Harper fumed about Supreme Court, new book says
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has privately fumed to his inner circle that under the leadership of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the Supreme Court of Canada has become a “sociology seminar” that emasculates the power of Parliament, according to a new book.
The biography, titled Stephen Harper, provides a thorough account of Harper’s personal life and political career.
It explores his legendary temper and mood swings while also chronicling how Harper turned the once-divided conservative movement into a political success story that allowed him to win three elections, govern for a decade and change the country.
The book, written by Globe and Mail journalist John Ibbitson, was originally set for publication in September. But with the early call of the Oct. 19 election, it is now available Tuesday as an ebook, and hard copies will be in stores Aug. 18.
Among the issues covered in the book is Harper’s distrust of the courts and legal community — and his unprecedented public criticism last year of McLachlin, which critics said was an effort to intimidate the court.
“The nadir of Stephen Harper’s prime ministership came not during the Senate expenses scandal, but in the spring of 2014, when he got himself into a very public dust-up with Beverley McLachlin,” writes Ibbitson.
Harper alleged that McLachlin tried to interfere in the appointment of Federal Court Judge Marc Nadon to the top court — an allegation she denied and which drew broad support from the legal community.
Ibbitson writes that Harper’s criticism of the chief justice set a “dangerous precedent” and now ranks as one of his “most discreditable acts” as prime minister.
“Not only did he lose the fight; he tarnished his reputation and damaged what should be the sacrosanct separation of powers between executive and judiciary.”
In his book, Ibbitson writes of how Harper’s distrust of judges stems from a long-standing concern over judicial activism in the wake of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The book reveals that once Harper took power in 2006, he grew increasingly frustrated with how the court’s rulings were overturning his legislative policies, and how it had established itself as the “unofficial opposition” to his government.
“Harper has repeatedly complained to his inner circle that, under Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the Court has become a sociology seminar, with the judges/ professors able to turn their theories into laws, and Parliament unable to stop them,” according to the book.
Ibbitson writes that Conservatives lamented the advent of the charter in the 1980s, fearing that courts would override Parliament.
The top court “obliged their worst fears” with rulings that have limited police powers, struck down the abortion law, and extended civil rights to gays and lesbians.
“For Stephen Harper, this was simply another way in which liberal urban elites in Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal imposed their agenda on the rest of the country.”
Ibbitson writes that while Liberal governments accepted judicial activism, Harper was furious.
“Harper had seethed against the smug, stifling certainty of these elites all his adult life. That is why, once he came to power, he set out to radically reform the justice system.”
Under the Conservative government’s law-and-order agenda, Harper moved to transform the justice system with mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving guns, drugs and sexual assaults, and with new rules that gave convicts less credit for time served before their conviction.
But the court has imposed limits on some of Harper’s tough-on-crime laws.
The “breaking point” came with Harper’s appointment of Nadon, who had a record of “judicial deference.”
A legal challenge to Nadon’s eligibility — he was not a member of the Quebec bar and was being appointed to a constitutionally protected spot for a Quebecer — found its way right to the Supreme Court.
The court ruled in March 2014 that Nadon was ineligible.
“Harper was furious with the ruling. The Court had set itself up as the unofficial opposition to his prime ministership.”
The book says Harper was “convinced” McLachlin had meddled in Nadon’s selection process.
“Staff talked the prime minister down from launching a full, public assault on the impartiality of the Court, but he still went pretty far.”
Harper’s office released a statement saying the prime minister had refused to take a call from McLachlin about the appointment because it would be “inadvisable and inappropriate.”
McLachlin insisted it was customary for her to be consulted, that she only wanted the government to be aware of eligibility issues, and she had never expressed her own opinions about possible appointees.