# City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that if you happen to believe in something akin to at least rough equality of representation then doesn't it make sense that the GTA, with a population (2011 census) of over 6 million, ought to "drive" Ontario that has a population of (same census) 12.8 million? Or is it that, since many, Many, _*Many*_ Torontonians do not share your socio-political views, that you object to the fact that they are represented as their number warrant?



I am actually akin to the idea that the GTA should become its own "City State".  Given the size of Ontario, the realities that the population of the GTA face are not those of those faced by those outside the boundaries of the GTA.  Many of the current policies on Hydro, Energy, Environment, etc. being made in Queens Park have little affect on those inside the GTA, but are very damaging to those outside.  Increases to Carbon Taxes; Delivery Charges for Hydro to locations that have 'Zero Consumption'; potential ban on woodburning stoves, furnaces, BBQ pits, etc.; phasing out Natural Gas use; etc......All have little affect on apartment and Condo dwellers in the GTA.....But is a cash grab from those who do need these products.


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2016)

The GTA is one heck of an 'Enclave' that messes with the rest of Ontario and Canada.  [


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am actually akin to the idea that the GTA should become its own "City State".  Given the size of Ontario, the realities that the population of the GTA face are not those of those faced by those outside the boundaries of the GTA.  Many of the current policies on Hydro, Energy, Environment, etc. being made in Queens Park have little affect on those inside the GTA, but are very damaging to those outside.  Increases to Carbon Taxes; Delivery Charges for Hydro to locations that have 'Zero Consumption'; potential ban on woodburning stoves, furnaces, BBQ pits, etc.; phasing out Natural Gas use; etc......All have little affect on apartment and Condo dwellers in the GTA.....But is a cash grab from those who do need these products.



 :goodpost:

Likewise for Montreal and possibly Vancouver.  I am ambivalent about the other large cities - because in Canada an agglomeration of 250,000 is considered large.  But there is certainly merit in having cities become "provinces" when they reach a certain size.  They then get to manage their own taxes according to their own revenues and their own needs.  Their needs are considerably different than the needs of people outside their fortress walls.

But that would require them gaining access to the Senate and requiring reform of the Senate...... another reason to do it.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am actually akin to the idea that the GTA should become its own "City State".  Given the size of Ontario, the realities that the population of the GTA face are not those of those faced by those outside the boundaries of the GTA.  Many of the current policies . . .



But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?

This is from a 2004 Fraser Institute study.  (Sorry, was unable to quickly find a more current study, however, I expect that the underlying conclusions are probably still valid.)

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/SharetheWealth.pdf


> Share the Wealth:
> Who Pays for Government Across Ontario?
> 
> Main Conclusions
> ...


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?



From Reply #3,
• Greater Toronto Area (GTA) taxpayers pay out almost $24 billion more in taxes than they receive in government spending—a net tax burden equal to 11 percent of the GTA economy

I could see the GTA going its own way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area#/media/File:Greater_toronto_area_map.svg


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

I wonder what the balance of trade looks like between the cities and the hinterland?


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I wonder what the balance of trade looks like between the cities and the hinterland?



I don't know about that but the 'imbalance' of political leanings is profound:

The 'C' in Big City stands for 'Communist'

The 'C' in Countryside stands for 'Conservative'


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2016)

As the regions around them set up toll booths to 're-collect" that revenue. Also what about Garbage, sewage and water? You best include these into the city state or the "outsiders" will have them be the short and curlies.


----------



## McG (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am actually akin to the idea that the GTA should become its own "City State".





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Likewise for Montreal and possibly Vancouver.


What about Ottawa inclusive of Gatineau?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Sep 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> As the regions around them set up toll booths to 're-collect" that revenue. Also what about Garbage, sewage and water? You best include these into the city state or the "outsiders" will have them be the short and curlies.



So what?  Toronto (that was the example originally used) already pays for disposal of its garbage - the land on which the dumps are located are either owned by the city (regardless of the jurisdiction in which it sits) or they have a business arrangement with the dump/waste site owner.  Business is still business.  As for water and sewage - Toronto gets its water from Lake Ontario and after treating its sewage pumps it back into the same.  All its treatment plants (both incoming and outgoing) are own by and located in the GTA.   How many of the "outsiders" piggyback off Toronto's infrastructure?  Maybe the short and curlies are on the other crotch.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So what?  Toronto (that was the example originally used) already pays for disposal of its garbage - the land on which the dumps are located are either owned by the city (regardless of the jurisdiction in which it sits) or they have a business arrangement with the dump/waste site owner.



The majority of Toronto garbage is trucked to Michigan.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

> In Ontario, there are 423 sewage treatment plants. The provincial Crown operates 244 STPs and municipalities operate 179 STPs. The Ontario Clean Water Agency, a provincial Crown corporation created in 1993, operates 160 of the provincial STPs, while the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE) operates the remainder. In general, the larger STPs, for example, the Main Treatment Plant in Toronto, are operated by a municipality and the smaller STPs, such as that in Orangeville, are operated by the province. Table 1 contains a breakdown of Ontario STPs by both treatment type and operating authority.
> 
> Table 1: Sewage Treatment Plants Operated by the Province or Municipalities (1991)17
> 
> ...



https://environment.probeinternational.org/1995/09/18/ontarios-sewage-treatment-plants-and-their-effect-environment/



> More than 750 water and wastewater treatment facilities operate in Ontario, ranging from small municipality-owned water treatment facilities serving rural communities, to massive water and wastewater treatment plants serving highly populated urban areas. Ontario's largest wastewater treatment plants process thousands of megalitres per day, using today's most sophisticated and advanced treatment technologies. - See more at: http://www.watertapontario.com/ontario-water/story/utilities#sthash.Lac6rfTa.dpuf



http://www.watertapontario.com/ontario-water/story/utilities

The neat thing about small agglomerations is that they provide a smaller footprints.  Their needs are reduced. Their impact is reduced.  Ultimately individuals can live off of septic tanks and wells.  Apartment dwellings and offices don't have that luxury.

Smaller communities, located on running water - rivers, can take their water from upstream and ship their waste downstream (with treatment if they are neighbourly - without if not).

Toronto, being Toronto and located on its own Lake - shared with Hamilton and Rochester - drinks its and their bathwater.

The St Lawrence Basin is not Ontario.  Most of the Shield has access to lots of clean water and to land to manage waste. 

And by the way yesterday's incinerator is tomorrow's biofuel heat and power plant.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> What about Ottawa inclusive of Gatineau?



Possibly, and there are other good reasons to create a Canadian Capital Territory, just like Canberra or Washington.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I don't know about that but the 'imbalance' of political leanings is profound:
> 
> The 'C' in Big City stands for 'Communist'
> 
> The 'C' in Countryside stands for 'Conservative'



The divide between rural and urban settlers is historical the trend and most theorists believe it is due to the relative way in which both groups live. The theory (boiled down) goes like this:

Urban- Since most large cities involve persons living in tight quarters, with minimal ability to be independent of one another (Grow their own food, etc) people naturally rely on each other more. This fosters more of a "collectivist" attitude as space, resources, etc need to be shared so that all dwellers can survive. Independent attitudes are less since less people can be independent. Even something like a park is a good example. While I could play on 100+ acres, bike 3-5 km to visit friends, etc growing up in rural Ontario my cousins in London, Ontario had to play in either their very small backyard or the local parks. Reliance on the local parks meant more requirement to share resources (slides, etc). Finally, due to the quarters people live in and the greater diversity of cities, urban citizens tend to be more immersed in other cultures. Whereas 99% of my school in the country was white Christians (of which 70% were Germans) my cousins school had all ethnicities and many cultures. Familiarity and more acceptance results.

Rural - Rural people tend to be more conservative and independent. Farm and farm area dwellers tend to have more space, be more self employed, and less reliant on others for survival (though certainly cooperation amongst country folk exists, it's not to the same degree). They also tend to live in more heterogeneous communities, so are less apt to be immersed in other cultures.

There are thousands and thousands of words that can (and have been) written on similar theories as to why there is a big divide between rural and urban beliefs. And certainly this isn't to say that ALL city people are liberal and all country folks are conservatives, or that any of these examples are absolutes. These are definite generalities.

Growing up in Grey County, Ontario and living in Halifax, NS, Montreal, Fredericton, and now Shilo I've seen these trends first hand and think there's validity. Going to Toronto as a kid/teenager, I can remember talking to people there (during a summer working at Canada's Wonderland) and seeing how night and day our childhoods/high school experiences were. Political ideology would logically be different since it's based on our individual life experiences and how we view the world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Sep 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So what?  Toronto (that was the example originally used) already pays for disposal of its garbage - the land on which the dumps are located are either owned by the city (regardless of the jurisdiction in which it sits) or they have a business arrangement with the dump/waste site owner.  Business is still business.  As for water and sewage - Toronto gets its water from Lake Ontario and after treating its sewage pumps it back into the same.  All its treatment plants (both incoming and outgoing) are own by and located in the GTA.   How many of the "outsiders" piggyback off Toronto's infrastructure?  Maybe the short and curlies are on the other crotch.



The city of Vancouver is struggling to deal with its (and the Port's) waste. Basically what happens if those communities around the GTA decide they don't want the landfill in their backyards. Shipping garbage and special waste can be a major issue. Vancouver sewage waste disposal is not even within it's jurisdiction. Any formal cleaving into a special entity should take into account these issues. But infastructure (other than transportation) is very unsexy.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

BG45 

I agree with your general thesis.  I would only add that there is a constant reinforcing of ideologies as individuals self-select their environment.  Loners move to the country for the peace and quiet.  Social types move to the city for the bright lights and action.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> BG45
> 
> I agree with your general thesis.  I would only add that there is a constant reinforcing of ideologies as individuals self-select their environment.  Loners move to the country for the peace and quiet.  Social types move to the city for the bright lights and action.



100%... these are generalities. Certainly I knew hard core "hippies" in the country and hard core conservatives in the city. It's just that they tended to be the minority in those areas.


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The majority of Toronto garbage is trucked to Michigan.



Dec 30, 2010 

Toronto garbage no longer shipped to Michigan 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-garbage-no-longer-shipped-to-michigan-1.913880

If the GTA were to go its own way, it could lead to a return of the Residency Requirement. It was in effect when I hired on with Metro. 
ie: To apply for a job with Metro, you had to have lived in Metro for at least the previous five years. They wanted to know what Borough you had grown up in, what school you went to, etc...
ie: You had to be a long-term resident of Toronto, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York or East York. 

They have been talking about re-instating it for years. 

I wonder if people have any idea how many out-of-town applicants our Emergency Services have.   

There are probably 10,000 full-time police officers, firefighters and paramedics on the City payroll. 

Add to that the civilian Agencies, Boards, Commissions, Departments, Services etc... and that's a lot of jobs that could become off-limits to out of town applicants if a GTA Residency Requirement were put back into effect.

From the President of the TPFFA,

 "I have been fortunate that I have been able to orientate several of our recruit classes and it was refreshing to see such a young class this time. The class was mainly Fire College Graduates and it also had members with past fire service experience. I had the chance to speak to some and I found it interesting that those fire fighters with many years experience with a full-time fire department elsewhere were willing to leave to pursue there “dreams” as they put it and work for Toronto Fire. It made me feel a little bit special that I have been a part of an organization that others envy and want to be a part of as well."
http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/firewatch/spring2009.pdf
page 8

Personally, I would be happy to retire to a little cabin up North in the woods. I saw this City at its worst for too many years.

But, my wife would never come with me, except for vacations. She still thinks it's maahvelous!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The majority of Toronto garbage is trucked to Michigan.



Even better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Possibly, and there are other good reasons to create a Canadian Capital Territory, just like Canberra or Washington.


Isn't there already a National Capital Region w/Ottawa & Gatineau?  Or are you talking more "separate" like "D".C.?


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

I believe it goes here now,

"Starting Jan. 1, 2011, Toronto's garbage will be disposed of at the city-owned Green Lane landfill, near London, Ont."

It is owned by the City of Toronto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lane_landfill


----------



## McG (14 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Isn't there already a National Capital Region w/Ottawa & Gatineau?  Or are you talking more "separate" like "D".C.?


More "separate" is the theme of this thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Isn't there already a National Capital Region w/Ottawa & Gatineau?  Or are you talking more "separate" like "D".C.?



I am talking about something more like D.C.  Something that is separate from both Ontario and Quebec. Autonomous.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I am talking about something more like D.C.  Something that is separate from both Ontario and Quebec. Autonomous.



DC is the poster child for poor governance.  As an Ottawa resident, we already suffer at the hands of the incompetent real estate mavens of the NCC, who demolished an entire downtown neighbourhood and left it fallow for 60 years (among other things).  Putting the whole of the city under such a "government" would be an unmitigated disaster - much like DC.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

One might wonder that if a city is beyond the abilities of the locals, on what grounds they purport to manage a country.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One might wonder that if a city is beyond the abilities of the locals, on what grounds they purport to manage a country.



In DC, it's not the locals inflicting pain.  Similarly in Ottawa, the NCC owes nothing to the locals - its board is appointed from across Canada, and there is no local accountability.  Depending on the Minister responsible, it may also be a cowed agency doing only what it's told by a dictatorial hothead.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

Sounds like you would benefit from a locally administered, locally elected autonomous region.  A bit of democracy.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sounds like you would benefit from a locally administered, locally elected autonomous region.  A bit of democracy.



There are already locally administered, locally elected autonomous regions - the City of Ottawa, the Ville de Gatineau, other municipal entities, Province of Ontario, Province of Quebec.

The NCC is not the municipal authority.  It doesn't collect taxes, garbage or much respect.  They don't pave the road or fix the potholes in front of your house or make sure your bodily waste ends up in an appropriate place, however they probably generate a lot of bullshit.  It is simply a federally appointed board tasked, according to the National Capital Act




> Objects and purposes of Commission
> 
> 10 (1) The objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.
> 
> ...



Their importance to most of the residents of the NCR is that they are either the largest property owner or the point of consultation for the largest property owner in the area, i.e. the Gov't of Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2016)

The NCC acts as an interfering developer when it suits them.  I suspect at some point the overlap between the NCC mandate and the assignment of municipal matters to the provinces under the constitution may come to a head, and end up with the Supreme Court to deconflict.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2016)

>But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?

It's a misconception that cities subsidize rural areas.  What cities are doing is paying the cost of their own well-being.

Until the cities figure out a way to grow all their own food ("live off their own land") and provide all their own energy and other hard goods, I expect they will continue to fund the "colonies" - all the little places that provide food and energy and other goods, and the roads and other means of delivery that move the aforementioned items, and a few amenities so the "colonists" are encouraged to keep the lifelines going.

Stop the "subsidies" and see what happens.  Living on the 30th floor with a beautiful view ceases to be enjoyable when there is no power for the elevator and every kilogram of water and stick of firewood has to be carried up 30 flights of stairs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?
> 
> It's a misconception that cities subsidize rural areas.  What cities are doing is paying the cost of their own well-being.
> 
> ...



Luckily, globalization, Costco and Amazon have probably made traditional farmers obsolete.


----------



## CBH99 (15 Sep 2016)

I wouldn't call that 'lucky'.  Rather, I'd call that terrifying...that big corporations have managed to replace healthy, traditional farming.  But, that's a debate for another thread.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Luckily, globalization, Costco and Amazon have probably made traditional farmers obsolete.



Right.  Just like we don't need to kill animals because we can just buy meat at the grocery store.


----------



## Shrek1985 (15 Sep 2016)

City-states would not help us.

We need to change the fact that our governments at the federal and provincial level are chosen by the special interests inherent in a few large cities and the rest of us be damned.

What we'd need to do is find a way to severely reduce the impact of the votes of people living in population-dense areas.

Re-arranging voting districts to give an actual balance between east and west would help, but ultimately you need to come back to a system where the denser your population; the less power that vote has.

None of this is my ideal solution (which is service guarantees citizenship) but it's something.


----------



## Lumber (15 Sep 2016)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> City-states would not help us.
> 
> We need to change the fact that our governments at the federal and provincial level are chosen by the special interests inherent in a few large cities and the rest of us be damned.
> 
> ...



So what you're saying is, according do your system, if I get posted to Ottawa, and you get posted to Shilo, suddenly my vote is worth less than yours in a general election? 

Thems fightin' words, my friend.


----------



## mariomike (15 Sep 2016)

My uneducated guess is that the GTA will eventually amalgamate, as did New York City in 1898. Maybe even go it's own way.

For population comparison:

NYC 8,550,405 ( 2015 )
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

"Toronto's surrounding region is home to 8.1 million people" ( 2015 )
http://www.toronto2015.org/spectator/discover-toronto

Ontario 13,792,052 ( 2015 )
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/ecupdates/factsheet.html


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Sep 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is, according do your system, if I get posted to Ottawa, and you get posted to Shilo, suddenly my vote is worth less than yours in a general election?
> 
> Thems fightin' words, my friend.



 :goodpost:

We have a representation by population system, so why would we need to change anything to "stop cities" from exerting too much influence? My home riding of "Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound" has a federal riding population of 106, 475 compared to Don Valley-West (Toronto) at 99,820, Winnipeg Centre at 82, 026, Cypress Hills-Grassland (SK) at 67,834, or Kootenay-Columbia at 107,589. 

This seems to be a reasonably fair assortment of votes as most federal ridings (aside from outliers like PEI and the territories) are within 10,000-20,000 people of one another. It's not Toronto's fault that they are far larger than Grey-Bruce counties.

Also, isn't this the same argument many use to condemn the UN general council? essentially, why should Lichtenstein have the same vote as the United States? 

Finally- if we are to create city states, we should loop Halifax into the mix... almost half the provincial population and exerts extensive influence over the rest of Nova Scotia (and the maritimes).


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2016)

What is needed is a recognition that no matter what system is in play their will always be "interests".  I've often heard that states don't have friends, they have interests.  Perhaps it is fairer to say that interests have states.

What we need is a forum where the interests can fight it out - Something like the old House of Lords where the Church and the States fought  their battles with quills instead of swords.  Every Bishop and every Baron had their own tail of followers.  These days we have many "barons" and "bishops" who are fighting it out in the streets because we don't contain them in a cockpit.

The Commons, holding the purse strings, are well positioned to act as Jury to the Senate fights.  

Put all the special interests, all the barons and bishops into the Senate with their tails.  Let them form the governments.  Leave the Commons as unaffiliated representatives of a specific chunk of people.

After that, all you need is a neutral Judge.

Until people start electing local reps on party affiliation again.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> After that, all you need is a neutral Judge.



That's a pretty big ask. What we would be asking for is something akin to Plato's "Philosopher King" whose virtue is beyond reproach. Representation by population for the house of commons isn't unfair. Unfortunately for the west, Ontario and Quebec have the majority of Canada's population. We could attempt to implement some sort of senate such as the US has where each province has equal representation, which would alleviate some of this. However, I don't agree that a prairie wheat farmer deserves any more representation than a maritime fisherman or Toronto Office worker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> That's a pretty big ask. What we would be asking for is something akin to Plato's "Philosopher King" whose virtue is beyond reproach. Representation by population for the house of commons isn't unfair. Unfortunately for the west, Ontario and Quebec have the majority of Canada's population. We could attempt to implement some sort of senate such as the US has where each province has equal representation, which would alleviate some of this. However, I don't agree that a prairie wheat farmer deserves any more representation than a maritime fisherman or Toronto Office worker.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king



No, the philosopher king had his followers here in Canada.  They are betting on his heir just now.

No.  The "judge" has limited powers - much like those of a constitutional monarch, or his/her rep - much as we have today.  

Likewise, I accept a uniformity of representation, in the Commons.

My point is that the Senate should not just be a home for Regions, or even Provinces.   Make it a home for Churches (read that as Synagogues and Mosques and Gurdwaras and Mandirs and Kamis etc), for Greenpeace, for Unions, Rotarians, Lions, for any organization that can sign up a minimum number of followers - provisions being made to prevent one voter from supporting too many organizations.


----------



## mariomike (15 Sep 2016)

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like if / when the GTA goes its own way, there will be 5 million people left in Ontario.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like if / when the GTA goes its own way, there will be 5 million people left in Ontario.



Give or take, yes. Still the second biggest province then


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Sep 2016)

Shrek1985 said:
			
		

> City-states would not help us.
> 
> We need to change the fact that our governments at the federal and provincial level are chosen by the special interests inherent in a few large cities and the rest of us be damned.
> 
> ...



Alternatively, governments could do a better job at educating citizens, and voters, in all areas about the unique situations and specific needs/ change drivers facing their home province. And not just from a political slant near election time. It should be easier to do in population dense areas like cities.

Educated citizens make better voters, and citizens.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No, the philosopher king had his followers here in Canada.  They are betting on his heir just now.
> 
> No.  The "judge" has limited powers - much like those of a constitutional monarch, or his/her rep - much as we have today.
> 
> ...



Unless PET and Trudeau Jr lived in ancient Greece I don't think that Plato was referencing them.

The point is that aside from the notion of the "philosopher king" asking for a completely neutral judge isn't feasible. Everyone will have self interest to some level. Even the King/Queen or president have some interests, unless we make them figureheads (like the monarchy).

I agree on the senate and think there would be some value in having equal representation for each province. The trouble would be the inevitable reversion to party-ism, so instead of a senate with, say, 23 senators (2/province, 1/territory) you would end up with 13 Liberal/10 conservative (or however the numbers work out).


----------



## mariomike (15 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Give or take, yes. Still the second biggest province then


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Sep 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Alternatively, governments could do a better job at educating citizens, and voters, in all areas about the unique situations and specific needs/ change drivers facing their home province. And not just from a political slant near election time. It should be easier to do in population dense areas like cities.
> 
> Educated citizens make better voters, and citizens.



Some issues that play in a large CMA like Toronto (public transport as an example) hold little interest to rural areas and vice versa. 

You could educate people in downtown Toronto on the need for regulations and rules surrounding agriculture, but making them care is a completely different thing. Very few people vote based on "big ideas" but rather with their pocketbooks or proximity. Convincing that downtown Toronto individual that agricultural policies can save them or make them money is the only practical way to make them care enough to change their voting preference on this issue. Outside of that, they will prefer to spend money on public transport and other Toronto-centric factors since it directly impacts them.  :2c:


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Give or take, yes. Still the second biggest province then



If Quebec remains whole, wouldn't that make Ontario sans the GTA or GTHA the 3rd biggest?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unless PET and Trudeau Jr lived in ancient Greece I don't think that Plato was referencing them.
> 
> The point is that aside from the notion of the "philosopher king" asking for a completely neutral judge isn't feasible. Everyone will have self interest to some level. Even the King/Queen or president have some interests, unless we make them figureheads (like the monarchy).
> 
> I agree on the senate and think there would be some value in having equal representation for each province. The trouble would be the inevitable reversion to party-ism, so instead of a senate with, say, 23 senators (2/province, 1/territory) you would end up with 13 Liberal/10 conservative (or however the numbers work out).



Plato wasn't.  But Trudeau Sr.'s fans were.

And that is why the neutral judge should have limited powers - just as our constitutional monarch (and/or GG) has.

I agree that faction will always happen.  

I just happen to believe that every now and then we should attempt to shove everybody back into their corners and make them work for their positions.  A little constructive disruption from time to time is good for the soul.

Hence the merits of Brexit, Trump, a reformed Senate and Canadian city-states.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2016)

Actually, I think that making more small provinces is the worst possible choice ... all that accomplishes is to make the federal government more intrusive by making it "*needed*" to effect fiscal redistribution. We would do better to have five larger provinces:

     1. Pacific Canada (BC + YU: population 4.7 million);
     2. The Prairies (AB + SK + MB + NT + NU: 6.6 million);
     3. Ontario (13.6 million);
     4. Quebec (8.2 million); and
     5. Atlantic Canada (NS + NB + NL + PE: population 2.4 million).

Or we might have, _my preference_, just three:

          A. Canada West (population 11.3 million);
          B. Central Canada (population 13.6 million; and
          C. Canada East, a bilingual province with a distinctively French flair, population 10.6 million).

The three province solution would, I think, improve productivity and intra-national trade and commerce thereby improving our overall prosperity and it would render the national, central government less "*necessary*" and, therefore, cause parts of it (powers) to migrate back where they belong (constitutionally) and it would, eventually, grow smaller and cheaper to operate and, thereby again, better focused on its core responsibilities.


----------



## mariomike (15 Sep 2016)

Reply #3,
• Greater Toronto Area (GTA) taxpayers pay out almost $24 billion more in taxes than they receive in government spending—a net tax burden equal to 11 percent of the GTA economy



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> If Quebec remains whole, wouldn't that make Ontario sans the GTA or GTHA the 3rd biggest?



The GTA should have gone its own way years ago.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that making more small provinces is the worst possible choice ... all that accomplishes is to make the federal government more intrusive by making it "*needed*" to effect fiscal redistribution. We would do better to have five larger provinces:
> 
> 1. Pacific Canada (BC + YU: population 4.7 million);
> 2. The Prairies (AB + SK + MB + NT + NU: 6.6 million);
> ...



ERC.

You talk efficiency.  I'm talking democracy.  Democracy isn't efficient.  Dictatorship is highly efficient.

You can only start to achieve a sense of balance when democracy occurs locally, when everybody feels connected to their neighbour and their communal fate.  Large bodies create distance that results in a loss of connection.

Chretien said he would never ask Ralph to write him a check.  Implicit in that was that Chretien owned the cash and Ralph and his followers got it on sufferance.

In point of fact Confederation is built on the notion of Canada being a collection of self financing provinces each, in turn, composed of individual communities that raised funds for their own churches, their own schools and their own doctors and hospitals.

Community started locally.

I agree with the notion that the Feds are excessively intrusive.  I don't agree that the answer is more petty dictators.


----------



## GR66 (15 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ERC.
> 
> You talk efficiency.  I'm talking democracy.  Democracy isn't efficient.  Dictatorship is highly efficient.
> 
> ...



I agree with ERC on the benefits of having fewer, larger provinces and the Federal Government devolving some of their accrued powers back to the provinces where they were originally intended.  But at the same time I think it would be equally important for the Provinces to devolve some of their powers down to the municipal level including more ways of raising taxes.

Three levels of democracy each with their own powers (divided so that they really reflect respective National, Provincial and Local interests) with each level of government having the ability to raise the funds required to fulfill their respective obligations to their citizens.


----------



## McG (16 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that making more small provinces is the worst possible choice ... all that accomplishes is to make the federal government more intrusive ...


Is that like federal politicians pondering the idea of making certain cities bilingual?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-committee-chair-eyes-making-city-of-ottawa-officially-bilingual/article31908535/


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Sep 2016)

What if, and this a wild idea, we empowered our municipal governments more and made them responsible for lots of things that the Provincial and Federal levels look after.  To better reflect the ideals and needs of the immediate community it serves. 

This way small localities in say Alberta could ensure their way of life is less obstructed by whims of local concern in say Quebec. 

Take firearms as a issue.  While many/most people in the GTA may be repulsed buy firearm ownership that shouldn't impact someone in Churchill Manitoba's decision or ability to own firearms.  

Let the federal government handle things outside the country, provincial a broad and lessened role looking after provincial issue and  municipal getting the lions share of work and the redistribution of funds to support that. 

I'm not talking about a full restructuring of government more redefined PDR Part 1s (  Like that CFPAS reference ? ) for the levels of government and the fiscal support to accompany that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Sep 2016)

I can tell you that as a Federal regulator, I have had to "remind" both municipalities and Provincial government departments of the limits of their mandate when they wrongful imposed things onto citizens. In small towns disputes I have been asked to intervene because we are seen not to have a dog in the fight, I also have people trying to drag us into their local fights to screw the other side. Personally I find Municipalities and Regional districts the most intrusive and rigid of all types of government. I also find it almost amusing when they complain that our Federal requirements are to strict and they should get a free pass, I love asking if their city hall does the same for their permits. The Feds have a lot of our own problems, but generally it's a ponderous beast that may squish you without realizing your there.


----------



## mariomike (16 Sep 2016)

Read this recently on Milnet.ca , "Poor, rural and small town Canada gets paid by urban Canada, simple as that." 

The GTA can always dream of the independence enjoyed by Prince Edward Island, but I doubt it will become a reality any time soon.

Metro Chairman Godfrey brought it up back in the 1970's in front of a Royal Commission.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon one's political point of view,

"Political observers say the change is unlikely to happen, given it would require the approval of Parliament and seven of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population."
Toronto Star March 16, 2010

What Ontario premier wants to go down in history as the one who lost the GTA? Not just votes in another provincial election. I mean permanently lost it.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Read this recently on Milnet.ca , "Poor, rural and small town Canada gets paid by urban Canada, simple as that."
> 
> The GTA can always dream of the independence enjoyed by Prince Edward Island, but I doubt it will become a reality any time soon.
> 
> ...



Torxit?   >


----------



## mariomike (16 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Torxit?   >



"If you love something, let it go..."  

Like when a chick says, "We need to talk..."  ( The four worst words in the English language. )


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> What Ontario premier wants to go down in history as the one who lost the GTA? Not just votes in another provincial election. I mean permanently lost it.



Hell; we'd have to move the Legislature to Hamilton or Windsor.  Then where would we be?


----------



## Journeyman (16 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hell; we'd have to move the Legislature to Hamilton or Windsor.


Hamilton.  Sheila Copps already stole HMCS Haida and moved it to Hamilton where no one will see it.  

They may as well have the Provincial Legislature too, in the hopes that no one will hear from them.   ;D


----------



## mariomike (16 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hell; we'd have to move the Legislature to Hamilton or Windsor.  Then where would we be?



In Capital City! Yeah!

Capital City, my home sweet, yeah! 
Capital City, that happy-tal city, 
It's Capital City, 
My home sweet swingin' home! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evm-O_J6uOM


----------



## McG (16 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hell; we'd have to move the Legislature to Hamilton or Windsor.  Then where would we be?


Send it back to Kingston.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Send it back to Kingston.



That was the Federal seat of government.   [

On the Federal side though, there is a movement of Francophones who want Ottawa, as the National Capital to become "officially" Bilingual, not that it is not already more or less so; but no mention of Gatineau becoming officially Bilingual as well.  Both, after all, are the National Capital Region, that has been proposed by some to become an entity in itself.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... there is a movement of Francophones who want Ottawa, as the National Capital to become "officially" Bilingual, not that it is not already more or less so; but *no mention of Gatineau becoming officially Bilingual* as well ...


Funny that ...


----------



## Ostrozac (17 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That was the Federal seat of government.   [



Not Federal. National. The Province of Canada (with it's original capital at Kingston) was a full amalgamation of Lower Canada and Upper Canada -- there was only the one legislature, so there was no federal system.

This unified system was rejected within 25 years and Confederation intentionally went with a very different federal system with many powers devolved to provincial legislatures. Either system (unified and federal) can work fine, and in a country the size of Canada, I think we will always need some type of a federal system. 

That's not to say that we are locked in forever to our current 10 provinces -- but if the GTA and Rest of Ontario want to partition, it won't happen without strong consensus that it's the right thing to do -- and in our constitution such consensus is hard to achieve. Honestly, I could see Maritime Union (amalgamating PEI, NB and NS) as a more compelling economic case, and that simply won't happen as it would be a threat to PEI retaining it's constitutional overrepresentation in the House, the Senate, and the First Minister's Conferences.

On a side note, it's interesting to me that the UK has, over the last 100 years, also moved away from what was once the strongest unified national legislature in the world to a semi-federal system (with legislatures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).


----------



## mariomike (17 Sep 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> -- but if the GTA and Rest of Ontario want to partition, it won't happen without strong consensus that it's the right thing to do -- and in our constitution such consensus is hard to achieve.



"In the 1970s, Paul Godfrey presented to the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto, as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, arguments that the region should have the capability to set policy as does a provincial government."

Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

"Political observers say the change is unlikely to happen, given it would require the approval of Parliament and seven of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population."
Toronto Star March 16, 2010


----------



## JesseWZ (17 Sep 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> and that simply won't happen as it would be a threat to PEI retaining it's constitutional overrepresentation in the House, the Senate, and the First Minister's Conferences.



Since PEI can enjoy the benefits of being a province, why not Vancouver Island? There is a growing Provincial Independence movement here on the Left Coast that make *some* compelling arguments. We already quadruple or quintuple the population of PEI and have a more diverse economy as well... 

Our provincial animal will be the Hipster and our provincial flower - obviously marijuana. 

Vive The province of Vancouver Island!


----------



## dimsum (17 Sep 2016)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Since PEI can enjoy the benefits of being a province, why not Vancouver Island? There is a growing Provincial Independence movement here on the Left Coast that make *some* compelling arguments. We already quadruple or quintuple the population of PEI and have a more diverse economy as well...
> 
> Our provincial animal will be the Hipster and our provincial flower - obviously marijuana.
> 
> Vive The province of Vancouver Island!



Hear Hear!


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2016)

What is the bag limit for Hipsters?


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Removed my reply to this post in the 2016 US Election thread, because I think it belongs here instead,



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> It seems to surprise citizens of Toronto that the rest of Canada does not think like them, and does not wish to be ruled by them.



It seems to surprise citizens of the rest of Canada that Toronto does not think like them, and does not wish to be ruled by them.

See, I can do that to.  

GTA secede? Where's the door?   

Ottawa and the province will never return what they've taken away. The reason they haven't is obvious: There's just no political gain to be made by doing right by Toronto. For a political party trying to get elected, it's far easier and cheaper to sway a few hundred voters in a rural riding than to convince several thousand in the GTA.

The GTA is the favourite whipping boy of all federal and provincial political parties. 

Until the City of Toronto Act was passed in 2006, the City had to go to Queen's Park for permission for something as minor as a speed bump. We can't get decent transit because our taxes are being spent on paving roads in the Middle of Nowhere, Ontario.

"In my book Urban Nation (2008), I wrote that Canada's cities were the orphans of Confederation, creatures of the provinces locked in constitutional arrangements that are almost a century and a half out of date. Our large urban regions are now the economic, social, and cultural engines of the country. They compete with other large urban regions around the world to create prosperity and well-being.

 In Canada, these regions create the wealth that gets shared with the rest of the country through our redistribution and transfer arrangements. It is in our cities that the capital pools are assembled to take the oil, gas, and minerals out of the ground, where the factories and laboratories are built, and where much of our modern industries of information and design are based.

 But our cities are not in control of their own destiny. Like Blanche Dubois in A Streetcar Named Desire, they are very much reliant on the kindness of strangers. They have few residual powers and limited revenue tools, being overly reliant on property taxes and barred from levying income or sales taxes, the big revenue generators. They are closely controlled by provincial governments and generally ignored by Ottawa. Their role in Confederation is to send money and keep quiet.

 And they are under-represented in our federal and provincial parliaments. At the federal level, the average rural riding has 75,000 residents, the average urban riding 120,000."

That is the reason I do not follow party politics.

Read this on Milnet.ca , "Poor, rural and small town Canada gets paid by urban Canada, simple as that." 

The GTA can always dream of the independence enjoyed by Prince Edward Island, but I doubt it will become a reality any time soon.

Unfortunately, 

"Political observers say the change is unlikely to happen, given it would require the approval of Parliament and seven of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population."
Toronto Star March 16, 2010

"In the 1970s, Paul Godfrey presented to the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto, as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, arguments that the region should have the capability to set policy as does a provincial government."

Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

If they hate Toronto so much, they sure didn't mind driving in from God knows where to apply for jobs on our emergency services, after Queen's Park forced Toronto to lift it's residency requirement. The province said it discriminated against out of town applicants.  

I mean applicants with many years of out of town experience who were willing to leave small town Ontario to pursue their "dream" - as they put it - to come work for our department. 

Another example was that the province only funded our department for Toronto's residential population. Not its business day and visitor population. 

So, 50 per cent of our funding had to come from our municipal tax base. 

One-third of Canada s population is located within a 160 km radius of Toronto.

One-half of the population of the United States is within a 1 days drive of Toronto.

Toronto is Canada s #1 tourist destination with 21 million visitors in 1999.

48% of Toronto s population are immigrants.

Toronto is Canada's gateway to the international marketplace with accessibility via highways, air, rail and urban transit.

http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/confs/2003-ctph/phct_bonnie_henry.pdf

As a result, there were always more people coming in from out of town, out of province, out of country, requiring our services than the department was funded for by the province.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jan 2017)

> ...Our large urban regions are now the economic, social, and cultural engines of the country. They compete with other large urban regions around the world to create prosperity and well-being...



So how does Toronto's mighty economic power play into Ontario's $12B transfer from the federal government, or was that the result of the ruralites from Pickle Lake to Temiskaming?

The flip side would be those rural folk not overly impressed with Toronto's repeated voting for Kathleen Wynne..."Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit." :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So how does Toronto's mighty economic power play into Ontario's $12B transfer from the federal government, or was that the result of the ruralites from Pickle Lake to Temiskaming?



It was in quotation marks. 

This is the author,
https://books.google.ca/books/about/Urban_Nation.html?id=y32kWoDoVOEC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2017)

I am mercantilist at heart, I guess.

Does the GTA bring in more money from foreigners than it costs us to maintain it?  If it does, it is worthwhile hanging on to it.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Getting out is just a fantasy, Chris. 

"In the 1970s, Paul Godfrey presented to the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto, as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, arguments that the region should have the capability to set policy as does a provincial government."

"Political observers say the change is unlikely to happen, given it would require the approval of Parliament and seven of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population."
Toronto Star March 16, 2010


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Getting out is just a fantasy, Chris.
> 
> "In the 1970s, Paul Godfrey presented to the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto, as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, arguments that the region should have the capability to set policy as does a provincial government."
> 
> ...



I know.  I saw your first time posting that.  But it never hurts to dream a bit.  And the future is always up for grabs.  There are 7,476,724,138 (and counting) equally intelligent people that disagree with me and would rather live in their fantasy world.  Everyone of them makes decisions that impact me.  So I have given up on trying to predict what stability looks like and plan for chaos.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I know.  I saw your first time posting that.  But it never hurts to dream a bit.  And the future is always up for grabs.  There are 7,476,724,138 (and counting) equally intelligent people that disagree with me and would rather live in their fantasy world.  Everyone of them makes decisions that impact me.  So I have given up on trying to predict what stability looks like and plan for chaos.



Reminds me of a guy I once knew. Hated his wife with a passion. I believe the feeling was mutual, although according to him, she had other pursuits. I know he did.
I asked why not go see a lawyer and an accountant and draw up the separation agreement and divorce papers. But, it was impossible. They were from a village in Old Europe - would have created a scandal with the Church and destroyed the family. 

Like those TV commercials. "I'm living with ( insert horrible disease ) but I'm not letting it get me down."


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It was in quotation marks.
> 
> This is the author,
> https://books.google.ca/books/about/Urban_Nation.html?id=y32kWoDoVOEC&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y



I know.  You quoted him, so the issue is clearly of interest to you, so I asked your thoughts on some other aspects of the issue that Broadbent did not address.  

Don't feel as though you have to answer, but understand that I don't think I'm the only person to be wondering such questions.  


Regards
G2G

p.s. I was born and raised in T.O., so this is not coming from someone indoctrinated to "despise" Canada's self-proclaimed centre of the universe from birth.


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The flip side would be those rural folk not overly impressed with Toronto's repeated voting for Kathleen Wynne..."Qui gladio ferit, gladio perit." :nod:



ok. I should know better than to reply, but I'll do my best.

1) I could give two - one federal and one provincial - f%$#s about party politics. 

I only vote in City elections. Because the politicians at City Hall are the ones we depend on to support the pay and benefits we deserve.  

But, if you want to make me the token whipping boy for "rural folk not overly impressed", go right ahead. Because I don't care about party politics. 

2 ) As for "those rural folk" you mention, let me tell you something. Next time the tones go off and I refuse to roll for "those rural folk" trying to make it safely out of town on that 16-lane deathtrap they call the 401, then you can ... well I don't know because thankfully that's no longer my job.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I only vote in City elections. Because the politicians at City Hall are the ones we depend on to support the pay and benefits we deserve.



So how should people vote if they are not City employees?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Jan 2017)

Urbanites and rural folk have a symbiotic relationship, rural areas provide the bread basket and natural resources while urban areas provide the market and services.  

Also, Having grown up 30km from what was the largest Zinc mine in the world, I'd challenge your assertion that urban areas provide the manpower for resource extraction, there is a reason they call Fort Mac, "Little Newfoundland".

We don't have a rural/urban problem in Canada, what we do have is a government mismanagement problem and misplaced priorities.  The Ontario government has done a piss poor job developing infrastructure in Northern Ontario, infrastructure that is desperately required to get the resources that exist in the North to the markets.  The ring of Fire mining camp comes to mind, yes commodity prices are low right now; however, when they inevitably trend upwards again, Ontario should make sure it's in a position to capitalize and not be chasing after something they should have already had in place.


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So how should people vote if they are not City employees?



They should vote for the candidates of their choice. How do _you_  think they should vote?

Speaking for myself, as a City pensioner, I vote for candidates who support our emergency services. Because they are the only real sure thing in this town.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Urbanites and rural folk have a symbiotic relationship,



Some are more equal than others. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unequal-votes-threatening-canadian-democracy-study-finds/article591083/
Some are ok with that, others not so much.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Ontario government has done a piss poor job developing infrastructure in Northern Ontario, infrastructure that is desperately required to get the resources that exist in the North to the markets.



"Thunder Bay mayor Lynn Peterson opposed Murdoch's proposal ( to allow the GTA to go its own way - mm ), stating that one of the perceived issues was inconsequential, specifically that policies defined in the Ontario legislature are not Toronto-centric. 
Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

You think the North gets no respect from the Ontario government?
Until 2006, The City of Toronto had to go to Queen's Park with hat in hand to beg for permission to install a single safety speed bump in any one of our 240 neighbourhoods.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'd challenge your assertion that urban areas provide the manpower for resource extraction, there is a reason they call Fort Mac, "Little Newfoundland".



Who are you talking to? Who made that assertion? If it's me, what would I know about "resource extraction"? You mean mining? 
All I know about that is what I see on "Gold Rush" on the Discovery channel.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> They should vote for the candidates of their choice. How do _you_  think they should vote?
> 
> Speaking for myself, as a City pensioner, I vote for candidates who support our emergency services. Because they are the only real sure thing in this town.



I suppose we're different tat way.  I vote for whomever I believe will best lead the Canadian people's Government, even if that means there may be some tighter purse stings in a particular region.

On the theme of emergency services, I assume you bias your support towards urban emergency services, since rural emergency services are proportionally far less efficient organizations due to the extensive geographical dispersion that comes from supporting the similarly distributed rural folk.

Regards
G2G


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> .. since rural emergency services are proportionally far less efficient organizations due to the extensive geographical dispersion that comes from supporting the similarly distributed rural folk.
> ...



Having dealt with rural emergency services during the blinding blizzard of early New Year's Eve in getting my hubby from our residence to a rural hospital and then the very expedient transfer into Ottawa Civic in 1.5 hours in extremely bad conditions with unplowed roads etc, it highlights why I vote those who consider an entire province and balance those requirements vice catering to the TO populace at the expense of all others.  Witness my hydro bill.  People should be in jail.

For being rural who have to deal with shitty conditions, dispersed residents and long drives to essential facilities, as you stated, these folks will ALWAYS cost more per person and be far less "monetarily efficient" ... but to this rural resident, they are worth it and the city folk who can't grasp that concept should get over it.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> .... the city folk who can't grasp that concept should get over it.


I don't think I've seen you that... restrained.  You OK?   >


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I vote for whomever I believe will best lead the Canadian people's Government, even if that means there may be some tighter purse stings in a particular region.



Shall I guess where?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> On the theme of emergency services, I assume you bias your support towards urban emergency services, since rural emergency services are proportionally far less efficient organizations due to the extensive geographical dispersion that comes from supporting the similarly distributed rural folk.



We operated directly as an independent branch of the City government, same as the police and fire departments. We amalgamated in 1967, Police in 1957 and Fire in 1998. 
Although under City control, we ( Toronto Paramedic Services ) were required to comply with legislation and licensing standards provided by the Ontario provincial government.

That last sentence has always been a touchy subject.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Jan 2017)

ArmyVern: My usual retort to "those" people is to simply ask "Do you enjoy eating food?"

It usually comes just before I explain to them that, over here, regardless of the Highway Safety Act, farm equipment has the right of way at all time - so just move over.

When not at sea, I wouldn't live anywhere else than in farmland Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ArmyVern: My usual retort to "those" people is to simply ask "Do you enjoy eating food?"
> 
> It usually comes just before I explain to them that, over here, regardless of the Highway Safety Act, farm equipment has the right of way at all time - so just move over.
> 
> When not at sea, I wouldn't live anywhere else than in farmland Canada.



OGBD, clearly, while my having been born and grown up in Toronto itself, the family genes from the Prairies (SK and South. AB) must have adversely affected me...perhaps that's why I sometimes uncontrollably blurt out, "a good fertilizer makes the crop!" in the wee hours of the morn after a night with a few wee drams?  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... "a good fertilizer makes the crop!"


       ???

But many of the recent threads here -- especially the political and procurement topics -- have no shortage of 'fertilizer'... yet the 'crop' is pretty abysmal.

       :dunno:


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... but to this rural resident, they are worth it and the city folk who can't grasp that concept should get over it.



I can grasp being assigned to a nice quiet station out in the country. I can grasp that Big Time.   

To people who have never worked 9-1-1 operations in this city, it's hard to explain how busy it is. Especially when the car-count is low.

We have "rural folk" ( mostly savvy lawyers, from what I understand ) living in 250 homes on the Toronto Islands. We have to send our Marine Paramedics to transport them to the mainland. We have a land Paramedic crew stationed there for them also, to rendezvous with our Marine Units. ie: That's a Paramedic ambulance on the Island, a Paramedic marine vessel, and a Paramedic ambulance on the mainland to complete the transport to the city hospital. That's a lot of wo/manpower. But, if it saves a life, it's worth it.

Their ( the Island ambulance ) Unit Hour Utilization ( UHU ) is almost nil. But, our "rural folk" on the Islands are entitled to the same response times as they get in the city. If we don't stop the clock in time, the Department can get sued. They are entitled to their entitlements. ie: The same response time to their Island residence as they would expect at their law offices on Bay Street.

The crews stationed on the Island, must be taken out of the main car count. Which was always more than fine with me and my partner whenever we were lucky enough to be assigned there.  We get paid the same no matter how many lifts we do or don't do.   You became what they called "a dedicated unit".

It takes many years of seniority to bid into the Island station. Same goes for the City cops and firemen.

Because it sure beats breaking your back non-stop on fifth-floor walk-ups back on shore.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

I think I may not have caught the nuance...Toronto Island = rural?


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think I may not have caught the nuance...Toronto Island = rural?



It was about as rural a station as I was ever lucky enough to get.  

They need that thin type ambulance to get across some of the bridges connecting the Islands.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jan 2017)

Toronto island is welfare for the well to do.  Sweetheart deals for land leases, with people with time and money to fight any waterfront use.  Island residents make traditional NIMBYs look positively open-minded in their outlook.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> They need that thin type ambulance to get across some of the bridges connecting the Islands.



How does that big, wide Class-7 fire truck get across the bridges?


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Toronto island is welfare for the well to do.  Sweetheart deals for land leases, with people with time and money to fight any waterfront use.  Island residents make traditional NIMBYs look positively open-minded in their outlook.



250 houses. Still entitled to their entitlements - within 8:59 minutes 90% of the time - same as the other 3.5 million people in this town.

Island / rural lifestyle with city service.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> How does that big, wide Class-7 fire truck get across the bridges?



You really keep me on my toes!  

They also have the fireboat.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

Is the City paying the costs for 'personalized' plates on municipal vehicles?


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Is the City paying the costs for 'personalized' plates on municipal vehicles?



Good2Golf, you may have to call 3-1-1
Phone outside city limits: 416-392-CITY (2489)


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Good2Golf, you may have to call 3-1-1
> Phone outside city limits: 416-392-CITY (2489)



I'll give 3-1-1 a yodel next time I'm visiting the parents -- I suppose the City may let the Association pay for the extra fee?

Cheers
G2G


----------



## mariomike (14 Jan 2017)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Having dealt with rural emergency services during the blinding blizzard of early New Year's Eve in getting my hubby from our residence to a rural hospital and then the very expedient transfer into Ottawa Civic in 1.5 hours in extremely bad conditions with unplowed roads etc, it highlights why I vote those who consider an entire province and balance those requirements vice catering to the TO populace at the expense of all others.  < snip about hydro bills and sending people to jail >



ArmyVern raised a point that was beyond my grasp. Paramedic service in the Ottawa area.

So, I did some reading.

Rural counties call on province to right impasse over Ottawa ambulance 'shortfall'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/rural-ottawa-paramedics-ambulance-service-1.3860543
Rural ambulances diverted to help Ottawa with 'shortfalls' aren't being reimbursed: municipalities

Five eastern Ontario counties say their ambulances are increasingly being asked to make up for service "shortfalls" within the city of Ottawa, and want the province to ensure they get reimbursed for it.

An ambulance was free at CHEO, six kilometres away. Its crew was 31 minutes from the end of their shift when the call came in, not even quite in their don’t-send-us-out window. But dispatchers called in an ambulance from Rockland instead — 37 kilometres away.

See also,

Ottawa's paramedic service has major problems, province finds 
http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/12/05/reevely-ottawas-paramedic-service-has-major-problems-province-finds
They looked into Prescott-Russell’s allegation that Ottawa dispatchers spent that night grabbing out-of-town ambulances and calling them to Ottawa to keep their official response times low.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-paramedics-zero-ambulance-shortage-1.3900007
Counties outside of Ottawa have becoming increasingly frustrated by the growing numbers of calls they answer in the city.

etc...



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> catering to the TO populace at the expense of all others.



Sounds to me more like "catering to the TO Ottawa populace at the expense of all others."


----------



## mariomike (18 Jan 2017)

To add, regarding rural versus urban emergency services. 

When transported by Paramedics, Ontario residents receive a bill only for $45.00. 

Doesn't matter if you are in Toronto, or the most remote area of Ontario. 

Your private insurance covers the $45.00.


----------



## suffolkowner (18 Jan 2017)

My private insurance? :rofl:


----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> My private insurance? :rofl:



Looks like they call it,

Comprehensive Medical Care Services

Ambulance Services

Emergency ground and air ambulance services, as the clinical situation and availability dictate. With prior approval, patient transfer by ground or air ambulance is included. Inappropriate ambulance use may result in cost recovery action.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-benefits-drug-coverage/comprehensive-medical-care.page#ambulance-services

At $45, even without private insurance, urban and rural Ontario residents have it pretty good compared to other provinces.

In Saskatchewan, per-kilometre charges can put single rides over $1000.

•a basic call “pick up” rate ranging from $245 to $325;
•a per kilometre rate for rural residents to transfer into larger centres;
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/residents/health/emergency-medical-services/ambulance-services#road-ambulance
"The province also charges $2.30 per kilometre for rural ambulance trips."

I have out of province / country emergency medical insurance as a retirement benefit. If you don't have it, it may be worth considering. 
Ambulance bills in the US can be horrendous.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> I have out of province / country emergency medical insurance as a retirement benefit....



As an occasional taxpayer in Ontario, and federal taxpayer..... you're welcome.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2017)




----------



## mariomike (19 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> As an occasional taxpayer in Ontario, and federal taxpayer..... you're welcome.



My cheques are signed by, The Treasurer, City of Toronto.  

We ran into a lot of "I pay your salary" types on the job.  

Some of the most strident were from out of town.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2017)

The City of Toronto doesn't get any money from the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario doesn't get any money from the Government of Canada?

(Money is fungible.)


----------



## mariomike (21 Jan 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The City of Toronto doesn't get any money from the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Ontario doesn't get any money from the Government of Canada?



ok. You pay my salary / pension.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jan 2017)

Correct about contributions to the funds from which salaries are paid.

Wrong about whether I care what the public employee does with his salary any more than the guy who takes tickets at the theatre.


----------



## mariomike (26 Jan 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Wrong about whether I care what the public employee does with his salary any more than the guy who takes tickets at the theatre.



Nobody cares how we spend our salary. As long as you don't drive a better car than they do.  

How we spend our time - their time, as some see it - is a different story.

I'll try to explain the difference between a Member of Service ( MOS ) and a ticket taker.

The ticket taker answers only to ticket buyers, only within the theatre. 

The MOS working a 12-hour shift trying to enjoy a tasty treat between calls - with a portable radio on their hip - answers to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.
ie: Everybody, from who knows where who ever paid a sales tax.

I assume most people are entitled to breaks while at work? We aren't.
Heaven forbid the MOS cuts to the front of the line to save time. Or the concerned citizen taxpayer sees you get a discount.

And, when that ticket taker leaves the theatre. That's it for them.

Our little theatre never ends. Not really. I've been retired close to eight years, and still get neighbours phoning, "Can you come right over?" or ringing my doorbell for help. I've actually been called in the middle of the night to lift neighbours - who all pay property tax to the city - back into bed.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> And, when that ticket taker leaves the theatre. That's it for them.
> 
> Our little theatre never ends. . . . .



Get over yourself!  While there may be a wide delta in the consequences of error (or misconduct) between a POS oops, sorry, MOS and the barely above minimum wage ticket taker, both are paid according to their skill set, have accepted the working conditions of their unique environments and should be prepared to be held to account appropriately for lapses in either performance or conduct.  It matters not (or at least it shouldn't) that the employer of one is a public entity and the other is a private enterprise.  Both are frontline workers providing goods and services to the public.  Just like the ticket taker, when that public employee clocks out at end of shift he is no longer expected to provide services to the public and his pay cheque reflects that.  As for you being beset upon by your neighbours seeking a strong back and weak mind, well, either you're a very nice guy or you decided to settled in a neighbourhood populated with assholes.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jan 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Get over yourself!  While there may be a wide delta in the consequences of error (or misconduct) between a POS oops, sorry, MOS and the barely above minimum wage ticket taker, both are paid according to their skill set, have accepted the working conditions of their unique environments and should be prepared to be held to account appropriately for lapses in either performance or conduct.  It matters not (or at least it shouldn't) that the employer of one is a public entity and the other is a private enterprise.  Both are frontline workers providing goods and services to the public.  Just like the ticket taker, when that public employee clocks out at end of shift he is no longer expected to provide services to the public and his pay cheque reflects that.  As for you being beset upon by your neighbours seeking a strong back and weak mind, well, either you're a very nice guy or you decided to settled in a neighbourhood populated with assholes.



First off, after having myself been scolded myself for being rude your post is for sure along the same lines.  At no time was his post aggressive or meant to look down upon anyone.  It was his attempt to explain the difference and POV.   

As for the meat of your post, if we (Members of service) are of higher of higher value and necessity to society and we should be treated as such.  If not then I expect you will get the same level of delivered service in return. 

When a person steps forward to act in the service of his fellow man that should be treated as something different and special and should be appreciated by the society they have chosen to serve.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jan 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> First off, after having myself been scolded myself for being rude your post is for sure along the same lines.  At no time was his post aggressive or meant to look down upon anyone.  It was his attempt to explain the difference and POV.
> 
> As for the meat of your post, if we (Members of service) are not of higher of higher value of necessity to society and we are to be treated as such then you will get the same level of delivered service in return.
> 
> When I person steps forward to act in the service of his fellow man that should be treated as something different and special and should be appreciated by the society they have chosen to serve.



Guess I didn't do a very good job of it.   

You sort of get used to the "I pay your salary" types after a while. It is an attempt to vent frustration and intimidate.

It tends to put the MOS on the defensive. You handle it by ignoring it. Any response will appear as unsympathetic or rude and may be used to file a complaint.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Guess I didn't do a very good job of it.
> 
> You sort of get used to the "I pay your salary" types after a while. It is an attempt to vent frustration and intimidate.
> 
> It tends to put the MOS on the defensive. You handle it by ignoring it. Any response will appear as unsympathetic or rude and may be used to file a complaint.



My apologies there was a "not" in my post that should *not* have been there...


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jan 2017)

>As for the meat of your post, if we (Members of service) are of higher of higher value and necessity to society and we should be treated as such.

It's an occupation.  It's not of higher value and necessity to society than pulling food out of the sea or the land, or resources out of the ground or the forests, and it's a darn sight less hazardous.

The idea that some people deserve special treatment on the basis of what they do - particularly if they are able to do what they do because they were born with the proper (and most definitely un-earned) aptitudes - is never going to get anything from me except a cold stare of disgust.

I don't understand why public servants are so sensitive about the "taxpayers pay your salary" thing.  Of course they do.  And everyone who works to provide a service is a servant of those served - serve, service, and servant are not derogatory terms.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As for the meat of your post, if we (Members of service) are of higher of higher value and necessity to society and we should be treated as such.
> 
> It's an occupation.  It's not of higher value and necessity to society than pulling food out of the sea or the land, or resources out of the ground or the forests, and it's a darn sight less hazardous.
> 
> ...



There is nobody who doesn't have to supply service.  Even Vladimir Putin.  When he stops supplying adequate service he can expect to find himself in the trunk of a car.  The Donald may be giving the world the opportunity to discover that the American Presidency is NOT an imperial presidency.  Ultimately he will get his budget and authority from Congress and his limits from the Courts.   Both Putin, and Trump, like Trudeau, serve those who give their consent to being governed.  

I serve my clients.  And I'm happy to.


----------



## mariomike (28 Jan 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's an occupation.  It's not of higher value and necessity to society than pulling food out of the sea or the land, or resources out of the ground or the forests, and it's a darn sight less hazardous.



Not to disagree, but very few jobs are recognized as Public Safety Occupations ( PSO ) ( or POS   ) by our federal government. 
None of those fall into that category.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The idea that some people deserve special treatment on the basis of what they do



Whether it is fair, or unfair, my guess is that the average taxpayer does not particularly care who pulls their dinner out of the sea.

It - early retirement for certain occupations, for example - is not "special treatment" or a luxury or a perk. 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I serve my clients.



So did I.

I was not referring to clients / patients.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't understand why public servants are so sensitive about the "taxpayers pay your salary" thing.



< joke >


----------



## mariomike (3 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> And they can request military aid directly instead of going through the province first for things like snowstorms, <snip >



Once. In 1999. Never before, or since.

2,000 troops deployed into New York City last year for a blizzard warning.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> If they can't handle the job with what they've got, changing their political status is not going to change that one bit.



That is your opinion. 

The die was cast in the 1860s. Not allowing the GTA to go its own way in the 21st century forces it to forever remain dependent on provincial benevolence.

Hopefully, before the election, all three provincial parties will take a stand on The City of Toronto Act ( COTA ).
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06c11

The fact is, when the mayor and city council voted to collect tolls on the expressways and parkways they own and maintain, the province vetoed it. 

That revenue would have helped build subways.

What was the point, when Ontario passed the COTA – giving the city special taxing powers to meet its needs – if the province is going to exercise a veto when the city tries to use those powers?

QUOTE

From 2010

Today, however, the Fathers of Confederation are long gone and immense practical barriers stand in the way of making Toronto a province – not the least of which is the fact that Ontario would have to willingly surrender the cash cow that's essential to balancing its budgets. 
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2010/03/18/should_toronto_be_a_province.html


2017

MacLean's

Toronto’s economy doesn’t get the respect it deserves
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/torontos-economy-doesnt-get-the-respect-it-deserves/
Toronto is Canada’s most important economic engine, yet it’s continually shortchanged when it comes to government funding. It’s time for that to stop.

Toronto doesn’t have the revenue tools of the provinces, either, despite the fact that it eclipses in size eight (or likely nine now) provinces. 

From time to time over the years, frustrated Torontonians have argued for the creation of a new province or even a city state structure, in order to be able to wrestle more directly with chronic funding issues. That’s not likely to happen. 

END POST


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Apr 2018)

The cities often forget they are dependent on their resident Province for water, electricity, food and garbage disposal.


----------



## mariomike (4 Apr 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The cities often forget they are dependent on their resident Province for water, electricity, food and garbage disposal.



I don't know about other cities, but Toronto's water comes from four water treatment plants in the city directly connected to Lake Ontario.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Apr 2018)

when can we start building the wall and where? Am I going to have to move further north?


----------



## Jed (4 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't know about other cities, but Toronto's water comes from four water treatment plants in the city directly connected to Lake Ontario.



Okay.  So by extension, Lake Ontario’s should be under Toronto’s purview and not the Province or Canada?


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Apr 2018)

No because other cities in Ontario obtain their water from Lake Ontario as well. They can have the Humber river.

What about taking this city state idea to the next level and evicting them from Canada and creating city-states like Singapore. I don't see a lot of merit for the rest of us in it, but my guess is that Toronto and Vancouver could probably make a good go on their own.


----------



## mariomike (4 Apr 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> So by extension, Lake Ontario’s should be under Toronto’s purview and not the Province or Canada?



Who's "purview" is Lake Ontario? I believe the U.S. and Canada.

As for "purview" of the Western Waterfront, Toronto Harbour, The Port Lands, The Beach, Scarborough Bluffs, Cherry Beach, The Islands, ... they have always been under the "purview" of the City of Toronto.

eg: The Toronto Police and Paramedic Marine Unit is responsible for 460 square miles of open water on Lake Ontario. Everything from Etobicoke creek to the Rouge River, and extending 13 nautical miles to the US/Canada border.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Apr 2018)

So they have a 46 mile long strip of water, 10 miles out? Thats more water than Singapore claims (277 sq.miles), and they have a navy!
6 submarines + 4 (U/C)
6 frigates
6 corvettes
3 littoral mission vessel + 5 (U/C)
7 patrol vessels
4 amphibious transport docks
4 mine countermeasures vessels
2 types of unmanned surface vehicle


----------



## Jed (4 Apr 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> So they have a 46 mile long strip of water, 10 miles out? Thats more water than Singapore claims (277 sq.miles), and they have a navy!
> 6 submarines + 4 (U/C)
> 6 frigates
> 6 corvettes
> ...



Go Big or Go Home.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> Go Big or Go Home.




That's the price of being a small, but very smart and very rich kid who lives in a very rough neighbourhood.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Apr 2018)

Toronto and Vancouver already consider themselves the only parts of Canada that really matter. If both received status as provinces, they'll put their two pointy little heads together and roll over every federal election to come and divide the spoils, at least until one of them files for  divorce.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

The Toronto tollway is a real money maker so set up a toll both at the border.


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Toronto tollway is a real money maker so set up a toll both at the border.



Toronto wanted to toll the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway. The province vetoed it. 

They can't even install a speed bump without permission from Queen's Park.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2018)

Has anyone considered Toronto becoming it's own city-state?


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Has anyone considered Toronto becoming it's own city-state?



For reference to the discussion,

City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/124115.125.html
6 pages.
Locked.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> "In the 1970s, Paul Godfrey presented to the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto, as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, arguments that the region should have the capability to set policy as does a provincial government.
> 
> Political observers say the change is unlikely to happen, given it would require the approval of Parliament and seven of the provinces, with at least 50 per cent of the population."
> Toronto Star March 16, 2010
> ...


----------



## Altair (4 Jun 2018)

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ontario-pc-leader-says-hed-like-to-bring-in-a-u-s-style-strong-mayor-system-for-cities-one-person-in-charge



> Doug Ford wants Ontario municipalities to have the same kind of strong-mayor system as many big cities in the U.S., saying a more powerful chief magistrate would be preferable to the “free-for-all” of current councils.
> 
> The suggestion is outlined in the book Ford wrote about his time at Toronto city hall, published 18 months ago and largely forgotten since he entered provincial politics in February.
> 
> ...



http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-gets-metropolis-status-with-more-powers-and-autonomy



> On a more concrete level, the city gets sweeping new powers, the kind the island’s politicians have craved for years. Besides control over bar and store hours, there’s more power to manage housing, health, the homeless and the integration of immigrants.
> 
> The city can crack down faster on the owners of crumbling or unsanitary buildings and directly compensate the owners of businesses who suffer revenue losses because of never-ending infrastructure projects.
> 
> ...



looks like Montreal is already getting special powers and Toronto is going to be well on its way to joining them.


----------



## mariomike (4 Jun 2018)

Prior to 1998, each of the six cities and boroughs in Metro had their own mayor.

The councillors appointed the Metro Chairman, ensuring whoever held that role had a mandate from council.

Doug likely remembers when Council stripped his brother's power to govern the city during a state of emergency.

Under Doug's "strong mayor" system - with mayoral veto power over city council decisions - that would not have happened.

In his book, "Ford Nation: Two Brothers, One Vision", Doug wrote, "One person in charge, with veto power."

Veto power would allow the mayor to "punch down" at city council. 

Veto power would not allow the mayor to "punch up" at Queen's Park.

ie: A "strong mayor" could appoint and dismiss city department heads, and have veto powers over city council decisions. 

But, Queen's Park could still veto the "strong mayor" if s/he wanted to install a speed bump.

That has all bee discussed here,

City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/124115.125.html
6 pages.
Locked.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jun 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Prior to 1998, each of the six cities and boroughs in Metro had their own mayor.
> 
> The councillors appointed the Metro Chairman, ensuring whoever held that role had a mandate from council.
> 
> ...



And the resulting power struggles would cause gridlock in the corridors of power.

Maybe amalgamation isn't necessary. They keep trying it here in Victoria and it fails every time due to a million issues from union contracts to basic culture clashes. Here's another option: 

BC’s unique model of local government makes amalgamation unnecessary

https://www.uvic.ca/hsd/publicadmin/home/home/news/archive/amalgamation.php


----------



## mariomike (4 Jun 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Maybe amalgamation isn't necessary.



Maybe.

The amalgamation occurred despite a municipal referendum in 1997 in which in over three-quarters of voters rejected amalgamation.

The decision to amalgamate in 1998 was made by Queen's Park, not City Hall.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2018)

Hmmm. I wonder how long they can hold out on their own before the Duchy of Grand Cabbage resorts to the atomic football. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/videoplayer/vi2118518553?ref_=tt_ov_vi


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> , First-Tier municipalities (whatever that is)



An example of First Tier would be the former ( Old ) City of Toronto, Boroughs of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York and East York. The upper tier was Metro Toronto ( amalgamated in 1954 ). Simply known as "Metro".

The villages of Forest Hills and Swansea ( where I live ) were amalgamated into the City of Toronto in 1967.

Metro ran the police ( amalgamated 1957 ) and paramedics ( amalgamated 1967 ) among other things. Fire departments were last to amalgamate. They were operated by the above cities and boroughs until 1998. 

In 1998, Metro was amalgamated into the new The City of Toronto.

There were six mayors and one Metro Chairman.

That may sound complicated. But, it is actually the simple version.


----------



## dimsum (1 Aug 2019)

I was born and raised in Toronto (the Megacity happened when I was in high school), and never heard of Swansea before.  Huh - learned something today.


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I was born and raised in Toronto (the Megacity happened when I was in high school), and never heard of Swansea before.  Huh - learned something today.



Swansea is not generally known as its natural boundaries are a lake, a river and a pond.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> An example of First Tier would be the former ( Old ) City of Toronto, Boroughs of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, York and East York. The upper tier was Metro Toronto ( amalgamated in 1954 ). Simply known as "Metro".
> 
> The villages of Forest Hills and Swansea ( where I live ) were amalgamated into the City of Toronto in 1967.
> 
> ...



Winnipeg as it is known now is an amalgamation of 12 or 13 towns. I think this happened in 1974.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2019)

Empire Toronto.



*Would-be Ontario PC candidate sues Toronto police for $12M over leak of arrest record in smear campaign*


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/would-be-ontario-pc-candidate-sues-toronto-police-for-dollar12m-over-leak-of-arrest-record-in-smear-campaign/ar-BBX2NR0


----------



## mariomike (20 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Empire Toronto.



Jarnhamar, keep calling Toronto an "empire".

I'll keep reminding you that the "empire" has to go grovelling to Queen's Park with hat in hand to beg permission every time they wish to install a speed bump on a city street.

As for Toronto Police, as the largest municipal police service in Canada,  and third largest police force in Canada after the RCMP and OPP, I have no doubt they get their share of compliments and complaints.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2019)

Perhaps the example of this fraud detective attempting to (and succeeding in) ruining this fellows chances at election eludes to, or day I say it explains, why the red fortress is so impenetrable.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps the example of this fraud detective attempting to (and succeeding in) ruining this fellows chances at election eludes to,



The link you posted states, "The allegations have not been tested in court."

Until then, "All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

In fact, it's not actually a criminal case. 

It's a civil lawsuit by Mr. Gahunia regarding an election in Brampton, ON. Not Toronto.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> , or day I say it explains, why the red fortress is so impenetrable.



Or dare I say, you didn't seem to mind when Team Blue halved the number of Wards in Canada's largest city - aka the "Red Empire or impenetrable Fortress" - , less than 24 hours after winning election - despite not mentioning the plan to do so during the campaign, 


> How Toronto's city council size compares to other cities
> https://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=1590081;topic=124115.125


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The link you posted states, "The allegations have not been tested in court."



Along with the rest of the sentence 



> though many of the facts are based on a report issued in January by Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).



Besides the fact it hasn't been tested in court doesn't remove the perceived threat of the Toronto police unethically or illegally accessing and giving away (selling?) your personal information. 




> In fact, it's not actually a criminal case.


So?  



> It's a civil lawsuit by Mr. Gahunia regarding an election in Brampton, ON. Not Toronto.



It's a civil lawsuit against the Toronto police about the actions of Toronto police officers.  For what appears to be political motives. 



> Or dare I say, you didn't seem to mind



Why make this personal and about me? 




> halved the number of Wards in Canada's largest city - aka the "Red Empire or impenetrable Fortress"


Let's not forget to bring Ford, Ford, Harper, Scheer and Trump into the topic.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Nov 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Perhaps the example of this fraud detective attempting to (and succeeding in) ruining this fellows chances at election eludes to, or day I say *it explains, why the red fortress is so impenetrable*.



While the individual who hoped to become the PC candidate may have been popular and well known in his area, it is not a given that he would have won the election to the Ontario Legislature.  The Brampton Centre riding that he hoped to contend was eventually won by the NDP.  So, is it really a red fortress or an orange fortress?  However, the race was very close; less than a hundred votes separated the winning NDP candidate from the second place PC candidate with a third place Liberal about 7,000 votes further back.  As this riding was only created in 2018 from parts of three now dissolved ridings, the past voting profile is not readily visible, however the MPPs who won those ridings in the previous election were Liberal, Liberal and NDP (Jagmeet Singh, who went on to do something else with the NDP).  What is apparent was a repudiation of Wynne's Liberal government.

The federal electoral riding of Brampton Centre (which essentially is the same) were won by Liberals handily in the last two elections.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2019)

The link you posted is not about "Empire Toronto or the impenetrable Red Fortress", as you call it.

It is about Brampton, ON politics.

It's not about Toronto Police either. 

It's about one of its 7,400+ members. The case is still pending before the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal. 

Worst they can do is fire her / him, ( or transfer to Scarborough ).


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2019)

[quote author=mariomike]
The link you posted is not about "Empire Toronto or the impenetrable Red Fortress", as you call it.[/QUOTE] 
It's about the people who enforce the empires law. 




> It's not about Toronto Police either.
> 
> It's about one of its 7,400+ members.



You mean at least two police officers and one civilian who mailed the info. 

Thats if the detective (allegedly) acted on his own and wasn't doing this at the behest of someone else.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2019)

Whatever.

Says only one officer has been charged: "Det.-Const. Soon Lum’s case is still pending before the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal."

That's an HR, not a criminal charge.

Let us know if and when it ever makes it to the tribunal.

And when the would-be Brampton candidate gets his $12 million.  

Incidentally, not sure why you decided to post here rather than,

New Ontario Government 2018
https://army.ca/forums/threads/128488.0.html
11 pages.

This is Brampton politics. He wasn't running for election in "Empire Toronto or the impenetrable Red Fortress", as you call it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Whatever.



Did you just make me talk to your hand?!  ;D



> Incidentally, not sure why you decided to post here rather than



Easy to explain my friend. This thread is about the "city state provinces" which Brampton is included since it's a part of the GTA. 

What I feel I'm often reading here is that when it's convenient, some people include the GTA when talking about Toronto ie Toronto has over 6 million people! 

When it's not convenient, Toronto only counts as the core city. Not those other cities. 




> This is Brampton politics. He wasn't running for election in "Empire Toronto or the impenetrable Red Fortress", as you call it.


You're right this was in the city of Brampton which is a part of the GTA, or Greater Toronto Area, which is often  synonymous with "Toronto". Or as I colloquially call it empire Toronto. 


I'm not sure why you don't see a member of the Toronto police, a detective in the fraud department, aledgedly getting himself and others mixed up in this, with a view to what appears to be sabotaging a politician, as being something to do with Toronto.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Nov 2019)

I actually appreciate the contributions of you both to this site.... however...

... thank you for reaffirming that the non-military/security threads do nothing but drag down the quality of this site, and detract from military/security discussions.


ps - please keep the politics cartoon thread;  it keeps the _some_  folks occupied.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (21 Nov 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I actually appreciate the contributions of you both to this site.... however...
> 
> ... thank you for reaffirming that the non-military/security threads do nothing but drag down the quality of this site, and detract from military/security discussions.
> 
> ...



As that is an opinion not necessarily shared by all viewers and/or contributors to this site, everyone is encouraged to participate in any topic they wish and as much as they feel comfortable doing so, provided they stay within site guidelines. 

While this is, indeed, primarily a site dedicated to Canadian and international military defence issues, it’s vital that other topics of interest are presented as well in order to draw and maintain a variety of traffic here. 

That being said, let’s try to avoid a topic/thread split and bet back to the point at which other users were participating in the discussion also.

Staff


----------



## mariomike (22 Nov 2019)

.


----------

