Howard Anglin, a Conservative political operative and legal scholar, shared a significant piece of Canadian history on Twitter Thursday morning. He posted a lengthy interview from 2005 with Allan Blakeney, who served as the New Democratic premier of Saskatchewan from 1971 to 1982. Blakeney played a crucial role in the negotiations that led to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and was one of the last surviving framers of the Constitution Act, 1982.

During his tenure, Blakeney collaborated with Conservative premiers to advocate for a "notwithstanding clause" in the Charter of Rights, which serves as a safeguard for parliamentary supremacy. This clause was recently invoked by the Alberta government to enforce a law that requires striking schoolteachers to return to work. The interview, conducted by Gareth Morley, now a judge of the B.C. Supreme Court, presents a defense of the notwithstanding clause from a social-democratic perspective.

Blakeney aimed to preserve the potential for a socialist future in Canada, arguing that legislatures should have the authority to make decisions that might infringe on individual rights. He was a staunch democrat, believing that elected officials should hold the ultimate power in political decision-making. Blakeney expressed skepticism about judges, whom he described as "handmaidens of the business establishment," and was alarmed by early Charter cases that favored pro-business outcomes.

He articulated concerns similar to those of contemporary left-wing critics of judicial power, emphasizing that judges are not accountable to the public. "Judges are not supposed to be accountable to the public: that is what judicial independence means," he stated. He pointed out that judges base their decisions on information from the parties involved in lawsuits, while governments are responsible for making and enforcing laws, raising taxes, and allocating funds.

Blakeney highlighted the complexities of governance, noting that increased spending on healthcare could lead to reduced funding for other essential services, such as highway maintenance and prisons. He warned that such budgetary decisions could have dire consequences, stating, "If you spend more on health care, you spend less on highway maintenance or on prisons. And guess what? Spending less on highway maintenance means someone will die. Spending less on prisons means someone will die."

His insights into the balance of power between elected officials and the judiciary remain relevant today. Blakeney's foresight about the potential for judicial overreach resonates in current debates about the role of courts in interpreting the Charter and the implications for democratic governance. His historical perspective serves as a reminder of the ongoing discussions surrounding the balance of power in Canadian politics and the importance of parliamentary supremacy.