[Admiral Beez]

The firefighters’ union has issued a statement. http://www.opffa.org/media.html along with the IAFF

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588644517468860417

I figured it was only a matter of time before the police and firefighter unions, the sort of folks Ford aspires to be liked by, began to speak up. This idiot has kicked a bee hive of organized labour. We haven’t heard from the police union yet.

I imagine the CUPE head phoning the heads of every public and private sector union in the province with a simple message: once Ford is done with us, forcing a contract and making job action illegal and removing constitutional rights, he‘ll be coming for you.

Unifor, Canada’s largest private sector union just spoke up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588848605883867136

My wife was walking the protest yesterday at Queen’s Park and said there were lots of other unions plus regular folks marching alongside.

 

[lenaitch]

Section 33 does allow for the suspension of Section 12 the Charter. But look at Section 13 (1) of Bill 28. The language there says "Pursuant to subsection 33 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this Act is declared to operate notwithstanding sections 2, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." For some reason, they didn't make it notwithstanding Section 12. In Quebec, they frequently use an or not an and.

Also "cruel and unusual treatment and punishment" rights existed long before the 1982 Charter. And Section 26 here is probably more important than Section 33 - which says "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada."

The notwithstanding clause can not be applied to rights that already existed before 1982.

Well now that is interesting. Good catch, if we are looking at the actual version passed and assented (I note that it is only in English, not the two column English/French version that is typically seen) that little missive might be enough to get a court to look at it, not from the angle that it is skipping Charter Section 12 (which, in my personal view, is irrelevant), but that the legislation is making an improper Charter declaration or a declaration they are not empowered to make. It might get some traction; how far up would remain to be seen. A court could simply take a de minimis non curat lex (the law does not deal in trifles) view.

 

[nfitz]

Well now that is interesting. Good catch, if we are looking at the actual version passed and assented (I note that it is only in English, not the two column English/French version that is typically seen) that little missive might be enough to get a court to look at it, not from the angle that it is skipping Charter Section 12 (which, in my personal view, is irrelevant), but that the legislation is making an improper Charter declaration or a declaration they are not empowered to make. It might get some traction; how far up would remain to be seen. A court could simply take a de minimis non curat lex (the law does not deal in trifles) view.

I think the original expectation was that use of the notwithstanding clause whould list which sections - not just blanket list all the sections.

BTW, I've heard rumours on the street that Doug Ford and Lecce have both left on vacation this weekend. Anyone know if this is true?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think the original expectation was that use of the notwithstanding clause whould list which sections - not just blanket list all the sections.

BTW, I've heard rumours on the street that Doug Ford and Lecce have both left on vacation this weekend. Anyone know if this is true?

I hope they can confirm and make sure it is widely known if it is the case.

AoD

 

[Bjays92]

I hope they can confirm and make sure it is widely known if it is the case.

AoD

Our Waterloo MPP is on vacation for 2 weeks I know that much,.how convenient. This is not a government for the people.

 

[ShonTron]

I think the original expectation was that use of the notwithstanding clause whould list which sections - not just blanket list all the sections.

BTW, I've heard rumours on the street that Doug Ford and Lecce have both left on vacation this weekend. Anyone know if this is true?

Leece did appear on CBC News Network from his home yesterday. The interview is worth watching.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589052473209225216

 

[wopchop]

Province orders Hamilton to expand urban boundary

Doug Ford government emphatically rejected the city’s plan Friday to freeze its urban boundary and grow within its existing footprint.

www.thespec.com

"Doug Ford’s provincial government has rejected Hamilton’s pitch to freeze its urban boundary and instead ordered a massive expansion into the countryside that would allow up to 2,200 hectares of potential new housing development.

The decision, delivered to the city late Friday, comes atop a separate Tory government proposal to allow new housing on some protected Hamilton lands in the Greenbelt — despite a prior pledge not to do so."

The logic makes no sense. Make no mistake, 90% of this boundary expansion will be detached and semi detached homes. If they cover 2,200 hectares with low density homes, you are looking at 44,000 to 66,000 units. Probably less once you account for roads, schools, parks, & strip malls.
Do these turds really think this solves anything?
Any statement by any development association about how this solves the problem should be treated as suspect, given that these people are nothing but professional liars.

 

[afransen]

Province orders Hamilton to expand urban boundary

Doug Ford government emphatically rejected the city’s plan Friday to freeze its urban boundary and grow within its existing footprint.

www.thespec.com

"Doug Ford’s provincial government has rejected Hamilton’s pitch to freeze its urban boundary and instead ordered a massive expansion into the countryside that would allow up to 2,200 hectares of potential new housing development.

The decision, delivered to the city late Friday, comes atop a separate Tory government proposal to allow new housing on some protected Hamilton lands in the Greenbelt — despite a prior pledge not to do so."

The logic makes no sense. Make no mistake, 90% of this boundary expansion will be detached and semi detached homes. If they cover 2,200 hectares with low density homes, you are looking at 44,000 to 66,000 units. Probably less once you account for roads, schools, parks, & strip malls.
Do these turds really think this solves anything?
Any statement by any development association about how this solves the problem should be treated as suspect, given that these people are nothing but professional liars.

Can the City combat by requiring minimum density? I don't necessarily have a problem with expansion growth boundaries if it is built at reasonable density and with structure than lends itself to intensification, not meandering cul-de-sacs.

 

[nfitz]

Leece did appear on CBC News Network from his home yesterday. The interview is worth watching.

I wondered if the rumour was confounding that the legislature isn't sitting this week.

Still would be nice to know where Ford was.

Not sure as a parent watching Lecce I can stomach watching an interview, knowing they have so much influence and power over my kids.

 

[PinkLucy]

My kids are adults but I can’t stomach Lecce regardless of the situation.

 

[wopchop]

Can the City combat by requiring minimum density? I don't necessarily have a problem with expansion growth boundaries if it is built at reasonable density and with structure than lends itself to intensification, not meandering cul-de-sacs.

Others are better versed to answer than I, but our track record for redeveloping greenfields is awful. Go to any Greenfield development ongoing right now anywhere in the GTA and it is almost exclusively detached or semi-detached houses.

 

[lenaitch]

I think the original expectation was that use of the notwithstanding clause whould list which sections - not just blanket list all the sections.

BTW, I've heard rumours on the street that Doug Ford and Lecce have both left on vacation this weekend. Anyone know if this is true?

Original expectation, who knows, but this from the attached 'Charterpedia website posted by the DOJ:

Section 33 lays down a requirement of form only. In invoking section 33, the legislature does not need to identify the provisions of the Act in question which might otherwise infringe specified guaranteed rights and/or freedoms, nor does the legislature need to provide a substantive justification for using the override (Ford v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, paragraph 33).​

​

A declaration under section 33 is valid if it generally names all of sections 2 and 7 to 15, without specifying the possible provisions to which the override may apply. Omnibus legislation will not affect the validity of the declaration (Ford, supra).​

​

Where the legislative intent is to override only part of the provision or provisions contained in a section, subsection or paragraph of the Charter, there must be a sufficient reference in words to the part to be overridden (Ford, supra).​

Charterpedia - Section 33 – Notwithstanding clause

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

justice.gc.ca

 

[DSC]

From Built Heritage News:

Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, has within it a bomb for heritage preservation in Ontario. It proposes changes that will give Cabinet powers to override heritage protection for other provincial priorities, make it impossible to maintain listed properties on a heritage register for more than two years, and require two criteria rather than one for designation. These changes will simply create chaos for heritage, without creating a single additional unit of housing. Notably absent from Bill 23 is any emphasis on converting existing buildings for housing. These changes for the tiny percentage of buildings in Ontario with heritage protection are poorly thought out and just plain vicious,

Geoff Kettel sent out the alert below this morning to a Toronto Preservation Board meeting TOMORROW morning at which staff will be presenting changes to the Bill. I urge you to observe this meeting.

The Architectural Conservancy Ontario is working on a response to the Bill. The ACO press release can be found here.

In my opinion, everyone who cares about Ontario's heritage should be contacting their MPP's to ask that the changes to the Ontario Heritage Act in Bill 23 be removed from the legislation.

The Ontario government's omnibus legislation Bill 23 contains a number of proposed changes that are extremely detrimental to heritage preservation. The most serious change will ensure that all listed buildings on the municipal heritage registry that are not officially designated will no longer have listed status (ie., protection from demolition for 90 days) after two years, unless they are designated within that period. This is a total disaster for the Heritage Register and for our attempts to protect heritage properties. For your information, here is a link to a commentary on Bill 23 by the legal firm Aird Berlis (refer to the section on the Ontario Heritage Act).

The Preservation Board meeting can be watched at: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&decisionBodyId=1899#Meeting-2022.PB39

 

[Admiral Beez]

Word is the GO Transit bus drivers will strike at Queens Park tomorrow alongside CUPE. And there’s talk of a general strike of all unions across the province on Nov 14, but we’ll see how many other unions truly show.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1589308265632268288

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

I'm wondering now about the abandoned The Orangeville-Brampton Railway and how many of these developers have bought up the land around the corridor in hopes that the Ford Government will take over it. Can't help but wonder about all the other existing rail/trail corridors in the surrounding GTA that could potentially be reactivated if Ford's friends want to develop new green fields.