Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

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

Their jobs, as often to the best of their abilities as anyone else with the added difficulty of endless red tape and competing policies that make their jobs more difficult than they should be.

Why people go after government workers that are really no different than anyone else more than anyone else, I’ll never really know.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

lol. you were pissed people assumed you were a right winger with your 35,000 posts ...

5 posts in here and how can anyone not tell you are jarome iginla of the offtopic. hahahaa

[monkeyman]

Didn’t Contractor spending also increase dramatically under the Liberals?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Locke

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

Handing out money with one hand, and taking it back with the other.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Their jobs, as often to the best of their abilities as anyone else with the added difficulty of endless red tape and competing policies that make their jobs more difficult than they should be.

Why people go after government workers that are really no different than anyone else more than anyone else, I’ll never really know.

I deal...with the Canada Revenue Agency on a daily basis.

Trust me. If anyone is allowed to have a grudge? Its me.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Handing out money with one hand, and taking it back with the other.

Honestly? Fewer pencil pushers, more Doctors and Nurses.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

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

First, to clarify when I said the law I meant the order, not the act itself. I never said anything in regards to the act itself being unconstitutional. The court document in several occasions specifically refers the economic order as the law including below:

[326] The issue here, the Applicants submit, is whether the law that authorized the search, the
Economic Order, was reasonable.

My terminology used is correct, and your interpretation and everything else following it is incorrect and efforts to clarify a waste of time.

The violations of the charter sections 2 and 8 by the law were not saved by section 1 and thus the order was in violation of the charter. That is what I mean that the Emergencies Act not being a carte blanche to violate the charter, as the orders done under it still needs to withstand Section 1. Your statement insinuates that Section 1 does not apply when it still does. If that's not what you meant despite you writing it verbatim, I will accept it.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...heck/art1.html

Originally Posted by timun

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.

This ruling does not endorse the convoy, I never talked that it did, nor have I ever stated anything positive whatsoever about the convoy. I agree with that particular part of the statement though it's entirely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by timun

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'.

You are outright ignoring parts of the judge's decision and reasoning. You are getting stuck on his statement that if we used the term "threat" in broader undefined terms, that the blockades met that meaning and the order would have been valid, but there is a very specific definition that constitutes a security threat precisely to avoid situations where the Emergencies Act is misused by our government.

That's the reason we have laws and definitions, to avoid overzealous misinterpretations and abuse of power. Also, if you look up the quotations to your "technicality" definition that you presented: How often do we hear about someone who “got away” with committing a crime or who “got off on a technicality”? This type of remark is common when discussions arise about the shortcomings of the U.S. legal system.

Technicality is usually used in a negative connotation. The definition of what constitutes security threat is not a minor detail as you assert. You want to continue to call a legal definition and the ruling on that definition a technicality, I entirely disagree. Let's also remind you what you posted and how you started this to begin with, that the ruling was due to a technicality.

If you don't think this ruling is essentially in favour of the applicants due to a technicality, I'm doubtful you read it. It's not "a stretch" at all.

As for your claim that unreasonable and ultra vires were the same conclusion and that ultra vires was ruled on first prior to unreasonable, that is again another falsehood.

Let's put them together

Originally Posted by timun

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.

[297] For these reasons, I am also satisfied that the GIC did not have reasonable grounds to
believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the Act and the decision
was ultra vires.

Womp womp.

Both terms were clearly ruled separately from each other and mentioned together as one is used to help conclude on the other, as I stated. You even literally have it backwards, it was declared unreasonable first, thus making the decision and proclamation itself ultra vires.
. Not once from what I read (you are welcome to correct) did ultra vires get declared or ruled on prior to unreasonable (including 255 with the words unreasonable and ultra vires). Reasonableness also ruled on 372.

Worst is that 297 is right after 296 which you yourself previously quoted. You should have caught that both were judged on separately if you read it and my statement was correct.

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/Content/ass...2-T-382-22.pdf

Now a side note, I really want people to pay attention to 371 in the conclusion itself. The judge is thanking the public interest litigants for providing the evidence that allowed this ruling to take place. He's pretty much admitting he was hoodwinked by the attorney general! That's why we need associations like CCLA and CCF protections our rights and freedoms.

[371] My preliminary view of the reasonableness of the decision may have prevailed following
the hearing due to excellent advocacy on the part of counsel for the Attorney General of Canada
had I not taken the time to carefully deliberate about the evidence and submissions, particularly
those of the CCLA and CCF. Their participation in these proceedings has demonstrated again the
value of public interest litigants. Especially in presenting informed legal argument. This case
may not have turned out the way it has without their involvement, as the private interest litigants
were not as capable of marshalling the evidence and argument in support of their applications.

[372] I have concluded that the decision to issue the Proclamation does not bear the hallmarks
of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and was not justified in
relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that were required to be taken into
consideration. In my view, there can be only one reasonable interpretation of EA sections 3 and
17 and paragraph 2(c) of the CSIS Act and the Applicants have established that the legal
constraints on the discretion of the GIC to declare a public order emergency were not satisfied.

[Firebot]

Moving on to a lighter subject

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can...eese-1.7094817

Who cut the cheese?

I love British cheese, hopefully something ends up happening.

[calgarygeologist]

White fragility, funny stuff.

The federal NDP candidate and riding executives in Guelph sent a letter blaming “white fragility” for the removal of an Ontario MPP from the provincial NDP caucus after a falling out over her offensive comments about the Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel on Oct. 7.

The letter, obtained by the National Post, demanded that Ontario NDP Leader Marit Stiles immediately reinstate Hamilton-Centre MPP Sarah Jama to the party’s caucus, describing “dismay” and “anger” over the party’s decision to remove her last October.

https://nationalpost.com/news/federa...mpp-sarah-jama

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Locke

I deal...with the Canada Revenue Agency on a daily basis.

Trust me. If anyone is allowed to have a grudge? Its me.

One of my best friends works for the CRA, has for the last 20-25 years.

Not only do I agree with you... he would as well.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

First, to clarify when I said the law I meant the order, not the act itself. I never said anything in regards to the act itself being unconstitutional. The court document in several occasions specifically refers the economic order as the law including below:

K.

My terminology used is correct, and your interpretation and everything else following it is incorrect and efforts to clarify a waste of time.

K.

The violations of the charter sections 2 and 8 by the law were not saved by section 1 and thus the order was in violation of the charter. That is what I mean that the Emergencies Act not being a carte blanche to violate the charter, as the orders done under it still needs to withstand Section 1. Your statement insinuates that Section 1 does not apply when it still does. If that's not what you meant despite you writing it verbatim, I will accept it.

I know what you meant, and I know what I wrote, and my statement did not insinuate that Section 1 does not apply. You just jumped to a wildly inaccurate conclusion. Your interpretation and everything else following it is incorrect, and efforts to clarify, a waste of time.

This ruling does not endorse the convoy, I never talked that it did, nor have I ever stated anything positive whatsoever about the convoy. I agree with that particular part of the statement though it's entirely irrelevant.

I didn't say, imply, hint, suggest, intimate, etc. that you did "endorse" the convoy—you quite clearly wrote "this doesn't legitimize the freedumb convoy"—but you said you disagreed with LeBrun:

Originally Posted by Firebot

Luke LeBrun seems to be distorting what the judge stated. [...] Lebrun based on his tweets seems a bit...err extremely biased? To claim that the ruling is due to a technicality...is a stretch.

This in no way legitimizes the freedumb convoy, it's a ruling on the emergencies act as invoked in this specific situation.

Which precipitated this whole thing. Okay, if you disagree with him: what part? Because you're making it sound like you agree with him, yet you're saying he seems "extremely biased"...? WTF?

I already asked you once to "walk me through it" (which you completely ignored), because I don't know what the #### you are otherwise so hung up on.

Are you just stuck on the meaning of and connotation behind the use of the word "technicality"?

You are outright ignoring parts of the judge's decision and reasoning. You are getting stuck on his statement that if we used the term "threat" in broader undefined terms, that the blockades met that meaning and the order would have been valid, but there is a very specific definition that constitutes a security threat precisely to avoid situations where the Emergencies Act is misused by our government.

That's the reason we have laws and definitions, to avoid overzealous misinterpretations and abuse of power.

I'm not ignoring the judge's decision and reasoning, the guy quite clearly stated all along that he had to evaluate against the very specific definitions in the statutes. His statement that he would have "found the grounds for invoking the Act to be sufficient" had the words "remained undefined in the statute" is a powerful one in my opinion: it's not just some personal opinion, it's his professional opinion. He's saying that as a member of the bench, taking into account whether it would have been reasonable and justifiable; not just willy-nilly and in a vacuum.

Call that "getting stuck on it" all you want: I think you're foolish for trying to diminish its importance and bloviating about the importance of the particular specificity of the existing definition in the statutes and its protections against "overzealous abuse of power".

Also, if you look up the quotations to your "technicality" definition that you presented: How often do we hear about someone who “got away” with committing a crime or who “got off on a technicality”? This type of remark is common when discussions arise about the shortcomings of the U.S. legal system.

Technicality is usually used in a negative connotation. The definition of what constitutes security threat is not a minor detail as you assert. You want to continue to call a legal definition and the ruling on that definition a technicality, I entirely disagree. Let's also remind you what you posted and how you started this to begin with, that the ruling was due to a technicality.

And again, you stated earlier "your example of a technicality here is different from the one LeBrun asserted", which is what you were having a snit fit about in the first place. Walk me through it! What the #### do you think he means that I don't? Or vice versa?

You're saying here "technicality is usually used in a negative connotation." Again, is that what you're so hung up on? The word "technicality", and thinking it's "negative", and being pissy because I called you a boob for saying it's a "stretch" to call it a technicality? That's on you man, not on me.

If you think finding the threshold of what constitutes a "threat to the security of Canada" was not met because:

• Section 16 of the Emergencies Act says "go look at Section 2 of the CSIS Act",
• Section 2 of the CSIS Act says it's "[...] activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state...", and
• while there definitely were activities carried out for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada,
• ... and there threats of violence against persons for achieving that purpose...
• ... but the judge had to consider whether it was "serious" or not.
• The AG of Canada argued that "serious" in the context of the CSIS Act was "designed to constrain the investigative actions of the security service, and was ill-suited to serve as a threshold for the invocation of emergency powers" under the Emergencies Act (quoted the wording from the decision, not the AG's argument), and
• ... the judge agreed! However, he himself wrote "the Court cannot rewrite the statute and has to take the definition as it reads",
• and as such, because the belief that there were threats of serious violence was a result of the happenings at Coutts, which coincidentally was resolved literally the morning of the day of the invocation of the Emergencies Act,
• and they didn't find any other "hardened cells" when the cops finally acted at Ottawa and got the protestors to get the #### on down the road,
• the judge had to find that the threats weren't "serious",

... is not a "technicality": fine. Whatever. Whatever helps you sleep at night, but to me you're still a goof for it.

As for your claim that unreasonable and ultra vires were the same conclusion and that ultra vires was ruled on first prior to unreasonable, that is again another falsehood.

Let's put them together

[...]

Womp womp.

Both terms were clearly ruled separately from each other and mentioned together as one is used to help conclude on the other, as I stated. You even literally have it backwards, it was declared unreasonable first, thus making the decision and proclamation itself ultra vires.
. Not once from what I read (you are welcome to correct) did ultra vires get declared or ruled on prior to unreasonable (including 255 with the words unreasonable and ultra vires). Reasonableness also ruled on 372.

Worst is that 297 is right after 296 which you yourself previously quoted. You should have caught that both were judged on separately if you read it and my statement was correct.

I did not say that "ultra vires got declared or ruled on prior to unreasonable", but I can see why you interpreted it that way. My overarching point was that they were ruled on concurrently and jointly, and your assertion that "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires for a reason", as I put it, is "misinterpretation on your part and muddling the issue". As I wrote before: these aren't severable conclusions, it's the same conclusion.

When the judge writes:

Was the decision to issue the Proclamation unreasonable and ultra vires the Act?

... five times over in the same bloody decision, to me it's a pretty safe bet he's concluding whether it was both "unreasonable and ultra vires", or neither. Not "unreasonable" and then "ultra vires", nor vice versa.

But please, if you're so much more learned and your acumen so much more astute than mine: show me where I'm wrong. Please: explain said reason why "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires". You said it's "for a reason": what's the reason? You made it sound pretty ####ing important, but you didn't explain why. I'm an extremely eager learner; learning is my idea of fun.

Go ahead: please, teach me. I'm all ears.

[CaptainCrunch]

Former Justice Minister David Lametti resigns from parliment, I expect he saw the bus headlights coming.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Former Justice Minister David Lametti resigns from parliment, I expect he saw the bus headlights coming.

But they did nothing wrong!!

lol.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by timun

But please, if you're so much more learned and your acumen so much more astute than mine: show me where I'm wrong. Please: explain said reason why "the ruling uses both the term unreasonable and ultra vires". You said it's "for a reason": what's the reason? You made it sound pretty ####ing important, but you didn't explain why. I'm an extremely eager learner; learning is my idea of fun.

Go ahead: please, teach me. I'm all ears.

I have no legal background or background in constitutional law, I don't and have never claimed to be more learned than anyone on legal matters. If you have a legal background you are welcome to mention it and I will state you have more legal acumen than me. You are a lawyer I assume if you are making such a statement?

With that said and since you insist so strongly for a response, because the actual question by the application raised to the court was specifically "Whether the decision to issue the Proclamation was unreasonable and
ultra vires" and thus he includes both in the ruling. Surely you understand why ultra vires cannot be ruled on its own but needs to be ruled on? It has to be seen why it's illegal first before declaring ultra vires, and in this case why reasonability needs to be reviewed first in order for ultra vires part to be ruled on. That is why you don't see ultra vires ruled on its own anywhere in the ruling. They are 2 very separate conclusions, with one directly linked to the ruling of the first.

[108] Nagle/CFN submitted that their Application raised issues of whether the Proclamation
was ultra vires as there was no public order emergency as defined by the Act, and whether the
Regulations and Economic Order violate the Charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
[109] CCLA argued that their Application raises the following issues:
- Whether the decision to issue the Proclamation was unreasonable and
ultra vires;
- If not, whether the prohibitions contained at sections 2, 4, 5 and 10 of
the Regulations violated sections 2(b)(c)(d) and 7 of the Charter, and
whether sections 2 or 5 of the Economic Order infringed section 8 of
the Charter;
- If so, whether the infringed rights, if any, can be justified under section
1 of the Charter.
Page: 37
[110] Similarly, the CCF argued that their Application concerns the following issues:
- Did Cabinet have reasonable grounds to conclude that the protests were
threats to the national security of Canada?
- Did Cabinet have reasonable grounds to conclude that the protests
could not be effectively dealt with under existing law?
- Did the powers created by the Regulations and Economic Measures
violate sections 2(b)(c) and 8 of the charter and can they be saved under
section 1?

[212] The main question underlying the three applications is whether the decision to issue the
Proclamation “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and
intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints
that bear on the decision”: Vavilov at para 99.

Note how reasonable / unreasonable needs to be determined first before all else and that's what the judge worked to determine? And one of the criteria for reasonable grounds was whether there was a national emergency based on the threshold stated.

It's the wording in the act itself that puts such emphasis on reasonability.

17 (1) When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency, the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required by section 25, may, by proclamation, so declare.

If it does not act in reasonable grounds, it can be concluded that the order was thus ultra vires.

And we will put it again so you can see it next to each other. Maybe you will eventually get it that you cannot state it's the same conclusion.

[297] For these reasons, I am also satisfied that the GIC did not have reasonable grounds to
believe that a threat to national security existed within the meaning of the Act and the decision
was ultra vires.

Here's a different case where ultra vires was declared when Alberta tried to redefine marriage in the past for comparison.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../2196/index.do

The Attorney General of Canada suggests that s. 2 of the Proposed Act is declaratory, merely making clear Parliament’s intention that other provisions of the Proposed Act not be read in a manner that trenches on the provinces’ jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The provision might be seen as an attempt to reassure the provinces and to assuage the concerns of religious officials who perform marriages. However worthy of attention these concerns are, only the provinces may legislate exemptions to existing solemnization requirements, as any such exemption necessarily relates to the “solemnization of marriage” under s. 92(12). Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament.

I don't see unreasonable mentioned here, do you? That's because the declaration ultra vires in this case was concluded for a very different reason.

If you weren't so stuck in trying to insist the ruling was due to a claimed technicality and that I not read to prove me wrong simply because I disagreed with a journalist's opinion on the technicality aspect, if you weren't so stuck on trying to prove my statement wrong and kept claiming that unreasonable and ultra vires are the very same conclusion, you wouldn't have wasted so much time.

In the meantime, I will wait until we get a constitutional lawyer's expertise or see how the appeal goes. Going back and forth is not solving much because we clearly agree to disagree and pretty hellbent on that conviction. You can have the last word (you would have had it already if you were not so insistent on getting a response, it's the weekend).

Here's a few experts who have voiced their opinion so far for what it's worth on both sides of the argument as I've been looking for expert opinion, which is trickling fairly slowly.

https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/ar...hindsight-2022

[timun]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I have no legal background or background in constitutional law, I don't and have never claimed to be more learned than anyone on legal matters.

Mmmm, I see. Interesting.

With that said and since you insist so strongly for a response, because the actual question by the application raised to the court was specifically "Whether the decision to issue the Proclamation was unreasonable and ultra vires" and thus he includes both in the ruling. Surely you understand why ultra vires cannot be ruled on its own but needs to be ruled on? It has to be seen why it's illegal first before declaring ultra vires, and in this case why reasonability needs to be reviewed first in order for ultra vires part to be ruled on. That is why you don't see ultra vires ruled on its own anywhere in the ruling. They are 2 very separate conclusions, with one directly linked to the ruling of the first.

H—hold on here. Re-read what you just wrote there, at the very end of this paragraph. Re-read it niiiiiiiiiiiiiice and sloooooooooooooow.

"There are two very separate conclusions...




... with one directly linked to the ruling of the first."

"Very separate", but "directly linked"...





Can you run that by me again?

And we will put it again so you can see it next to each other. Maybe you will eventually get it that you cannot state it's the same conclusion.

"Directly linked." Your words. Directly... linked...

If you weren't so stuck in trying to insist the ruling was due to a claimed technicality and that I not read to prove me wrong simply because I disagreed with a journalist's opinion on the technicality aspect, if you weren't so stuck on trying to prove my statement wrong and kept claiming that unreasonable and ultra vires are the very same conclusion, you wouldn't have wasted so much time.

So, in the most roundabout way possible, the truth comes out: you just think the use of "technicality" is wrong, and you're super butthurt that I insinuated you hadn't read the decision if you think that is so. Like I said before, if you think the word "technicality" is misapplied to an 11-step process consisting of cross-referencing an entirely different piece of legislation in order to get the definition of a term, and explanation on how it needs to follow a particular, strict definition as written in that other piece of legislation: "Fine. Whatever."


I succinctly agree that interacting with you is a waste of time though. Of that, I no longer have any doubt.

[PepsiFree]

I enjoyed it.

[timun]

I can't remember PepsiFree: you're a lawyer, no? If so, how'd I do?

[PepsiFree]

As the board’s premier self-proclaimed internet lawyer with a law degree from Princeton Law School, you get a big “case closed” from me.

[timun]

Thanks.

[Harry Lime]

As some who zipped by the last page as " good lord", could someone give a two sentence synopsis, and what was concluded?