Section 15

Perhaps I've just watched too much Roswell, but my first reaction on seeing the blog named Section 15 was that it was probably some reference to the Canadian equivalent of Area 51 (a military base in the western U.S. where aliens supposedly crashed/landed a few decades back) or something.

As it turns out, Section 15 is just the section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which talks about equal treatment and protecting Canadians from discriminatory laws. Anyway, I bring this up because Mark, from Section 15, has a great post up clearly explaining the legal ins and outs of section 15 and the rest of the charter as it relates to discriminatory laws.

It's well worth a read.
(and I'm not just saying that because his post links back to one of my posts!)

One More Link

I was feeling lonely since nobody (or few anyway) seemed to agree with my take on the recent Chaoulli v. Quebec decision, so it made me feel a bit reassured to read this post by Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money (via Crooked Timber)

Why I'm Not a Judge

Posts by Greg and Colby piqued my interest in a Supreme Court ruling today. From the Globe story,

"In a Thursday's [sic] decision, the country's highest court said the Quebec prohibition [on private health care insurance] contravenes Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, effectively meaning that the province can't bar residents from paying for treatments already covered by medicare.

"In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services," the court found."

I read through the ruling and this passage seems to sum up the reasoning of the majority,

"The government undeniably has an interest in protecting the public health regime but, given that the evidence falls short of demonstrating that the prohibition on private health insurance protects the public health care system, a rational connection between the prohibition on private health insurance and the legislative objective is not made out. In addition, on the evidence, the prohibition goes further than would be necessary to protect the public system and is thus not minimally impairing. Finally, the benefits of the prohibition do not outweigh its deleterious effects. The physical and psychological suffering and risk of death that may result from the prohibition on private health insurance outweigh whatever benefit - and none has been demonstrated here - there may be to the system as a whole."

Trying to parse court rulings always leaves me feeling like a bear of very little brains but as I understand it, the ruling was as follows:

1. Canadians (Quebecers) have the right to life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter.

2. Having to wait an unreasonable amount of time for health care can impact these rights.

3. The supreme court considers wait times in the current Quebec health system to be unreasonable.

4. The supreme court believes that aggregate wait times could be reduced by changing the health care system in the manner requested by the people who brought the case.

5. Therefore, the health care system in Quebec is unconstitutional.

Or, to boil it down further - the court knows how to run health care better than the government so it has decided to force the government to change the system to be more to its liking.

It's a good thing I'm not the kind of person who's always getting upset about activist judges or this ruling would drive me nuts.

Maybe it's just confirmation bias at work, but I have to say that I found the reasoning of the dissent a lot more convincing,

"Designing, financing and operating the public health system of a modern democratic society remains a challenging task and calls for difficult choices. Shifting the design of the health system to the courts is not a wise outcome."

----

For the record, I think we probably could improve our health system by somewhat extending the private component of the system. I just think that that is a decision for provincial governments to make, not the courts.
----

Update: Robert has some thoughts at his blahg, and links to Rational Reasons who has some good analysis as well.

Timmy has a pretty sensible reaction (in my opinion) as well.