Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[Kirkhill]

You’ve quoted a law; I meant can you give me an example of the sort of situation/emergency you imagine. You can’t start with the law; you need the fact set to apply the law to.

You asked for an example of the sort of situation/emergency I imagined. I responded by referencing an article that described the circumstances I imagined.

public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies.

The fact that they are included in reference to existing legislation is useful corroboration of a shared concern.


The Emergencies Act

authorizes the Government of Canada to take extraordinary temporary measures ....

Under the Emergencies Act, the Cabinet of Canada can declare a national emergency in response to an urgent and critical situation that cannot be dealt with by any existing law, and either is beyond the capability of a province to deal with it or threatens the sovereignty of Canada

I'll put it to you another way - at what point do the roles of the Governor-General in Council, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces under the auspices of the Emergencies Act, and the Solicitor-General (now the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency) responsible for the RCMP, CBSA, Corrections and CSIS, clash. And when they do who arbitrates.

I appreciate that the Emergencies Act is a temporary measure, subject to parliamentary review after the fact, that is intended for use in extra-ordinary circumstances.

I suggest though that the very fact that it is considered necessary to clarify the extra-ordinary supplies and opportunity to clarify the fundamental basis of power in the country and the nature of decision making.

When there is time available then we can go through the multiple checks and balances we associate with out democratic way of life. The Emergencies Act, IMO, is designed to describe what courses of action are available when we run out of time.

My sense is that the act permits the Governor-General-in-Council, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister in Cabinet, to act as Caesar-pro-Tem.

Caesar gets to decide when to declare himself Caesar, even if only temporarily and with the support of his parliament.

The declaration can be reviewed 60 days after being rescinded - but what if it is not rescinded?

 

[McG]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782360891624665180

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782360949627785438

 

[Jarnhamar]

Are you guys talking about the Geneva Checklist?

Geneva suggestions.

 

[FJAG]

I'll put it to you another way - at what point do the roles of the Governor-General in Council, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces under the auspices of the Emergencies Act, and the Solicitor-General (now the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency) responsible for the RCMP, CBSA, Corrections and CSIS, clash. And when they do who arbitrates.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Governor-General in Council."

Under s 13 of the Constitution Act, the term is "Governor in Council" which effectively means the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Canada which, practically speaking, means by and with the advice of the federal cabinet.

Constitutionally under s 15, the command of the Canadian Forces is vested in the queen (Victoria) now King Charles.

Executive power in Canada, not just the military, remains with the crown and is executed on the crown's behalf by the GiC. The GG's powers should be read in conjunction with the Letters of Patent of 1947 which do not give a blanket transfer of crown power to the GG but primarily provide a method by which the GG can continue to exercise powers if the crown is incapacitated. As long as the crown remains competent, the crown can overrule and/or replace a GG at any time if the GG causes a constitutional crisis.

Long story short, there should be no conflict between the GG and the Solicitor-General as both act under the direction of the federal cabinet. In the event that one or the other goes off on a frolic of their own, either the Prime Minister can relieve the SG or the crown can override/remove the GG at the request of the Prime Minister.

Also take note that the Emergencies Act's origins are in the War Measures Act which was put into effect during the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec. It's use raised various issues and it took until 1988 to repeal it and replace it with the more comprehensive Emergencies Act which was designed to be in sync with the Charter.

 

[lenaitch]

Just because authority is delegated it does not absolve the politicians of responsibility nor does it remove their ability to direct action.

Authority may be delegated by operation of legislation. The federal and provincial governments have authority to govern which, by implication, means passing legislation. In the EA example, the actions Cabinet took were authorized by regulations made under an Act which a previous Parliament had enacted.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Governor-General in Council."

Under s 13 of the Constitution Act, the term is "Governor in Council" which effectively means the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Privy Council of Canada which, practically speaking, means by and with the advice of the federal cabinet.

Constitutionally under s 15, the command of the Canadian Forces is vested in the queen (Victoria) now King Charles.

Executive power in Canada, not just the military, remains with the crown and is executed on the crown's behalf by the GiC. The GG's powers should be read in conjunction with the Letters of Patent of 1947 which do not give a blanket transfer of crown power to the GG but primarily provide a method by which the GG can continue to exercise powers if the crown is incapacitated. As long as the crown remains competent, the crown can overrule and/or replace a GG at any time if the GG causes a constitutional crisis.

Long story short, there should be no conflict between the GG and the Solicitor-General as both act under the direction of the federal cabinet. In the event that one or the other goes off on a frolic of their own, either the Prime Minister can relieve the SG or the crown can override/remove the GG at the request of the Prime Minister.

Also take note that the Emergencies Act's origins are in the War Measures Act which was put into effect during the 1970 October Crisis in Quebec. It's use raised various issues and it took until 1988 to repeal it and replace it with the more comprehensive Emergencies Act which was designed to be in sync with the Charter.

Authority may be delegated by operation of legislation. The federal and provincial governments have authority to govern which, by implication, means passing legislation. In the EA example, the actions Cabinet took were authorized by regulations made under an Act which a previous Parliament had enacted.

Bartering words with lawyers is a no-win contest.

I will stand corrected on the form of words.

Responsibility. Authority. Budget. Of these three are power made.

In the Canadian system, as I understand it, and the 1982 Constitution notwithstanding, Parliament is sovereign, authority is delegated from the Crown, Parliament controls the purse and Parliament delegates authority, responsibility and budget.

Given that Parliament and Parliament alone can make, change or annul laws and condone rules and regulations then Parliament can not escape responsibility for the state of affairs of the country.

The Constitution is neither immutable nor all powerful. Parliament has the power to modify the Constitution (even if the method is arduous) and the ability to ignore it.

Unfortunately in Canada the powers of Parliament are effectively the powers of the Governing Party and its mouthpiece the Prime Minister given that the Government's Party controls the House of Commons, creates the Prime Minister, appoints the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and Governor-General, together with the Minister of Justice (Solicitor-General) and the Attorney-General.

It is hard to credit that there is a functional separation of powers under those circumstances.

If the police act, or do not act, if the Forces act or do not act, it is the responsibility of the Governing Party and the consequences of the action or lack of same, are theirs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last...

Forgot that the Senate is also in the gift of the Governing Party.

The only contrarian powers in Canada are the Provinces.

 

[FJAG]

The Constitution is neither immutable nor all powerful. Parliament has the power to modify the Constitution (even if the method is arduous) and the ability to ignore it.

I don't want to minimize the power of Parliament, but you need to remember several points about our version of the Westminster parliamentary model.

First is that power is divided by the constitution as between the federal and provincial governments. That puts a practical limit as to where each of the legislatures can act.

Secondly we have a judicial system that can, and frequently does, limit or invalidate the laws that Canadian legislatures pass from time to time and would certainly step in, if called upon, if a government was to ignore the constitution. Note too that "governing party" does not appoint the "supreme court." It does appoint individual judges to the court from time to time as vacancies occur, but the court itself is free and unfettered (except by the cumulative laws of the land) and a blend of various government appointments.

Finally the issue of constitutional amendments. It's not a question of arduous but of capability in that there are different formulas some of which require unanimous consent from the feds and all the provinces while others work on a 7/50 rule and, of course, there is the one where the fed parliament can make amendments unilaterally to provisions respecting fed institutions not specifically covered by the others.

 

[Kirkhill]

And if it comes down to the Courts vs Parliament?

 

[FJAG]

And if it comes down to the Courts vs Parliament?

The courts win until such time as the government gets it right.

You probably don't recall Manitoba's former politician Vic Toews. When he moved to fed politics he became a justice minister under Harper. He had a penchant for law and order legislation and pushed through legislation that frequently crossed the line into unconstitutionality. Sometimes things got fixed and reissued, sometimes the initiatives were just abandoned.

We run a system which is based on checks and balances. One doesn't often see how those sausages are made because most of them are made quietly. Nonetheless, they still exist. In the end we expect the public to be the final arbiter of government actions but I'm starting to lose faith in the collective intelligence of the nation. IMHO the rampant excesses and false narratives that come through social media and the relative ease which with unscrupulous individuals, including politicians and political parties, can cause feeding frenzies, has a lot to do with that.

 

[Kirkhill]

The courts win until such time as the government gets it right.

You probably don't recall Manitoba's former politician Vic Toews. When he moved to fed politics he became a justice minister under Harper. He had a penchant for law and order legislation and pushed through legislation that frequently crossed the line into unconstitutionality. Sometimes things got fixed and reissued, sometimes the initiatives were just abandoned.

We run a system which is based on checks and balances. One doesn't often see how those sausages are made because most of them are made quietly. Nonetheless, they still exist. In the end we expect the public to be the final arbiter of government actions but I'm starting to lose faith in the collective intelligence of the nation. IMHO the rampant excesses and false narratives that come through social media and the relative ease which with unscrupulous individuals, including politicians and political parties, can cause feeding frenzies, has a lot to do with that.

I continue to trust the mob if for no other reason than they exist and there are a lot of them.

If the experts can't carry the mob with them then the experts lose.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We run a system which is based on checks and balances. One doesn't often see how those sausages are made because most of them are made quietly. Nonetheless, they still exist. In the end we expect the public to be the final arbiter of government actions but I'm starting to lose faith in the collective intelligence of the nation. IMHO the rampant excesses and false narratives that come through social media and the relative ease which with unscrupulous individuals, including politicians and political parties, can cause feeding frenzies, has a lot to do with that.

I think that feeling you have is going both ways. Meaning I think the collective populace has lost/is losing faith and trust in our courts and government. And I think this is the more dangerous perception.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think that feeling you have is going both ways. Meaning I think the collective populace has lost/is losing faith and trust in our courts and government. And I think this is the more dangerous perception.

Part of that is the education system does a poor job on educating Canadians in how the systems work. So that help breed mistrust. Abuse of power by governments is like blowing air on the embers left by poor education.

 

[lenaitch]

Bartering words with lawyers is a no-win contest.

I will stand corrected on the form of words.

Responsibility. Authority. Budget. Of these three are power made.

In the Canadian system, as I understand it, and the 1982 Constitution notwithstanding, Parliament is sovereign, authority is delegated from the Crown, Parliament controls the purse and Parliament delegates authority, responsibility and budget.

Given that Parliament and Parliament alone can make, change or annul laws and condone rules and regulations then Parliament can not escape responsibility for the state of affairs of the country.

The Constitution is neither immutable nor all powerful. Parliament has the power to modify the Constitution (even if the method is arduous) and the ability to ignore it.

Unfortunately in Canada the powers of Parliament are effectively the powers of the Governing Party and its mouthpiece the Prime Minister given that the Government's Party controls the House of Commons, creates the Prime Minister, appoints the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Privy Council and Governor-General, together with the Minister of Justice (Solicitor-General) and the Attorney-General.

It is hard to credit that there is a functional separation of powers under those circumstances.

If the police act, or do not act, if the Forces act or do not act, it is the responsibility of the Governing Party and the consequences of the action or lack of same, are theirs.

"Parliament is sovereign". Sort of; subject to the Constitution. In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty is much more established, but they don't have a written constitution and have only had a supreme court since 2009.

"Parliament" in the singular, as in the federal parliament, cannot modify the Constitution unilaterally.

"If the police act, or do not act . . . it is the responsibility of the Governing Party". The administration of justice ('the police') is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I suppose a provincial "governing party" could pass a law that gives them operation control of the police. Beyond being careful what you wish for, It might run afoul of the disallowance provision, and might be of limited value anyway. Authority to do or not do stuff is vested in individual police officer, not their service. The provincial legislatures have the primary authority for the administration of justice, but the justice itself is a federal responsibility.

It seems you crave a world where the PM and cabinet can directly operate all of the levers of power. Some people might define that as other than a democracy.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Parliament is sovereign". Sort of; subject to the Constitution. In the UK, parliamentary sovereignty is much more established, but they don't have a written constitution and have only had a supreme court since 2009.

"Parliament" in the singular, as in the federal parliament, cannot modify the Constitution unilaterally.

"If the police act, or do not act . . . it is the responsibility of the Governing Party". The administration of justice ('the police') is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I suppose a provincial "governing party" could pass a law that gives them operation control of the police. Beyond being careful what you wish for, It might run afoul of the disallowance provision, and might be of limited value anyway. Authority to do or not do stuff is vested in individual police officer, not their service. The provincial legislatures have the primary authority for the administration of justice, but the justice itself is a federal responsibility.

It seems you crave a world where the PM and cabinet can directly operate all of the levers of power. Some people might define that as other than a democracy.

I don't crave that world. My sense is that that is the default world of the authoritarians and that everything we rely on to guarantee our democracy is a veneer.

I take comfort in the knowledge that entropy wins every time. Authority cannot impose order indefinitely

 

[Kirkhill]

What is it like to feel that you are in control? That the world is ordered and understandable?

Seven decades and I can honestly say that I have never felt in control. My world has always been chaotic. Along for the ride.

 

[dimsum]

What is it like to feel that you are in control? That the world is ordered and understandable?

Seven decades and I can honestly say that I have never felt in control. My world has always been chaotic. Along for the ride.

Check out the book “Fluke” by Brian Klass. You may find it enlightening.

Fluke

Want to know what chaos theory can teach us about human events? In the perspective-altering tradition of Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point and N...

www.simonandschuster.com

 

[Eaglelord17]

Further to my last...

Forgot that the Senate is also in the gift of the Governing Party.

The only contrarian powers in Canada are the Provinces.

The senate isn’t supposed to have anything to do with the governing party. It is supposed to be appointed by the Crown, just as the GG is.

They let the PM and his ilk select the candidates but at the end of the day they could refuse to accept their recommendations. Some may call it a constitutional crisis if that happened, I would call it our system working as it is supposed to.

 

[FJAG]

I continue to trust the mob if for no other reason than they exist and there are a lot of them.

If the experts can't carry the mob with them then the experts lose.

“The opinion of 10,000 people is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.”​

― Marcus Aurelius

 

[TacticalTea]

The opinion of experts is worth nothing if they developed those opinions before they were experts.
-Me