Ideology drives every aspect of this government's behaviour. I would guess that every appointment must be vetted for ideological conformity and every appointment must fit DEI criteria. That takes time. I expect any successor government will face a hostile, ideological bureaucracy and court. That will be Trudeau's greatest legacy.
A lawyer friend tells me too many of the applicants for judge positions are white males. A brilliant white male colleague applied and did not obtain a position. A brilliant gay female colleague applied and quickly ascended to the position. Rather than have qualified applicants fill the empty positions, the Liberals are taking the 'principled' stance of leaving them vacant until a person with a diverse background becomes available.
I've heard that explanation a lot. The fact they're refusing to give an explanation says to me that they know the answer is embarrassing. If it were something they thought they were doing well they would be communicating the hell out of it.
I get it. I even agree with it. I can't stand him. And even with yet another example of their incompetence, Pierre scares me more. It's not a comfortable feeling.
Liberal voters have been "scared" by all Conservative leaders over the years. Pierre is not a scary person, but the Liberal party probably should have not been so hard on Scheer or O'Toole. They really did get the opposition leader they deserve. Like him or hate him, Pierre is no pushover.
Pierre is worse than scary. He's terrifying. A spin-doctored flinger of half truths and manipulations leading a party where conservatism is moving hard right. Scheer should have been PM, but he found a way to lose an election handed to him on a silver platter. O'Toole would have won but the right-wing of his own party turned against him.
I don't believe a word that comes out of Pierre's mouth. I cannot stand him, but worse, I don't trust him, and as much as that makes me feel sick, I cannot vote for him. Not in 2024. A lot of that could change in November if the winds of Christian fundamentalist conservatism get their rear-ends handed to them in the US. Trudeau needs to go. Pierre is not the answer.
I'm sorry David, but Liberals don't get to play the "scary" card with the accusation being that the Opposition Leader is a "spin-doctored flinger of half-truths and manipulations" anymore.
You gave that right up when you foisted the "spin-doctored flinger of half-truths and manipulations" upon us , under whose "leadership" Canada has been suffering these past 9 years.
Fair enough. Again, just to be clear, I cannot stand Trudeau( who I find never actually says anything, and then smirks because he's so proud of himself. I'm tired of that too). Trudeau got COVID right an little else. A big issue for me will always be women's rights. In 2024, that means I can't vote Conservative. Nor will I be surprised if Pierre wins a huge majority. But I promise not to call the election rigged.
I don’t think Trudeau got Covid right either. Part of the problem we are in is because of the foolish and huge increase in the money supply with how they quickly handed out money. It drove inflation at a time when supply was an issue. I suggest reading what Pierre has actually said about women’s rights rather than what the liberals say about what he’s said. Pierre is the first politician I’ve seen gracefully include his wife in events and it’s clear to me how much he respects and values her. (Never saw Sophie introduce Trudeau even before the divorce - I think Trudeau likes the limelight too much to share it with anyone)
I have made broad sweeping statements in past elections about horrible things I was convinced a party would do, and later ate humble pie when I realized I’d just bought into the propaganda of a competing party. Since then I read platforms and listen to what people say directly and I’m not so quick to believe someone else’s input - most of the time I find it’s repeating someone else’s ideas without actually looking to see if there’s agreement. So I guess I leave you with this rhetorical question - have you looked at direct evidence (full statements not snippets) when forming your opinions, or are they relying on things other people have said? And have you watched the House of Commons feed to see some of the nonsense that goes on in the HoC as part of every day political games? (I’ve been told most parties are friends with each other behind closed doors and part of politics is an act. No clue the truth of that - I have a friend who was in politics but he is just one person so I won’t claim that what he says applies to all politicians 🤷🏼♀️)
Anyways - my point is, that the things that people become convinced of and stirred up about are often nothing-burgers. Not always - but often. I’ve followed Pierre pollievre for a few years now - he wasn’t my first choice for conservative leader, but I support what I’ve seen since he’s won. Maybe I’ll feel different in 4 years - but I don’t think he can do worse than the liberals at any rate.
I'm no great fan of PP either, but if your preference for the Liberals is there, and you can't stand Trudeau, the best possible thing you could do to ensure there's a new Liberal leader in the next election would be to hold your nose and vote CPC. Canadians have been doing this consistently since the beginning - when one of the two main parties gets too corrupt and incompetent, Canadians throw them out of office, back and forth.
To vote for the Liberals is to vote for Even More Trudeau.
Trudeau will obviously not leave until he is (literally) forced from office - can you see him staying on if the Liberals are reduced to 40ish seats? If he does, then the Liberals as a party are truly heading for extinction - and I'd bet against that.
If we can withstand nearly a decade of Trudeau, I think we can stand 4 years of PP, and then (if you still feel the same way) you can vote to throw the CPC out of office and return to the so-called NGP. I wouldn't recommend that, but four years from now the Trudeau Cult will hopefully be purged from the LPC.
Because people want their "free stuff." Hand to mouth, all paid for by the "rich" who have 2nd passports or homes in the US and will leave if pushed hard enough.
My hypothesis for much of the federal dysfunction is that Trudeau is an incompetent control freak. By increasing the centralization of all decision making through the PMO, he’s paralyzed the government because he’s exceeded his managerial span, capacity for decisions, and has less capacity to deal with it all than his control freak predecessor Stephen Harper.
I've had the same thought. He went in with promises of openness and empowering MPs, then the consequences freaked him out and he retreated to the inner circle.
Even the fact that the team is overwhelmed isn't making it through to him.
Matt says, and rightfully so, that the federal government is not very good at federal government things. I would add that they are even worse at provincial government things. Trudeau blames the Premiers, but he shouldn’t for the most part even be involved in many issues of provincial jurisdiction. Past time for every level of government to be given the taxing authority for their jurisdictional responsibilities and those responsibilities only. Maybe the judge problem would not be a problem if the PM wasn’t sticking his fingers in areas that are really not his problem.
Yes, it's so weird these days. Municipal councils calling for ceasefires in foreign lands, Federal governments trying to needle their way into provincial issues. Everyone needs to stay in their lane.
Its partly about terrible communication...Trudeau allowed huge numbers of immigrants, temporary and permanent, without providing information to the provinces that could have allowed planning for the amount of expected new residences. Universities, colleges, and everyone, and everything else have fallen behind as a result. 6 million Canadians ware without family doctors in addition to the rental squeezes happening everywhere.
Every province could have MAYBE done more had they known the numbers before it became a crisis.
We are overdue for a Constitutional reboot. Nothing lasts forever. During that reboot hopefully Quebec and Alberta demand control over the Criminal Code and the judiciary from Ottawa. Couldn't be any worse.
That really wouldn't make sense as criminals would congregate in less punitive provinces and certain types of crime (ex. fraud) can be committed across province boundaries.
What would make more sense would be for the Provinces to completely exit Immigration and Securities regulation and the Feds to completely exit Health, Education, Housing and local infrastructure. That would come with massive reductions in federal tax rates to be picked up my the provinces.
Why would say Alberta care if criminals moved to less punitive provinces? That would be their problem.
As for the feds exiting provincial jurisdiction, that isn't happening without a Supreme Court that reads a literalist interpretation of the Charter. That also isn't happening, our Philosopher Kings truly think the feds need to shepard the provincials.
Trudeau is in his own bubble and thinks that only he has the answers. He believes that Canadians are really his enemies because we do not avail ourselves of his genius.
The question that comes to mind for me is "well, why *aren't* they making appointments?"
This might (I emphsize might) not be Trudeau's fault, if there aren't enough qualified candidates to *be* judges? (I honestly don't know).
That said, I do know (from personal experience with people close to me) that these things are often held up for political reasons (and it doesn't just happen under Liberal governments). It would not surprise me to learn there are plenty of candidates, but they just don't check the right DEI boxes so they are left on the shelf.
I am appalled that the liberals would appeal that ruling. I have nothing else to say. Other than this level of incompetency should lead every female (at minimum) to never vote for Trudeau again if you hope to have a chance of seeing your day in court if you are victimized by a violent offender.
And yet, where do the Conservatives stand on women's right consider that idiotic fetal rights bill they introduced? One more reason it's impossible to be female in 2024. When you look at where Conservatism is going in North America, it cannot be a comfortable position.
I guess I also do feel the need to say - the only thing that makes me uncomfortable about being a woman in Canada in 2024 is the lack of respect for law that this article is calling out. There is nothing that has fundamentally changed about being a woman in 2024 and I've lived long enough to have a comparison. Generally speaking, when I go out as a woman, or travel for work, etc - I have more respect and equality now than when I was younger. It's no longer socially acceptable for men to make the kinds of comments that were common place thirty years ago. It is easier to be a woman now and I would feel pretty certain that if you surveyed a broad enough group of women who are older than 40, you'd find this to be agreed on. Every group feels they have it "the worst" when they're in their 20's. And yes, some things are harder. But I feel fairly confident that some of the things I've lived through would at least result in law enforcement attempting to get a conviction now rather than leaving it be to avoid upsetting specific community members or for concern that a teenager is "too fragile" to stand up to her accuser at trial.
No, but I think it needs to get better, not worse. Cases being thrown out on timing technicalities is a national disgrace. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I agree with you IceSkater40. I started my work life in the late 60’s (working in the car wash) and have seen attitudes change throughout the subsequent decades. Equality in the workplace for women gained traction and working as a woman; and ultimately as a boss became common place. Women have gained, and not through DEI, respect in the work place. Hard won in some instances but it was a good journey.
Curious about this fetal rights bill you mention - can you link to it? Near as I can tell the federal conservatives have no interest in re-opening the abortion issue. HOWEVER - and I say this as someone who is still able to have children - I do support limits on abortion. Most of Europe has late term abortion limits outside of medical emergencies and so I don't have any issue with that. IF I felt that an abortion was the right decision for me, I would absolutely make that decision long before legislation would pose a risk. (Personally, I decided as a teen that it wasn't an option for me - even in the case of rape - and yes, I have experienced rape so can speak from personal experience when I made my decision.) But I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for any other woman - all I can say is the "what about this bill" types of statements are not panic inducing for me nor do they worry me about the freedom for my daughters to choose what's best for themselves. If I read the bill and had concerns, I'd contact my MP. Which is what every other Canadian has the equal right to do if they care about participating and having a say in our democracy.
Basically the Conservatives put forward a bill which said in assault cases, if the victim was a pregnant woman, the pregnancy should be a factor considered at sentencing.
ie: physically assaulting a pregnant woman should be a more serious crime than assaulting a non-pregnant woman.
Pro-Abortion folks exploded in protest - saying that this was a "back door" to granting rights to fetuses.
Thank you for the summary. This wouldn't have phased me at all and I would've 100% supported it. Connecting abortion to this is rather ridiculous IMO. From a legal perspective it makes perfect sense - if anyone other than the pregnant woman does something that causes injury or disability to a fetus before birth, they are already liable. (The pregnant woman herself isn't liable if she does something like drinks alcohol, but if someone pushes her down a flight of stairs and the baby has a brain bleed and is disabled as a result of this, then the person who pushed the pregnant woman down the stairs is actually liable for the injury to the child before birth in current law.)
SO - basically it sounds like the conservative bill was an attempt to have the extra layer of seriousness - that pregnant women are more vulnerable to the effects of violence than a non-pregnant woman, and people who are on guard for anything that might reduce abortion access panicked. That's not even close to a charitable interpretation of the bill on any level.
I agree. And there is often intimate partner violence with the intent to cause serious harm to the fetus, including death. I have no problem with that aspect of the law. I don't see what this has to do with a woman's right to an abortion if she wants one. People linking the two things seem unable to understand nuance.
My understanding is that the way the bill was written, if passed would leave open the possibility of back-dooring another bill to restrict abortion. This is a complicated issue which shouldn't be reduced to labelling those who had concerns as 'pro-abortion' - I've never met anyone who could be described that way.
Yeah, I get the argument - but it is a paranoia-based argument.
There was NOTHING in the Bill which spoke to fetal rights - but the "pro-choice activists" (if you prefer) argued that saying pregnant women are in ANY WAY special in the eyes of the law as compared with non-pregnant women is to "tacitly" suggest that perhaps they are carrying a child.
The MP who brought forward this Private Members Bill had good reasons for doing so, and was shocked by the backlash. She sincerely wanted to protect pregnant women, full stop - there was NO Conservative master plan at work.
And tbh, most private members bills are merely wishes. They rarely go anywhere and they are often not indicative of a party stance. That said, I have no issue with that bill. I am a woman and a mother of a woman. This legislation would not bother me in the least. In fact, I would actually welcome it.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had urged MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it promotes fetal rights, even though there is no mention of fetal rights in the text of the bill itself. That DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
Here is the entirety of the Bill (cleaned up to take all the "stuff" out)
Please point out the part which gives rights to fetuses.
BILL C-311 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women)
Preamble
Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing;
Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1 This Act may be cited as the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act.
2 Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.1):
(ii.2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,
(ii.3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim
Nothing quite as insincere as old Liberal voters grasping at weak reasons to not switch their vote, even though they claim to " cannot stand Trudeau " .
It must be difficult to live with the fact that their votes in the last 3 elections has contributed to the sorry case our country seems to be in .
I voted for him in 2015. I haven't since. Barring a dramatic change, I don't see a choice but to vote for him in 2025. I also voted for Harper 3 times....but not 2015.
It's more uncomfortable being Canadian in 2024 than it is being a woman. What do you mean, "It's impossible to be female in 2024"? That is a really strange thing to say.
David are you still going on about Bill c311 (that got one reading) and was written to address violence against pregnant women but into which your read fetal rights? Stop already!!
SHAME, SHAME.....This disgusted me and hurt my soul as I can think of no reason to have gotten to this state except the candidates in the PM's mind are not 'WOKE' enough... heaven forbid.
25 years ago new grads had zero prospects in those roles you listed. Armed forced, teaching, just weren't hiring, at all, and medical schools were running at low capacity. Nurses couldn't get jobs in Canada so moved to the US. Even Air Canada and RBC had hiring freezes from the mid 90s to mid 00's. Just too many boomers.
Those folks who never got entry level jobs in critical roles would now be mid-career and ready to fill in for the retiring boomers. Those folks don't exist because they were never hired. Even today 40-50 year olds are creepily absent from many major institutions. Yet another phenomenon you can thank the boomers (or more accurately, their birth control adverse parents) for.
Now these institutions are scrambling for staff and there is no one to train Gen Z. Older Millenials got the cheaper housing but are underemployed, Gen Z has the good jobs but can't afford to live in Canada. And older people wonder why young people think Canada sucks? (unless they are from a Global South shithole I suppose)
One of the most interesting cases that is threatening to run out the clock is the Lich trial. Lich of Freedom Convoy notoriety. Stalls, delays, inability to secure courtroom space has been featured in many articles.
It would be a real stunner if Lich and her legal team apply for the dropping of charges due to due process failures.
An aspect not covered is the expense incurred throughout these long drawn out processes. An accused amasses an inconceivable debt if things work as they should. Delays can take a middle income Canadian into the poor class very quickly. Not what Trudeau promised.
Excellent point. The process turns out to be punitive in itself.
I haven’t been following the Lich trial closely, so the probability of conviction vs acquittal is unknown. However, there is a very remote possibility that the Crown is staring at an acquittal and could consider running down the clock to see the case thrown out and avoid a humiliating verdict.
I will finsih this sentence: "This is a woman and now a kid, and other people in cases Gallant has written about and probably others we haven’t yet heard about, needing to be told that the person that hurt them gets to go free because Trudeau and a succession of justice ministers ... "
I suspect that there are plenty of qualified candidates to chose from, but that Trudeau has a set of soft criteria, other than competence, that he wants to be met before a potential judge's name will even be considered.
I don’t think “like minded” is an issue. Keep in mind that Harper drew probably the most conservative judges he could find in Canada’s relatively small and tight-knit legal community, and still ended up with judges whose rulings were almost indistinguishable from any other judges. I suspect Trudeau is looking for identity markers, I.e. candidates who aren’t white males, preferably not white at all.
Trudeau certainly might be looking for "like minded" judges, and I think governments of all political stripes do that. I don't think that's good, or bad, but I do think its unfortunate.
I'm suggesting that over and above being 1) "competent/qualified" and being 2) "like minded", Trudeau has a list of other criteria he wants in a nominee.
That's not necessarily a problem, but the more criteria you add to the selection process, the fewer "acceptable" judge nominees you will find in your pool of potential candidates.
Judges have always come from the poll of lawyers that supported the party in power. There can't be a shortage of urban Liberal lawyers so there must be "other" requirements.
I didn't mean it as an accusation, I was referencing some press here in Ontario about Doug Ford saying he wanted "like minded" judges making decisions. Some people got themselves worked up about it but I felt like it was just Ford admitting out loud what every politician does.
The record of the Trudeau government on appointing judges in a timely fashion has been both baffling and abysmal. The most common explanation is incompetence, which is an explanation not to be dismissed. I have another theory. In 2018, the federal government established the Gender Results Framework to “track the progress made towards achieving gender equality in Canada.” The methodology is simple. What’s the male/female ratio? Statistics Canada now provides annual reports documenting the increasing proportion of judges that are female. This is how the federal government appears to be measuring “success” with judicial appointments. It is more important to have proper gender balance amongst judges than to have judges.
My suspicion is that this is creating a bottleneck in judicial appointments. Even if there are qualified male judges on tap available to be appointed, nothing is done until there is a female ready for appointment.
If my suspicion is correct, the Trudeau government would rather see people accused of rape and murder have their charges dismissed because of timeliness rather than lose the opportunity to brag about their commitment to gender equality.
In a real way, I hope my suspicion is wrong. I’d feel more comfortable with incompetence.
I have so many words but I think you have captured my visceral reaction Matt. Unfortunately a Prime Minister and Justice Minister should be able to direct and mandate that this get done, they apparently do not want to make this happen in a timely manner.
How in any sense of reality can we move forward as a country when this very specific, mandated and linear process cannot function?!
Ideology drives every aspect of this government's behaviour. I would guess that every appointment must be vetted for ideological conformity and every appointment must fit DEI criteria. That takes time. I expect any successor government will face a hostile, ideological bureaucracy and court. That will be Trudeau's greatest legacy.
Nailed it.
A lawyer friend tells me too many of the applicants for judge positions are white males. A brilliant white male colleague applied and did not obtain a position. A brilliant gay female colleague applied and quickly ascended to the position. Rather than have qualified applicants fill the empty positions, the Liberals are taking the 'principled' stance of leaving them vacant until a person with a diverse background becomes available.
I've heard that explanation a lot. The fact they're refusing to give an explanation says to me that they know the answer is embarrassing. If it were something they thought they were doing well they would be communicating the hell out of it.
I could believe that.
DEI has not proven to be the answer to a problem that Canada does not have. Merit should be what Canadians pay their taxes for.
Canada Is Broken.
Part MMMCMXCIX of a series by Matt Gurney.
Yet people will still willingly vote for Trudeau.
Madness.
I get it. I even agree with it. I can't stand him. And even with yet another example of their incompetence, Pierre scares me more. It's not a comfortable feeling.
Liberal voters have been "scared" by all Conservative leaders over the years. Pierre is not a scary person, but the Liberal party probably should have not been so hard on Scheer or O'Toole. They really did get the opposition leader they deserve. Like him or hate him, Pierre is no pushover.
Pierre is worse than scary. He's terrifying. A spin-doctored flinger of half truths and manipulations leading a party where conservatism is moving hard right. Scheer should have been PM, but he found a way to lose an election handed to him on a silver platter. O'Toole would have won but the right-wing of his own party turned against him.
I don't believe a word that comes out of Pierre's mouth. I cannot stand him, but worse, I don't trust him, and as much as that makes me feel sick, I cannot vote for him. Not in 2024. A lot of that could change in November if the winds of Christian fundamentalist conservatism get their rear-ends handed to them in the US. Trudeau needs to go. Pierre is not the answer.
Jumping in early to shut this down right away. David and Notorious, you know full well that people can be wrong on the internet. Go in peace.
FWIW, he's on my list that I don't respond to. And I will :)
I'm sorry David, but Liberals don't get to play the "scary" card with the accusation being that the Opposition Leader is a "spin-doctored flinger of half-truths and manipulations" anymore.
You gave that right up when you foisted the "spin-doctored flinger of half-truths and manipulations" upon us , under whose "leadership" Canada has been suffering these past 9 years.
Fair enough. Again, just to be clear, I cannot stand Trudeau( who I find never actually says anything, and then smirks because he's so proud of himself. I'm tired of that too). Trudeau got COVID right an little else. A big issue for me will always be women's rights. In 2024, that means I can't vote Conservative. Nor will I be surprised if Pierre wins a huge majority. But I promise not to call the election rigged.
I don’t think Trudeau got Covid right either. Part of the problem we are in is because of the foolish and huge increase in the money supply with how they quickly handed out money. It drove inflation at a time when supply was an issue. I suggest reading what Pierre has actually said about women’s rights rather than what the liberals say about what he’s said. Pierre is the first politician I’ve seen gracefully include his wife in events and it’s clear to me how much he respects and values her. (Never saw Sophie introduce Trudeau even before the divorce - I think Trudeau likes the limelight too much to share it with anyone)
I have made broad sweeping statements in past elections about horrible things I was convinced a party would do, and later ate humble pie when I realized I’d just bought into the propaganda of a competing party. Since then I read platforms and listen to what people say directly and I’m not so quick to believe someone else’s input - most of the time I find it’s repeating someone else’s ideas without actually looking to see if there’s agreement. So I guess I leave you with this rhetorical question - have you looked at direct evidence (full statements not snippets) when forming your opinions, or are they relying on things other people have said? And have you watched the House of Commons feed to see some of the nonsense that goes on in the HoC as part of every day political games? (I’ve been told most parties are friends with each other behind closed doors and part of politics is an act. No clue the truth of that - I have a friend who was in politics but he is just one person so I won’t claim that what he says applies to all politicians 🤷🏼♀️)
Anyways - my point is, that the things that people become convinced of and stirred up about are often nothing-burgers. Not always - but often. I’ve followed Pierre pollievre for a few years now - he wasn’t my first choice for conservative leader, but I support what I’ve seen since he’s won. Maybe I’ll feel different in 4 years - but I don’t think he can do worse than the liberals at any rate.
You make me like Pierre more 😂
I'm no great fan of PP either, but if your preference for the Liberals is there, and you can't stand Trudeau, the best possible thing you could do to ensure there's a new Liberal leader in the next election would be to hold your nose and vote CPC. Canadians have been doing this consistently since the beginning - when one of the two main parties gets too corrupt and incompetent, Canadians throw them out of office, back and forth.
To vote for the Liberals is to vote for Even More Trudeau.
Trudeau will obviously not leave until he is (literally) forced from office - can you see him staying on if the Liberals are reduced to 40ish seats? If he does, then the Liberals as a party are truly heading for extinction - and I'd bet against that.
If we can withstand nearly a decade of Trudeau, I think we can stand 4 years of PP, and then (if you still feel the same way) you can vote to throw the CPC out of office and return to the so-called NGP. I wouldn't recommend that, but four years from now the Trudeau Cult will hopefully be purged from the LPC.
Hobson's Choice.
Perhaps.
Because people want their "free stuff." Hand to mouth, all paid for by the "rich" who have 2nd passports or homes in the US and will leave if pushed hard enough.
My hypothesis for much of the federal dysfunction is that Trudeau is an incompetent control freak. By increasing the centralization of all decision making through the PMO, he’s paralyzed the government because he’s exceeded his managerial span, capacity for decisions, and has less capacity to deal with it all than his control freak predecessor Stephen Harper.
I've had the same thought. He went in with promises of openness and empowering MPs, then the consequences freaked him out and he retreated to the inner circle.
Even the fact that the team is overwhelmed isn't making it through to him.
I also think he has way more to hide than we realize, and the only way to hide it is by being PM and controlling the flow of information.
Matt says, and rightfully so, that the federal government is not very good at federal government things. I would add that they are even worse at provincial government things. Trudeau blames the Premiers, but he shouldn’t for the most part even be involved in many issues of provincial jurisdiction. Past time for every level of government to be given the taxing authority for their jurisdictional responsibilities and those responsibilities only. Maybe the judge problem would not be a problem if the PM wasn’t sticking his fingers in areas that are really not his problem.
Yes, it's so weird these days. Municipal councils calling for ceasefires in foreign lands, Federal governments trying to needle their way into provincial issues. Everyone needs to stay in their lane.
Its partly about terrible communication...Trudeau allowed huge numbers of immigrants, temporary and permanent, without providing information to the provinces that could have allowed planning for the amount of expected new residences. Universities, colleges, and everyone, and everything else have fallen behind as a result. 6 million Canadians ware without family doctors in addition to the rental squeezes happening everywhere.
Every province could have MAYBE done more had they known the numbers before it became a crisis.
We are overdue for a Constitutional reboot. Nothing lasts forever. During that reboot hopefully Quebec and Alberta demand control over the Criminal Code and the judiciary from Ottawa. Couldn't be any worse.
That really wouldn't make sense as criminals would congregate in less punitive provinces and certain types of crime (ex. fraud) can be committed across province boundaries.
What would make more sense would be for the Provinces to completely exit Immigration and Securities regulation and the Feds to completely exit Health, Education, Housing and local infrastructure. That would come with massive reductions in federal tax rates to be picked up my the provinces.
Why would say Alberta care if criminals moved to less punitive provinces? That would be their problem.
As for the feds exiting provincial jurisdiction, that isn't happening without a Supreme Court that reads a literalist interpretation of the Charter. That also isn't happening, our Philosopher Kings truly think the feds need to shepard the provincials.
Trudeau is in his own bubble and thinks that only he has the answers. He believes that Canadians are really his enemies because we do not avail ourselves of his genius.
The question that comes to mind for me is "well, why *aren't* they making appointments?"
This might (I emphsize might) not be Trudeau's fault, if there aren't enough qualified candidates to *be* judges? (I honestly don't know).
That said, I do know (from personal experience with people close to me) that these things are often held up for political reasons (and it doesn't just happen under Liberal governments). It would not surprise me to learn there are plenty of candidates, but they just don't check the right DEI boxes so they are left on the shelf.
I am appalled that the liberals would appeal that ruling. I have nothing else to say. Other than this level of incompetency should lead every female (at minimum) to never vote for Trudeau again if you hope to have a chance of seeing your day in court if you are victimized by a violent offender.
And yet, where do the Conservatives stand on women's right consider that idiotic fetal rights bill they introduced? One more reason it's impossible to be female in 2024. When you look at where Conservatism is going in North America, it cannot be a comfortable position.
I guess I also do feel the need to say - the only thing that makes me uncomfortable about being a woman in Canada in 2024 is the lack of respect for law that this article is calling out. There is nothing that has fundamentally changed about being a woman in 2024 and I've lived long enough to have a comparison. Generally speaking, when I go out as a woman, or travel for work, etc - I have more respect and equality now than when I was younger. It's no longer socially acceptable for men to make the kinds of comments that were common place thirty years ago. It is easier to be a woman now and I would feel pretty certain that if you surveyed a broad enough group of women who are older than 40, you'd find this to be agreed on. Every group feels they have it "the worst" when they're in their 20's. And yes, some things are harder. But I feel fairly confident that some of the things I've lived through would at least result in law enforcement attempting to get a conviction now rather than leaving it be to avoid upsetting specific community members or for concern that a teenager is "too fragile" to stand up to her accuser at trial.
No, but I think it needs to get better, not worse. Cases being thrown out on timing technicalities is a national disgrace. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I agree with you IceSkater40. I started my work life in the late 60’s (working in the car wash) and have seen attitudes change throughout the subsequent decades. Equality in the workplace for women gained traction and working as a woman; and ultimately as a boss became common place. Women have gained, and not through DEI, respect in the work place. Hard won in some instances but it was a good journey.
Curious about this fetal rights bill you mention - can you link to it? Near as I can tell the federal conservatives have no interest in re-opening the abortion issue. HOWEVER - and I say this as someone who is still able to have children - I do support limits on abortion. Most of Europe has late term abortion limits outside of medical emergencies and so I don't have any issue with that. IF I felt that an abortion was the right decision for me, I would absolutely make that decision long before legislation would pose a risk. (Personally, I decided as a teen that it wasn't an option for me - even in the case of rape - and yes, I have experienced rape so can speak from personal experience when I made my decision.) But I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for any other woman - all I can say is the "what about this bill" types of statements are not panic inducing for me nor do they worry me about the freedom for my daughters to choose what's best for themselves. If I read the bill and had concerns, I'd contact my MP. Which is what every other Canadian has the equal right to do if they care about participating and having a say in our democracy.
Basically the Conservatives put forward a bill which said in assault cases, if the victim was a pregnant woman, the pregnancy should be a factor considered at sentencing.
ie: physically assaulting a pregnant woman should be a more serious crime than assaulting a non-pregnant woman.
Pro-Abortion folks exploded in protest - saying that this was a "back door" to granting rights to fetuses.
...which it wasn't, in my opinion. But whatever.
Thank you for the summary. This wouldn't have phased me at all and I would've 100% supported it. Connecting abortion to this is rather ridiculous IMO. From a legal perspective it makes perfect sense - if anyone other than the pregnant woman does something that causes injury or disability to a fetus before birth, they are already liable. (The pregnant woman herself isn't liable if she does something like drinks alcohol, but if someone pushes her down a flight of stairs and the baby has a brain bleed and is disabled as a result of this, then the person who pushed the pregnant woman down the stairs is actually liable for the injury to the child before birth in current law.)
SO - basically it sounds like the conservative bill was an attempt to have the extra layer of seriousness - that pregnant women are more vulnerable to the effects of violence than a non-pregnant woman, and people who are on guard for anything that might reduce abortion access panicked. That's not even close to a charitable interpretation of the bill on any level.
I agree. And there is often intimate partner violence with the intent to cause serious harm to the fetus, including death. I have no problem with that aspect of the law. I don't see what this has to do with a woman's right to an abortion if she wants one. People linking the two things seem unable to understand nuance.
My understanding is that the way the bill was written, if passed would leave open the possibility of back-dooring another bill to restrict abortion. This is a complicated issue which shouldn't be reduced to labelling those who had concerns as 'pro-abortion' - I've never met anyone who could be described that way.
Yeah, I get the argument - but it is a paranoia-based argument.
There was NOTHING in the Bill which spoke to fetal rights - but the "pro-choice activists" (if you prefer) argued that saying pregnant women are in ANY WAY special in the eyes of the law as compared with non-pregnant women is to "tacitly" suggest that perhaps they are carrying a child.
The MP who brought forward this Private Members Bill had good reasons for doing so, and was shocked by the backlash. She sincerely wanted to protect pregnant women, full stop - there was NO Conservative master plan at work.
...this is why we can't have nice things.
And tbh, most private members bills are merely wishes. They rarely go anywhere and they are often not indicative of a party stance. That said, I have no issue with that bill. I am a woman and a mother of a woman. This legislation would not bother me in the least. In fact, I would actually welcome it.
Many tried to frame this as anti-abortion https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/abortion-rights-pro-against-bill-c-311-1.6840197
...yes they did. Doesn't make it so.
He believes bill c311 is a fetal rights bill. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-311/first-reading
I think it's between a woman and her doctor. I think this is a thinly veiled attack on that idea. https://globalnews.ca/news/9769739/conservatives-violence-against-pregnant-women-fetal-rights/
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada had urged MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it promotes fetal rights, even though there is no mention of fetal rights in the text of the bill itself. That DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE!
Wow, how original - using the US Republicans to whip up fear about "what the CPC might do".
Try to stick to reality.
The Canadian Conservatives are not re-fighting abortion.
Not now, not ever.
The ONLY party who still wants to talk about this topic is the Liberals - and their sole motivation is its usefulness as a wedge issue.
Then please explain the fetal rights bill. Because they introduced that. When people show you what they are, believe them.
It wasn't a fetal rights bill, it was a pregnant women bill.
...but you know that.
Which gave rights to a fetus......talk about a wedge issue. But you know that.
Ok, never mind, I did it for you.
Here is the entirety of the Bill (cleaned up to take all the "stuff" out)
Please point out the part which gives rights to fetuses.
BILL C-311 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (violence against pregnant women)
Preamble
Whereas Parliament wishes to denounce and deter violence against pregnant women by explicitly including pregnancy as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing;
Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1 This Act may be cited as the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act.
2 Paragraph 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (ii.1):
(ii.2) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person whom the offender knew to be pregnant,
(ii.3) evidence that the offence caused physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim
...there were no fetal rights in that Bill.
If you believe there were, go look it up and show the exact words to us which offended you.
The fun part is, you won't find them, because there are none.
Nothing quite as insincere as old Liberal voters grasping at weak reasons to not switch their vote, even though they claim to " cannot stand Trudeau " .
It must be difficult to live with the fact that their votes in the last 3 elections has contributed to the sorry case our country seems to be in .
I voted for him in 2015. I haven't since. Barring a dramatic change, I don't see a choice but to vote for him in 2025. I also voted for Harper 3 times....but not 2015.
It's more uncomfortable being Canadian in 2024 than it is being a woman. What do you mean, "It's impossible to be female in 2024"? That is a really strange thing to say.
David are you still going on about Bill c311 (that got one reading) and was written to address violence against pregnant women but into which your read fetal rights? Stop already!!
Yup. lol. Also, spare us the "I'm doing it for all the women out there" angle.
SHAME, SHAME.....This disgusted me and hurt my soul as I can think of no reason to have gotten to this state except the candidates in the PM's mind are not 'WOKE' enough... heaven forbid.
Shortages of judges, doctors, nurses, teachers, military, but we have an abundance of politicians, bureaucrats. How does this happen? 🤯 ☄️ 🤡
We can hire Public servants at the highest rate in history, but not judges, CAF personnel...
25 years ago new grads had zero prospects in those roles you listed. Armed forced, teaching, just weren't hiring, at all, and medical schools were running at low capacity. Nurses couldn't get jobs in Canada so moved to the US. Even Air Canada and RBC had hiring freezes from the mid 90s to mid 00's. Just too many boomers.
Those folks who never got entry level jobs in critical roles would now be mid-career and ready to fill in for the retiring boomers. Those folks don't exist because they were never hired. Even today 40-50 year olds are creepily absent from many major institutions. Yet another phenomenon you can thank the boomers (or more accurately, their birth control adverse parents) for.
Now these institutions are scrambling for staff and there is no one to train Gen Z. Older Millenials got the cheaper housing but are underemployed, Gen Z has the good jobs but can't afford to live in Canada. And older people wonder why young people think Canada sucks? (unless they are from a Global South shithole I suppose)
Wow. My guess is that only white males are left in the potential judge pool and they don’t want to go there.
A pretty sobering read…
One of the most interesting cases that is threatening to run out the clock is the Lich trial. Lich of Freedom Convoy notoriety. Stalls, delays, inability to secure courtroom space has been featured in many articles.
It would be a real stunner if Lich and her legal team apply for the dropping of charges due to due process failures.
That would be the cherry on top of the dogs breakfast of how our government managed the Convoy.
And it would totally feed into the message that it was a politically motivated hatchet job.
An aspect not covered is the expense incurred throughout these long drawn out processes. An accused amasses an inconceivable debt if things work as they should. Delays can take a middle income Canadian into the poor class very quickly. Not what Trudeau promised.
Excellent point. The process turns out to be punitive in itself.
I haven’t been following the Lich trial closely, so the probability of conviction vs acquittal is unknown. However, there is a very remote possibility that the Crown is staring at an acquittal and could consider running down the clock to see the case thrown out and avoid a humiliating verdict.
Just when I thought this Trudeau liberal government had hit bottom, I see a new low has been found. How does this happen?
I will finsih this sentence: "This is a woman and now a kid, and other people in cases Gallant has written about and probably others we haven’t yet heard about, needing to be told that the person that hurt them gets to go free because Trudeau and a succession of justice ministers ... "
just don't care!
I suspect that there are plenty of qualified candidates to chose from, but that Trudeau has a set of soft criteria, other than competence, that he wants to be met before a potential judge's name will even be considered.
Are you suggesting he wants to appoint "like minded" judges? Outrageous!
I don’t think “like minded” is an issue. Keep in mind that Harper drew probably the most conservative judges he could find in Canada’s relatively small and tight-knit legal community, and still ended up with judges whose rulings were almost indistinguishable from any other judges. I suspect Trudeau is looking for identity markers, I.e. candidates who aren’t white males, preferably not white at all.
I think you should read my thoughts in this chain again, carefully. I think we are saying the same thing, just using different words.
No, not exactly.
Trudeau certainly might be looking for "like minded" judges, and I think governments of all political stripes do that. I don't think that's good, or bad, but I do think its unfortunate.
I'm suggesting that over and above being 1) "competent/qualified" and being 2) "like minded", Trudeau has a list of other criteria he wants in a nominee.
That's not necessarily a problem, but the more criteria you add to the selection process, the fewer "acceptable" judge nominees you will find in your pool of potential candidates.
Judges have always come from the poll of lawyers that supported the party in power. There can't be a shortage of urban Liberal lawyers so there must be "other" requirements.
I didn't mean it as an accusation, I was referencing some press here in Ontario about Doug Ford saying he wanted "like minded" judges making decisions. Some people got themselves worked up about it but I felt like it was just Ford admitting out loud what every politician does.
No issues Iain, I didn't think you were being accusatory. I just felt I should amplify my original post.
The record of the Trudeau government on appointing judges in a timely fashion has been both baffling and abysmal. The most common explanation is incompetence, which is an explanation not to be dismissed. I have another theory. In 2018, the federal government established the Gender Results Framework to “track the progress made towards achieving gender equality in Canada.” The methodology is simple. What’s the male/female ratio? Statistics Canada now provides annual reports documenting the increasing proportion of judges that are female. This is how the federal government appears to be measuring “success” with judicial appointments. It is more important to have proper gender balance amongst judges than to have judges.
My suspicion is that this is creating a bottleneck in judicial appointments. Even if there are qualified male judges on tap available to be appointed, nothing is done until there is a female ready for appointment.
If my suspicion is correct, the Trudeau government would rather see people accused of rape and murder have their charges dismissed because of timeliness rather than lose the opportunity to brag about their commitment to gender equality.
In a real way, I hope my suspicion is wrong. I’d feel more comfortable with incompetence.
"because it's 2015..."
I have so many words but I think you have captured my visceral reaction Matt. Unfortunately a Prime Minister and Justice Minister should be able to direct and mandate that this get done, they apparently do not want to make this happen in a timely manner.
How in any sense of reality can we move forward as a country when this very specific, mandated and linear process cannot function?!