Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Canadian politics 2023
Just saw that RCMP commish Brenda Lucki, who got a bit of attention on the CP2022 thread, is now stepping down. Haven't read the articles to see what her precise reasons are.
And yeah, John Tory. I've been mostly avoiding the articles and opinion-pieces on his resignation, probably for fear of overdosing on Toronto The Good Has A Sex-Scandal jokes.
And yeah, John Tory. I've been mostly avoiding the articles and opinion-pieces on his resignation, probably for fear of overdosing on Toronto The Good Has A Sex-Scandal jokes.
Comments
Well, if I'm understanding the story correctly, the woman was still on his staff at the time of the affair, so there's possibly an issue of power-imbalance there. Though no one seems to be making a big issue of that.
In France if the President does not have a mistress, people start to wonder about just who they elected. It's one of the trappings of office, like the tricolour sash and bands playing La Marseillaise wherever you go.
Well, as a good Albertan, I have to refer you to the name "John E. Brownlee", the star of probably the most salacious sex-scandal that I can think of in Canadian history.
Brownlee was tried in court for "seduction", which apparently means something like "making the young lady less of an attractive marriage prospect". The jury found him guilty, but the judge didn't like that verdict, so chucked it out, but was in turn over-ruled by the SCOC, who sided with the ruined woman.
Brownlee's camp claimed that the Liberals had masterminded a big frame-up against the premier, which, if true, woulda been a lot of effort for no payback, since the Libs never came back to power anyway.
Err no. Emmanuel Macron's wife may have the whiff of scandal about her, but there's no suggestion of anything else.
Also, the power imbalance of having an affair with someone who works for you is undergoing a major reevaluation.
And I am taken to understand that the de Gaulles were strictly monogamous.
And he chastises the Ontario government for its inaction during the crisis. Not that that is going to reverse the results of the June 2022 provincial election.
A good summary in the CBC web story https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday-1.6750919
He probably doesn't really have to. Most people who were already voting Conservative Christians will just dismiss the report as "Liberal judge exonerates Liberal government, film at 11", assuming they're even still thinking about the issue.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has on Doug Ford's popularity, now that he's been officially declared a blockhead. Probably a bit of "Liberal judge condemns Conservative government, film at 11", but I think Ford's coalition must include quite a few non-partisans who won't automatically make such assumptions.
So, if you're someone who thinks foreign-meddling in elections is a big problem for Canada(*), I guess this is a pretty bad look for the Liberals. Poilevere, of course, will try to run with this.
(*) I personally don't really care, and I say that whether it's Ted Cruz tweeting "yee-haw!" to the Convoy, or China doing whatever kind of shit they were up to in Canada. Foreigners are free to propagandize as they wish about another country's elections, and the electorate should have the street-smarts to analyze the arguments as they do anyone else's. Of course, if laws were broken, that's another story.
And I wonder if Justin will try to overcompensate for the awkwardness of it all by kicking out a few Chinese diplomats or something along those lines. [Insert Harper's Pandas joke here.]
So China is alleged to have paid for whar amounts toa few lawn signs or a fast-food meals for campaign workers?
🤣
Good analysis. Yeah, I was wondering about the plausilibility of the "minority government" telos myself. Seems a little too precise a goal.
As for targeting specific ridings vs. the national campaigns, well, didn't I read somewhere that they were especially concerned with turfing out certain Conservative MPs who were considered too anti-China? If that is the case, it might make sense to direct resources locally.
Besides, when do individual MP's matter that much? It's the Kids in Short Pants who really run everything. They run Vetting and everything else.
Some of this strikes me as the PRC equivalent of boys in short pants working at the Consulate and trying to justify their jobs with an inane quest. I would still like to see a few of them given their walking papers, but that's because I'm mean.
Interesting anecdote. At the end of the day, if people want to show up at school-board meetings to push for modern characters, even if it's at the instigation of a foreign embassy, they can do that, and the board members can use their own judgement about how seriously they need to take these opinions.
Though I suppose there's a certain amount of deception involved, if the board thinks this is a grassroots uprising for the old characters, when it's actually just astroturf. But anyone with enough experience in politics to get elected to the school board should be wise to those kinda tricks.
When I originally read your story of the astroturfed school-board meeting, I tried to picture the Canadian embassy in the Republic Of Korea herding a buncha expat canucks(which would be mostly Gen Y and younger ESL teachers and a few businessmen) into some political forum. I can't even begin to imagine how they would go about managing a coherent front on any domestic issue.
While the citizenship take-up among Chinese immigrants is relatively high, aside from senior citizens, knowledge of an official language is required to pass the citizenship exam, and who knows how many had done this. School board trustees are closer to the ground than many elected folk but they have a tendency to focus on the issue at hand-- so it's anyone's guess.
Meanwhile, I have downloaded Justice Rouleau's report (disclosure-- before he was appointed to the bench, he was my mother's divorce lawyer) to read some of the details but I fear that I might fade after the summary.
That's basically it for me. Plus, if the Chinese embassy broke any laws in their efforts to sway the election, that's an issue, too. Not much you can do about that beyond expulsions, I'd wager.
It’s a massive (and impressive) set of documents. I hope to read my way through volume 1 at some point.
The leaked CSIS documents seem to be generally consistent with what CSIS has been saying in the last few years about covert activity in Canada by the PRC. It would be very interesting to know who leaked these documents and why.
@Trudy there have been public
allegations by CSIS that a few Canadian politicians (maybe just one actually) are too close to the PRC though I don’t think CSIS has ever tried to spell out exactly what “too close” means.
I do not believe that any major party office/ leader's office would be stupid enough to accept dosh from Chinese sources (and under the Wynne government's funding rules, since changed by Mr Ford, this would have been nigh-impossible). But it's possible that local campaigners, particularly in the rather-too-unsupervised nomination process, might have dabbled. If so, prosecutions are in order.
Second, he notes a failure of federalism but doesn't delve into Ontario's role or responsibility as constitutional administrator of law in the province. The OPS gets much examination, but it like the City of Ottawa is just a creature of the province.
I was trying to avoid mentioning names, but I should have made it clearer that the individual I was thinking of wasn’t a particularly big name.
Also, I may have been wrong in thinking that these allegations were ever made public by CSIS.
Just to be clear, you mean he mentions the preference for Aid To The Civil Power, but fails to explain why it was followed during The Oka Crisis but not during the Convoy?
And more on Rouleau’s view on this issue on page 179:
And obviously, bringing in the military doesn’t necessarily mean that Emergency powers won’t be required. The worst case scenario is that you end up needing both.
What, precisely, has changed since Oka in law with respect to Aid to the Civil Power and the enforcement of law against civil unrest? Nothing.
I would like the teleology of the honorable justice's position examined because according to the White Paper, which puts forth the classical understanding of the law in this area, he is advancing new law in Canada.
Lastly, as I have stated previously, the police already had ample legal authority to prevent and surpress tumultuous breaches of the peace through the Criminal Code. The Emergencies Act did not bring anything new to the table and to think that it did blinds us to the power of the existing law under the Criminal Code and does considerable violence to the existing constitutional order in Canada.
Your critique of Rouleau's reasoning, if valid, would reinforce my long-held suspicion that the main factor pivoting toward Invocation was the damage inflicted upon the economy. Not security-concerns as the idea of a security-concern is generally understood.
Why? The report itself addresses the relevance of economic considerations in section 27.6 of the Executive Summary at pages 197-198 of volume 1. The short answer is that an economic crisis does not in itself justify the invocation of the Act.
SPK I’m sorry but I’m mostly not following what you’re saying and I don’t think the problem is entirely with me.
Well, if I understand @SPK's argument, we can frame it as a question...
Marsupial, based on your reading of Rouleau's report, what factors existed in 2022 to justify the EA in the Convoy situation, that hadn't existed in 1990 to justify the EA in the Oka situation?
I don’t actually know offhand whether invoking the EA at Oka could have been justified. I doubt it, because (unlike the Convoy) it was a specific crisis at a specific place, and that specific place wasn’t the national capital and Parliamentary precinct thereby affecting Parliament’s ability to govern the country. There seems to concern among some civil liberties groups that the EA is going to be invoked every time a political protest gets messy but based on my reading of the Rouleau report so far (I haven’t finished volume 1 yet) I don’t think this should actually be a concern.
I actually thought SPK was making a different point about the relationship between the EA and aid to the civil power and I wasn’t following him at all on that argument.
I haven’t finished reading the first volume of the Rouleau report yet and may have more to say about it when I have. It has lots of interesting bits but the most relevant sections in terms of whether the invocation was justified are sections 27 and 28 (which I have not yet finished reading yet).
As referred to in the report, the White Paper of 1987 when the Emergencies Act was introduced enunciated the classical legal understanding of Canadian Law as regards civil unrest, Aid to the Civil Power and the Emergencies Act and how these inersect. This is the understanding I hold.
1) Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the enforcement of law in a province is exclusively a provincial responsibility. Provinces can and do commission local police forces to perform this duty, but they are creatures of the Province, as are municipalities.
2a) If a local police service is unable to enforce the law through a lack of constables, its recourse is to request additional constables through the provincial government. If the provincial government is unable to provide these through police reinforcements, resort is then had to Aid to the Civil Power through the National Defence Act at the request of the provincial Attorney General. This is stated in the 1987 White Paper which the Report refers to.
Moreover, this is how Canada handles English common law Aid to the Civil Power on our federal state.
2b) The police had the ability to arrest for Unlawful Assemblies of three people and at 12 people would be able to invoke Section 67 of the Criminal Code, the Riot Act.
Enforcement using the Riot Act is done through the reading of the Proclamation as a disuasion, the securing of the area through a line of police and arrest of those who are 'found in' the area after 30 minutes', which is an offence.
This was not done in Ottawa, though the entire Ottawa incident was summarized as a 'Breach of the Peace'.
Curiously, Part 5 of the report, the academic sources, does not analyze section 67 at all, passing over it as 'antiquated'. It was last used to my knowledge 10 years ago so I cannot comprehend the 'antiquated' part.
3) The Emergencies Act's substantive proclamation was against 'breaches of the peace' and public assemblies in Ottawa. Curiously there are Crimibal Code provisions dealing with that that remained unused.
4) What the Emergencies does do is it permits the Federal Government to relieve a province of its law enforcement powers and responsibilities, which is what was done. Under the Constitution, there is no other way to do this.
As the Emergencies Act was not used during Oka, though that was more violent and Aid to the Civil Power was used, I would like to know what changed in the intervening years and why Ontario felt unable to do what Quebec was able to do.
The noisome effect of the Emergencies Act in the present case is to relieve Ontario of being examined for what the Commission calls 'a failure of federalism.
And Rouleau seems to be basically on the same page with this criticism of Ford and his solicitor-general (i.e., the two relevant political actors). Though Rouleau does not make the same criticism of the provincial police, who provided assistance to the Ottawa police early on.
The real issue is not whether Ford dropped the ball on this, but whether there is something Ontario could have done that would have rendered the EA unnecessary. Rouleau seems to think no, but I still haven’t finished reading the relevant part of the Report.
I would also say that there is no distinction between "Ford dropping the ball" and "was there anything Ontario could have done". In our parliamentary system, they end up at the same place. Ontario is constitutionally responsible for law enforcement in Ottawa and the general security of the capital, the federal government is not. We don't have a federal capital district in Canada, much to the amazement of several Australians and Americans I have met.
Moreover, taking Oka as an example, clearly yes, there were additional steps Ontario could have used, all of which required the active participation of the premier, the cabinet and Attorney General of Ontario. They are the essential lynch-pins between the local police and the Emergencies Act and Aid to the Civil Power. Yet their role here remains unexamined to a large extent and that is a serious constitutional mischief. Obviating responsibility like this is something anyone schooled in Westminster parliamentary democracy should be very, very concerned about.
Lastly, I am unconvinced about doubts about efficacy of the Criminal Code prohibitions against unlawful assemblies and riots over doubts about the convoy not being in a single location. The report says they were and lists the examples. The fact that the location is larger than an assembly on foot would be is simply a curiosity, not an obstacle. The law is certainly capable of dealing a location that is a little larger than a foot demonstration simply because vehicles are involved, it is just a logical evolution, a living tree example if you will. I for one would certainly take my chances in court as a prosecutor on that one.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean that Rouleau said the Convoy protests were more difficult to deal with because they were taking place in multiple locations, and that you disagree with this?
The Criminal Code provisions were drafted before the use of automobiles so they presume a protest on foot gathered in a park, a square or a marketplace. A more widespread but still very defined area for the unlawful assembly, such as within the city limits of Ottawa would suffice as the truckers were united by a common purpose and tactics. A place is not a spot on a map, it's a delimited area. This is just a case of the law going through one of its 'living tree' moments where modernity can live quite happily with existing law.
For that matter the Riot Act proclamation could by made by Emergency Text so as to cover the whole of Ottawa simultaneously. Let the courts argue about the blast radius of a riot act proclamation.
Heh. It sounds as if Rouleau bought into the truckers' self-perception as free-wheeling outlaws, with nowhere to call home but the dusty road.
I’m not sure where SPK is getting this, but if it’s from his copy of the Rouleau report, he seems to be reading from a different version than I am. It’s not a question of whether the Criminal Code applied. It’s a question of whether the authorities could have effectively enforced the law without the use of emergency powers. One thing that seems pretty clear from the Rouleau report is that the Ottawa police lost control of the situation relatively early in the game, for a number of reasons some of which may not really have been their fault but also including some that may well have been their fault, apparently including some serious problems in upper management at the time. Once that happened the problem was not so much the theoretical applicability of the law as their practical ability to enforce it.
I’ve finished with volume 1 of the Report and basically my bottom line is the same as what it was last time we discussed this topic. What the police actually did in dispersing the convoy in Ottawa and elsewhere was necessary and appropriate. Sending in the military would have been inappropriate, for a number of reasons, including the reasons set out in the Rouleau report that I quoted above. As far as I can see, there’s no legal reason why the feds (or Ontario) would have been required to implement this inappropriate response, rather than the appropriate response that was actually implemented.
If what was actually done could have been accomplished without invoking the EA, then invoking the EA was, at least with the benefit of hindsight, unnecessary. However, at the end of the day, Rouleau seems to be saying that the government did have a reasonable belief at the time that invoking the EA was necessary to accomplish what needed to be accomplished, such that invoking the Act was appropriate. He cites a fair amount of evidence in support of that conclusion and I’m not in a position to have a more intelligent opinion on that particular issue than Rouleau does. Anyway, it’s a very helpful document I think even if you’re doubtful about whether he actually landed in the right place.
To put my final thoughts on this, the Emergencies Acr IS NOT a way to access more police powers. It is a way for the Federal Government to take over areas of governmemt normally reserved to the provinces without their consent or, in hindsight, their responsibility.
Second, if the Ottawa Police Service was not up to the job, that is Ontario's responsibility, not Canada's. We don't have a federal district in Canada. This is straight BNA division-of-powers analysis.
Third, there is a clear esclatory path in law with tools and strategies at each step. What we did see was not only was the OPS inept, they were not attempting to use their legal powers to the fullest. The salient question in a reasonability of escalation question is whether existing tools have been used and exhausted. They weren't. Which is why this invocation was inappropriate. This reasoning was put forth in the 1987 White Paper when the Emergencies Act was passed. It is the classic analysis. What Justice Rouleau submitted is new law and that should not pass unchallenged.
This is why the policy papers in Section 5 are important, they show what policy framework the commissioner was using. That framework downplayed to the point of belittling classic legal tools which is a biased and self-serving analysis. No wonder he came to the conclusion he did.
As Augustine observed, the Feds were faced with a recalcitrant Ontario who appeared to abandon its duties. That is rhe actual issue. Had Ontario done its job, the EA would not be necessary.
This isn't about 'calling in the army', it's about following an established system which determines what is reasonable.
Parliament was working remotely at the time, so there was no effect on the ability of the government to govern.
I leave that with you for your consideration.
So, basically, they were just making predictions based on a sociological model of how conflicts escalate. And believed or are now purporting to have believed that that model justified the use of the EA.
Second, nothing in the EA proclamation was directed against single-person actions. There was a prohibition on assembly of groups but that would not affect a single person action. A single person on the side walk was unaffected. There was no use preventative extention in the EA proclamation.
Rouleau's excerpt lacks logical consistency and once that is recognized, it looks mire like scaremongering.
What Rouleau engaged in was the Politician's Fallacy: Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. The thing done has no effect on the actual problem.
If the EA proclamations had actions directed against lone wolves that would be different.