I wish those who fixate on individuals would pay more attention to process changes like this.
Whether someone likes or trusts Mark Carney as an individual or not, this is a process change that is unlikely to be reversed by a future executive branch. Canadians look to the USA in horror with the unaccountable activities of their executive branch, much of which was slowly handed over to that branch over decades, and then somehow think something good can come out of a similar direction being taken by Canada. Canada’s Democratic Institutions have already been greatly weakened over the last century by incrementally adopting flawed processes from the USA.
I don't believe this is a case of "friction in a democracy", but that what is being described as friction IS the democracy.
Canada and the USA seem to really like the idea of returning to their origins of being a pure Monarchy.
The changes are appalling but what's worse is the lack of transparency. If you believe this is be the path forward, then be forthright and put it before the voters, before the election. The approach is dishonest and deceptive (as is the associated attempt to rewrite standard accounting practices for government budgets). Together with the profoundly unconstitutional provisions of the Online Harms Act and the Combatting Hate Act, we have the makings of the most autocratic and illiberal government we've had since Canada was ruled by Queen Victoria.
This is a thoughtful piece and a helpful reminder of how much activity inside large legislation most Canadians rarely see. Work like this makes the parliamentary process more visible, which is always valuable in a democracy.
At the same time, I find myself thinking about a tension Canada has been grappling with for a long time. For decades there has been widespread frustration — across governments and across parties — about how slowly regulatory approvals and major infrastructure projects move forward. In many areas we really have become as slow as molasses.
Some effort to change that pace is probably inevitable. The challenge, of course, is getting the balance right.
Trying to speed up processes that have historically taken years — sometimes decades — will almost certainly involve some risks and a few missteps along the way. I’m not sure there’s a perfect way to test that balance except by watching very carefully how the first projects move through any new framework.
That’s where Canada’s democratic guardrails matter most: parliamentary scrutiny, independent oversight, and the institutions that exist to catch problems if governments move too far or too fast. If changes are coming, those safeguards will be essential to ensuring the public interest stays protected.
One need look only to the US to see the problems with allowing select corporations to be exempt from almost any law. Most of Trump's Executive Orders do that also for the purpose of strengthening the economy. Corporations are motivated by profit for their shareholders, which are usually multi-million dollar funds. In contrast, Democratic governments should be motivated by what is best for most of the people living in their countries. Friction is extremely useful to make sure that governments understand the consequences of their decisions both in the short term and long term and over a wide range of areas. Rushing to change everything is a bit like Elon Musk's approach...Break it all and then build something new. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well.
"The provisions grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt select corporations from almost any law or regulation in Canada, save for the Criminal Code."
The article flags real issues with Bill C-15's omnibus scope straining oversight, but it overstates the scale and risks, like claiming 43 committees rewrote governance or ministers got unchecked exemptions from nearly all laws. Evidence shows typical budget bill processes with limited, conditional regulatory flexibilities—not a power grab. Check parl.ca bill text for facts over spin.
I wish those who fixate on individuals would pay more attention to process changes like this.
Whether someone likes or trusts Mark Carney as an individual or not, this is a process change that is unlikely to be reversed by a future executive branch. Canadians look to the USA in horror with the unaccountable activities of their executive branch, much of which was slowly handed over to that branch over decades, and then somehow think something good can come out of a similar direction being taken by Canada. Canada’s Democratic Institutions have already been greatly weakened over the last century by incrementally adopting flawed processes from the USA.
I don't believe this is a case of "friction in a democracy", but that what is being described as friction IS the democracy.
Canada and the USA seem to really like the idea of returning to their origins of being a pure Monarchy.
The changes are appalling but what's worse is the lack of transparency. If you believe this is be the path forward, then be forthright and put it before the voters, before the election. The approach is dishonest and deceptive (as is the associated attempt to rewrite standard accounting practices for government budgets). Together with the profoundly unconstitutional provisions of the Online Harms Act and the Combatting Hate Act, we have the makings of the most autocratic and illiberal government we've had since Canada was ruled by Queen Victoria.
This is a thoughtful piece and a helpful reminder of how much activity inside large legislation most Canadians rarely see. Work like this makes the parliamentary process more visible, which is always valuable in a democracy.
At the same time, I find myself thinking about a tension Canada has been grappling with for a long time. For decades there has been widespread frustration — across governments and across parties — about how slowly regulatory approvals and major infrastructure projects move forward. In many areas we really have become as slow as molasses.
Some effort to change that pace is probably inevitable. The challenge, of course, is getting the balance right.
Trying to speed up processes that have historically taken years — sometimes decades — will almost certainly involve some risks and a few missteps along the way. I’m not sure there’s a perfect way to test that balance except by watching very carefully how the first projects move through any new framework.
That’s where Canada’s democratic guardrails matter most: parliamentary scrutiny, independent oversight, and the institutions that exist to catch problems if governments move too far or too fast. If changes are coming, those safeguards will be essential to ensuring the public interest stays protected.
One need look only to the US to see the problems with allowing select corporations to be exempt from almost any law. Most of Trump's Executive Orders do that also for the purpose of strengthening the economy. Corporations are motivated by profit for their shareholders, which are usually multi-million dollar funds. In contrast, Democratic governments should be motivated by what is best for most of the people living in their countries. Friction is extremely useful to make sure that governments understand the consequences of their decisions both in the short term and long term and over a wide range of areas. Rushing to change everything is a bit like Elon Musk's approach...Break it all and then build something new. That doesn't seem to have worked out so well.
"The provisions grant cabinet ministers the power to exempt select corporations from almost any law or regulation in Canada, save for the Criminal Code."
Fast, good, or cheap; I can see which two have been picked. Thank-you.
The article flags real issues with Bill C-15's omnibus scope straining oversight, but it overstates the scale and risks, like claiming 43 committees rewrote governance or ministers got unchecked exemptions from nearly all laws. Evidence shows typical budget bill processes with limited, conditional regulatory flexibilities—not a power grab. Check parl.ca bill text for facts over spin.