Do Tribunals have too much power?
In recent years, Canadians have witnessed decisions by tribunals that demonstrate that their members have biased interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Fourteen tribunals exist in Ontario
They are listed and explained in this link beginning with the following introductory paragraph.
In Canada, a tribunal is established by the Provincial or Federal government and they hold the authority to judge, adjudicate and hear disputes regarding specificclaims or matters. A tribunal will normally specialize in the types of claims heard in order to streamline the processIn Canada, a tribunal is established by the Provincial or Federal government and they hold the authority to judge, adjudicate and hear disputes regarding specific claims or matters. A tribunal will normally specialize in the types of claims heard in order to streamline the process.
This video offers an unflattering look at tribunals.
Featured are several cases in which tribunal decisions were harmful to high profile Canadians.
Most notable, Dr. Jordan Peterson paid a high price for refusing to use gender pronouns in 2016 when employed by the University of Toronto as a professor. He also stood by his constitutional rights and said an emphatic “NO” to undergoing tribunal-prescribed social justice training thereby risking the loss of his job and his licence to practice as a psychotherapist.
Fortunately for Dr. Peterson, he is wealthy enough to sustain those potential losses, but how many other citizens who have faced ideologically biased tribunal decisions could accept those risks without undue hardships? How many have failed to stand up against those authorities because they fear the consequences and preferred to keep their heads down and mouths shut.
The silencing of Canadians by FEAR of INSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH.
Tribunal-propagated fear is a serious issue. It gets worse every year when those unelected bodies receive increases in tax funding to expand their reach.
Perhaps it’s time to perform a “value audit” of all 14 tribunals to determine if our citizens receive a net positive value from their existence.
This audit must not be performed by any government-funded or -dependant body or persons to avoid bias. If the public costs outweigh the benefits, then repeal all legislation that enables tribunals to operate as “authorities” by government fiat.
Democracy will return with smaller governments.
In many areas of government, Canadians have witnessed their growth based on questionable justifications. As the public sector has grown, so have higher taxes, greater public debt, excessive regulatory burdens, more scandals and allegations of corruption, and a rapid decline in the public’s respect and trust in its leaders.
While Donald Trump may not be the most popular politician on the planet, one of his stated goals was to “drain the swamp” in Washington. Canada has its own swamp that needs draining. It includes unnecessary and undesirable tribunals which have become so woke that they surely do more harm than good while promoting their social justice agendas based on victimhood.
NEWSFLASH: Not every Canadian is a “victim” of some “oppressor group” that needs a bunch of unelected tribunal panel members to make biased, arbitrary and binding decisions on their behalf at the expense of everyone else.
If I am “naïve”, so are most Canadians!
Canadian are told that they are “equal before the law”. What if the law was not written or enforced to treat everyone equally and fairly? Obviously, equality can’t exist when bias permeates it!
Trudeau, Freeland, Singh and hundreds of Liberal, NDP and Bloc Parliamentarians don’t want equality before the “just” laws. Instead, they use propaganda to brainwash the masses into believing the myth that our governments seek equality. Their actions speak the truth: they pass legislation to divide us into political factions whose members fight over the spoils of the public honeypot.
The public honeypot.
Three things nourish government power and subsequent growth: tax revenues, public debt and regulations. Nearly every special interest group and community, including large businesses, lobby to gain privileges from this honeypot of power assets.
Legislation is the platform upon which this political game is played to increase the capacities of the honeypot. Elect politicians are society’s law-makers and their respective parties are masters of the game, especially those that comprise the oligopoly of political power: Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and BQ.
Big Government is now “too big to fail”.
The Oligopoly has build the body of legislation that serves as a moat of defence to protect its insiders from liability. Private sector monopolies can be dismantled by antitrust legislation, but public sector monopolies are immune from this treatment owing to this legislation.
Some people think we can “vote the bums out of office”.
Voters may have the right choose their elected representatives, but not the millions of public sector employees and their unelected leaders. Public servants have labour laws to protect them from poor work performance which is not always their fault.
Most public servants are honest, hard-working citizens who mean well, but it’s the policies, procedures and systems within which they must work that explains the frustration that many members of the public experience when interacting with government institutions.
Let’s dismantle the monolith.
I recommend the elimination of all legislation that enables and empowers these 14 tribunals to exist and government entities. This is one step towards shrinking areas of government “responsibility” that are unnecessary and stop them from draining honeypot assets.
If issues exist that require community attention, non-government enterprises can be assembled on an ‘as needed’ basis to address them. Established and reputable mediation specialists can be engaged on a consulting basis by the relevant stakeholders and NOT by the public at large via taxation.
Restore Personal Responsibility to the citizens.
By eliminating tribunals, citizens will organize to address community issues without the need of a government-funded tribunal “middle man” that employ non-elected “authorities”.
The responsibility to resolve issues belongs with the stakeholders. Only they have a personal interest in seeking acceptable, negotiated resolutions that balance all competing interests. If done under the aegis and guidance of the Canadian Constitution, this should be acceptable by everyone.
Professional mediation services can be selected and engaged by the stakeholders on the basis of their earned a reputation for non-partisan compliance to the Charter. Their fee schedule will be transparent to all stakeholders who will quickly realize that protracted “negotiations” are in nobody’s interest.
Competition in the mediation services markets will spur innovation and excellence. This, in turn, will serve the public while lessening demand on our courts.
Libertarians advocate for competition.
Unlike the oligarchs of political power, Libertarians are the perennial champions for introducing competition into domains that are currently served exclusively by public monopolies.
Inspired by books like Democracy: The God That Failed by Dr. Hans-Herman Hoppe, Libertarians envision substantial free market growth of non-government services enterprises that will co-exist and compete with the existing tribunal personnel should they choose to restructure as a non-government enterprise.
**** No jobs need be lost****
Many people who are currently working for any of the 14 existing tribunals will be free to continue working in those service sectors knowing that their paycheques will dependent upon establishing a reputation for excellence. When public funding is eliminated, the entrepreneurial spirit of their workers will drive success while serving the public in a superior non-monopolistic manner.