Madam Speaker, I am going to address all my remarks in this debate to the proposition in the motion that the government should have known that this decision with respect to the Marshall case would be coming down.
The Marshall case, as members will recall, was the decision of the supremem court, a majority decision whereby aboriginals were given the right to fish commercially, rights that transcend the laws that may apply to non-aboriginals, the laws of the land. Of course we know the upshot. There was conflict and strife on the east coast. I suggest that as a result of this decision of the supreme court there will continue to be conflict and strife.
Earlier in this debate I asked the member for West Nova, who is a member of the party that introduced this motion, how he would have voted had this issue been debated in this House, in parliament, rather than being dealt with and decided upon by the supreme court. He dodged the question, I have to say. He did not reply.
I submit that if the Marshall issue had come before this parliament instead of before the supreme court, this parliament would have decided against the decision that the supreme court eventually came down with. I submit that this parliament assembled, indeed I would suggest even the majority of members on this side, would not have countenanced the decision that we have from the supreme court which gives one group of people special rights over the general population based, at the very best, on a very facile and simplified reading of the historical accounts. The very historian who came before the supreme court on which the supreme court based its decision has said that his remarks were taken entirely out of context by the supreme court.
What do we have here? We have a situation where five individuals have come to a decision that has a profound impact on the rest of Canadians. Indeed we have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saying that he thinks this decision will extend to all resources, to mines, to hunting, to anything imaginable. Of course that is going to lead to a lot of problems, but we are led to understand that when the supreme court rules it is a decision that we must abide by. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that it is not quite like that at all.
I have done a bit of research over the last few weeks. What I have discovered is that Canada as a constitutional parliamentary democracy does not have the supreme court in its constitution. Unlike the United States, unlike India or Australia or New Zealand or even Germany, for that matter, the supreme court is not in the constitution. There is a passing reference to the supreme court only in the charter of rights which says basically that if the composition of the supreme court is to be changed there has to be agreement by the two houses of this parliament.
The power of the supreme court, which we are led to believe we as parliament cannot change, comes from an act of parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada act. This act was passed in 1875. At the time the constitution was being re-examined in 1982 this parliament chose not to put the supreme court in the constitution as it is in the United States, as it is in India, as it is in just about every other democracy that has a constitution.
What that means, Madam Speaker, is the fathers of confederation, circa 1982, were uncomfortable with the fact that if you put the supreme court in the constitution then it becomes equally powerful to parliament. That is always the debate when it comes to democracies that have constitutions and democracies that have parliamentary rule, as in the case of Britain, the idea being that if there is not a constitution, then parliament is supreme; if there is a constitution, that divides the power, as happens under the constitution of the United States where power is shared equally by the legislature, the executive branch—that is, the president—and the supreme court of the United States.
In Canada we have no such thing because the supreme court is in an act of the Parliament of Canada. It is not in the constitution. Its powers are spelled out by an act of this legislature, this House of Commons. That means that no matter what, when the supreme court comes down with a decision it is a decision in the context of this parliament. I would submit that that decision at any time can be overruled by this parliament because this parliament is supreme. It is above the supreme court because the supreme court is a creature of this parliament and not a creature of the constitution.
What do we have with this decision by the supreme court? We have a decision in which only seven out of nine judges sat because the court has the privilege to set its quorum. That is in the legislation, the Supreme Court of Canada act. What we have is a decision based on five members of the court ruling one way and two members of the court ruling the other.
We are led to believe that this is a binding judgment of the court, that we have to obey it, that this parliament is required to obey that decision. But, Madam Speaker, would it surprise you if I told you that in the Supreme Court of Canada act there is no mention of a binding judgment? There is no mention of what constitutes a binding judgment. There is no mention of whether a judgment should be by majority, by minority, or whatever. We can assume that if all judges agree, that would be a binding judgement. But, when there is division, when they do not all agree, particularly on a constitutional matter, then surely it should be a subject for debate in this parliament.
Surely, when it is a constitutional issue affecting all Canadians we cannot leave it. We cannot passively sit by and let the supreme court judges rule, who control whom they hear, who control the hours they sit, who control their quorum, who do not have to consult parliament and, indeed, under the rules of parliamentary privilege, do not even have to pay any attention to anything that I say in the House. Because according to the rules of parliamentary privilege, as interpreted by the supreme court, an MP's opinion of the law does not affect the court's judgement and the court does not have to take that opinion into account.
Thus we have a situation where we have a body of five—seven individuals in this case—making a profound decision with respect to all Canadians, a decision that is supposed to be binding on this parliament, but in fact cannot be binding on parliament because the Supreme Court of Canada act is legislation which was created by parliament. While I would not want to overturn the Marshall decision as it stands now with respect to the particular incident, I submit that this parliament always has the power to interpret the constitution.
I will make one other point. Madam Speaker, if you look at the Supreme Court of Canada act, just to make sure you see where I am coming from, you will see that the only mention in the Supreme Court Act, as revised in 1983, to the supreme court judges considering the constitution is when there are references by the government to the court on constitutional matters. Those references ask simply for an opinion. In the drafting of the revised Supreme Court of Canada act this parliament was not prepared to say that the Supreme Court of Canada, when it was considering a reference from the government, would be a binding judgment, and that, Madam Speaker, is the only section 53 of the Supreme Court of Canada act.
I submit that the reason is, that particular section also allows the Supreme Court of Canada to make judgments or express opinions with respect to parliament.
Madam Speaker, you have a situation where the fathers of confederation, circa 1982, obviously perceived that this parliament could not be subject to the Supreme Court of Canada, it could not be below the Supreme Court of Canada, so they ensured that when the Supreme Court of Canada made decisions with respect to parliament or the constitution they were only expressions of opinion. I suggest that parliament should take the message from its predecessors, those who framed the Supreme Court of Canada act as it exists now, and consider the supreme court decisions when they are only majority decisions as being for guidance only.
In the end, it is this parliament, this parliament, that has to decide on constitutional issues.