A blog to give a voice to our concern about the continued erosion of our democratic processes not only within the House of Commons and within our electoral system but also throughout our society. Here you will find articles about the current problems within our parliamentary democracy, about actions both good and bad by our elected representatives, about possible solutions, opinions and debate about the state of democracy in Canada, and about our roles/responsibilities as democratic citizens. We invite your thoughtful and polite comments upon our posts and ask those who wish to post longer articles or share ideas on this subject to submit them for inclusion as a guest post.
Contact us at democracyunderfire@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Is “Judicial Activism” a Problem?

A guest article by Jared Milne.

For years, conservative writers have been complaining about what they call “judicial activism”. Writers like Ted Morton, Rainier Knopff and Robert Martin sharply criticize judges whose rulings, based the Charter of Rights, make social policy that elected politicians are reluctant to challenge. Social activists use the courts to try and impose changes on society that are difficul, if not impossible to overturn. Issues that would normally be debated by elected officials are now seen as being beyond discussion.
Martin claims that this activism undermines Canadian democracy, since the judges are unelected and not accountable to anyone. Morton and Knopff state that judicial activism divides Canadians, as political opponents see each other less as fellow citizens and more as enemies to be defeated. 
Criticisms like these are why the notwithstanding clause, which allows elected politicians to overturn court rulings in some cases, was inserted into the Charter. It is also why judges who may be nominated to the Supreme Court of Canada are now being screened by elected Members of Parliament, who will recommend which judges should be nominated. These types of safeguards are being used to try and address the problem of judicial activism.
Another major issue in Canada right now are the trade agreements the Harper government is negotiating with China and the European Union. One of the most controversial aspects of both these agreements, as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is the “dispute resolution” mechanism that allows private companies to sue governments for decisions or laws that harm their profits. The companies’ cases are heard by panels of trade lawyers, who can force governments to overturn the disputed laws or pay taxpayer money to the companies as compensation.
Just last year, an American oil company used NAFTA’s dispute resolution mechanism to try and overturn Quebec’s decision to ban “fracking”, a controversial way of excavating oil and gas. Ontario recently imposed a moratorium on new wind farms, which led to it being sued by a wind energy company. The trade lawyers hearing these cases will be making decisions that affect millions of Canadians, directly influencing government policy, even thou they’re unelected and unaccountable to the public. 
Sound familiar?
Some critics have said that a NAFTA lawsuit like the one meant to overturn Quebec’s ban on fracking may not succeed, but the simple fact that the oil company thinks it can do this is rather unnerving. Shouldn’t the decision on whether or not companies can do “fracking” in Quebec be a decision for the people and province of Quebec? And what about the Ontario ban on wind farms? Many people in rural Ontario are protesting what they say are the problems with wind farms-isn’t the government listening to their concerns by imposing this moratorium?
Judicial activism by Canadian judges is said to be a serious problem in Canada. Because of this, we have important safeguards like the notwithstanding clause, which ensures that accountable, elected officials have the last word in many matters. The role of Canadian judges is also firmly placed in the Constitution. However, the unelected, unaccountable trade bureaucrats who make rulings under NAFTA and other trade agreements have no safeguards to keep them in check, or any Constitutional backing for their decisions. If anything, these trade bureaucrats are engaging in their own form of judicial activism, one which is just as bad for Canadian democracy as anything Canadian judges have ever done. 
-This article was originally published in the St. Albert Gazette on February 20, 2013 at http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20130220/SAG0903/302209980/0/sag.
Jared Milne is a writer, researcher and public servant living in St. Albert, Alberta. His major interests including Canadian unity, nationalism and history, particularly regarding how Canada's incredibly rich past has affected the present we live in today.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

No comments: