[animatronic]

Randy Rath from CHCH news in Hamilton went on twitter to state that "seasoned and thoughtful" parliamentarians are apologizing for not speaking to him about this. They are being muzzled and I am starting to get the sense that his boneheaded moves are making caucus uneasy. He may think what he is doing is a good idea but he fails to realise he is the PREMIER OF ONTARIO and NOT the Mayor of Toronto. Ontario is bigger than just Toronto and if Doug Ford begins to retaliate against Toronto for what happened to him and Rob he will learn quickly about the legislative process.

I can see the Feds making life hell for him if he starts to go off on a personal vendetta such as he is. If the public and the feds turn against him, so will caucus.

This invented crisis serves a few roles:

• Stick it to Toronto politicians
• Stick it to Toronto voters
• Feed red meat to the base (judicial activism)
• Fundraise (fight judicial activism)
• Solidify control over his cabinet
• Loyalty check on the caucus

The last two are the important ones. Any Tory MPP who goes against this "free vote" will be blackballed for the next four years, and they know it. This is just like when Rob and Doug pushed through some petty cuts to bus schedules at the start of their term. The savings were minimal but it forced the ExComm members to fall in line.

 

[nfitz]

When we were at the 25 Ward map the City site said that certain parts of the "Toronto Federal Boundaries" had been excluded as they are outside Toronto so it appears to be the case already. Not sure what these areas are but they do seem to exist

The current 25 ridings are generally aligning with city boundaries. If you get into the legal descriptions for the ridings, they follow geographical and map features, and technically there may be some very minor variations, such that half a road width, or a boulevard may legally fall inside the riding, that isn't in the city. But I don't think any actual residential population is effected.

To my knowledge these lists are not yet available using the 2016 numbers.

Statistics Canada published 2016 Census population counts for the all Canadian ridings in December 2016. This can be found at https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-...m?Lang=Eng&T=501&SR=1&S=46&O=A&RPP=9999&PR=35 (for Ontario).

Quickly processing in Excel yields:

For a 25-ward system, by far the largest ward is southern Etobiocke. 3 of the 4 largest wards are in Etobicoke, with the 4th in North York. The smallest wards are generally in Scarborough (including the significantly shrinking Scarborough North). Downtown wards are currently pretty average.

 

[Richard White]

She won't. That's not her job. If he has the support of the house she has no latitude to exercise reserve powers.

Yes but it is at her discretion. Should the three other parties and a handful of PC MPs express discontent the LG can claim the premier has lost the confidence of the house.

Even still, she does not need permission to enact her reserve powers. The LG, being the Queens representative is the defacto head of state for Ontario while Ford is the head of government. She operates above and independent of the government.

If she feels that the charter is being circumvented as part of an illegal act (as noted by the courts when striking down Bill 5), she can give Ford an ultimatum. Back off or let the people decide.

 

[Bayer]

Earlier on when Doug mentioned cutting council mid-election, various Liberal MPs went on record to say that they would make life hard for Doug and would attempt to protect the City of Toronto. They did not elaborate at the time but I can see them reserving and disallowing Bill 5 on constitutional grounds.

I fantasize about Trudeau using his power of disallowance, but it would be extremely controversial - perhaps even more than Section 33. It hasn't been used in decades.

 

[Richard White]

I fantasize about Trudeau using his power of disallowance, but it would be extremely controversial - perhaps even more than Section 33. It hasn't been used in decades.

Yes but it would win him votes in June. Not doing so would cost him votes.

 

[animatronic]

Yes but it is at her discretion. Should the three other parties and a handful of PC MPs express discontent the LG can claim the premier has lost the confidence of the house.

Even still, she does not need permission to enact her reserve powers. The LG, being the Queens representative is the defacto head of state for Ontario while Ford is the head of government. She operates above and independent of the government.

If she feels that the charter is being circumvented as part of an illegal act (as noted by the courts when striking down Bill 5), she can give Ford an ultimatum. Back off or let the people decide.

Unfortunately you are misreading her reserve ("actual") powers. Her only discretionary areas are to pick a premier in a minority situation, or to deal with a few edge cases like Harper's prorogation.

If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, her only options are to sign or resign. Otherwise she has to sign it and let the courts rule. R&D is dead letter (unless Trudeau really wants to mix things up, but seems like an odd place to make a stand).

The Crown no longer has the explicit or implicit authority to dismiss a sitting leader who enjoys the confidence of the legislature. And confidence can only be lost with a recorded vote. Full stop. Ford's shenanigans notwithstanding that's probably for the best.

 

[nfitz]

If she doesn't think a law is constitutional, her only options are to sign or resign. Otherwise she has to sign it and let the courts rule.

If 63 MPPs sign a letter addressed to the LG, then they'd pay attention.

Yes, has to sign, but also allowed to summon Premier for discussion and consultation. Personally, if I'd been forced to read that throne speech, I'd have summoned the Premier to explain why days later, one of only two legislative priorities (the other being the long-promised and not particularly controversial end to the strike at York) was never mentioned in the throne speech (or the election campaign, etc.). And to make warnings to make sure that it was not phrased in an unconstitutional way. Of course such communications remain secret ...

 

[steveintoronto]

She won't. That's not her job. If he has the support of the house she has no latitude to exercise reserve powers.

I agree if only by parallel precedent. Harper's proroguing of Parl was accepted without question by the then G-G, ( Michaëlle Jean ) even though there were procedural and legal questions surrounding it.

I've just had a chance to read more of the Parl of Can research pub I linked and quoted prior, and the almost forgotten role of the Senate might be a good way to approach this:

5 References by the Senate and House of Commons
Section 54 of the Supreme Court Act allows the Senate or House of Commons to submit a reference to the Court regarding a private bill.44 It should be recalled that private bills are rare in modern practice and do not include matters that fall under private members' business. As Audrey O'Brien and Marc Bosc note in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, "a private bill … seeks something which cannot be obtained by means of the general law and is founded on a petition from an individual or group of individuals."45

The Supreme Court Act and its forerunner, the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, allow private bill references to be examined by "[t]he Court, or any two of the judges."

And this one is delicious, albeit very tart, but not to be dismissed if Caroline Mulroney has any streak of self-respect: ("in council" means the Lieutenant Governor acting on, and with, the advice of the Executive Council or Cabinet.) This is relevant to @Richard White 's point, albeit it would take GrownUps in Ford's cabinet (if there are any) to realize 'we must submit this to the SCC for an interpretation'.

4.3 Lieutenant Governor In Council References On Appeal
Provincial legislation grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province the authority to initiate a reference at each province's highest court. These cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and may touch directly on Parliament's authority.

For example, after the federal Firearms Act was enacted, Alberta commenced a provincial reference case questioning its validity. This was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, resulting in Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), which confirmed the validity of the federal legislation.42

Similarly, when the Government of Canada announced its plan to patriate the Constitution in 1980, references were commenced in several provinces regarding the constitutionality of the resolution before Parliament. These were appealed to the Supreme Court in the resulting Patriation Reference.43

https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2015-44-e.html?cat=government#a5

On the latter section above, Trudeau et al could *challenge* Ford to petition such, in lieu of (edit: The Feds and Allies) contesting his power in court. "Let the SCC decide" would be the neutral and righteous thing to do.

Or else be forced before the SCC by the Parliament of Canada, either in whole or part. (The sitting regime alone has the power to petition this, as well as Private Members and part or whole of the Senate).

 

[animatronic]

If 63 MPPs sign a letter addressed to the LG, then they'd pay attention.

Yes, has to sign, but also allowed to summon Premier for discussion and consultation. Personally, if I'd been forced to read that throne speech, I'd have summoned the Premier to explain why days later, one of only two legislative priorities (the other being the long-promised and not particularly controversial end to the strike at York) was never mentioned in the throne speech (or the election campaign, etc.). And to make warnings to make sure that it was not phrased in an unconstitutional way. Of course such communications remain secret ...

In that case it would have to be a "soft power" counselling session. The LG could ask the premier to reconvene parliament and take a confidence vote, but if he refuses she'd have little recourse.

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.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just catching up on the posts, the level of discussion is exemplary!

I fantasize about Trudeau using his power of disallowance, but it would be extremely controversial - perhaps even more than Section 33. It hasn't been used in decades.

This is a crucial point, it demands perspective and context. You're absolutely right, but that pales in comparison to Ford using the "Nothandstanding" acrobatic manoeuvre. Ont has never used it, and only a couple of other provinces have in instances of *actual gravity*! Ego gratification isn't one.

In a way, this is a God-send for Trudeau and Tory (apologies to Keesmaat). Ford was the first to 'mouth-off'...and now he's going to go down, one way or another. The question isn't 'if'. It's how large the pile-on is going to be?

 

[Allandale25]

I don't get this tweet by Ben Spur which adds a comment to Matt Elliot. Does this mean these Councillors won't be able to run in the 25 model when Ford passes Bill 5 2.0 (with the notwithstanding clause) because they never signed up for the 25 ward model?

 

[animatronic]

I don't get this tweet by Ben Spur which adds a comment to Matt Elliot. Does this mean these Councillors won't be able to run in the 25 model when Ford passes Bill 5 2.0 (with the notwithstanding clause) because they never signed up for the 25 ward model?

So much confusion - almost like our fundamental rights are being denied.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/1039515335240515585?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

[Allandale25]

^ That's the tweet I got it from. This person also notes the same thing (tweet thread here):

Speculating here, but is Toronto progressive left/centre voice on Council about to be decimated? Are we one the cusp of losing incumbent Councillors because there didn't yet sign up for the 25 ward model?

Between all the back and forth with the 47 ward system, and the 25 ward system, we have to be quite cognizant of deadlines to register. As of right now the City is operating under the 47 ward model, so if you registered for that, great. No new candidates can register.

With the Province's expected to use the notwithstanding clause to reintroduce a bill and go back to 25 wards, now it's getting hairy. The original 25 ward model had a deadline of this Friday... but no one can register right now; the City is still under 47.

When will the new bill be passed and receive royal assent? Next week? If that's the case, and we go back to 25 wards, and there's no extension to the deadline, anyone who hasn't already registered for 25 wards can't register for the election. What might this mean?

Well... all those downtown/'NDP'/left-leaning candidates who haven't yet registered, are effectively shut out. It would be a Council without @gordperks, @joe_cressy @kristynwongtam @SarahEDoucette @m_layton @PaulaFletcher36

 

[DSC]

Yes but it would win him votes in June. Not doing so would cost him votes.

I really doubt that is true. It is legal, though certainly not 'moral' or right, to use Section 33. Disallowance is NOT the way to go and will 99.99999% surely not be used. That is not to say Trudeau should not use his voice to express displeasure at this use of the Clause!