gov’t cannot knowingly infringe or restrict your right
b. Section 1
- If the gov’t can in fact justify the rights to vote or run for office as being
reasonably justifiable in a free and democratic society, they CAN limit your
1. Should someone that is incarcerated have the right to vote?
2. If you’ve been convicted of an electoral fraud, you are not allowed to
vote or run for office.
- The government will have to really demonstrate the infringement on someone
running for office
c. Section 3 - “To vote in an election of members”
- Does the right to vote in an election of members limit the extent on the right
under section 3?
- There is a limitation
- IT IS ONLY FOR PARLIAMENTARY AND PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS
HAIG V. CANADA
- Mr. Haig moved from Ontario to Quebec in 1992
- Not for any particular reason, but that he wanted to live in
Montreal, and it was the exact same time that the Charlottetown
accord ratification. There was a referendum in the province of
Quebec that was run from the Quebec gov’t and run in electoral
laws. It would subject any future constitutional agreements to the
populations of the province of Quebec.
- The Mulroney gov’t decided that the rest of the country should
also have an opportunity to vote on it.
- Problem for Mr. Haig - because he lived in Quebec, he had to
vote in Quebec elections and did not qualify because he had not
resided in Quebec for a period of 6 months and did not qualify
for the federal referendum because he did not live in a place
where the federal refere ndum was taking place.
Angie © McMaster University 1
Winter 2014 Started on: 3/24/14 10:14 PM
- The right to vote did not extend the right to vote for referendums
or other democratic process except for federal and provincial
BOURASA AND FERDLAND
- Wanted to change the ability to change the ballot system?
- Applicant sought to overturn the results of the election due to
- That it violated the section 3 rights.
You only have the right to vote in parliament and legislative elections
a. Effective Representation
CARTER V. SASKATCHEWAN (REFERE NCE RE: SASKATCHEWAN
- The supreme court had to deal with section 3
- For the most part decisions on section 3 had previously been dealt with in lower courts
- CASE: Concern of over the election boundaries. In order to try and remove the pol itical
influence over the establishment of electoral boundaries, we have created a process where
an independent commission draws boundaries and if there are any disputes, these are
referred to a judge who weighs the merits.
• It takes the power out of the hands of politicians to determine where the boundaries
would go. To avoid gerrymandering.
• Carter was arguing that the boundaries established were unfair
• The Saskatchewan gov’t had established the boundaries, was that there could be
differentials to try and get 100,000 people per district. Every riding is relatively
equally because they consist at around 100,000 electors. Could deviate 20%
• This therefore led for some ridings meant that their votes were less.
• Supreme court acknowledge the equality of voting power was important, but rejected
it because equality of voting power was only one part, other things included
geography, history, etc. to see what makes for a fair distribution of votes.
• IT SHOULD BE READ IN A BROAD AND PURPOSIVE MANNER
• There was more to participation in a democracy than the simple right to vote or run