Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk lately about the declining role of parliamentarians at the hands of judicial activism.
In the case of Rosenberg v Canada, a lesbian challenged the constitutionality of the Income Tax Act, since it forced Revenue Canada to refuse to register her employer's private pension plan if it extended death benefits to same sex partners. In a unanimous decision on April 23, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided to read a same sex definition of the term spouse into the act.
I feel that the government has an obligation to defend its stated position on the definition of spouse and if an appeal fails then this issue should be put before parliament.
As the former justice minister himself said while defending the need for Bill C-33, “we shouldn't rely upon the courts to make public policy in matters of this kind. That's up to legislators, and we should have the courage to do it”.
This issue comes down to one question: Is the current justice minister going to let the courts decide on the redefinition of the term spouse or is parliament?