I'm not sure what the timing was on when the podcast was recorded and when Sam Cooper published his latest piece in The Bureau, but the quotes there from Vigneault made it clear that the CSIS director has been doing everything short of shaking Trudeau by the lapels about this issue, repeatedly, for *five years*.
As of today, it's no longer credible to me that Trudeau wasn't aware of the Chinese election interference. The only question is whether he knew the details or refused to look into the details to avoid becoming fixed with knowledge, and nothing of moral or political worth turns on the answer.
I admit that with topics like the foreign interference scandal where it feels like every month, and recently every day, is a drip-feed of similar-sounding revelations incrementally closing in around Trudeau's battleship, I completely lose track of when we learned certain facts and whether I'm hearing something for the first time.
Yesterday was startling because it was the first time it felt like a little red peg went up on the board. *Years* of attempting to make sense of explanations that don't quite make sense and aren't quite compatible with each other, and then suddenly it all feels very stark: Trudeau was given the truth directly, early, and repeatedly.
To answer your question literally, Cooper published before we recorded, but by literally eight minutes, but neither of us had seen it (let alone read it) before we began rolling.
Enjoyed the discussion. Context is a funny thing. I'm genuinely not throwing shade here, but I remember years ago when PMJT was riding high in the polls and it looked like his brand of politics was the gold standard, and people were raising their eyebrows at the don't call it the Manning Conference, conference - and not just godless lefties like me - but high profile small-c conservative columnists who thought the worst excesses of Conservative politics were on the loose and the movement was doomed. And now, Pierre Poilievre, an avatar for that kind of politics has a 20-point lead in the polls. I don't like any of it! But it's certainly fascinating how circumstances can so quickly change pre-conceived wisdom.
One of the things that the Charter of Rights has done, is to turn often difficult and contentious policy choices, (like capital punishment, or assisted suicide, or whole-life prison sentences, or even abortion restrictions) into “legal rights issues”, that can then be fitted into the words of the Charter and therefore substantially removed from the reach of ordinary citizens, and politics, and control by elected “politicians”.
Because once one enters the political and intellectual realm of “Charter Rights”, one is in the bailiwick of appointed judges - not periodically elected legislatures, and certainly not the general public, however clear the public opinion on a particular subject may be.
Put differently: the Charter creates “policy spheres” from which democratic debate, the balancing of interests, political compromises, trade-offs, and consensus rule-making can be substantially excluded; and the views of the Supreme Court majority (5-4 will do it) prevails instead.
Even if the alternative view is supported by 4 other federally-appointed Supreme Court judges (the 4 in minority), plus four more appointees on lower rungs of the judicial ladder, so that the actual count of un-elected judicial decision makers, is not 5-4, but 8-5 in the other direction.
Indeed, even if the Supreme Court of Canada itself has ruled in the opposite direction on multiple occasions – as was the case with “freedom of association”, which was extended to collective bargaining, and the right to strike, even though the court had repeatedly ruled the other way.
And even though section 1 of the Charter recognizes the legitimacy of “reasonable limits” on otherwise open-ended and undefined “rights” - which is a caution against rigid orthodoxy and may hint that there might be no single, and undeniably “right” answer to such questions.
So, the lesson is this: change the faces on the bench and maybe you can change the law. It’s as simple as that. As Donald Trump demonstrated.
Accordingly, it is no surprise that politicians with an appetite to entrench their policy preferences in law and protect them beyond their own limited terms of office, may be tempted to appoint judges who share their world view and political inclinations – especially to the higher courts.
Judges, in other words, who will be reliably “progressive” or dependably “conservative”; and who will construe and, if necessary “reconstruct”, “the law” accordingly - even when that is contrary to the policy preferences of parliaments and regardless of what the public thinks.
For example: sweeping aside the mandatory minimum sentences that the Harper government prescribed for gun crimes, or ruling that multiple murderers can’t really be imprisoned “for their whole life”. Both of which the current Supreme Court has decided.
Now, of course, this kind of activism inevitably politicizes (and Americanizes) our judiciary, in ways that are both regrettable and predictable – just like the Roe v Wade and affirmative action controversies did in the US.
Nor is it helped by the apparent appointment of judges on DEI grounds, where mastery of the law is secondary to identity politics and quota filling.
But it is still an obvious temptation. In fact, wasn’t that what Doug Ford was grumbling about it, not so long ago?
Happily, though, in Canada there is still a much stronger tradition of parliamentary supremacy than there is in the US; and the Charter includes the “notwithstanding clause, if politicians have the courage to use it – as Quebec has routinely done, without conspicuous political cost.
And there is also – still - a distaste in large parts of the legal profession for this kind of overt ideological tinkering or partisan backscratching.
That said: my cynical view is that, in due course, (and almost undoubtedly if he is on the way out), this PM may well wish to stuff the Courts with ideological partisans; just as his father cynically did with the Senate (to John Turner’s chagrin). For why would he not? Why would he bequeath that opportunity to his obviously detested foe and likely successor?
Those who complain about inaction should not forget how much influence that might buy in various quarters, and how difficult it would be for a subsequent government to undo it. Which is why it is attractive.
So don’t be surprised if the PM has a sudden change of heart, (like he did on the value of temporary foreign workers), and soon vows to fill every single one of the judicial vacancies before the next election.
Talk about a way of refuting his reputation for poor “deliver-ology!
It’s way easier, and way better, than planting 2 billion trees.
It's worth noting here that unlike the American constitution, the Charter has a sweeping notwithstanding clause. As a cultural matter we're hesitant to embrace it, but Canada's legal system features very powerful parliamentary supremacy over the administration of Canadian law.
The feds could pass the Imprison Richard MacDowell For No Good Reason Act tomorrow and if they chose to defend it with the NWC (and the people voted to re-elect them), you'd die in prison even if every judge in the country all the way up to the SCC was in your corner.
Judges just interpret and apply. Our politicians control our laws, and fitting to the thesis of this podcast, they often seem to either forget they have that power or prefer to pretend they don't.
Let me just say that my “lived experience” of judicial handiwork, is that judges do far more than just “interpret and apply”.
They strive for “justice” AS THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE. Including in their finding, selection and weighing of “the facts”, and also in their application of “the law” as they read it - which are both conditioned by that over-riding, and inevitably personal (even moral) perspective.
Moreover, they have far more discretion about how to get to their preferred result, and how to survive “appeal” or reversal, than most laymen believe; which is why good advocacy matters so much.
Accordingly, I think the best statement of reality remains that of the great philosopher Humpty Dumpty, who wrote more than 150 years ago:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that’s all.”
That is why the most effective rebuke to overzealous judicial policy-making is a decisive legislative or parliamentary riposte, if politicians can muster the courage to do that. Be it amending legislation if judges have misconstrued its purpose, or invoking the notwithstanding clause, to affirm the hierarchy of powers, that the “constitution” still preserves.
As for the selection of Judges: all the government must do, is follow the rules in the Judges Act, which requires 10 years of lawyering and now makes eligibility for appointment contingent upon promising to undertake compulsory training: “on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”.
Let me conclude this way: what does it say about a government that obliges aspiring judges, as condition of appointment, to agree to indoctrination in the now prevailing social justice narratives?
No doubt delivered by well paid civil service ideologues like the now disgraced and dismissed anti-Semite, Laith Marouf.
Concerning the foreign interference commission, on the most charitable interpretation, the PM and the PMO are curiously incurious about things that they wish did not exist. If there were concerns raised but without sufficient detail, why did nobody ask for more detail?
More probably (1) the PM does not trust CSIS (2) the PM does not read briefing notes or other written material; he only retains material that he receives orally, that is spoken to him.
Most probably, there was plausible deniability. His assistants deliberately did not inform him as to available details, so that he could then say what he is saying today -- he didn't have sufficient information. His assistants know enough to filter information very carefully. The PM's ignorance was not a bug, but rather a feature of the system.
If it's a civil service crisis....crisis is the right description. Deliverolgy without solution?
There is no excuse for the dysfunction of the legal system. None. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's still a huge issue in the US. Apparently, it's here too.
It would be nice if governments got back to fixing the basic stuff instead of looking for more goodies that we can't afford.
It is like the current civil suit by the school boards against social media. While I dislike social media, I really wish school boards focused on education as per their mandate.
I hadn't heard about that. Talk about a massive waste of time and resources. I remember way back one this radical concept now completely abandoned due to lawyers; personal responsibility.
I am afraid that you will find that the "delay" of which you complain, is rooted in a zealous and scrupulous effort to provide fairness; which includes imposing a judicial model of decision making on all kinds of processes within government: a right to notice if rights are in issue, a right to be heard, a right to full documentary disclosure, a right to a hearing, a right to appeal alleged errors, a right to counsel and cross-examine documents and witnesses, and so on. Moreover that judicializing of everything has been exponentially accelerated by the Charter of Rights, which, it is now said, regulated everything, providing a platform for layers and layers of litigation.
I'm far more cynical. I think it's lawyers enabling other lawyers to maximise their billings. I am of the admittedly naïve opinion that if you have enough evidence to charge someone with something, you should be able to present it a jury in a competent, clear fashion within 6 months of the charge. If you can't prove your case, the accused goes free. The idea that someone who was convicted was released because the trial took too long is not justice; it's incompetence of the system. And this is coming from someone who happily had a ticket thrown out of night court by a judge whose reasoning was too many cases, not enough judges, and not enough time in 1991.
The whole inquiry can be explained by a party who just is not good at all at governing.
With regards to the Conservatives, the media needs to stop complaining that they have not released a platform. The election is 1.5 years away and everything they have proposed the Liberals have adopted it as their own. PP’s job right now is to keep the converted interested and motivated. For example, I think what Jen said is exactly what PP is going to do with the CBC but there is no point in saying it now.
At the end of the day, I think the pundits are going to shocked on how well received his platform will be when released. His guy can read the room much better than people recognize.
I don't think that Poilievre is being faulted for lacking a comprehensive platform this early on. He is being faulted for lacking any policy alternatives with which to justify his particular one-sided criticisms of the government. That is par for the course for opposition leaders, naturally, but Poilievre takes the lack of substance to a whole other level.
If his eventual platform is built on the same kind of thought process that led him into the drafting of his infamous now-largely-repealed "Fair Elections" Act, then his platform likely won't be well received.
I think Trudeau is an incompetent PM, but not because he’s stupid. I do think he’s an intellectual lightweight, primarily because he’s a lazy thinker and unaware of what he doesn’t know.
In my job, I’ve worked with a lot of executives and CEOs and I’ve seen a number of different styles. I think I’m a fairly smart person, but I have no illusions that I could perform at the level of these guys were I put into a CEO position. I’m closer now than I was 10 years ago, but that’s because of a progressive accumulation of management experience in increasingly senior roles.
Trudeau has had none of that experience. Probably the biggest operation he’d ever run before becoming PM was his constituency office, and that’s like going from running a corner store to CEO of Loblaws. It’s entirely unsurprising that he’s failed because very few people actually have the skills and talent to do that sort of job, and they almost never get there as an entry level position.
This government does not know how to execute things because they’ve never learned how to execute things. As you point out, this government doesn’t seem to understand that they’re actually in charge. Not only do they have the power and authority to change how things run, they’re responsible for how they run and the results they deliver. What worries with Pierre Poilievre is that he’s not much more experienced than Trudeau was, although he’s at least been a very junior cabinet member for a time. If he can’t draw on some experience and talent from his future caucus and learn to delegate to them, we’re just going to have another flavor of incompetent government.
PP's point about the similarities between Junior and pere, and how that makes the two of them the true outliers in our PM lineage strikes me as pretty sound - you've got simply gross fiscal mismanagement, screwing over the west regarding energy, terrifying and unwarranted resort to Emergency powers, being fans of China and Castro, disrespecting the Queen, alienation of western allies etc. That being said, I am not sure how helpful such a comparison will be to PP - much as it pains me to my core to admit it, Trudeau pere is quite highly thought of by a lot of Canadian voters.
The NDP abandoning support for carbon pricing actually makes the policy *more* politically viable for the Liberals. It means that the Liberals and the Greens now monopolize pro-carbon tax voters, a voting group which might well be bigger than the current group of would-be Liberal voters, whether or not a technical majority of Canadians oppose the tax.
Though I would suggest that the Liberals back down in a different way: stop the pretense of the policy being enforced as a provincial "backstop", and just make it a single unified national tax, a legal regime more consistent and easier for businesses to navigate.
By the standards of the 1993 leaders debate where the Bloc and the Reform Party were included merely for having seats, it was reasonable to include E-May in the debates that she was included in. But whatever you think of those past examples, fortunately we now have formal rules governing leaders' debates (though still not as many debates as we should have).
Of course, it is obvious now that having been included in multiple leaders' debates and having little progress to show for it, E-May has been a weak Leader on behalf of her party.
Elizabeth May has bought as much chance of being Prime Minister as I had at the time.
It therefore made absolutely no sense to include her in the debate. Her presence wasted everyone’s time and made the whole process less relevant.
Quick frankly, there are only two people who should be on the debate stage next time: Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre. Because no one else has any chance of leading the country.
Your comments are partisan in nature and fundamentally lacking in objectivity. Your lack of inquisitiveness towards certain leaders should not be considered as necessarily representative of the interests of the majority of Canadians.
Besides, limiting the national debates to only two party leaders would be copying one of the worst bugs of the U.S. political system. Democracy in multi-party dominant systems is demonstrably superior to that of two-party or one-party systems.
I appreciate Matt's anger, but he didn't mention an angle on that story that makes me angry. And YES, what's angering Matt is more immediately serious, but hear me out.
The alleged rapist was found guilty by a jury and not convicted by the judge and the ONLY reason was a mandatory maximum time to trial conclusion rule created by the Supreme Court giving the trial judge NO latitude or leeway whatsoever. The trial judge was NOT allowed to use his judgement and discretion to say that given the guilty verdict the 30 month time was NOT unfair especially if the man was given his freedom until he was found guilty by the jury. No, the Supreme Court insists that a trial judge in full possession of the facts cannot use their discretion, but must instead carry out an inflexible MANDATORY MAXIMUM time to trial rule created by the Supreme Court itself created.
So... the Supreme Court tells us that mandatory minimum sentences on serious crimes created by a democratically elected parliament are so terribly bad that they are compelled to strike them down because they do not allow trial judges leeway to consider the relevant facts, but it's simultaneously completely reasonable and totes okay dude for they themselves as an appointed Supreme Court to impose on society and trial judges an inflexible mandatory maximum.
Matt, I hope you're thinking of the very same meme that I am.
There might though be an important difference between judicial discretion to increase prison sentences and judicial discretion to increase the maximum allowable time between the charge and the conviction. With the latter it might simply be impossible to give that discretion without innocent people, who will inevitably be acquitted anyways, being affected. It may not be possible for the Supreme Court to allow the latter kind of discretion without opening the justice process to abuse with persecution-through-stalling.
The handling of the alleged rapist remains a scandal, but I do think that the scandal here is the lack of speedy processing, not the principle of a process time limit itself.
I think that’s better described not as “giving judicial discretion to increase the maximum allowable time”, but rather the discretion to decide if the elapsed time was a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all agree that if the trial judge had been allowed discretion, he would have found that there was no miscarriage of justice at all and would have sentenced accordingly.
Quite frankly, the relevant difference seems rather simple to me: people don’t tend to see their own hubris as a problem. They tend to think they’re special and it’s different when they do something… because they’re the ones doing it.
Judges are just as human as everyone else.
Trust in the judicial system is dropping. That’s a very bad thing.
And here the Supreme Court has contributed to that problem.
I'm not sure what the timing was on when the podcast was recorded and when Sam Cooper published his latest piece in The Bureau, but the quotes there from Vigneault made it clear that the CSIS director has been doing everything short of shaking Trudeau by the lapels about this issue, repeatedly, for *five years*.
As of today, it's no longer credible to me that Trudeau wasn't aware of the Chinese election interference. The only question is whether he knew the details or refused to look into the details to avoid becoming fixed with knowledge, and nothing of moral or political worth turns on the answer.
Ther perils of early recording. JG
I admit that with topics like the foreign interference scandal where it feels like every month, and recently every day, is a drip-feed of similar-sounding revelations incrementally closing in around Trudeau's battleship, I completely lose track of when we learned certain facts and whether I'm hearing something for the first time.
Yesterday was startling because it was the first time it felt like a little red peg went up on the board. *Years* of attempting to make sense of explanations that don't quite make sense and aren't quite compatible with each other, and then suddenly it all feels very stark: Trudeau was given the truth directly, early, and repeatedly.
To answer your question literally, Cooper published before we recorded, but by literally eight minutes, but neither of us had seen it (let alone read it) before we began rolling.
Enjoyed the discussion. Context is a funny thing. I'm genuinely not throwing shade here, but I remember years ago when PMJT was riding high in the polls and it looked like his brand of politics was the gold standard, and people were raising their eyebrows at the don't call it the Manning Conference, conference - and not just godless lefties like me - but high profile small-c conservative columnists who thought the worst excesses of Conservative politics were on the loose and the movement was doomed. And now, Pierre Poilievre, an avatar for that kind of politics has a 20-point lead in the polls. I don't like any of it! But it's certainly fascinating how circumstances can so quickly change pre-conceived wisdom.
Too many Canadian would rather be poorer than our peer nations as long as we were more equal. It's kind of pathetic.
One of the things that the Charter of Rights has done, is to turn often difficult and contentious policy choices, (like capital punishment, or assisted suicide, or whole-life prison sentences, or even abortion restrictions) into “legal rights issues”, that can then be fitted into the words of the Charter and therefore substantially removed from the reach of ordinary citizens, and politics, and control by elected “politicians”.
Because once one enters the political and intellectual realm of “Charter Rights”, one is in the bailiwick of appointed judges - not periodically elected legislatures, and certainly not the general public, however clear the public opinion on a particular subject may be.
Put differently: the Charter creates “policy spheres” from which democratic debate, the balancing of interests, political compromises, trade-offs, and consensus rule-making can be substantially excluded; and the views of the Supreme Court majority (5-4 will do it) prevails instead.
Even if the alternative view is supported by 4 other federally-appointed Supreme Court judges (the 4 in minority), plus four more appointees on lower rungs of the judicial ladder, so that the actual count of un-elected judicial decision makers, is not 5-4, but 8-5 in the other direction.
Indeed, even if the Supreme Court of Canada itself has ruled in the opposite direction on multiple occasions – as was the case with “freedom of association”, which was extended to collective bargaining, and the right to strike, even though the court had repeatedly ruled the other way.
And even though section 1 of the Charter recognizes the legitimacy of “reasonable limits” on otherwise open-ended and undefined “rights” - which is a caution against rigid orthodoxy and may hint that there might be no single, and undeniably “right” answer to such questions.
So, the lesson is this: change the faces on the bench and maybe you can change the law. It’s as simple as that. As Donald Trump demonstrated.
Accordingly, it is no surprise that politicians with an appetite to entrench their policy preferences in law and protect them beyond their own limited terms of office, may be tempted to appoint judges who share their world view and political inclinations – especially to the higher courts.
Judges, in other words, who will be reliably “progressive” or dependably “conservative”; and who will construe and, if necessary “reconstruct”, “the law” accordingly - even when that is contrary to the policy preferences of parliaments and regardless of what the public thinks.
For example: sweeping aside the mandatory minimum sentences that the Harper government prescribed for gun crimes, or ruling that multiple murderers can’t really be imprisoned “for their whole life”. Both of which the current Supreme Court has decided.
Now, of course, this kind of activism inevitably politicizes (and Americanizes) our judiciary, in ways that are both regrettable and predictable – just like the Roe v Wade and affirmative action controversies did in the US.
Nor is it helped by the apparent appointment of judges on DEI grounds, where mastery of the law is secondary to identity politics and quota filling.
But it is still an obvious temptation. In fact, wasn’t that what Doug Ford was grumbling about it, not so long ago?
Happily, though, in Canada there is still a much stronger tradition of parliamentary supremacy than there is in the US; and the Charter includes the “notwithstanding clause, if politicians have the courage to use it – as Quebec has routinely done, without conspicuous political cost.
And there is also – still - a distaste in large parts of the legal profession for this kind of overt ideological tinkering or partisan backscratching.
That said: my cynical view is that, in due course, (and almost undoubtedly if he is on the way out), this PM may well wish to stuff the Courts with ideological partisans; just as his father cynically did with the Senate (to John Turner’s chagrin). For why would he not? Why would he bequeath that opportunity to his obviously detested foe and likely successor?
Those who complain about inaction should not forget how much influence that might buy in various quarters, and how difficult it would be for a subsequent government to undo it. Which is why it is attractive.
So don’t be surprised if the PM has a sudden change of heart, (like he did on the value of temporary foreign workers), and soon vows to fill every single one of the judicial vacancies before the next election.
Talk about a way of refuting his reputation for poor “deliver-ology!
It’s way easier, and way better, than planting 2 billion trees.
It's worth noting here that unlike the American constitution, the Charter has a sweeping notwithstanding clause. As a cultural matter we're hesitant to embrace it, but Canada's legal system features very powerful parliamentary supremacy over the administration of Canadian law.
The feds could pass the Imprison Richard MacDowell For No Good Reason Act tomorrow and if they chose to defend it with the NWC (and the people voted to re-elect them), you'd die in prison even if every judge in the country all the way up to the SCC was in your corner.
Judges just interpret and apply. Our politicians control our laws, and fitting to the thesis of this podcast, they often seem to either forget they have that power or prefer to pretend they don't.
Let me just say that my “lived experience” of judicial handiwork, is that judges do far more than just “interpret and apply”.
They strive for “justice” AS THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE. Including in their finding, selection and weighing of “the facts”, and also in their application of “the law” as they read it - which are both conditioned by that over-riding, and inevitably personal (even moral) perspective.
Moreover, they have far more discretion about how to get to their preferred result, and how to survive “appeal” or reversal, than most laymen believe; which is why good advocacy matters so much.
Accordingly, I think the best statement of reality remains that of the great philosopher Humpty Dumpty, who wrote more than 150 years ago:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master——that’s all.”
That is why the most effective rebuke to overzealous judicial policy-making is a decisive legislative or parliamentary riposte, if politicians can muster the courage to do that. Be it amending legislation if judges have misconstrued its purpose, or invoking the notwithstanding clause, to affirm the hierarchy of powers, that the “constitution” still preserves.
As for the selection of Judges: all the government must do, is follow the rules in the Judges Act, which requires 10 years of lawyering and now makes eligibility for appointment contingent upon promising to undertake compulsory training: “on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, which includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination”.
Let me conclude this way: what does it say about a government that obliges aspiring judges, as condition of appointment, to agree to indoctrination in the now prevailing social justice narratives?
No doubt delivered by well paid civil service ideologues like the now disgraced and dismissed anti-Semite, Laith Marouf.
Having a set of philosopher kings suits many politicians just fine. They can't blame their lack of action on the courts. It's a great foil
Concerning the foreign interference commission, on the most charitable interpretation, the PM and the PMO are curiously incurious about things that they wish did not exist. If there were concerns raised but without sufficient detail, why did nobody ask for more detail?
More probably (1) the PM does not trust CSIS (2) the PM does not read briefing notes or other written material; he only retains material that he receives orally, that is spoken to him.
Most probably, there was plausible deniability. His assistants deliberately did not inform him as to available details, so that he could then say what he is saying today -- he didn't have sufficient information. His assistants know enough to filter information very carefully. The PM's ignorance was not a bug, but rather a feature of the system.
One thing from Trudeau’s testimony, or the Ling interview, I heard more from him than I like this week, “Bragging isn’t doing.”
If I was making Conservative ads, I’d be hanging that around his neck.
That was my instant reaction, as well. He is so vomit-inducing.
It's the same campaign....we're not Trudeau.
If it's a civil service crisis....crisis is the right description. Deliverolgy without solution?
There is no excuse for the dysfunction of the legal system. None. Justice delayed is justice denied. It's still a huge issue in the US. Apparently, it's here too.
It would be nice if governments got back to fixing the basic stuff instead of looking for more goodies that we can't afford.
Hope the hangover passes gently, Jen.
It is like the current civil suit by the school boards against social media. While I dislike social media, I really wish school boards focused on education as per their mandate.
I hadn't heard about that. Talk about a massive waste of time and resources. I remember way back one this radical concept now completely abandoned due to lawyers; personal responsibility.
I am afraid that you will find that the "delay" of which you complain, is rooted in a zealous and scrupulous effort to provide fairness; which includes imposing a judicial model of decision making on all kinds of processes within government: a right to notice if rights are in issue, a right to be heard, a right to full documentary disclosure, a right to a hearing, a right to appeal alleged errors, a right to counsel and cross-examine documents and witnesses, and so on. Moreover that judicializing of everything has been exponentially accelerated by the Charter of Rights, which, it is now said, regulated everything, providing a platform for layers and layers of litigation.
I'm far more cynical. I think it's lawyers enabling other lawyers to maximise their billings. I am of the admittedly naïve opinion that if you have enough evidence to charge someone with something, you should be able to present it a jury in a competent, clear fashion within 6 months of the charge. If you can't prove your case, the accused goes free. The idea that someone who was convicted was released because the trial took too long is not justice; it's incompetence of the system. And this is coming from someone who happily had a ticket thrown out of night court by a judge whose reasoning was too many cases, not enough judges, and not enough time in 1991.
Just want to say, Jen, that I totally got the binders reference :-D
The whole inquiry can be explained by a party who just is not good at all at governing.
With regards to the Conservatives, the media needs to stop complaining that they have not released a platform. The election is 1.5 years away and everything they have proposed the Liberals have adopted it as their own. PP’s job right now is to keep the converted interested and motivated. For example, I think what Jen said is exactly what PP is going to do with the CBC but there is no point in saying it now.
At the end of the day, I think the pundits are going to shocked on how well received his platform will be when released. His guy can read the room much better than people recognize.
I don't think that Poilievre is being faulted for lacking a comprehensive platform this early on. He is being faulted for lacking any policy alternatives with which to justify his particular one-sided criticisms of the government. That is par for the course for opposition leaders, naturally, but Poilievre takes the lack of substance to a whole other level.
If his eventual platform is built on the same kind of thought process that led him into the drafting of his infamous now-largely-repealed "Fair Elections" Act, then his platform likely won't be well received.
I think Trudeau is an incompetent PM, but not because he’s stupid. I do think he’s an intellectual lightweight, primarily because he’s a lazy thinker and unaware of what he doesn’t know.
In my job, I’ve worked with a lot of executives and CEOs and I’ve seen a number of different styles. I think I’m a fairly smart person, but I have no illusions that I could perform at the level of these guys were I put into a CEO position. I’m closer now than I was 10 years ago, but that’s because of a progressive accumulation of management experience in increasingly senior roles.
Trudeau has had none of that experience. Probably the biggest operation he’d ever run before becoming PM was his constituency office, and that’s like going from running a corner store to CEO of Loblaws. It’s entirely unsurprising that he’s failed because very few people actually have the skills and talent to do that sort of job, and they almost never get there as an entry level position.
This government does not know how to execute things because they’ve never learned how to execute things. As you point out, this government doesn’t seem to understand that they’re actually in charge. Not only do they have the power and authority to change how things run, they’re responsible for how they run and the results they deliver. What worries with Pierre Poilievre is that he’s not much more experienced than Trudeau was, although he’s at least been a very junior cabinet member for a time. If he can’t draw on some experience and talent from his future caucus and learn to delegate to them, we’re just going to have another flavor of incompetent government.
> I think I’m a fairly smart person, but I have no illusions that I could perform at the level of these guys were I put into a CEO position.
That's because there's a difference between having intelligence (or even knowledge) and having the right skillset.
PP's point about the similarities between Junior and pere, and how that makes the two of them the true outliers in our PM lineage strikes me as pretty sound - you've got simply gross fiscal mismanagement, screwing over the west regarding energy, terrifying and unwarranted resort to Emergency powers, being fans of China and Castro, disrespecting the Queen, alienation of western allies etc. That being said, I am not sure how helpful such a comparison will be to PP - much as it pains me to my core to admit it, Trudeau pere is quite highly thought of by a lot of Canadian voters.
Off topic but can one claim their Substack electronic news subscriptions on their taxes?
Asking for a friend.
It would depend on the Substack outlet in question. Because The Line is owner operated and does not have employees, we don’t qualify.
The NDP abandoning support for carbon pricing actually makes the policy *more* politically viable for the Liberals. It means that the Liberals and the Greens now monopolize pro-carbon tax voters, a voting group which might well be bigger than the current group of would-be Liberal voters, whether or not a technical majority of Canadians oppose the tax.
Though I would suggest that the Liberals back down in a different way: stop the pretense of the policy being enforced as a provincial "backstop", and just make it a single unified national tax, a legal regime more consistent and easier for businesses to navigate.
The Liberals and the who?
On a serious note, is it not obvious in retrospect that the inclusion of Elizabeth May in the leaders debate back in the day was utterly ridiculous?
By the standards of the 1993 leaders debate where the Bloc and the Reform Party were included merely for having seats, it was reasonable to include E-May in the debates that she was included in. But whatever you think of those past examples, fortunately we now have formal rules governing leaders' debates (though still not as many debates as we should have).
Of course, it is obvious now that having been included in multiple leaders' debates and having little progress to show for it, E-May has been a weak Leader on behalf of her party.
Elizabeth May has bought as much chance of being Prime Minister as I had at the time.
It therefore made absolutely no sense to include her in the debate. Her presence wasted everyone’s time and made the whole process less relevant.
Quick frankly, there are only two people who should be on the debate stage next time: Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre. Because no one else has any chance of leading the country.
Your comments are partisan in nature and fundamentally lacking in objectivity. Your lack of inquisitiveness towards certain leaders should not be considered as necessarily representative of the interests of the majority of Canadians.
Besides, limiting the national debates to only two party leaders would be copying one of the worst bugs of the U.S. political system. Democracy in multi-party dominant systems is demonstrably superior to that of two-party or one-party systems.
Oh? Which party am I stanning for?
Quebec would like a word…
Right now, that province is getting a sweet deal compared to the other ones. Wonder why?
I appreciate Matt's anger, but he didn't mention an angle on that story that makes me angry. And YES, what's angering Matt is more immediately serious, but hear me out.
The alleged rapist was found guilty by a jury and not convicted by the judge and the ONLY reason was a mandatory maximum time to trial conclusion rule created by the Supreme Court giving the trial judge NO latitude or leeway whatsoever. The trial judge was NOT allowed to use his judgement and discretion to say that given the guilty verdict the 30 month time was NOT unfair especially if the man was given his freedom until he was found guilty by the jury. No, the Supreme Court insists that a trial judge in full possession of the facts cannot use their discretion, but must instead carry out an inflexible MANDATORY MAXIMUM time to trial rule created by the Supreme Court itself created.
So... the Supreme Court tells us that mandatory minimum sentences on serious crimes created by a democratically elected parliament are so terribly bad that they are compelled to strike them down because they do not allow trial judges leeway to consider the relevant facts, but it's simultaneously completely reasonable and totes okay dude for they themselves as an appointed Supreme Court to impose on society and trial judges an inflexible mandatory maximum.
Matt, I hope you're thinking of the very same meme that I am.
> Sheer f'ing hubris.
There might though be an important difference between judicial discretion to increase prison sentences and judicial discretion to increase the maximum allowable time between the charge and the conviction. With the latter it might simply be impossible to give that discretion without innocent people, who will inevitably be acquitted anyways, being affected. It may not be possible for the Supreme Court to allow the latter kind of discretion without opening the justice process to abuse with persecution-through-stalling.
The handling of the alleged rapist remains a scandal, but I do think that the scandal here is the lack of speedy processing, not the principle of a process time limit itself.
I think that’s better described not as “giving judicial discretion to increase the maximum allowable time”, but rather the discretion to decide if the elapsed time was a miscarriage of justice.
I think we all agree that if the trial judge had been allowed discretion, he would have found that there was no miscarriage of justice at all and would have sentenced accordingly.
Quite frankly, the relevant difference seems rather simple to me: people don’t tend to see their own hubris as a problem. They tend to think they’re special and it’s different when they do something… because they’re the ones doing it.
Judges are just as human as everyone else.
Trust in the judicial system is dropping. That’s a very bad thing.
And here the Supreme Court has contributed to that problem.