, who as leader of the
National Citizens Coalition challenged limits on campaign spending in
Harper v Canada, and as leader of the
Conservative Party of Canada opposed prisoners' voting rights after
Sauvé v Canada. Voting The section has generated some case law expanding the franchise. In 1988, section 3 had been used to grant
suffrage to federal judges and those in
mental institutions. A more controversial example is
Sauvé v. Canada (2002), in which it was found that
prisoners could vote. They did so in the
2004 federal election, despite public opposition from
Conservative leader
Stephen Harper. In the 2002 case
Fitzgerald v. Alberta, the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta found that although a minimum voting age of 18 violated section 3 of the Charter, it was justifiable under
section 1 of the Charter. The decision was upheld upon appeal.
Candidate Requirements Section 3 of the
Charter provides the right to citizens of Canada to be qualified for membership in the House of Commons. In the 1996 case
Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 3 provides the right to be a candidate and the right to sit as a member of Parliament or a legislature.
Fred Harvey, a member of the
New Brunswick Legislature was convicted of illegal practice, and contested his subsequent disqualification from the legislature under section 119 of the
Elections Act. The six member majority for the Supreme Court held the provision violated section 3 of the
Charter, but the violation was justified as a reasonable limit under section 1 of the
Charter as it furthered the objective of preserving the integrity of the election process. In
Figueroa v Canada (AG) the court determined that Section 3 explicitly grants both the right to vote and the right to run for office to all Canadian citizens. In Szuchewycz v. Canada the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta found that the $1000 federal candidate deposit requirement violated Section 3 and could not be justified under Section 1. Justice Inglis noted in paragraph 59 "I agree that the potential to prevent a serious and impressive candidate from running in an election, due to the financial pressure a $1000 deposit could create, is a real risk of the requirement. In my opinion, the impugned Deposit Requirement Provision would infringe many individuals’ – including the Applicant's – ability to communicate their messages to the public, and participate meaningfully in the electoral process as a candidate."
Electoral participation and political spending Generally, the courts have interpreted section 3 as being more generous than simply providing a right to vote. As stated in the case
Figueroa v. Canada (2003), the section has been viewed as a constitutional guarantee to "play a meaningful role in the electoral process," which in turn encourages governmental "respect for a diversity of beliefs and opinions." This does not mean, however, that
interest groups have complete freedom to promote their beliefs and opinions. Since the voter must have an opportunity to balance
various ideas in his or her own mind before
meaningfully participating in an
election, the
Supreme Court has, in the case
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), upheld laws that limit the amount of money a single group can contribute in the election (to prevent a monopolization of the campaign).
Sizes of constituencies Although one cannot see this on the face of the Charter, the Supreme Court has also ruled that section 3 guarantees a measure of equality in voting. In
Reference re Prov. Electoral Boundaries (Sask.) (1991), it was found that
constituencies should have roughly the same number of voters, although perfection was not required. The reasoning behind this expansion of section three's meaning was that it supposedly reflected the original purpose of the section, namely to allow "effective representation." The concession that perfection is not required stemmed from the fact that perfection would be impractical, given
geographical limits in drawing boundaries and a general desire to give
minorities more representation. While
Saskatchewan's constituencies were found to be valid in the 1991 decision,
Prince Edward Island's were later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and the province's electoral map had to be redrawn.
Referendums While section 3's reach has been expanded to cover the sizes of constituencies, it has not been extended to guarantee the right to vote in a
referendum. In
Haig v. Canada (1993), it was ruled that since section 3 was designed in specific reference to electing representatives, the right could not include participation in a "device for the gathering of opinions". It was also noted that unlike elections, governments do not have to hold referendums, nor do governments have to commit themselves to the result of a referendum. Thus, how a referendum is administered is within governmental discretion. ==References==