A Distinctive Quebec Theory and Practice of the Notwithstanding Clause: When Collective Interests Outweigh Individual Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental human rights recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms supersede other rules of law. As such, any legislative measure conflicting with their content can be invalidated by Canadian tribunals. Yet, to ensure parliamentary sovereignty, both Charters feature an override mechanism, the “notwithstanding clause,” that can be invoked by a legislator to withdraw a given law from judicial scrutiny under charter rights. Beyond formal and substantive requirements, according to Quebec prominent doctrinal trends and National Assembly, in what circumstances, and to what end, can the legislator invoke a notwithstanding clause? A review of leading academic conceptions of charter rights in Quebec reveals a distinctive theoretical approach to notwithstanding mechanisms than that of leading Anglo-Canadian authorities. Quebec leading doctrinal trends, distinctly, seem to conceive that legislative overrides can be legitimately made preemptively by a legislature when dealing with matters of collective interests, such as social objectives and national identity, which, in the name of greater good, should not be fettered by private interests. This distinctive reality is also sharply reflected in legislative practice: as Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter 61 times (in addition to 45 references to the notwithstanding clause of the Quebec Charter) compared to 3 times in the rest of Canada over the same period, overwhelmingly for considerations of social objectives or national identity. This situation could be explained by a distinctive conception of parliamentary sovereignty and of power dynamics between elected legislature and appointed judges in Quebec.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".