[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Right MPs serve the public, so why are there some within the Conservative Party who refuse to do what is clearly in the public interest. 

for the same reason a federal employee who serves the public may not be inclined to do what is in the public interest?

[crazy canuck]

Looks like Canada is on track to meet its immigration intake goal, despite COVID.  Also hearing a number pundits talking about how this is essentially a non issue in Canadian politics - Bernier's outliers are exceptions which prove the rule. 

[Jacob]

New cabinet today.

[Josephus]

New cabinet today.

I just repainted mine.

[Grey Fox]

Melanie Joly; Blisken won't know what hit him.

[viper37]

She ain't that bad.

[Grey Fox]

I like her. She can talk for hours in circles not saying anything and then stare you down.

[viper37]

I like her. She can talk for hours in circles not saying anything and then stare you down.

She's obviously a good fit the for this party.

[viper37]

A great day for freedom of expression

Case for lawyers:
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19046/index.do

For the rest of us:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-ward-scc-j%C3%A9r%C3%A9my-gabriel-1.6229032

[crazy canuck]

I understand why the media and the public understand this as a freedom of expression case - but at its core it is really an administrative law case and signals the end of the Abella/Karakatsanis formulation of the amount of deference which should be given to administrative decision makers - which reached its high (or low) watermark depending on your point of view in the Westfraser case.  The upshot of Ward is neatly summarized in the headnote - The Tribunal has no power to decide actions in defamation or other civil liability actions, since its jurisdiction is limited to complaints of discrimination or exploitation based on ss. 10 to 19 and 48 of the Quebec Charter.

In plain English, a statutory decision maker can only decide matters the statute gives them the authority to decide.

That may seem obvious, but there was a significant battle within the SCC over that point.   And now it seems that the battle has been resolved.  And especially since this was Abella's final decision on that topic. Even if the new justice taking her place has the same view as she did, he will still be in the minority.

[crazy canuck]

I should add though that if the minority view had prevailed it would have been a significant blow to freedom of expression in this country.  The minority would have created an analysis which measured the speech against the impact on the person who is the target of the speech.  But as the majority pointed out - freedom of speech also protects speech which is offensive or repugnant.

[viper37]

I understand why the media and the public understand this as a freedom of expression case - but at its core it is really an administrative law case and signals the end of the Abella/Karakatsanis formulation of the amount of deference which should be given to administrative decision makers - which reached its high (or low) watermark depending on your point of view in the Westfraser case.  The upshot of Ward is neatly summarized in the headnote - The Tribunal has no power to decide actions in defamation or other civil liability actions, since its jurisdiction is limited to complaints of discrimination or exploitation based on ss. 10 to 19 and 48 of the Quebec Charter.

I know it wasn't about defamation.  The complaint was that Ward violated basic human dignity in this case.  Which could only happen if you take his words at face value.  I notice the 3 justice from Quebec voted in favor of Ward.  Gabriel might have won a case in a civili defamation suit, but he sought to permanently censor and stigmatize a stand up comic by labeling him as an abuser.

It is, in my eyes, much more than a purely administrative matter as the ruling of the commission has far more impact than the winning of a defamation suit could have had. 

[crazy canuck]

I choose to take the SCC at their word - literally 

[Barrister]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-flag-gesture-without-an-end-date-is-set-to-collide-with-a-fixed-date-remembrance-day

Canadian flags have been at half-mast since the discovery of so many unmarked graves at former Indian residential schools.  Trudeau said flags would remain at half mast "until further notice".

But we're coming up on Remembrance Day.  And part of the ceremony of Remembrance Day is lowering the flag to half mast, then raising it at the end of the day.  But you can't lower the flag if it's already at half mast.  So is it time to put back the flags?

[viper37]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-flag-gesture-without-an-end-date-is-set-to-collide-with-a-fixed-date-remembrance-day

Canadian flags have been at half-mast since the discovery of so many unmarked graves at former Indian residential schools.  Trudeau said flags would remain at half mast "until further notice".

But we're coming up on Remembrance Day.  And part of the ceremony of Remembrance Day is lowering the flag to half mast, then raising it at the end of the day.  But you can't lower the flag if it's already at half mast.  So is it time to put back the flags?

It's silly.  Just leave it at half mast for this year, it'll do.