New Ontario Government 2018

[YZT580]

The problem with your statement is quite simple: if I agree with you than it would imply that we are conceding a significant level of wisdom to the authors of the charter and that is a scary thought

 

[FJAG]

The problem with your statement is quite simple: if I agree with you than it would imply that we are conceding a significant level of wisdom to the authors of the charter and that is a scary thought

The idea came from Peter Lougheed of Alberta and was supported by the western premiers in order to ensure parliamentary supremacy. Here's a short article in Lougheed's own words:

The Honourable E. Peter Lougheed
Why a Notwithstanding Clause?
Shortly after our government was sworn into office in September, 1971, I asked the new Attorney General, Merv Leitch, to prepare an Alberta Bill of Rights. This would be the first item of legislation to be introduced at the first session of the new Legislature in the spring of 1972.

Some weeks later Mr. Leitch asked to see me to discuss an important matter. He came to my office and described his progress in preparing Bill 1, the Alberta Bill of Rights. Merv said to me, "Premier, we will have to provide in this Bill for a notwithstanding clause!" I responded, "What the hell is a notwithstanding clause?"

Merv patiently explained to me that we needed to include a clause which allowed, if public policy dictated, for other Alberta laws to operate notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights. He explained that this was required in the event that either the government wished to propose legislation contrary or at odds with the rights or freedoms contained in the Alberta Bill of Rights or a court ruled that a particular piece of Alberta legislation was invalid because it purported to authorize the abrogation or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized and declared in the Alberta Bill of Rights. Thus came section 2 of the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Nine years later in Ottawa, in September 1980, at an open, televised First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution, Prime Minister Trudeau espoused the desirability of patriating the Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon, argued just as eloquently that such a Charter was not needed in Canada but that, in any event, the supremacy of Parliament should prevail over the appointed judiciary. I supported them on behalf of Albertans.

It was at this point that Merv Leitch engaged me in a private side discussion and suggested that I intervene by proposing a "notwithstanding clause" along the lines of section 2 of the Alberta Bill of Rights. I did so. My impression was that many around the table were not in any different a position than myself nine years earlier and were not knowledgeable about the concept. They did, though, couch their responses in more diplomatic language than I had done. In fact, a few said to me later that they had never heard of such a concept, although it had existed in obscurity in Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights for many years.

The concept, sometimes known as non-obstante, became an integral part of the constitutional drama that unfolded during the balance of 1980 and through 1981.

The final "deal" (sadly absent of Quebec) on November 5, 1981 was, as is almost always the case, a trade-off. Essentially Mr. Trudeau got his Charter of Rights and the Western Premiers got both the Alberta Amending Formula and a notwithstanding clause.

The notwithstanding clause reflects a balance between two competing interpretations of our democratic system. Canada has an historic tradition of parliamentary supremacy. This is reflected in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 which expresses the desire that the Dominion have a "constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom."

Prior to the Charter, the role of the courts was to give effect to the political choices made by the legislators. Subject only to issues relating to the division of powers, courts were bound by the idea that Parliament was supreme and the court's role of judicial review was limited. While the Charter raises to an unprecedented level the protection of rights and freedoms afforded to Canadians, it is acknowledged that democratic society sometimes requires the abrogation of these rights for important reasons.

Through the notwithstanding clause, Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare that legislation passed by it shall operate notwithstanding the fundamental freedoms (of conscience and religion, thought and expression, assembly and association), legal rights or the equality rights guaranteed by the Charter. To invoke the notwithstanding clause, the legislature must make an express declaration that it is overriding a particular right or rights in the Charter.

There are limits to the use of the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 does not affect the guarantee of rights and freedoms in section 1, Democratic Rights (section 3-5), Mobility Rights (section 6), Official Languages of Canada (sections 16-22), and Minority Language Educational Rights (section 23).

As well, a declaration that legislation shall operate notwithstanding the Charter automatically ceases to have effect five years after its enactment. The declaration may be re-enacted, compelling the government invoking section 33 to review its use and subjecting the express infringement to renewed public scrutiny every five years.

In Canada, the debate regarding the notwithstanding clause continues. Is this provision a loophole that devalues and dilutes individual rights permitting abuses by legislators? Reference could be made to the Japanese internment during World War II, the head tax on Chinese immigrants during the early part of this century or the suspension of rights pursuant to the War Measures Act. Or, is section 33 an essential safety valve and check on the power of the judiciary in a system with a tradition of legislative supremacy?

The purpose of the override is to provide an opportunity for the responsible and accountable public discussion of rights issues, and this might be undermined if legislators are free to use the override without open discussion and deliberation of the specifics of its use. There is little room to doubt that, when defying the Supreme Court, as well as overriding a pronounced right, a legislature should consider the importance of the right involved, the objective of the stricken legislation, the availability of other, less intrusive, means of reaching the same policy objective, and a host of other issues. It should not only be the responsibility of the Courts to determine whether a limit is reasonable or demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. If a legislature wishes to take issue with the Court's determination, it too should be required to consider whether the limit is one that is justifiable in a free and democratic society.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161107160251/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rights-and-freedoms/023021-1400-e.html

I've always thought that the provision (as well as the S1 "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" provision) was a good balancing act. IMHO there were some fairly bright guys involved on both sides in working out the various compromises.

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ontario Liberals understated their deficits?
Hard to believe.

Wynne’s Liberals “cooked the books”, left deficit 224% larger than reported


The Progressive Conservative government announced the independent inquiry in July and tasked it with probing the Liberal regime’s accounting methods surrounding a pair of teacher pension plans and the province’s Fair Hydro Plan.

Those accounting practices led to a two-year fight with Ontario’s auditor general, who said in April that the Liberals understated their deficits by billions.

https://thenectarine.ca/politics/wynnes-liberals-cooked-the-books-left-deficit-224-larger-than-reported/

 

[Brad Sallows]

The chief role of a constitution is to set impenetrable limits on government, especially with regard to rights of the person.  A "notwithstanding" clause is a mockery.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ontario Liberals understated their deficits?
Hard to believe.


https://thenectarine.ca/politics/wynnes-liberals-cooked-the-books-left-deficit-224-larger-than-reported/

Thats crazy, no wait is that not criminal ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thats crazy, no wait is that not criminal ?

Naw they just used a different way to count money. You know, so it doesn't look as bad.

They're not even trying to hide their lies anymore.

http://brianlilley.com/ontarios-liberals-admit-they-lied-for-years/

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

So far as I can tell, the  PCPO seemed careful to avoid having a detailed platform at all. All they needed was a person who could stand upright and had a pulse. Sort of like a crash test dummy that is alive. A highly intellectual leader would have made informed statements that for very many would be unforgettable and not forgivable. With Doug, at least those who elected him got neither a philosopher or a village idiot. They got Doug.

 

[FJAG]

Good news in Ontario

Ontario Drive Clean Program Cancelled By PC Government

This crappy piece of legislation had long ago outlived it's usefulness. The Liberals recognized that the public hated it when it decided to make the tests free. They hung on to it, however, making it a public expense to the tune of about $40 million per year. The new program will focus on the heavy truck industry where it ought to be.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/28/ontario-drive-clean-program-cancelled-by-pc-government_a_23545199/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How do you mess with the charter when the action you take is empowered by the charter?

Intellectuals don't bother with legalities. If it fits their agenda, that's the answer. When they need to, they'll haul out the same Charter to bash you over the head with, because now it fits what they want.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Visited someone in the hospital not too long ago. They were getting their stomach cut open and had to spend 4-5 days in the hospital before the operation. Spent the whole time laying in a shitty hospital bed in the hall way, it was like seeing a sick animal at the zoo. Zero privacy. 

Pretty happy to read this story this morning


HEALTHFord government increases hospital funding by $90 million to address overcrowding
https://thenectarine.ca/news/ford-government-increases-hospital-funding-by-90-million-to-address-overcrowding/

 

[mariomike]

HEALTHFord government increases hospital funding by $90 million to address overcrowding
https://thenectarine.ca/news/ford-government-increases-hospital-funding-by-90-million-to-address-overcrowding/

Opinions,

QUOTE

TORONTO, Oct. 03, 2018

Doug Ford cuts hospital beds and funding – calls it an increase, says Ontario Health Coalition
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/03/1601051/0/en/Doug-Ford-cuts-hospital-beds-and-funding-calls-it-an-increase-says-Ontario-Health-Coalition.html

END QUOTE

QUOTE

TORONTO, Oct. 3, 2018

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario ( RNAO )

Adding flu season surge capacity to hospitals will not resolve hallway health care
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/adding-flu-season-surge-capacity-to-hospitals-will-not-resolve-hallway-health-care-695097571.html
"On a day that the government announced it would address hallway health care, its officials ordered Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) staff to leave the media conference, stranding President Angela Cooper Brathwaite in a hallway at Queen's Park."

"RNAO says the $90 million to add beds falls far short of the $187 million the Kathleen Wynne government promised to spend in the 2018-2019 budget year before losing power in the June provincial election."

END QUOTE

 

[Jarnhamar]

I  was going to say wow those are two very different takes.  Sorry but as it were I have a little more faith that the hospitals will see the 90 million Ford is promising than the 187 million Wynne promised. 

 

[mariomike]

Nothing new about "hallway medicine". We called it "the Hall of Shame".

The official name is Off-Load Delay ( OLD ).

In Metro, OLD increased from 35 minutes in 2000 to 70 minutes by 2008. I retired in 2009.

The OLD standard is 30 minutes. With our growing and aging population, OLD will remain a challenge.

The Community Paramedicine Program provides the most appropriate patient treatment and reduces trips to the ER. This in turn helps reduce "hallway medicine". That's the theory, anyway.

 

[Remius]

I  was going to say wow those are two very different takes.  Sorry but as it were I have a little more faith that the hospitals will see the 90 million Ford is promising than the 187 million Wynne promised.

It’s 187 million the Liberals didn’t have nor was willing to find.  With Ford I think it is 90 million he’ll find.

 

[mariomike]

Regarding the future of health care in Ontario, and the Ontario Conservative Party, this was written just before the election.

Have to see how it goes this time around.

QUOTE

For the last 20 years health care has been the Tories' biggest image issue, with memories still sharp of the 1990s when the Mike Harris government ordered 28 hospitals closed and fired 6,000 nurses.

Harris ignited a firestorm of protests when he suggested nurses were as obsolete as hula-hoop makers. "Just as hula hoops went out and those workers had to have a factory and a company that would manufacture something else that's in, it's the same for government," Harris said.
https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/8628234-if-ford-wins-prepare-for-even-harder-times-in-health-care/

END QUOTE

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ontario bill aims to strip returning terrorists of provincial privileges

With a quarter of the nearly 200 Canadian members of overseas terrorist groups returning home and at least a dozen more held in Syrian detentions camps, an impending private-members bill will ensure they’re not entitled to benefits enjoyed by law-abiding Ontarians, the Sun has learned.

Set to be tabled at Queen’s Park next week, the Terrorist Activity Sanctions Act targets those who’ve carried out terrorist acts abroad and excludes them from such privileges as holding an Ontario driver’s licence or accessing provincial health coverage.



https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-bill-aims-to-strip-returning-terrorists-of-provincial-privileges?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1539995227

 

[blacktriangle]

Thanks for sharing that Jarnhamar. I hope it goes through.

I'd also like Ontario to consider a registry for terrorists. I think communities deserve to know who they have in their midst.

 

[mariomike]

Saw that on CP24.

They said, "It's not clear how the proposed Bill will work if the alleged offenders are not convicted of any crimes in court."

 

[blacktriangle]

How it will work? They will be move in next door to you and your family. That's how it will work.

How does that make you feel?

 

[mariomike]

They will be move in next door to you and your family.

That's not what CP24 said,

QUOTE

"It's not clear how the proposed Bill will work if the alleged offenders are not convicted of any crimes in court."

END QUOTE

The proposed Bill ( Reply #255 ) is only about driver’s licence and health coverage.

Nothing in it about where people can, or can not, live.