Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[ArmyRick]

@brihard "All regulations/OICs are absolutely able to be challenged in court. Due process does still exist."

And that gets very costly. The government has all the money in the world, most of everyone else has limited if any funds to pursue it in court

 

[brihard]

All regulations/OICs are absolutely able to be challenged in court. Due process does still exist.

And that gets very costly. The government has all the money in the world, most of everyone else has limited if any funds to pursue it in court

Yup, but that goes for anyone challenging any law and would be no different if every single point of law were legislated.

In any case, I was only making a point about the absolute need to have statutorily enabled regulatory law for our system to function, and I believe that point stands on its merits. I’m not taking a stand on the merits of any specific regulations on any specific subject.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yup, but that goes for anyone challenging any law and would be no different if every single point of law were legislated.

In any case, I was only making a point about the absolute need to have statutorily enabled regulatory law for our system to function, and I believe that point stands on its merits. I’m not taking a stand on the merits of any specific regulations on any specific subject.

What I am getting at is I think governments have this as a "political weapon". They can make an OIC that really doesn't pass the smell test with most Canadians but get away with it because they can wear any challengers down in court (defeat via legal battles, which is dirty)

 

[Lumber]

What I am getting at is I think governments have this as a "political weapon". They can make an OIC that really doesn't pass the smell test with most Canadians but get away with it because they can wear any challengers down in court (defeat via legal battles, which is dirty)

They can do the exact same thing with a law passed through the HoC.

OICs are not "boogeymen".

 

[Halifax Tar]

You realize that OICs are simply federal regulations, and that a vast amount of our law is regulatory done in exactly this manner? What you’re saying would require Parliament to amend the Special Economic Measures Act each time there’s any change to sanctions against any foreign state or entity. It would require Parliment to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act any time there’s a change needed to money laundering regulations, etc etc.

Look up any round of regulations in the Canada Gazette and imagine every single one of those is a bill that has to be passed through all three readings and committee in both Houses of Parliament. Flexible regulatory powers are basically the only way a lot of systems can work properly. We would utterly logjam our entire legislative process. Attempts to, say, reform criminal law on bail would be completely jammed up behind hundreds of minute bills prescribing the new round of sanctioned Russian oligarchs, appointing new federal judges, prescribing new approved medications, prescribing new import tariffs, etc etc.

Seriously- flip through a couple issues of Part II of the Canada Gazette. Under what you propose, every single item starting with “SOR” would have to be a full piece of legislation.

All regulations/OICs are absolutely able to be challenged in court. Due process does still exist.

Without debate and with a whimper this Gov turned me into a criminal with their OIC(s) pertaining to firearms. Told me my legally qualified for and acquired property was now illegal. And I am now a criminal living in a grace period.

With the swish of a pen, this Gov turned a faithful and devoted servant into a criminal.

You might be ok with that, I am not.

 

[Remius]

Without debate and with a whimper this Gov turned me into a criminal with their OIC(s) pertaining to firearms. Told me my legally qualified for and acquired property was now illegal. And I am now a criminal living in a grace period.

With the swish of a pen, this Gov turned a faithful and devoted servant into a criminal.

You might be ok with that, I am not.

The same OIC process granted you an amnesty period though to prevent them from turning you into a criminal though.

Just saying.

 

[QV]

I mean, yeah, hypothetically the legislature could seek to notwithstand such a law… I personally would happily bet against it.

You have far more faith in a Trudeau government then history would justify.

 

[QV]

It depends on which government.

Since the notwithstanding clause was created, the only government's that have used it or tried to use it have been the provinces, and very interestingly its always been conservative governments, or Quebec. Liberal government (other than Quebec) have never tried to use it.

Also, Trudeau has on several occasions spoken out against the notwithstanding clause. I don't expect the current government to ram laws down canadian throats using the notwithstanding clause.

Trudeau has said things and done the opposite in the past.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The same OIC process granted you an amnesty period though to prevent them from turning you into a criminal though.

Just saying.

No it turned me into a criminal and then gave me a grace period to get out of it.

Read the FRT

Firearms Reference Table - RCMP.ca

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

The firearms are reclassified. Anyone with them and lacking the license is illegally in possession of firearms. They have simply provided a grace period while they figure out how to deal with it.

Of course you'll forgive me if I'm not appreciative of the opportunity to get out of being a criminal for crime I didn't commit, instead that they imposed.

 

[QV]

That this sort of thing is even a topic for discussion is alarming. It doesn't matter if Trudeau has poured water on it. The embers can continue to smoulder until well after he's gone.

This exactly. That people are comfortable with this notion because Trudeau said "we'd never do that" is also alarming. How can anyone believe anything Trudeau says at this point?

 

[ArmyRick]

They can do the exact same thing with a law passed through the HoC.

OICs are not "boogeymen".

OICs are a tool to be used very sparingly and with extreme caution... The intended or unintended consequences can be quite drastic

 

[brihard]

OICs are a tool to be used very sparingly and with extreme caution... The intended or unintended consequences can be quite drastic

You’re completely incorrect. The majority of our changes to law are promulgated by OIC; I explained that above. Most people simply never have cause to notice it because most people aren’t concerned day to day with consumer safety regulations, pharmaceutical approvals, sanctions against shitty people and countries, federal appointments and such. Obviously you and everyone else here is referring to firearms, but it’s painfully obvious that that’s the only real context in which most people are aware of regulatory law, and that there’s a vast unawareness about how much of our law actually works.

Again, I invite anyone to look at some
Canada Gazette Part II issues and explain how our law could work otherwise. We’d have to pass dozens of bills a month.

You have far more faith in a Trudeau government then history would justify.

In the narrow context of Trudeau reversing on a statement that they would not enact policy #10 from the party convention, I have zero concern.

 

[Remius]

No it turned me into a criminal and then gave me a grace period to get out of it.

Not how it works. You’ll only be a criminal after that period.

Read the FRT

Firearms Reference Table - RCMP.ca

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca

The firearms are reclassified. Anyone with them and lacking the license is illegally in possession of firearms. They have simply provided a grace period while they figure out how to deal with it.

Read the OIC. It is permissive. Meaning you are allowed certain thing until that period ends. Until it ends you are not a criminal.

Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020)

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Of course you'll forgive me if I'm not appreciative of the opportunity to get out of being a criminal for crime I didn't commit, instead that they imposed.

I’m not arguing that it is right or wrong. I’ve stated my thoughts that the legislation is bad. Just pointing out that the OIC did not turn you into a criminal right away and that another OIC created a caveat of time for you not be deemed a criminal.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not how it works. You’ll only be a criminal after that period.

Read the OIC. It is permissive. Meaning you are allowed certain thing until that period ends. Until it ends you are not a criminal.

Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2020)

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

I’m not arguing that it is right or wrong. I’ve stated my thoughts that the legislation is bad. Just pointing out that the OIC did not turn you into a criminal right away and that another OIC created a caveat of time for you not be deemed a criminal.

Its an amnesty.

What you need to know about the Government of Canada’s May 1, 2020 prohibition on certain firearms and devices | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

An Amnesty Order is in effect until October 30, 2023 to protect individuals who were in legal possession of one or more of these firearms or devices that were prohibited on May 1 2020, on the day the amendments to the Classification Regulations came into force, from criminal liability for unlawful possession. It also provides owners with the time to come into compliance with the law.

If I am not in compliance with the law then I am doing something illegal, which makes me a criminal. This is just a grace period (Amnesty) to give people an opportunity to come back into line. Much like firearms amnesty's police forces hold, no questions asked just bring in the guns.

 

[Remius]

Its an amnesty.

Yes. Glad we agree.

What you need to know about the Government of Canada’s May 1, 2020 prohibition on certain firearms and devices | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

An Amnesty Order is in effect until October 30, 2023 to protect individuals who were in legal possession of one or more of these firearms or devices that were prohibited on May 1 2020, on the day the amendments to the Classification Regulations came into force, from criminal liability for unlawful possession. It also provides owners with the time to come into compliance with the law.

If I am not in compliance with the law then I am doing something illegal, which makes me a criminal. This is just a grace period (Amnesty) to give people an opportunity to come back into line. Much like firearms amnesty's police forces hold, no questions asked just bring in the guns.

Lol. From your actual source

to protect individuals who were in legal possession of one or more of these firearms or devices that were prohibited on May 1 2020, on the day the amendments to the Classification Regulations came into force, from criminal liability for unlawful possession. It also provides owners with the time to come into compliance with the law.

It is literally telling you aren’t a criminal for that period. After that time (Oct 2023) is a different story.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes. Glad we agree.

Lol. From your actual source

It is literally telling you aren’t a criminal for that period. After that time (Oct 2023) is a different story.

Its protecting from liability. In this case it means that you are in possession of something illegal, making you a criminal, but they wont prosecute you until after date XXXX because your not responsible for that crime, yet. I am currently in possession of some illegal thing(s) without being criminally liable until after XXXX.

 

[Remius]

Its protecting from liability. In this case it means that you are in possession of something illegal, making you a criminal, but they wont prosecute you until after date XXXX because your not responsible for that crime, yet. I am currently in possession of some illegal thing(s) without being criminally liable until after XXXX.

From criminal liability. It’s quite literally what determines if you are a criminal or not. You aren’t. You will be after that date though assuming you are not in compliance.

 

[Halifax Tar]

From criminal liability. It’s quite literally what determines if you are a criminal or not. You aren’t. You will be after that date though assuming you are not in compliance.

No, it just means they wont prosecute me until after the amnesty expires.

And again, forgive me if I'm not thankful for the opportunity to get out of a criminal liability for a crime I didn't commit, but instead that they (the GoC) imposed on me.

 

[Remius]

No, it just means they wont prosecute me until after the amnesty expires.

I’ve tried explaining it t’as best I can. Your own sources explains it as did the one I provided. I’ll leave it to someone else with more legal jargon Kung fu.

And again, forgive me if I'm not thankful for the opportunity to get out of a criminal liability for a crime I didn't commit, but instead that they (the GoC) imposed on me.

Irrelevant to the conversation we are having. I merely pointed out that the OIC that would have made you criminal was countered by another concurrent OIC to prevent that for a time.

You will only be considered a criminal after that period.

Also, an OIC from a new government can just as easily reverse the decision.

Remember, this conversation is stemming from your belief that we should do away with OICs altogether.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Also, an OIC from a new government can just as easily reverse the decision.

Remember, this conversation is stemming from your belief that we should do away with OICs altogether.

Absolutely. If the CPC goes to walk back this OIC, then they should do it on the floor of the HoC and through the senate and on. The nation should be informed of the reasons and the rationale behind their motion, debate the motion, and then the peoples representatives should vote on it.

I am assuming you can walk back an OIC through a motion on the floor of the HoC.