Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8049
Reputation: 320.9Reputation: 320.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I notice that the PCs in Ontario are going to issue their own news. which has (of course) enraged those posing as journalists.

I doubt that this is the universal answer, but it responds to the problem -- which is that the media, everywhere, has taken the other side. Harper responded to the problem but it was hardly a satisfactory answer.


If we like it or not, Governments at all levels and all political stripes spend taxpayer dollars essentially "advertising" what Government does.

Be it a TV, YouTube, or radio ad, press release, or some unnecessary cheque presentation oozing of pomp.

While Fords approach to release this information to the public is unorthodox, the methodology behind it is not.

Conventional media screaming this is some sort of affront to the paper and ink gods is nonsense but generally speaking most of the anti-Ford rhetoric thus far has been.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1085
Reputation: 116
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heres my take.

Not truly a bad idea.

A horrible way to go about it. The reasoning is specious.

Mainly appears to be done because Doug is butt hurt over his horrible showing at City Hall. He revels in the payback game.

Add in the Muni's are due in November and this allows little time for the re-jigging. Fine people have spent money already and they perhaps may not have any avenue to run in.

He could have easily put together a report that showed the savings, showed the benefits, showed the re-jigs lines for wards or whatever.He could have mentioned it anywhere in the lead up to his elections, hell, he couldve buried it on the last page in fine print for all I care.

But he didnt. He wanted to gloat over the unnecessary ruckus caused.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5694
Reputation: 281.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, the acid test will be if Toronto City Council becomes more coherent and starts to get things done, then we'll all know it was a good thing. If it stays like it is, we'll know that at least it doesn't cost as much.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8049
Reputation: 320.9Reputation: 320.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Heres my take.

Not truly a bad idea.

A horrible way to go about it. The reasoning is specious.

Mainly appears to be done because Doug is butt hurt over his horrible showing at City Hall. He revels in the payback game.


Sometimes there are perks to your job;
Ford getting to stick it to city council is one of those perks;

However, I wouldn't chalk it up to the primary reason for it, just a bonus.
Doug Ford can be a vindictive prick while deploying an effective and smart idea, doesn't make it any less of a effective idea.

I would imagine the primary reasoning is timing, the election is pending, he has a majority mandate right now, and if it wasn't done now it would have had to wait till beyond the next Provincial Election.

The ruckus and the potential sadistic pleasure he will get from watching former city hall allies rip each other to bits during nomination battles simply becomes a by-product of the timing.

Toronto Centre wrote:
Add in the Muni's are due in November and this allows little time for the re-jigging. Fine people have spent money already and they perhaps may not have any avenue to run in.


In that regard,
It really does suck for anyone who has put the time, energy, and effort into a campaign thus far to find you are now running in a new ward.

The issue is that Ford's argument on the surface is sound;
25 MPs, 25MPPs, 25 Councillors,
Its not all that dissimilar from the former Premiers reasoning for increasing the amount of Provincial seats to match Federal boundaries.

The counter argument from those opposed is almost entirely emotional;
I could be sold on the idea as to why 47 is needed, but no one within council has really attempted to justify why that many are needed.

They have simply resorted to targeting Ford personally and that isn't a sound counterargument.

I have empathy for the chaos this will cause for those folks on the ground;
But not enough for me to feel this is anything short of a good idea.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8683
Reputation: 288.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( as what seems to be the case now , a judge has intervened and decided the law passed by the elected government is not valid . so the larger city council will remain for the time being )



Judge rejects Ford move to cut Toronto council size


Sam Pazzano Courts Bureau




Published:
September 10, 2018


Updated:
September 10, 2018 8:31 AM EDT


Filed Under:

Toronto SUN ›
News ›
Toronto & GTA ›


The City of Toronto along with Toronto lawyer and council candidate Rocco Achampong have won the court battle over the redrawing of Toronto’s municipal map by Premier Doug Ford.

Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba said Ford’s Bill 5 – which slashed Toronto city council from 47 seats down to 25 seats – was unconstitutional and struck it down, thus preserving the current 47-ward system.

The province has indicated it will appeal the decision.

related linksReactions pour in to judge ruling against Ford on cutting council

“It is only when a democratically elected government has clearly crossed the line that the ‘judicial umpire’ should intervene. The Province has clearly crossed the line,” Belobaba said in a ruling released Monday morning.

“For the reasons set out below, I find that the Impugned Provisions of Bill 5 substantially interfered with both the candidate’s and the voter’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I further find, on the evidence before me, that these breaches cannot be saved or justified under section 1.2..




“The Impugned Provisions are unconstitutional and are set aside under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The October 22 election shall proceed as scheduled but on the basis of 47 wards, not 25. If the Province wishes to enact another Bill 5-type law at some future date to affect future City elections, it may certainly attempt to do so. As things now stand – and until a constitutionally valid provincial law says otherwise – the City has 47 wards.”


Achampong praised the ruling.

“I am delighted I can return to campaigning Eglinton Lawrence Ward 13. Judge’s found that Bill 5 province’s version of parity. They wanted to argue voter parity,” he said in an interview.

“The judge ruled that the 47 wards are a better version of voter parity and representation than Ford’s 25-seat version.”

Ford tweeted after the ruling that he’d speak about the ruling at noon.


https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/judge-rejects-ford-move-to-cut-toronto-council-size
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5694
Reputation: 281.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How can that argument go? They kept a man in jail for six years on a murder charge because they ddn't have enough evidence to go to trial. That's how our courts protect the Charter Rights of Canadians! But now, something called 'parity' is being threatened.

Section 2 of the Charter ...

Quote:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.


How do you get from Section 2(b} to throwing out the election plans of the Province, who has clear jurisdiction in the matter?

Show us the line of reasoning that goes from " ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication .." to his conclusion that the election could not be structured the way it is. Show us the math -- who's vote is being discounted in the process, more than usual?

Let's see what legal logic looks like.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8683
Reputation: 288.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This is an extremely poor piece of reporting. It says nothing about the line of reasoning that led the good judge to such an exotic conclusion.

It is also another example of how screwed up our courts are. What gives the court the right to overrule the premier? Where does it say in the Constitution that Premiers of provinces can't change such things, in principle? Didn't the reporter think to ask?

This is just an arbitrary act of a judge that's off his leash if there isn't a sound legal basis for this action.



there is other articles online about the decision , some reporters have even commented how ford is now finding out that having a majority in the legislature doesn't guarantee being able to do things


what a dangerous path were headed down , were essentially telling people there votes didn't matter and that the lefts agenda is more important even though they didn't win the election , the courts are saying there agenda must be enacted or else


that is the agenda of the party that didn't win the election and didn't have the confidence of the people who voted in the election


but according to the courts there rights are more important and they have found judges who feel it needs to continue


considering the pattern , we can assume the sex ed curriculum will be the next to fall in the courts , we'll have some unelected judge decide what is going to be taught in our schools instead of the elected legislature , parents or others
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8683
Reputation: 288.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
How can that argument go? They kept a man in jail for six years on a murder charge because they ddn't have enough evidence to go to trial. That's how our courts protect the Charter Rights of Canadians! But now, something called 'parity' is being threatened.

Section 2 of the Charter ...

Quote:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.


How do you get from Section 2(b} to throwing out the election plans of the Province, who has clear jurisdiction in the matter?

Show us the line of reasoning that goes from " ... freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication .." to his conclusion that the election could not be structured the way it is. Show us the math -- who's vote is being discounted in the process, more than usual?

Let's see what legal logic looks like.



there has been cases before where government have eliminated ridings or reduced seats in legislatures and I don't recall a freedom of express defence under the charter being able to overrule those decisions


I know in alberta this spring the ndp eliminated 3 rural ridings and I don't recall that ever going to court , yet alone being overturned in court . according to this decision , weren't the charter rights of the residents of those rural ridings violated ?


if there not allowed to shrink the size of Toronto council , why are governments allowed to eliminate rural ridings so easily and without much though
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8683
Reputation: 288.9
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doug Ford government had no right to cut Toronto council, judge rules


Ryan Flanagan, Web Journalist, CTVNews.ca

@flanaganryan
.
Published Monday, September 10, 2018 4:07AM EDT
Last Updated Monday, September 10, 2018 9:27AM EDT

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s legislation aimed at reducing the size of Toronto's city council in the run-up to October’s municipal election has been slammed by a judge as unprecedented and unconstitutional.

Justice Edward P. Belobaba ruled Monday that the Better Local Government Act, which cuts the number of city councillors in Toronto from 47 to 25, contravened Torontonians’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“I find that the reduction … substantially interfered with the municipal voter’s freedom of expression … and in particular her right to cast a vote that can result in effective representation,” Belobaba wrote.



Toronto city council
Toronto city council is pictured in this file photo.

The legislation redraws Toronto’s ward map to match the boundaries of federal and provincial ridings. It would have left Toronto with one councilor for every 111,000 residents, instead of the current one councilor for every 61,000 residents. (Kingston, Ont., which has a population of 118,000, has 12 city councillors.)

Ford had argued that slashing the size of the city council would improve its decision-making ability and save $25 million. City lawyers argued that making the cuts during an election period was “discriminatory and arbitrary,” while the province’s lawyers argued that municipalities cannot override decisions made by the provincial government about their affairs.

Toronto Mayor John Tory and many Toronto councillors had voiced opposition to the attempt to cut the size of council and the timing of the legislation. The newly elected Ford government introduced the bill in July, while Toronto’s election period began in May.

“The enactment of provincial legislation radically changing the number and size of a city’s electoral districts in the middle of the city’s election is without parallel in Canadian history,” Belobaba wrote.

“Most people would agree that changing the rules in the middle of the game is profoundly unfair.”

Belobaba then said his job was not to determine whether the legislation was fair, but whether it was constitutional. Here, too, he said the province fell short of the standard, saying the government “has clearly crossed the line” and ordered the election to continue with 47 wards.

The judge found that the legislation breached the Charter in two ways “that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society” – once by coming into effect during an ongoing election period and once by breaching the freedom of expression of voters and candidates.

Belobaba said the province breached candidates’ right to freedom of expression, as their ability to conduct a political campaign was suddenly hindered by the “wide-spread confusion and uncertainty” that resulted from the legislation.

“The evidence is that the candidates spent more time on doorsteps addressing the confusing state of affairs with potential voters than discussing relevant political issues,” he wrote.

For voters, he pointed to the 2017 report that led to Toronto increasing its number of wards from 44 to 47. That report’s authors weighed reducing the total number of wards to 25 and rejected the move, concluding that councillors would not be able to respond to constitutents’ concerns adequately.

Pondering the argument that the 25-ward system would provide more equality in ward populations than the 47-ward system, Belobaba suggested the province could have found ways to address voter parity without giving each Torontonian significantly less representation at City Hall.

“Why impose a solution … that is far worse, in terms of achieving effective representation, than the original problem? And, again, why do so in the middle of the City’s election?” he wrote.

“Crickets.”

It was not immediately clear if the province would appeal Belobaba’s decision. Ford was expected to publicly respond to the decision later in the day.

Other portions of the Better Local Government Act, which eliminated planned elections for regional chairs in the Muskoka, Niagara, Peel and York regions, remain in effect.

Municipal elections take place across Ontario on Oct. 22.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/doug-ford-government-had-no-right-to-cut-toronto-council-judge-rules-1.4086779
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1085
Reputation: 116
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="RCO"]
Bugs wrote:

It is also another example of how screwed up our courts are. What gives the court the right to overrule the premier?

Everything. Come on, you cannot be serious. The courts all the time overrule political decisions. Ask Harper. He knows.






Quote:

what a dangerous path were headed down , were essentially telling people there votes didn't matter

Pure hyperbole and you know it.

Ford never mentioned changing council in the run up to the election. For obvious reasons too.




Quote:

considering the pattern , we can assume the sex ed curriculum will be the next to fall in the courts , we'll have some unelected judge decide what is going to be taught in our schools instead of the elected legislature , parents or others

Considering the number of people consulted, not to mention the consensus from most anyone (apart from Ford and the troglodytes) that we needed better sex ed I wouyld have preferred a court challenge on this.

That all said, I cannot find an explanation of this ruling that I understand. Thats bad. I tend to give our courts some leeway but absent of a viable explanation I cannot agree.

Ive said before the timing of this is horrible and appears to be done to bite back at council since its was apparent Dougie was pretty bad at the job, and his brother was worse.

But, the idea of shrinking council is not in and of itself bad, but consultation and the 5 W's should have had some time in the public sphere.

I dont get this ruling frankly.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5694
Reputation: 281.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's the legal logic that gets us from Section 2(b) of the Charter to this legal decision that I am interested in. Care to tackle that TC?

I think it's overreach. When has a court ever overturned the act of a duly-elected premier of Ontario before?

When Caledonia happened, the McGuinty government basically told the courts to go screw themselves and they could take their injunctions and put them where the sun doesn't shine, and nobody said there was anything wrong with that.

So it should be clear who's boss.

It was stranger still since although these were natives, they were descendants of New York state natives -- who ought, therefore, have no aboriginal claim to lands in Ontario -- who defied the injunctions. I say this just in case there is an aboriginal right to tell coppers to screw off.

How can us 'ham & eggers' be expected to have anything but contempt for courts like that? Do you think I'm the only one who thinks this is contemptible?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1085
Reputation: 116
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
It's the legal logic that gets us from Section 2(b) of the Charter to this legal decision that I am interested in. Care to tackle that TC?

Comprehensive reading would help you. Let me quote myself from at least an hour ago.
"I dont get this ruling frankly."




Quote:

How can us 'ham & eggers' be expected to have anything but contempt for courts like that? Do you think I'm the only one who thinks this is contemptible?

You ham and eggers have contempt for any court no matter the decision. Your ilk dont undestand a lot and when explained you bury your head.

That said....I dont get this ruling frankly
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8049
Reputation: 320.9Reputation: 320.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As some would accuse the original decision to cut the city council to 25 as reactionary and not well thought out, I would make the same assessment of the ruling today.

This is a lower court ruling which is almost by design made to be overturned.

Justice Belobaba don't really give me much legal precedent or rationale to chew on.
He seemed to think Premier Ford is a Dick which is all well and good, but I don't understand the legal reasoning behind decision.

Love it or Hate it;
The ability to change levels of representation is certainly within the scope of Government.

In this case the Municipal Elections Act is well within the scope of the Provincial Government, Section 3 of the act which defines the scope makes that pretty clear. There is nothing within that document I can find which would restrict, prohibit or otherwise limit the Provinces ability to make this change.

The ruling sets precedent as written which would effectively declare that the size of government is something that cannot be reduced under any circumstance as an "infringement of the Charter"?

Come on now.

The applicability of that as legal precedent to any similar reduction of government limits the ability of an elected government of any stripe to do what is within it elected mandate to do: Run the Government.

With that said;
The ruling timing blocks this legislation prior to the election so that the Province will not be able to react fast enough on appeal.

However the decision almost forces the Province to appeal and after Municipal Elections are done and the appeal is heard I would imagine that a higher court will in fact declare that Governments do in fact have say over matters they are responsible for.


Last edited by cosmostein on Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8049
Reputation: 320.9Reputation: 320.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ford says he'll use notwithstanding clause in attempt to force cuts to Toronto council

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took aim at the province’s courts on Monday, following a judge’s ruling that his attempt to shrink the size of Toronto’s city council in the middle of an election period was unconstitutional.

“What’s extraordinary is … a democratically elected government trying to be shut down by the courts,” Ford told reporters.

“That concerns me more than anything. That should be concerning to every single person in Ontario.”


https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ford-says-he-ll-use-notwithstanding-clause-in-attempt-to-force-cuts-to-toronto-council-1.4086779
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8049
Reputation: 320.9Reputation: 320.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never a dull moment!

There is a delicious irony in the fact that the Notwithstanding clause was a concession made as part of the Kitchen Accord in order to get the Constitution signed by the Provinces so that Trudeau Sr. could bring the Constitution home.

There were other legal routes that could have been used to block Premier Ford's legislation, likely not any that would stick during the appeal process but some that were far less messy and more legally sound.

Essentially by using the Charter as the means for the ruling we are implying that having 47 members of City Council is a Constitutionally Protected right of the citizens of this nation. As I am sure those who passed the original Bill of Rights in 1960 intended :)

As such an equally ridiculous response such as the Nonwithstanding Clause on an issue that shouldn't of been a charter issue to begin with seems about right given the direction this is all taking.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Ford to reduce the size of Toronto city council

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB