Wilber

What do you suggest, they blow up the legislature? Rule of law is how we deal with disputes and seek redress from injustice. It's called civilization.

Argus, before 1982 the final arbiter in Canadian law was the the British High Court. You seem to yearn for those days to return.

The Constitution and Charter itself. The SC is not one party leader or politician, there are nine of them. What would you rather see, a king with absolute powers?

It gives government the ability to ignore the Charter of Rights, that is why governments have been so reluctant to use it. DoFo has decided you only have those rights if he says so.

Wynne waited three years before privatizing Hydro. Seems to be there was plenty of outrage. Eventually, those things cost her job as well. Using the notwithstanding clause to circumvent the Constitution is now called democracy. Right. Litigation is open to both sides.

This was never mentioned during the campaign so it is no wonder people are pissed. It's reminiscent of when Gordon Campbell denied BC would be going to HST during the campaign then abruptly did a few weeks after the election. It ended up costing him and his finance minister their jobs.

Ya, over 10 million Americans died in Obama’s gulags and over 2 million more in Hillary’s Cultural Revolution. Give us a friggin break.

The point is, this is not, nor ever has been the US. Why do you think our courts would interpret laws or Constitution the same way. They haven't in the past and still don't.

They have, but they would have surely been challenged in the courts by someone. We are not the US. Slavery was a US institution when their Bill of Rights was written and Provinces do not have the power to impose the equivalent of Jim Crow laws. Even the Emergency Act which replaced the War Measures Act is now subject to the Charter.

All the things we have been apologizing for the past couple of decades, residential schools, head taxes, putting Japanese Canadians in camps and taking their property, Komogata Maru, St. Louis etc, were the result of a tyranny of the majority by elected governments. How many of them would have been possible with our Charter of Rights and how many governments would have invoked the notwithstanding clause to implement them?

The Law, the Constitution and Charter.

A politically biased option of course as are all options used by politicians. Our system has a constitution that gives the courts power to prevent populist governments from stomping all over the rights of citizens just because they are elected. The tyranny of the majority. I am also frustrated at times by some of the decisions those courts make but at least it has its base in law, not political expediency and although not perfect, I can’t think of a better one. This judge didn’t say it can’t be done, just that doing it so close to an election is not democratic and is unfair to the electorate.

I think there is a bit of wannabe dictator in most leaders. It is natural to be frustrated by the limits of power. That's why we need to have institutions that can enforce those limits.

I'm didn't say that but it doesn't mean he wouldn't like to. He certainly wouldn't be unique in that respect. That's why we have things like constitutions and courts to discourage them.

So what is he going to replace it with, his own cronies? The trouble with you guys is you have no other plan than blowing things up. Blowing stuff up is easy, building stuff is hard. It takes actual thought and hard work. Hillary and Obama = Stalin and Mao. You really are an idiot.

So what do you replace it with, Ford's swamp? All I see is you ranting. People like you are the reason dictators come to power. Show me a good dictator. Putin? Duarte? al Assad? Would you rather live in today's Chile or Pinochet's Chile? If you choose the later, you are an idiot.

I don't know what kind of hold he has on his MPP's but in Canada, a party leader has the power to evict them from caucus if they don't tow the line so it would take some kind of revolt to stop him. That's pretty drastic and would any of them fall on their swords for Toronto city council? This is city government which is not his mandate. He is messing with it for personal reasons. Would you approve of your federal or provincial government making big changes in the electoral map right before an election for any reason, whether it advantages them or not. Yes or no?

True but do you think Ford would actually relax party discipline to a point where it could restrict his own power? Doesn't seem the type to me. Damn right I think drastically changing electoral boundaries and forcing big changes the ballot less than two months before an election is a violation of the electors right to a fair and open election. No doubt you would go ballistic if Trudeau tried that just before next year's Federal election.

Doesn't matter whether you like him or not, you still maintain that Government = One Person and once elected, Government is under no legal obligation to discuss anything with anyone. Is that the kind of country you really want to live in? A primary duty of the courts is to protect people from being abused by governments.

But you do trust Doug Ford. You go on about courts supposedly exceeding their authority but don't have a problem with putting no limits on Ford. After all And for you, Government = Doug Ford.

Tell that to "tariffs are the greatest" Agent Orange Ford will not move Focus production to US

Nonsense. Any bill has to go through three readings, committee and get Royal assent before it can become law. Federal bills also have to go through the Senate. In this case, this court has determined such a change right before an election is a violation of the Charter. A reason we have a thing called Elections Canada is to prevent politicians from screwing with the electoral system and engaging things like Gerrymandering. I’m not an Ontarian and could care less how many councillors there are in Toronto. We don’t even use a ward system out West. Ford is using a hammer to smash a gnat solely out of pique and unlike you, I don’t think it will be the last time.

Drain the swamp. Great slogan. Trouble is the people chanting it have no clue what to replace the alleged swamp with past idolizing their guy. Draining the swamp to them is giving someone dictatorial powers.

It's the timing. When changes in the electoral system are proposed, it is normal practice to allow a period between elections for them to take effect allowing proper public discussion. You seem to think that because someone is elected, they can ram through whatever they want with no discussion. That's not the way our system is supposed to work. The trouble with autocracies is that they can be aimed at anyone, even you. When populists applaud such an action as a win because they agree with the immediate result, it is actually the opposite because it just erodes the democratic process. Great if you like the idea of "absolute power" and being governed by autocrats I guess.

AG, I agree that the cost of quota can distort the price because it is an added cost of production that doesn't add value. What plan do you have to compensate those who played by the rules and have millions invested in quota, or do you just think they should have to eat it and compete with those who invested nothing? What happens when this market gets saturated as it will almost immediately? If everything is just about cheap stuff, why should we produce anything? In the long term, how well do you think we will do as a country just selling each other stuff other's make. BTW. 1. Where do you get 1.6 billion? 2. The flow across the border is mostly one way as we imported four times as much from the US as we exported to the US. The US is already swimming in milk and the flow will become even more lopsided.