The High Court of Parliament – The Supreme Court of Canada

On October 1, 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada once again overstepped its powers. This abuse of our freedoms must stop. It is time that Canadians who care about our fundamental laws and values brought this unelected body of elitist lawyers to heel.

I do not care that legal or illegal Drug Injection sites may or may not work miracles in rehabilitating drug addicts when compared with the ultimate horror of the social activism of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada. From what I have read of the various trials of legal injection sites in other countries, their success when proven, totally depends on a strong mandatory associated rehabilitation program for their addicted users. Otherwise, forget it. Its only result will be the creation of more and more dangerous addicts. I have seen no mandatory rehabilitation (detoxification) scheme associated with the Supreme’s illegal dictatorial ruling in favour of the Vancouver or other Canadian potential sites. The Supreme Court’s arrogance stems from the flawed Charter of Rights and Freedoms mythology that the Charter is some kind of “Living Tree” and that they the unelected few have the right to clip and prune that mythical tree into a social icon of forward thinking law based on nothing other than their own superior intellect. Theirs is a putrid case of pure egotistical self-adulation. It is a gross manifestation of the illegal seizure of power by people who should know better.

---

The Truth of the Matter

In truth, the only body of human beings in Canada able to proclaim new law based on societal needs is the 306 elected men and woman of the Parliament of Canada. Such new law(s) are presumed to be based on the opinions of millions of voting citizens who express their views through their Members of Parliament in a free and open society. Our MPs then represent those views, debate them, form necessary committees of inquiry, negotiate, examine evidence and take years sometimes decades to decide on contentious courses of action. Ultimately, they draft laws (Bills) and vote on them; Aye or Nay! Once voted through the House of Commons those Bills go to the appointed Senate of several score of Senators to examine the proposed bills, hear witnesses from the public interested in the effects of the Bills if passed into law and eventually return them to the Commons with proposed changes to debate and yet once again vote to pass into law or vote down. The final step is to formally send the thoroughly considered new law to the Governor General of Canada for final approval. If such law is perceived as being totally outlandish the Governor General may refuse to sign but rarely has this taken place. Nevertheless, in a truly democratic government any new law properly takes time and careful thought because untried laws must never breach existing law or the ancient principles underlying those laws. Compare that exhaustive procedure to the meager thought processes and procedures of nine unelected men and women using their own hasty methods, based on no known prior case precedents. Theirs is a rush to create new law based on their own perceived superior mental powers. Is this not an arrogant form of treason – the overthrow of the historical supremacy of our Parliament of Canada?

What authority or law gave these Honourable Supremes the Divine Right to rule?

The answer is absolutely no government, no person or law permits these people to do so! They have taken that upon themselves with the introduction of Prime Minister Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter being written law may require interpretation when criminal or civil cases arise and that is one of the legitimate Supreme Court’s duties. However, they have conjured up this mythical “Living Tree” concept that they, being the select few can shape Canada’s future by exercising their undefined authority far beyond their legitimate duties. Our law schools now teach new law students this mythical Living Tree philosophy thereby broadening their future Judge-instigated social activist powers. The Supreme Court has a legitimate duty when on occasion Parliament may make ask the Supreme Court to examine a new proposed law to point out any errors that may exist in that law and return it to Parliament for revision or cancellation if revision is not possible. They also have a duty to examine new proposed law to insure it breaches no existing law or principle. Finally, and the majority of the work of the Supreme Court is to hear cases involving individuals and corporations that are argued on the basis of the particulars of each case and compare that case with existing judgments made on similar cases tried by courts in the past. These are called precedents and are the basis of our slow and carefully changing Common Laws. Historically, when a lower court decision is questioned or makes possible errors of judgment then appeals may be made to superior courts and eventually if necessary arrive at the Superior Court of Canada for a final decision. It is then that the Supreme Court most capably and thoroughly is required to render its judgments. That is how the Supreme Court earns its place in a free and democratic society. There are no higher courts of appeal. The buck stops with their decisions. All their decisions must be based on common law precedents. However, no authority in Canada or any parliamentary society on earth has given their Supreme Courts the right to issue new law based solely on their own opinion. It has taken 1000 years of historical struggle to arrive at our parliamentary system of government and the vital principle that the Parliament of its citizens is the Supreme Lawmaker. We have a constitutional Monarchy that is called constitutional because the Monarch is subject to the will of Parliament. That precedent was established in 1639 by the High Court of the Parliament of England when it executed King Charles I by axe and block because he attempted to rule by the Divine Right of Kings (The will of God). King Charles was a Roman Catholic and was encouraged by the Pope to exercise this ancient right. Not a wise idea in a primarily Protestant House of Commons led by Oliver Cromwell.

The Answer must be the introduction of a High Court of Parliament in Canada

I won’t go into too much detail but the High Court when established must define the limitations of the activities of the Supreme Court of Canada and establish appropriate penalties for infractions of those limitations:

1. The Judges must be confined to judging appeals on Common Law cases from the lower courts and on occasion cases of civil law (Napoleonic Code) from Quebec.
2. They must assist the Parliament of Canada on new law when submitted to them for advice when Parliament feels such law may be questionable or in conflict with existing law.
3. They must totally abstain from becoming issuers of new law, which is the sole function of the Parliament of Canada and the Governor General of Canada.

Penalties for any Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) defiance of Parliament

While we have outlawed the death penalty for treason we need not be so draconian. I would suggest the following:

1. A warning be issued by the High Court of Parliament to cease and desist from any activity going beyond the limitations of their duties.
2. If the Supreme Court defies Parliament, the Chief Judge of the Supreme court be brought before the Court for examination.
3. If the Chief Judge refuses to curtail his/her Court’s activities, then sworn statements be taken from all judges of the SCC as to their agreement or disagreement with the High Court order.
4. Those in disagreement to be temporarily relieved at half pay from their positions on the SCC and new Judges are appointed temporarily to fill their vacancies.
5. Those dissenting Judges put on trial for their positions and fired if found guilty. They will also lose their license to practice law for 5 years in any official capacity or court in Canada.

The Selection of the High Court of Parliament

My suggestion would be that a panel of 31 Parliamentarians of the three leading parties in the House of Commons be chosen to sit as judges for a period of not more than 10 days within 3 months of any perceived breach of the rules by the SCC. These should be respected senior MPPs. Any judgment must be rendered within that period of time. (31 represents approximately 10% of the House of Commons members). The number of those selected from each Party should be in proportion to their number of seats in the House. The High Court would need an administrative office to carry out the issue of warrants, letters of warning and letters of judgments rendered etc and the receipt of official complaints against the SCC or its members. They might also be charged with the writing the original rules for the SCC areas of valid duties and penalties for abuse of limitations of those duties. All the Bills and other documents for the creation of the office of The High Court of the Parliament of Canada and its procedures rules and penalties to be passed by the entire Parliament of Canada.

Let’s get it done

Let the Citizens of Canada rise to the occasion and defend our once dearly held Freedoms before these would be Dictators wearing decorous red cloaks, white collars and ties subject us to their unelected Divine Rule of social activism; that mythical “Living Tree” of Trudeau’s Machiavellian Charter of Fights and Fiefdoms.