Ontario announces plan to destroy its economy

[TimG]

1 hour ago, hernanday said:

Yeah common law is made up now.

It is not common law that covers these cases. Prior to the the charter there was no debate and everyone understood that governments could order workers back to work. This could not be true if there was 'common law' covering these cases. After the charter unions tried to get the court to infer a right to strike but they lost in 1986 when the SCC first looked at the issue. They managed to get the court to change its mind a few years ago but that argument was entirely based on section 2 in the charter. Common law was not a relevant concern. The notwithstanding clause applies. 

Here is some background on the state of common law when it comes to government contracts:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/cancelling-contracts-power-of-governments-to-unilaterally-alter-agreements.pdf

Quote

Legislative supremacy is a central feature of the Canadian system of government. The federal Parliament and provincial legislatures may pass laws of any kind, including laws that change or cancel legally binding agreements, and even if the enactment has the effect of expropriating property or causing hardship to innocent parties who negotiated with government in good faith in entering into the contract in the first place.

Now when it comes to labour relations the supreme court ruled that these powers are limited by section 2. But section 2 may be overridden with the notwithstanding clause. There is no debate to be had on this point. If Wynne wanted to impose a contract she could and the unions could not stop her. They could try to get another government elected but it is unlikely that the Tories would be more sympathetic.

 

 

[H10]

2 hours ago, TimG said:

It is not common law that covers these cases. Prior to the the charter there was no debate and everyone understood that governments could order workers back to work. This could not be true if there was 'common law' covering these cases. After the charter unions tried to get the court to infer a right to strike but they lost in 1986 when the SCC first looked at the issue. They managed to get the court to change its mind a few years ago but that argument was entirely based on section 2 in the charter. Common law was not a relevant concern. The notwithstanding clause applies. 

 

Yes it is common law.  Common law are in almost every case.  Common law develops over time by the courts!  There are common law doctrines that have evolved as a response to the internet that didn't exist prior to the charter.  Common law has since developed since that case and if the lawyers did not forward the argument in briefs to the court, the courts cannot make an argument for them, or are not required to.

 

Notwithstanding clause does not apply outside of the charter and the common law doctrines are not in those specific parts of the charter.

 

 

2 hours ago, TimG said:

Here is some background on the state of common law when it comes to government contracts:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/cancelling-contracts-power-of-governments-to-unilaterally-alter-agreements.pdf

Now when it comes to labour relations the supreme court ruled that these powers are limited by section 2. But section 2 may be overridden with the notwithstanding clause. There is no debate to be had on this point. If Wynne wanted to impose a contract she could and the unions could not stop her. They could try to get another government elected but it is unlikely that the Tories would be more sympathetic.

 

Fraser institute is not a credible source and claim anything that is alt-right is correct.

Sure section 2 can be overriden with the clause, but common law cannot!  Wynne's government already imposed a contract and it was struck down, if they wanted to use the nothwithstanding clause, they'd have done it already, no need to negotiate.

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Sure section 2 can be overriden with the clause, but common law cannot!  Wynne's government already imposed a contract and it was struck down, if they wanted to use the nothwithstanding clause, they'd have done it already, no need to negotiate.

You have no clue what you are talking about. I have provided links to additional material support my claims. You just blather on in complete denial. Governments can override any contract they want. Get over it. If Wynne has not it is because she is worried about the political fallout.

BTW - Just because you don't like the perspective of the Frasier Institute does not mean it is wrong on this point. Dismissing the material without providing any rational counter argument makes look like a fool.

Edited December 2, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

4 hours ago, hernanday said:

Fraser institute is not a credible source and claim anything that is alt-right is correct.

Uh, do you even know what alt-right is? 

[H10]

On 12/2/2016 at 1:47 PM, Argus said:

Uh, do you even know what alt-right is? 

Yup, racist lying psychos like the frazier institute.

[H10]

On 12/2/2016 at 9:50 AM, TimG said:

You have no clue what you are talking about. I have provided links to additional material support my claims. You just blather on in complete denial. Governments can override any contract they want. Get over it. If Wynne has not it is because she is worried about the political fallout.

BTW - Just because you don't like the perspective of the Frasier Institute does not mean it is wrong on this point. Dismissing the material without providing any rational counter argument makes look like a fool.

You have  no clue what you are talking about, you cannot even read your own quotes, notwithstanding clause only applies to the charter, not contracts that are unrelated to the charter dummy!  If that was the case the ontario government would use the clause to get out of the global adjustment charges contracts and the snow plowing contracts.

[TimG]

20 minutes ago, hernanday said:

You have  no clue what you are talking about, you cannot even read your own quotes, notwithstanding clause only applies to the charter, not contracts that are unrelated to the charter dummy!  If that was the case the ontario government would use the clause to get out of the global adjustment charges contracts and the snow plowing contracts.

I will explain it once again:

1) There is no constitutional protection for contracts (common law is a guide not an absolute);
2) Governments have the authority to cancel any contract or impose any terms they want on public sector unions;
3) The SCC decided to restrict that authority based on Clause 2 of the Charter;
4) Clause 2 of the Charter can be overridden with the Notwithstanding Clause.

That said Governments generally do not break contracts because the long term consequences of doing so are generally bad (i.e. it ensures toxic labour relations in the future). However, no one has any constitutional right to have their contract honoured and people who insist they are entitled to completely unfair terms because of a contract will likely find themselves disappointed unless they show flexibility during negotiations.

Edited December 5, 2016 by TimG

[H10]

3 minutes ago, TimG said:

I will explain it once again:

1) There is no constitutional protection for contracts (common law is a guide not an absolute);
2) Governments have the authority to cancel any contract or impose any terms they want on public sector unions;
3) The SCC decided to restrict that authority based on Clause 2 of the Charter;
4) Clause 2 of the Charter can be overridden with the Notwithstanding Clause.

That said Governments generally do not break contracts because the long term consequences of doing so are generally bad (i.e. it ensures toxic labour relations in the future). However, no one has any constitutional right to have their contract honoured and people who insist they are entitled to completely unfair terms because of a contract will likely find themselves disappointed unless they show flexibility during negotiations.

1) The law is not limited to the charter.  Common law is law the clause does not apply to common law but just 3 parts of the charter(not even the entire constitution!)

2) IN communist  Russia, but not canada

3) irrelevant

4)Yes it can, but this has nothing to do with that clause!

You are not intelligent enough to understand contract law is not in section 2 of the constitution.  The clause does not apply to common law doctrines developed by courts.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, hernanday said:

Yup, racist lying psychos like the frazier institute.

So that's a 'no'. Thought so.

[poochy]

On 12/4/2016 at 8:05 PM, hernanday said:

Yup, racist lying psychos like the frazier institute.

wow, get that checked

[Argus]

Welcome to 2017 in Ontario. Welcome to higher gas prices, higher heating costs, higher electricity costs, higher costs for goods and services. But don't worry, the Ontario Liberals are going to use all the added taxes from their bizarre cap and trade scheme to do many wonderful things! Just like they've been doing for the last ten years!

Here in clean, green Ontario, where the ambitions of our government know no bounds, a bright new year has dawned. Gasoline is likely to rise by 4.3 cents a litre. Your hydro bill is going up. You’ll pay more for natural gas, too. But don’t feel blue. You are helping save the planet. All of these higher costs are part of the government’s new cap-and-trade scheme, a vast multibillion-dollar enterprise that is designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by redistributing tons of money to big emitters in California and subsidy-seekers here at home.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ontarios-plan-destroy-jobs-save-the-planet/article33478285/

[Ash74]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Welcome to 2017 in Ontario. Welcome to higher gas prices, higher heating costs, higher electricity costs, higher costs for goods and services. But don't worry, the Ontario Liberals are going to use all the added taxes from their bizarre cap and trade scheme to do many wonderful things! Just like they've been doing for the last ten years!

Here in clean, green Ontario, where the ambitions of our government know no bounds, a bright new year has dawned. Gasoline is likely to rise by 4.3 cents a litre. Your hydro bill is going up. You’ll pay more for natural gas, too. But don’t feel blue. You are helping save the planet. All of these higher costs are part of the government’s new cap-and-trade scheme, a vast multibillion-dollar enterprise that is designed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by redistributing tons of money to big emitters in California and subsidy-seekers here at home.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ontarios-plan-destroy-jobs-save-the-planet/article33478285/

Huge shock. The Ontario Liberals are bringing in a hidden tax and are lying about the actual cost by not telling the whole cost. 

Liberals only mention gas and home heating going up but fail to mention the cost it will be on everyday items. I have no doubt the Liberals will be advertising the Venezuela plan of growing food in our backyards and turning green spaces into community farms so we might have something to eat. 

[Topaz]

The next election may make history of no one  voting for the liberal party and so  do we have the NDP and Tories ruling together?  That won't work.

[H10]

We might get a ndp government.

[drummindiver]

On 2016-05-18 at 1:17 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

But nuclear doesn't help us feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Let's see... Ontario emits about 12 megatons of CO2 per year. If we were to stop all emissions today (assuming a decay rate of about 100 years for CO2 as it gets absorbed by oceans and a transient climate response of 1.5 C), this works to about 0.36 ppm less atmospheric CO2 and 0.002 C lower global temperatures by 2116.

According to unsubstantiated models.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, drummindiver said:

According to unsubstantiated models.

Side discussion as to the accuracy of models would be off-topic but I invite you to explain why the models are unsubstantiated in another thread, as I find your claim curious.

[-1=e^ipi]

8 hours ago, drummindiver said:

According to unsubstantiated models.

 

If you are referring to a climate sensitivity of ~2C, then that is also supported by instrumental data (using an energy balance approach or time series analysis) as well as paleoclimate data. Actually, the median ECS for CMIP5 general climate models is 3.2 C. So I'm using a lower sensitivity than the general climate models. In any case, I was trying to give and order of magnitude estimate of the effect of Ontario reducing emissions. It looks like Canada overall can only reduce global temperatures by a few thousandths of a degree C.

Edited January 7, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[drummindiver]

22 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

If you are referring to a climate sensitivity of ~2C, then that is also supported by instrumental data (using an energy balance approach or time series analysis) as well as paleoclimate data. Actually, the median ECS for CMIP5 general climate models is 3.4 C. So I'm using a lower sensitivity than the general climate models. In any case, I was trying to give and order of magnitude estimate of the effect of Ontario reducing emissions. It looks like Canada overall can only reduce global temperatures by a few thousandths of a degree C.

Actually your numbers are high.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4

[-1=e^ipi]

8 hours ago, drummindiver said:

 

 

The article you link supports my claims. The climate sensitivity estimates presented in the abstract are obtained using the energy balance approach.

 

But I did write a mistake saying median ECS for CMIP5 models is 3.4 C. It's 3.2 C.

[-1=e^ipi]

But, wow, that's a pretty interesting paper. Thanks for the link. I know Roy Spencer tried to estimate climate sensitivity using similar data and found an estimate of 1.3 C. But it was done somewhat crudely and didn't have a good estimate of the uncertainty.

[Argus]

A study of the expensive shutdown of Ontario's coal fired power plants showed that not only was there virtually no reduction in pollution, contrary to the claims of the Ontario Liberals, but that the Liberals always knew there wasn't and never would be. 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ross-mckitrick-turns-out-ontarios-painful-coal-phase-out-didnt-help-pollution-and-queens-park-even-knew-it-wouldnt

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

A study of the expensive shutdown of Ontario's coal fired power plants showed that not only was there virtually no reduction in pollution, contrary to the claims of the Ontario Liberals, but that the Liberals always knew there wasn't and never would be. 

Let's see, Mckittrick and the Fraser Institute yet again prove that they are biased and will tell anything but the real story to somehow sell their agenda. Did you see the part about totally, 100% ignoring GHG? Did you see that part about talking about particulate matter in urban areas when the coal fire plants were elsewhere? This is not a study, it is a propaganda piece with zero basis in reality.

Next, washing your hands doesn't spread germs. They will study someone in Toronto washing their hands, and prove that it has no effect on a surgeon performing an operation in Vancouver. Why, because like the above trash, they are totally unrelated. 

[TimG]

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Did you see the part about totally, 100% ignoring GHG?

GHG is not pollution that affects air quality (i.e. it has no impact on anyone's life). 

The plants were sold as a way to reduction *urban* pollution. The paper shows that claim is BS.

Of course, it is typical for AGW activists to use the bait and switch. i.e. use a bogus argument to get some measure passed and when they are called on the bogus argument claim that that they never made it.

Edited January 18, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

The plants were sold as a way to reduction *urban* pollution. The paper shows that claim is BS.

I don't remember the urban part. Yes Ernie Eves did talk about smog, dust, and mercury emissions but I can't find any reference to that being an urban targeted problem. 

[TimG]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I don't remember the urban part. Yes Ernie Eves did talk about smog, dust, and mercury emissions but I can't find any reference to that being an urban targeted problem. 

Most people live in urban centers. If someone is claiming health benefits the only way the number could add up to a significant number is if one claims these benefits acrue to urban dwellers. Here is Suzuki claiming that a coal phase out would reduce hospital visits in provinces that don't event use coal:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2016/11/coal-fired-power-worsening-health-and-climate-nation-wide/

Quote

Out with the coal, in with the new: national benefits of an accelerated phase-out of coal fired power, finds that pollutants from coal-fired power traveling across provinces affect the health of populations in both coal-burning and non-coal-burning provinces. Air pollutants from coal plants are known to produce heart and lung diseases, aggravate asthma and increase premature deaths and hospital admissions.

As I said, such trickery is typical of ideology driven alarmists like Suzuki or Wynne since they know they would never convince people to make sacrifices in the name of their religion so they make up bogus arguments about "health benefits".