Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can somebody explain Orders in Council....and particularly for American's??
It seems that they are similar to Executive Orders under the US Constitution. BUT, I have heard several comments by Canadians that they represent a "unlawful" intrusion into personal lives.
Can somebody explain Orders in Council....and particularly for American's??
It seems that they are similar to Executive Orders under the US Constitution. BUT, I have heard several comments by Canadians that they represent a "unlawful" intrusion into personal lives.
Anyway, thanks for the explanations in advance.
That's not really the case. It's a decision-making power that is outside the parliamentary or judicial realm. Sometimes used in emergency situations for the sake of expeditiousness. But in reality, the vast, vast majority I believe are actually appointments of senior people in various government positions, like the head of the RCMP, the auditor general, etc.
They're decisions made by the PM and his or her cabinet, and assented to by the Governor-General. Often, they are things that could go through Parliament, but typically aren't worth Parliament's time or money to concern itself with--appointments of senior people to various government positions is a great example.
Sometimes, they are things that should go through Parliament, but for various reasons, cannot. For example, an emergency situation arises when Parliament is recessed, and there is no time to reconvene it, and the situation needs to be resolved right now.
I am curious about 509's comment that, "BUT, I have heard several comments by Canadians that they represent a "unlawful" intrusion into personal lives." Unless they contravene some provision of the Constitution, or cannot be saved by s. 1 of the Charter, then they are perfectly lawful.
In addition, neither Parliament nor the cabinet typically get so detailed that their decisions (whether decided by Parliament or by Order-in-Council) affect Canadians' personal lives. They could be regarded as such, I suppose, when it comes to things like personal income taxes or similar; but for the most part, these bodies will decide upon something generally, then delegate the details to a body that does provide the details (for example, Parliament sets up the CRTC, and that body decides upon what qualifies as Canadian content for broadcast purposes), but as I said, neither Parliament nor the cabinet is typically going to deal with the details that affect Canadians personally.
In any event, Orders-in-Council can be sent for judicial review, to ensure that they are legal, lawful, and the correct decision, given the circumstances that gave rise to the Order-in-Council.
Questions for 509: Where did you hear these comments by Canadians, and could you provide some examples of what they consider to be unlawful intrusions into their personal lives?
They're decisions made by the PM and his or her cabinet, and assented to by the Governor-General. Often, they are things that could go through Parliament, but typically aren't worth Parliament's time or money to concern itself with--appointments of senior people to various government positions is a great example.
Sometimes, they are things that should go through Parliament, but for various reasons, cannot. For example, an emergency situation arises when Parliament is recessed, and there is no time to reconvene it, and the situation needs to be resolved right now.
I am curious about 509's comment that, "BUT, I have heard several comments by Canadians that they represent a "unlawful" intrusion into personal lives." Unless they contravene some provision of the Constitution, or cannot be saved by s. 1 of the Charter, then they are perfectly lawful.
In addition, neither Parliament nor the cabinet typically get so detailed that their decisions (whether decided by Parliament or by Order-in-Council) affect Canadians' personal lives. They could be regarded as such, I suppose, when it comes to things like personal income taxes or similar; but for the most part, these bodies will decide upon something generally, then delegate the details to a body that does provide the details (for example, Parliament sets up the CRTC, and that body decides upon what qualifies as Canadian content for broadcast purposes), but as I said, neither Parliament nor the cabinet is typically going to deal with the details that affect Canadians personally.
In any event, Orders-in-Council can be sent for judicial review, to ensure that they are legal, lawful, and the correct decision, given the circumstances that gave rise to the Order-in-Council.
Questions for 509: Where did you hear these comments by Canadians, and could you provide some examples of what they consider to be unlawful intrusions into their personal lives?
I have to say, I have friends that are lawyers, even one that is a judge. Your answer make me realize why they are friends.
I have to say, I have friends that are lawyers, even one that is a judge. Your answer make me realize why they are friends.
Chevy has a way of explaining this stuff so it makes sense to those of us whose eyes glaze over when trying to fathom it all out. Sorta like finally finding that light switch in the basement storage room just before you trip over those old ice skates and fall into the rat traps you set up months ago.
....... Questions for 509: Where did you hear these comments by Canadians, and could you provide some examples of what they consider to be unlawful intrusions into their personal lives?
I second the above quoted request - 509 it's hard to relate to your original post without you having provided the circumstances that prompted comments from any Canadians about unlawful intrusions. Examples of said intrusions would be helpful, and also explanation of what parts of Canada where they occurred and who those Canadian commenters were. You aren't talking about written comments from journalists, are you, but more like verbal comments from acquaintances of yours, right?
I second the above quoted request - 509 it's hard to relate to your original post without you having provided the circumstances that prompted comments from any Canadians about unlawful intrusions. Examples of said intrusions would be helpful, and also explanation of what parts of Canada where they occurred and who those Canadian commenters were. You aren't talking about written comments from journalists, are you, but more like verbal comments from acquaintances of yours, right?
.
I chose not to provide circumstances.
It related to gun laws, specifically the type of guns. I really did not want to thread to wander in that direction, but I did want a better understanding of Orders in Council.
The comments were from journalists, but I have little respect for them. They really need to improve the standards for someone to be considered a journalist, but that is another subject.
It appears they are similar to recess appointments, Executive orders, and Federal Regulations in the states all rolled into one.
So how do people in Canada deal with "illegal" Orders in Council. Again, don't focus on the issue, but the law.
DACA in the US was clearly illegal executive order. The US Supreme Court said so.
Is there a similar mechanism in Canada??
Again, it isn't about guns or DACA.....how does the system work??
It related to gun laws, specifically the type of guns. I really did not want to thread to wander in that direction, but I did want a better understanding of Orders in Council.
I had a feeling. Let me guess--this has something to do with "private property rights," correct?
Canadians have no private property rights under our constitution. So, anything that deprives them of their property, as long as it is done legally, is not illegal. You can call it "eminent domain," or "expropriation," or whatever; the government can take your property, from your house to a cigarette lighter, and you can do nothing, except appeal the seizure. You will receive fair market value, however, for any seized goods.
Quote:
The comments were from journalists, but I have little respect for them. They really need to improve the standards for someone to be considered a journalist, but that is another subject.
So people who have studied journalism at university, who have earned a degree in journalism from accredited universities, and who have demonstrated their ability at various news sources, are not really journalists? Just how high are your standards for a journalist to be a journalist? A masters? A doctorate? Or just agreeing with your point of view?
Quote:
So how do people in Canada deal with "illegal" Orders in Council. Again, don't focus on the issue, but the law.
I deal with the law. Every day. So far, I have never encountered an illegal Order-in-Council, no matter how much I may disagree with it. If it is somehow unconstitutional, I'll be the first to say so. If it needs to be brought before a court to determine its constitutionality, I'll do it. But if it's just a wannabe-client complaining about a matter that they don't like and has no merit, I'll say so, and save them a bunch of money.
Quote:
DACA in the US was clearly illegal executive order. The US Supreme Court said so.
Cite to the US Supreme Court case, please. I don't doubt you, but I would like to read the decision before I comment.
Quote:
Is there a similar mechanism in Canada??
A similar mechanism to what? An honest judicial system that runs on common-law precedent? A Supreme Court that is not political? I am unsure what you are asking here.
Quote:
.....how does the system work??
You've been told how the system works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
