The abortion panic button is Liberal dog whistling. They want the folks who are NDP supporters except at the ballot box to understand that "their vote is too important to waste" and it is also a rallying cry for their core urban educated white female base. A base it should be mentioned who are the most comfortable and wealthy in Canada, and have their housing and food costs sorted out already.
Expect a lot more of these Laurentian Elite fire drills.
I can’t wait for the usual “hidden agenda” nonsense to be responded to by “fuck off, nobody cares, knock the protesting out of your thick skull and jump off a cliff”. The LPC absolutely needs to get stomped into the dust for enabling criminality and it’s very fun to see the hopes and dreams that their supporters had in 2015 be burned in front of them - serves them right for having them in the first place.
Also, if judges didn’t have their heads far up their asses in protecting their pet victims (criminals in this case), they’d be held in higher regard. Poilievre wouldn’t be able to directly attack them and still lead in the polls. But they’ve chosen to get high on their own farts instead of preserving the credibility of the system they serve.
Zooming out, it’s part of a larger issue of institutions closing ranks around bad actors instead of putting heads on pikes. How many people from PHAC have received any punishment for their covid fuckups? How many of the neocons (who have the absolute nerve to complain about a few happy merchant memes) have been held responsible for the Iraq War? How many of the bankers who melted down the economy in 2008 have gone to jail?
None of the attacks on judges make any damn sense over these issues.
The problematic examples from recent history appear to have been out on first-instance bail - i.e. they weren't charged with breaching their current conditions. It's notable that the non-compliance with conditions is usually detected. The criminals just don't get arrested or turned in. That's a policing and community issue.
Letting people who aren't convicted of a crime out is a fundamental principle of justice, especially as what constitutes a crime seems to be becoming more and more expansive.
Nice to read about at least one police service and one university that had the fortitude to remove “protesters” from the campus. More cities and more universities might want to step up and push back against this gang of thugs.
Great podcast tip to tail. Worth adding that one of the fascinating dynamics post-Dobbs in the United States is that Republicans nationwide have been getting killed on the subject of abortion ever since. They're losing red state legislative battles, they're losing red state referendums, and they're losing red state elections in districts where they normally cruise to victory.
Abortion in the US has suddenly gone from a subject where everyone says their culture war-assigned lines and then carries on with business as usual to one where reliable Republican voters are actually listening to what's being proposed by pro-lifers/looking at the reality of what they're starting to lose and recoiling. There's been a lot of statements from the politically disengaged along the lines of "I'm pro-life but this is crazy", where "this" is the standard pro-life policy platform that's been publicly discussed for years. People just weren't listening until now, and/or didn't understand the real implications of these proposals on their medical care.
Culture war stasis for decades when it was a matter of winning the battle to appoint the most supreme court judges. Immediate, pragmatic, and very final resolutions beginning to appear now that it's a legislative matter, and not resolutions that have favoured conservatives.
IMHO, the two conclusions relevant to the podcast are:
1. Canadian conservatives should assume (and I imagine party leadership does, especially now) that any actual attempt to advance pro-life policies will almost certainly end with them getting Ides of March'd by not just Canadians generally but their own ostensibly pro-life moderates.
2. Not every issue is a good fit for resolution by the courts. The courts are great. They're highly competent at their job. But they're not built to make policy, especially when it involves facts that can't be derived from observations made by the court of witnesses who have testified and been cross-examined in front of them.
The SCC has made more than a few Charter decisions that edge beyond statutory interpretation/application and into policy. There's a lot to be said for a mechanism like the notwithstanding clause that brings difficult cases back into the hands of the government branch that has the most contact with, and is able to react most rapidly and effectively to the reality of, day-to-day life in Canada, including the actual effects on that life of government policy and judicial decisions.
P.S. You'll have done enough for the future of Canadian journalism if you successfully prototype a new business model that earns you both a stable, respectable income and that doesn't involve government subsidies. That's it. More is not required to leave a legacy, and overextending out of a sense of charitable obligation is taking the wrong lesson from The Giving Tree. Don't end up a stump.
Banning abortion is a huge vote loser as the Republicans are belatedly finding out.
This is paradoxically why I liked the Dobbs decision. Abortion is going to be a dead issue in the next 4 years and will never be heard from again. Politicians who bring in the severe bans are going to be wiped out.
Agreed. Republicans are finding out that even having the subject become real to their voters is a huge vote loser, much less banning it. Pro-life planks in Republican platforms are no longer just empty talk. It's making it very difficult for Republicans to employ their traditional strategy of promising their pro-life wing that they're fighting as hard as possible, while promising their moderates with the other side of their mouth that none of that effort will ever amount to anything.
There's always been a pragmatic middle ground on this subject that has overwhelming electoral support and most Western countries have already found it, including Canada. The US is about to do the same now that the issue is in the hands of the correct branch of government. And then yes, agreed, we can all stop hearing about it, which I thought would never happen.
Clarke, you write, "There's a lot to be said for a mechanism like the notwithstanding clause that brings difficult cases back into the hands of the government branch that has the most contact with, and is able to react most rapidly and effectively to the reality of, day-to-day life in Canada, including the actual effects on that life of government policy and judicial decisions."
There can be. However, almost every use of the Notwithstanding Clause in Canadian politics has been impulsive in nature. It has usually been used not because an incumbent government has seriously considered and been patient with the judicial process, but because the Premier of the day is in a rush to completely get their way and not think through the long-term implications of their actions. I see no indication that Poilievre's potential use of the Clause would be any different, since he has not outlined a coherent logic for deciding when to invoke or not invoke the Clause.
It seems odd to require of Poilievre that he outline in advance a coherent logic for deciding when to invoke the NWC when there is no such statement of coherent logic available to govern the use of the Charter by our judiciary.
Nor can there be, because even at the highest level - when judicial decision-making is distilled to our nine most brilliant jurists all physically in the same room reading the same evidentiary records and listening to the same arguments - our judiciary is routinely unable to express a collectively coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter.
I've read plenty of dissents that made far more sense to me than the majority judgments, but critical to my point here about coherence is that dissents exist at all - to say nothing of the impulsivity implied by dissents that our finest legal scholars assess from the formatting were majority judgments at the time of their drafting.
Frankly, the NWC is structurally much more alive to long-term implications than the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not subject to a rule that they must reconsider their old judgments every five years and decide on the basis of the evidence that's accumulated since then whether to revise them or let them stand.
You write, "our judiciary is routinely unable to express a collectively coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter."
They are by nature supposed to only ever look at Charter cases on a case-by-case basis, just like with all legal questions.
You write, "Frankly, the NWC is structurally much more alive to long-term implications than the Supreme Court of Canada"
We are not talking about the structure of the NWC but the logic of the politicians invoking it. I have never seen a provincial government say, "We tried so hard to reason with and reform the courts, but they did not listen, so we are going ahead with the NWC." The logic employed always is, "I want to get my way here and now, so we might as well just push the big red button." Observers like Matt can point out that the big red button is meant to be used, but the politicians who use it casually do not deserve a special exemption from being judged harshly accordingly.
You write, "the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not subject to a rule that they must reconsider their old judgments every five years and decide on the basis of the evidence that's accumulated since then whether to revise them or let them stand."
Except that the judgments of the Supreme Court *do* change. Although the Court is by nature deferential to case precedent, similar persons in similar circumstances file similar Charter cases and in some instances get different results. Supreme Courts change their opinions in response to new experiences and instances, like they did with assisted suicide. In some cases the Court has been ahead of politicians in the trajectory of public opinion, like it was with same-sex marriage. And at the end of the day, the SC judges eventually retire, and if a sitting government feels that the Court has been too activist, they are free to appoint new judges with a more restrained judicial ideology. The Court may be non-responsive by nature to short-term political pressures, but its reasoning still generally ebbs and flows with that of Canadians at large.
So what you are saying is that we as Canadians should defer to our "betters" on the Supreme Court? That unaccountable and unelected body, rather that the will of the people.
I'd have more sympathy for that argument if our elites dared have, and require it pass a referendum.
Meanwhile Quebec hasn't even agreed to the Charter.
If this is the pinnacle of Canadian jurisprudence and our gift to the world, Canada indeed is hobbled by a mediocre legal elite.
"So what you are saying is that we as Canadians should defer to our "betters" on the Supreme Court?"
Nope, I never said anything like that. I said that the Court responds to the long-term rather than short-term pressures of Canadian public opinion.
"I'd have more sympathy for that argument if our elites dared have, and require it pass a referendum."
There has already been a gazillion polls confirming that most Canadians support the Charter. The only reason that the Notwithstanding Clause is politically possible to use is that the minority of Canadians who desire its use are cohesive in supporting plurality conservative and separatist parties federally and provincially, whereas support for the Charter is split between smaller parties representing a collective majority that is weakened by the first-past-the-post electoral system.
I'm not sure "the judiciary can't express a coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter because they're not allowed to, not because they're unable" materially improves your position, nor does "the SCC is generally deferential to precedent, but may occasionally and unpredictably decide to overturn precedent when they feel like it".
Legislatures reason with the courts through the oral and written arguments of Crown counsel appointed to represent the government's position. Legislatures, in other words, attempt to reason with the courts constantly. As a consequence of the accumulation of those tens of thousands of data points and with the provision of expert advice from veteran Crown counsel, legislatures have an excellent idea how attempts to reason with the courts on a particular point are likely to turn out ahead of time. There's no reason to waste time - often years - grinding away seeking judicial approval that's both unlikely and constitutionally unnecessary if the legislature has already made up its mind.
Yes, the SCC's reasoning generally ebbs and flows with that of Canadians at large, which is a testament to the caution and skill typically displayed by the jurists we appoint to it. But the SCC does occasionally slice a decision deep into the rough, e.g. "not even mass murderers can be issued life sentences". This was anticipated by the Charter's drafters, hence the NWC.
Checks and balances exist between branches of government, not just within them. The final check in Canada's case is the legislature, not the judiciary.* The legislature drafts, the SCC interprets, the legislature clarifies as required. That's the nature of the "dialogue" the SCC itself affirms exists between the branches.
*In the case of some Charter sections. In the case of others where the NWC explicitly doesn't apply, like election-related rights, the final check is the judiciary. Hybrid supremacy, baby!
You write, "There's no reason to waste time - often years - grinding away seeking judicial approval that's both unlikely and constitutionally unnecessary if the legislature has already made up its mind."
We have had a see-saw back-and-forth between Conservative and Liberal majorities running roughshod over the opposition with legislation that is repealed the moment that the next government goes into power. Forcing the government of the day to be a little more patient when patience is warranted is a feature in which Canadian politics is distinctly lacking; Canadian politics is not afflicted with the U.S. problem of legislation being too difficult and slow to process.
"This was anticipated by the Charter's drafters, hence the NWC."
Yes, judicial activism was anticipated by the drafters. I just wish there was a single Canadian politician who could articulate a logic for defining judicial overreach other than, "I need to get my way, here and now, IMMEDIATELY, and any judges who would slow me down need to be over-ridden!". Any glance at the record of the outrageously self-serving and rushed way in which Poilievre advanced his "Fair Elections" Act, the self-serving way in which Ford curtailed election spending for his critics, or the rushed way in which Scott Moe invoked the Clause in the face of a mere interim injunction, and it's hard to find any NWC advocates who are genuine representatives of popular will as much as they are aggressive advocates of centralized executive power that they currently possess or think they will soon possess.
I give Poilievre credit on one point: he seems to be the first non-Quebec politician to openly hint at and thus campaign on openness to use of the NWC, which cannot be said for Ford or Moe. But it is obvious that the lack of self-awareness of Poilievre's provincial conservative peers is what is prompting him to take the political risk of challenging the decades-long history of the NWC never being used federally.
Really enjoy the podcast but disagree with a few of your interpretations.
First, the comment that PP and his team are trolls. I think you are very much misreading him. Trudeau has been the ultimate troll - look at how he took down the two previous Conservative leaders. For example, although I think people should have gone for vaccination, it has been a fundamental right in this country to turn down medical interventions. Heck, we will allow First Nations children to choose cultural treatments over chemotherapy for curable leukaemias! That was a slimy attack that worked. The Conservatives have chosen a leader who is better at this than Trudeau is and the polls are playing it out.
Second, if you think PP and his circle are just in it for trolling, you are not really listening. For better or for worse, they are going to radically change how we and the institutions do business in this country. That’s clear to me as night and day and this country desperately needs to change. It is going to be very interesting.
John, you write, "if you think PP and his circle are just in it for trolling, you are not really listening. For better or for worse, they are going to radically change how we and the institutions do business in this country."
Poilievre has made a six-figure salary for two decades on the basis of his stable attachment to a set of political institutions. There's nothing in his policy record that points to thoughtful experiments in rocking the boat.
We already saw how he behaves in government with his notorious "Fair Elections" Act, which did an excellent job of riling up criticism and resulted in little or no positive lasting change.
1. He’s not giving out any policy prior to the election. The Liberals keep using his ideas which should tell you something.
2. People keep saying why don’t the Conservatives choose someone more moderate. You had that with O’Toole and they did not vote for him. Trudeau went low and took him out. The campaign of 2021 guaranteed a politician like PP.
"He’s not giving out any policy prior to the election."
And he has never published a notable policy platform in any election he has already contested, nor made a notable contribution to a past CPC election platform. This leopard has never changed his spots.
The Liberals are responding to Poilievre's criticisms, that is not the same thing as the Liberals actually borrowing ideas from him, since he has none.
"People keep saying why don’t the Conservatives choose someone more moderate."
Anyone calling Poilievre "immoderate" is mis-stating a more obvious criticism. He is distinct from O'Toole in terms of rage-farmer rhetoric, which O'Toole abandoned upon becoming Leader but which Poilievre more consistently maintains. But aside from Poilievre hinting at his willingness to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and being more evasive of carbon-reduction policies (which have long been already-popular conservative movement positions), there is little daylight between Poilievre's policies and the policies of his predecessors, because he has few or no original ideas of his own.
Neither did Trudeau prior to assuming the leadership.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter. 24% of the country agrees with you the rest of us don’t. I’ve seen enough out of this government to know that anyone will be better than this.
Trudeau had only been an MP for 5 years and had never been in Cabinet prior to assuming the leadership, which cannot be said for Poilievre. That does make the latter more politically experienced than the former was prior to assuming leadership, but that also makes the lack of policy substance of the latter all the more inexcusable.
Incidentally, I will be supporting the Canadian Future Party, which is not likely to be running a rage-farmer policy lightweight in the election (though the permanent leader is yet to be determined).
I really hope you are right and that they use their potential majority to take an axe to the current tax code, federal civil service and unsustainable financial entitlements (eg. OAS to old bastards like me).
Hopefully a future Conservative government will also try to kick start produxtivity growth by opening up dairy, poultry, commercial aviation, telecom, media and financial services to competition. I may be naive to expect so much but Poilievre's dismissal of corporate lobbyists may be a pre-cursor to such heretical policy change.
I know. I still have faint hope that he reverses that stance early mandate. It would be difficult to campaign on regulating any of those industries except for maybe telecom.
Not going to happen. Poilievre has never defied any of the loudest voices within the conservative base, and the dairy lobby is a loud group. He's also mocked the economist community with respect to carbon taxes, so he cannot credibly turn around and lean on them to defend a policy, even if he were inclined to do so.
(I will throw in a plug for the Canadian Future Party, whose interim leadership opposes the dairy monopoly.)
He needs to support supply management to avoid being wiped out in Quebec. I could see a very small opportunity to position ending supply management as a cost of living issue once it becomes apparent that Quebec support isn't required to maintain a majority.
Thanks for the shout-out to the Canadian Future Party - I was unaware of them. Looks promising from a quick glance at the website - plenty of very appealing ideas and the only thing that triggered a negative reaction in me was the plan to establish "an independent office to combat misinformation and disinformation". That sounds a little too Orwellian for me. Of course, all the mainstream parties would also like to do this so casting the CFP aside on the basis of holding this policy goal would be the very definition of making the perfect the enemy of the good. I will keep an eye on the CFP.
I'll skip commenting on conservative riding drama, encampments, and pre-emptive A-button pushing 🥱 to get to the intertwined contents from the thoughtful close of your discussion.
On Rex Murphy.
Canada and the world lost an incredibly gifted, talented thinker, writer, and commentator. His educated turn of phrase was (and always will be) an inspiration to me, as someone who appreciates these talents.
I was hoping to enjoy his thoughts for many years yet, and will sorely miss his unique perspectives and the insights within them.
On Matt and Jen becoming mentors.
I'm a bit older than both of you, and recall the time when I became conscious that people within my own industry were looking to me, expecting me 😳 to provide wisdom, leadership, and inspiration to them.
I recall figuratively turning around and looking behind me to hopefully find someone wiser and more experienced to bail me out. No one there.
Gradually you come to expect, and with humility, accept, that that is now your role - not to be a saviour, but for certain, to be a leader and guide to those who desperately need leadership and guidance to continue growing themselves and their own talents.
It is the way of things.
It is also the way of things that financial self-interest paves the way for, and yields, public interest and benefits.
Consider the great cathedrals in Europe.
The craftsmen who built them did not get to see the finished product; in fact, generations of builders worked on these magnificent buildings, and the finished products were likely quite unlike what the original generations of cathedral builders expected or intended.
They were cathedral builders because:
- they needed to provide for themselves and their families,
- they had desire and talent as cathedral builders that needed to be expressed,
- it was an honorable profession.
That's how it is with our fine Line Editors, and I'm one of many who appreciate their contributions to their profession, particularly when we lose someone like Rex Murphy.
Your vocation of journalism will continue, and Matt & Jen have, will, and are making an important contribution and leading by example.
That is enough.
What journalism looks like in the future will be decided by those who show up for that future, just like Matt and Jen have in our present.
Interviewer: Let's begin with a few questions about your record...
JT: Speaking of the equinox, I remember monsoon season in India. The Duchess shot a tiger.
Interviewer: Er, about your record--
JT: Making abortion an economic opportunity is my government's ongoing commitment to Canadians!
Interviewer: Sorry?
JT: Would-be mothers of conservatives who change their mind and abort will receive offset cheques, thus helping the economy and alleviating climate change.
Interviewer (aside to cameraman): Is he completely crazy all the time?
JT: Our first bill in the new session will ensure that Sens' and Leafs' next head coaches are black, aboriginal females.
Interviewer: Just wondering... when the Scientologists tested you for personality, did you have one?
Jen and Matt, for the most part a good podcast. Thanks for the eulogy for Rex - he will be GREATLY missed.
So the LPC hit the abortion button and Freeland is saying that the CPC wants women to lose control of their bodies adn a LPC committee member wrings his hands about 'what will I tell my daughter when the CPC win and they take control of her body' (single quotes as I can't recallth eactual words but that is the gyst). The mud will fly and the lies will be trotted out including the hidden agendas that JS is already on about - 'the CPC will let companies pollute our land and water ...' How can we fast forward through the next interminable period until there is an election that Canadians want but one that JT and JS seem not to????
One other point - PP is not a troll nor are his front panel of folks but you take the usual liberal opinion that they must be awful follks cause they don't agree with liberal points of view. Come, come you two are smart enough to listen to what the CPC are saying and in your heart of hearts you know it is the right approach. Canada is in deep debt with no let up in sight and the current leadership can only throw money at things without much of a coherent plan on how to deal with much of anything.
Poilievre *is* a troll for the simple reason that he engages in rage-farmer rhetoric and panders to anti-Trudeau hate while offering few or no new policy ideas of his own. A politician who looked like a statesperson rather than a career troll would be able to run off a long list of policies which the Conservative Party has not already stood by for a long time.
And promising electoral reform as a pinnacle promise and then backing away from it, when having a solid mandate, isn't trolling? All the COVID pantomime wasn't trolling?
Singh wearing designer suits and five figure watches while leading a working class party isn't trolling? Come on.
It's just different trolling. Neither is better but folks are sick and tired of the troll master in chief.
"And promising electoral reform as a pinnacle promise and then backing away from it, when having a solid mandate, isn't trolling?"
No, that's not "trolling", that's lying to win over a constituency and then abandoning said constituency.
"Singh wearing designer suits and five figure watches while leading a working class party isn't trolling?"
"Trolling" is not a politician doing whatever you think is absurd or offensive. Trolling is about tone and rhetoric. Poilievre is a troll because he incites harebrain mob hate against the Prime Minister instead of making much more sound intellectual criticisms of the Prime Minister, like the example of lying that you highlighted (lying which Poilievre cannot even be bothered to criticize).
Previous elections have shown otherwise. The Liberals have been masters of the dark arts since at least the Kieth Davey days. The Conservatives only win when they do whatever it takes to win.
Canada is in deep debt. But when in power, Conservatives have piled it on just as much as the Liberals. They have zero credibility for being fiscally prudent. They just spend it in different places that do nothing for those who need it most.
Mulroney inherited a mess that was unreasonable to fix in two terms. Poilievre is facing an even bigger challenge as future government won't enjoy falling interest rates, the Boomers in prime earning years or the one time benefits of free trade. The Liberals under both Trudeaus committed the country to massive future deficits through over regulation, massive public sector hiring and new programs that will take a long time to unwind.
Thank you for the tribute to Rex Murphy. On Monday I read his article on Israel. He has been silent for a while, so it was a joy to think that Rex is back. Then on Thursday, the sad news came that he passed away. He was two years older than I am, but unlike this retired person, he was using his brilliant mind and voice to contribute to the thoughts
and ideas swirling throughout our culture.
Jen and Matt, you are doing the same with The Line, contributing what you are able to the general discourse. I do not expect you to save journalism, just keep this old gal informed and entertained.
By the way, I subscribe and make a monthly donation to the cause. The least I can do to repay for the enjoyment.
On Sabrina Maddeaux and candidate nominations, I agree that nobody should be surprised. Candidates reflect the wishes of the party leader and the beliefs of his or her team as to electability. I remember a recent story (but unfortunately not the source) saying that only one sixth of candidates are chosen by the membership. The others are incumbents running again, parachuted candidates, or candidates who have been favoured by the national level of the party. (I believe Matt said that people would be attracted by the $160,000 salary. The base salary of an MP is now $203,000, with supplements for committee work and for being a parliamentary Secretary. There are also very significant benefits.)
On the Liberals raising the abortion bugaboo now, rather than waiting closer to an election. This makes good sense if the objective is not to influence voters during an election campaign, but rather to increase the Liberals' popularity in the polls, so as to deflect calls for Mr. Trudeau to resign.
On the future of the media, I'm cautiously optimistic. I have long distrusted the advertising-based model, as subconsciously leading to bias in directions desired by advertisers (and lately governments). A user-pay model, such as the one financing substack newsletters, is much preferable, in my opinion. I think that, after teething pains, this opinion will be shared by a sufficient share of the public to make for financial viability.
I continue to subscribe to a few international media (New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais) for breadth of coverage. But apart from those, I have stopped reading MSM, especially Canadian MSM. I now rely on newsletters and Facebook community groups.
Correct, Matt. As a gay man, the link the Liberals are trying to make is beyond ridiculous. Always now they play with my acceptance as if it's there own. It's insulting and I and many others are sick of it.
They won't use the Notwithstanding Clause to end abortion rights. They will pass their fetal rights bill, and let the courts do it. I would expect that there will be a Charter challenge to the law very quickly because denying abortion puts the fetus's rights ahead of the mothers. Yes, Arnold only got 47 meaningless signatures, but watching Conservatism in the US attack women's rights, I'd be shocked if there isn't a vocal part of the base that wants the same thing here. I get mocked for suggesting it here, but I still think that massive majority will allow them a back door into abortion rights. But they're smart enough to put the final decision in the hands of the court so they can say they didn't do it. I'll be curious what people are thinking after 4 years of Pierre, who I assume will be the next PM with a huge majority.
The idea of changing bail provisions is interesting. The details are what will be critical. But the pace of the justice system needs to increase rapidly to deal with challenges of getting cases through the system in a timely manner. I have no worries that some massive use of the clause will be forthcoming.
The decline of quality journalism should be a concern to all of us. Ignorance is not bliss.
Private Member Bills aren't whipped so would never pass. Allowing them as an outlet for pro-lifers to feel considered isn't significant.
Is abortion even relevant in a country where few get pregnant anymore due to aging demographics and a cost of living crisis that keeps the youth living in their parents' basements?
The abortion panic button is Liberal dog whistling. They want the folks who are NDP supporters except at the ballot box to understand that "their vote is too important to waste" and it is also a rallying cry for their core urban educated white female base. A base it should be mentioned who are the most comfortable and wealthy in Canada, and have their housing and food costs sorted out already.
Expect a lot more of these Laurentian Elite fire drills.
I can’t wait for the usual “hidden agenda” nonsense to be responded to by “fuck off, nobody cares, knock the protesting out of your thick skull and jump off a cliff”. The LPC absolutely needs to get stomped into the dust for enabling criminality and it’s very fun to see the hopes and dreams that their supporters had in 2015 be burned in front of them - serves them right for having them in the first place.
Also, if judges didn’t have their heads far up their asses in protecting their pet victims (criminals in this case), they’d be held in higher regard. Poilievre wouldn’t be able to directly attack them and still lead in the polls. But they’ve chosen to get high on their own farts instead of preserving the credibility of the system they serve.
Zooming out, it’s part of a larger issue of institutions closing ranks around bad actors instead of putting heads on pikes. How many people from PHAC have received any punishment for their covid fuckups? How many of the neocons (who have the absolute nerve to complain about a few happy merchant memes) have been held responsible for the Iraq War? How many of the bankers who melted down the economy in 2008 have gone to jail?
None of the attacks on judges make any damn sense over these issues.
The problematic examples from recent history appear to have been out on first-instance bail - i.e. they weren't charged with breaching their current conditions. It's notable that the non-compliance with conditions is usually detected. The criminals just don't get arrested or turned in. That's a policing and community issue.
Letting people who aren't convicted of a crime out is a fundamental principle of justice, especially as what constitutes a crime seems to be becoming more and more expansive.
Nice to read about at least one police service and one university that had the fortitude to remove “protesters” from the campus. More cities and more universities might want to step up and push back against this gang of thugs.
Great podcast tip to tail. Worth adding that one of the fascinating dynamics post-Dobbs in the United States is that Republicans nationwide have been getting killed on the subject of abortion ever since. They're losing red state legislative battles, they're losing red state referendums, and they're losing red state elections in districts where they normally cruise to victory.
Abortion in the US has suddenly gone from a subject where everyone says their culture war-assigned lines and then carries on with business as usual to one where reliable Republican voters are actually listening to what's being proposed by pro-lifers/looking at the reality of what they're starting to lose and recoiling. There's been a lot of statements from the politically disengaged along the lines of "I'm pro-life but this is crazy", where "this" is the standard pro-life policy platform that's been publicly discussed for years. People just weren't listening until now, and/or didn't understand the real implications of these proposals on their medical care.
Culture war stasis for decades when it was a matter of winning the battle to appoint the most supreme court judges. Immediate, pragmatic, and very final resolutions beginning to appear now that it's a legislative matter, and not resolutions that have favoured conservatives.
IMHO, the two conclusions relevant to the podcast are:
1. Canadian conservatives should assume (and I imagine party leadership does, especially now) that any actual attempt to advance pro-life policies will almost certainly end with them getting Ides of March'd by not just Canadians generally but their own ostensibly pro-life moderates.
2. Not every issue is a good fit for resolution by the courts. The courts are great. They're highly competent at their job. But they're not built to make policy, especially when it involves facts that can't be derived from observations made by the court of witnesses who have testified and been cross-examined in front of them.
The SCC has made more than a few Charter decisions that edge beyond statutory interpretation/application and into policy. There's a lot to be said for a mechanism like the notwithstanding clause that brings difficult cases back into the hands of the government branch that has the most contact with, and is able to react most rapidly and effectively to the reality of, day-to-day life in Canada, including the actual effects on that life of government policy and judicial decisions.
P.S. You'll have done enough for the future of Canadian journalism if you successfully prototype a new business model that earns you both a stable, respectable income and that doesn't involve government subsidies. That's it. More is not required to leave a legacy, and overextending out of a sense of charitable obligation is taking the wrong lesson from The Giving Tree. Don't end up a stump.
Banning abortion is a huge vote loser as the Republicans are belatedly finding out.
This is paradoxically why I liked the Dobbs decision. Abortion is going to be a dead issue in the next 4 years and will never be heard from again. Politicians who bring in the severe bans are going to be wiped out.
Agreed. Republicans are finding out that even having the subject become real to their voters is a huge vote loser, much less banning it. Pro-life planks in Republican platforms are no longer just empty talk. It's making it very difficult for Republicans to employ their traditional strategy of promising their pro-life wing that they're fighting as hard as possible, while promising their moderates with the other side of their mouth that none of that effort will ever amount to anything.
There's always been a pragmatic middle ground on this subject that has overwhelming electoral support and most Western countries have already found it, including Canada. The US is about to do the same now that the issue is in the hands of the correct branch of government. And then yes, agreed, we can all stop hearing about it, which I thought would never happen.
Clarke, you write, "There's a lot to be said for a mechanism like the notwithstanding clause that brings difficult cases back into the hands of the government branch that has the most contact with, and is able to react most rapidly and effectively to the reality of, day-to-day life in Canada, including the actual effects on that life of government policy and judicial decisions."
There can be. However, almost every use of the Notwithstanding Clause in Canadian politics has been impulsive in nature. It has usually been used not because an incumbent government has seriously considered and been patient with the judicial process, but because the Premier of the day is in a rush to completely get their way and not think through the long-term implications of their actions. I see no indication that Poilievre's potential use of the Clause would be any different, since he has not outlined a coherent logic for deciding when to invoke or not invoke the Clause.
It seems odd to require of Poilievre that he outline in advance a coherent logic for deciding when to invoke the NWC when there is no such statement of coherent logic available to govern the use of the Charter by our judiciary.
Nor can there be, because even at the highest level - when judicial decision-making is distilled to our nine most brilliant jurists all physically in the same room reading the same evidentiary records and listening to the same arguments - our judiciary is routinely unable to express a collectively coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter.
I've read plenty of dissents that made far more sense to me than the majority judgments, but critical to my point here about coherence is that dissents exist at all - to say nothing of the impulsivity implied by dissents that our finest legal scholars assess from the formatting were majority judgments at the time of their drafting.
Frankly, the NWC is structurally much more alive to long-term implications than the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not subject to a rule that they must reconsider their old judgments every five years and decide on the basis of the evidence that's accumulated since then whether to revise them or let them stand.
You write, "our judiciary is routinely unable to express a collectively coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter."
They are by nature supposed to only ever look at Charter cases on a case-by-case basis, just like with all legal questions.
You write, "Frankly, the NWC is structurally much more alive to long-term implications than the Supreme Court of Canada"
We are not talking about the structure of the NWC but the logic of the politicians invoking it. I have never seen a provincial government say, "We tried so hard to reason with and reform the courts, but they did not listen, so we are going ahead with the NWC." The logic employed always is, "I want to get my way here and now, so we might as well just push the big red button." Observers like Matt can point out that the big red button is meant to be used, but the politicians who use it casually do not deserve a special exemption from being judged harshly accordingly.
You write, "the Supreme Court of Canada, which is not subject to a rule that they must reconsider their old judgments every five years and decide on the basis of the evidence that's accumulated since then whether to revise them or let them stand."
Except that the judgments of the Supreme Court *do* change. Although the Court is by nature deferential to case precedent, similar persons in similar circumstances file similar Charter cases and in some instances get different results. Supreme Courts change their opinions in response to new experiences and instances, like they did with assisted suicide. In some cases the Court has been ahead of politicians in the trajectory of public opinion, like it was with same-sex marriage. And at the end of the day, the SC judges eventually retire, and if a sitting government feels that the Court has been too activist, they are free to appoint new judges with a more restrained judicial ideology. The Court may be non-responsive by nature to short-term political pressures, but its reasoning still generally ebbs and flows with that of Canadians at large.
So what you are saying is that we as Canadians should defer to our "betters" on the Supreme Court? That unaccountable and unelected body, rather that the will of the people.
I'd have more sympathy for that argument if our elites dared have, and require it pass a referendum.
Meanwhile Quebec hasn't even agreed to the Charter.
If this is the pinnacle of Canadian jurisprudence and our gift to the world, Canada indeed is hobbled by a mediocre legal elite.
"So what you are saying is that we as Canadians should defer to our "betters" on the Supreme Court?"
Nope, I never said anything like that. I said that the Court responds to the long-term rather than short-term pressures of Canadian public opinion.
"I'd have more sympathy for that argument if our elites dared have, and require it pass a referendum."
There has already been a gazillion polls confirming that most Canadians support the Charter. The only reason that the Notwithstanding Clause is politically possible to use is that the minority of Canadians who desire its use are cohesive in supporting plurality conservative and separatist parties federally and provincially, whereas support for the Charter is split between smaller parties representing a collective majority that is weakened by the first-past-the-post electoral system.
I'm not sure "the judiciary can't express a coherent belief about the logic governing the Charter because they're not allowed to, not because they're unable" materially improves your position, nor does "the SCC is generally deferential to precedent, but may occasionally and unpredictably decide to overturn precedent when they feel like it".
Legislatures reason with the courts through the oral and written arguments of Crown counsel appointed to represent the government's position. Legislatures, in other words, attempt to reason with the courts constantly. As a consequence of the accumulation of those tens of thousands of data points and with the provision of expert advice from veteran Crown counsel, legislatures have an excellent idea how attempts to reason with the courts on a particular point are likely to turn out ahead of time. There's no reason to waste time - often years - grinding away seeking judicial approval that's both unlikely and constitutionally unnecessary if the legislature has already made up its mind.
Yes, the SCC's reasoning generally ebbs and flows with that of Canadians at large, which is a testament to the caution and skill typically displayed by the jurists we appoint to it. But the SCC does occasionally slice a decision deep into the rough, e.g. "not even mass murderers can be issued life sentences". This was anticipated by the Charter's drafters, hence the NWC.
Checks and balances exist between branches of government, not just within them. The final check in Canada's case is the legislature, not the judiciary.* The legislature drafts, the SCC interprets, the legislature clarifies as required. That's the nature of the "dialogue" the SCC itself affirms exists between the branches.
*In the case of some Charter sections. In the case of others where the NWC explicitly doesn't apply, like election-related rights, the final check is the judiciary. Hybrid supremacy, baby!
You write, "There's no reason to waste time - often years - grinding away seeking judicial approval that's both unlikely and constitutionally unnecessary if the legislature has already made up its mind."
We have had a see-saw back-and-forth between Conservative and Liberal majorities running roughshod over the opposition with legislation that is repealed the moment that the next government goes into power. Forcing the government of the day to be a little more patient when patience is warranted is a feature in which Canadian politics is distinctly lacking; Canadian politics is not afflicted with the U.S. problem of legislation being too difficult and slow to process.
"This was anticipated by the Charter's drafters, hence the NWC."
Yes, judicial activism was anticipated by the drafters. I just wish there was a single Canadian politician who could articulate a logic for defining judicial overreach other than, "I need to get my way, here and now, IMMEDIATELY, and any judges who would slow me down need to be over-ridden!". Any glance at the record of the outrageously self-serving and rushed way in which Poilievre advanced his "Fair Elections" Act, the self-serving way in which Ford curtailed election spending for his critics, or the rushed way in which Scott Moe invoked the Clause in the face of a mere interim injunction, and it's hard to find any NWC advocates who are genuine representatives of popular will as much as they are aggressive advocates of centralized executive power that they currently possess or think they will soon possess.
I give Poilievre credit on one point: he seems to be the first non-Quebec politician to openly hint at and thus campaign on openness to use of the NWC, which cannot be said for Ford or Moe. But it is obvious that the lack of self-awareness of Poilievre's provincial conservative peers is what is prompting him to take the political risk of challenging the decades-long history of the NWC never being used federally.
Really enjoy the podcast but disagree with a few of your interpretations.
First, the comment that PP and his team are trolls. I think you are very much misreading him. Trudeau has been the ultimate troll - look at how he took down the two previous Conservative leaders. For example, although I think people should have gone for vaccination, it has been a fundamental right in this country to turn down medical interventions. Heck, we will allow First Nations children to choose cultural treatments over chemotherapy for curable leukaemias! That was a slimy attack that worked. The Conservatives have chosen a leader who is better at this than Trudeau is and the polls are playing it out.
Second, if you think PP and his circle are just in it for trolling, you are not really listening. For better or for worse, they are going to radically change how we and the institutions do business in this country. That’s clear to me as night and day and this country desperately needs to change. It is going to be very interesting.
John, you write, "if you think PP and his circle are just in it for trolling, you are not really listening. For better or for worse, they are going to radically change how we and the institutions do business in this country."
Poilievre has made a six-figure salary for two decades on the basis of his stable attachment to a set of political institutions. There's nothing in his policy record that points to thoughtful experiments in rocking the boat.
We already saw how he behaves in government with his notorious "Fair Elections" Act, which did an excellent job of riling up criticism and resulted in little or no positive lasting change.
1. He’s not giving out any policy prior to the election. The Liberals keep using his ideas which should tell you something.
2. People keep saying why don’t the Conservatives choose someone more moderate. You had that with O’Toole and they did not vote for him. Trudeau went low and took him out. The campaign of 2021 guaranteed a politician like PP.
"He’s not giving out any policy prior to the election."
And he has never published a notable policy platform in any election he has already contested, nor made a notable contribution to a past CPC election platform. This leopard has never changed his spots.
The Liberals are responding to Poilievre's criticisms, that is not the same thing as the Liberals actually borrowing ideas from him, since he has none.
"People keep saying why don’t the Conservatives choose someone more moderate."
Anyone calling Poilievre "immoderate" is mis-stating a more obvious criticism. He is distinct from O'Toole in terms of rage-farmer rhetoric, which O'Toole abandoned upon becoming Leader but which Poilievre more consistently maintains. But aside from Poilievre hinting at his willingness to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause and being more evasive of carbon-reduction policies (which have long been already-popular conservative movement positions), there is little daylight between Poilievre's policies and the policies of his predecessors, because he has few or no original ideas of his own.
Neither did Trudeau prior to assuming the leadership.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter. 24% of the country agrees with you the rest of us don’t. I’ve seen enough out of this government to know that anyone will be better than this.
Trudeau had only been an MP for 5 years and had never been in Cabinet prior to assuming the leadership, which cannot be said for Poilievre. That does make the latter more politically experienced than the former was prior to assuming leadership, but that also makes the lack of policy substance of the latter all the more inexcusable.
Incidentally, I will be supporting the Canadian Future Party, which is not likely to be running a rage-farmer policy lightweight in the election (though the permanent leader is yet to be determined).
I really hope you are right and that they use their potential majority to take an axe to the current tax code, federal civil service and unsustainable financial entitlements (eg. OAS to old bastards like me).
Those 3 would be a good start. Fingers crossed.
They have no choice but to deal with them. The country isn’t generating enough income for the status quo.
Hopefully a future Conservative government will also try to kick start produxtivity growth by opening up dairy, poultry, commercial aviation, telecom, media and financial services to competition. I may be naive to expect so much but Poilievre's dismissal of corporate lobbyists may be a pre-cursor to such heretical policy change.
Boy and I thought I was being wildly optomistic. You win hook line and sinker. :)
Poilievre has indicated explicit support for the dairy monopoly.
I know. I still have faint hope that he reverses that stance early mandate. It would be difficult to campaign on regulating any of those industries except for maybe telecom.
Not going to happen. Poilievre has never defied any of the loudest voices within the conservative base, and the dairy lobby is a loud group. He's also mocked the economist community with respect to carbon taxes, so he cannot credibly turn around and lean on them to defend a policy, even if he were inclined to do so.
(I will throw in a plug for the Canadian Future Party, whose interim leadership opposes the dairy monopoly.)
He needs to support supply management to avoid being wiped out in Quebec. I could see a very small opportunity to position ending supply management as a cost of living issue once it becomes apparent that Quebec support isn't required to maintain a majority.
Thanks for the shout-out to the Canadian Future Party - I was unaware of them. Looks promising from a quick glance at the website - plenty of very appealing ideas and the only thing that triggered a negative reaction in me was the plan to establish "an independent office to combat misinformation and disinformation". That sounds a little too Orwellian for me. Of course, all the mainstream parties would also like to do this so casting the CFP aside on the basis of holding this policy goal would be the very definition of making the perfect the enemy of the good. I will keep an eye on the CFP.
I'll skip commenting on conservative riding drama, encampments, and pre-emptive A-button pushing 🥱 to get to the intertwined contents from the thoughtful close of your discussion.
On Rex Murphy.
Canada and the world lost an incredibly gifted, talented thinker, writer, and commentator. His educated turn of phrase was (and always will be) an inspiration to me, as someone who appreciates these talents.
I was hoping to enjoy his thoughts for many years yet, and will sorely miss his unique perspectives and the insights within them.
On Matt and Jen becoming mentors.
I'm a bit older than both of you, and recall the time when I became conscious that people within my own industry were looking to me, expecting me 😳 to provide wisdom, leadership, and inspiration to them.
I recall figuratively turning around and looking behind me to hopefully find someone wiser and more experienced to bail me out. No one there.
Gradually you come to expect, and with humility, accept, that that is now your role - not to be a saviour, but for certain, to be a leader and guide to those who desperately need leadership and guidance to continue growing themselves and their own talents.
It is the way of things.
It is also the way of things that financial self-interest paves the way for, and yields, public interest and benefits.
Consider the great cathedrals in Europe.
The craftsmen who built them did not get to see the finished product; in fact, generations of builders worked on these magnificent buildings, and the finished products were likely quite unlike what the original generations of cathedral builders expected or intended.
They were cathedral builders because:
- they needed to provide for themselves and their families,
- they had desire and talent as cathedral builders that needed to be expressed,
- it was an honorable profession.
That's how it is with our fine Line Editors, and I'm one of many who appreciate their contributions to their profession, particularly when we lose someone like Rex Murphy.
Your vocation of journalism will continue, and Matt & Jen have, will, and are making an important contribution and leading by example.
That is enough.
What journalism looks like in the future will be decided by those who show up for that future, just like Matt and Jen have in our present.
Thanks for that!
Like & Subscribe! 😎
Interviewer: Let's begin with a few questions about your record...
JT: Speaking of the equinox, I remember monsoon season in India. The Duchess shot a tiger.
Interviewer: Er, about your record--
JT: Making abortion an economic opportunity is my government's ongoing commitment to Canadians!
Interviewer: Sorry?
JT: Would-be mothers of conservatives who change their mind and abort will receive offset cheques, thus helping the economy and alleviating climate change.
Interviewer (aside to cameraman): Is he completely crazy all the time?
JT: Our first bill in the new session will ensure that Sens' and Leafs' next head coaches are black, aboriginal females.
Interviewer: Just wondering... when the Scientologists tested you for personality, did you have one?
Jen and Matt, for the most part a good podcast. Thanks for the eulogy for Rex - he will be GREATLY missed.
So the LPC hit the abortion button and Freeland is saying that the CPC wants women to lose control of their bodies adn a LPC committee member wrings his hands about 'what will I tell my daughter when the CPC win and they take control of her body' (single quotes as I can't recallth eactual words but that is the gyst). The mud will fly and the lies will be trotted out including the hidden agendas that JS is already on about - 'the CPC will let companies pollute our land and water ...' How can we fast forward through the next interminable period until there is an election that Canadians want but one that JT and JS seem not to????
One other point - PP is not a troll nor are his front panel of folks but you take the usual liberal opinion that they must be awful follks cause they don't agree with liberal points of view. Come, come you two are smart enough to listen to what the CPC are saying and in your heart of hearts you know it is the right approach. Canada is in deep debt with no let up in sight and the current leadership can only throw money at things without much of a coherent plan on how to deal with much of anything.
But hey, we got weed right!!
Poilievre *is* a troll for the simple reason that he engages in rage-farmer rhetoric and panders to anti-Trudeau hate while offering few or no new policy ideas of his own. A politician who looked like a statesperson rather than a career troll would be able to run off a long list of policies which the Conservative Party has not already stood by for a long time.
And promising electoral reform as a pinnacle promise and then backing away from it, when having a solid mandate, isn't trolling? All the COVID pantomime wasn't trolling?
Singh wearing designer suits and five figure watches while leading a working class party isn't trolling? Come on.
It's just different trolling. Neither is better but folks are sick and tired of the troll master in chief.
"And promising electoral reform as a pinnacle promise and then backing away from it, when having a solid mandate, isn't trolling?"
No, that's not "trolling", that's lying to win over a constituency and then abandoning said constituency.
"Singh wearing designer suits and five figure watches while leading a working class party isn't trolling?"
"Trolling" is not a politician doing whatever you think is absurd or offensive. Trolling is about tone and rhetoric. Poilievre is a troll because he incites harebrain mob hate against the Prime Minister instead of making much more sound intellectual criticisms of the Prime Minister, like the example of lying that you highlighted (lying which Poilievre cannot even be bothered to criticize).
You sir need to online more. I'm assigning a long night of doom scrolling on Reddit so you can learn how the kids troll.
Previous elections have shown otherwise. The Liberals have been masters of the dark arts since at least the Kieth Davey days. The Conservatives only win when they do whatever it takes to win.
Canada is in deep debt. But when in power, Conservatives have piled it on just as much as the Liberals. They have zero credibility for being fiscally prudent. They just spend it in different places that do nothing for those who need it most.
Mulroney inherited a mess that was unreasonable to fix in two terms. Poilievre is facing an even bigger challenge as future government won't enjoy falling interest rates, the Boomers in prime earning years or the one time benefits of free trade. The Liberals under both Trudeaus committed the country to massive future deficits through over regulation, massive public sector hiring and new programs that will take a long time to unwind.
Thank you for the tribute to Rex Murphy. On Monday I read his article on Israel. He has been silent for a while, so it was a joy to think that Rex is back. Then on Thursday, the sad news came that he passed away. He was two years older than I am, but unlike this retired person, he was using his brilliant mind and voice to contribute to the thoughts
and ideas swirling throughout our culture.
Jen and Matt, you are doing the same with The Line, contributing what you are able to the general discourse. I do not expect you to save journalism, just keep this old gal informed and entertained.
By the way, I subscribe and make a monthly donation to the cause. The least I can do to repay for the enjoyment.
Thank you for a great podcast once again.
On Sabrina Maddeaux and candidate nominations, I agree that nobody should be surprised. Candidates reflect the wishes of the party leader and the beliefs of his or her team as to electability. I remember a recent story (but unfortunately not the source) saying that only one sixth of candidates are chosen by the membership. The others are incumbents running again, parachuted candidates, or candidates who have been favoured by the national level of the party. (I believe Matt said that people would be attracted by the $160,000 salary. The base salary of an MP is now $203,000, with supplements for committee work and for being a parliamentary Secretary. There are also very significant benefits.)
On the Liberals raising the abortion bugaboo now, rather than waiting closer to an election. This makes good sense if the objective is not to influence voters during an election campaign, but rather to increase the Liberals' popularity in the polls, so as to deflect calls for Mr. Trudeau to resign.
On the future of the media, I'm cautiously optimistic. I have long distrusted the advertising-based model, as subconsciously leading to bias in directions desired by advertisers (and lately governments). A user-pay model, such as the one financing substack newsletters, is much preferable, in my opinion. I think that, after teething pains, this opinion will be shared by a sufficient share of the public to make for financial viability.
I continue to subscribe to a few international media (New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais) for breadth of coverage. But apart from those, I have stopped reading MSM, especially Canadian MSM. I now rely on newsletters and Facebook community groups.
Love you guys. Thank you for your transparency. Two honest people is enough.
In you I see me, and in me I see you.
Somewhere, somehow there is a future that is not just survival for our families but flourishing.
Yes we would definitely miss you.
Correct, Matt. As a gay man, the link the Liberals are trying to make is beyond ridiculous. Always now they play with my acceptance as if it's there own. It's insulting and I and many others are sick of it.
They won't use the Notwithstanding Clause to end abortion rights. They will pass their fetal rights bill, and let the courts do it. I would expect that there will be a Charter challenge to the law very quickly because denying abortion puts the fetus's rights ahead of the mothers. Yes, Arnold only got 47 meaningless signatures, but watching Conservatism in the US attack women's rights, I'd be shocked if there isn't a vocal part of the base that wants the same thing here. I get mocked for suggesting it here, but I still think that massive majority will allow them a back door into abortion rights. But they're smart enough to put the final decision in the hands of the court so they can say they didn't do it. I'll be curious what people are thinking after 4 years of Pierre, who I assume will be the next PM with a huge majority.
The idea of changing bail provisions is interesting. The details are what will be critical. But the pace of the justice system needs to increase rapidly to deal with challenges of getting cases through the system in a timely manner. I have no worries that some massive use of the clause will be forthcoming.
The decline of quality journalism should be a concern to all of us. Ignorance is not bliss.
Private Member Bills aren't whipped so would never pass. Allowing them as an outlet for pro-lifers to feel considered isn't significant.
Is abortion even relevant in a country where few get pregnant anymore due to aging demographics and a cost of living crisis that keeps the youth living in their parents' basements?
The shit end of the stick generation?