Author Topic: New Ontario Government 2018  (Read 27813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 502,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,279
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #225 on: September 20, 2018, 11:19:59 »
1. an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
2.an extensive sphere of activity controlled by one person or group.

So like a bunch of smaller cities ruled by by an oligarchy ( a small group of people having control of a country or organization.

Seems accurate enough to me.

Must I remind you, again, that our Emperor mayor at City Hall can't even install a speed bump without permission from the Emperor premier at Queen's Park.

If you want to call people and places empires and emperors, you should read this,
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-premier-powers-1.4764817

Seems accurate enough to me.
Did they?  If Toronto makes up half of Ontario's population, and you've provided an excellent source supporting that, why then did Ford have such a sweeping victory? Why did the Liberals lose their party status?

Did all or even most of Toronto vote Liberal?

I don't follow party politics.

As far as I am concerned, ( I'll say it again ) there is no Liberal or Conservative way to fix a sewer.

So not just 'the rest' of Ontario wanted Ford elected but a good chunk of Toronto as well?

You asked. I answered. Toronto rejected Rob ( 2013 ) and Doug ( 2014 ) Ford.

As far as party politics are concerned, I suspect people who are going to vote Conservative are going to vote Conservative no matter who is running the party. Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ...

My question would be, did the Conservatives get in because of Doug, or in spite of Doug?

Compared to Toronto's 2014 mayoral election, Doug's time on the provincial campaign trail was a lot shorter.

He also seemed relatively subdued compared to his behavior at City Hall and during the mayoral election campaign.

Perhaps he understood, or it was explained to him, that unlike municipal politics, the election is less about him, and more about the party. The Conservatives seemed likely to get in even before Doug hit the provincial campaign trail.


« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 11:28:21 by mariomike »

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 108,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,275
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #226 on: September 20, 2018, 11:24:57 »
They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.
Optio

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 502,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,279
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #227 on: September 20, 2018, 11:31:01 »
They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.

My uneducated guess is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 731
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #228 on: September 20, 2018, 11:42:17 »
My uneducated [ctiolor=yellow]guess[/color] is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.
Quite likely they would have succeeded but Toronto voted for the party WITH Doug and, since they had seen him in action in city council they knew exactly what they were voting for. 

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 502,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,279
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #229 on: September 20, 2018, 11:58:44 »
Quite likely they would have succeeded but Toronto voted for the party WITH Doug and, since they had seen him in action in city council they knew exactly what they were voting for.

As someone eligible to vote in Toronto elections, I do not recall Doug mentioning his intent to immediately cut our council in half before our fall municipal election.

I also do not recall him threatening the use the Notwithstanding Clause ( as if anyone ever heard of it, because it has never been used in Ontario ) if he does not get his way with City Hall.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 140,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,424
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #230 on: September 20, 2018, 12:10:10 »
My uneducated guess is that they would have got in if Patrick Brown, Christine Elliott, Doug Ford, Tanya Granic Allen, Caroline Mulroney ... was their candidate.

In Canada, most governments are "unelected" rather than governments getting elected, the other party just wins by just not being the party currently out of favour.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 502,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,279
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #231 on: September 20, 2018, 12:17:54 »
In Canada, most governments are "unelected" rather than governments getting elected, the other party just wins by just not being the party currently out of favour.

From what I have read, it sounds like the Conservatives were going to get in - with or without Doug.

Someone put it this way,

They got in because of Kathleen Wynee.

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,397
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #232 on: September 20, 2018, 13:37:04 »
As someone eligible to vote in Toronto elections, I do not recall Doug mentioning his intent to immediately cut our council in half before our fall municipal election.

I also do not recall him threatening the use the Notwithstanding Clause ( as if anyone ever heard of it, because it has never been used in Ontario ) if he does not get his way with City Hall.


Lack of knowledge of the "not withstanding" clause is more likely due to a lack of awareness of politics in areas outside the centre of the universe. It's been discussed at length in the media  whenever it's brought up by a politician, particularly one the media doesn't like.

Toronto's urban progressives will get back in power some day again, and I'm sure they'll go back to pandering to urbanites. Maybe expanding city councils will be their number one priority, or maybe a 25 member city council will be great and all the fuss will have been for nothing.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 108,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,275
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #233 on: September 20, 2018, 13:48:50 »
People and parties in power have all sorts of tools they can use.  The notwithstanding clause, prorogation, recalling parliament etc etc.  We should always assume that they will use any one of those things to further their agenda or what they think is right. 
Optio

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 731
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #234 on: September 20, 2018, 16:22:08 »
The not withstanding clause should be used more frequently than it has been.  It was placed there in the first place to prevent the courts from becoming the de facto legislators.  It protects us from having an un-elected organisation deciding what is 'democratic' or reading intent into legislation that was never intended.  I am actually grateful that an elected official had the guts to actually use it and in retrospect the ruling from the court of appeal upheld Ford's position (fair or not).   

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,397
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #235 on: September 20, 2018, 16:49:12 »
The not withstanding clause should be used more frequently than it has been.  It was placed there in the first place to prevent the courts from becoming the de facto legislators.  It protects us from having an un-elected organisation deciding what is 'democratic' or reading intent into legislation that was never intended.  I am actually grateful that an elected official had the guts to actually use it and in retrospect the ruling from the court of appeal upheld Ford's position (fair or not).

My position on this is similar, it's a legitimate tool placed in the constitution to prevent abuse of power by the courts. The judge that ruled against the provincial government used a weak argument to try to prevent an elected government from doing what is completely in it's power to do.


Normally it seems the Canadian courts appear free of politics(to me at least), hopefully they can stay that way. Making decisions that appear politically driven diminishes the respect people have for the courts.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 191,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #236 on: September 20, 2018, 17:21:53 »
My position on this is similar, it's a legitimate tool placed in the constitution to prevent abuse of power by the courts. The judge that ruled against the provincial government used a weak argument to try to prevent an elected government from doing what is completely in it's power to do.


Normally it seems the Canadian courts appear free of politics(to me at least), hopefully they can stay that way. Making decisions that appear politically driven diminishes the respect people have for the courts.

For the life of me I can't understand why so many here are fixated on the notion that there is an "abuse of power by the courts".

I won't rehash my views on this but to set matters straight, the "notwithstanding clause" provisions are designed to enshrine the British system of "parliamentary supremacy" so that ultimately, when a legislature thinks that an issue is important enough, they can temporarily enact a measure even if the measure is contrary to the Charter. Think of the Parti Quebeqois use of the clause in the early 1980s when every law they passed (as well as retroactively to all prior laws passed in Quebec) was made using the "notwithstanding" clause because they wanted to ensure that no Quebec law could ever be challenged in court. In effect they wanted to preempt the courts from challenging any Quebec law under the Charter.

Remember too that any use of the clause is limited to a five year term expressly to ensure that there will be an election before the clause can be reused so that the people have an opportunity to also voice their opinion through their vote on the issue.

Courts and legislatures each have their respective roles in an effort to have checks and balances in place. There is a much greater potential for elected officials to abuse their "powers" to further their party's agenda then there is for a tenured-for-life judge.

The judge in this case got it wrong. He tried to equate "unfair" with "unconstitutional". In short order, the Court of Appeal told him so. The system worked. In four years or so the electors of Toronto can tell Ford what they thought about him on this issue one way or the other. That too is the system working.

 [cheers]
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 27,397
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #237 on: September 20, 2018, 20:20:36 »
For the life of me I can't understand why so many here are fixated on the notion that there is an "abuse of power by the courts".

I won't rehash my views on this but to set matters straight, the "notwithstanding clause" provisions are designed to enshrine the British system of "parliamentary supremacy" so that ultimately, when a legislature thinks that an issue is important enough, they can temporarily enact a measure even if the measure is contrary to the Charter. Think of the Parti Quebeqois use of the clause in the early 1980s when every law they passed (as well as retroactively to all prior laws passed in Quebec) was made using the "notwithstanding" clause because they wanted to ensure that no Quebec law could ever be challenged in court. In effect they wanted to preempt the courts from challenging any Quebec law under the Charter.

Remember too that any use of the clause is limited to a five year term expressly to ensure that there will be an election before the clause can be reused so that the people have an opportunity to also voice their opinion through their vote on the issue.

Courts and legislatures each have their respective roles in an effort to have checks and balances in place. There is a much greater potential for elected officials to abuse their "powers" to further their party's agenda then there is for a tenured-for-life judge.

The judge in this case got it wrong. He tried to equate "unfair" with "unconstitutional". In short order, the Court of Appeal told him so. The system worked. In four years or so the electors of Toronto can tell Ford what they thought about him on this issue one way or the other. That too is the system working.

 [cheers]

I suppose I was going for brevity over clarity in the quoted post, I don't think there was an abuse of power in this case. Just  saying that the clause exists to place a check on the power of the courts, just as the courts are a check on the parliaments, as you said much more eloquently.  :bowdown:

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 731
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #238 on: September 20, 2018, 21:01:06 »
FJAG, your logic is correct.  BUT using the same reasoning, the use of the not withstanding clause is a constitutional tool to ensure exactly the same result.  It can prevent the courts from having an unreasonable say in the way that the province or country is being governed.  It allows for the government to make a decision, the justice department to reject it, the government to apply the not withstanding clause and then the people to decide whether the government or the courts were correct.  It may not be a perfect check and balance but it covers most bases.  So I say again, I am very grateful that we had an elected official who was willing to go against the courts.  That is the way it is supposed to work and not just give in to the court's decision every time which is what has been happening. 

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 191,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #239 on: September 20, 2018, 21:17:25 »
FJAG, your logic is correct.  BUT using the same reasoning, the use of the not withstanding clause is a constitutional tool to ensure exactly the same result.  It can prevent the courts from having an unreasonable say in the way that the province or country is being governed.  It allows for the government to make a decision, the justice department to reject it, the government to apply the not withstanding clause and then the people to decide whether the government or the courts were correct.  It may not be a perfect check and balance but it covers most bases.  So I say again, I am very grateful that we had an elected official who was willing to go against the courts.  That is the way it is supposed to work and not just give in to the court's decision every time which is what has been happening. 

I suppose I was going for brevity over clarity in the quoted post, I don't think there was an abuse of power in this case. Just  saying that the clause exists to place a check on the power of the courts, just as the courts are a check on the parliaments, as you said much more eloquently.  :bowdown:

The difference in our points of view is that I do not think that the "notwithstanding clause" was designed as a check on the courts (whether reasonable or unreasonable).

What the clause is, IMHO, is a check on the Charter itself. It's a tool that the legislatures gave themselves where any one of them can say: 'this legislation that we are passing is more important than a specific provision of the Charter and we're prepared to put our political reputation/future on the line over this issue'. The legislature can use the clause either retroactively where a court has interpreted a specific statute component as contravening the Charter or proactively, like in Quebec, to give a piece of legislation immunity from a challenge where they know it is going to be in contravention of the Charter even before a court deals with the issue.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 731
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #240 on: September 20, 2018, 22:42:32 »
The problem with your statement is quite simple: if I agree with you than it would imply that we are conceding a significant level of wisdom to the authors of the charter and that is a scary thought

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 191,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #241 on: September 20, 2018, 23:26:39 »
The problem with your statement is quite simple: if I agree with you than it would imply that we are conceding a significant level of wisdom to the authors of the charter and that is a scary thought

The idea came from Peter Lougheed of Alberta and was supported by the western premiers in order to ensure parliamentary supremacy. Here's a short article in Lougheed's own words:

Quote
The Honourable E. Peter Lougheed
Why a Notwithstanding Clause?
Shortly after our government was sworn into office in September, 1971, I asked the new Attorney General, Merv Leitch, to prepare an Alberta Bill of Rights. This would be the first item of legislation to be introduced at the first session of the new Legislature in the spring of 1972.

Some weeks later Mr. Leitch asked to see me to discuss an important matter. He came to my office and described his progress in preparing Bill 1, the Alberta Bill of Rights. Merv said to me, "Premier, we will have to provide in this Bill for a notwithstanding clause!" I responded, "What the hell is a notwithstanding clause?"

Merv patiently explained to me that we needed to include a clause which allowed, if public policy dictated, for other Alberta laws to operate notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights. He explained that this was required in the event that either the government wished to propose legislation contrary or at odds with the rights or freedoms contained in the Alberta Bill of Rights or a court ruled that a particular piece of Alberta legislation was invalid because it purported to authorize the abrogation or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms recognized and declared in the Alberta Bill of Rights. Thus came section 2 of the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Nine years later in Ottawa, in September 1980, at an open, televised First Ministers' Conference on the Constitution, Prime Minister Trudeau espoused the desirability of patriating the Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Allan Blakeney and Sterling Lyon, argued just as eloquently that such a Charter was not needed in Canada but that, in any event, the supremacy of Parliament should prevail over the appointed judiciary. I supported them on behalf of Albertans.

It was at this point that Merv Leitch engaged me in a private side discussion and suggested that I intervene by proposing a "notwithstanding clause" along the lines of section 2 of the Alberta Bill of Rights. I did so. My impression was that many around the table were not in any different a position than myself nine years earlier and were not knowledgeable about the concept. They did, though, couch their responses in more diplomatic language than I had done. In fact, a few said to me later that they had never heard of such a concept, although it had existed in obscurity in Mr. Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights for many years.

The concept, sometimes known as non-obstante, became an integral part of the constitutional drama that unfolded during the balance of 1980 and through 1981.

The final "deal" (sadly absent of Quebec) on November 5, 1981 was, as is almost always the case, a trade-off. Essentially Mr. Trudeau got his Charter of Rights and the Western Premiers got both the Alberta Amending Formula and a notwithstanding clause.

The notwithstanding clause reflects a balance between two competing interpretations of our democratic system. Canada has an historic tradition of parliamentary supremacy. This is reflected in the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867 which expresses the desire that the Dominion have a "constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom."

Prior to the Charter, the role of the courts was to give effect to the political choices made by the legislators. Subject only to issues relating to the division of powers, courts were bound by the idea that Parliament was supreme and the court's role of judicial review was limited. While the Charter raises to an unprecedented level the protection of rights and freedoms afforded to Canadians, it is acknowledged that democratic society sometimes requires the abrogation of these rights for important reasons.

Through the notwithstanding clause, Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare that legislation passed by it shall operate notwithstanding the fundamental freedoms (of conscience and religion, thought and expression, assembly and association), legal rights or the equality rights guaranteed by the Charter. To invoke the notwithstanding clause, the legislature must make an express declaration that it is overriding a particular right or rights in the Charter.

There are limits to the use of the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 does not affect the guarantee of rights and freedoms in section 1, Democratic Rights (section 3-5), Mobility Rights (section 6), Official Languages of Canada (sections 16-22), and Minority Language Educational Rights (section 23).

As well, a declaration that legislation shall operate notwithstanding the Charter automatically ceases to have effect five years after its enactment. The declaration may be re-enacted, compelling the government invoking section 33 to review its use and subjecting the express infringement to renewed public scrutiny every five years.

In Canada, the debate regarding the notwithstanding clause continues. Is this provision a loophole that devalues and dilutes individual rights permitting abuses by legislators? Reference could be made to the Japanese internment during World War II, the head tax on Chinese immigrants during the early part of this century or the suspension of rights pursuant to the War Measures Act. Or, is section 33 an essential safety valve and check on the power of the judiciary in a system with a tradition of legislative supremacy?

The purpose of the override is to provide an opportunity for the responsible and accountable public discussion of rights issues, and this might be undermined if legislators are free to use the override without open discussion and deliberation of the specifics of its use. There is little room to doubt that, when defying the Supreme Court, as well as overriding a pronounced right, a legislature should consider the importance of the right involved, the objective of the stricken legislation, the availability of other, less intrusive, means of reaching the same policy objective, and a host of other issues. It should not only be the responsibility of the Courts to determine whether a limit is reasonable or demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. If a legislature wishes to take issue with the Court's determination, it too should be required to consider whether the limit is one that is justifiable in a free and democratic society.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161107160251/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rights-and-freedoms/023021-1400-e.html

I've always thought that the provision (as well as the S1 "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" provision) was a good balancing act. IMHO there were some fairly bright guys involved on both sides in working out the various compromises.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 23:31:26 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 289,661
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,804
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #242 on: September 21, 2018, 11:47:06 »
Ontario Liberals understated their deficits?
Hard to believe.

Quote
Wynne’s Liberals “cooked the books”, left deficit 224% larger than reported


The Progressive Conservative government announced the independent inquiry in July and tasked it with probing the Liberal regime’s accounting methods surrounding a pair of teacher pension plans and the province’s Fair Hydro Plan.

Those accounting practices led to a two-year fight with Ontario’s auditor general, who said in April that the Liberals understated their deficits by billions.




https://thenectarine.ca/politics/wynnes-liberals-cooked-the-books-left-deficit-224-larger-than-reported/
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 66,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,770
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #243 on: September 21, 2018, 12:41:06 »
The chief role of a constitution is to set impenetrable limits on government, especially with regard to rights of the person.  A "notwithstanding" clause is a mockery.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,603
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,890
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #244 on: September 21, 2018, 13:04:34 »
Ontario Liberals understated their deficits?
Hard to believe.
 

https://thenectarine.ca/politics/wynnes-liberals-cooked-the-books-left-deficit-224-larger-than-reported/

Thats crazy, no wait is that not criminal ?
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 289,661
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,804
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #245 on: September 22, 2018, 15:30:24 »
Thats crazy, no wait is that not criminal ?

Naw they just used a different way to count money. You know, so it doesn't look as bad.

They're not even trying to hide their lies anymore.

http://brianlilley.com/ontarios-liberals-admit-they-lied-for-years/
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,059
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #246 on: September 24, 2018, 21:37:26 »
As someone eligible to vote in Toronto elections, I do not recall Doug mentioning his intent to immediately cut our council in half before our fall municipal election.

I also do not recall him threatening the use the Notwithstanding Clause ( as if anyone ever heard of it, because it has never been used in Ontario ) if he does not get his way with City Hall.

So far as I can tell, the  PCPO seemed careful to avoid having a detailed platform at all. All they needed was a person who could stand upright and had a pulse. Sort of like a crash test dummy that is alive. A highly intellectual leader would have made informed statements that for very many would be unforgettable and not forgivable. With Doug, at least those who elected him got neither a philosopher or a village idiot. They got Doug.
Living the lean life

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 191,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,227
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #247 on: September 28, 2018, 23:26:39 »
Good news in Ontario

Quote
Ontario Drive Clean Program Cancelled By PC Government

This crappy piece of legislation had long ago outlived it's usefulness. The Liberals recognized that the public hated it when it decided to make the tests free. They hung on to it, however, making it a public expense to the tune of about $40 million per year. The new program will focus on the heavy truck industry where it ought to be.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/28/ontario-drive-clean-program-cancelled-by-pc-government_a_23545199/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 278,067
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,595
    • Army.ca
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #248 on: September 30, 2018, 18:33:25 »
How do you mess with the charter when the action you take is empowered by the charter?

Intellectuals don't bother with legalities. If it fits their agenda, that's the answer. When they need to, they'll haul out the same Charter to bash you over the head with, because now it fits what they want.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 289,661
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,804
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #249 on: October 05, 2018, 03:27:17 »
Visited someone in the hospital not too long ago. They were getting their stomach cut open and had to spend 4-5 days in the hospital before the operation. Spent the whole time laying in a shitty hospital bed in the hall way, it was like seeing a sick animal at the zoo. Zero privacy. 

Pretty happy to read this story this morning


HEALTHFord government increases hospital funding by $90 million to address overcrowding
https://thenectarine.ca/news/ford-government-increases-hospital-funding-by-90-million-to-address-overcrowding/
There are no wolves on Fenris