After the financial crisis circa 2008 there was a high-profile international debate about which approach was best for banking regulation: Detailed legalistic rules that try to cover every possible situation, or rules that set forth simple principles to make clear the spirit of the law with the understanding that they might not cover everything and may even need to be violated in case of emergency. I'm not sure what Mark Carney had to say about it, but I suppose we can guess.

In other contexts it can be an interesting debate but when it comes to C-2 it seems beside the point. Regardless of which approach is preferred that bill in its most problematic parts lays out clear and simple principles which are themselves ill-considered, unconstitutional, and deeply out of step with the values Canadians expect our government to embody and respect..