Thursday, May 8, 2025
No Result
View All Result
  • Media
Support Us
Macdonald-Laurier Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
        • Provincial COVID Misery Index
        • Beyond Lockdown
        • COVID and after: A mandate for recovery
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
        • Aboriginal Canada and Natural Resources
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
        • Provincial COVID Misery Index
        • Beyond Lockdown
        • COVID and after: A mandate for recovery
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
        • Aboriginal Canada and Natural Resources
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video
No Result
View All Result
Macdonald-Laurier Institute

The remedy for government overreach is the ballot box, not the courts: Kerry Sun and Stéphane Sérafin in the Hub

A Supreme Court judgment in released more than three weeks ago Canada has generated controversy over the proper scope of judicial power in relation to democratic governance in Canada.

August 15, 2024
in Domestic Policy, Latest News, Columns, In the Media, Political Tradition, Justice, Rights and Freedoms, Social Issues, Stéphane Sérafin
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
The remedy for government overreach is the ballot box, not the courts: Kerry Sun and Stéphane Sérafin in the Hub

Image via Canva.

This article originally appeared in the Hub.

By Kerry Sun and Stéphane Sérafin, August 15, 2024

The Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, released more than three weeks ago, has generated significant controversy over the proper scope of judicial power and its relation to democratic governance in Canada. As is now widely noticed, in the Power judgment, the Court held that one branch of the state (the executive branch) can be held liable for monetary compensation when another branch (the legislative branch), consisting of Parliament and the provincial legislatures, enacts unconstitutional legislation. This outcome is unprecedented in virtually all Commonwealth countries that share the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, and it has been roundly criticized for abrogating the separation between judicial and political authority, among other issues.

The most recent contribution to this debate comes from Joanna Baron and Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), a libertarian legal advocacy group. Writing in these pages, they defend the CCF’s decision to intervene at the Supreme Court in Power to support executive liability for legislative action. As they rightly observe, the Power judgment “has brought to the forefront a core tension” in right-leaning legal circles in Canada. But they are wrong to criticize conservatives “who have decried the decision as a radical expansion of judicial power” as “being needlessly alarmist” and insufficiently attentive to the desire for government “accountability.”

Take the claim of “alarmism” first. While the authors profess to be “skeptics of judicial power,” their own arguments belie this position. In their view, “legislative autonomy and legislative accountability are all co-equal principles.” At first glance, it may sound like a conciliatory statement. Yet this framing downplays the Court’s profoundly unconstitutional expansion of judicial power, since the correct “balancing” of these principles will be left to the courts to determine in each case.

This elevation of judicial power is demonstrated by the Power judgment itself. Under traditional Westminster principles, the parliamentary process is autonomous and immune from judicial interference, which keeps policy deliberations clear of lawfare and maintains distinct political channels of accountability. But in Power, the Court effectively abrogated these parliamentary privileges and immunities—while authorising the judiciary to determine whether and when monetary sanctions should be imposed on the executive for acts taken by the legislature. If legislative autonomy and accountability are “co-equal” under this framework, then some principles are more equal than others.

Like other defenders of the Power judgment, the authors dismiss the concern that courts have now entrenched themselves as the arbiters of the legislative process, by arguing that “the threshold to sue for an unconstitutional law” is “extremely high.” But crucially, this response overlooks the fact that the threshold still falls to be applied by an increasingly adventurous judiciary—which has, to name a few examples, given “constitutional benediction” to novel Charter rights, struck down mandatory minimums for child luring and mass murder, and diluted genuine legal protections using amorphous “Charter values.” When future Parliaments and legislators have to contemplate potential monetary sanctions for, say, taking action to reform soft-on-crime policies, can it really be claimed that concerns about the erosion of legislative autonomy are overblown? Conversely, if the legal threshold is truly so high as to be practically inaccessible, then one might ask: what is the point of this prospect of judicial accountability in the first place, other than to cast doubt on future efforts to legislate in the common good?

Just as the claim of “alarmism” falls flat, the criticism that conservatives are inattentive to “accountability” misses the mark. Those who regard the Power judgment as a grave mistake do not oppose “accountability” in the abstract. Rather, they recognise that the Westminster model of responsible government, which Canada inherited from the United Kingdom, amply provides for accountability through Parliament itself, acting in dialogue with the people. In the Westminster model, the government of the day, along with its ministers, is answerable to the House of Commons. And in turn, the House of Commons is accountable to the electorate. The remedy lies at the ballot box, not in the courts.

In contrast to Baron and Van Geyn’s claims, critics of Power simply believe that our inherited constitutional tradition is preferable to inaugurating a juristocracy. While not infallible, it is hard to see the case for allowing unelected and unaccountable judges to run roughshod over the legislative process when these mechanisms already exist. Considering the high likelihood of judicial overreach in exercising their newly claimed powers to oversee the legislative process, the case for court-centric accountability becomes even less appealing.

In this light, it is surprising that the CCF, an organisation that has often been associated with attempts to advance the “originalist” method of constitutional interpretation in Canada, should support undermining Canada’s settled constitutional arrangements in this way. After all, the plain text of the Constitution Act, 1867 states that it provides Canada “with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” It is universally understood that this wording guarantees the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in Canada and at the provincial level, along with the privileges, powers, and, yes—the immunities that the U.K. Parliament had in 1867. To insist on a judicial mechanism of accountability, as the CCF does, is to adopt an ahistorical and myopic view of “accountability,” which discards Canada’s constitutional inheritance and the way in which our constitutional tradition ensures robust political checks on governmental and legislative misconduct.

Perhaps to ward off criticisms of Power as an activist judgment that eviscerates this constitutional inheritance, Baron and Van Geyn claim that Power was simply following the Supreme Court’s own “22-year-old precedent” in the case of Mackin v. New Brunswick. This defence is a mirage that should be dispelled. In truth, the Mackin case never considered, or even involved argument on, the proper scope of parliamentary privileges and immunities under the Constitution. Instead, Mackin suggested, in some overbroad and infelicitous phrasing, that its thresholds for awarding damages against the executive might apply to legislative acts, without any pretension to decide the issue. Indeed, it is telling that the Court in Power could not point to a single instance—in the 22 years since Mackin—where a Canadian court awarded damages solely for unconstitutional legislation. To defend its judgment as an affirmation of “precedent” is to justify the perpetuation of what is at best a legal mistake, and a departure from axiomatic precepts of the Canadian constitutional order, on a thin and tenuous reed.

To support the court-centric approach to accountability, Baron and Van Geyn invoke various examples where “Parliament has acted in bad faith and violated fundamental rights” in the past. But their examples are largely inapt. Notably, they erroneously attribute the internment of Japanese Canadians to a law “Parliament has passed,” when in fact the internment was directed by the federal Cabinet—an action of the executive branch, for which compensation might be available without eviscerating basic precepts of our Westminster constitutional tradition. In any event, their examples neglect that it is typically not the enactment of an unconstitutional law, but its actual enforcement by state agents, that causes unjustified harm. And those who are harmed by acts of enforcement—i.e., for executive, not legislative acts—could seek compensation under settled legal principles untouched by the Power judgment.

Curiously, Baron and Van Geyn also point to our Parliament’s attempts to pass bills of attainder (against serial killers Clifford Olson and Karla Homolka) to buttress the claim that compensation for unconstitutional legislation might sometimes be justified. But these bills failed due to Parliament’s own checks and procedures. In each case, the Speaker ruled that the bill of attainder was out of order, and that parliamentarians could not proceed, because this type of bill is “not known to our [parliamentary] practice” and “it has never existed in Canada.” As a result, it demonstrates the robustness of our parliamentary system, rather than its need to be stymied by judicial supervision.

So long as one accepts that the rule of law is different from the rule of courts, Power is anything but a principled judgment. It is supremely ironic that Baron and Van Geyn warn that “we operate in the real world where we are not governed by noble philosopher kings entitled to absolute immunity.” This describes the very situation Power leaves us in, with legislative processes liable to be supervised by unelected “philosopher kings” who, unlike parliamentarians, are not democratically accountable but in fact enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts. Far from making government more accountable, then, the decision simply wrests law-making out of political, democratic control and into the judicial domain.


Kerry Sun is a doctoral student at Merton College, Oxford and Fortescue Scholar with the Canterbury Institute.

Stéphane Sérafin is a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and Assistant Professor in the Common Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.

Source: The Hub
Tags: Kerry Sun

Related Posts

The US should be worried about Canada’s foreign policy: Casey Babb in The Hill
Foreign Policy

The US should be worried about Canada’s foreign policy: Casey Babb in The Hill

May 8, 2025
Roundtable Discussion – Reclaiming the university: Free speech, institutional neutrality, and confronting campus antisemitism
Reforming Universities

Roundtable Discussion – Reclaiming the university: Free speech, institutional neutrality, and confronting campus antisemitism

May 8, 2025
V-E Day 80 – Courage & Conviction: World War II’s lessons for Canada by J.L. Granatstein – Part Three
National Defence

V-E Day 80 – Courage & Conviction: World War II’s lessons for Canada by J.L. Granatstein – Part Three

May 8, 2025
Next Post
The new censorship: Regulatory creep, professional regulators, and growing limits on freedom of expression

The new censorship: Regulatory creep, professional regulators, and growing limits on freedom of expression

Newsletter Signup

  Thank you for Signing Up
  Please correct the marked field(s) below.
Email Address  *
1,true,6,Contact Email,2
First Name *
1,true,1,First Name,2
Last Name *
1,true,1,Last Name,2
*
*Required Fields

Follow us on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

323 Chapel Street, Suite #300
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7Z2 Canada

613.482.8327

info@macdonaldlaurier.ca
MLI directory

Support Us

Support the Macdonald-Laurier Institute to help ensure that Canada is one of the best governed countries in the world. Click below to learn more or become a sponsor.

Support Us

  • Inside Policy Magazine
  • Annual Reports
  • Jobs
  • Privacy Policy

© 2023 Macdonald-Laurier Institute. All Rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video

© 2023 Macdonald-Laurier Institute. All Rights reserved.

Lightbox image placeholder

Previous Slide

Next Slide

Share

Facebook ShareTwitter ShareLinkedin SharePinterest ShareEmail Share

TwitterTwitter
Hide Tweet (admin)

Add this ID to the plugin's Hide Specific Tweets setting: