Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[turningrite]

According to breaking reports, Ford's gone nuclear and imposed the notwithstanding clause! Wow. This is quite shocking as I can't recall any Ontario government ever using it. 

[Wilber]

Aside from Quebec it has been used once, by Saskatchewan. The courts later ruled that it wasn't necessary because the Saskatchewan law didn't' violate the constitution in the first place.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Wilber

[Argus]

45 minutes ago, Wilber said:

There is no longer a BNA Act,  it was replaced  by the Canadian Constitution.

Yes, but if we got rid of the Charter the BNA act would then become law again. It was, as you say, replaced by the act which established the charter. Rescinding that act makes the BNA legal again.

[Argus]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Aside from Quebec it has been used once, by Saskatchewan. The courts later ruled that it wasn't necessary because the Saskatchewan law didn't' violate the constitution in the first place.

I suspect that will be the case here too. I mean, honestly, changing the number of council seats violates the freedom of expression of the candidates and voters? Seriously!? The judge complained that the government had not taken time to consult people... there's no such requirement under law. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Argus

[Wilber]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yes, but if we got rid of the Charter the BNA act would then become law again. It was, as you say, replaced by the act which established the charter. Rescinding that act makes the BNA legal again.

Would it? What makes you think so? Westminster no longer determines Canadian law.

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

I suspect that will be the case here too. I mean, honestly, changing the number of council seats violates the freedom of expression of the candidates and voters? Seriously!? The judge complained that the government had not taken time to consult people... there's no such requirement under law. 

I think it does, coming so close to an election. In fact, it could be regarding as tampering.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 there's no such requirement under law. 

I imagine when they drafted the laws they didn't anticipate a reprobate like Ford purposefully trying to f*ck over the largest city in the Country.  Poor vision I guess.

This incident has made me switch over to support Proportional Representation.  If the Progressive (hah) Conservatives aren't even aware that they are bound by the courts then we might as well have a left-centre-left dictatorship.  I will change my mind if I hear reasonable opposition from the right about this power grab, but I doubt I will.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

Would it? What makes you think so? Westminster no longer determines Canadian law.

Because the act which removed it is the one which created the Charter. If you rescind the act then the BNA was never actually removed...

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

I think it does, coming so close to an election. In fact, it could be regarding as tampering.

The provincial government's absolute power over municipalities includes changing the period of elections if it desires. So how can it be called tampering?

[Argus]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I imagine when they drafted the laws they didn't anticipate a reprobate like Ford purposefully trying to f*ck over the largest city in the Country.  Poor vision I guess.

This incident has made me switch over to support Proportional Representation.  If the Progressive (hah) Conservatives aren't even aware that they are bound by the courts then we might as well have a left-centre-left dictatorship.  I will change my mind if I hear reasonable opposition from the right about this power grab, but I doubt I will.

We have had a left-centre-left dictatorship for the last dozen years in Ontario and that never bothered you. Nor does this seem like a 'power grab' since the province's power over municipalities is and always has been absolute. I think this was likely done given the time constraints. This could be argued in the court for months and the election would wind up being held before it was done.

And what's with the end of the world attitude? God, you guys on the Left get so worked up over nothing. It's some city councilors! They're useless drones anyway! And Toronto has been run in a horrifyingly incompetent fashion for the last forty years - just like Ottawa has been. If Ford wants to reduce the number of city councilors in Ottawa I'm all for it. City government does not work anyway. Nobody cares about it. How often do city councilors get unseated anyway? Nobody cares enough to bother.They're in until they die or choose move on.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Argus

[taxme]

On 7/27/2018 at 7:57 AM, turningrite said:

Well, now we're seeing the Doug Ford many of thought would emerge. He's taking the axe to Toronto city council, reducing the number of wards from 47 to 25, and cancelling the regional chair elections in Peel and York. There will be a lot of unhappy campers at city hall, for sure. I'm wondering if this is also intended as a warning shot to Tory not to undermine Ford's position on the illegal/irregular migrant crisis? Tory has been negotiating separately with the federal government to resolve the refugee claimant housing crisis, with the result that many of the migrants will soon be housed in hotels. Meanwhile, our growing horde of homeless get sleeping bags and maybe a cot in a church basement on cold nights, if they're lucky. It's quite a contrast. A friend who didn't support Ford's Conservatives in the election is now saying he's quickly warming to him. I believe Ford's "I'm in charge here" move will have broader repercussions.

Well, we are starting to see now that Ford is going to have to deal with nothing more than a bunch of political appointed left wing liberal judges in Ontario who will do whatever they can to try and stop Ford from trying to fulfill his agenda if they can. Ford will have to fight and win and beat these liberal judges like the one that struck down Ford's cutting of the many seats in Toronto city hall. All of Canada is pretty much in the same boat. Liberal judges are everywhere and they will all fight for and uphold liberalism at all costs. Liberalism is so entrenched in Canada in politics, education, all levels of governments, courts with their liberal judges that trying to take liberalism on and try to defeat it is going to be a big task in itself in order for anyone to even consider wanting to try and take liberalism on. And then there is the left wing liberal media to have to deal with also. Canada has truly become a liberal socialist paradise. Hopefully, with Ford in power now, Ford may have finally been able to poke a hole in the liberal dam. One can only hope that hole will start to get a lot bigger asap. Maybe in some cases it is time for Canada to start to elect judges, especially in the Supreme Court. Just wondering. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by taxme

[Wilber]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

The provincial government's absolute power over municipalities includes changing the period of elections if it desires. So how can it be called tampering?

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.

[taxme]

15 minutes ago, Wilber said:

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.

But gee, hasn't that been the official program and agenda of all politicians since time began is to be able to" ram' through whatever they want too with no public discussion? Trudeau come to mind? At least Ford is trying to drain the swamp in Toronto and save taxpayer's millions of tax dollars. Why would anyone be against Ford for wanting to drain a political swamp is beyond me. Ford it anything should get a standing applause for trying to do so, not flak. The leftist liberal establishment politicians with their leftist liberal media and their leftist liberal judges Ford will have his hands full trying to deal with that gang of social justice warrior misfits and snowflake losers. It would appear today that the majority of Canadians love to have absolute power  by politicians to rule over them and to control their lives. Just saying. 

[Wilber]

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.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Wilber

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I imagine when they drafted the laws they didn't anticipate a reprobate like Ford purposefully trying to f*ck over the largest city in the Country.  Poor vision I guess.

This incident has made me switch over to support Proportional Representation.  If the Progressive (hah) Conservatives aren't even aware that they are bound by the courts then we might as well have a left-centre-left dictatorship.  I will change my mind if I hear reasonable opposition from the right about this power grab, but I doubt I will.

I take it you don't like Premier Ford?

Actually, when they drafted the Charter back in 1982, the provinces wisely held out for the notwithstanding clause to protect against over-reach by the Federal government. More and more, that over-reach has been transferred to the courts where they have incrementally read things into the Charter that are questionable at best. The intent of section 1 was pretty clear. The judge's decision was misplaced, if not pure folly. It overturned democratic legislation due to nothing more than an inconvenience put on the litigants. Their "rights", such as they were described, were only minimally impacted - and individually could have been addressed. Lost some money on fliers and advertising - pay them back. Lose your councilor seat - it's not a lifetime position. Even a strong minority of councilors voted to let the change happen. If the election was allowed to happen, it would be another 4 years (at best) before change could happen - 4 more years of dysfunctional Toronto council bickering. I've seen it for almost 20 years. It's horrible.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I imagine when they drafted the laws they didn't anticipate a reprobate like Ford purposefully trying to f*ck over the largest city in the Country.  Poor vision I guess.

Many feel that he is right, at least in principle. Not trying to "f*ck over the largest city in the Country". It is doing that already.

Quote

Michael Thompson is a long-time city councillor for Scarborough Centre. He’s with Doug Ford on this one. “It’s hard to get us to make decisions,” he told me. “The business of council could be done in a more timely, efficient manner if we had fewer people talking about the same things over and over.”

Toronto’s government has no party system. That means that each councillor is effectively a party of one – motivated to speak (at length) on every issue to show that she is serving her constituency, whether or not she has anything to say. “Everyone comes with a different tactical view,” Mr. Thompson says. “Every one of us can come up with a new subway plan and every one of them has to be discussed. We can’t form a collective view.”

 

Edited September 11, 2018 by OftenWrong

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Many feel that he is right, at least in principle. Not trying to "f*ck over the largest city in the Country". It is doing that already.

 

The "principle" you reference seems unclear to a lot of people. Is it the principle of payback, which many believe actually motivates Ford's reduction of council? Or is it the principle of provincial control over municipal affairs, which if applicable raises the question of why other municipalities, where councillors generally represent far fewer constituents, aren't being subjected to similar legislative interference?

As a long-time Torontonian, I tend to agree with reducing the size of city council but Ford didn't campaign on the issue, contrary to his bizarrely tangential assertion to the contrary. The basic problem here is changing election rules when an election is underway. It's difficult to imagine that a precedent exists in any Western jurisdiction to justify this.

[betsy]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

 

As a long-time Torontonian, I tend to agree with reducing the size of city council but Ford didn't campaign on the issue,

He campaigned on the issue!  

I'm tired of journalists making this inaccurate accusation. Just because he wasn't specific about his plans doesn't mean he didn't campaign on the issue!  He did!

He is going to streamline  the  government,  to go for efficiency!  

 

streamline - make (an organization or system) more efficient and effective by employing faster or simpler working methods.

"the company streamlined its operations by removing whole layers of management"

https://www.google.com/search?q=streamline+def&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

 

We know why he wants to streamline the government, don't we?   That's one of his plans to save $$$$ - to get us out of the very deeeeeeeep hole that the ***hole Liberals had gotten us into.  So, why is it any surprise that he's slashing down the council?

 

To streamline the government - what do they think that means?  Get rid of volunteer workers? Down-size and lay off people at WalMart? 

 

Journalists should've made a specific checklist of everything that he might do, and got him to answer them.   They didn't.

 

Some journalists are doing this on purpose - spreading fake news!  People who hadn't followed the rallies and debates during the last election wouldn't know that it's a lie!   They're trying to smear Ford. 

All they're proving is that....... it's true - you cannot trust the media! 

You can't trust them, not because everyone of them is dishonest - but by the looks of it, those who are not dishonest, are  ignorant.  Heck, how can you trust a liar....or someone who doesn't know what he's on about?

 

Though not a journalist - John Tory is one of them. I just can't make up my mind which category he belongs to.

Edited September 11, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

Lol.  During the debate and in his rallies, Ford had repeatedly said that if he becomes Premier,  he'll talk to people - those in the front lines - to know where he can make things more efficient.

 

For the life of me.........

 

....how can anyone with a rational mind, ever expect him to campaign on particulars and specifics.......... if he has  yet to consult with those in the front lines -  those very ones who should know?????

Edited September 11, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

1. We have had a left-centre-left dictatorship for the last dozen years in Ontario and that never bothered you.

2. Nor does this seem like a 'power grab' since the province's power over municipalities is and always has been absolute.  

3. And what's with the end of the world attitude? God, you guys on the Left get so worked up over nothing.

1. Why is that a dictatorship ?  I think what we may need now is a real dictatorship.  Ford has shown that he will get the people to support rule by decree.  The next Liberal leader should consider jailing him and banning the PC party.  Of course, they could use Notwithstanding against any court challenges.

2. The power grab is not against municipalities, but against the courts.

3. I guess you don't have the vision to see where this is going.  This means that the next Liberal government will do the things that the right has always accused them of considering.  Of course, you are going to expect me to speak up when they start doing this.  But now you will stay silent as Emperor Doug openly states that he overrules the courts.

What about the next Liberal government demanding the PC government split into two parties, and jailing anyone who states otherwise ?  Don't like it ?  Notwithstanding !

And, again, you are counting on people like me to say something which of course I will.  Your hypocrisy is stunning.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

More and more, that over-reach has been transferred to the courts where they have incrementally read things into the Charter that are questionable at best.

Fair point, but in a country that has Liberal governments much of the time do you trust a system where the courts have no overruling powers ?

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Many feel that he is right, at least in principle. Not trying to "f*ck over the largest city in the Country". It is doing that already.

 

I'm talking about why the laws didn't specifically state what the Premier has the power to do and not do.  You can't write everything into legislation.  The main point is that we are now drifting towards government by decree.  How would you feel if a Liberal government declared that it is illegal to state anti-abortion views in public ?

I'm not talking about the hyperbolic shivering around limiting protest - I am talking about actually restricting freedom of speech.

[betsy]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 How would you feel if a Liberal government declared that it is illegal to state anti-abortion views in public ?

 

What party would do that???   Only the socialist-bent ones!

Edited September 11, 2018 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, turningrite said:

The "principle" you reference seems unclear to a lot of people. Is it the principle of payback, which many believe actually motivates Ford's reduction of council? Or is it the principle of provincial control over municipal affairs, which if applicable raises the question of why other municipalities, where councillors generally represent far fewer constituents, aren't being subjected to similar legislative interference?

As a long-time Torontonian, I tend to agree with reducing the size of city council but Ford didn't campaign on the issue, contrary to his bizarrely tangential assertion to the contrary. The basic problem here is changing election rules when an election is underway. It's difficult to imagine that a precedent exists in any Western jurisdiction to justify this.

I gave the example from someone who makes it very clear.

[OftenWrong]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm talking about why the laws didn't specifically state what the Premier has the power to do and not do.  You can't write everything into legislation.  The main point is that we are now drifting towards government by decree.  How would you feel if a Liberal government declared that it is illegal to state anti-abortion views in public ?

I'm not talking about the hyperbolic shivering around limiting protest - I am talking about actually restricting freedom of speech.

We have had government by decree for a while now. Maybe it didn't bother you because you liked those decrees. Many however did not, hence we now have Doug Ford.

CTV article shows that many people who know these laws quite well disagree with the judge's decision. 

Legal scholars surprised by judge's reasoning in Toronto council cuts decision