New Ontario Government 2018

[Jarnhamar]

Half the population of Ontario lives in the GTA ( Halton, Peel, York, Durham and Toronto ).

Is Toronto the provincial epicenter for our economy as well?  Like, is Toronto responsible for most of our revenue or whatever its called?

 

[mariomike]

Is Toronto the provincial epicenter for our economy as well?

You can look that up for yourself,
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&ei=ZYajW6DiMauLjwT4l4WACw&q=toronto+%22economic+engine%22&oq=toronto+%22economic+engine%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0i22i30k1.27615.31297.0.33720.2.2.0.0.0.0.91.176.2.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.2.172...0i30k1.0.Q6CNr9W2fYw

My reply was to this,

The GTA is by far the electoral powerhouse in Ontario < snip >

I'm not an economist. But, I can offer a couple of anecdotal examples about jobs and property values,

When Ontario forced Metro to rescind the Residency Requirement for our city emergency services ( prior to that, recruits had to be long term Metro residents ), it was/is amazing how many applicants suddenly flooded in from out of town,

eg: "I found it interesting that those fire fighters with many years experience with a full-time fire department elsewhere were willing to leave to pursue there ( sic ) “dreams” as they put it and work for Toronto Fire. It made me feel a little bit special that I have been a part of an organization that others envy and want to be a part of as well."
https://www.torontofirefighters.org/wp-content/uploads/firewatch/Spring2009.pdf
Secretary - Treasurer,
Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association
I.A.F.F. Local 3888

At least in my neighbourhood, property values have increased substantially over the years.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Well, maybe you can help me with my maths then.

Empire Toronto makes up almost 50% of Ontario's population.

The Liberals sucked so bad that they even lost their party status.

So not just 'the rest' of Ontario wanted Ford elected but a good chunk of Toronto as well?

 

[mariomike]

Empire Toronto makes up almost 50% of Ontario's population.

You use the word "Empire" about Toronto. I suggest you look up the meaning.

So not just 'the rest' of Ontario wanted Ford elected but a good chunk of Toronto as well?

Toronto rejected Ford Nation years ago.

In 2013, City Council removed Rob's powers as Mayor of Toronto and transferred them to Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly.

As a matter of public safety, this included his power to govern the city during a state of emergency.

Rob likened it to a coup d'état and compared his situation with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, promising "outright war" in response to the councillors who voted to remove his powers.

I guess, in a way, he is getting karma on the city from the grave.

Add to that, the humiliation of Doug's defeat by John Tory in the 2014 mayoral election.

Reply #210

It would have been nice if Doug had mentioned to Toronto voters that he was going to take an axe to their council before the provincial election.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You use the word "Empire" about Toronto. I suggest you look up the meaning.

1. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
2.an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group.

So like a bunch of smaller cities ruled by by an oligarchy ( a small group of people having control of a country or organization.

Seems accurate enough to me.

Toronto rejected Ford Nation years ago.

Did they?  If Toronto makes up half of Ontario's population, and you've provided an excellent source supporting that, why then did Ford have such a sweeping victory? Why did the Liberals lose their party status?

Did all or even most of Toronto vote Liberal?

 

[mariomike]

1. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
2.an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group.

So like a bunch of smaller cities ruled by by an oligarchy ( a small group of people having control of a country or organization.

Seems accurate enough to me.

Must I remind you, again, that our Emperor mayor at City Hall can't even install a speed bump without permission from the Emperor premier at Queen's Park.

If you want to call people and places empires and emperors, you should read this,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-premier-powers-1.4764817

Seems accurate enough to me.
Did they?  If Toronto makes up half of Ontario's population, and you've provided an excellent source supporting that, why then did Ford have such a sweeping victory? Why did the Liberals lose their party status?

Did all or even most of Toronto vote Liberal?

I don't follow party politics.

As far as I am concerned, ( I'll say it again ) there is no Liberal or Conservative way to fix a sewer.

So not just 'the rest' of Ontario wanted Ford elected but a good chunk of Toronto as well?

You asked. I answered. Toronto rejected Rob ( 2013 ) and Doug ( 2014 ) Ford.

As far as party politics are concerned, I suspect people who are going to vote Conservative are going to vote Conservative no matter who is running the party. Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ...

My question would be, did the Conservatives get in because of Doug, or in spite of Doug?

Compared to Toronto's 2014 mayoral election, Doug's time on the provincial campaign trail was a lot shorter.

He also seemed relatively subdued compared to his behavior at City Hall and during the mayoral election campaign.

Perhaps he understood, or it was explained to him, that unlike municipal politics, the election is less about him, and more about the party. The Conservatives seemed likely to get in even before Doug hit the provincial campaign trail.

 

[Remius]

They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.

 

[mariomike]

They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.

My uneducated guess is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.

 

[YZT580]

My uneducated [ctiolor=yellow]guess[/color] is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.

Quite likely they would have succeeded but Toronto voted for the party WITH Doug and, since they had seen him in action in city council they knew exactly what they were voting for. 

 

[mariomike]

Quite likely they would have succeeded but Toronto voted for the party WITH Doug and, since they had seen him in action in city council they knew exactly what they were voting for.

As someone eligible to vote in Toronto elections, I do not recall Doug mentioning his intent to immediately cut our council in half before our fall municipal election.

I also do not recall him threatening the use the Notwithstanding Clause ( as if anyone ever heard of it, because it has never been used in Ontario ) if he does not get his way with City Hall.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My uneducated guess is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.

In Canada, most governments are "unelected" rather than governments getting elected, the other party just wins by just not being the party currently out of favour.

 

[mariomike]

In Canada, most governments are "unelected" rather than governments getting elected, the other party just wins by just not being the party currently out of favour.

From what I have read, it sounds like the Conservatives were going to get in - with or without Doug.

Someone put it this way,

They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.

 

[Furniture]

As someone eligible to vote in Toronto elections, I do not recall Doug mentioning his intent to immediately cut our council in half before our fall municipal election.

I also do not recall him threatening the use the Notwithstanding Clause ( as if anyone ever heard of it, because it has never been used in Ontario ) if he does not get his way with City Hall.

Lack of knowledge of the "not withstanding" clause is more likely due to a lack of awareness of politics in areas outside the centre of the universe. It's been discussed at length in the media  whenever it's brought up by a politician, particularly one the media doesn't like.

Toronto's urban progressives will get back in power some day again, and I'm sure they'll go back to pandering to urbanites. Maybe expanding city councils will be their number one priority, or maybe a 25 member city council will be great and all the fuss will have been for nothing.

 

[Remius]

People and parties in power have all sorts of tools they can use.  The notwithstanding clause, prorogation, recalling parliament etc etc.  We should always assume that they will use any one of those things to further their agenda or what they think is right. 

 

[YZT580]

The not withstanding clause should be used more frequently than it has been.  It was placed there in the first place to prevent the courts from becoming the de facto legislators.  It protects us from having an un-elected organisation deciding what is 'democratic' or reading intent into legislation that was never intended.  I am actually grateful that an elected official had the guts to actually use it and in retrospect the ruling from the court of appeal upheld Ford's position (fair or not). 

 

[Furniture]

The not withstanding clause should be used more frequently than it has been.  It was placed there in the first place to prevent the courts from becoming the de facto legislators.  It protects us from having an un-elected organisation deciding what is 'democratic' or reading intent into legislation that was never intended.  I am actually grateful that an elected official had the guts to actually use it and in retrospect the ruling from the court of appeal upheld Ford's position (fair or not).

My position on this is similar, it's a legitimate tool placed in the constitution to prevent abuse of power by the courts. The judge that ruled against the provincial government used a weak argument to try to prevent an elected government from doing what is completely in it's power to do.


Normally it seems the Canadian courts appear free of politics(to me at least), hopefully they can stay that way. Making decisions that appear politically driven diminishes the respect people have for the courts.

 

[FJAG]

My position on this is similar, it's a legitimate tool placed in the constitution to prevent abuse of power by the courts. The judge that ruled against the provincial government used a weak argument to try to prevent an elected government from doing what is completely in it's power to do.


Normally it seems the Canadian courts appear free of politics(to me at least), hopefully they can stay that way. Making decisions that appear politically driven diminishes the respect people have for the courts.

For the life of me I can't understand why so many here are fixated on the notion that there is an "abuse of power by the courts".

I won't rehash my views on this but to set matters straight, the "notwithstanding clause" provisions are designed to enshrine the British system of "parliamentary supremacy" so that ultimately, when a legislature thinks that an issue is important enough, they can temporarily enact a measure even if the measure is contrary to the Charter. Think of the Parti Quebeqois use of the clause in the early 1980s when every law they passed (as well as retroactively to all prior laws passed in Quebec) was made using the "notwithstanding" clause because they wanted to ensure that no Quebec law could ever be challenged in court. In effect they wanted to preempt the courts from challenging any Quebec law under the Charter.

Remember too that any use of the clause is limited to a five year term expressly to ensure that there will be an election before the clause can be reused so that the people have an opportunity to also voice their opinion through their vote on the issue.

Courts and legislatures each have their respective roles in an effort to have checks and balances in place. There is a much greater potential for elected officials to abuse their "powers" to further their party's agenda then there is for a tenured-for-life judge.

The judge in this case got it wrong. He tried to equate "unfair" with "unconstitutional". In short order, the Court of Appeal told him so. The system worked. In four years or so the electors of Toronto can tell Ford what they thought about him on this issue one way or the other. That too is the system working.

[cheers]

 

[Furniture]

For the life of me I can't understand why so many here are fixated on the notion that there is an "abuse of power by the courts".

I won't rehash my views on this but to set matters straight, the "notwithstanding clause" provisions are designed to enshrine the British system of "parliamentary supremacy" so that ultimately, when a legislature thinks that an issue is important enough, they can temporarily enact a measure even if the measure is contrary to the Charter. Think of the Parti Quebeqois use of the clause in the early 1980s when every law they passed (as well as retroactively to all prior laws passed in Quebec) was made using the "notwithstanding" clause because they wanted to ensure that no Quebec law could ever be challenged in court. In effect they wanted to preempt the courts from challenging any Quebec law under the Charter.

Remember too that any use of the clause is limited to a five year term expressly to ensure that there will be an election before the clause can be reused so that the people have an opportunity to also voice their opinion through their vote on the issue.

Courts and legislatures each have their respective roles in an effort to have checks and balances in place. There is a much greater potential for elected officials to abuse their "powers" to further their party's agenda then there is for a tenured-for-life judge.

The judge in this case got it wrong. He tried to equate "unfair" with "unconstitutional". In short order, the Court of Appeal told him so. The system worked. In four years or so the electors of Toronto can tell Ford what they thought about him on this issue one way or the other. That too is the system working.

[cheers]

I suppose I was going for brevity over clarity in the quoted post, I don't think there was an abuse of power in this case. Just  saying that the clause exists to place a check on the power of the courts, just as the courts are a check on the parliaments, as you said much more eloquently.  :bowdown:

 

[YZT580]

FJAG, your logic is correct.  BUT using the same reasoning, the use of the not withstanding clause is a constitutional tool to ensure exactly the same result.  It can prevent the courts from having an unreasonable say in the way that the province or country is being governed.  It allows for the government to make a decision, the justice department to reject it, the government to apply the not withstanding clause and then the people to decide whether the government or the courts were correct.  It may not be a perfect check and balance but it covers most bases.  So I say again, I am very grateful that we had an elected official who was willing to go against the courts.  That is the way it is supposed to work and not just give in to the court's decision every time which is what has been happening. 

 

[FJAG]

FJAG, your logic is correct.  BUT using the same reasoning, the use of the not withstanding clause is a constitutional tool to ensure exactly the same result.  It can prevent the courts from having an unreasonable say in the way that the province or country is being governed.  It allows for the government to make a decision, the justice department to reject it, the government to apply the not withstanding clause and then the people to decide whether the government or the courts were correct.  It may not be a perfect check and balance but it covers most bases.  So I say again, I am very grateful that we had an elected official who was willing to go against the courts.  That is the way it is supposed to work and not just give in to the court's decision every time which is what has been happening. 

I suppose I was going for brevity over clarity in the quoted post, I don't think there was an abuse of power in this case. Just  saying that the clause exists to place a check on the power of the courts, just as the courts are a check on the parliaments, as you said much more eloquently.  :bowdown:

The difference in our points of view is that I do not think that the "notwithstanding clause" was designed as a check on the courts (whether reasonable or unreasonable).

What the clause is, IMHO, is a check on the Charter itself. It's a tool that the legislatures gave themselves where any one of them can say: 'this legislation that we are passing is more important than a specific provision of the Charter and we're prepared to put our political reputation/future on the line over this issue'. The legislature can use the clause either retroactively where a court has interpreted a specific statute component as contravening the Charter or proactively, like in Quebec, to give a piece of legislation immunity from a challenge where they know it is going to be in contravention of the Charter even before a court deals with the issue.

:cheers: