There was a time
when it didn't much matter who sat on the Supreme Court of Canada.
All the court did was adjudicate legal disputes. But that was long ago.
Since the Charter
of Rights was enacted in 1982, the Supreme Court has taken upon
itself to decide what sort of books go in Kindergarten libraries,
which medical procedures will be covered by medicare, when stores may
be open, how young the age of consent for sodomy will be, where and
when Indians may fish and hunt, how many hoops police must jump
through to arrest someone, and whether incarcerated criminals may vote.
They rewrite laws,
overturn laws and cancel public policies.
We used to elect
people to Parliament and Legislatures to make all these decisions
after democratic debate, and often to remake them. Now they get
handed off as "rights" questions to be arbitrated for all
time (whether they make sense or not) by judges appointed by the
prime minister.
You'd think that
politicians would object to having their most important
responsibilities taken away from them, but they don't. It transfers
all the most troublesome political controversies to the courts.
Yet, even though
the courts now decide political questions, we are endlessly lectured
by people like Justice Minister Irwin Cotler and Chief Justice
Beverley McLachlin that we must not "politicize" or
"screen" judicial appointees to discover what their basic
beliefs are.
Which is nonsense.
The whole business of judging was thoroughly politicized when
Parliament shifted the role of the courts from law to politics in 1982.
It reached a
crescendo of hypocrisy this week with the appointment of two feminist
Ontario judges, Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron, to fill vacancies
on the nine-member Supreme Court.
Paul Martin had
campaigned on the need to "democratize" the appointment
process. Apparently it was to be somehow "democratized"
without being "politicized."
Last week a
committee of MPs was therefore hastily assembled and given one day to
"screen" the candidates. Except that they couldn't actually
talk to the candidates, only to Justice Minister Cotler, who declared
proudly that he hadn't interviewed the candidates either.
The two
Conservative MPs in this impromptu little posse objected that the
whole procedure was a charade, but then didn't dare ask any probing
questions themselves about the candidates. Not that Cotler would have
answered them if they had.
Such as why the
prime minister would appoint two noted gay rights judicial activists
to the court just as it prepares to hear his "reference"
question on whether Parliament can institute gay marriage, and
whether the provinces can refuse to go along if it does.
No politics there!
Instead of this
farcical pretense of democracy, the system should be quite
straightforward. Candidates should go before a committee of elected
MPs from all parties. Candidates should explain their general Charter
of Rights attitude, and comment on whether they agree or not with
earlier Supreme Court decisions and why.
Parliament should
decide which candidate they want in a free vote. The Prime Minister
should then submit that choice to the Governor General for appointment.
This would be
legal, proper and democratic.
The most important
questions by MPs would not be whether the candidates support gay
rights and abortion, but whether they will respect the constitutional
supremacy of Parliament and the provincial legislatures to make laws.
Only when judges
stop ruling on political questions can we avoid
"politicizing" the courts.
- Link Byfield
Link Byfield is
chairman of the Edmonton-based Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy.
"Just
Between Us" is a feature service of the Citizens Centre for
Freedom and Democracy. The purpose of the Citizens Centre is to
improve the quality of life for all Canadians by promoting policies
that foster individual initiative and personal responsibility.

www.citizenscentre.com