Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[AlbertHWagstaff]

Doug is just getting to be what he wanted all along but couldn't have because of Saint Rob and then losing to John Tory ... Premier of Toronto.

I wrote my PC MPP in disgust and expect to hear only crickets in return.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Trudeau is like fuck it lol

Can you imagine Trudeau now enacting the Federal powers override Ford's application of the Notwithstanding Clause?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation#In_Canada

"Sections 55 and 56 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which until 1982 was known as the British North America Act.... the disallowance power was considered a means of ensuring constitutional compliance."

Trudeau government options:

1) Reservation - order Ontario's Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill
2) Disallowance - federal cabinet formally cancels the legislation once it becomes law
3) Do Nothing - 99.999999% what will and should happen

#3 aside, it would make for great political history for the textbooks.

 

[nfitz]

Can you imagine Trudeau now enacting the Federal powers override Ford's application of the Notwithstanding Clause?

I don't believe any act is necessary. It would simply be an order-in-council, surely? But also surely, the federal government wouldn't act on anything so trivial or local. That would be the kind of reaction I'd suspect if a Premier tried to pass legislation to send gays or Muslims to detention camps.

Trudeau government options:

1) Reservation - order Ontario's Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill
2) Disallowance - federal cabinet formally cancels the legislation once it becomes law
3) Do Nothing - 99.999999% what will and should happen

#3 aside, it would make for great political history for the textbooks.

I'd expect that they'd do none of these, and pursue intervenor status in any case that was appealed involving the use of Section 33 to suspend fundamental rights. This would then protect federal interests and provide further resources to make sure that Section 33 isn't misinterpreted by either side. It's not necessarily in the federal government's interest to have a poor provincial legal argument water down Section 33.

Either way, the number of councillors in Toronto is surely not a significant federal concern.

 

[Northern Light]

Can you imagine Trudeau now enacting the Federal powers override Ford's application of the Notwithstanding Clause?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation#In_Canada

"Sections 55 and 56 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which until 1982 was known as the British North America Act.... the disallowance power was considered a means of ensuring constitutional compliance."

Trudeau government options:

1) Reservation - order Ontario's Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill
2) Disallowance - federal cabinet formally cancels the legislation once it becomes law
3) Do Nothing - 99.999999% what will and should happen

#3 aside, it would make for great political history for the textbooks.

While I agree that #3 is likely..

A point of clarity.

Reservation as I understand it, does not automatically veto a bill. It with withholds Royal Assent for up to 2 years while the Governor General review it. This may result in with withholding of Royal Assent (Veto), but need not do so.

The Wikipedia article on the subject notes 21 bills reserved but only six denied Royal Assent.

***

I don't see this power being used, but there is an interesting option here which would be to withhold Royal Assent until after the municipal election. That would of course raise the question of how the portions of the law that were now literally out-of-date would be addressed, and would probably garner another court challenge.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't believe any act is necessary. It would simply be an order-in-council, surely?

Both powers may be exercised through order-in-council.

I'd expect that they'd do none of these, and pursue intervenor status in any case that was appealed involving the use of Section 33 to suspend fundamental rights.

Section 33 does not have any burdens in the text requiring its use for only 'significant' matters. I certainly agree that's how it should be used, if at all. But I see no textual basis for challenging its use, in so far at the judgement applies to section 2 of the Charter.[/QUOTE]

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While I agree that #3 is likely..

A point of clarity.

Reservation as I understand it, does not automatically veto a bill. It with withholds Royal Assent for up to 2 years while the Governor General review it. This may result in with withholding of Royal Assent (Veto), but need not do so.

The Wikipedia article on the subject notes 21 bills reserved but only six denied Royal Assent.

***

I don't see this power being used, but there is an interesting option here which would be to withhold Royal Assent until after the municipal election. That would of course raise the question of how the portions of the law that were now literally out-of-date would be addressed, and would probably garner another court challenge.

Reservation would seem to be the most appropriate - it doesn't necessarily create a permanent override of the legislation - but dealt with the immediate issue of the upcoming November election. At issue isn't the reach of provincial power - but the timing of it. It also provides an immediate check on the urge to wantonly use s33.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Still the point is judge should keep such talk out of legal opinions, it devalues them.

I doubt you like it if judges use such language making decisions you don't like...

Imagine he said the same to the city argument 'crickets', you guys would be losing your shit right now lol.

Perhaps we should try that with politicians first.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

Reservation would seem to be the most appropriate - it doesn't necessarily create a permanent override of the legislation - but dealt with the immediate issue of the upcoming November election. At issue isn't the reach of provincial power - but the timing of it. It also provides an immediate check on the urge to wantonly use s33.

You know, I could almost see Trudeau pulling that, stating that he's not interfering with provincial power, only delaying the matter until November.

Trudeau's dad would have done it, he relished a fight "fuddle duddle, just watch me, et al". Even Chreiten might have. But the 2010s have given us a more delicate, consensus-seeking breed of Prime Minister, me thinks. It's 2018, after all.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

Except for the bulls in the china shop like Doug, who don't care about pesky things like the constitution and the Charter and the rule of law in our constitutional system.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You know, I could see Trudeau pulling that, stating that he's no interfering with provincial power, only delaying the matter until November.

Trudeau's dad would have done it, he relished a fight "fuddle duddle, just watch me, et al". Even Chreiten might have. But the 2010s have given us a more delicate breed of politician, me thinks.

To be perfectly honest, invoking reservation would be interference enough - but proportional to the problem at hand. It isn't the October Crisis - but interference with democratic processes mid-stream and invoking s33 to do so demands a clear response.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Section 33 does not have any burdens in the text requiring its use for only 'significant' matters. I certainly agree that's how it should be used, if at all. /QUOTE]

Oh, certainly it can quite legally be used for the most inconsequential matters. Doug Ford could use it to protect legislation on which directions the toilet paper rolls are placed in his personal WC if he wants ... of course, it would likely be irrelevant, but Alberta's only-ever suspension of fundamental freedoms was over something they had no jurisdiction on, so was never challenged, as there was no actual impact from the legislation - and nothing to litigate.

But I see no textual basis for challenging its use, in so far at the judgement applies to section 2 of the Charter.

Reading the decision in full, there's also references to Section 3 of the Charter, which aren't subject to Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause allowing for the suspension of fundamental rights). And one of the references to Section 2, does note that freedom of speech predates the 1980s Charter of Rights ... which seems an odd comment - almost as if it was placed as a door to allow for a future appeal of the use of the 1980s Section 33 on a long-standing right.

... but interference with democratic processes mid-stream and invoking s33 to do so demands a clear response.

Only if there aren't other remedies available.

And to date, there are.

 

[zang]

Either way, the number of councillors in Toronto is surely not a significant federal concern.

No, but protecting the strength of the Charter is. Using the NWC in this way weakens rights throughout the entire country, and encourages provinces to act as states.

 

[PinkLucy]

Dougie just doesn't care about any of it. This morning on CP24 he was once again complaining about the appointing vs the election of judges and said something along the lines of "judge and jury are elected every four years". Deity save us.

 

[animatronic]

The beauty of Trudeau using R&D is that it completely follows Doug's logic for s.33. R&D on the books, it's a legitimate federal power and it would be enacted by elected politicians.

The use would be almost unthinkable, but maybe the PM decides they need to stamp it out now before suspension of civil rights becomes commonplace.

 

[ErieHall]

Ford suggests Ottawans want smaller city council