The Court Challenges Program was part of a broader government-funded ersatz "civil society" project that used to fill discussion panels on CBC's The National and The Journal back in the '80s and early '90s. Remember the omnipresent National Action Committee on the Status of Women and its leader Judy Rebick? Remember how it slid out of sight when the federal government cut funding and it turned out there was next to no grassroots support to replace it? A vibrant civil society is an important sign of a liberal democracy; the problem is that Canadian governments confused cause and effect by thinking government funding could create something that needs to be the product of grassroots society.
The slightly more devious angle here is the use of the legal system to achieve partisan political aims without the burden of passing legislation. There's been a number of example in the US where an administration quietly arranges for a group or lower level of government to launch a court challenge of a law or regulation they don't like. Then they either decline to appeal a lower court ruling or agree to a settlement that accomplishes a policy aim without the need to pass legislation or change regulations through the normal process to achieve the same end. I really don't think the federal Liberals are above such tactics, as alluded to in the history of Pierre Trudeau starting the Courts Challenges program to attack Quebec language laws. Why do the hard work of introducing legislation and dealing with the political challenges of controversial policies when you can get a court to rule for you instead?
The author's point about getting the appointment of judges back on track is the way to go. From other bits and pieces I've read, this backlog of judicial appointments on J. Trudeau's watch is enormous, and for no good reason.
Apologies to the author, who I assume has a legal background, but self-serving legislation such as this is one of many reasons why so many people despise lawyers, politicians, and 'lawyer-politicians'.
The author is correct - laws like this should be abolished.
The history she outlines shows that the legislation and the funding is just used for political ends by whatever party is in power.
Typical that it came to be under Trudeau the Elder - his legacy continues to haunt Canada beyond simply his spawn, which would have been bad enough on its own.
I have no doubt that the CPC would continue to use this legislation for their own political purposes.
This is just more of the asshatery in the long line of asshatery that has accompanied the Trudeau government waste and corruption. Please make it stop.
I remember when Trudeau reinstated the Court Challenges Program, activists were beside themselves with glee. In fact, with a whiff of arrogance and entitlement, some openly stated that reinstatement was only one step forward and the next one would be to enshrine the Program into law that would make it very difficult for a new administration to cancel.
Tying up scarce court time and legal resources for these challenges is easy peasy when everyone else is paying the freight.
And on it goes. The expansion of government seems to have no end to it, other than complete control over everything and everyone. While each of these water torture drips of new legistation seem small (some more than others), the accumulation screams. "trend!".
Anyone who uses charts to track changes, be they stock market prices, inflation percentages, employment data, etc. will know the prevailing feature of watching activity over time is the trend. Is it up or down? What time frame is being measured? What does the trendline point to? It is this last question that should concern every taxpaying citizen.
Clearly the trendline of government growth is upwards...and dramatically so since 2015! The size and scope of powers is constantly increasing. Trends have inertia. They will continue in their direction unless there is a change to the activity that underlies them.
So we are clearly headed for a complete totalitarian state unless the trend is stopped and reversed.
Another brilliant argument for true justice from an outstanding organization! Christine, you and your organization give me hope for Canada's future. Thank you.
The legal profession in Canada is the heart and soul of Canadian leftism, with their social class at the apex. CVG highlights only one example of many throughout Canadian society.
I'd argue the Charter of Rights is nothing but an exercise to give the legal elite in Canada a veto over everything that is important in this country.
“Information about which cases are funded is no longer disclosed.”
Why is that? Surely government grants to private entities, NGOs or individuals should be public record. (And the granting agency should provide annual lists of ALL funding so taxpayers can discern if the grants are skewed towards certain types of legal challenges.)
Another deceptive move by our open and transparent Liberal government.
I think that a program to fund court challenges of federal government legislation is not a terrible idea in theory. There may well be groups out there that have a good case against a piece of legislation, but lack the funds to bring the case to court. Given that the government exists to represent Canadians, to fund a program that allows Canadians challenge law does not seem to me to be as outlandish as the author suggests.
I can't help but think that part of Ms. Van Geyn's dislike of the program comes her opinion that only centre-left and left groups receive funding, while right groups do not. I hear echoes of a very familiar refrain from people to the right of the spectrum. It sounds a little like "My political viewpoint gets no representation, so I want to shut the program down". Maybe Ms. Van Geyn is correct, but I need more than one example to convince me.
I might have a great lawsuit against someone but lack the funds to bring out to court. Where’s my free top tier Toronto lawyer?
That’s right I don’t get one because providing that is not the federal government’s core responsibility. Finding worthy causes, (like challenging federal laws or my personal lawsuit that I can’t afford) is the proper function of civil society, not the government.
Without all levels of government failing on their basic responsibilities, it is LONG past time to cancel such waste, even if they weren’t transparently funding one side and this dividing our society.
Another example of the sinister and insidious attempts of the current government to entrench more and more control and power in the PMO. This government is dangerous.
The Court Challenges Program was part of a broader government-funded ersatz "civil society" project that used to fill discussion panels on CBC's The National and The Journal back in the '80s and early '90s. Remember the omnipresent National Action Committee on the Status of Women and its leader Judy Rebick? Remember how it slid out of sight when the federal government cut funding and it turned out there was next to no grassroots support to replace it? A vibrant civil society is an important sign of a liberal democracy; the problem is that Canadian governments confused cause and effect by thinking government funding could create something that needs to be the product of grassroots society.
The slightly more devious angle here is the use of the legal system to achieve partisan political aims without the burden of passing legislation. There's been a number of example in the US where an administration quietly arranges for a group or lower level of government to launch a court challenge of a law or regulation they don't like. Then they either decline to appeal a lower court ruling or agree to a settlement that accomplishes a policy aim without the need to pass legislation or change regulations through the normal process to achieve the same end. I really don't think the federal Liberals are above such tactics, as alluded to in the history of Pierre Trudeau starting the Courts Challenges program to attack Quebec language laws. Why do the hard work of introducing legislation and dealing with the political challenges of controversial policies when you can get a court to rule for you instead?
That's my theory what Pierre will do with his fetal rights bill.
In that case, why wouldn't a highly motivated and well funded civil society group do this instead?
You have to have a law in place that gives a foetus rights first. Rightly, at the moment, it doesn't, and thus abortion is available in Canada.
The author's point about getting the appointment of judges back on track is the way to go. From other bits and pieces I've read, this backlog of judicial appointments on J. Trudeau's watch is enormous, and for no good reason.
Emphasis on "no good reason".
Apologies to the author, who I assume has a legal background, but self-serving legislation such as this is one of many reasons why so many people despise lawyers, politicians, and 'lawyer-politicians'.
The author is correct - laws like this should be abolished.
The history she outlines shows that the legislation and the funding is just used for political ends by whatever party is in power.
Typical that it came to be under Trudeau the Elder - his legacy continues to haunt Canada beyond simply his spawn, which would have been bad enough on its own.
I have no doubt that the CPC would continue to use this legislation for their own political purposes.
Sigh. Not a serious country.
This is just more of the asshatery in the long line of asshatery that has accompanied the Trudeau government waste and corruption. Please make it stop.
I remember when Trudeau reinstated the Court Challenges Program, activists were beside themselves with glee. In fact, with a whiff of arrogance and entitlement, some openly stated that reinstatement was only one step forward and the next one would be to enshrine the Program into law that would make it very difficult for a new administration to cancel.
Tying up scarce court time and legal resources for these challenges is easy peasy when everyone else is paying the freight.
And on it goes. The expansion of government seems to have no end to it, other than complete control over everything and everyone. While each of these water torture drips of new legistation seem small (some more than others), the accumulation screams. "trend!".
Anyone who uses charts to track changes, be they stock market prices, inflation percentages, employment data, etc. will know the prevailing feature of watching activity over time is the trend. Is it up or down? What time frame is being measured? What does the trendline point to? It is this last question that should concern every taxpaying citizen.
Clearly the trendline of government growth is upwards...and dramatically so since 2015! The size and scope of powers is constantly increasing. Trends have inertia. They will continue in their direction unless there is a change to the activity that underlies them.
So we are clearly headed for a complete totalitarian state unless the trend is stopped and reversed.
Another brilliant argument for true justice from an outstanding organization! Christine, you and your organization give me hope for Canada's future. Thank you.
It is time to discontinue this program.
The legal profession in Canada is the heart and soul of Canadian leftism, with their social class at the apex. CVG highlights only one example of many throughout Canadian society.
I'd argue the Charter of Rights is nothing but an exercise to give the legal elite in Canada a veto over everything that is important in this country.
The writer states:
“Information about which cases are funded is no longer disclosed.”
Why is that? Surely government grants to private entities, NGOs or individuals should be public record. (And the granting agency should provide annual lists of ALL funding so taxpayers can discern if the grants are skewed towards certain types of legal challenges.)
Another deceptive move by our open and transparent Liberal government.
I think that a program to fund court challenges of federal government legislation is not a terrible idea in theory. There may well be groups out there that have a good case against a piece of legislation, but lack the funds to bring the case to court. Given that the government exists to represent Canadians, to fund a program that allows Canadians challenge law does not seem to me to be as outlandish as the author suggests.
I can't help but think that part of Ms. Van Geyn's dislike of the program comes her opinion that only centre-left and left groups receive funding, while right groups do not. I hear echoes of a very familiar refrain from people to the right of the spectrum. It sounds a little like "My political viewpoint gets no representation, so I want to shut the program down". Maybe Ms. Van Geyn is correct, but I need more than one example to convince me.
I might have a great lawsuit against someone but lack the funds to bring out to court. Where’s my free top tier Toronto lawyer?
That’s right I don’t get one because providing that is not the federal government’s core responsibility. Finding worthy causes, (like challenging federal laws or my personal lawsuit that I can’t afford) is the proper function of civil society, not the government.
Without all levels of government failing on their basic responsibilities, it is LONG past time to cancel such waste, even if they weren’t transparently funding one side and this dividing our society.
It sounds a lot like a program of lawyers looking out for lawyers.
Another example of the sinister and insidious attempts of the current government to entrench more and more control and power in the PMO. This government is dangerous.