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

Trump administration 2024-2028

I think the nuance is that our laws are perceived as a barrier to meeting our neighbours’ expectations. I don’t think they care so much how we achieve effects; they care about the tangible impact on the threat they perceive to border integrity. Particularly for the incoming administration; nothing about Trump suggests he has any deep or informed views on procedural and legal norms. He just wants the effect.

I agree. To be honest, I think that in that regard he may be like most consumers: he has no idea where his hot dog comes from, he is only concerned that his bun isn't soggy and he has the necessary condiments. I have made hot dogs. I have not made laws.

There very much are. Most of the necessary law exists but is under resourced in its enforcement. The useable criminal intelligence is often there but also under resourced in collection and analysis.

That makes for an interesting thought. If warfare includes hybrid warfare, and hybrid warfare includes these gray areas of criminality and economics then shouldn't National Security funding be considered within the National Defence envelope?

For example. We are at 1.3% of GDP for National Defence. I believe we spend about 1/3 of that on policing. Not sure about the courts (ie haven't a clue). The Donald is blowing through 2% and heading for 5% by way of 3.5%. Suppose we were to up our combined National Defence / Policing / Foreign Aid budget to 5% (3% Defence, 1.5% on Policing and the Courts and 0.5-0.7% on Foreign Aid - Intervention).

How was it? I’ve heard it’s an interesting show.

Enjoyed it. Like most Aussie content the production and directing were spot on.

Basic story is a shared Five-Eyes listening post on tribal land is supplying intelligence to two national governments while trying to navigate two legal systems. The local tribe is being courted separately from the national government to permit the development of a 200 BAUD gas field by a Chinese company whose "friends of the party" respond directly to Beijing. Usual collection of useful idiots and security breaches.

It hit enough reality to be suitably aggravating. l am looking forward to season 2.
 
I think the nuance is that our laws are perceived as a barrier to meeting our neighbours’ expectations. I don’t think they care so much how we achieve effects; they care about the tangible impact on the threat they perceive to border integrity. Particularly for the incoming administration; nothing about Trump suggests he has any deep or informed views on procedural and legal norms. He just wants the effect.

100%. His allies like David Asher seem well informed on what their real concerns with us are. But I’m sure Trump heard “border”, “drugs”, “illegal entry” and thinks they have a border issue to the north like they have to the south. Now our politicians are talking about increasing border patrols instead of dealing with the real issues. 🤦‍♂️
 
Enjoyed it. Like most Aussie content the production and directing were spot on.

Basic story is a shared Five-Eyes listening post on tribal land is supplying intelligence to two national governments while trying to navigate two legal systems. The local tribe is being courted separately from the national government to permit the development of a 200 BAUD gas field by a Chinese company whose "friends of the party" respond directly to Beijing. Usual collection of useful idiots and security breaches.

It hit enough reality to be suitably aggravating. l am looking forward to season 2.
hate to break it to you but Pine Gap came out in 2018 and was never renewed for season 2.
 
hate to break it to you but Pine Gap came out in 2018 and was never renewed for season 2.

Dam ye. Another opportunity lost.

Any event. It was still a good show.

Just saw this on your site.

“Not all of Canada needs to get annexed, just the useful bits outside the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa corridor” - serving CAF member ‘Quirky’

Alternate definition of the geography - all lands south of the Trent-Severn and Rideau Canals in Ontario and the Island of Montreal.
 
100%. His allies like David Asher seem well informed on what their real concerns with us are. But I’m sure Trump heard “border”, “drugs”, “illegal entry” and thinks they have a border issue to the north like they have to the south. Now our politicians are talking about increasing border patrols instead of dealing with the real issues. 🤦‍♂️

Another facet to this is an urge to divide. US vs Canada-Mexico bad. US vs Canada and US vs Mexico good. Do we, Canada want to ally ourselves with Mexico and get stuck with the same 25% tariff? Or do we want to cast them adrift and negotiate our own 5% tariff with set asides?
 
So his expansionist aspirations now include Greenland, Canada, and Panama?
View attachment 89948
Tr-bigstick-cartoon.JPG


🍻
 
And yet we have the Human Rights and International Trade Tribunals as well as the Labour Relations Board, not to mention Courts Martial, that hear cases outside of provincial jurisdiction and are based on federal law, if I understand the situation correctly.

Also, doesn't parliament itself have judicial powers? The ability to summon, compel testimony, find fault and levy punishment?
Where are you going with this?

Last time that I looked there was no dissatisfaction with the division of judicial powers in this country. Other things , yes. Jurisdiction, no.

🍻
 
Tribunals have no investigative power; they decide based on the evidence and testimony presented by the parties.
Yes, but some actually do. As an example, in Manitoba a complaint before the Human Rights Commission is investigated by the commissions staff, who have the power to mediate resolutions. In the end, the commission's counsel effectively "prosecutes" the case before a hearing officer. The person against whom the complaint is filed is left to defend themselves.
the "limited" powers of the tribunals
The word "limited" needs to be carefully used here. They are "limited" in that their jurisdiction is narrow as set out in the legislation that establishes them. On the other hand, most of that legislation gives them broad power within their jurisdiction with the courts having limited powers to interfere or overrule except in narrow circumstances. Judicial review is a much more curtailed process than an appeal. Most tribunal decisions cannot be appealed, only reviewed.

🍻
 
Yes, but some actually do. As an example, in Manitoba a complaint before the Human Rights Commission is investigated by the commissions staff, who have the power to mediate resolutions. In the end, the commission's counsel effectively "prosecutes" the case before a hearing officer. The person against whom the complaint is filed is left to defend themselves.

Huh, I wasn’t aware- thanks for that.
 
Where are you going with this?

Last time that I looked there was no dissatisfaction with the division of judicial powers in this country. Other things , yes. Jurisdiction, no.

🍻

See above.... @brihard challenged me on the same question


No apologies necessary. I won't offer any of my own. I think a part of my problem is that I feel as if the entire debate is based on boxing at shadows.

And the nut I am trying to crack ....




More importantly than our laws not meeting our neighbour's expectations, are they really fit for our own purposes? And how do they compare to OECD benchmarks?

As noted in the highlighted section, an area that I would describe as embodying the elements of hybrid warfare, there do seem to exploitable holes in our system.

....

Off topic - kindofish

I just finished watching a 6 part Aussie series call Pine Gap. It addresses a lot of what we are talking about here.

 
Huh, I wasn’t aware- thanks for that.
Yeah. I was appointed as a MHRC hearing officer for 4 years. During that time I had around ten cases assigned to me but only one of which actually came to me for a full hearing. The rest were dragged out by the investigating process for years and years until finally an NDP government won an election and new hearing officers came in.

I was never sure as to whether the delays by the staff were through complacent case management or trying to keep them away from a hearing before all of us "conservative" hearing officers.

In short, neither complainants nor those complained against were well served by the system.

🍻
 
Yeah. I was appointed as a MHRC hearing officer for 4 years. During that time I had around ten cases assigned to me but only one of which actually came to me for a full hearing. The rest were dragged out by the investigating process for years and years until finally an NDP government won an election and new hearing officers came in.

I was never sure as to whether the delays by the staff were through complacent case management or trying to keep them away from a hearing before all of us "conservative" hearing officers.

In short, neither complainants nor those complained against were well served by the system.

🍻
How much actual ‘investigating’ took place in such cases? What did such steps entail?
 
Constitutional division of powers. The constitution gives criminal justice to the provinces, full stop. Even the most serious national security cases - terrorism, espionage, classified info leaks - are still, legally, ‘just’ crimes. There’s nothing inherently peculiar about prosecuting them, it’s just that they may end up involving classified material as evidence that will exceedingly rarely be in play for other crimes (but hypothetically could with the right weird fact set).

Federal court only deals with issues that federal law assigns to it. The largest part of their work is judicial review of tribunal decision, particularly for immigration or to a much lesser extent veterans. They’ll deal with some indigenous law related matters, intellectual property stuff… what they aren’t in any way set up or empowered to do is criminal trials. Their involvement in national security law is primarily in hearing and adjudicating national security privilege claims where DOJ and Defense argue over what information will be protected and how. They then feed the result to trial court.

In that specific respect, Federal Court also reviews applications for CSIS warrants, which is the closest thing we have to FISA. There’s a lot of difference though; FISC will hear warrant applications from both NSA and FBI. In Canada, a warrant application by CSIS goes to federal court but that’s an intelligence, not a criminal investigation power. If the RCMP were investigating a foreign intelligence matter, say a foreign spy, they would still go through normal provincial or superior court judges with any warrant applications. Judges are exempt from security clearance requirements, so even an affiant in a top secret police investigation looking for a warrant to covertly enter a suspected spy’s residence would be going down to provincial/superior court alongside all the other cops doing much more conventional street crime investigations.

Could a case be made to move certain national security matters prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to a court better equipped to handle classified information? That case could be made. Off the top of my head it would probably require:

  • Legislation establishing a new Security Offences Court;
  • Amendments to the Security Offences Act to move at least some of not all prosecutions under that act to a new court. This act already puts PPSC in charge of ‘Security Offences’ and gives RCMP primacy of investigation, it would be a logical part of shifting judicial responsibility;
  • Major amendment of section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act governing national security and international relations privilege over evidence. This is what built the current system of “DOJ applies to redact, defence argues for access, Federal Court decides what to redact and what to summarize, provincial trial court deals with the black boxes they get and figures out how to run a fair trial.” The Ribic case law determined how that works in practice. The eventual Ortis appeal may further define parts of it. Amendment would be needed to create the ability for the Security Offences Court trial judge to see ‘under the black’ and to assess the merits of defence arguments pertaining to the relevance and exculpatory nature of the contents.

But I don’t know how we finally square this with the jury system. We could have a perfect court setup whereby CSE intercepts and CSIS human sources and wiretaps provide the world’s best evidence of a profound threat to our national security. But your jury could still be the first twelve people you encounter at Loblaws, and that has inherent risks for the information for which protection was sought. I don’t think the Americans have cracked this nut either.



Tribunals/boards are very different from courts. They’re narrow, specialized, limited, and their decisions don’t bind other cases. They exist to more expeditiously resolve matters that require more specialized technical subject matter knowledge, and which are often a high volume of relatively similar and repetitious cases, like say the immigration and refugee board (though interestingly there’s much more security intelligence evidence case law from reviews of the immigration tribunal than there is from criminal court). All are subject to judicial review in actual courts.



Some, but pretty limited, and I think it’s wholly to empower Parliament in their ability to ascertain fact so they can legislate in the national interest. I’m not aware of any punitive powers outside of contempt. Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but I don’t know of them. But parliamentary powers aren’t my jam.

EDIT TO ADD: Not sure how a security Offences court would get around the co situational apportionment of criminal justice powers still. I don’t see an obvious workaround to 91(27) of the Constitution Act.

An alternative could be to establish a procedure whereby certain provincial Superior Court judges could be security cleared, and afforded the power as a trial court judge to view the underlying material that’s the subject of national security privilege to assess the plausibility of defence claims. This his would also be a major upending of the current system. It would certainly face Charter challenge because it would result in the trier of fact having access to and making decisions based on information not available to the defence.

Yeah, I don’t know.
Great post - as usual.

Considering some kind of 'security court' still wouldn't address the issues of money laundering and other 'regular' criminal matters and cross-border joint operations, which are some of the issues that sent us down this road of dealing with national interest on the world stage.

I have no thoughts on how a system could be made Charter-compliant to deal with evidence, its sources or investigative methods that need to be protected. It's not just national security investigations. Organized crime players sometimes have the ability to make 'embarrassing' evidence to go away before trial.

Perhaps some day a court will find that perfect way to interpret Section 1 of the Charter that balances individual rights and the national interest.

f a Tribunal were empowered to investigate and, as a result of its investigation, an individual were named, with out any finding of criminality then that individual would still have a remedy through the civil courts if they felt their reputation were unjustly impugned.
OK, so a tribunal 'names' a person; now what?

As mentioned by others, tribunals are administrative law. They are narrowly focused, have limited punitive authority and generally have a lower burden of proof benchmark.
 
How much actual ‘investigating’ took place in such cases? What did such steps entail?
That's what always bothered me. As hearing officers we had no control over the investigative process. That was all staff work under the direction of the commissioner.

Of the cases that were designated for me, I would occasionally check in as to when, if ever, they would need me for a hearing so that I could schedule it with my discovery and trial case load. I never received what would be called a satisfactory answer as to where in the process they were. I expect a large part of that was to keep the facts and positions away from me so as not to prejudice my view of the parties before the hearing.

My gut told me that they spent too much time trying to negotiate a settlement (and in fairness they settle far more cases then go to hearing). I'm one of those folks who thinks that the fastest way to get a settlement is to set a hearing date. Nothing focuses settlement discussions like a deadline.

🍻
 
For example. We are at 1.3% of GDP for National Defence. I believe we spend about 1/3 of that on policing. Not sure about the courts (ie haven't a clue). The Donald is blowing through 2% and heading for 5% by way of 3.5%. Suppose we were to up our combined National Defence / Policing / Foreign Aid budget to 5% (3% Defence, 1.5% on Policing and the Courts and 0.5-0.7% on Foreign Aid - Intervention).
You keep coming back to this. In terms of the NATO benchmark, it is my understanding there are guidelines for what is considered 'defence spending'. If it's just to keep The Donald happy, what's the point? Might as well throw in housing, healthcare and regional development. I'm sure there is a national defence angle in there somewhere.
 
Great post - as usual.

Considering some kind of 'security court' still wouldn't address the issues of money laundering and other 'regular' criminal matters and cross-border joint operations, which are some of the issues that sent us down this road of dealing with national interest on the world stage.

I have no thoughts on how a system could be made Charter-compliant to deal with evidence, its sources or investigative methods that need to be protected. It's not just national security investigations. Organized crime players sometimes have the ability to make 'embarrassing' evidence to go away before trial.

Perhaps some day a court will find that perfect way to interpret Section 1 of the Charter that balances individual rights and the national interest.


OK, so a tribunal 'names' a person; now what?

As mentioned by others, tribunals are administrative law. They are narrowly focused, have limited punitive authority and generally have a lower burden of proof benchmark.
Money laundering’s not rocket surgery and needs no new court or powers; it just needs trained bodies to work the problem. Those are in short supply. Either a couple budgets or an election ago there was a pledge of creating a new federal financial crimes agency, but that seems to have fallen by the way side. That I guess leaves the issue with the Mounties, but that also means it’s right back to competing for federal investigators against the teams doing counterterrorism, border integrity, foreign interference, and large scale cybercrime. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
 
Back
Top