What an inane response. Given the delay in implementing the decision, and the myriad of steps taken before it got to requesting specific direction for the government to meet any of its court ordered obligations under the decision, what on earth would the G&M suggest? It's preferable to maintain the idea of absolute government discretion in spending against the actuality of government behaving illegally in defiance of constitutional rules and court orders? And despite the fact that allowing direction in spending as a Charter remedy in extraordinary situations, like this one, we ought to pretend it isn't allowed because it isn't what we like, though it is the thing that would save children and families? This piece is embarrassingly unanchored for all of the realities and legalities of the situation surrounding the Tribunal decision.