Agreed. The not withstanding clause should have been used long ago. The judges have built themselves up to the point where it is their rulings that dictate the law rather than parliaments and that isn't the way it is supposed to be. In many rulings, their personal bias shows through. The decision re|: the pipeline being one glaring example.
New Ontario Government 2018
- Thread starter MARS
- Start date
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
Time for me to pipe up again.
There is no "war" between the elected officials and the courts. Firstly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by legislatures and declared by them to be the supreme law of the land and that all other laws need to be subordinate to it. The judges are also appointed by the legislatures (or more accurately by the cabinets/premiers/prime minister) for the express purpose of settling disputes between the citizens and between citizens and the state. In that respect the judges that you get are the ones that the legislatures have deemed to be the ones to best do the job (and yes, conservative legislatures appoint conservative judges and liberal legislatures liberal ones and, provincially, socialist legislatures socialist ones. Legislatures reap what they sow.
Once appointed, the judges are quite constrained in their job of interpreting the laws that legislatures make. They must abide firstly by the constitution itself, secondly by the legislation and thirdly (or concurrently) by the rulings of courts higher than they are.
Sometimes judges do screw up. That's why you have appeal courts. Two levels of appeal courts so that laws within a province are consistently applied throughout the province and nationally so that laws which have national import are applied consistently across the nation.
Sometimes legislatures (or more accurately the various departments and ministers of justice that draft the laws) screw it up. Toews was famous for consistently drawing up criminal laws that pretty much everyone knew would never pass muster but they voted on them and put them out there anyway only to have them struck down afterwards.
In the long run, legislatures do remain supreme. They can change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enough of them want to; so far they haven't wanted to do that. They can use the "notwithstanding" clause if an issue is important enough to them. The clause was specifically introduced at the urging of Peter Lougheed who, like others, felt that without it the legislatures would, in fact, loose the final word to the courts. It was part of the "Kitchen Accord" which caused almost everyone (remember Rene Levesque) to sign on to the new Charter. Trudeau's daddy didn't like the clause and blamed Chretien for it being there.
Anyway, that's a long way around to saying that it isn't so much judges who are "building themselves up" as it is legislatures that are basically passing poorly conceived or worded laws which contravene the constitutional legislation that they themselves have created. Sometimes they need to be told to fine tune what they've created. It's generally not hard to amend legislation so that it complies with the Charter and this goes on all the time. The trouble is politicians have no restraints in whining when they think their toes have been stepped on and that always makes good press. Judges on the other hand speak only through their judgements and, generally, only a handful of people read those and most reporters only look for the easy soundbites in the judgements (when they understand them at all)
I personally don't disagree with Ford's wanting to use the "notwithstanding clause". There simply isn't time to run through the appeal process and quite frankly, as I said above, I happen to think this judge reached too far. It comes with a risk though but that's a political decision and not a legal one. I really couldn't give a rat's a** about Toronto's city council and wish that my party spent some time trying to figure out why it continues to support the dairy cartel (when it's philosophically counter to conservative thinking; I think they are kowtowing gutlessly to a tiny part of the farm sector) or why we have our shorts in a knot over a school sex education program which wasn't really a problem and was only offensive to a fraction of the conservative base (but that was the platform so go to it)
:cheers:
There is no "war" between the elected officials and the courts. Firstly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by legislatures and declared by them to be the supreme law of the land and that all other laws need to be subordinate to it. The judges are also appointed by the legislatures (or more accurately by the cabinets/premiers/prime minister) for the express purpose of settling disputes between the citizens and between citizens and the state. In that respect the judges that you get are the ones that the legislatures have deemed to be the ones to best do the job (and yes, conservative legislatures appoint conservative judges and liberal legislatures liberal ones and, provincially, socialist legislatures socialist ones. Legislatures reap what they sow.
Once appointed, the judges are quite constrained in their job of interpreting the laws that legislatures make. They must abide firstly by the constitution itself, secondly by the legislation and thirdly (or concurrently) by the rulings of courts higher than they are.
Sometimes judges do screw up. That's why you have appeal courts. Two levels of appeal courts so that laws within a province are consistently applied throughout the province and nationally so that laws which have national import are applied consistently across the nation.
Sometimes legislatures (or more accurately the various departments and ministers of justice that draft the laws) screw it up. Toews was famous for consistently drawing up criminal laws that pretty much everyone knew would never pass muster but they voted on them and put them out there anyway only to have them struck down afterwards.
In the long run, legislatures do remain supreme. They can change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enough of them want to; so far they haven't wanted to do that. They can use the "notwithstanding" clause if an issue is important enough to them. The clause was specifically introduced at the urging of Peter Lougheed who, like others, felt that without it the legislatures would, in fact, loose the final word to the courts. It was part of the "Kitchen Accord" which caused almost everyone (remember Rene Levesque) to sign on to the new Charter. Trudeau's daddy didn't like the clause and blamed Chretien for it being there.
Anyway, that's a long way around to saying that it isn't so much judges who are "building themselves up" as it is legislatures that are basically passing poorly conceived or worded laws which contravene the constitutional legislation that they themselves have created. Sometimes they need to be told to fine tune what they've created. It's generally not hard to amend legislation so that it complies with the Charter and this goes on all the time. The trouble is politicians have no restraints in whining when they think their toes have been stepped on and that always makes good press. Judges on the other hand speak only through their judgements and, generally, only a handful of people read those and most reporters only look for the easy soundbites in the judgements (when they understand them at all)
I personally don't disagree with Ford's wanting to use the "notwithstanding clause". There simply isn't time to run through the appeal process and quite frankly, as I said above, I happen to think this judge reached too far. It comes with a risk though but that's a political decision and not a legal one. I really couldn't give a rat's a** about Toronto's city council and wish that my party spent some time trying to figure out why it continues to support the dairy cartel (when it's philosophically counter to conservative thinking; I think they are kowtowing gutlessly to a tiny part of the farm sector) or why we have our shorts in a knot over a school sex education program which wasn't really a problem and was only offensive to a fraction of the conservative base (but that was the platform so go to it)
:cheers:
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Another view on the matter and about another "notwithstanding clause"
http://brianlilley.com/judges-have-their-own-notwithstanding-clause/
http://brianlilley.com/judges-have-their-own-notwithstanding-clause/
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,046
- Points
- 1,160
I read Los Angeles has twice Toronto's population and only 15 councilors. Vancouver has 11.
The biggest complaint in my opinion seems to be that there are too many politicians in Toronto to get anything done in a timely manner.
So personal feelings about Ford aside, is he right?
IS there too many councilors to get anything done?
Will cutting the numbers in half improve the system?
Ford talked about reducing the government, kind of sounds exactly what he's trying to do.
The biggest complaint in my opinion seems to be that there are too many politicians in Toronto to get anything done in a timely manner.
So personal feelings about Ford aside, is he right?
IS there too many councilors to get anything done?
Will cutting the numbers in half improve the system?
Ford talked about reducing the government, kind of sounds exactly what he's trying to do.
- Reaction score
- 4,709
- Points
- 1,160
Especially when each Toronto councilor gets paid $192K a year. I can see why they're making a big stink about having more competition for their jobs.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
PuckChaser said:
QUOTE
CBC
Apr 09, 2018
A Toronto city councillor's pay is about $112,000.
Mayor John Tory topped out at $192,503, according to his office. That's less than some 905 councillors took home last year.
Some councillors from smaller GTA municipalities making big bucks
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/some-councillors-from-smaller-gta-municipalities-making-big-bucks-1.4609427
END QUOTE
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:
mariomike said:
Jarnhamar said:
QUOTE
Vancouver Sun
Compared to elsewhere, Toronto doesn't actually have all that many city councillors
https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/toronto-doesnt-actually-have-all-that-many-city-councillors/wcm/bba005bb-aa30-4996-810c-0d5ca4dd5f54?video_autoplay=true
Even with its giant city council, the city has fewer politicians per person than almost anywhere else in Canada
When ranked against other major Canadian cities, Torontonians already have fewer councillors than almost anyone else.
Should Ford be successful in reducing the number of councillors from 44 to 25 plus a mayor, the city would have an average of one elected municipal representative for every 105,060 people.
In Metro Vancouver, by contrast, there are currently 15,893 people per elected municipal representative. Having never faced regional amalgamation, the Vancouver area is still governed by a patchwork of city, town, village and district governments.
Roll them all together and Metro Vancouver has 21 mayors and 94 total councillors — not including the chiefs and councillors of the city’s First Nations.
END QUOTE
Jarnhamar said:
L.A. is a really bad example to use. They are the highest paid council in the US. They actually get paid more than the Governor of the state. About 185,000 USD a year plus an additional 100, 000$ no questions asked slush fund. To top it off they get about 20 or so staff with around 8 cars per councillor. And don't forget that there are around 97 neighbourhood councils as well.
Toronto is a bargain by comparison with three times the councillors.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,739
- Points
- 1,040
Is the $112K just pay, or total compensation (ie. benefits including pension, if any)?
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
Brad Sallows said:
See,
https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/council/policies-and-guidelines/
They have to get re-elected every four years.
Whereas, it's almost impossible to throw out a unionized City employee - unless they become a public disgrace.
City of Vancouver has 11 councillors (incl mayor) for a population of approx 635,000 people. That's 1 representative for every 57,700 residents.
Using this equation, Toronto, with a population of 2.7 million residents, ought to have 47 councillors.
What exactly is the problem?
Using this equation, Toronto, with a population of 2.7 million residents, ought to have 47 councillors.
What exactly is the problem?
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
mick said:
According to the Vancouver Sun,
QUOTE
https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/toronto-doesnt-actually-have-all-that-many-city-councillors/wcm/bba005bb-aa30-4996-810c-0d5ca4dd5f54?video_autoplay=true
In Metro Vancouver, by contrast, there are currently 15,893 people per elected municipal representative. Having never faced regional amalgamation, the Vancouver area is still governed by a patchwork of city, town, village and district governments.
Roll them all together and Metro Vancouver has 21 mayors and 94 total councillors — not including the chiefs and councillors of the city’s First Nations.
END QUOTE
Maybe it is possible to be relatively over-represented, but I don't think it's just a simple matter of cutting a deliberative body in half in the name of saving money, or for the notion of making consensus easier or decision-making less burdensome.
A larger, more diverse population will always be more difficult to democratically empower, compared to a smaller population. Larger population = more representation.
I agree that it's possible to tweak / overhaul the status quo, but slashing by 50 percent - with no studies or research to justify it - seems a bit arbitrary.
A larger, more diverse population will always be more difficult to democratically empower, compared to a smaller population. Larger population = more representation.
I agree that it's possible to tweak / overhaul the status quo, but slashing by 50 percent - with no studies or research to justify it - seems a bit arbitrary.
- Reaction score
- 1,512
- Points
- 1,260
Jarnhamar said:
Why?
Jarnhamar said:
The work will always get done. Depends on how long the taxpayers are willing to wait, and what level of service they expect.
We could ask the same question, "How many police officers, firefighters and paramedics does the city need?"
The taxpayers get the level of protection and service that they pay for.
Former ( Conservative ) Ontario premier Bill Davis: Ford wrong to use notwithstanding clause
https://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/former-ontario-premier-bill-davis-ford-wrong-to-use-notwithstanding-clause
For reference to the discussion, prior to 1998, Toronto had well over 100 councillors, and six mayors and six city halls.
The geographic size remains the same now as it was prior to 1998. The geographic area remains the same now as it was in 1954.
I am sure the population has increased significantly since then, however.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,046
- Points
- 1,160
mariomike said:
Because the core of my question is will this action of cutting councilors actually improve the situation in Toronto or make it worse.
Common complaint, it takes forever to get anything done and there's too many hands in the pot. Will axeing these counclers fix that?
