Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge to speak to this motion.
The motion before is to stop federal legislation from being altered by judicial rulings.
It is not limited to the specific issue of spouse. Rather, this motion has ramifications beyond that decision taken by the courts in the Rosenberg case.
It is imperative that this House examine in depth the implications of allowing the courts free rein over the rewriting of laws, which is over and above the mandate subscribed to them through democratic procedure.
By not appealing the Rosenberg decision, we are allowing the courts to create public policy. I remind this House that the judiciary is not an elected body
When we as members of Parliament are elected by our constituents, we are elected on the basis of our platform, our individual accomplishments in our communities and our dedication to our constituents to uphold the democratic rule of this country.
The fundamental role of writing law lies with the legislature. As duly elected representatives, we are accountable to the people of this country and to the will of the people. The motion before us today is to appeal the Rosenberg decision because it violates the democratic rule of parliamentary supremacy and supports the controversial notion of judicial activism.
This Liberal government has remained conveniently silent on the role of parliament and judicial activism. When judges start acting like law makers, they have exceeded their legal authority and their intended mandate.
When will the government appeal a decision saturated with judicial activism and uphold the laws of this country? It is imperative that the legislature create and write laws as dictated by the will of the public. The will of the public has yet to be heard.
The silence of the Liberal government speaks volumes. This government has until June 22 to appeal this blatant example of judicial activism.
Not appealing this recent decision can only be interpreted as approving this action. If the Liberal government supports the direction of the Rosenberg decision, it should still appeal the decision and follow the correct channels if it wants to change the definition of spouse.
Regardless of personal beliefs, one way or another, the essence of this argument is founded in democracy. Either someone respects the tradition of parliamentary supremacy or they do not. If the Liberal government wants to rewrite laws in order to include same sex spouses, that is for the legislature and not for the judiciary to decide. This could not be more clear.
I urge my colleagues to rethink the strategy of leaving legislative decisions in the hands of unelected officials. If the will of the people dictates a change to the current definition of spouse, the proper channel must be followed in order to change the laws of this country. The ramifications of not appealing a judge made law are enormous.
Is this an example of the gradual erosion of the very democratic principles that have been upheld in this great country since Confederation? Is this Liberal government prepared to take a back seat to law makers while unelected judges rewrite laws without any adherence to democratic tradition?
Will this Liberal government ever have the fortitude to stand up to the judiciary and lay down the law once and for all? I am sure every member of parliament realizes just how politically difficult such a decision can be.
After examining the issue, we could choose to bury our heads in the sand and refuse to address these difficult questions or we can appeal the decision and return the issue into the hands of the legislatures of this country.
When our constituents voted us in, they did so on the premise that we would uphold the democratic principles of Canada. If the government does not act to appeal the Rosenberg decision, we will not be upholding democracy. We will be encouraging a judicial activism free for all.
A government that refuses to tackle this difficult task while in office is just not doing its job. We made a solemn promise to our constituents when we were sworn into parliament. Accountability is crucial.
When Canadians voted us in, they entrusted us to deal with improving on Canada's existing laws and to rewrite laws when and where necessary. Yes, there will be very difficult decisions to make along the way but these decisions must be made. They must be made in accordance with the rules and principles of democracy.
What this Liberal government will be doing if it chooses to silently support this action is ignoring proper democratic procedure and opting for the easy way out.
Yes, we will have vastly different opinions in this House on this issue of the definition of spouse. Yes, the debate will be full of conflicting opinions and beliefs, and it has been. Yes, it is politically awkward and yes, the debate will filter down to the constituency level. It is a debate that must occur in parliament, even if it is politically inconvenient.
We were elected to deal with the simple and the tough issues all the same. It is a debate that must be held in the central legislature of this country. We owe it to our constituents to uphold our roles as law makers. It is imperative that this Liberal government take a leadership role and stop shipping awkward political questions to the judiciary for decisions.
We must heed similar warnings coming from judges themselves. Justice John McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal is on record as saying:
We judges are now permitted, sparingly, to correct legislative excess, but we should remain co-servants with the law makers in the business of representative government and we should never allow ourselves to evolve into their second guessing surrogates. Yet judges seem to be moving, incrementally but steadily, from the role of parliamentary defenders to that of its nemesis.
Straight from the mouth of the judiciary we have been warned by the courts themselves. Consider this judicial notice for the legislature to gets its priorities in order and get back to legislating the affairs of this country.
If we do not appeal decisions that are blatant examples of judicial activism we are sending a clear message to judges that they can go ahead and act like law makers instead of concentrating on their roles as the interpreters of laws.
The citizens of this country do not elect their judges to make laws. That is what they elect us to do. That is precisely why this Liberal government must respect the democratic principles of this country and limit the far reaching effects of judges making laws.
I urge the government and all political parties in this House to say no to judge made law and to put the issue to debate in the House where law making is supposed to originate. I call on the government to openly state its position and return issues of public concern to the forum for which debate is intended.
Difficult or not, we must maintain and uphold the democratic principles of this country and put a cap on law making from unelected judges. It is within this Liberal government's power to do so and I urge it to adhere to the legal principles of this country. The government has until June 22 to act responsibly.