Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[Lumber]

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.

Should the decision to make Zhoa Wei persona non-grata been put before the HoC and Senate? I don't think they used an OIC, but they still used "swish of a pen" to turn an "innocent" Chinese diplomat into the diplomatic equivalent of a criminal.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Should the decision to make Zhoa Wei persona non-grata been put before the HoC and Senate? I don't think they used an OIC, but they still used "swish of a pen" to turn an "innocent" Chinese diplomat into the diplomatic equivalent of a criminal.

That's a fair point. Maybe there is a role for an OIC in a situation like that.

I will say there is a difference in turning thousands of otherwise law abiding Canadians into criminals and ejecting a foreign diplomat who is a bad actor.

I expect the Gov to work for Canadians. WRT firearms I would say they have worked against us WRT the Chinese diplomat I would say they are working for us.

 

[QV]

I will say there is a difference in turning thousands of otherwise law abiding Canadians into criminals and ejecting a foreign diplomat who is a bad actor.

Understatement lol. Not even in the same universe.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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

Just saying.

The amnesty wasn't for gun owners.

Liberals+RCMP Hoped to Test Their Mass Gun Confiscations on P.E.I. in December, Briefing Says​

Canada’s governing Liberals and the RCMP hoped to use gun owners in Prince Edward Island as guinea pigs to test their confiscation tactics before going national, according to a government briefing made public two weeks ago.

The government would have looked like idiots making something illegal and then not being able to do anything about it. The amnesty is to give the government breathing room to make a plan to take firearms away. Not a single dollar has been benchmarked for compensation and I suspect had this PEI confiscation been acted on the gun owners there couldn't say "Oh sorry no you can't have these guns, we're protected under an amnesty until October 2023"

 

[Remius]

The amnesty wasn't for gun owners.

Liberals+RCMP Hoped to Test Their Mass Gun Confiscations on P.E.I. in December, Briefing Says​

The government would have looked like idiots making something illegal and then not being able to do anything about it. The amnesty is to give the government breathing room to make a plan to take firearms away. Not a single dollar has been benchmarked for compensation and I suspect had this PEI confiscation been acted on the gun owners there couldn't say "Oh sorry no you can't have these guns, we're protected under an amnesty until October 2023"

You can infer what you want. The OIC i referenced describes exactly who it is for. Whether it is genuine in its intent is another conversation. Compensation is another thing altogether.

 

[brihard]

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.

You cannot. An Order in Council pronouncing a new regulation is an action taken by the executive branch, empowered by legislation passed by the legislative branch. Reversing a regulation is a simple matter of the government in power issuing a new one replacing it. No Parliamentary action is required or relevant.

Parliament has the ability to override by taking the larger steps of legislating something different.

So, under a hypothetical CPC government (likely a minority), they could try to get enough support in Parliament to pass a bill that curbs regulatory power and replaces specific undesired regulations with statute, OR - much more easily - they could simply pass their own new regulation that either simply revokes a prior one, or that revokes and replaces it with something different.

 

[TacticalTea]

You cannot. An Order in Council pronouncing a new regulation is an action taken by the executive branch, empowered by legislation passed by the legislative branch. Reversing a regulation is a simple matter of the government in power issuing a new one replacing it. No Parliamentary action is required or relevant.

Parliament has the ability to override by taking the larger steps of legislating something different.

So, under a hypothetical CPC government (likely a minority), they could try to get enough support in Parliament to pass a bill that curbs regulatory power and replaces specific undesired regulations with statute, OR - much more easily - they could simply pass their own new regulation that either simply revokes a prior one, or that revokes and replaces it with something different.

• Order in Council (OIC) - A legal instrument made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority or, less frequently, the royal prerogative. All OICs are made on the recommendation of the responsible Minister of the Crown and take legal effect only when signed by the Governor General.

I don't particularly agree with your choice of words. Just like a Supreme Court decision can be neutered by constitutional amendment, an OIC can be reversed by an act of Parliament, provided that it was made pursuant to statutory authority in the first place. Otherwise it falls within royal prerogative (and, it too, would require a constitutional amendment).

I suppose in either case, your view is/would be that "the effects of" the OIC/SCC decision are what's reversed, not the OIC/decision itself. I could buy that, but I think starting off an answer to that question with "You cannot" is rather misleading.

(Don't dive too deep in the SCC decision analogy, I realize the differences, I'm just drawing parallels here)

 

[brihard]

• Order in Council (OIC) - A legal instrument made by the Governor in Council pursuant to a statutory authority or, less frequently, the royal prerogative. All OICs are made on the recommendation of the responsible Minister of the Crown and take legal effect only when signed by the Governor General.

I don't particularly agree with your choice of words. Just like a Supreme Court decision can be neutered by constitutional amendment, an OIC can be reversed by an act of Parliament, provided that it was made pursuant to statutory authority in the first place. Otherwise it falls within royal prerogative (and, it too, would require a constitutional amendment).

I suppose in either case, your view is/would be that "the effects of" the OIC/SCC decision are what's reversed, not the OIC/decision itself. I could buy that, but I think starting off an answer to that question with "You cannot" is rather misleading.

(Don't dive too deep in the SCC decision analogy, I realize the differences, I'm just drawing parallels here)

I didn’t mislead, I just answered precisely. The question was whether a parliamentary motion could reverse a regulation issued by OIC. A motion and an act are two very different things. Motions are seldom binding and tend to be symbolic. An act would be the result of a piece of legislation that absolutely would override any prior OIC regulations if that’s what the act was written to do.

A motion is a simple thing to do: legislation is more work and more steps. That’s why I went into the degree of detail that I did.

 

[TacticalTea]

A motion is a simple thing to do: legislation is more work and more steps. That’s why I went into the degree of detail that I did.

I presumed Halifax Tar was more interested in the effects than the semantics

Alas, we'll never know...

But for sure, I'm not saying you're off target. You're right on, actually. I'd just shoot it with a different gun, so to say.

~Cheers

 

[Halifax Tar]

I presumed Halifax Tar was more interested in the effects than the semantics

You would be correct.

 

[Haggis]

The NDP/Liberal majority government voted to limit debate on Bill C-21 , despite there being over 100 new NDP/Lib/BQ amendments to study. Any amendments left un-studies will be deemed as passed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The NDP/Liberal majority government voted to limit debate on Bill C-21

Your article gave an error. I hope this one works.

Liberals limit remaining debate on gun control bill

The federal government passed a motion late Tuesday limiting how much time MPs have left to consider changes and debate Liberal gun control legislation Bill C-21 before it is sent to the Senate for a second round of scrutiny.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thought this was pretty funny.

'No more gun violence and white privilege': Inside the thoughts of Canada's new passport​

Monday

I can understand that some Canadians would find it jarring that the new passport design omits Terry Fox. But when you take a closer look, you can easily see why Fox has no place on a document that is ostensibly supposed to represent all Canadians. For starters, he was both white and heterosexual: Right out of the gate Fox is utterly dripping in unearned privilege. And second, he ran in support of cancer; a disease that disproportionately strikes Caucasian individuals in the developed world. His silence on tuberculosis, polio and malaria was deafening.

Tuesday

It was a much easier call to delete Vimy Ridge from the design. I mean, this is a passport: Are we to force our citizens to present foreign customs agents with a talisman of cross-border aggression and violence? I’m sorry, but Canada is a peacekeeping nation; a convenor of power and a promoter of dialogue over force. No wonder our cities are under the thumb of American-style gun crime. We have literal government-issued ID telling Canadians that it’s okay to solve their problems with gun violence.

Wednesday

The page honouring the RCMP is obviously out. People wonder why rates of international travel are so much lower among marginalized Canadians. Well, maybe it’s because we emblazoned their travel documents with icons of state oppression. And I honestly can’t believe we used to print passports casually featuring Prairie landscapes replete with pumpjacks. We are talking about the forced spoliation of unceded Indigenous land in order to extract a material whose combustion inflicts deadly environmental violence every single day on the planet’s MOST marginalized communities. Was this passport designed by the KKK?

Thursday

I was initially fine with keeping the Stanley Cup. It’s a secular icon with broad intersectional acceptance; NHL games are routinely broadcast in Mandarin, Punjabi and even Inuktitut. But then I snapped out of my own internalized white supremacy. With deep shame, I now realize that the Stanley Cup represents the colonialized appropriation of Indigenous culture channelled through a lens of cis toxic masculinity. Not one trans or non-binary name adorns this fascist idol of systemic power, whose existence as anything but a taboo representation of collective nationalist evil is frankly sickening.

Friday

My very existence is a blot against meaningful pursuit of equity. A passport is nothing if not a marker of citizenship; a legal status that has its roots in the differentiation between slave and oppressor. When a Canadian holds up a passport, they are othering all those without. When we require passports to enter our country, we are signalling that an individual is unwelcome and different. I cannot tear down the oppressive, hierarchical systems which I serve, but I can at least represent them using vague Canadian-ish scenes done up in inoffensive corporate art.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Meanwhile in the grossly over regulated, yet still out of control, housing market:

Average Canadian house price rose to $716,000 in April — up by $100K since January​

After tumbling for much of 2022, the average price has risen 4 months in a row​

After plunging due to interest rate hikes throughout last year, the average price of a Canadian resale home has now increased for four months in a row, new numbers showed Monday.

The Canadian Real Estate Association said Monday that the average selling price of a home that sold on its MLS system in April went for $716,000. That's the fourth monthly increase in a row, and it marks a collective increase of more than $100,000 since the start of the year.

After peaking at just over $816,000 in February 2022 — right before the Bank of Canada began its aggressive campaign of rate hikes — Canada's housing market went ice cold for much of last year, as drastically higher mortgage rates made it more expensive to finance the purchase of a home.
Average prices bottomed out a few months later, at just under $630,000 in July.

But after moving essentially sideways until the start of 2023, the market has seemingly resumed its upward momentum ever since.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crea-housing-data-1.6843592

 

[Remius]

Meanwhile in the grossly over regulated, yet still out of control, housing market:

Average Canadian house price rose to $716,000 in April — up by $100K since January​

After tumbling for much of 2022, the average price has risen 4 months in a row​

After plunging due to interest rate hikes throughout last year, the average price of a Canadian resale home has now increased for four months in a row, new numbers showed Monday.

The Canadian Real Estate Association said Monday that the average selling price of a home that sold on its MLS system in April went for $716,000. That's the fourth monthly increase in a row, and it marks a collective increase of more than $100,000 since the start of the year.

After peaking at just over $816,000 in February 2022 — right before the Bank of Canada began its aggressive campaign of rate hikes — Canada's housing market went ice cold for much of last year, as drastically higher mortgage rates made it more expensive to finance the purchase of a home.
Average prices bottomed out a few months later, at just under $630,000 in July.

But after moving essentially sideways until the start of 2023, the market has seemingly resumed its upward momentum ever since.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crea-housing-data-1.6843592

Any promises by any federal party are pretty much empty ones. Until municipalities start rezoning and actively go against nymby attitudes this problem won’t be fixed.

 

[Lumber]

Who the hell can afford these houses with these rates? Like, I know a lot of LCdrs making $130k+ with spouses making close to $100k as well who are afraid of getting posted to Ottawa because they don't know how they could afford a mortgage that is 2.5-3.5 times what their current mortgages is.

 

[mariomike]

Until municipalities start rezoning and actively go against nymby attitudes this problem won’t be fixed.

Notice all the yellow? Those are designated as neighbourhoods. Only single detached houses are permitted.

I can't see our local ratepayers association getting on board with re-zoning.

toronto residential zones - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Our street doesn't even have a sidewalk.

 

[Remius]

Notice all the yellow? Those are designated as neighbourhoods. Only single detached houses are permitted.

I can't see our local ratepayers association getting on board with re-zoning.

toronto residential zones - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Our street doesn't even have a sidewalk.

Hence having to stand up to NIMBYism. Exactly part of the problem.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Notice all the yellow? Those are designated as neighbourhoods. Only single detached houses are permitted.

I can't see our local ratepayers association getting on board with re-zoning.

toronto residential zones - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Our street doesn't even have a sidewalk.

Part of the problem that comes with rezoning is that these residential suburbs don't have the supporting infrastructure for higher density, because they were never intended to have a higher density.

The former Pittsburgh Township joined the City of Kingston in 1997. The Hwy 15 corridor between the 401 and Hwy 2 had seen subdivision after subdivision on previously large acreage and farmland over the past 50 years. Not only has the water treatment plant at Ravensview Point not been adequately updated, but the electrical grid as well. Let's not get into the amount of vehicles that just dropped onto the area without a widening of Hwy 15.

Now, City Council wants to see more density of homes throughout the municipality. It's sometimes not a matter of NIMBYism, but very much a problem with reaping what you sow. If the infrastructure cannot support a rezoning because of decisions made decades prior, along with decades of kicking the can down the road, it's a lot of a "my fault, your problem" on the municipalities that thought the good times were never going to end.

Factor in the part where the majority of our investment capital in this country rests in...you guessed it....real estate, no one is going to upset that apple cart in favour of lower cost, higher density, affordable housing.

Any government to hitch its wagon on that platform would see economic collapse in a matter of months.

 

[mariomike]

Part of the problem that comes with rezoning is that these residential suburbs don't have the supporting infrastructure for higher density, because they were never intended to have a higher density.

In 416, 62.3 per cent of residential land is exclusively zoned for detached houses.

The land in our area is hilly and has not been graded down to put in housing grids. The housing follows the land.

Densification would change the character of a stable neighbourhood and devalue the properties.