Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

While I appreciate your long detailed rebuttal (less so your claim that I haven't read), your example of a technicality here is different from the one LeBrun asserted in his tweeted example and one I alluded to for one.

Okay, walk me through it then. It is different that what LeBrun said? I don't have xitter so I can only see limited "threads" of Twitter posts, but the one I read said "This ruling is a technical interpretation of the language of the Emergencies Act, not an endorsement of the convoy". Is that not the "technicality" you/he were referring to?

There was multiple key questions, and the powers created did violate section 2 and 8 of the charter that could not be justified under section 1 along with the proclamation itself being unreasonable and illegal of the act as it failed to meet either conditions defining a national emergency. The Emergencies Act also does not give a carte blanche for the government to violate the charter with impunity. Your statement that the act allows the government to violate the charter is misleading.

You flagrantly misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not make any such statement. You said:

Originally Posted by Firebot

... the judge even states in hindsight that a more extensive record of the facts and the law was against the Charter are entirely different things. The judge put his personal opinion aside to make the ruling based on the charter, which is what judges are there to do.

I said in response:

Originally Posted by timun

The Emergencies Act by its very nature and purpose is meant to allow the government to violate Charter rights on the basis of there being a national emergency that makes the violations justifiable under Section 1 of the Charter.

How you manage to equate that to "it gives the government carte blanche to violate the Charter" is beyond me.

You said "the law was against the Charter" and I sought to clarify that that's not at all what the judge's decision says. It says the Economic Order (which froze bank accounts, compelled financial institutions to hand over transaction info to RCMP/CSIS, etc.) was found to have been an unreasonable violation of Sections 2(b) (freedom of expression) and 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), but "the law"—the Emergencies Act itself—was held to be perfectly constitutional. Mosley quite specifically disregarded two of the applicants' (Gircys and Cornell) requests to declare that it was unconstitutional.

It's written in the Emergencies Act this way where the government cannot arbitrarily define what constitutes a national emergency, and overreach its power past reasonable limits (section 1 of the charter),

I know, that's what I wrote earlier.

Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, NB, NS, PEI, Alberta all opposed the Emergencies Act and deemed it unnecessary for their province. Outside of Ottawa, all police were able to enforce the law and already had the powers necessary (including Coutts and other cities within Ontario).

Doug Ford and Ontario's government inaction and police dragging their feet on enforcing the law that is in place, or towing companies being slow to act on requests does not suddenly make it a national emergency requiring the Emergencies Act enforced in all provinces and territory. Note that the original declaration and reasoning was largely addressing the border blockades and continuously reiterated the economic impact and perceived security threat.

Yeah, and these are the "technicalities" at hand! Mosley ruled that in the Emergencies Act the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" had to be cross-referenced against the definition in the CSIS Act, and that definition does not include "the border blockades and continuously reiterated the economic impact and perceived security threat." However, Mosley wrote in his decision (I quoted it earlier and I'll quote it again):

This is not to say that the other grounds for invoking the Act specified in the Proclamation were not valid concerns. Indeed, in my view, they would have been sufficient to meet a test of “threats to the security of Canada” had those words remained undefined in the statute. [...] the words are capable of a broad and flexible interpretation that may have encompassed the type of harms caused to Canada by the actions of the blockaders. But the test for declaring a public order emergency under the EA requires that each element be satisfied including the definition imported from the CSIS Act. The harm being caused to Canada’s economy, trade and commerce, was very real and concerning but it did not constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or property.

What he's saying there is "in my opinion the grounds for invoking the Act would have been 'threats to the security of Canada' if not for the fact the Act says you have to cross-reference this against a very particular definition in another piece of legislation, and under that definition this isn't 'threats to the security of Canada'."

With respect to the provinces not wanting or "needing" the help, again this goes back to the scope and definition of a "national emergency" which Mosley strictly held to be one in which the provinces did not have either the capacity or authority to deal with under existing legislation. That they refused to take action did not mean that they lacked the authority or capacity. (Just the willingness. Or competence...)

Since we seem to be at odds about what the definition of a ####ing technicality is, here's the one from Wiktionary:

technicality (countable and uncountable, plural technicalities)

1. The quality or state of being technical.
2. That which is technical, or peculiar to any trade, profession, sect, or the like.
3. A minor detail, rule, law, etc., seemingly insignificant to a non-specialist but which has significant consequences in larger matters.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technicality

Bolded is my emphasis. If you don't think that this is "a minor detail of law that is seemingly insignificant to a non-specialist but which has significant consequences in larger matters" I don't know what to tell you.

To dismiss the judge's ruling down to a mere technicality is ignorant of the importance of the ruling and frankly...a dangerous assertation. The ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires for a reason. This is in addition to the 2 violations of the charter (section 2 and 8) that would be violations and remain in effect even if the proclamation itself was considered reasonable and legal in an appeal.

Guess we await the decision on the appeal at this point in a year or two.

I didn't "dismiss the judge's ruling", I responded to the context of what you wrote, which I'll remind you was:

The judge put his personal opinion aside to make the ruling based on the charter, which is what judges are there to do.

The invoking of the Emergencies Act in this particular instance was "unreasonable and ultra vires", whether or not you personally agreed with its use and the resulting effectiveness (it was quite effective).

I took that all together, that you were saying "the judge ruled based on the Charter, that invoking the Emergencies Act was 'unreasonable and ultra vires'."

I dismissed THAT conclusion, because the judge did NOT find it ultra vires because of a Charter violation. He found:

1. the Economic Order unjustifiably violated Sections 2(b) and 8 of the Charter because the Order was too broad, and

2. the proclamation itself was ultra vires because

a) the Emergencies Act can only be invoked by the federal government if the provinces lack the capacity or authority to deal with it under an existing piece of legislation—which he found was not the case because he believed they, and in particular Ontario, could have exercised authority but didn't, and that inaction in and of itself isn't "a lack of capacity or authority", and

b) the definition of a "threat to the security of Canada" in the Act is actually a cross-reference to the CSIS Act, and under the strict definition of that other piece of legislation this did not constitute a "threat to the security of Canada", but if not for having to meet the CSIS Act definition he would have found it to be a "threat to the security of Canada" under a broader interpretation.

Calling these things "technicalities" is not "a dangerous assertion": that's complete and utter balderdash. That they are technicalities doesn't diminish their importance. It'll help clarify what the next federal government needing to invoke the Emergencies Act has to do to meet the thresholds for acceptability under the law, or it'll help inform some subsequent federal government how to amend the Act to address intransigent/incompetent
provincial governments if they so choose to amend it.

LeBrun's overarching point, which I vehemently agree with, is that this isn't some harsh rebuke of the federal government's actions and wholehearted endorsement of "The Convoy Movement" or whatever they want to call themselves.


Your comment that "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires for a reason" is I think, frankly, just a misinterpretation on your part and muddling the issue. He quite specifically found it to be "unreasonable" BECAUSE he found it to be ultra vires for the two aforementioned reasons. He's not writing "not only do I find this to be unreasonable... I find it to be ultra vires too!" These aren't severable conclusions: it's the same conclusion.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Huh, no wonder people try to press release bad news on a Friday afternoon.



CBC.ca shows first story with the Bank of Canada being asked about rate cuts. The only mention on the page seems at the bottom of the page with a package of videos. Third after a gymnast with cancer and "Looksmaxxing: This incel uses a hammer to make his face more attractive."

LOL, what the actual #### is smashing your face with a hammer. Is that . . . news?

You are getting a *very* different cbc website than me then.

[zamler]

Holy crap cbc.ca is a horrendous website looks like something you'd see as a template from 2007.

[Johnny Makarov]

The real website you guys should be linking is cbc.ca/news
I go to it 4-5 times a day.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by zamler

Holy crap cbc.ca is a horrendous website looks like something you'd see as a template from 2007.

Seems to work well enough. But why chemgear is getting incel content instead of national news is odd. I clear my cookies whenever I close my browser though, maybe that’s why.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by zamler

Holy crap cbc.ca is a horrendous website looks like something you'd see as a template from 2007.

What? I just pulled it up on desktop and mobile and it looks exactly like any other network homepage.

[Sultan]

Originally Posted by zamler

Holy crap cbc.ca is a horrendous website looks like something you'd see as a template from 2007.

Can you provide a link to another news site or two that are less 'horrendous'?



I am sure you have a few if cbc.ca is that bad.


Thanks!

[Doctorfever]

Opinion column regarding the bloated civil servant size under the Trudeau regime.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...t-report-finds

As of March 31, 2023, the total number of federal employees reached 357,247, the study says, marking the biggest staff increase since 1984.

The report by the fiscally conservative think-tank says the federal government now has nine employees for every 1,000 Canadians — 25.3% higher than in 2015 and a figure which factors in population growth.

Prior to Trudeau and the Liberals coming to power, every other Canadian prime minister going back to Brian Mulroney, elected in 1984, decreased the number of civil servants per 1,000 population during their time in office, the MEI said.

Buying votes… uh, I mean spending tax dollars… no, um creating jobs. That’s it., creating jobs!

[PepsiFree]

I’m not sure how it’s buying votes when working for the federal government means working for the government, not the party in charge of the government.

A friend works for the Alberta government and I don’t believe he feels he owes the UCP a vote for a job he’ll continue to have whether they are or aren’t in power.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Opinion column regarding the bloated civil servant size under the Trudeau regime.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...t-report-finds



Buying votes… uh, I mean spending tax dollars… no, um creating jobs. That’s it., creating jobs!

Did the size of government increase or decrease with the UCP?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Did the size of government increase or decrease with the UCP?

I’m not sure. You tell me. Maybe post that in Alberta political thread.

I’m not being a smart ass, it would just belong there.

[Azure]

The whataboutism is always amusing when faults are pointed out with the Liberals.

[Red Slinger]

The hypocrisy generally goes both ways. Those complaining about government bloat in the Federal Government thread tend to be conservatives but they generally aren't as vociferous about the UCP bloat. Those complaining about the corruption and incompetence of the UCP in the Alberta thread, are generally absent from complaining about the corruption and incompetence of the Trudeau government. But complaining about how the other side is hypocritical and using whataboutism lacks self-awareness, at best or is intentionally dishonest, at worst.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not sure how it’s buying votes when working for the federal government means working for the government, not the party in charge of the government.

A friend works for the Alberta government and I don’t believe he feels he owes the UCP a vote for a job he’ll continue to have whether they are or aren’t in power.

You know. Because of the implication.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Opinion column regarding the bloated civil servant size under the Trudeau regime.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...t-report-finds

Buying votes… uh, I mean spending tax dollars… no, um creating jobs. That’s it., creating jobs!

That number isn't all that meaningful unless you know what they're spending on contractors. Getting rid of an employee that costs $75/hr all in to hire a consultant for $150/hr to do the same work isn't a win, even if it reduces the head count on paper.

But even taken at face value, the current number is relatively low historically. In 2006 there were 12 federal employees for every 1,000 Canadians and in 1995 that number was 13.

[Fuzz]

Right wing media commenter on right wing website summarizes right wing libertarian think tank report that says public service too large, news at 11.

[timun]

Yeah that is pretty blatant whataboutery, but frankly if a Conservative government was in Ottawa the right-wing think-tank that wrote the paper in question likely never would have published it, nor would the critical op-ed have been published by Postmedia. Bitching about civil service "bloat" is a hackneyed right-wing trope; I see stuff like this op-ed and my initial reaction is "I can't believe people are so easily suckered into this outrage machine".


The thing that these sorts of "studies" always fail to analyze is: are staffing levels adequate? It says every PM since Trudeau père has reduced the per-capita size of the civil service without any further thought; as though this is a given "good thing", a natural conclusion we should all want to achieve.

Am I supposed to be appalled and outraged at the fact that 9/1000 people work for government? Or had previous governments hacked and slashed for a generation and made the civil service chronically understaffed...?

[Fuzz]

Theses "studies" should, at best, be used as a starting point for a journalist(not that that's what Lorrie Goldstein is). But they are all biased, from the Frasier Institute to the Pembina Institute. Look at what they say, then do actual journalism to see how much truth is behind it. Instead we get the Sun passing off commentary as fact and it getting spread around social media for some click bait by suckers. Seems work well, I guess, so why bother doing real work?

EDIT:

which turns out to be hilarious, given his bio:

Active on social media, Lorrie says being a political columnist for a major daily newspaper is one of the most rewarding and fun jobs anyone can have in journalism, and that anyone who complains about having to do it probably isn't doing it right.

https://torontosun.com/author/lgoldsteinpostmedia/

[Locke]

Considering that Government services still suck...what are all of these people doing?

[opendoor]

Final expenditures on goods and services by the federal government are probably a decent proxy for the cost of federal government operations. And right now is low historically, at least as a percentage of GDP:

1980: 6.2%
1990: 6.4%
2000: 5.3%
2010: 5.0%
2023: 4.9%

They did dip into the 4.5-4.6% late in Harper's final term as PM, so I guess if you use that as some sort of baseline, then there have been increases. But based on historical precedent, government operation costs (i.e. excluding transfers, subsidies, etc.) are pretty lean relative to what they were historically. So I suspect the increase in headcount is happening in conjunction with lower spending elsewhere.