[animatronic]

Generally, except in extreme circumstances.

I don't think there's an preclusion for an LG dismissing the government, and appointing a different member of the same party to form a government. Particularly in the case of high crimes or something, if the Premier didn't resign.

This isn't that though.

But ... if a hypothetical letter signed by 63 PC MPPs went to the LG supporting Christine Elliott forming a government ... now that would be interesting.

Either way - we are no where near there yet.

That's a big stretch. Parliament and the Courts are the appropriate checks on the prime minister - not the Crown. If a premier has the support of the legislature, it's not the LG's place to interfere.

 

[christiesplits]

Supposedly it's going to be a 'free vote.' Will there be 12 of 76 PC party minions willing to vote against their party?

 

[nfitz]

If a premier has the support of the legislature, it's not the LG's place to interfere.

Agreed. But in my hypothetical example, if 63 PC MPPs signed a hypothetical letter, then the hypothetical premier wouldn't not have the support of the legislature.

 

[blixtex]

I don't know, I'm hearing from a number of people outside of Toronto that they're already sick of Doug's focus on Toronto and would like to remind him that he is supposed to be premier of the entire province.

There might be selective exposure on both sides. I voted for PC (of course I deserved to be tarred and feathered according to many members here.. I did vote for McGuinty's Liberals back in 2003 and affirmed the status quo during that time by not voting since). The few I talked to that voted PC, this council issue is a non-issue. I know for me, who's in a suburb in Toronto, welcome the cuts to improve efficiency. Heck, I even think it will tilt the favour 'to the Left' so this isn't an ideological "I need to make sure it goes right" thing. But clearly, there is way too much grandstanding and NIMBYSM with its current make-up. Higher quality, and more committed councilors will prevail. If I feel that way, I most likely can assure, those who rode the wave I did in ousting the Liberals, and had the same sentiments resulting in this landslide electoral victory, will continue to do so, so far.

Plus, IMO, the Judge's verdict logic doesn't really hold. It almost sounds like talking points with personal bias, so overuling a type of judge like this is fine by me.

 

[sixrings]

Plus, IMO, the Judge's verdict logic doesn't really hold. It almost sounds like talking points with personal bias, so overuling a type of judge like this is fine by me.

Do all conservatives claim "bias" every single time they don't agree with something.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Section 33 is the Achilles heel of the Constitution. Its very existence invites its use..

It's rarely been used, and I can think of no example of it being abused (until perhaps now). And I want our elected representatives to be the final arbiter of policy, not some judge. If those representatives abuse the Constitution, we can toss them out later, but we can't touch a judge.

I'd like to see Trudeau use the NWC to force through the pipeline expansion in the name of national economic/strategic interests. His Dad would have. Instead we get policy conferences on gender. But that's another thread, so I'll say no more.

 

[animatronic]

Agreed. But in my hypothetical example, if 63 PC MPPs signed a hypothetical letter, then the hypothetical premier wouldn't not have the support of the legislature.

But we already have precedent that letters aren't enough. In 2008 the opposition parties with a collective majority sent GG Jean a letter saying they would form a government after defeating the PCs on a non-confidence vote, and she still allowed Harper to prorogue parliament. Her (sound) reasoning was that the House is the only appropriate place to judge the PM's confidence.

That said, she also insisted that Harper promise to re-convene quickly, as avoidance of the House is not an acceptable strategy.

 

[syn]

There might be selective exposure on both sides. I voted for PC (of course I deserved to be tarred and feathered according to many members here.. I did vote for McGuinty's Liberals back in 2003 and affirmed the status quo during that time by not voting since). The few I talked to that voted PC, this council issue is a non-issue. I know for me, who's in a suburb in Toronto, welcome the cuts to improve efficiency. Heck, I even think it will tilt the favour 'to the Left' so this isn't an ideological "I need to make sure it goes right" thing. But clearly, there is way too much grandstanding and NIMBYSM with its current make-up. Higher quality, and more committed councilors will prevail. If I feel that way, I most likely can assure, those who rode the wave I did in ousting the Liberals, and had the same sentiments resulting in this landslide electoral victory, will continue to do so, so far.

Plus, IMO, the Judge's verdict logic doesn't really hold. It almost sounds like talking points with personal bias, so overuling a type of judge like this is fine by me.

I'm curious - how does the logic not really hold?

 

[DSC]

I wouldn't be surprised if he does it.

Perhaps instead of building the DRL he'll use the NWSC to make people walk instead.

As he is clearly easily confused by long words he could also announce that there will be "No Standing" on the subway because he will magically expand it so much that everyone can sit? Now THAT would be Not-With-Standing!! Sigh!

 

[Palma]

What about the fact that the boundary change altered their pool of potential voters AFTER they had begun campaigning? Consider the new ward 18 (South of Bloor, between Parkside Drive and Dovercourt Road). This new ward includes portions of the old wards 14, 18 and even a section of old ward 19 (Liberty Village). In the 25-ward model, these areas would again be divided between different wards as they are in different provincial ridings.
Candidates who registered under the 47-Ward system had already started campaigning across the new ward 19, but with Bill 5 they were automatically going to have wasted some of their resources on potential voters who would no longer be in their riding under the 25-ward system.

Considering the small amount of residents that vote, it means nothing. I bet 80-90% of residents have no idea who is running and I am sure its been the same in the past

 

[ErieHall]

Plus, IMO, the Judge's verdict logic doesn't really hold. It almost sounds like talking points with personal bias, so overuling a type of judge like this is fine by me.

So why not just appeal the ruling instead of going straight to the notwithstanding clause?

 

[sixrings]

So why not just appeal the ruling instead of going straight to the notwithstanding clause?

i think we all know the answer. rules shouldnt apply to them.. just to the opposing parties.

 

[innsertnamehere]

So why not just appeal the ruling instead of going straight to the notwithstanding clause?

Time constraints. notwithstanding will institute the 25 wards in time for October 22nd, while an appeal will be unlikely to get a stay order in time for the elections. This means that Ford's policy effectively gets a 4 year delay until the next term of council, if ultimately upheld through a standard appeals process.

 

[Palma]

I can see Ford doing this whenever he doesn't get his way.

What do people expect? He thinks he's the ruler of the province. Democracy is for libtard elites!

Hopefully the other parties get their act together in the next four years. 8 years of Ford would seriously damage the province.

The Liberals have already damaged this province - you guys are unreal - the stuff McGuinty got away with and was never charged is insane

 

[nfitz]

But we already have precedent that letters aren't enough. In 2008 the opposition parties with a collective majority sent GG Jean a letter saying they would form a government after defeating the PCs on a non-confidence vote, and she still allowed Harper to prorogue parliament. Her (sound) reasoning was that the House is the only appropriate place to judge the PM's confidence.

That said, she also insisted that Harper promise to re-convene quickly, as avoidance of the House is not an acceptable strategy.

All true. If Harper hadn't have had support when he reconvened the house though, the GG would have likely have asked another leader to form a government.

But, the GG did insist on not only a short break (the house returned the following month in January 2009), but an early vote on the budget - a confidence matter.

The strategy of delaying things, only works on the assumption that confidence in Doug Ford grows. Given how early we are things (Harper had been PM since 2006, and been re-elected in 2008), that cabinet isn't fully backing Doug Ford already is staggering.

What a hill to die on!