CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EXCESSIVE POWER- CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

1. Introduction

   Not one of the three candidates for Premier in the 12 May 2009 election has elevated the quality of political debate by discussing and answering important questions relating to the Constitution and the civil and criminal justice systems. 
   On the other hand, members of the public often mention these issues in their letters to newspaper editors and their calls to radio talk shows.
   Here are issues and questions that the public and interviewers could ask the three candidates to test their suitability for high office.

PART I - CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Issue #1- Restricting a Premier’s term of office

   Premiers control the legislative branch of government through the device of party loyalty, the executive branch of government as first Ministers and the judicial branch by having a say in the appointment of Provincial Court judges.
Question:
   Given these extraordinary powers, should a Premier’s term of office be restricted to two terms?

Issue #2 – Voting directly for a Premier

   Premiers have the constitutional authority to exercise almost absolute control over governmental activities while in office.
Question:
   Should voters have the right to vote directly for the election of Premiers rather than voting indirectly for candidates who are only loyal party members of potential Premiers?

Issue #3 – Mid term election of legislators

   After getting elected, Premiers have the constitutional authority to stay in office for five years.
Question:
   Should electors have the right to elect members of the Legislature every two or three years to restrain a Premier’s excessive use of power?

PART II - CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES

Issue #1 – Provincial criminal laws

   Our 1867 Constitution irrationally splits control over the field of criminal law between the federal Parliament as legislators and the provincial executive branches as administrators. This division of power prevents federal legislators from knowing how their criminal laws work in practice and imposes on the provinces the expense of administering many impractical and costly federal provisions.
Question:
   Why doesn’t B.C. lead the way by lobbying Ottawa and the other provinces to support a constitutional amendment that would allow the provinces to enact and administer their own criminal laws just as they   can now enact and administer their own civil laws?

PART III - CIVIL JUSTICE ISSUES

 

   The judiciary is a separate but equal branch of government along with the executive and legislative branches. As part of its responsibilities, the judiciary manages B.C.’s civil justice system using the tools and resources given it by the other two branches. 
  Through the Attorney-General’s department, the executive branch charges civil litigants enormous fees for their democratic right to access the civil justice system. Apparently it believes the system should be self financing. But it does not expect its legislative and executive branches nor, the criminal justice system to charge the public fees so they will be self financing.

 

Issue #1- Court rules

   B.C.’s executive branch of government controls the method of processing civil cases in the B.C. Supreme Court (BCSC) by providing the court with Rules of Procedure. Its present contribution is the 1883 English Rules with minor modifications. Because of the branch’s neglect and indifference in modernizing these Rules, the cost and delays of administering civil justice in the courts has skyrocketed.
Question:
   Why shouldn’t the power to enact and modernize the civil rules of court be taken away from B.C. executive branch and given to the courts subject to the approval of the B.C. legislative branch?

Issue #2 – Civil jury trials

   As decision makers in civil jury trials, ordinary citizens participate in an act of government. This tends to make them better educated and therefore better citizens. The B.C. provincial executive branch has gone out of its way to eliminate civil jury trials by charging litigants outrageous filing and hearing fees. for the right to have a jury trial and by failing to urge upon the Legislature a modernization of the civil jury system.
Question:
   Why shouldn’t civil jury fees be similar to fees charged in similar Canadian provinces and American states? Why doesn’t the B.C. executive branch urge B.C. legislators to enact legislation modernizing the civil jury process?

Issue #3 – Challenging governmental authority

   A civil justice system is the only place where citizens can go to obtain a remedy for a government’s wrongful abuse of power. The more antiquated and costly the civil justice process becomes, the more citizens are prevented from challenging government abuses.
   As well, the more dissatisfied citizens are with the government’s civil justice system the more likely they will accept alternative government policies of resolving civil disputes through provincial Boards and Tribunals.
   Instead of having courts of law composed of independent judges, B.C. citizens will then have provincial specialty Boards and Tribunals with provincially appointed deciders dependent on the government for their terms of office and their salaries.
Question:
   Does provincial government indifference towards the civil justice system indicate its intention of slowly transferring all civil disputes from the Supreme Court of B.C. to provincially appointed boards and tribunals such as the Human Rights Tribunal where its orders have “the same force and effect, as if they (were) a judgment of the Supreme Court?”

Bottom line:
1. These are just a few important questions that should be asked and answered by the three candidates for Premier.
2. They are often discussed by ordinary citizens who do not seek office but who understand the harm that can occur when political leaders hold power for lengthy periods with few restraints on their conduct.
7 May 2009

Comments

[Frank Stromotich]

What happened to Ivan Henry.

Reply. Have not heard a word. I presume the case is winding its way through the appeal process. I did get an apology of sorts from the A.G. It seems he recognized that since it was his department which sought the conviction, it is bizarre for the department or its agents to turn around and blame the jury and me for acceeding to its request. Water under the bridge.