As the debate on Bill C-14 (the medical assistance in dying bill) rages on in the Senate, the Honourable Senator Anne C. Cools, an independent senator representing Ontario, made an interesting argument. Parliament is considering Bill C-14 as a way of addressing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter. The Court spoke, and now Parliament is answering with a bill — this is referred to by some as the ever-lasting "conversation" between the judicial and legislative branches of government. But is Parliament not, itself, judicial?
Senator Cools argues that "[the Senate] is part of the High Court of Parliament, and it is a court of competent jurisdiction, just like the Supreme Court, according to section 24 of [the Constitution Act, 1982])." That section sets out that a person may apply to any competent court for a remedy, should their rights or freedoms under the Charter be infringed.
This argument is premised on the idea that the Senate retains residual, albeit unused, judicial authority that Senator Cools, and others, argue is imported to the Senate by the statement that Canada has "a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," where the House of Lords, the second chamber of the British Parliament, was up until very recently a body that actively heard and decided upon judicial cases as though it were a supreme court.
The argument is that the Senate (and, by extension, Parliament), as a "court of competent jurisdiction," may exercise the "sovereignty of Parliament" and receive applications for redress for the infringement of the Charter, and to determine (a) whether the Charter has in fact been infringed and, if so, (b) what remedies would be appropriate, and what interpretation of the legislation should be upheld. What do you folks think of Senator Cools' interpretation?
Should Parliament be able to exercise judicial discretion, as though it were a court?
Senator Cools argues that "[the Senate] is part of the High Court of Parliament, and it is a court of competent jurisdiction, just like the Supreme Court, according to section 24 of [the Constitution Act, 1982])." That section sets out that a person may apply to any competent court for a remedy, should their rights or freedoms under the Charter be infringed.
This argument is premised on the idea that the Senate retains residual, albeit unused, judicial authority that Senator Cools, and others, argue is imported to the Senate by the statement that Canada has "a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom," where the House of Lords, the second chamber of the British Parliament, was up until very recently a body that actively heard and decided upon judicial cases as though it were a supreme court.
The argument is that the Senate (and, by extension, Parliament), as a "court of competent jurisdiction," may exercise the "sovereignty of Parliament" and receive applications for redress for the infringement of the Charter, and to determine (a) whether the Charter has in fact been infringed and, if so, (b) what remedies would be appropriate, and what interpretation of the legislation should be upheld. What do you folks think of Senator Cools' interpretation?
Should Parliament be able to exercise judicial discretion, as though it were a court?
