Political Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Essay Example

 Canadian Justice: The Supreme Court In 1982, Canada adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that began changing the role of the courts in the interpretation and creation of laws. Although judges had always played a small role in the formation of new laws as their judgments either helped to bring about a sharper definition or to acknowledge an unique set of circumstances, the charter increased the overall awareness of human rights in the equation of determining law and punishment (Morton, 1987). Individual rights and liberties such as the right to participate in democratic procedures, the liberty to choose one’s own religious preferences and methods of expression and the assurance that one is equally entitled to the same treatment regardless of race, gender or age are all considerations that have entered the courts and had an effect on the enactment of law and punishment. This is as true in Canada as it is in Great Britain and the United States as the western nations as a whole begin focusing on the similarities and differences, absolutes and possibilities of various conceptions of human rights and considerations. Documents designed to protect these rights have been in existence for centuries, such as the Bill of Rights included in the United States’ Constitution, but only recently have these rights become common considerations within the courts of law in terms of making legal, broadly applicable distinctions designed to protect these rights by ruling more and more on matters of social policy rather than individual cases (Morton, 1987). This introduces the idea that the courts, more than the legislature, are increasingly called upon to define what the social policy should be for the nation. As the legislative bodies become less willing to openly debate strongly emotional social issues as a means of retaining current political positions, it becomes incumbent upon the Court to determine the underlying social issue involved in particular decisions and then to determine what the countries social policy should be pertaining to this issue as such statements become increasingly scarce within the policies drafted through the legislature. While the legislature does continue to consider these issues and creates broadly-worded policies regarding things such as abortion, stem cell research and other issues of import, it remains the duty of the courts to interpret these laws and make the finer distinctions that more accurately shape and direct future social policy. This long-lasting effect coupled with low levels of clearly stated intent increases the pressure placed upon the judges as well as the level of work that must be done as the cases considered become more complicated and the decisions become more long-reaching regarding the future policy decisions of the nation. In addition, it is up to the courts to hold all other bodies of government to the decisions that are made, which is sometimes not as simple as it seems. An example of how the courts might break down in the face of crisis can be found in the troubles recently experienced in the United States with the hopelessly incompetent Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who appeared nearly unable to remember his own name when questioned regarding potentially illegal human rights violations within his own department. What should we do with the Canadian Senate? The upper house, or Canadian Senate is currently comprised of appointed members who serve until they reach age 75, which is an adjustment from the previous life-time terms. Intended to be a “chamber of sober second thought” (Smith, 83), the Senate is given the power of a limited veto and uses well-honed machinations of delay and frustration to coerce the lower house to create or pass amendments in addition to retaining ever-increasing authority to ratify other government appointments. While it has no control over the finances of the government and thus is seen to have little control over a great deal of government business, its existence as an appointed body of individuals until age 75 charged with overseeing the management of this business ensures the country is operated on a more stable foundation than that seen in other countries where the Senate remains primarily under the control of partisan politics. While those who retain the majority rule may come and go with the regular rotation of the election cycle, the Senate remains relatively steadfast in its vision and purpose (Roebuck, 1959). Rather than merely displacing those individuals who do not toe the line of the current administration, the Senate must be worked with, compromised with and an amicable solution is necessary if everything is going to work out. This provides the nation with a more stable base upon which to grow and an increased sobriety concerning its actions, such as when considering whether or not to go to war or increase spending in a time of economic decline. Seen as a means of providing stability and justice in the more changeable atmosphere of Canadian politics, it can be argued that the Canadian Senate should not be changed at all. However, the fact that this body of legislative power remains largely outside of the control or influence of the people whom its decisions will affect has been a large source of contention. Although it is supposedly incorruptible politically, since its members do not depend upon popular or even political approval in order to retain their seat, the Senate is also not required to adapt to change when it is demanded by the people of the nation (Richardson, 1959). A popularly elected government shackled with an unpopular Senate can remain impeded in its progress for many years until the death or age rate finally enables Senators to be replaced who will not stand in the way of reforms. However, this rate remains relatively constant, meaning that the Senate, while it swings from right to left and back again in a ponderous rotation, it remains relatively neutral regarding the particular party lines of any given day. While its strength lies in its autonomy, this also emerges as its weakness as it becomes bogged down in insufficiently informed legislative considerations. Therefore, I do not believe it would be right to make the Senate an elected body, giving it the same weaknesses as the upper houses of other countries, but instead make it a better organized body by using the powers of new technology to be sure Senators are given all the pertinent information they need to make a balanced and fair decision. References Morton, F.L. (1987). “The Political Impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 20, N. 1, (March), pp. 31-55. Richardson, B.T. (1959). “What Should be Done with the Canadian Senate.” The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1958-1959. Toronto, Canada: The Empire Club Foundation. Roebuck, The Honourable Arthur. (1959). “What Should be Done with the Canadian Senate.” The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1958-1959. Toronto, Canada: The Empire Club Foundation. Smith, Patrick J. (2008). Law, Politics and the Administration of Justice. Vancouver: Pacific Policy Press. Read More