Author Topic: New Ontario Government 2018  (Read 34206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,796
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,180
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #150 on: September 10, 2018, 16:06:43 »
Ha!  probably...or a golden parachute.

Maybe you're right abour them needing a parachute  ;D



Premier Ford Overrules Judge with Notwithstanding Clause, Toronto City Council Cuts Move On
https://thenectarine.ca/politics/premier-doug-ford-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-and-appeal-court-decision/
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 209,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,505
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #151 on: September 10, 2018, 17:17:22 »
Quote
Premier Doug Ford to use notwithstanding clause to cut size of Toronto city council

Article here.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/judge-ruling-city-council-bill-election-1.4816664

Personally, I thought that the decision by Judge Belobaba is a bit of a stretch. The heart of his decision is here:

Quote
[17] Second, a federal or provincial legislature is sovereign and cannot bind itself. The provincial legislature can over-rule or contradict a previously enacted law. A subsequent
enactment that is inconsistent with an earlier enactment is deemed to impliedly repeal the
earlier enactment to the extent of the inconsistency.6 Thus, the argument that the City of
Toronto Act7 somehow imposed an immutable obligation to consult cannot succeed. The Province was entitled to enact Bill 5 and ignore completely the promise to consult that was set out in the previous law.


[18] Third, speaking broadly and again absent a constitutional issue, the provincial
legislature has no obligation to consult and no obligation of procedural fairness.

8 The doctrine of legitimate expectations, an aspect of procedural fairness, does not apply to
legislative enactments.9

[19] At first glance, Bill 5 although controversial in content appears to fall squarely
within the province’s legislative competence. Upon closer examination of the
surrounding circumstances, however, one discovers at least two constitutional
deficiencies that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
The first relates to
the timing of the law and its impact on candidates; the second to its content and its impact
on voters.

[20] As I explain in more detail below, the Impugned Provisions breach s. 2(b) of the
Charter in two ways: (i) because the Bill was enacted in the middle of an ongoing
election campaign, it breached the municipal candidate’s freedom of expression and (ii)
because Bill 5 almost doubled the population size of City wards from an average of
61,000 to an average of 111,000, it breached the municipal voter’s right to cast a vote that
can result in effective representation.


Essentially he confirmed the provincial government's broad unfettered authority to make the law that it did but then points to two so-called constitutional breaches. The second, the one about the size of the constituencies is entirely arbitrary on his part and glosses over the simple fact that these constituencies already exist as Federal ridings and provide entirely adequate representation. Regardless of any Toronto commissioned review, it is the role of the legislature to determine if representation is adequate. The first, respecting the existing candidates freedom of expression is, IMHO, also a made-up ground. The change of boundaries in mid-election did not interfere with the candidates freedom of expression, merely modified the audience within which they were free to express themselves. This might very well have been unfair and difficult but provinces can be that way and still not create a breach of any "constitutional right".

IMHO this judgment reads like a case of "situating the estimate" to get the desired result. An expedited appeal would be the way to go. I think re-passing the legislation with a "notwithstanding clause" is certainly doable but sends a bad message. The clause should be used on "line in the sand" issues. Quite frankly this doesn't strike me as such a significant piece of legislation that the government should go to the wall on it. It does make a statement though which will be appreciated by many of the Party's base.

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

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 924,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,223
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #152 on: September 10, 2018, 18:32:01 »
I don't think Judge Belobaba thought of the far-reaching repercussions of his decision. He's basically drawn a line in the sand saying that its against the Charter Rights of individuals if they're in riding over 66,000 people and only have 1 MP/MPP. There's only 1 Ontario riding Federally that is below that threshold (Kenora) and 10 more for the remainder of the provinces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal_ridings). It's also specious reasoning to state that it's "the middle of a campaign" when notice was given 90 days out from the municipal election and the candidate list isn't even finalized until 14 Sep 18.

I don't see the decision standing on appeal, but we won't need that thanks to Notwithstanding. A primer on that clause is here: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/what-is-the-notwithstanding-clause-1.4087536

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 218,374
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,897
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #153 on: September 10, 2018, 18:32:29 »
The only point in that ruling that I would concede would be the one about changing things in the middle of an election. Better to have said "this will be the last 47 member council, so prepare yourselves".
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #154 on: September 10, 2018, 21:26:27 »
Resistance is futile.

QUOTE

Report prepared by the City Solicitor, City of Toronto
June, 2000 (updated October 2001)

Secession from the Province of Ontario

• Subsection 42(1)(f) of the Constitution Act provides that amendments to the Constitution of Canada to establish a new province are to be made in accordance with the general amending procedure set out in section 38. This procedure requires resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons and at least two thirds of the provinces having at least 50% of the population of all the provinces.
• Subsection 38(2) provides that where a constitutional amendment is made under 38(1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province, the resolutions referred to in the previous bullet must be supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies required under subsection (1). In other words, a majority of all members of these bodies must support the amendment, not just the majority of those present and voting.
• Subsection 38(3) provides that when the majority of the members of a Legislative Assembly rejects a resolution for a constitutional amendment that would derogate from the powers, rights or privileges of that Assembly, the government of that province can opt out.
Consequently, an amendment to the Constitution Act to create Toronto as a new province would require support from the Province of Ontario.


END QUOTE

Note: In 2000, Toronto city council proposed for Toronto secession from Ontario to be made a ballot issue — only to have the proposal swiftly slapped down by Ontario’s then-Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2018, 08:45:25 by mariomike »

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,264
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #155 on: September 10, 2018, 23:24:55 »
I’m sure the rest of Ontario would be happy to build a wall. Toronto is not representative of Ontario, and Queens Park, most of the regulating bodies, the OHRC included, would be better located someplace real and staffed with  people of common sense. As FJAG states above, as well as many constitutional experts, not just lawyers but political scientists as well, todays court decision was a stretch and likely an incorrect decision.
That being said, pulling a stunt like Bill 5 at the material  time it was done, was a now or never decision, like so many other necessary decisions that will be forth coming because we are out of Time. . There has been so much damage done to the fabric of this province in the past 20 years, almost all of it stems from Toronto based interests. Only sustained use of  S33 will un#uck it. And if Toronto special interests whines and complains and throws it toys away, cut off the highways, slow down the extra food, need gas? Sorry that trucks not coming today....go to the courts and Ford will use section 33. Hopefully the gig is up....
#hadenoughofToronto
Living the lean life

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 57,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 632
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #156 on: September 10, 2018, 23:42:39 »
I’m sure the rest of Ontario would be happy to build a wall. Toronto is not representative of Ontario, and Queens Park, most of the regulating bodies, the OHRC included, would be better located someplace real and staffed with  people of common sense. As FJAG states above, as well as many constitutional experts, not just lawyers but political scientists as well, todays court decision was a stretch and likely an incorrect decision.
That being said, pulling a stunt like Bill 5 at the material  time it was done, was a now or never decision, like so many other necessary decisions that will be forth coming because we are out of Time. . There has been so much damage done to the fabric of this province in the past 20 years, almost all of it stems from Toronto based interests. Only sustained use of  S33 will un#uck it. And if Toronto special interests whines and complains and throws it toys away, cut off the highways, slow down the extra food, need gas? Sorry that trucks not coming today....go to the courts and Ford will use section 33. Hopefully the gig is up....
#hadenoughofToronto

That seems a little extreme doesn't it?  The courts find something unconstitutional so you propose blanket application of the Notwithstanding Clause as a response, and if people complain you blockade them and cut off their food and fuel supplies?

I'm actually not convinced that Bill 5 is totally a bad thing but the timing was poor.  If the Conservatives are so convinced that the change MUST take place now rather than after the next election could they not simply legislate a change to the election date to give more time for candidates to adjust?  As for the representation part of the Judge's ruling I tend to agree with those that see that as a weak argument since those are already existing electoral districts.

But why does every action and reaction these days have to be so extreme?  Will the world end if the reduction in the council doesn't take effect until the next election?  Will having council members having to serve larger wards make Toronto government screech to a halt?  Of course not on both counts.  But to hear many people talk on these issues and you'd assume the sky was falling and the end days are here.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 122,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,633
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #157 on: September 11, 2018, 09:08:23 »
The only point in that ruling that I would concede would be the one about changing things in the middle of an election. Better to have said "this will be the last 47 member council, so prepare yourselves".

Yeah, I would agree on that point.  I have no problem with trimming the fat. But to do it once the campaign has started isn't very good.

Also, maybe he should have campaigned on that. 
Optio

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 985
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #158 on: September 11, 2018, 15:50:37 »
I don't see the decision standing on appeal, but we won't need that thanks to Notwithstanding. A primer on that clause is here: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/what-is-the-notwithstanding-clause-1.4087536

From what I can tell the Gov't is going to appeal the decision anyways.  If it falls to appeal then Section 33 will not need be applied continuously.  The issue her isn't whether the Ontario is within its rights, its that Ford is using a sledgehammer to put in a finishing nail.  Standby for more uses of the notwithstanding clause against everyone and all.  Primacy of government over the courts is going to look real nasty in Ontario for a while yet.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,699
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #159 on: September 11, 2018, 16:24:53 »
Personally, I don't have a problem with primacy of the elected officials over the courts. That's what democracy is all about.

Contrary to some of the (in my mind illiterate) statements of so called experts found in the press, there is NO requirement whatsoever to be in an "exceptional" circumstance in order to call upon section 33 of the Constitution. it's purpose is solely to ensure that the primacy of the legislature/Parliament over the courts, and as result the primacy of the electorate, remains the supreme decision making body in the nation/provinces.

 

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 771
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #160 on: September 11, 2018, 18:19:13 »
Agreed.  The not withstanding clause should have been used long ago.  The judges have built themselves up to the point where it is their rulings that dictate the law rather than parliaments and that isn't the way it is supposed to be.  In many rulings, their personal bias shows through.  The decision re|: the pipeline being one glaring example. 

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 209,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,505
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #161 on: September 11, 2018, 21:05:09 »
Time for me to pipe up again.

There is no "war" between the elected officials and the courts. Firstly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by legislatures and declared by them to be the supreme law of the land and that all other laws need to be subordinate to it. The judges are also appointed by the legislatures (or more accurately by the cabinets/premiers/prime minister) for the express purpose of settling disputes between the citizens and between citizens and the state. In that respect the judges that you get are the ones that the legislatures have deemed to be the ones to best do the job (and yes, conservative legislatures appoint conservative judges and liberal legislatures liberal ones and, provincially, socialist legislatures socialist ones. Legislatures reap what they sow.

Once appointed, the judges are quite constrained in their job of interpreting the laws that legislatures make. They must abide firstly by the constitution itself, secondly by the legislation and thirdly (or concurrently) by the rulings of courts higher than they are.

Sometimes judges do screw up. That's why you have appeal courts. Two levels of appeal courts so that laws within a province are consistently applied throughout the province and nationally so that laws which have national import are applied consistently across the nation.

Sometimes legislatures (or more accurately the various departments and ministers of justice that draft the laws)  screw it up. Toews was famous for consistently drawing up criminal laws that pretty much everyone knew would never pass muster but they voted on them and put them out there anyway only to have them struck down afterwards.

In the long run, legislatures do remain supreme. They can change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if enough of them want to; so far they haven't wanted to do that. They can use the "notwithstanding" clause if an issue is important enough to them. The clause was specifically introduced at the urging of Peter Lougheed who, like others, felt that without it the legislatures would, in fact, loose the final word to the courts. It was part of the "Kitchen Accord" which caused almost everyone (remember Rene Levesque) to sign on to the new Charter. Trudeau's daddy didn't like the clause and blamed Chretien for it being there.

Quote
To date, two provinces have used the power of override. Saskatchewan has used it to force provincial employees to work and to allow the government to pay for non-Catholics to attend a Catholic school; Quebec uses it to allow the government to restrict language of signage.

Anyway, that's a long way around to saying that it isn't so much judges who are "building themselves up" as it is legislatures that are basically passing poorly conceived or worded laws which contravene the constitutional legislation that they themselves have created. Sometimes they need to be told to fine tune what they've created. It's generally not hard to amend legislation so that it complies with the Charter and this goes on all the time. The trouble is politicians have no restraints in whining when they think their toes have been stepped on and that always makes good press. Judges on the other hand speak only through their judgements and, generally, only a handful of people read those and most reporters only look for the easy soundbites in the judgements (when they understand them at all)

I personally don't disagree with Ford's wanting to use the "notwithstanding clause". There simply isn't time to run through the appeal process and quite frankly, as I said above, I happen to think this judge reached too far. It comes with a risk though but that's a political decision and not a legal one. I really couldn't give a rat's a** about Toronto's city council and wish that my party spent some time trying to figure out why it continues to support the dairy cartel (when it's philosophically counter to conservative thinking; I think they are kowtowing gutlessly to a tiny part of the farm sector) or why we have our shorts in a knot over a school sex education program which wasn't really a problem and was only offensive to a fraction of the conservative base (but that was the platform so go to it)

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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,678
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #162 on: September 12, 2018, 10:31:54 »
Another view on the matter and about another "notwithstanding clause"

http://brianlilley.com/judges-have-their-own-notwithstanding-clause/




Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,796
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,180
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #163 on: September 12, 2018, 10:56:41 »
I read Los Angeles has twice Toronto's population and only 15 councilors. Vancouver has 11.

The biggest complaint in my opinion seems to be that there are too many politicians in Toronto to get anything done in a timely manner.

So personal feelings about Ford aside, is he right?
IS there too many councilors to get anything done?
Will cutting the numbers in half improve the system?

Ford talked about reducing the government, kind of sounds exactly what he's trying to do.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 924,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,223
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #164 on: September 12, 2018, 11:39:58 »
Especially when each Toronto councilor gets paid $192K a year. I can see why they're making a big stink about having more competition for their jobs.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #165 on: September 12, 2018, 11:47:43 »
Especially when each Toronto councilor gets paid $192K a year.

QUOTE

CBC
Apr 09, 2018

A Toronto city councillor's pay is about $112,000.

Mayor John Tory topped out at $192,503, according to his office. That's less than some 905 councillors took home last year.

Some councillors from smaller GTA municipalities making big bucks
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/some-councillors-from-smaller-gta-municipalities-making-big-bucks-1.4609427

END QUOTE

Quote
So glad you're here to fact check the thread into rabbit holes.





Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #166 on: September 12, 2018, 11:49:45 »
I read Los Angeles has twice Toronto's population and only 15 councilors.

QUOTE

London, England has only 25 members for a population of more than eight million people. But that city also has 32 elected borough councils, many with more than 50 or even 70 members, and each of those has its own mayor. He also noted that Los Angeles has only 15 councillors and a mayor, but failed to mention the 97 neighbourhood councils that are part of its government structure. Chicago, about the size of Toronto, has 50 councillors, a mayor, and an elected clerk and treasurer — slightly larger than the body Toronto would have had after this election. New York City, between its city council, its community boards, and its borough presidents, has more than 3,000 politicians running it.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZyAaWNyXAZ8J:https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/07/27/fords-move-to-slash-toronto-council-without-consultation-an-undemocratic-move.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

END QUOTE



Vancouver has 11.

QUOTE

Vancouver Sun

Compared to elsewhere, Toronto doesn't actually have all that many city councillors
https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/toronto-doesnt-actually-have-all-that-many-city-councillors/wcm/bba005bb-aa30-4996-810c-0d5ca4dd5f54?video_autoplay=true
Even with its giant city council, the city has fewer politicians per person than almost anywhere else in Canada

When ranked against other major Canadian cities, Torontonians already have fewer councillors than almost anyone else.

Should Ford be successful in reducing the number of councillors from 44 to 25 plus a mayor, the city would have an average of one elected municipal representative for every 105,060 people.

In Metro Vancouver, by contrast, there are currently 15,893 people per elected municipal representative. Having never faced regional amalgamation, the Vancouver area is still governed by a patchwork of city, town, village and district governments.

Roll them all together and Metro Vancouver has 21 mayors and 94 total councillors — not including the chiefs and councillors of the city’s First Nations.

END QUOTE



Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 122,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,633
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #167 on: September 12, 2018, 11:50:16 »
I read Los Angeles has twice Toronto's population and only 15 councilors. Vancouver has 11.

The biggest complaint in my opinion seems to be that there are too many politicians in Toronto to get anything done in a timely manner.

So personal feelings about Ford aside, is he right?
IS there too many councilors to get anything done?
Will cutting the numbers in half improve the system?

Ford talked about reducing the government, kind of sounds exactly what he's trying to do.

L.A. is a really bad example to use. They are the highest paid council in the US.  They actually get paid more than the Governor of the state.  About 185,000 USD a year plus an additional 100, 000$ no questions asked slush fund.  To top it off they get about 20 or so staff with around 8 cars per councillor.  And don't forget that there are around 97 neighbourhood councils as well.

Toronto is a bargain by comparison with three times the councillors. 
Optio

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #168 on: September 12, 2018, 12:10:37 »
Toronto is a bargain by comparison with three times the councillors.

At $112,000 a year they are a bargain.

Considering our chief paramedic made $223,824.33 last year - not including over $10,000 in taxable benefits.


Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,936
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #169 on: September 12, 2018, 12:32:26 »
Is the $112K just pay, or total compensation (ie. benefits including pension, if any)?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

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

Despair is a sin.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #170 on: September 12, 2018, 12:42:22 »
Is the $112K just pay, or total compensation (ie. benefits including pension, if any)?

See,

https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/council/policies-and-guidelines/

They have to get re-elected every four years.

Whereas, it's almost impossible to throw out a unionized City employee - unless they become a public disgrace.



« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 12:49:53 by mariomike »

Offline mick

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 39
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #171 on: September 12, 2018, 13:05:15 »
City of Vancouver has 11 councillors (incl mayor) for a population of approx 635,000 people.  That's 1 representative for every 57,700 residents.

Using this equation, Toronto, with a population of 2.7 million residents, ought to have 47 councillors. 

What exactly is the problem?

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 519,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,747
    • The job.
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #172 on: September 12, 2018, 13:19:28 »
City of Vancouver has 11 councillors (incl mayor) for a population of approx 635,000 people. That's 1 representative for every 57,700 residents.

According to the Vancouver Sun,

QUOTE
https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/toronto-doesnt-actually-have-all-that-many-city-councillors/wcm/bba005bb-aa30-4996-810c-0d5ca4dd5f54?video_autoplay=true

In Metro Vancouver, by contrast, there are currently 15,893 people per elected municipal representative. Having never faced regional amalgamation, the Vancouver area is still governed by a patchwork of city, town, village and district governments.

Roll them all together and Metro Vancouver has 21 mayors and 94 total councillors — not including the chiefs and councillors of the city’s First Nations.

END QUOTE


« Last Edit: September 12, 2018, 13:22:44 by mariomike »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 304,796
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,180
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #173 on: September 12, 2018, 13:44:06 »
Okay, so forget comparisons then.

IS there too many councilors to get anything done?
Will cutting the numbers in half improve the system?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline mick

  • New Member
  • **
  • 2,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 39
Re: New Ontario Government 2018
« Reply #174 on: September 12, 2018, 13:51:35 »
Less representation in the name of: cost saving?