• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

Unless things have changed, you also need a criminal records check to be an amateur coach. Spent 24 years as a Level 3 Certified Amateur coach.
In Ontario (at least), a Vulnerable Sector Check.

Types of background checks:


Most, if not all, organized minor sports governing bodies require a Vulnerable Sector Check. Many volunteer/not-for-profit organizations require it as well if the position involves public contact.
 
In response to my query "Does Canada recognize the supremacy of international law?" I received this response:


"No, Canada does not recognize the supremacy of international law, as its Constitution is the supreme law of the land and domestic law takes precedence over international law when they conflict. However, Canada follows principles that require courts to interpret domestic laws in a way that is consistent with international law whenever possible. International treaties must be implemented through domestic legislation to become part of Canadian law, with the exception of some customary international law.

Domestic law supremacy
  • The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with it is of no force or effect.

  • In cases of conflict, domestic law, whether federal or provincial, prevails over international law.
Implementation of international treaties
  • International treaties and conventions must be incorporated into Canadian law through domestic legislation to be enforceable in Canadian courts.
  • The federal government can enter into treaties, but they must be implemented in a way that respects the division of powers between federal, provincial, and territorial governments.
  • Once implemented, a treaty becomes part of Canadian law and can be interpreted by courts.
Interpretation of domestic law
  • Canadian courts have a duty to interpret domestic statutes in a manner consistent with Canada's international obligations, where possible.
  • This means that if a domestic law can be read in two ways, one consistent with a treaty and one not, the court will choose the interpretation that aligns with the international obligation.
  • This "presumption of conformity" requires courts to interpret the law to be consistent with international law, but domestic law will still prevail if the two conflict and the law cannot be interpreted consistently.
Customary international law
  • The status of customary international law in Canada is still a developing area of law, with courts often looking to precedent in other common law jurisdictions.

  • For example, courts have stated that customary international law can be adopted into Canadian law through the "adoption" doctrine, but domestic legislation will prevail if there is a conflict.

  • The Supreme Court has affirmed that Canada is not bound by customary international law in the domestic sphere to the extent that it contradicts domestic law, but it can influence domestic law and its interpretation. "
I'm not exactly sure what is being argued here. Does any country hold up its domestic law to be subservient to international law?

Parliament is sovereign to the extent that it cannot be bound by other parliaments. It can be bound by our Constitution. The Constitution can be changed, but only within the amending formula, not by a given parliament. The 'notwithstanding clause' can suspend some specific elements of the Charter within the Constitution, but not all.

Of course, a future parliament can alter or repeal a domestic law that confirms an international agreement or treaty, but it does so at the peril or the reputation and economic stability of the country. Most economic treaties have mechanisms to manage disputes. A parliament simply walking away from those would expose the country as a unreliable partner.
 
I'm not exactly sure what is being argued here. Does any country hold up its domestic law to be subservient to international law?

Parliament is sovereign to the extent that it cannot be bound by other parliaments. It can be bound by our Constitution. The Constitution can be changed, but only within the amending formula, not by a given parliament. The 'notwithstanding clause' can suspend some specific elements of the Charter within the Constitution, but not all.

Of course, a future parliament can alter or repeal a domestic law that confirms an international agreement or treaty, but it does so at the peril or the reputation and economic stability of the country. Most economic treaties have mechanisms to manage disputes. A parliament simply walking away from those would expose the country as a unreliable partner.

No points of disagreement at all.
 
New AG report dropping

Canadian military falling short on recruitment, housing needs: AG reports

I looked at this - I think that what needs to be looked at is each of the years that this recruiting timeframe reports separately.

Year 2022 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2023 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2024 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2025 - did they make the numbers?

I'm not surprised that over this timeframe that they came up short - but again, what story does each of the years tell?
 
I looked at this - I think that what needs to be looked at is each of the years that this recruiting timeframe reports separately.

Year 2022 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2023 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2024 - did they make the numbers?
Year 2025 - did they make the numbers?

I'm not surprised that over this timeframe that they came up short - but again, what story does each of the years tell?

I think the other problem is people thinking announcements are the same as deliverables. Its nice to say we are committed to buying XYZ, but until they are delivered its all just words.
 
I think the other problem is people thinking announcements are the same as deliverables. Its nice to say we are committed to buying XYZ, but until they are delivered its all just words.
Not to mention the report highlights what we already know, security clearances for example are taking to long, not many people will wait 300+ days to get a job. Housing report also isn't surprising, I can think of a few bases the AG team didn't visit that have the same situation, buildings with non potable water, asbestos, roaches, etc
 
Not to mention the report highlights what we already know, security clearances for example are taking to long, not many people will wait 300+ days to get a job. Housing report also isn't surprising, I can think of a few bases the AG team didn't visit that have the same situation, buildings with non potable water, asbestos, roaches, etc

We defiantly need to find way over these administrative hurdles.

Housing will dog us until we address it.
 
That shows just how low a priority CAF members are to the GoC.

Despite the announcements, and constant mouth noises they make every year around this time.
considering many shacks would be cheaper to demolish and build new compared to fixing, yeap
 
Back
Top