2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

[nfitz]

The LG could ask the premier to reconvene parliament and take a confidence vote, but if he refuses she'd have little recourse.

Not sure she can even ask that, if there is already a parliament (and there is).

As for the legality/appropriateness of Bill 5, that's really not up to her to decide. Her job is to ensure the continuance of the executive function, not muck around in legislative matters.

True - but we are into a situation where the polls open in the 47-ward election on Monday October 10, and it's possible around October 5th, the legislation may force a 25-ward election instead.

At that point, the continuity of City Council is at stake.

The constitution on several occasions talks about the crown with the advice of the legislatures making laws for "good Government". There comes a point where intervention might be possible.

 

[steveintoronto]

The constitution on several occasions talks about the crown with the advice of the legislatures making laws for "good Government". There comes a point where intervention might be possible.

Thumbs up, because although in itself the claim "Good Government" isn't a legal lever, it is one for the consumption of the electorate. I do agree with @animatronic though that protocol is for the Premier to call the shots. L-G can't by established custom.

There are findings in Belobaba's ruling that apply *outside of Section 33*! The Feds can take this *alone* before the SCC for a ruling. And to enforce it. This is where other provinces will counsel Ford to back off on a point they'd all lose on.

Example from Sean Fine's excellent piece in the Globe today:
[...]
What did he say about voters’ free speech?

It gets a bit more complicated here. First, he says the right to free speech in an election should be read together with the right to vote, protected by another section of the Charter, Section 3. That’s because the right to vote, which he calls the most fundamental of all rights, is considered a form of expression. The right to vote includes the right to “effective representation.” In short: free speech during an election = the right to effective representation.
[...]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...d-ontarios-reduction-of-toronto-city-council/

This is being overlooked. My guess? The SCC will go further than Belobaba's ruling. Much further. If Ford has any kind of sensible counsel (questionable...very questionable) they'll goad him away from the polka table. He may not survive the next blow. And another blow is surely coming.

 

[Allandale25]

More on the nominations situation from this reporter:

The latest from the city: The city clerk is *no longer* accepting nominations. The deadline under the 47-ward model was July 27. Nominations under the 25-ward model were closed after the Superior Court ruling, despite revised deadline initially being this Friday, September 14.

Right now, any incumbents who were still mulling over a run — but hadn't signed up yet — are out of luck. That being said, I'm trying to find out if the nomination deadline could be extended again based on whatever happens at the special legislature sitting and council meeting.

 

[steveintoronto]

More on the nominations situation from this reporter:

That's being contested by more than a few.

 

[animatronic]

Not sure she can even ask that, if there is already a parliament (and there is).

She has the absolute right to privately counsel/warn/recommend anything she wants to the premier. He has the absolute right to follow or ignore the advice.

The constitution on several occasions talks about the crown with the advice of the legislatures making laws for "good Government". There comes a point where intervention might be possible.

"With the advice of" is legalese for "the LG cannot exercise personal discretion". As long as the premier hasn't lost a confidence vote, they are the voice of the legislature that the LG must obey. Only after a lost confidence vote does the LG have discretion. And even then, it's not her role to get involved in making laws.

 

[steveintoronto]

He (edit by me: or She) has the absolute right to follow or ignore the advice.

Aren't you overlooking the pre-eminence of the Law though?

If the L-G has a court writ in front of her/him, then she has to act on behalf of the Law, not the Premier's bidding. By being the representative of The Crown, she IS The Law.

In deference to your point though, I think it's a good possibility it might come to this considering who and what Ford is. And the L-G will have the Sergeant at Arms impose the Crown's rule....which will have a certain twist to it:
First female sergeant-at-arms appointed at Ontario legislature

 

[rbt]

Ont has never used it, and only a couple of other provinces have in instances of *actual gravity*! Ego gratification isn't one.

The Feds can take this *alone* before the SCC for a ruling. And to enforce it. This is where other provinces will counsel Ford to back off on a point they'd all lose on.

Indeed. Quebec's reaction to all this is going to be by far the most important consideration for federal interference.

That said *actual gravity* is a bit of an overstatement. While they've not used it recently, Quebec was putting that clause on damn near every single piece of legislation for a brief period, as a bit of a protest to being Canadian.

If the feds do somehow manage to close that gap we may well see Quebec Nationalism come to the fore-front again.

 

[animatronic]

Indeed. Quebec's reaction to all this is going to be by far the most important consideration. While they've not used it recently, Quebec was putting that clause on damn near every single piece of legislation for a brief period, as a protest to being Canadian.

If the feds do somehow manage to close that gap we may well see Quebec Nationalism come to the fore-front again.

And critically, the PQ campaigned on and had a mandate to protect language. They imemented the clause transparently and they followed some semblance of logic.

 

[Allandale25]

That's being contested by more than a few.

What's being contested?

 

[steveintoronto]

Indeed. Quebec's reaction to all this is going to be by far the most important consideration.

That said *actual gravity* is a bit of an overstatement. While they've not used it recently, Quebec was putting that clause on damn near every single piece of legislation for a brief period, as a bit of a protest to being Canadian.

If the feds do somehow manage to close that gap we may well see Quebec Nationalism come to the fore-front again.

I was just thinking forward on what it would take to reopen negotiations on the Charter as that pertains to Section 33. It's come up already in discussion in some excellent pieces appearing in both the Globe and Star.

For Quebec, the only *relatively easy* way to do it would be to grandfather what they now have in the Charter, and have them sign. Paul Martin actually campaigned on this, albeit the details are hazy for me.

Long story short, almost every Cdn politician of quality, no matter their political stripe, will be shidding bricks right now. This isn't about 'considered and justified' accommodation. It's about an idiot on the loose with a legal gun.

From our prior discussions on this, you must be a little surprised at how Belobaba ruled? I state that in all respect, because as a cynic on exceptions to stated rule, you can see the Courts involving a greater context. I leave it at that save to say I'm glad you got the cue to join this conversation. I will add one more thing: Many journos were also cynical on the outcome of the case. Belobaba has offered a key to unlock more interpretations. This could be exciting...

And critically, the PQ campaigned on and had a mandate to protect language. They implemented the clause transparently and they followed some semblance of logic.

Absolutely! Whether one agrees or disagrees with their position. And this is crucially important, and you cue a point I meant to make to @rbt but overlooked:

Harper was no fan of the Charter, but he also was the one to accord Quebec "Nation Status"...a brilliant move on his part. Now that can be enshrined in a Charter Revision to bring Quebec onside (which is extremely important) to 'slap down' an out of control Ford running down innocents on Toronto's Yonge Street.

To be continued...excellent points being made. Trudeau is going to have to play a delicate game on this, but there's just no way around it unless Ford's own enablers grab him by the scruff of the neck. And hopefully hang him, but that's digressing...

 

[rbt]

And critically, the PQ campaigned on and had a mandate to protect language. They imemented the clause transparently and they followed some semblance of logic.

Well, no. Between '82 and '85 they used the clause in hundreds of pieces of legislation; even retroactively adding it to most laws which predated the constitution with a general purpose `notwithstanding applies to all Quebec law in existence` type of legislation.

Their use in '88 for the language thing was as you described, but that was Quebec Liberals wasn't it?

 

[rbt]

From our prior discussions on this, you must be a little surprised at how Belobaba ruled?

No, not at all. Provincial law laid out how the election was to be followed, and candidates followed it. Changing the rules mid-way through is almost always frowned upon by courts. Even before passed I expected the courts to defer this legislation to the next election.

What I'm surprised at is Ford didn't choose to defer the implementation OR b) defer the election itself by a year. As with amalgamation, the process requires that everyone have a chance to express their opinion but those opinions may be ignored. If this is the Library argument, then the "ferris wheel moment" is just around the corner (Ontario Place proposal?)

I'm astounded that Ford's party appointed handlers didn't white-wash the entire situation and lock Ford in a room for a week.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm astounded that Ford's party appointed handlers didn't quash this entire thing.

There's a hidden dimension to this, although some of the other posters have alluded to it. With a tyrant in charge, the underlings are too scared to speak out. However, that renders them all the more likely to 'off' him first chance they get.

The one worthy of great attention on this is Caroline Mulroney. There *must* be plottings going on behind the scenes. Unwilling/unwitting passengers in an out of control Ford wagon with Imperial Leader hell bent on destruction.

And btw: Does anyone else get cold chills every time you see Wormtongu....whoops...Fedeli whispering in his ear?

 

[PinkLucy]

What I'm surprised at is Ford didn't choose to defer the implementation OR b) defer the election itself by a year. As with amalgamation, the process requires that everyone have a chance to express their opinion but those opinions may be ignored.

I'm astounded that Ford's party appointed handlers didn't white-wash the entire situation and lock Ford in a room for a week or 2.

Dougie isn't patient. No way he was going to worry about process. He wanted to get his revenge NOW. But yes, they should have locked him up. I can't imagine that caucus didn't try to dissuade him from any of this, but he's a bully and bullies don't listen well.

 

[rbt]

Dougie isn't patient. No way he was going to worry about process. He wanted to get his revenge NOW. But yes, they should have locked him up. I can't imagine that caucus didn't try to dissuade him from any of this, but he's a bully and bullies don't listen well.

They might remind him that the party can still vote him out, and he only gets his seat as MP at that point.

Does anyone have a finger on Niagara region MPPs? Are any chomping at the bit to override various freedoms which don't commingle with their religious beliefs?