[N_Fiddledog]

Doug Ford offers up his side of the story:

FORD: Priority lies in ending Toronto's council gridlock

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... s-gridlock

$1:

BY DOUG FORD

You don’t need to spend much time at city hall before realizing that Toronto’s government is completely dysfunctional.

The city is paralyzed by a bloated and inefficient council where debates can go on for days but no decisions ever get made.

It doesn’t matter if you are talking about David Miller, Rob Ford or John Tory. No matter who the mayor is, time and time again we see that transit, infrastructure and housing just cannot get built.

I was elected to deliver change that includes reducing the size and cost of government and actually getting transit, housing and infrastructure built. And 2.3 million Ontario voters agreed with our plan.


Getting those shovels in the ground will require more than just fancy speeches. It will require a partner at City Hall that is actually able to back up talk with real action.

That’s why our government introduced the Better Local Government Act in July. This Act would have reduced the size of Toronto City Council to put an end to the gridlock that is paralyzing the city.

The Act would have taken $25 million that are currently going to politicians, and allow this money to be spent on the real priorities of Toronto families.

In fact, the people most loudly fighting against the Better Local Government Act are a handful of left-wing city councillors who are desperately trying to save their taxpayer-funded jobs along with a network of activists and special interests who have entrenched their power under the status quo.

Unfortunately, this week a Toronto judge found in favour of these councillors and activists and their attempts to block our efforts to put an end to the gridlock at Toronto City Council. He did so despite the fact that many legal experts, including those who do not support our government, had already agreed that our law was constitutional.

We think this judgment is wrong. That’s why our government is appealing this decision to Ontario’s Court of Appeal..

At the same time, while this appeal takes place we need to take additional action to ensure Toronto’s elections can proceed on time.

That is why we are also invoking Section 33 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 33 of the Charter ensures democratically elected governments can continue to deliver on their commitments. By using section 33 in this way we are protecting the democratic rights of the people.

Because in Ontario, and in Canada, the rule is simple.

If you want to make laws, you first need put your name on a ballot and win a mandate from the people.

Our government won a mandate from the people, and we will fight to ensure the will of the people is heard. It will be the people who decide whether we have been successful in getting things built.

And it will be the people who will be the ultimate judge of our government when we seek re-election in four years’ time.

— Doug Ford is the Premier of Ontario

[llama66]

"the people"

[BeaverFever]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I never said Ford broke any law. I said he has no respect for the rule of law and his going nuclear in such a trivial issue is proof.

The judge is neither an “activist” nor is he “re-writing laws” or have a “political agenda”. He made a ruling you didn’t like, which may likely be overturned on appeal. It happens Get over it.

Ironically while Ford and his followers falsely and incorrectly claim courts have no business overruling elected government, Ford is taking the federal government to court, demanding that an “appointed judge” will overturn the carbon tax laws of Trudeau’s elected government. Just let that sink in for a while

I suggest you read this.....

$1:

People often make the mistake of calling judicial decisions they disagree with activist. This is not one of those cases. Because the judge couldn’t invoke s3 of the Charter (which doesn’t apply to municipalities), he wrote himself a new Charter in which s2 does the work of s3.

The judge even goes out of his way up front to invoke the idea of judicial restraint, like a talisman against accusation of activism. The Supreme Court of Canada likes to do this too ... and it is invariably a sign that the Court is about to overstep its constitutional bounds.

So the judge solemnly intones: "I am acutely aware of the appropriate role of the court in reviewing duly enacted federal or provincial legislation and the importance of judges exercising judicial deference and restraint." Then the rest of the opinion is one long "BUT ..."

Having conceded Bill 5 "appears to fall squarely within the province’s legislative competence," the Court nevertheless invalidates it on two grounds: (1) the freedom of expression of candidates and (2) voters' right to cast a ballot that results in "effective representation."

The first of these arguments never bothers to establish its underlying premise, viz., that a political candidates' freedom of expression is relevant because it relates to running in a specific election, the terms of which fall within the Province's authority to determine.

Instead, the judge inverts the logical order of his "argument," holding that because Bill 5 would impair the candidates' ability to talk about the election as it would have been contested with 47 wards, Bill 5 could not alter the terms of the election to cover only 25 wards.

This gets the constitutional argument backwards: if the Province has the power to alter the terms of the election by reducing the number of wards, as the court concedes it likely does (para.33), then candidates' expressive rights are limited to those new electoral conditions.

The court's second argument concerns political rights, which fall under s.3 of the Charter, which doesn't apply to municipal elections. This doesn't faze the judge, as he holds the underlying principles of s.3 can be transferred over to s.2's protection of freedom of expression.

Of course, this means that court's decision on this point rests on two inapplicable SCC precedents: a s.3 case (Sask. Ref.) that never once mentions s.2 and another (Haig) that explicitly rejected a s.2(b) argument, and an ONCA precedent (East York) that rejected a s.2 argument.

Finally, the court makes the gratuitous and unexpected finding that a ward with a population of 111,000 is too big to provide effective democratic representation. On this point, the court cites no relevant precedent; it's just tacked onto the end of the s.3 (ahem s.2) analysis.

This finding contradicts the court's earlier suggestion that Bill 5 would have been fine if it had been enacted well in advance of an election. The judge doesn't explain why 111,000-person wards are unconstitutional right now, but wouldn't be in six months, or six months ago.

But then there is a lot that isn't well thought out, consistent, or explained in the decision. It's almost as if, to borrow a phrase from para.70 of the ruling, the opinion was penned "more out of pique than principle." Definitely a candidate for invoking s.33.

Another option, that would be cheeky but would basically respect the court's ruling, would be for the province to pass a law delaying the election for six months and in the meantime imposing the same provisions as Bill 5.

So? That’s what appeals are for. That’s not the problem. The problem is use of notwithstanding, and to a slightly lesser extent why he couldn’t wait until the election was over before making the change and avoid this whole controversy in the first place.

[Thanos]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

In the final analysis the voters are always to blame, as much for their inaction as for the choices they make. Claims to anything otherwise make me kind of sick when I hear them.

Can the voters really be blamed if they only have a choice between 'bad', 'proven bad', and 'has no platform'?

Yup, because it's from the pool of the great unwashed that the better alternatives are supposed to come. Can't blame the existing politicians for doing what comes naturally to them if the public is now mentally incapable of offering up superior options to the usual dross.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So? That’s what appeals are for. That’s not the problem. The problem is use of notwithstanding, and to a slightly lesser extent why he couldn’t wait until the election was over before making the change and avoid this whole controversy in the first place.

Let's just be honest here.

The problem isn't that he used the notwithstanding clause. The problem is, it's Doug Ford making the decision. The use of the clause just makes you and the rest dig your claws in further.

Whether this went through the first try or on appeal, you wouldn't accept it nor would the lefties in Toronto.

I hear you and others suddenly so concerned with the Charter, democracy and fairness while you all sat on your hands and said fuck-all when the previous government was facing numerous court cases over bribery, breach of trust and who can forget the billion spent to buy some votes in Oakville? Or shutting down parliament to avoid scrutiny on these issues? And suddenly the left is the gatekeeper of our democracy, fairness and our rights? Yeah right.

The reason it's happening now is very simple. Waiting to change it until the next election means it will be at the end of Ford's government. If you want to get shit done as a Province and via Toronto, the time to cut the Council is now and get a full term out of the smaller government.

[BeaverFever]

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

So? That’s what appeals are for. That’s not the problem. The problem is use of notwithstanding, and to a slightly lesser extent why he couldn’t wait until the election was over before making the change and avoid this whole controversy in the first place.

Let's just be honest here.

The problem isn't that he used the notwithstanding clause. The problem is, it's Doug Ford making the decision. The use of the clause just makes you and the rest dig your claws in further.

Whether this went through the first try or on appeal, you wouldn't accept it nor would the lefties in Toronto.

I hear you and others suddenly so concerned with the Charter, democracy and fairness while you all sat on your hands and said fuck-all when the previous government was facing numerous court cases over bribery, breach of trust and who can forget the billion spent to buy some votes in Oakville? Or shutting down parliament to avoid scrutiny on these issues? And suddenly the left is the gatekeeper of our democracy, fairness and our rights? Yeah right.

The reason it's happening now is very simple. Waiting to change it until the next election means it will be at the end of Ford's government. If you want to get shit done as a Province and via Toronto, the time to cut the Council is now and get a full term out of the smaller government.

Spare me.

Opposition to Ford’s use of notwithstanding goes far beyond the liberal base and includes many conservatives

Changing council mid-election would be an asshole move on its own but using notwithstanding is what makes it an absolute outrage. So what if the change would only take effect at the end of the next term big deal it’s trivial in the scheme of things

Using the notwithstanding clause in a petty personal grudge is different than garden variety scandals, of which Ford will surely have his fair share. The liberals were elected 2 more times after the gas plant scandal. Also FYI The alleged bribery case you mentioned was thrown out of court as the judge concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

As for your final comment about changing it for next election meaning it will only iccur “at the end of Ford’s government”: well first off I’m glad you agree his government will come to snd end after only one term. Let us hope! But so what if he has to wait until the next cycle that’s how it works There is no real measurable gain or benefit to the province from these changes anyway it’s just the dictators whim that it’s happening at all in the first place and rushing it to occur immediately isn’t going to change that.

[BeaverFever]

Here’s another editorial in the notoriously snti-left, pro conservative National Post. Ibolded oarts that redoond to coach’s last post.

$1:

Ford could soon make notwithstanding clause drama seem like a honeymoon

Chris Selley
September 13, 2018 12:14 AM EDT

The strongest case for not worrying too much about the Ontario government’s Section 33 grenade, lobbed Monday into Toronto’s already war-torn municipal election campaign, is that it’s probably a moot point. For better or worse, the government has decided to slash Toronto city council in half. It can almost certainly get that through the courts in time for the next election, in 2022; Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling quashing Bill 5, the legislation in question, will probably be overturned on appeal anyway. So we might as well get it over with for 2018.

Attorney General Caroline Mulroney gamely made that case to reporters Wednesday after question period, hours before the government reintroduced Bill 5 (now Bill 31) with the notwithstanding clause attached. She was poised, articulate and calm.

“We believe it was wrongly decided, and so we’re appealing that case,” she said. “And because time is of the essence — there is an election in the City of Toronto in a few short weeks — we have decided to use a legal tool that is available to the legislature.”

Time is only of the essence because Premier Doug Ford decided it should be, of course. But here was a sane, civilized explanation for a dodgy decision, made in the place where dozens of ministers before her have explained their governments’ dodgy decisions.

None of those ministers had to deal with the Doug Ford Show, though. In question period, asked by Opposition Leader Andrea Horwath if he thought there should be any checks on his power, Ford all but confirmed this is part of a personal vendetta against left-wing city councillors.

“The leader of the NDP is here to protect her crony buddies (on city council): Mike Layton, Joe Cressy, Gord Perks,” Ford sneered. He said it twice, adding Paula Fletcher’s name to the list on second reference.

Here, probably, is a better reason not to get too stressed about the notwithstanding clause. As controversial and unnecessary as it is, and despite Wednesday’s melodrama — protesters were forcibly removed from the public galleries; a majority of NDP MPPs banged their desks at the bill’s introduction until they were booted — in two years we might look back on this day like a honeymoon in the Maldives.

In the future, a Liberal or NDP government can just go ahead and give city council more power — including the power to set its own complement. Some of Ford’s other ideas might prove far more difficult to overturn.

Ford is partisanship in the raw, devoid of the Mulroney-esque niceties

Let’s stay in Ford’s beloved Toronto: Should we trust a premier so obsessed with his former job as to bust up an election with just weeks to go before voting day to, say, upload and manage Toronto’s $2 billion-per-annum transit system in a coherent and defensible fashion that would be, he promises, “nothing but a benefit”?

Folks, no we should not. In addition to their labels and tags concern, the Ford family runs a breeding centre for white elephant transit projects. Ford has never met a subway he didn’t love, no matter how sparse the population atop it, or a perfectly serviceable piece of surface rail he didn’t hate, no matter how empirically compelling the service it could provide.

And while it’s reasonable to hope his caucus might balk at spending gazillions on subways to nowhere — hardly a vote-winner in the hinterlands — in the meantime there is a more basic threat to the body politic. Ford is partisanship in the raw, devoid of the Mulroney-esque niceties and utterly immune to cognitive dissonance. Few if any like him rise to the top, but every party’s base has its share of these people, and he can only embolden them.

If Ford were running for mayor of Toronto and Kathleen Wynne had pulled a stunt like this, he’d be hollering bloody murder. Ford claims a near-absolute right to pursue his agenda subject to censure only from voters, even as he challenges the federal Liberals’ carbon tax in court. On Monday Ford personally attacked Belobaba as an appointee of Dalton McGuinty. Superior Court justices are federally appointed. But I wouldn’t be surprised to hear him say it again. This week an anonymous Conservative source told the Toronto Star the party was considering contrasting Ford’s decisiveness with Justin Trudeau’s refusal to use the notwithstanding clause to protect the Trans Mountain Pipeline project.

Trans Mountain wasn’t a charter decision; the notwithstanding clause doesn’t apply. But I wouldn’t be surprised to hear him say it anyway.

In this brand of politics, truth and hypocrisy are beside the point. Everyone lies, everyone’s a hypocrite, so who cares? Every misdeed of your party, if acknowledged, is offset by a misdeed of the others. Whataboutism becomes the only form of debate, and even more literally than in the past, victory becomes the only goal.

We’re not there yet. Ontario politics is in a flat spin, but it can recover. With the Fords’ departure, Toronto city council downshifted from Lord of the Flies mode to its previously unacceptable level of indecorum; and Ford never had a cabinet at city hall to keep happy.

The thing about flat spins, though, is you have to dive before you can recover. The fasten seat belt sign is flashing. The flight attendants look worried. Air sickness bags are $5.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris- ... -honeymoon

[BeaverFever]

And the real reasons for Ford’s municipal reform

$1:

Ford’s deeply problematic plan for municipal reform | The Star

By Alok MukherjeeOpinion

Tues., Aug. 7, 2018

What is driving Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s stealth attack on municipal governance in Toronto, York, Peel, Niagara and Muskoka?

Ford’s timing is clear enough. If he does not make his move now, he won’t have another opportunity for four years, when he will be facing re-election.

Are Premier Doug Ford’s municipal reforms solely driven by vendetta, asks Alok Mukherjee? “Or is it a clever move to turn the targeted regions into an even more profitable playground for the privileged than they already are?”
Are Premier Doug Ford’s municipal reforms solely driven by vendetta, asks Alok Mukherjee? “Or is it a clever move to turn the targeted regions into an even more profitable playground for the privileged than they already are?” (Rick Madonik / Toronto Star file photo)
But why this selective attack on local democracy? Ford’s email response to his critics says that he “promised to reduce the size and cost of government” because “too many politicians” make it “harder to get things done and get things built.” He says that this is “particularly true at the municipal level,” with Toronto his prime example.

If Ford truly wanted to reform municipal government in Ontario, would he not initiate a province-wide conversation about good local government with a framework that clearly sets out his vision? His decision, instead, to unilaterally impose a less representative, less inclusive and less democratic form of government in some parts of Ontario renders his motivation suspect.

It has been suggested that Ford is driven by vendetta.

Sure, his relations with left leaning Toronto city councillors were toxic. However, I do not believe that it is the sole reason, when considering his track record and his self-image as a successful businessman, an anti-politician and a practical decision maker.

Ford is driven by a radical form of conservatism that is the antithesis of the Red Toryism of yesteryears. It is intolerant of, or, at least, impatient with dissent, discussion and consultation. For him, government should run as a business, and rely on business to deliver programs and services.

Ford has made no secret of his contempt for the politicians he sees as do-gooders and social workers with no idea of “the real world.” In exchanges with the opposition over his proposed legislation, he referred to city councillors as “overpaid” and, therefore, by implication, not value for the taxpayer’s money.

This perspective is reflected in his criticism that Toronto city council with its 44 members is dysfunctional and inefficient. Evidently, he prefers the model of a homogeneous corporate board of like-minded people, which will approve decisions quickly and without too much debate, prefer backroom deal making to public examination of issues and options, make the bottom line the most important criterion for decisions and substitute consultation with a paternalistic, “we know best” way of doing business.

Those who need the city’s supports and services are clients and customers, not participants and stakeholders having a say in decision making on matters affecting them.

As councillor, Ford was impatient with city hall’s way of decision-making, based on staff reports and public input. The manner in which he tried to introduce his idea of a waterfront entertainment park illustrated his preferred approach. He was incensed when his proposal was rejected because of its lack of a full analysis and proper study.

But it was illustrative of more than that. The entertainment park, if approved, would have been a boon to business. Profit, not the public interest, took precedence.

Ford’s targeting of certain municipalities is deliberate. These parts of Ontario have the most growth potential with their population, wealth and tourism. A small city council and unelected powerful regional chairs will make business-friendly decisions quickly.

The impact of Ford’s scheme will be far-reaching. By radically upending representative democracy, it will have serious implications for how city government serves those in need, the marginalized and the unprivileged. Social policy will be driven even more vehemently than is the case now by a fiscal policy reflecting his mantra of “respect for the taxpayer,” and not the other way around.

There is always room for improving governance. But the answer to the question of how many councillors are needed to provide good government must depend on a clear understanding of what is meant by good government and how the criteria of functionality and efficiency are defined.

A democratic government should be deemed to be functioning well and efficiently when it produces results that benefit all segments of the community, not just the rich and powerful, and when it makes decisions transparently, based on sound evidence, with the full participation of all who will be affected.

Is Ford’s move solely driven by vendetta? Or is it a clever move to turn the targeted regions into an even more profitable playground for the privileged than they already are?

Construction, cannabis and casinos; privatization and outsourcing of public services. Opportunity beckons and timing matters.

Any negative effect of this stealth attack on democracy and political careers is mere collateral damage.

Alok Mukherjee is a distinguished visiting professor at Ryerson University. He served as chair of the Toronto Police Services Board from 2005 to 2015.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contrib ... eform.html

[llama66]

$1:

Skip to content
Login

NEWS
Ontario’s disruption of Toronto election could break international law: expert
By Tim Naumetz. Published on Sep 13, 2018 7:05pm

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
A former top aide to two Supreme Court Chief Justices has stirred up legal circles by outlining possible grounds for a court challenge of Ontario’s use of the notwithstanding clause to override a court ruling that struck down a bill cutting Toronto city council by nearly half.

Lawyer Gib van Ert, who was the executive legal officer to Chief Justice Richard Wagner until last month, suggested on his Twitter account that an appeal could be successful by claiming Premier Doug Ford’s move contravenes Canada’s international obligations.

Van Ert’s argument centres on Canada’s obligations under the 1966 UN International Covenance on Civil and Political Rights, which restricts signatory nations from overriding legal and human rights guarantees except when facing dire emergencies that threaten the nation.


The Supreme Court of Canada has said “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified,” van Ert said in his Twitter thread.

Van Ert, who was also executive legal officer to former Supreme Court chief justice Beverley McLachlin, cited a history of federal government and court statements on the notwithstanding clause that Ford and his government have used to force massive changes to the Toronto’s ward system in the middle of a civic election.


“So, the argument is there to be made,” van Ert, an expert on international human rights, said in his final tweet on the topic. “Whether a court would accept it, who knows? But if s. 33 isn’t limited in this way, it is probably contrary to international law.”

Toronto Mayor John Tory announced Thursday the city is going to mount a court challenge of the Ontario government’s invocation of the notwithstanding clause after Ontario Superior Court Justice struck down the measure that was throwing the Toronto municipal election into chaos.

“There’s been very little court litigation over that, over the years, but maybe there will be some now,” said Tory, who declined to provide any detailed information about the court challenge.

“I can’t say yet, because we gave instructions to our solicitors and that was all a confidential discussion of course because we don’t want to outline our legal advice and our legal strengths and weaknesses,” Tory said in an interview on CBC Newsworld’s Power and Politics.

Van Ert’s argument drew attention from prominent University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese, among others, who commented positively the same day Tory announced the city’s decision to challenge the Conservative government’s move.


Van Ert, who is now establishing his own firm with offices in Ottawa and Vancouver, also declined to comment beyond his Twitter remarks on Tuesday.

[Coach85]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Using the notwithstanding clause in a petty personal grudge is different than garden variety scandals, of which Ford will surely have his fair share. The liberals were elected 2 more times after the gas plant scandal. Also FYI The alleged bribery case you mentioned was thrown out of court as the judge concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Thank you for proving my point regarding Liberals being luke-warm on protecting democracy, trust, integrity when their party is in power. They'll even they vote them in over and over again and refer to numerous scandals as 'garden variety'.

The same Liberals that spend 1.1 billion to buy a few ridings in an election. Or the same party that used our money to pay for election ads.

Time for you and the rest of the left to jump down off that horse.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There is no real measurable gain or benefit to the province from these changes anyway it’s just the dictators whim that it’s happening at all in the first place and rushing it to occur immediately isn’t going to change that.

Of course there's a measurable benefit. When the Toronto Star calls for a smaller Council and refers to it as dysfunctional, there's something to be said about that.

Toronto and decisions around Toronto are a huge part of the Province.

[BeaverFever]

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Using the notwithstanding clause in a petty personal grudge is different than garden variety scandals, of which Ford will surely have his fair share. The liberals were elected 2 more times after the gas plant scandal. Also FYI The alleged bribery case you mentioned was thrown out of court as the judge concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Thank you for proving my point regarding Liberals being luke-warm on protecting democracy, trust, integrity when their party is in power. They'll even they vote them in over and over again and refer to numerous scandals as 'garden variety'.

The same Liberals that spend 1.1 billion to buy a few ridings in an election. Or the same party that used our money to pay for election ads.

Time for you and the rest of the left to jump down off that horse.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

There is no real measurable gain or benefit to the province from these changes anyway it’s just the dictators whim that it’s happening at all in the first place and rushing it to occur immediately isn’t going to change that.

Of course there's a measurable benefit. When the Toronto Star calls for a smaller Council and refers to it as dysfunctional, there's something to be said about that.

Toronto and decisions around Toronto are a huge part of the Province.

The liberals didn’t have to invoke notwithstanding to cancel their gas plant. And that is garden variety. Every government attracts controversy eventually but ar least gad plants was about wasting money instead of supressing rights and unlike Doug they didn’t vow to do it again.

The Star article you reference is 4 years old and is one opinion piece with a number of recommendations beyond simply size BUT it also has an accompanying counter-argument opinion piece. You also overlooked the word measurable. Whether oe not Toronto City Council is more or less dysfunctional than other council is a completely subjective statement unless you can measure some outcomes that you think will improve when there are 25 instead of 47 councillors. Also don’t forget that since Harris made the Megacity, unlike other large cities Toronto council is not only a city Council but it’s also its own Regional government and the old Metropolitan Toronto “regioal” government was disbanded. So for example while Missauga or Brampton have also Peel regional government providing the bulk if services like school boards, law enforcement etc, Toronto is almost unique in having to fulfill those Regional authority responsibilities over and above the regular city responsibilities. The current Toronto City Council is the remnant of the 7 former city councils and the old Metropolitan Toronto ‘regioal’ council. So it has a big and unique mandate naturally it would have a big and unique composition.

[martin14]

[N_Fiddledog]

martin14 martin14:

[BeaverFever]

That’s not a mic drop, it’s 2 right-wing premiers and Quebec. The one from Saskatchewan recently used it on relatively non-controversial measure and Quebec regularly used notwithstanding clause to ensure supremacy of French, to the the anger of conservatives everywhere

The mic drop is actually that Ford’s move was denounced by former PC Premier Bill Davis, the Godfather of Ontario Conservative party, who was one of the longest serving and most popular premiers in Ontario history, and also one of the fathers od the constitution who had insisted on including the notwithstanding clause.

Also Brian Mulroney, the father of Ford’s Attorney General also denounced it.

$1:

As a rule, former Progressive Conservative premier Bill Davis has avoided weighing in on controversial issues since he retired from public life in 1985. He is still interested in political developments but has been content to wield whatever influence he may have almost entirely behind the scenes.

Still, of the 11 first ministers who, 37 years ago, hammered out that historic constitutional compromise, only three are still alive. The 89-year-old Davis is one of them — and he knows what his colleagues had in mind when they created the notwithstanding clause all those years ago.

“Making the Charter a central part of our Constitution, Canada’s basic law, was a deliberate and focused decision by the prime minister and premiers,” Ontario’s 18th premier explained over the phone yesterday.

“The sole purpose of the notwithstanding clause was only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when a province wanted to bring in a specific benefit or program provision for a part of their population — people of a certain age, for example — that might have seemed discriminatory under the Charter.

“The notwithstanding provision has, understandably, rarely been used, because of the primacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians. That it might now be used regularly to assert the dominance of any government or elected politician over the rule of law or the legitimate jurisdiction of our courts of law was never anticipated or agreed to.”

This has been another in a week of extraordinary developments. Davis has had ample opportunity over the 33 years since he retired from public life to comment on government policies with which he’s disagreed. He virtually never goes there.

But clearly, Davis sees the Ford government’s decision to use Section 33 as so far outside the bounds of the original spirit of the clause that he’s set aside his normal reservations.

Davis played an essential role in the grand compromise that led to the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, working with the current prime minister’s father. Yesterday, Justin Trudeau put his concerns to the Ford government’s actions on the record. While clarifying that he wasn’t about to comment on how big he thought Toronto city council ought to be, the PM said, “Every time Charter rights are set aside, it has to be done deliberately, carefully, and with the utmost forethought and reflection. We’re disappointed by the provincial government’s choice.”

Pierre Trudeau’s great nemesis, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, also put his thoughts about Ford’s actions on the record yesterday. Appearing at his first news conference in Ottawa in 19 years, Mulroney confirmed, “it’s not anti-democratic to use it, to invoke it if you’re the elected premier of a given province” — but he added that invoking Section 33 was nothing he ever considered doing and that he couldn’t conceive of any circumstances under which he would have done so.

“I always felt that once the Supreme Court made a decision, that decision strengthened Canada,” he said. “I had difficulty with anybody invoking a provision that could override the Supreme Court of Canada. And that’s why I opposed it then, and that’s why I oppose it today.”

Mulroney’s daughter, Caroline, is now Ontario’s attorney general. The provincial legislature will reconvene this week both to reintroduce the bill reducing Toronto city council’s size and to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Mulroney did not stand alongside Ford at the news conference in which the premier announced his intention to use Section 33, even though it is the most historically important legal decision this government has made so far...

https://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/fo ... ing-clause

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Thanos Thanos:

In the final analysis the voters are always to blame, as much for their inaction as for the choices they make. Claims to anything otherwise make me kind of sick when I hear them.

Can the voters really be blamed if they only have a choice between 'bad', 'proven bad', and 'has no platform'?

Yup, because it's from the pool of the great unwashed that the better alternatives are supposed to come. Can't blame the existing politicians for doing what comes naturally to them if the public is now mentally incapable of offering up superior options to the usual dross.

The politicians are the ones who control who gets picked to be on the ballot.

In my own riding, it was folly to challenge Her Majesty Rona Ambrose for the CPC nomination, as it was a forgone conclusion that she would win.

Sure, you could run as independent. But you'd only waste your money and time.