moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, appointees and potential appointees to the positions of Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons should be amended to include such appointees and potential appointees.
Mr. Speaker,this is a subject that is not only near and dear to my heart but I think it is near and dear to the hearts of all Canadian Alliance members in the House. I hope it is also near and dear to the hearts of many others.
We are calling for appointees to the Supreme Court to be reviewed by a committee of the House, presumably the justice committee, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 be amended. Standing Order 110(1) states:
A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a certain non-judicial post--
Standing Order 110(2) is basically the same situation.
Judicial appointments are excluded from being tabled in the House and being reviewed by the appropriate committee. When I was drafting the motion, I recognized the independence of the judiciary and therefore made my motion specific to the Supreme Court of Canada, not to the Federal Court and other courts that are appointed by the Prime Minister. The reason is quite obvious.
We all know that judicial activism has taken over in this land. We are now subject to huge influence by the Supreme Court of Canada, by nine judges who sit on the court unelected. They are appointed by the Prime Minister in a process that nobody knows how, and nobody is asked for any specific input. There is no transparency, no openness, nothing. All of a sudden a name is foisted upon Canadians by the Prime Minister and there it is, and we are stuck.
In this day and age where we think and say that we live in a democracy, I find it appalling that we would even tolerate the situation where our Supreme Court judges have been given the responsibility under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to pronounce on the laws that are passed in the House. We used to be the highest court in the land and I guess if we read the Constitution of Canada, it still says we are the highest court in the land.
We pass legislation in the House and when it gets reviewed in that house down the street called the Supreme Court of Canada, it puts its stamp of yea or nay on it and says it will not have that particular piece of legislation, out it goes. We then get the feeling that it thinks it is the highest court in the land.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the voting rights for prisoners. In a split decision of five to four, the court said that all prisoners, and it does not matter why they are in jail or how heinous their crime was, will have the right to vote. They will determine who shall make the laws of the land even though we in the House said prisoners cannot vote.
It gets down there and is reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Voting rights is in a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We cannot exercise the notwithstanding clause, even if we wanted to, because that particular section is exempt from the notwithstanding clause. The court is the last word on that particular issue.
The court is deciding public policy. It is striking down legislation that is proposed by this place, the highest court in the land. It is only evident that we be allowed to review these appointments.
I will read some editorials that appeared in the paper. I am looking at the National Post of August 8, 2002 which stated:
Rather than the Prime Minister having sole responsibility, the cross-partisan Justice Committee would be able to review each appointee. [The motion] seems a responsible proposal: What better use could there be for a Justice Committee than protecting the integrity of the country's highest court. The motion is up for debate next month, and all MPs should give it serious consideration. With Parliament deferring its toughest decisions to the bench, the least MPs can do is take responsibility for who's sitting on it.
The Calgary Herald of February 9, 2002 stated:
Appointments should be reviewed by the Commons--hearings would illuminate a procedure that today is, frankly, opaque.
The Edmonton Journal of February 6, 2002 stated:
A hearing before Parliament or a committee... might demystify the judiciary by revealing the human side of judging. This could help the public to see how judges are chosen, and how they think.
The Hamilton Spectator of February 6, 2002 stated:
There is a compelling case for a parliamentary search and screening committee, mandated to provide a full public report to the House of Commons... A new, improved selection process should be on Ottawa's agenda.
Finally, the National Post of February 6, 2002 stated:
The most attractive system for staffing the court would be to have a powerful, politically balanced, cross-party parliamentary committee to vet the Prime Minister's nominees.
The media is in favour of it. The public is in favour of it. A poll conducted by Environics in January indicated that two-thirds of Canadians want to elect justices to the Supreme Court. I am not proposing we go that far, but let us just put a little bit of clarity and transparency into who is getting those jobs so that we can question whether they reflect Canadian society and the views and opinions of Canadian society today.
I recall watching the television news in 1982, 20 years ago, on the day the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being. I remember the newscaster saying, “Today folks, we have this new document, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that is going to impact on Canadian society. We do not know how it will impact on Canadian society; we will have to wait and see”.
We have waited and we have seen and some of us do not like what we have seen. The Supreme Court has pronounced on many issues from sexual morality to spousal definition to who can vote. Prisoners can vote. The court has gone through a wide variety of cases and stated, “This shall be the public policy of Canada”.
Who elected the judges? Who chose them and from what position do they make those pronouncements? I find it very discouraging. Canada is one of the great places in the world, one that says we promote democracy.
Just yesterday we had to fight tooth and nail to have a secret ballot to elect committee chairs in the House so we can wrest that appointment power away from the Prime Minister. Here again today, the very next day, I am arguing that we take some more power away from the Prime Minister and bring it back into the House, like the election of committee chairs, because we are the highest court in the land.
It is not the Prime Minister and the Privy Council that is the highest court of the land. It is this House. Let us bring that back to us in this place where we can ensure that these things get a proper hearing.
We all know about the vote that went on yesterday, the decision and political drama as we wrested that power away from the Prime Minister and brought it back into the House.
We understand that today the procedure and House affairs committee tabled a report that said all private members' bills will be votable. What a wonderful thing. We can celebrate that we in this House will actually be given the right to vote on our own bills. This is a power that theoretically we have always had but it was being grabbed by the government, by the Prime Minister and by the cabinet. They hung on to it dearly as if their lives depended on it, but slowly we are getting that back. I think we should also look at Supreme Court justices.
Mr. Speaker, I know this motion is not votable. Therefore, in the interest of the reform that we have seen in the last couple of days, I ask that you seek unanimous consent that Motion No. 79 be made a votable motion.