STOCKWELL VERSUS THE SUPREMES
Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing doctor-assisted suicide was a blow to Canadian social conservatives, the latest in a series of court rulings — on prostitution, gay marriage and other issues — poking at traditional mores. The Post’s Jen Gerson spoke on Sunday with one of the country’s most prominent social conservatives, Stockwell Day, a former Conservative cabinet minister and one-time leader of the Canadian Alliance:
Q Were you surprised by the Supreme Court ruling?
A No. This particular court has proven to be activist and a court that leans toward creating law rather than ruling on existing law, so it wasn’t a surprise.
Q What role do you think social conservatives might have in testing or challenging this law in coming weeks, months and years?
A It’s clear to me that this question spans political labels. There are people who would define themselves as small-l liberals that I’ve talked to on this particular point who don’t like this ruling. It goes beyond [social conservatives]. It’s people who, for whatever reason, their moral compass is saying it is wrong to actively be involved in the death of another person. And I’ve talked to people who are liberals, who are conservatives, who are atheists, who are theists.
Q Since the ’80s , we’ve seen the Supreme Court take stances against very traditional social conservative mores. Do you see this as a continuation of that trend?
A I do. This is a court that is not shy at all about declaring themselves to be activist. By forcing Parliament, they’re holding the hand of the parliamentarian and guiding the pen. That’s part of the debate. Personally, I think that if you want to write laws, you should run for office. If you want to rule on existing laws, aspire to the bench.
Q Do you think this ruling will get people to start to really take a harder look at the role of the Supreme Court in law-making in a post-Charter world?
A It’s a healthy debate among legislators and citizens: Do we think the role of a Supreme Court is to be activist, and to, in fact, write law? Or should they rule on existing laws? And that is a valid debate to have. My view is that the Supreme Court of course needs to be respected as a vital part of our judicial system and I have made a democratic choice that I will live according to the rule of law. But I don’t have to agree with or respect a particular decision.
Q How does this affect the mood of social conservatives?
A This debate looms large in a number of political camps. It knows no political bounds. I can tell you that in the Conservative caucus there are differing views on that.
Q How does the timing of all this play out in your mind? Obviously, we’re going into an election. How do you expect this ruling will affect the Conservatives going into the vote?
A Any time parliamentarians find themselves acutely into the election cycle, which they do now, they are far more prone to go with the prevailing polling on an issue. If they have a year to rule on it, this is crunching right into election time. Most MPs, understandably, will lean toward what the polls are saying on the broad question.
Q Do you expect heavy lobbying on the part of people who oppose this bill?
A Yes. Some within this camp will say it’s all over, a done deal, and they’ll walk away discouraged. Others will realize that what the court has said is that the government has to write this law within a year. My position is mitigated by personal experience. I’m thankful that when my father died 10 years ago and he had gone through a prolonged and somewhat painful demise, he did not impose on any of his loved ones the moral dilemma of being an accomplice to his death. He made it very clear that he didn’t want to be hooked up to tubes and life-sustaining machines, and none of us had a problem with that. But I’m glad he didn’t take it to the next level and put that moral dilemma on us.