Wrecking ball

Tuesday November 8, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 8, 2022

Doug Ford uses a big principle for small politics

There is no real substantive reason why the Premier of Ontario can’t testify before the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, but, as a Federal Court judge has ruled, he has a “lawful excuse.”

November 4, 2022

Doug Ford has found that he can indeed use an important, constitutionally entrenched principle to serve small political goals.

Mr. Ford and his Deputy Premier, Sylvia Jones, had claimed parliamentary privilege, the venerable precept that ensures the work of legislatures isn’t sidetracked by lawsuits and legal proceedings, to avoid a day of testimony this Thursday – on a day when the Ontario legislature isn’t even sitting.

He has won in court, so now he won’t have to explain why he felt Ontario’s policing laws, and Ontario’s police, weren’t enough to handle February’s truckers’ convoy protests and blockades of border crossings and city streets, or testify about those events, which took place mostly in his province.

Justice Simon Fothergill’s ruling made clear that Mr. Ford won in court because parliamentary privilege protects MPPs from having to testify before courts and inquiries – whether or not testifying would actually impede the work of the Premier, or the legislature.

February 5, 2022

In the end, Justice Fothergill acknowledged the breadth of parliamentary privilege. It isn’t some tiny technicality. It’s a principle of parliamentary independence from the courts that comes from Westminster and is entrenched in Canada’s Constitution.

But the key issue is still that Mr. Ford and Ms. Jones didn’t have to hide behind that privilege. Parliamentarians often waive it. The Premier used this big principle as a legal loophole to protect himself.

If you’re keeping score, you might notice that Mr. Ford has made a habit of invoking big constitutionally recognized mechanisms to deal with political challenges. He pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights in back-to-work legislation for support workers in Ontario schools. He backtracked on that Monday. Just because you can invoke big principles to further small politics, it doesn’t mean you should.

February 19, 2022

It is true, as Mr. Ford has argued, that the Emergencies Act inquiry revolves around a federal government decision. What’s at issue is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to invoke the act on Feb. 14 to respond to the convoy protests. That legislation, 

which allowed the authorities to employ extraordinary powers including freezing bank accounts, is only to be used when no other law will do. The inquiry must determine whether that threshold was met.

But to get there, the commission has to figure out whether normal policing – under the jurisdiction of the province – should have been enough. Mr. Ford felt it wasn’t. (The Globe & Mail) 

 

Thursday August 11, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday August 11, 2022

Delivering new services ‘complicated,’ Freeland says of planned dental care program

April 8, 2022

The government is working hard to meet its end-of-year deadline to deliver dental-care coverage to kids, the deputy prime minister said Tuesday, but added providing new services is “complicated.”

The Liberals agreed to offer dental coverage to low- and middle-income children by the end of the year as part of their confidence and supply deal with the New Democrats to keep the minority government from toppling before 2025.

Several groups have raised concerns about the very tight deadline, and four sources close to the program say the government is working on a temporary solution to give money directly to qualifying families while it comes up with a permanent program.

Freeland did not confirm or deny the government’s immediate plans but said the Liberals are committed to the dental-care program, and it’s a commitment she’s “happy to make.”

Friday June 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 11, 2021

The Canadian Charter’s notwithstanding clause is increasingly indefensible

It isn’t happening in Quebec, but in Ontario, so there will be more of a fuss than would otherwise be the case.

September 14, 2018

But there will be less of a fuss than the last time the Doug Ford government threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to override constitutionally guaranteed rights. The next time it happens, there will be less still. And there will be a next time, and a next time after that, and another, and another – precisely because the political costs of doing so diminish with each use.

This is how the clause is being normalized. This is how, in consequence, the Charter of Rights is being eviscerated. It is already more or less a dead letter in Quebec, where the override has been invoked over the years by governments of every party. Once upon a time it might have caused something of a stir, at least outside the province, as when Robert Bourassa used it to uphold the ban on English-language signs in 1988.

September 21, 2019

But having paid no discernible price for invoking the clause to protect Bill 21, legislation that effectively bars the hiring of religious minorities across much of the public service, Quebec’s CAQ government was quick to do the same with regard to Bill 96, its new and harsher language law. A rights “guarantee” that cannot protect minorities from overt harassment and discrimination – a guarantee that applies only as when the government of the day decides it should – is not much of a guarantee at all.

July 28, 2018

And now it is happening elsewhere. Mr. Ford’s first attempt to use the clause, over a 2018 bill that would have cut the size of Toronto city council in half – in the middle of a municipal election – may have collapsed in confusion, but now the Premier is back for another try. This time the casus belli is Bill 254, legislation passed earlier this year that would, among other things, double the length of time before an election campaign during which third-party advocacy groups would be subject to spending limits.

As before, the Premier has supposedly been provoked to action by a judge’s ruling, overturning the legislation on Charter grounds. But as before this is not really the issue. The government could have appealed either ruling to a higher court, and even had it lost there, it could have rewritten either bill in ways that addressed its purported intent, without unduly limiting Charter rights. (Globe & Mail) 

 

Wednesday January 13, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 13, 2021

With new stay-at-home order, Ontario admits previous COVID-19 lockdown was too weak

The Ontario government is ordering everyone in the province to stay at home except for essential reasons, while also allowing non-essential businesses to keep operating.

2020 Gallery – Ontario

For anyone struggling to reconcile this, Premier Doug Ford has a blunt message. 

“There’s no confusion. It’s very simple,” Ford said Wednesday. “Stay. Home. Stay home. If you’re questioning, ‘Should I go out,’ you got the answer: stay home.” 

And then, in case Ontario’s hundreds of thousands of francophones failed to comprehend, Ford glanced down at his notes and said: “Restez à la maison.”

Since the second wave of COVID-19 began building in Ontario in September, this is the clearest Ford has been in telling people what they must do to rein in the pandemic. 

It makes you wonder: if he’d said this a month or more ago and imposed a stay-at-home order and new state of emergency then, how different would things be now? 

November 12, 2020

The wording of the order was published Wednesday evening, more than five days after the news conference in which Ford promised that new restrictions were on the way. 

During that news conference last Friday, Ford said the latest modelling for the pandemic was so grim “you’ll fall off your chair.”

Many health experts are questioning why Ford needed that modelling to see the tsunami of COVID-19 cases hitting Ontario, threatening to fill intensive care units beyond capacity. 

The government can’t say it wasn’t warned — repeatedly — about what was coming unless tougher restrictions kicked in. 

Modelling in late November from the province’s COVID-19 science advisory table projected the province would see an average of 2,000 cases per day sometime in December. Ontario crossed that threshold Dec. 17. 

November 5, 2020

Modelling made public on Dec. 10 warned the province would surpass 300 COVID-19 patients in intensive care later in the month and approach 400 in early January. ICU occupancy passed the 300 mark just after Christmas and hit 400 on Jan. 9, according to the official daily reports by Critical Care Services Ontario.  

The real kick-in-the-teeth modelling was published on Dec. 19. It presented evidence that “soft lockdowns” were failing to slow the pandemic in many jurisdictions, including Ontario. 

The government’s own scientific advisers said by imposing what they called a “hard lockdown” immediately, Ontario could start to bend the pandemic curve within a week and prevent many thousands of new cases. 

At the same time, Ontario’s hospitals were calling for stronger lockdowns in all public health units with high rates of transmissions. 

October 3, 2020

Instead, even as the province was reporting more than 2,000 new cases of COVID-19 every day, the Ford government delayed imposing any new measures until Boxing Day. 

The advance notice of the lockdown softened the sense of urgency, undermined the government’s message that things were getting serious, and implicitly told Ontarians it was perfectly okay to go finish their Christmas shopping. Little wonder that Google data showed a sharp spike in movement by Ontarians in the pre-Christmas week.  (CBC)

 

Saturday April 26, 2014

Saturday April 26, 2014By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 26, 2014

Supreme Court rejects Harper government proposals for Senate reform

Ottawa cannot act alone to reform the Senate, limit terms or appoint only elected senators, and must have the consent of seven provinces with half the country’s population, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

Abolition of the Senate altogether can only be done with the unanimous consent of the federal Parliament and all provinces, the country’s top court concluded.

In a landmark defeat for Prime Minister Stephen Harper that could yet set the stage for a referendum by a government frustrated at its failure to unilaterally legislate Senate reform, the high court dismissed nearly every single argument brought before it by federal lawyers.

A referendum is seen by some within the Conservative government as a potential political hammer to pressure reluctant provinces to go along with Senate reform. Maxime Bernier, a Conservative cabinet minister from Quebec, said Friday the court decision means a referendum is the only way to go.

The high court decision was a unanimous 8-0 judgment. In a clear sign of the strong judicial consensus, the 52-page ruling was signed by “The Court” as a whole, not penned by any one judge.

Hours after the ruling Prime Minister Stephen Harper in brief comments at Kitchener said the result is no change to the Senate will happen anytime soon.

“The Supreme Court of Canada essentially said today that for any important Senate reform of any kind, as well as abolition, these are only decisions the provinces can take.

“We know that there is no consensus among the provinces on reform, no consensus on abolition, and no desire of anyone to reopen the constitution and have a bunch of constitutional negotiations. So essentially this is a decision for the status quo, a status quo that is supported by virtually no Canadian.”

“So look, I think that given that the Supreme Court has said we’re essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being and that significant reform and abolition are off the table I think it’s a decision I’m disappointed with but I think it’s a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with, but obviously we will respect that decision.” (Source: Toronto Star)