I too hope you are wrongbbking said:
. I believe in a balance between the legislative and judicial branches. Until 1982 our Supreme Court played a very reserved role, interpreting laws not writing or re-writing them. In 1982 the First Ministers (other than the Quebec PM) handed the Supreme Court a series of blank cheques - and the cheques haven't run out. Parliament has abandoned and abdicated its jurisdiction in favour of the Courts. And while I respect the dedication and professionalism of the Supreme Court, leadership dislikes a vacuum, and if Parliament doesn't provide leadership, the courts are only too happy to take up the role. I don't know exactly what to do to reverse the trend. I don't like the idea of the Notwithstanding clause. I'm not sure I want to see Parliamentary judicial hearings for Supreme Court justices as in the USA, but perhaps this is what should happen. The danger though is that the court may be further politicised and if the judges feel they have a democratic mandate from Parliament, not just an appointment by the PM, they may become even more activist.It's a serious issue, and one which (IMO) should be the object of a serious national debate. Parliament is the forum to hold such a debate. I don't doubt Martin's committment to the Charter, but the Charter is far from crystal clear. And on any given topic just because 5 of 9 (or sometimes only 4 of 7) judges say something is so doesn't mean that it is so.
