- Reaction score
- 3,948
- Points
- 1,260
Altair said:
Yup -- and moved.
Milnet.ca Staff
Politics in 2017
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
Yup -- and moved.
Milnet.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 21,215
- Points
- 1,360
Remius said:
...or Loachman may not be right.
A crime can be committed without it being an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
To refer to the Government's position on "crimes." (Ref: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/08.html)
Probably others more qualified to say if the PM's contravention of section 12 of the Conflict of Interest Act was a summary conviction offence, but even with a lower-case c vice upper-case C, it looks to fit within the GoC's definition of a criminal offence, which I take to call a crime.
:2c:
Regards
G2G
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Rifleman62 said:
Exactly what Gen. Leslie did when he came out to Wainwright for Roto 7's (Valcartier) Maple Guardian town hall in the field. One of us Anglo's asked a question in English. The response was that this was a Franco Roto and all questions and answers would be in French. At that point, I tuned out as I only understand English and have tuned him out to this day. AFAIK, he's dead to me.
G2G,
If you look at the rest of your reference.
Summary offences
The accused appears before a provincial court judge for a trial that will normally proceed immediately. The maximum penalty for this type of offence is normally a $5,000 fine, six months in prison, or both.
Indictable offences
An accused has three choices:
•Have a judge alone hear the case in provincial court.
•Have a judge and jury hear the case in a superior court.
•Have a judge alone hear the case in superior court.
There may be a preliminary hearing before a trial, during which a judge examines the case to decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial. If the judge decides there is not enough evidence, the case will be dismissed.
Otherwise, the judge will order a full trial.
What he did is neither Indictable nor is it Summary. Therefore not a criminal offense.
Criminal Offenses are layed out in other Federal Laws as you said. Does not mean in every federal law. The Youth Criminal justice act and the Controlled Substance act are examples.
I understand that he isn't liked. But let's not paint this in a way that is neither true nor real. He broke a law under an act. He didn't commit a criminal offense.
And in the end only the media is spinning this. People don't seem to care too much. I don't like it and see a pattern emerging but I certainly won't agree with the lock him up in jail line for this. Awesome distraction though and people are falling for it.
If you look at the rest of your reference.
Summary offences
The accused appears before a provincial court judge for a trial that will normally proceed immediately. The maximum penalty for this type of offence is normally a $5,000 fine, six months in prison, or both.
Indictable offences
An accused has three choices:
•Have a judge alone hear the case in provincial court.
•Have a judge and jury hear the case in a superior court.
•Have a judge alone hear the case in superior court.
There may be a preliminary hearing before a trial, during which a judge examines the case to decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial. If the judge decides there is not enough evidence, the case will be dismissed.
Otherwise, the judge will order a full trial.
What he did is neither Indictable nor is it Summary. Therefore not a criminal offense.
Criminal Offenses are layed out in other Federal Laws as you said. Does not mean in every federal law. The Youth Criminal justice act and the Controlled Substance act are examples.
I understand that he isn't liked. But let's not paint this in a way that is neither true nor real. He broke a law under an act. He didn't commit a criminal offense.
And in the end only the media is spinning this. People don't seem to care too much. I don't like it and see a pattern emerging but I certainly won't agree with the lock him up in jail line for this. Awesome distraction though and people are falling for it.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
So let's deal with the two matters here.
First of all, on the Sherbrooke Town Hall thing: Trudeau senior must be turning in his grave. The very basic underlying concept of the Official Languages Act brought in by Trudeau the father was that "Canadians anywhere in Canada ought to be able to be served by their Federal public servants in their own language, French or English".
Trudeau junior, as PM, is a Federal servant to Canadians and should address Canadians in the language of their choice, not of his choice. To do that in answer to a question that directly addressed the availability, or lack thereof, of service in English is like shooting yourself in the foot on top of that breach. Finally to call Quebec a "French" province (at least in didn't specify "in 2017") from a Federal perspective is an insult to the nearly one million English speakers who live here. I don't think he would have gotten away with this had the Town Hall taken place in Montreal.
Second, the distinction between "criminal", "penal" and "civil" laws.
You are not committing a crime every time you break a law. You are only committing a crime if you break the law appearing in the Criminal code, or in Federal laws that specifically create criminal offences, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the Firearm Act, or some provisions of the Customs Act, for instance. This type of law is called "criminal" law and is part of the Federal jurisdiction only under our constitution.
But not all breaches of public law are criminal even though they can attract the imposition of a penalty, and in fact, most breaches of federal laws outside the criminal code and all breaches of provincial laws (since they do not have the power of creating criminal acts) fall under this category. This is called "penal" law. There is a penalty for the breach, but it is not a crime. You can be sure that any penalty for breath of the law that can be meted by an official instead of a court of law definitely falls in this category. This is the category of the Ethics Act, as the Ethics Commissioner is the one with the power to issue the fine for a breach.
Finally, you have the category of the "civil" law. This type of law, though enacted by the various governments, but generally by the Provincial governments under our constitution (and only indirectly by the federal one in matters otherwise of its jurisdiction), governs the relations between individuals. Breaching such law does not give rise to condemnation as a crime nor to the imposition of a penalty under penal law, but rather to orders of execution in kind of one's obligation or payment of compensation for loss to the aggrieved party.
First of all, on the Sherbrooke Town Hall thing: Trudeau senior must be turning in his grave. The very basic underlying concept of the Official Languages Act brought in by Trudeau the father was that "Canadians anywhere in Canada ought to be able to be served by their Federal public servants in their own language, French or English".
Trudeau junior, as PM, is a Federal servant to Canadians and should address Canadians in the language of their choice, not of his choice. To do that in answer to a question that directly addressed the availability, or lack thereof, of service in English is like shooting yourself in the foot on top of that breach. Finally to call Quebec a "French" province (at least in didn't specify "in 2017") from a Federal perspective is an insult to the nearly one million English speakers who live here. I don't think he would have gotten away with this had the Town Hall taken place in Montreal.
Second, the distinction between "criminal", "penal" and "civil" laws.
You are not committing a crime every time you break a law. You are only committing a crime if you break the law appearing in the Criminal code, or in Federal laws that specifically create criminal offences, such as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or the Firearm Act, or some provisions of the Customs Act, for instance. This type of law is called "criminal" law and is part of the Federal jurisdiction only under our constitution.
But not all breaches of public law are criminal even though they can attract the imposition of a penalty, and in fact, most breaches of federal laws outside the criminal code and all breaches of provincial laws (since they do not have the power of creating criminal acts) fall under this category. This is called "penal" law. There is a penalty for the breach, but it is not a crime. You can be sure that any penalty for breath of the law that can be meted by an official instead of a court of law definitely falls in this category. This is the category of the Ethics Act, as the Ethics Commissioner is the one with the power to issue the fine for a breach.
Finally, you have the category of the "civil" law. This type of law, though enacted by the various governments, but generally by the Provincial governments under our constitution (and only indirectly by the federal one in matters otherwise of its jurisdiction), governs the relations between individuals. Breaching such law does not give rise to condemnation as a crime nor to the imposition of a penalty under penal law, but rather to orders of execution in kind of one's obligation or payment of compensation for loss to the aggrieved party.
- Reaction score
- 21,215
- Points
- 1,360
OGBD, thank you for the detail regarding the aspects of criminality in general and penal and civil sub-sets. 
Regards
G2G
p.s. I agree that the PM's French response to an Anglophone Quebecer's English question was rather ignorant. He could have at least 'bilanged', but took the low road... :not-again:
Regards
G2G
p.s. I agree that the PM's French response to an Anglophone Quebecer's English question was rather ignorant. He could have at least 'bilanged', but took the low road... :not-again:
Altair said:
Don't forget what was going on at the same time. The CPC leadership debate in French. No doubt this was calculated to contrast with that and to detract from it.
He would have shown way more class if he'd answered in English but I guess it was risk management on his part.
- Reaction score
- 26,342
- Points
- 1,090
Oldgateboatdriver said:
As an Anglo Montrealer now resident in the national capital, who lived through school closures due to the erosion of language of education rights under Bill 101 and the exodus of families, the Right Honorable the Prime Minister's deliberate decision to treat a Quebec Anglo with such disdain leaves a long-lasting sour taste in my mouth.
And I concur: Trudeau (senior) would be appalled and disgusted by his snot nosed kid's behaviour.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
YZT580 said:
I have posted elsewhere:
"iPhone, iPhone, in my hand; who is the fairest in the land?" ( It is 2017 after all.)
On a side note, I was working with a fellow today who claims to have lived near the GG's Residence and 24 Sussex when he was a kid and used to play with the three young Trudeau boys. He claims that young Justin was prone to having temper tantrums and going off in a huff is he did not have his way. Seems that his character has not changed as witness in the House of Commons earlier this year, and on other occasions where he has flaunted his 'position' to not follow "the rules".
- Reaction score
- 3,948
- Points
- 1,260
Not just yours, apparently ...dapaterson said:
Well done making official bilingualism more palatable to everyone - not ... :facepalm:
:nod:dapaterson said:
- Reaction score
- 2,799
- Points
- 940
Maybe he should have someone explain "retrospect" to him.milnews.ca said:
Even after considering his actions, he comes out and states that defending minority English in Quebec is unimportant, but defending minority French elsewhere matters. :facepalm:
He's still not ready.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Lightguns said:
He might be the best candidate the Conservatives could ever wish for. :nod:
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
What I find funny is that he was "surprised" to have so many questions in English ... in Sherbrooke, in the Eastern Townships.
There ain't a soul living South of the St-Lawrence in the Township or Monteregie regions (South shore Montreal to the Appalachian chain) who doesn't know that the Townships were first settled and developed by Loyalists and other English settlers (hence their organization as Townships instead of the seigneurie system elsewhere in Quebec), that the English community in that area of the province remains strong and vibrant to this day to the point where they have their own Townshipers' Association.
He obviously never traveled through Quebec in his youth, unless leaving the upscale neighbourhood of Outermont, on the island of Montreal to go downtown counts. ;D
There ain't a soul living South of the St-Lawrence in the Township or Monteregie regions (South shore Montreal to the Appalachian chain) who doesn't know that the Townships were first settled and developed by Loyalists and other English settlers (hence their organization as Townships instead of the seigneurie system elsewhere in Quebec), that the English community in that area of the province remains strong and vibrant to this day to the point where they have their own Townshipers' Association.
He obviously never traveled through Quebec in his youth, unless leaving the upscale neighbourhood of Outermont, on the island of Montreal to go downtown counts. ;D
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
A comment I heard this morning was that even Rene Levesque would have answered her in English.
Way to be out of touch with the problems of the Middle Class English Quebecers Justin.
One more child who is not impressed with the PM..... [
Way to be out of touch with the problems of the Middle Class English Quebecers Justin.
One more child who is not impressed with the PM..... [
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
Well, this could become interesting.
The Montreal Gazette reports that three complaints have been filed with the Language Commissioner's office over Trudeau's lack of "providing services" in English at the Sherbrooke Town Hall.
In and of itself, that mans nothing, but the spokesperson for the Commissioner's office indicated that, to deal wit their investigation, they must first determine if the Town Hall was a "government function" or a "political function".
Here's the thing. If the Commissioner finds that it is a political function and the Liberals don't contest it, it will close the investigation of the complaints, but it will also open a huge can of worms.
The Town Hall in Sherbrooke, for instance, was held at the Militia's Armoury. I bet you anything all the chairs were set up by class A personnel. If this was a government function - no problem. But if it is a political, then the Liberal party of Canada should be fully billed for the use of the Armoury and the provision of personnel or other devices.
And that's just one stop. You can now claim that all of the PM and his team's transportation cost ought to be invoiced to the Liberal party. In fact, as a political, all costs associated with this Town Hall Tour (except the PM's security detail) ought to be paid for by the Liberal party - and none of it be publicly funded.
I can sense a lot of questions coming up in Parliament ... and potential complaints with the Chief Electoral Officer if the Libs don't come clean on repayment.
The Montreal Gazette reports that three complaints have been filed with the Language Commissioner's office over Trudeau's lack of "providing services" in English at the Sherbrooke Town Hall.
In and of itself, that mans nothing, but the spokesperson for the Commissioner's office indicated that, to deal wit their investigation, they must first determine if the Town Hall was a "government function" or a "political function".
Here's the thing. If the Commissioner finds that it is a political function and the Liberals don't contest it, it will close the investigation of the complaints, but it will also open a huge can of worms.
The Town Hall in Sherbrooke, for instance, was held at the Militia's Armoury. I bet you anything all the chairs were set up by class A personnel. If this was a government function - no problem. But if it is a political, then the Liberal party of Canada should be fully billed for the use of the Armoury and the provision of personnel or other devices.
And that's just one stop. You can now claim that all of the PM and his team's transportation cost ought to be invoiced to the Liberal party. In fact, as a political, all costs associated with this Town Hall Tour (except the PM's security detail) ought to be paid for by the Liberal party - and none of it be publicly funded.
I can sense a lot of questions coming up in Parliament ... and potential complaints with the Chief Electoral Officer if the Libs don't come clean on repayment.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 30,770
- Points
- 1,160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Here's the reason he hasn't got a clue:
Why the Intellectual Elite Can’t Learn Its Lesson
Even after failing to predict Brexit and Trump, elites haven’t reckoned with their own limitations.
http://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-the-intellectual-elite-cant-learn-its-lesson-5040
- Status
Similar threads
