As everyone knows, the Stanley Cup is awarded on the basis of a failed charitable purpose trust and is in all likelihood legally owned by some British guy descended from Lord Stanley of Preston who doesn't realize it.
Putting aside the fascinating topic of nineteenth century trust law, I just wanted to point out that Brent Rathgerber, a Member of Parliament from Edmonton, described the Stanley Cup as the "trophy du jour of the NHL", because he is a dumbass and doesn't know that there's a difference between "du jour", a French expression meaning "of the day", and "de jure", a Latin expression meaning "in law". Or he thinks he is ordering the soup in law at nice restaurants.
His legal analysis is ridiculous: so the "Canadian people" automatically own anything that has ever belonged to a governor general? Then I would like Adrienne Clarkson's porcelain doll collection, please. If the Stanley Cup trust has failed, then the trust property reverts to Lord Stanley, his heirs and successors.
He also asks "what could be more Canadian" than letting a bunch of drunken beer leaguers play for one of the world's most prestigious sports trophies? If he thinks horrible ideas are typically Canadian, then really he should be running for the Bloc quebecois.
It's horrifying to think that someone who understands so little about the most important things in life, hockey and trust law, has been elected to public office (Although it was an Alberta election -- let's see how he does when they switch to multiparty democracy).