turningrite

The Toronto site indicates that the nominations for the 47 seat council had to be "certified" by July 30, which presumably is a different process than actually filing a nomination, which according to applicable provincial legislation had to be done by July 27, 2018. Fordistas can't have it both ways on this. They can't argue that municipal rules and guidelines somehow pre-empt provincial statutes when it suits them and otherwise argue that provincial statutes, as dictated by Queen's Park, are paramount in other instances. I believe available evidence supports the contention that the nominations deadline was July 27, 2018, the day Ford announced his changes.

Betsy: Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about the rules established in legislation until Ford changed them to suit his agenda. The AMO site is clearly delineates the Municipal Elections Act info. Don't respond further unless/until you have something constructive to offer.

dialamah: A lot of people raise entirely rational criticisms about various aspects of Islam, as we're quite free to do where other religions are concerned. And yet where it comes to Islam such criticism is habitually characterized as "Islamophobic" rather than accepted as fair comment. I was raised a Catholic and yet see much wrong with that religion just as I do with many aspects of religion in general. Why does Islam warrant special treatment? A significant aspect of our Western heritage, going back to the Reformation and, more recently, the Enlightenment, is the freedom to criticize religious doctrine, practice, superstition and hierarchy. Many historians believe it is this freedom to challenge all forms of institutional authority and hierarchy in the era following the Reformation and particularly following the Enlightenment that helped to propel the West's progress and prosperity in comparison to other cultures and societies. As Westerners, if we actually want to sustain our long-held values, I believe we must defend this right. There can be no exceptions.

Betsy: It's unfortunate that your research skills are apparently lacking. In any case, the legal deadline for nominations under Ontario's Municipal Elections Act was July 27, 2018, the actual day Ford announced his intention to reduce the size of Toronto city council and three days prior to the introduction of Bill 5. You might want to try a neutral site featuring statutory links in order to ascertain accurate information. I found the relevant details on the Association of Municipalities Ontario website. The information is out there if you're looking for it. https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-Content/Municipal-101/Municipal-Elections.aspx

Argus: Yes, and these senior immigrants will presumably experience Western lifestyles and longevity, and will probably on average live for 16 to 20 years following their arrival in this country, meaning that at any given point in time in the future there will be upwards of 320,000 to 400,000 residing in Canada. I believe the Canadian Medical Association has estimated the annual public health care costs of seniors to be $12K on a per capita basis, meaning that in today's dollars these newcomers, who haven't paid into the system, will generate an additional annual fiscal burden ranging from $3.8 billion to $4.8 billion - half of this alone to be borne by Ontario taxpayers. Just don't trying getting access to necessary medical care if you have paid into the system for years. You're not the the priority. I can assure you of this based on bitter experience.

Argus: The election was already well underway. Candidates had registered and started fundraising and campaigning when Ford's guillotine was dropped. As for law professors, from which institution, pray tell, did you obtain your law degree? Just wondering.

Over the past two decades or more Ontario's health care system has suffered death by a thousand cuts. And now, perhaps ironically, a practical solution has been established, which is assisted death. It is the only realistic alternative to an utterly broken system, at least in the GTA. Perhaps some outlying areas offer better services but I doubt it. A recent media story highlighted the plight of a patient in London ON who was reportedly informed by hospital staff that the alternative to what he considered inferior care was assisted death. Perhaps it's my age, but I now know of a handful of people who've chosen this option. A good friend, whom I'd known for about five decades, chose an assisted death last year over returning to hospital to deal with his stage 4 cancer. It's my preferred solution as well. As I couldn't practically access the care necessary to properly diagnose and potentially treat the condition I suffer, I have simply accepted the likely outcomes - legal blindness and becoming wheelchair bound - and will obtain an approval for an assisted death when I decide that my quality of life no longer warrants remaining alive. That's the health care reality in Ontario these days.

There might well be a good fit in such a merger. I was pleasantly surprised to read when visiting its site that the Libertarian Party's policy platform on immigration is almost identical to Bernier's. We'll have to see where this goes.

Betsy: Oh no, a Trumpian is on the loose! Is it even worth commenting when your mind is so tightly closed? By the way, Ford himself didn't bring up changes to Toronto's city council until late July, on the day nominations were legally set to close and well after campaigning had begun. You can search for the details online but my guess is that you likely don't want to know the truth.

Michael Hardner: What an ignorant and poorly reasoned perspective you bring to the table on this. Obviously, you've never had to deal with a really serious illness in the context of Ontario's no longer universal (unless one interprets it as universally inadequate) health care system. My view on this is based on cold, hard experience. If the system actually worked when I most need it to I'd likely have a different perspective. Ontario can't afford immigrant seniors entering the system when it can't offer decent health care to its citizens who've dutifully paid taxes to support the system for decades. I think that's a pretty reasonable and fair comment. Perhaps if you too live in Ontario you'll become seriously ill and figure this out for yourself.

Army Guy: 1.) There are emerging studies indicating that the net economic benefits of immigration are marginal. I believe Australia's extensive study of its immigration policies determined that its large-scale immigration program doesn't increase incomes or per capita wealth and mainly amounts to a population growth policy. In other words, a bigger pie is simply divided among more people.The British economist, Sir Paul Collier, has noted that the net economic impacts of large scale immigration in advanced economies is both marginal and unequal, with a tendency to benefit the already wealthy and further impoverish those at the bottom of the economic ladder, including new immigrants. 2.) Canada's birth rate is not as low as is the case in many other Western countries and in fact has been heavily impacted by government policies favoring wage suppression and large-scale immigration. Australia's study also examined the demographic impacts of immigration and determined that any gains obtained aren't statistically large and can't be sustained without maintaining continuously high levels of immigration, leading some critics of Australia's program to characterize it as a ponzi scheme. The mythical demographic benefit afforded by large-scale immigration is mainly propaganda. It won't pay for future social costs. 3.) The poor economic performance of Canada's most recent generation of immigrants warrants serious caution in continuing with our immigration programs in their current form. A massive and objective analysis, along the lines of the Australian study, should be undertaken. 4.) Does the Economic Council of Canada still exist? My understanding it that it doesn't. In any case, any plan to increase Canada's population to 100 million is daft. The UN estimates that after 2050 global population growth with level off significantly and many countries will experience population decline. Canada's population prediction for 2100 is in the low 50 millions. As for the impacts of massively increasing immigration, any assertion that the benefits to Canadians in general, while admittedly modest, might be worthwhile is ludicrous as most growth has occurred and in the future will occur in a handful of urban areas. People living in the Toronto and Vancouver areas are experiencing the nightmare of massive immigration-driven growth as it is. Do those in Canada's other major cities want this kind of future? For those who don't understand the problem of encouraging uncontrolled population growth, my advice is to be wary - very wary.

Argus: When has a government in the UK intervened to change the rules of an election, local or national, that was already underway? As I've said previously, the very notion is an affront to democratic precedent and practice. I was heartened to in today's G&M read just such an opinion written by a law professor who notes that Ford's behavior is not merely about the notwithstanding clause but more problematically conflicts with firmly established premises of democratic practice and conduct that govern elections. In fact, she says, Ford's pending legislation to invoke the notwithstanding clause violates existing Supreme Court of Canada precedent prohibiting the retroactive applicability of override powers. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-doug-ford-cant-apply-the-notwithstanding-clause-retroactively-to/

Argus: The relevant issue in my view is that most of our European ancestors arrived here well before the development of the welfare state. Of course, as new groups arrived they faced discrimination but eventually integrated, often out of necessity. The latest wave of self-othering and officially sanctioned tribalism has significant implications for Canadian society that simply didn't apply to prior waves of immigration. As the British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted, one of the impacts of large-scale immigration for modern developed countries is a decline in social cohesion, thus leading to a decline in the the public's willingness to fund broadly based social programs. We have to acknowledge this to be the case and understand the consequences. For better or worse, Canadian society will likely change substantially over the next few decades. It will become more atomized and segregated and people will be required to be more self-reliant and much of this will be a consequence of supposedly well-meaning policies we're pursuing right now. I no longer believe in the validity of the redistributive state and I think many others will come to adopt this view once they realize that in substance it's mainly a scam.

Good suggestions. I think we now take in about 40K to 50K refugees a year on average, though, so your number there might be a little high. You also might have added that preference would be given to those who have job offers. If we continue to permit skilled temporary foreign workers perhaps we can give preference for permanent residency to those who've already arrived and are already working as long as their numbers are calculated into the permitted intake level.

Well, if the goal of Canada's bizarrely large immigration program is integration, perhaps we'll have no choice but to assert an integrative imperative. I wonder how many of the women who wear the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism are gainfully employed? I believe that to encourage such self-othering behavior is to encourage ongoing social and economic division. Many will eventually say something to the effect that 'they can wear whatever nonsense they want but don't expect us to subsidize them'. We have to be sensible. As my mother, who was an immigrant, used to say about adapting to Canadian norms, including the ones she didn't like, "When in Rome...."

I don't believe Ford's move to cut the number Toronto council seats will save much, if anything. The remaining councilors will no doubt be allotted larger staff budgets in order to deal with constituent concerns and the usual left-right divide will no doubt survive on council. As a Mainstreet poll that was published today indicates that almost two-third's of Torontonians don't support Ford's use of the notwithstanding clause, maybe the upcoming election will draw out more voters than usual who'll be motivated to get rid of the councilors who support Ford. The best remedy for what ails Toronto council might well be to replace all sitting councilors with new faces. Somebody should start up a campaign to that effect. This whole fiasco has made me decide to vote for John Tory's main opponent as Tory has been weak on the issue. On a separate issue, I'm glad Wynne is gone. I didn't vote for her party and I couldn't support the Ford-led PCs. I wanted to vote for the 'None of the Above' candidate whose name for some reason didn't appear on the ballot in my riding. You're optimistic about Ford's government but apparently you don't live here. We went through the Ford horror show at city hall a few years ago and a lot of us are now experiencing deja vu. We in Toronto have been there and done the stupid dance with Ford's crowd. And we did it before with Harris, a somewhat more measured ideologue. Ford, besotted with his own cult of personality, is unlikely to help this province and unlikely to save taxpayers very much money.

dialamah: Perhaps those who champion Muslim customs should try living in a Muslim theocracy for a few years. Maybe they'd return with a different view. Most Westerners likely find religious facial coverings off-putting. It's not about fear per se but rather about a custom many understandably consider to be alienating. I wonder if those who choose to don such attire understand the discomfort it engenders in Western societies? I suspect many do.

Betsy: Well, aren't you being all high and mighty. In any case, no government in an actual democracy possesses unlimited power and/or authority. There are systems that do permit this and we generally call them dictatorships. Any leader who in a democracy governs on the presumption of wielding unlimited power and/or authority is a demagogue and a fool.

I've languished on gurneys for days in emergency rooms as an "admitted" patient, getting almost no sleep and having to share a filthy bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors, before scoring an actual acute care bed. Try brushing your teeth at a sink covered in hair and vomit, as I've had to do. And I've waited months for medically necessary surgery, including eye surgery, because, well, the resources simply aren't there to do these things on a timely basis. I've waited for several hours to see specialists for scheduled medical visits. And I've waited months and even years just to see specialists to whom I've been referred. Oh, and I was approved for out of country specialist care for what is believed to be a rare and possibly genetic condtion, which I was unable to pursue at least in part because the American hospital to which I was being referred told me that Ontario's system covers only a small part of the amount of such care and I would have had to assume an uncapped liability for the remainder, likely amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. The representative for the American hospital told me that Canadian patients are considered to be "uninsured" in the American system, an assertion that certainly burst any sense of superiority I might have felt about our health care model. It's these kinds of experiences that justify my opinion about rationing. We have universal health care coverage in name only - at least in Ontario.

PIK: You're correct. People often misinterpret fixed election date legislation as somehow limiting the ability of sitting governments to manipulate election timing when these laws are primarily symbolic.

Betsy: If you think Ford's move to stifle Toronto's city council will actually save money, presumably you also believe that budgets balance themselves. (Didn't a winning politician tell us that? So it must be true, right?) In any case, the "authority" of governments in democratic societies is reined in by courts. It's kind of the way things are designed to work. Some polling has indicated many Torontonians support the reduction in the size of their city council. Personally, I don't think it will make much difference one way or the other. But polling results published in today's Toronto Star suggest that almost two-thirds of Torontonians object to the fashion in which this is being done. A government's behavior in a democracy can render its actions illegitimate in the eyes of the public. Ford is walking a very narrow tightrope in this regard although it appears he oblivious to this fact. https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/09/18/toronto-residents-oppose-fords-use-of-notwithstanding-clause-poll.html

Goddess: But we're so nice that we simply can't say such things, right?

Army Guy: Our traditional parties, and especially the Libs and NDP, have worked hard to demonize those who raise valid concerns about immigration, particularly where the costs to taxpayers related to our current policies are concerned. By some estimates, the government's policy of allowing an annual intake of 20,000 foreign grannies and grandpas, who've never paid taxes in Canada, adds an 4 to 5 billion dollars annually to health care costs, half of this amount being borne by already stressed Ontario taxpayers as health care costs for sponsored immigrants are funded by provincial treasuries. As a person who's experienced the dismal state of Ontario's current health care rationing scheme, this alarms me greatly. But we're not allowed to talk about it, because, well, to refuse to suffer in silence is apparently racist.

Shhhh! You're not supposed to draw such conclusions until the government says you can. Which in the case of the Trudeau government presumably means never, at least as long as it controls the narrative. But once it doesn't, well, things could be much different.

Under the category of stories we'd almost forgotten about (or maybe stories politicians wish we'd forgotten?), the Danforth shooting has reemerged as the self-declared top ISIS/ISIL operation of the year. According to the NP story, police won't comment on the matter. Those with memories that extend further back than the most recent week's media cycles will recall that officials fell over themselves at the time of the Danforth rampage - before any substantive investigation was conducted - to assure the public that there was no apparent terrorist connection, after which, of course, the whole event became shrouded in obscurity under the guise of an SIU investigation. Oh, and there was the mental health angle, never conclusively demonstrated but simply assumed by many in the absence of real information to be correct. So, what's actually going on here? I'm beginning to wonder whether the new provincial government might manage to withhold the investigation's findings until just prior to next year's federal election? Wouldn't that be a hoot! Maybe the Trudeau government will eventually figure out that there's a lot to be said for transparency in a democracy, a notion it and its progressive acolytes generally seem to find highly objectionable. The best laid plans.... https://nationalpost.com/news/isil-propaganda-video-calls-torontos-danforth-shooting-its-top-foreign-operation-of-the-year