Canadian Politics Today

Municipal councillors deal with issues on a more granular level than their provincial and federal counterparts. Regular people are more likely to deal directly with their councillor than an MP or MPP (we call them MLAs in Manitoba) because municipal politicians are in charge of most of the things that directly affect people, like roads and permits and snow clearing. Winnipeg once had 50 councillors but the PC government in the 1970s reduced it to 29. Then the PC government reduced it to 15 in the 1990s. Both reductions not only made it much more difficult to get a councillor to respond to your concerns, it made it more difficult for ordinary people to enter politics because it became more competitive and expensive to run.

In any case, the governments in the past were rational and gave lots of warning of the changes. They didn't just do it to **** everything up out of spite.

He was in power almost ten years. I think he had more than enough time.

He had an idea of perspective.  He knew how democracy worked.

He would never have considered it.

https://www.london.ca/city-hall/city-council/pages/electoral-ward-map.aspx

London appears to have very small wards... not an issue.  Ottawa also... 

Are you saying politicians shouldn't be bound by the courts?

Why Trudeau's willing to let Ford deploy the notwithstanding clause
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ford-trudeau-toronto-notwithstanding-1.4819172

Trudeau could kill the Ontario law but he understands the idea of overreach.

I'm surprised sometimes how people often don't understand the basic functioning of our institutions. Parliament creates the laws and judges enact them. They don't make the decisions to create the laws. And no matter what a judge decides, it can always be overridden by Parliament with new laws and even a new Constitution if necessary.

The remedy outlined by the court was proper consultation with the city, public and not doing this in the middle of an election.

Instead of doing those things, Doug Ford has decided to use a sledge hammer and invoke the Notwithstanding when he didn't need to.   It's oafish governing at best.

Or the gov't of Ontario could appeal...   no...   DoFo has to do this NOW....   why?  No one knows...   not even DoFo.

The remedy outlined by the court was proper consultation with the city, public and not doing this in the middle of an election.

None of which are requirements under the constitution.

Or the gov't of Ontario could appeal...   no...   DoFo has to do this NOW....   why?  No one knows...   not even DoFo.

Maybe because the election is next month? It would not even surprise me if the judge in question expected to have his ruling overturned, but hoped it would be too late to affect the election.

I'm surprised sometimes how people often don't understand the basic functioning of our institutions. Parliament creates the laws and judges enact them. They don't make the decisions to create the laws. And no matter what a judge decides, it can always be overridden by Parliament with new laws and even a new Constitution if necessary.

I'm going to assume you wrote that mistakenly. Parliament creates and enacts laws. Judges are only supposed to examine whether the laws are constitutional when a complaint is made.

This is the conflict between judicial activism, which prevails in Canada, and originalism or constructivism. I regard judicial activism as fundamentally undemocratic.

Strict constructivism means reading and applying the words of the law precisely as they are written. No more and no less is the intention, and the judge's role is not to interpret. Once the meaning of the text is understood, then the law is applied as such.

Judicial activism involves judges ruling in a manner in which they promote a decision based on their own political/ideological feelings and opinions toward shaping public policy. Detractors feel that this undermines legitimate and impartial judicial review, while proponents feel that legal interpretation should change with the times.

Originalism is the practice of looking at the legal framework in place ( the Constitution), and keeping in mind the purposes and intentions with which the applicable parts were written, judging in accordance (as best as can be determined) with the spirit and intention of the law as it was written. Often originalism is equated with strict constructivism, but they're not really the same exact thing.

Apparently the judge. Else how can they be remedies?

So you think the Constitution is a comprehensive document that lays out all the potential violations and remedies?