LOOKING FOR LEADERSHIP

Canadians expect that their elected representatives will have the courage
to tackle divisive questions head-on. Yet on two of the most prominent
issues facing this country -- marijuana decriminalization and gay marriage
- -- it is the court system, not Parliament, that has taken the lead. Will
the federal government take a definitive stand now that lower court
decisions are piling up on both issues?

Or will it stand back and let the Supreme Court usurp the role of
legislator -- as it has regrettably done in the past on abortion, capital
punishment, anti-discrimination and other controversial files?

Where marijuana is concerned, there are signs Jean Chretien's Liberals may
be preparing to assert themselves. Although government lawyers appeared
before the Supreme Court of Canada this week in a case challenging the
current laws, both Mr. Chretien and Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister,
have suggested that legislation will soon be introduced to decriminalize
possession of small amounts of pot for personal use. Skeptics suggest these
sensible reforms may not be passed before Mr. Chretien leaves office early
next year, or even before the next federal election.

But we hope such fears are unfounded.

Canadians have already waited too long for marijuana reform.

As with pot decriminalization, the issue of gay marriage has recently been
the subject of provincial court decisions declaring the status quo
unconstitutional -- including last week's ruling by the B.C. Court of
Appeal, which held that the prohibition on gay and lesbian marriage
violates the equality guarantees contained in the Charter of Rights. Courts
in Ontario and Quebec have reached similar conclusions, and the issue may
soon be taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada.

If this happens, it would likely suit Mr. Chretien just fine. For several
years now, it has been apparent that the Prime Minister would be more than
happy to let the judicial branch settle the gay-marriage issue.

This is perhaps a conscious strategy aimed at expanding gay entitlements:
If the Supreme Court upholds a right to gay marriage, the left wing of the
Liberal party would get what it wants without suffering a messy political
battle in Parliament or a drubbing from conservative voters in the next
election.

Or it may be that Mr. Chretien doesn't care either way, and thus simply
prefers the path of least resistance. Either way, his government has shown
little leadership on this file.

It is easy to see why the Liberals have offered more initiative on pot than
gay marriage: Unlike the liberalization of our marijuana laws, which is
supported by a strong majority of Canadians, gay marriage divides the
country -- and the Liberal caucus -- into roughly equal camps.

But the fact a decision is difficult provides the government with no excuse
not to make it. Both issues present important questions of policy.

As such, it would be far preferable if they were decided by elected
Parliamentarians, not the courts.