Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

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.

And you're in the Maritimes? So was he at St. John's or....*shudder* Summerside? The ultimate worst place...its like CRA's Gulag.

Its super easy but it is Soul-Crushing.

It would have destroyed Solzhenitsyn himself.

"Hit your KPIs or we're sending you to Summerside."

I had a client who once worked at Summerside and it was so boring and soul-sucking she had resorted to '4-martini' lunches until she had to quit and moved back to Alberta.

Golden Handcuffs be damned! Thats the Summerside office.

My intern was doing meet-and-greets for Accounting firms and at every event there is a CRA booth and its just a complete joke. Nobody goes up to them. Complete pariahs of the accounting community.

They might as well get a sign spinner.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

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

Timun claims the emergencies act ruling of unreasonable and ultra vires was due to a technicality and claims both words are the same conclusion. Firebot disagrees that the decision was on a technicality, and that ultra vires cannot be ruled without unreasonable ruled on first, as such not the same conclusion yet can still be directly linked.

Conclusion: Pepsifree is a Princeton Law School internet lawyer

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Locke

And you're in the Maritimes? So was he at St. John's or....*shudder* Summerside? The ultimate worst place...its like CRA's Gulag.

Its super easy but it is Soul-Crushing.

It would have destroyed Solzhenitsyn himself.

"Hit your KPIs or we're sending you to Summerside."

I had a client who once worked at Summerside and it was so boring and soul-sucking she had resorted to '4-martini' lunches until she had to quit and moved back to Alberta.

Golden Handcuffs be damned! Thats the Summerside office.

My intern was doing meet-and-greets for Accounting firms and at every event there is a CRA booth and its just a complete joke. Nobody goes up to them. Complete pariahs of the accounting community.

They might as well get a sign spinner.

They're here in Sydney. Not entirely sure what exactly the Sydney office does (although I think he's been WFH since COVID).

[Manhattanboy]

I haven’t read any of this (with apologies) but I always thought ultra vires was a term applied to an unconstitutional use by the federal government or a province of a power in violation of the division of powers set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, and unreasonable applied to a limitation of a Charter right, eg the law amounted to an unreasonable limit on the right to free speech.

[timun]

Yes, ultra vires quite literally just means "beyond the powers". A government's actions are said to be ultra vires when they do something they don't have the jurisdiction to do. Division of powers in sections 91 & 92 is obviously a very common reference point for determining whether a level of government has authority because those are the sections that spell it out in our constitution, but it's not exclusively used in reference to that. You can say for instance that a municipal government in Alberta attempting to levy an income tax on is citizens is ultra vires, because no municipality has the legal authority to do that.

"Reasonable" is a concept used throughout the law, not just in reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If something cannot be shown to be justifiable by some logic, it can be said to be "unreasonable". You see it for instance in the common law term "beyond a reasonable doubt", when we talk about the standard of proof required for the prosecution to convict in a criminal trial: it's not "without any doubt" or "with absolute certainty", or "probably guilty".

[Manhattanboy]

It was all kind of a mess to begin with because in our usual Canadian way (likely a compromise by Trudeau senior to get the provinces to agree to the Charter) some of the basic fundamental freedoms set out in the Charter are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

And thus began years of jurisprudence as to what that means.

Edit: and then there’s the notwithstanding clause….

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

They're here in Sydney. Not entirely sure what exactly the Sydney office does (although I think he's been WFH since COVID).

That sounds like a small local office, thats probably the ideal situation.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

It was all kind of a mess to begin with because in our usual Canadian way (likely a compromise by Trudeau senior to get the provinces to agree to the Charter) some of the basic fundamental freedoms set out in the Charter are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

And thus began years of jurisprudence as to what that means.

Edit: and then there’s the notwithstanding clause….

It might not be ideal, but at least putting it on the judiciary to interpret whether something is "reasonable" in a "free and democratic society" rather than leaving it up to the legislative branch of government to explicitly carve out limitations we generally all think would be reasonable prevents back-and-forth, see-sawing of those limitations. I.e. we don't have Conservative and Liberal governments rewriting the Charter every time they get into power. (Not that that would be easy to get accomplished anyway...) Conversely, leaving the judiciary some leeway to interpret what's reasonable and what's not also means that as society's mores change you don't have to reopen a constitutional debate to decide whether it's reasonable or not: it can be found reasonable or unreasonable by a learned member of the bench whose job it is to interpret the law, rather than leaving it in the hands of partisan politicians to do so.

I find a lot of people who complain about Section 1—and I'm not saying this is the case with you—see it only as a mechanism by which their freedoms can be limited, rather than seeing it go both ways: it is also a simple mechanism by which we find limitations unreasonable. Witness the decision we were talking about over the previous pages. If not left up to a judge to interpret, without giving them the responsibility to do it, it would have been left up to a Liberal government that would have blithely rubber-stamped an interpretation that their invoking the Emergencies Act was reasonable.

(As an aside: I also find many people repeat American right-wing media talking points about how "'Murica is a free country and Canada isn't" because of Section 1. Frankly I think these people are gullible rubes because they don't get that Section 1 also protects us from absurdly unreasonable limitations to expression, such as obscenity laws found in the States that lead to book-bannings—which I think is extremely dangerous—and nonsense such as the possession of sex toys being outlawed in Alabama.)

A limitations clause was always something that P. E. Trudeau intended to include, but the notwithstanding clause was added to get provincial buy-in to the entire thing. I've known many people who mistakenly believe it was an acquiescence to get buy-in from the Quebec government of Levesque, but it was actually Peter Lougheed's idea in the first place. Even though Levesque's government invoked the clause more than any other at the time or since, he was incensed about being left out of the final overnight deliberations between Federal Justice Minister Jean Chretien and two of the provincial attorneys general, and he invoked it across all Quebec laws as a nose-thumbing at the feds and rest of the provinces.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It basically allows for obvious exceptions to be dealt with on a principled basis rather than case by case. So rather than just saying that "child pornography isn't expression", we can say sure it is, but protecting children from exploitation and harm is a pressing and substantial objective of government in a free and democratic society and so making it illegal is a reasonable limit on your ability to express yourself in that way. And there is a clearly defined test for judges to follow to get to that result.

Literally every right in the Charter has a bunch of law on how to interpret it, what it means and where the boundaries are, section 1 is no different. Judges decide all of this stuff regardless. It's a MASSIVELY better way of doing things than how the USA does it.

[timun]

I couldn't agree more with respect to it being better than the way the US does it. For how much they tout their laws entrench the purest expression of "freedom", the end result certainly isn't so. The American way of going about it seems insanely counterproductive, and easily selectively enforced or abused by politicians and a far, far, far, far more partisan judiciary than we have.

[Firebot]

Not much happening in Canadian federal politics right now, though this is a bit of a bombshell considering the narrative presented.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...-his-official/

So effectively, Trudeau / the PMO clearly lied about the events surrounding Hunka and him being Rota's sole responsibility, and the PMO sent an invitation to Hunka to attend a special event with Zelensky 4 days prior to the now infamous standing ovation, and he was to attend later that evening. Let's understand that had Hunka attended that event as intended, we would very likely have photos of a Nazi SS veteran shaking hands with Zelensky. The guests for such an event would have been vetted by the PMO

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invited Yaroslav Hunka, the Ukrainian Waffen-SS veteran who received ovations in the House of Commons during a visit by Volodymyr Zelensky, to a reception he hosted in the Ukrainian President’s honour the same day.


The Toronto reception was attended by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and President Zelensky and his wife Olena Zelenska, as well as other dignitaries and members of Canada’s Ukrainian community.

The invitation, seen by The Globe and Mail, was sent to Mr. Hunka in an e-mail under the subject line “Invitation from the Prime Minister of Canada – September 22, 2023.”

“Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event. The event will take place on Friday, September 22, 2023, at 8.30pm in Toronto, Ontario.”

Anthony Rota fell on the sword for this.

[GioforPM]

Dude:

"The reception was attended by about 1,000 people, including many members of Canada’s Ukrainian-Canadian community."

“The Prime Minister had no knowledge of this individual before the independent recognition by the former Speaker of the House of Commons. Last September, there was a community event with the President of Ukraine in Toronto with over 1,000 people invited. Hundreds of Canadians were invited upon the recommendation of groups like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress,” she said in an e-mail.

You really think someone was going to do a deep dive into the history of 1000 old attendees recommended by their cultural society?

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Not much happening in Canadian federal politics right now, though this is a bit of a bombshell considering the narrative presented.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...-his-official/

So effectively, Trudeau / the PMO clearly lied about the events surrounding Hunka and him being Rota's sole responsibility, and the PMO sent an invitation to Hunka to attend a special event with Zelensky 4 days prior to the now infamous standing ovation, and he was to attend later that evening. Let's understand that had Hunka attended that event as intended, we would very likely have photos of a Nazi SS veteran shaking hands with Zelensky. The guests for such an event would have been vetted by the PMO



Anthony Rota fell on the sword for this.

Where's the Jenni Byrne outrage? PP blaming the PM for high grocery prices, while his top aide lobbies for grocery companies?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10269101/...m-jenni-byrne/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Where's the Jenni Byrne outrage? PP blaming the PM for high grocery prices, while his top aide lobbies for grocery companies?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10269101/...m-jenni-byrne/

I honestly don't know how much of a story that is, just following it along. She lobbied at a provincial level on beer wine and Cannibas for Loblaws.

There's also the question that there are lots of Liberals in the registry that have lobbied for Loblaws, and NDP strategist Brian Topp also had a lobbying company that worked on behalf of Loblaws.

Lobbying happens, the government in terms of staffers and MPs is full of former and future Lobbyists.

Its distasteful. But if we're going to investigate Jenni, Byrne and maybe we should. We need to investigate every Liberal Lobbyist over the 12 million in freezers and every NDP that has every lobbied on behalf of Loblaws.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its distasteful. But if we're going to investigate Jenni, Byrne and maybe we should. We need to investigate every Liberal Lobbyist over the 12 million in freezers and every NDP that has every lobbied on behalf of Loblaws.

How common is it for active staffers to be lobbyists? It was my understanding that most staffers were either lobbyists before or after their staffer careers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Dude:

"The reception was attended by about 1,000 people, including many members of Canada’s Ukrainian-Canadian community."

“The Prime Minister had no knowledge of this individual before the independent recognition by the former Speaker of the House of Commons. Last September, there was a community event with the President of Ukraine in Toronto with over 1,000 people invited. Hundreds of Canadians were invited upon the recommendation of groups like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress,” she said in an e-mail.

You really think someone was going to do a deep dive into the history of 1000 old attendees recommended by their cultural society?

I think that's kind of fair, except that the PMO office denied having anything to do with the invite, put it all on the office of the speaker and the speaker ended up resigning. When they were asked about the role, the PMO office stated that it was all on the speaker.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its distasteful. But if we're going to investigate Jenni, Byrne and maybe we should. We need to investigate every Liberal Lobbyist over the 12 million in freezers and every NDP that has every lobbied on behalf of Loblaws.

Serious question Cap, do you think that freezer thing was more likely the result of lobbying or a really poorly drafted policy that Loblaw took advantage of?

[CaptainCrunch]

I never know anymore, its probably a combination of both.



We seem to have a lot of poorly crafted pieces of critical legislation, ethics is a joke with low penalties and little enforcement. The Lobbying is poor, and governments spend way too much time getting lobbied.



I also think that these corporations helping to fund fund raising events and cash for access events needs to stop.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You really think someone was going to do a deep dive into the history of 1000 old attendees recommended by their cultural society?

You can message the CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Global News, and all who reported this as front page news that it's no big deal and if you believe to be a non-story.

It shouldn't be a big deal, had Trudeau not tried to absolve himself and his office of all responsibilities of the commons incident at the time he could have made amends correctly and instead put all blame squarely on Anthony Rota, who was used as a scapegoat. Let's also not forget that we had a foreign head of state who has been the target of multiple assassinations in the middle of a war and which guests would have very close contact with, as this photo shows.




A reminder of the PMO's stance upon the reveal.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ant...logy-1.6977117

"The independent Speaker of the House has apologized and accepted full responsibility for issuing the invitation and for the recognition in Parliament. This was the right thing to do," said a PMO spokesperson.

The event was broadcast internationally, including by CBC.

Government House Leader Karina Gould also said Sunday that the government did not know about Hunka's presence.

"The PM did not meet him. I am deeply troubled this happened. I urge MPs to avoid politicizing this incident," she said in a statement on social media.

Did not know about Hunka's presence supposedly yet sent him a PM invite by name 4 days prior. C'mon now, they simply didn't do their diligence, pointed fingers when politically expedient and why the new reveal is a story.

[PepsiFree]

Calling it a story is one thing. It was a gaffe and embarrassing.

Referring to it as a “bombshell,” dedicating this much effort toward it, and suggesting this was somehow indicative of lackadaisical security standards around a world leader who was in danger is why nobody takes this stuff seriously. If everything is a big story, nothing is a big story.