Chris Selley: Our supreme court's chief justice is a busted flush. What will we do about it?
That hall-of-fame, mic-drop Canadian quote, delivered to National Post's Christopher Nardi this week, came from no less an authority than the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Wagner.
Article content
Article content
The thing Wagner supposedly doesn't know who paid for is a hideous bronze bust of himself that sits in the entrance hall of the Supreme Court building, where it breaks at least two longstanding traditions: one, that only former chief justices get publicly busted; and two, that the busts indicate their provenance.
Article content
Article content
Let us pause here to consider the proposition Canada's most senior jurist has placed before us, in public, as if he thought he was defending himself effectively.
Article content
Article content
We are to believe he just showed up to work one morning to find himself immortalized in bronze in the lobby of his office, and not only did he not know where this bronze bust came from, but at no point in the many months since it showed up has he bothered to inquire where it came from.
Article content
'The Chief Justice's bust was donated to the Court by a donor who specifically asked to remain anonymous. For this reason, the plaque bears no mention of the donor. We have no information on the cost of the bust,' the Supreme Court's executive legal officer Stéphanie Bachand told National Post last year. 'Neither the Chief Justice nor the court's administration know about the donor's identity.'
Article content
If you believe that — and far be it from me to suggest you should doubt the word of a fine, upstanding, Jesuit-educated judge such as Wagner — then isn't that a bit of a problem in itself? Canada's decider-in-chief wasn't even a bit curious? Can anyone just donate a grotesque likeness of a Supreme Court justice, FedEx it to the Supreme Court, and expect it to be prominently on display when they show up a week later?
Article content
Article content
It's not as though Wagner doesn't take ownership of the court's other general affairs. At the same press conference Wednesday where he disavowed any knowledge of how the unexpected statuary arrived, he updated reporters on the renovation schedule for the Supreme Court building, and confirmed the court would be hearing cases in Halifax in 2027. He also wants new robes for the justices, because that was definitely the squeaky wheel that needed greasing.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
30 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court will take up a new case about which school sports teams transgender students can join
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a case over state restrictions on which school sports teams transgender students can join. Just two weeks after upholding a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, the justices said they will review lower court rulings in favor of transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia. The nationwide battle over the participation of transgender girls on girls sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans have leveraged the issue as a fight for athletic fairness for women and girls. More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court. At the federal level, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits and launched investigations over state and school policies that have allowed transgender athletes to compete freely. This week, the University of Pennsylvania modified a trio of school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by her participation on the women's swimming team, part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case. The case will be argued in the fall.
National Observer
31 minutes ago
- National Observer
New supply management law can't save the system from Trump, experts say
A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. "It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back," said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. "Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved." When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a "very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products." Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on US dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the US dairy industry, said in March the US has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the US, it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the US. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond "processors." "(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota," he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely "lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import US cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree." Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the "royal prerogative" — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. "I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies)," he said by email. "That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue." He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. "The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened," he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. "The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously," Warner said. "My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it." While supply management has long been a target for US trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. "The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way," he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. "The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades," said Pellerin. "But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product." The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the US expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground," she said.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Joel Kotkin: The West's immigration reckoning is here
The recent riots in Los Angeles, sparked by President Trump's crackdown on undocumented immigrants, could be a harbinger to a new era of ethnic conflict not only in the U.S. but throughout the West, including Canada. Article content Many leading countries for immigrants, notably in the Middle East, may have higher percentages of international migrants, but many are only there temporarily. But in Canada, Australia, and the U.S. — where the foreign born represent between 15 and 30 per cent of the total population — most come to stay, with sometimes problematic results. Article content Article content Article content President Joe Biden changed immigration policies, allowing millions, some barely vetted, to enter at ever increasing rates, causing the number of undocumented immigrants to soar past 11 million. Until recently, former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau followed a similar liberalization that allowed large numbers of migrants, some coming as refugees, into the country Article content Article content In both countries, the mass migration has deepened already serious class divides as many new migrants remain poor. In Canada, one in five recent immigrants now lives in poverty, with most suffering from 'deep poverty' — an income below 75 per cent of the poverty line — compared to only five per cent of the whole population. Article content Such complexities are rarely part of the public discussion of immigration. In the U.S. legacy media spin on the crackdown focuses on the abuses and often ham handed approach used by the Trump administration in working class Latino communities. Stories of individual cases of respectable and upright families targeted by the crackdown predominate, stirring up ever more fear of a racist, even 'fascist' crackdown on minorities. Article content Article content In contrast, the MAGA view focuses on criminal migrants and radical demonstrators, some of whom have engaged in violence. The images of young protesters waving Mexican flags is offensive to many American citizens, even in California. For MAGA, the crackdown represents both a return to legality as well as a defence from hostile elements. Article content Article content Both views largely ignore a more complex, and often contradictory reality. Historically, as immigrant advocates rightly claim, the migration of peoples have been critical to the economic health, and cultural dynamism, of countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and France. Article content Guest workers, for example, played a critical role in the revival of Europe's economies, and steady immigration sparked growth in Canada, the U.S. and Australia. Yet as immigration levels have soared, the economic payoffs seem to be increasingly dubious, particularly when we put into account the changing structure of the labour market.
