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

Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

Status
Not open for further replies.

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
41
Points
380
Because the law as currently written expressly provides for the classification and regulation of firearms by Orders in Council. That's how firearms regulations worked already. There was already a statutory provision, court tested, that makes that a regulatory mechanism. I don't think there's a lot of understanding, generally, about how statute and regulations interact. Things can be criminalized by regulation, yes, BUT only where there is an enabling statute, passed by legislature, that makes it an offense to breach regulations passed by OIC. This approach allows for better nimbleness and flexibility when things change. A couple other real life examples- changes to impaired driving law in the past few years created a regulatory power to define blood concentrations of certain drugs as was done for a long time already with alcohol. While for alcohol it's a nice easy 'over .08', because we're dealing with a single known substance, there are hundreds of drugs out there and they're constantly changing, along with evolving science. Creating a statutory provision to allow regulatory definition of blood drug content makes it easier to deal with each one as the science settles, rather than having to pass a bill each time some guy creates a new mix of crap in their kitchen and gets high off of it. Another off the wall example - it's an offense to violate Canadian sanctions against the Syrian government. The Special Economic Measures Act (statute) creates an authority for an OIC to define prohibited (sanctioned) activity, but the statute still creates the offense. This let's the government tighten or loosen sanctions through simple regulation rather than having to go to Parliament each time. So that's the sort of system that's in play with guns, and other things as well. Note that I'm not defending the wisdom of the approach on that specific issue of guns- just describing the legal mechanics.

Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The criminalization of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter.

The Morgentaler ruling made it very clear:



This breach was not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. In effect, the government does not get to criminalize abortion. Any regulatory roundabout that attempted to achieve the same ends not in an aboveboard manner would be subject to legal challenge and would fail.
Thank you for your thorough response, how would section 251 fit in the context of vaccination?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The criminalization of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter.

The Morgentaler ruling made it very clear:



This breach was not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. In effect, the government does not get to criminalize abortion. Any regulatory roundabout that attempted to achieve the same ends not in an aboveboard manner would be subject to legal challenge and would fail.

The Morgentaler ruling didn't have any majority opinion from the Court and so it has no binding precedent, so it did not create a "right to have an abortion" so to speak.

Justice Dickson wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by Justice Lamer.
Justice Beetz wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by Justice Estey.
Justice Wilson wrote an opinion in support of Morgentaler, signed by no one else. (I personally thought this one most aligns with my own thoughts on abortion at this time)

So he had 5x Justices rule in his favour, meaning his acquittal was restored, but because each opinion only had at most 2 people agreeing on a legal perspective, it doesn't create a binding precedent.

Would love to hear an explanation of this nuance from people that actually know how law works but I think I've summarized it correctly.
 
Last edited:

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,789
Points
890
Thank you for your thorough response, how would section 251 fit in the context of vaccination?
You would need to pose a more precise legal question, sorry. Section 251 criminalized abortion. Section 251 is now of no force force or effect. To gauge how the same legal reasoning might apply to vaccines, you would have to give a situation - ideally one touching on similar points of criminal law.

It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,149
Points
1,060
It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.
If a pregnant woman in Canada is murdered could her murderer be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter?
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
41
Points
380
You would need to pose a more precise legal question, sorry. Section 251 criminalized abortion. Section 251 is now of no force force or effect. To gauge how the same legal reasoning might apply to vaccines, you would have to give a situation - ideally one touching on similar points of criminal law.

It sorta feels like there’s something specific you’re trying to lead towards here? If so, just fire away.
State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person.

Would any of the following situations be protected by what is above:
1. Someone who feels vaccines are interfering with and negatively affecting the integrity of their immune system.
2. A pregnant women who wants to wait until birth to get vaccinated.
3. Religious freedom for Jehovah's witnesses who do not believe in medical intervention.
4. Men or women who don't want vaccine because they haven't had the opportunity to have kids yet.

From here, if these are reasonable expectations that can be protected by law, will these be the avenues citizens will be using if vaccines become mandated for everyone or a two class society is created and the rights of the individual are decided by vaccine status.

My thought process is the emergency order is the mechanism that allows government to say unvaccinated visitors must quarantine in Nova Scotia for 2 weeks, but if you're vaccinated you do not need to quarantine. Once those orders are lifted, the ability for the government to dictate such a rule will be nonexistent.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
884
Points
860
State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person.

Would any of the following situations be protected by what is above:
1. Someone who feels vaccines are interfering with and negatively affecting the integrity of their immune system.
2. A pregnant women who wants to wait until birth to get vaccinated.
3. Religious freedom for Jehovah's witnesses who do not believe in medical intervention.
4. Men or women who don't want vaccine because they haven't had the opportunity to have kids yet.

From here, if these are reasonable expectations that can be protected by law, will these be the avenues citizens will be using if vaccines become mandated for everyone or a two class society is created and the rights of the individual are decided by vaccine status.

My thought process is the emergency order is the mechanism that allows government to say unvaccinated visitors must quarantine in Nova Scotia for 2 weeks, but if you're vaccinated you do not need to quarantine. Once those orders are lifted, the ability for the government to dictate such a rule will be nonexistent.
It’s going to be interesting to see how it is handled.

I doubt they will mandate vaccines. No will be forced to take a vaccine. I think the law is clear on that.

However, mandating proof of vaccination is not the same beast. There is some precedent that if an organisation can prove that they mandate PROOF of vaccination for access as a result of safety and hazard protocols that they may be in their right to do so, but it isn’t cut and dry. I suspect something like that may get tested legally.


an article explaining it a bit.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
526
Points
910
It’s going to be interesting to see how it is handled.

I doubt they will mandate vaccines. No will be forced to take a vaccine. I think the law is clear on that.

However, mandating proof of vaccination is not the same beast. There is some precedent that if an organisation can prove that they mandate PROOF of vaccination for access as a result of safety and hazard protocols that they may be in their right to do so, but it isn’t cut and dry. I suspect something like that may get tested legally.


an article explaining it a bit.
It would be amazing if we could just offer free, cheap, easy rapid tests for everyone, vaccinated or not.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,149
Points
1,060
Women think they can get free pregnancy tests at the hospital. They're sort of right, it's free to them. Tax payers are on the hook for something like $100 a test.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
526
Points
910
Sarcastic reply as usual. Health care ain’t free in case you haven’t noticed.
Think about it.
Nothing is free.

The police are not free.

Firefighters are not free.

Teachers are not free.

The military isn't free.

It's a matter of what a society is willing to pay for.

Vaccines are not free. They cost the government money, our tax dollars. But to you and me, and the general public, they do not cost us money.

Pregnancy tests, if it gives a woman peace, or time to plan, or whatever a woman needs at that time, I don't care, I'm fine with society paying for that. If Jarnhamar is opposed to that, that's on him but I don't see the issue.

So for free rapid testing as a way to avoid societal strife and keep people safe, I'm more than fine with that as well.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
884
Points
860
Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid. “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc. Rapid testing should be provided. If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it. I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
526
Points
910
Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid. “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc. Rapid testing should be provided. If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it. I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.
And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,454
Points
910
I see you have an answer for every point that is contrary to yours.
Nothing is free.

The police are not free.

Firefighters are not free.

Teachers are not free.

The military isn't free.

It's a matter of what a society is willing to pay for.

Vaccines are not free. They cost the government money, our tax dollars. But to you and me, and the general public, they do not cost us money.

Pregnancy tests, if it gives a woman peace, or time to plan, or whatever a woman needs at that time, I don't care, I'm fine with society paying for that. If Jarnhamar is opposed to that, that's on him but I don't see the issue.

So for free rapid testing as a way to avoid societal strife and keep people safe, I'm more than fine with that as well.
At some point our way of life will become unsustainable. At some point our system will break.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
526
Points
910
I see you have an answer for every point that is contrary to yours.
Should I just....not answer?
At some point our way of life will become unsustainable. At some point our system will break.
Probably. I don't think pregnancy tests for women, or rapid tests for the public will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Which is why I respond the way I do. We just, as a nation, spent 350+ billion in deficit spending in one year at the federal level alone, and we are talking about pregnancy and rapid tests.

It's akin to having tens of thousand of dollars in credit card or student debt, and stressing about buying something from the value menu.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,149
Points
1,060
Just call it government subsidized. The argument is stupid. “Free”, “taxpayer subsidized” etc etc. Rapid testing should be provided. If not then the unvaccinated will have to pay for it. I don’t mind if my tax money goes to pay for unvaccinated people getting rapid testing so they can participate in society.

Better yet if someone doesn't want to get vaccinated and they get covid let them pay for their trip to the hospital and treatment.

And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic.

Not me lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top