National Post (National Edition)
Judging the pipeline ruling
Re: Pipeline ruling disastrous on all fronts, Don Braid, Aug. 31; Pipeline dreams run smack into our rule of law, Colby Cosh, Sept. 1
How can it be that three unelected jurists are allowed to be the final arbiters of the pipeline debacle? What is the government for, if not to set the agenda and facilitate that which the majority decides is in the national interest?
It’s time to invoke the notwithstanding clause and proclaim that, notwithstanding the court’s decision, the pipeline will be built. What we are seeing here is democracy run amok, wherein democracy is thwarted by the most undemocratic institution of all, an unelected body of three jurists none of us have ever heard of. This is perverse, and Canadians should stand up and say enough! Otherwise, why bother having political parties and elections? It’s as though we have regressed to the time of the all-powerful monarchies. Morton Doran, Fairmont B.C. As Prof. Philip Anisman would (and did) say with a sardonic smile in our UWO Law School constitutional law class, “It is if you say it is,” so be it with such judicial decisions as Kinder Morgan.
This precept, uttered in 1970, has become more and more the wishy-washy subjective cornerstone of judicial decisions across the land.
The self-righteousness underlying this judicial approach is offensive and indefensible. And so it should be to all Canadians. This revolution is far more insidious and subtle than the Trojan Horse fable of yore. It is also virtually complete. George Krusell, lawyer in Grimsby, Ont.
The three judges who ruled against the Trans-mountain pipeline should be charged with treason.
Brian Dexter, Georgetown, Ont. Whether or not you agree with the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the Kinder Morgan case there is an important lesson to be learned from it. In Canada we have the rule of law and an independent judiciary. There aren’t very many countries especially outside the English-speaking world where a court would dare to make a decision that was so opposed by the government and which so much damaged the country’s international business reputation. Just imagine the fate of a Russian judge who made such a decision. Immediate removal from the bench, summary conviction on trumped-up bribery and corruption charges and a long jail sentence.
But not in Canada. Our judges are appointed for life (until age 75) and can only be removed in the most dire circumstances. Also they are well paid so almost incorruptible and appointed based primarily on ability. We all should be proud of our judiciary whose independence is one of the foundation stones of our democracy. Garth M. Evans, Q.C., Vancouver The federal government must be the ultimate master in its own house in order for Canada to function as a country. The legal duty to consult and accommodate First Nations, invented by the Supreme Court out of legal thin air, has reduced the federal Crown, in relation to major national undertakings, to being a mere co-equal with First Nations. This has resulted in the failure of the Enbridge pipeline, Energy East and now Kinder Morgan.
For the sake of the survival of Canada this situation needs to change. The consult and accommodate obligation must be eliminated, one way or another. It’s time for courage and forthrightness on this issue. It’s not “racist” to advocate the elimination of a law that is killing the country and the economy. And the continuance of the status quo assures that the opposite of “reconciliation” will be occurring. It was painful to watch First Nations leaders in B.C. crowing over the loss of so many thousands of jobs and so much Canadian taxpayer investment. Petr Best, Sudbury, Ont.