Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T17:32:11.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“You Can't Always Get What You Want”1: Regime Politics, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Harper Government

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2017

Emmett Macfarlane
Emmett Macfarlane*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
*
Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON, N2L3G1, email: emacfarl@uwaterloo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Applying the regime politics approach to the study of judicial behaviour, which regards the Supreme Court as largely operating to preserve the policy agenda of the existing lawmaking majority, this paper evaluates the Court's behaviour during the Conservative government's tenure. There is evidence to support the basic core of the regime politics thesis. The Court rarely invalidates laws passed by the sitting government. Nonetheless, the Court's behaviour during the Conservative government's tenure was distinctive. Incorporating a measure of issue salience—the relative importance of the policies affected—into the analysis demonstrates the Court's impact on the Conservatives' policy agenda stands in sharp contrast to previous governments. It is the only government of the Charter period to have policies in its election platforms blocked by judicial review and the only government in Canadian history to effectively lose all of the constitutional reference cases it posed to the Court.

Résumé

En appliquant l’approche de la politique du régime à l’étude du comportement judiciaire, qui considère que la Cour suprême opère dans une large mesure pour préserver l’agenda politique de la majorité legislative en place, cet article évalue le comportement de la Cour pendant le mandat du gouvernement conservateur. Il y a de fortes indications à l’appui des fondements de la thèse de la politique du régime. La Cour invalide rarement les lois promulguées par le gouvernement au pouvoir. Néanmoins, le comportement de la Cour pendant le mandat du gouvernement conservateur s’est différencié de façon distinctive. L’introduction dans l’analyse d’un degré de saillance de la question- l’importance relative des politiques affectées - démontre que l’incidence de la Cour sur l’agenda politique des conservateurs se démarque nettement des gouvernements précédents. C’est le seul gouvernement, pendant la période de la Charte, dont les politiques dans ses plateformes électorales ont été bloquées en vertu d’un contrôle judiciaire et le seul gouvernement dans l’histoire du Canada qui a perdu pratiquement toutes les affaires judiciaires présentées devant la Cour en matière constitutionnelle.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Rolling Stones, Let it Bleed (United Kingdom: Decca Records, 1969).

References

References

Adamany, David and Meinhold, Stephen. 2003. “Robert Dahl: Democracy, Judicial Review, and the Study of Law and Courts.” In The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior, ed. Maveety, Nancy. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Avery, Michael. 2013. The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Nashville TN: Vanderbilt University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, James, Gagnon, Alain-G. and Smith, Patrick J.. 1999. Ties That Bind: Parties and Voters in Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bricker, Darrell and Ibbitson, John. 2013. The Big Shift: The Seismic Change in Canadian Politics, Business, and Culture and What It Means for Our Future. Toronto: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Brodie, Ian. 2002. Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion-Smith, Bruce. 2015. “Stephen Harper raged against Supreme Court rulings, new book says.” Toronto Star. August 4. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/04/stephen-harper-wont-run-again-even-if-tories-win-new-book-says.html (August 8, 2017).Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell and May, David A.. 1999. “A Political Regimes Approach to the Analysis of Legal Decisions.” Polity 32 (2): 233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. and Mitchell Pickerill, J.. 2006. “The Politics of Criminal Justice: How the New Right Regime Shaped the Rehnquist Court's Criminal Justice Jurisprudence.” The Georgetown Law Journal 94: 1385–1425.Google Scholar
Conservative Party of Canada. 2004. Demanding Better.Google Scholar
Conservative Party of Canada. 2006. Stand Up for Canada. Google Scholar
Conservative Party of Canada. 2008. The True North Strong and Free.Google Scholar
Conservative Party of Canada. 2011. Here for Canada.Google Scholar
Cooper, Barry. 2009. It's the Regime, Stupid! A Report from the Cowboy West on Why Stephen Harper Matters. Toronto: Key Porter Books.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6: 279–95.Google Scholar
Fine, Sean. 2014. “The secret short list that provoked the rift between Chief Justice and PMO,” Globe and Mail, May 23. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-secret-short-list-that-caused-a-rift-between-chief-justice-and-pmo/article18823392/ (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Fitz-Morris, James. 2014. “Beverley McLachlin, chief justice, deserves apology, international jurists say.” CBC News. July 25. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beverley-mclachlin-chief-justice-deserves-apology-from-pm-international-jurists-say-1.2718342 (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Galloway, Gloria. 2006. “Harper warns of activist judges.” Globe and Mail. January 19. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-warns-of-activist-judges/article701727/ (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Gerson, Jen. 2014. “Judges Dread: Recent rulings only reawakening Tories’ long-held hostility toward the top court.” National Post. May 9. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/09/na0510-harper/ (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2006. “Regime Politics, Jurisprudential Regimes, and Unenumerated Rights.” Journal of Constitutional Law 9 (1): 107–19.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2008. “Courts and the Politics of Partisan Coalitions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Caldeira, Gregory A., Kelemen, R. Daniel, and Whittington, Keith E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodyear-Grant, Elizabeth, Matthews, J. Scott and Hiebert, Janet. 2013. “The courts/parliament trade-off: Canadian attitudes on judicial influence on public policy.” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 51 (3): 377–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1993. “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7: 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 2008. “The Countermajoritarian Difficulty: From Courts to Congress to Constitutional Order.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 4: 361–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. 2012. “Rethinking Regime Politics.” Law & Social Inquiry 37 (4): 878–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauseggar, Lori, Riddell, Troy and Hennigar, Matthew. 2014. Canadian Courts: Law, Politics, and Process. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew. 2017. “Unreasonable Disagreement? Judicial-Executive Exchanges about Charter Reasonableness in the Harper Era.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 54 (4) (forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschl, Ran. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W. and Bushell, Alison. “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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, Gad. 1966. “Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation.” The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 32 (2): 143–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahana, Tsvi. 2001. “The notwithstanding mechanism and public discussion: Lessons from the ignored practice of section 33 of the Charter.” Canadian Public Administration 44 (3): 255–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2007. “Party Politics of Judicial Independence? The Regime Politics Literature Hits the Law Schools.” Law & Social Inquiry 32 (2): 511–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Mark. 2014 “Harper refused ‘inappropriate’ call from chief justice of Supreme Court on Nadon appointment, PMO says.” National Post, May 1. (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Liberal Party of Canada. 1993. Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada.Google Scholar
Ling, Justin. 2014. “Harper government's legal setbacks suggest strategy of confrontation.” CBC News, August 7. (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2013a. Governing from the Bench: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Judicial Role. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2013b. “Dialogue or Compliance? Measuring Legislatures’ Policy Responses to Court Rulings on Rights.” International Political Science Review 34 (1): 39–56. DOI: 10.1177/0192512111432565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2015. “Unsteady Architecture: Ambiguity, the Senate Reference, and the Future of Constitutional Amendment in Canada.” McGill Law Journal 60 (4): 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, Emmett. 2017. “Conservative with the Constitution? Moderation, Strategy, and Institutional Distrust.” In The Blueprint: Conservative Parties and their Impact on Canadian Politics, ed. Lewis, J.P. and Everitt, Joanna. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Makin, Kirk. 2011. “The coming conservative court: Harper to reshape judiciary,” Globe and Mail, May 13. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-coming-conservative-court-harper-to-reshape-judiciary/article595398/ (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher. 2015. “Conservatives, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution: Judicial-Government Relations, 2006–15.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 52: 951–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. and Kelly, James B., “Misrepresenting the Supreme Court's Record? A Comment on Sujit Choudhry and Claire E. Hunter, ‘Measuring Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court of Canada.’” McGill Law Journal 49: 741–64.Google Scholar
McCormick, Peter J. 2015. The End of the Charter Revolution: Looking Back from the New Normal. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Ted. 2015. “No Statecraft, Questionable Jurisprudence: How the Supreme Court Tried to Kill Senate Reform.” The School of Public Policy. SPP Research Papers 8 (21): 1–15.Google Scholar
Morton, F.L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Peterborough: Broadview.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew E.. 2007. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. 1988. Politiques en bref. Google Scholar
Puddister, Kate. 2016a. “ Inviting Judicial Review: A Comprehensive Analysis of Canadian Appellate Court Reference Cases. ” Doctoral dissertation. McGill University, Montreal Quebec.Google Scholar
Puddister, Kate. 2016b. “Protecting Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Section 12 of the Charter and Mandatory Minimum Sentences.” Paper presented at “Courts and the Constitution: Policy Impact” conference, October 7.Google Scholar
Roach, Kent. 2001. “Searching for Smith: The Constitutionality of Mandatory Sentences.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 39 (2/3): 367–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 2007. “The Notwithstanding Clause: The Charter's Homage to Parliamentary Democracy.” Policy Options February: 65–68.Google Scholar
Savoie, Donald J. 1999. Governing from the Centre: The Concentration of Power in Canadian Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, Andrew. “Judge strikes down Tories’ mandatory victim surcharge, calls it cruel and unusual punishment.” National Post, August 1. (April 30, 2016)Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1997. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W., “Judicial Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada: Updating the Personal Attribute Model.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 911–34.Google Scholar
Tarantino, Bob. 2014. “It's Not the Charter, It's the Judges.” C2C Journal, September 2: (April 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. 2010. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, Paul. 2006. Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservativism. Toronto: Douglas Gibson.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Baron v. Canada, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416.Google Scholar
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101.Google Scholar
Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134.Google Scholar
Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 392.Google Scholar
Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 44.Google Scholar
Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331.Google Scholar
R. v. Hall, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 309, 2002 SCC 64.Google Scholar
R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R. v. Smith, 2015 SCC 34, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57, [2012] 3 S.C.R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reference re Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2010 SCC 61, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 457.Google Scholar
Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 837.Google Scholar
Reference re Senate Reform, 2014 SCC 32.Google Scholar
Reference re Supreme Court Act, ss.5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 433.Google Scholar
United States v. Burns, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283, 2001 SCC 7.Google Scholar