New Ontario Government 2018

[FJAG]

Just for the record, when the City council voted in 2017 to increase the number of wards from 44 to 47, there was considerable opposition to it and in fact many (including some councillors) favoured the 25 ward system. The matter ultimately went to the Ontario Municipal Board for a review on the grounds that the 47 wards would not have voter parity due to unequal distribution of voters. It is notable that of the three OMB members, one-Blair S Taylor-dissented and would have imposed a system using the 25 federal riding boundaries.

There are some interesting facts including the one that starting in 2000 and lasting until 2017, the city used the then existing 22 federal ridings as the basis of their wards taking each riding and dividing it in half so that there were 44 councillors representing roughly 60,000 people each. Going back to the federal ridings should therefore not be that difficult albeit that there are now 25 and that under the Ford legislation there is only one councillor for each and therefore representing about 120,000 people.

The real issue it seems is not so much the voter parity (because everyone acknowledged that the 47 ward system that the city designed wouldn't achieve that anyway for a few elections but the number of people being represented by each councillor. In fact the federal riding system achieved better immediate voter parity than the 47 ward system. The dissenting board member stated:

[52] Sixth, I find that the use of the FEDS {federal electoral district} would result in a fair election in 2018, that the continued use of the FEDS would provide the basis for future elections that are fair, that they will result in boundaries that are derived from regular, thorough, arms-length, open public processes and which can be quickly, reliably, and relatively inexpensively adjusted and adopted by the City on an ongoing basis.

[53]Finally, I strongly disagree with the submission of City’s counsel that: “…there is no jurisdiction or statutory authority that the City must achieve parity [of voter/population] in any particular time frame”

[54] I find that the City is dealing with a fundamental right provided under the Charter such that when the City is proposing a ward boundary review, the cornerstone of such a review must seek to achieve acceptable voter/population parity for the forthcoming election and not be aimed at an election event in 2026, (eight years hence following innumerable City Council votes, resolutions and By-laws), the result of which would be to unduly dilute the fundamental, Charter given, right to vote for thousands of citizens during that entire intervening period. In short, I find that the Charter provides the  jurisdiction and the authority that requires the City to achieve parity [of voter/population] in 2018

[55] There will be those who will say that the FEDS with 25 wards will result in 50 councillors. That might be, but that is an issue that the Board has no jurisdiction over. That decision rests solely with City Council.

[56] However, it appears to this Member that there are a host of options open to the City, including but not limited to these four as set out by Dr. Sancton:
1. 25 councillors (1 councillor per ward);
2. 30 councillors with 25 councillors (1 per ward) plus 1 area councillor for each five groupings of five wards;
3. 35 councillors with 25 councillors (1 per ward) plus 10 councillors elected at large; or
4. 50 councillors with 2 councillors elected per ward.

[57] City Council has the jurisdiction to make decisions on the number of councillors, and I would have left that to City Council.

Or, of course, the decision on the number of councillors is also one within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

See full decision in this article:

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/12/13/omb-approves-47-wards-for-toronto-for-the-2018-election.html

Long story short, from a constitutional point of view, using the federal ward system achieves voter parity before the 47 ward system by probably some two elections and is therefore the federal ward system is more constitutionally sound. The number of councillors is an open question as to whether it should be 25 or 50 but typically, the larger a committee becomes, the more dysfunctional it is as a decision making body.

I'm not a member of Ford Nation but I think that his use of the notwithstanding clause is fundamentally defensible in this very unique case.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

The ratio of council members to citizens is a bit of a red herring.  City of Vancouver has 11.  Township of Langley, with less than 1/5 the population of Vancouver (but over 2.5 times the land area), has 8.  Kamloops, with less than 1/7 the population of Vancouver (and also with 2.5+ times the land area), has 8.

I don't know whether there is a statutory minimum, and don't care - it's beside the point.  Clearly the number of council members doesn't have to be scaled up linearly with population in order for a municipal government to function effectively.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Listened to Canada Talks on Sirius tonight, I think it was the CBC slot. They called the segment The Premiers Power Hour. 3 former provincial leaders were on the line. (Christie Clark, Brad Wahl and Jean Charest). All 3 of them concurred, without hesitation, that section 33 was the right call.
Further, Clarke and Charest both made statements that this has been a “long time coming”, and that courts have become far too “adventuresome” (word attribution-Clarke), have “ misinterpreted their role and ultimately it is the divine right of a Parliament in a democracy to have the final say” (statement attribute to Charest) and, according Wahl, Premiers can sleep peacefully as he did when he used S33.
Clarke opined that unless Trudeau wants to trigger an epic constitutional crisis that could see the provinces push for a constitutional change that limits much further the activity of the courts, the federal Liberals had better be careful.  It seems that maybe a few premiers (current and former) were consulted before the trigger was pulled. 

 

[FJAG]

The ratio of council members to citizens is a bit of a red herring.  City of Vancouver has 11.  Township of Langley, with less than 1/5 the population of Vancouver (but over 2.5 times the land area), has 8.  Kamloops, with less than 1/7 the population of Vancouver (and also with 2.5+ times the land area), has 8.

I don't know whether there is a statutory minimum, and don't care - it's beside the point.  Clearly the number of council members doesn't have to be scaled up linearly with population in order for a municipal government to function effectively.

In fairness to Toronto, it has a population of 2,731,571 while Vancouver is 631,486 or 4.3 times the size. With 11 counsellors, Vancouver has roughly 60,000 people per councillor which is roughly what ratio Toronto has now at 47.

I agree with you. I don't believe that there is a ratio issue or that 60,000 people represented by one councillor has some kind of magic to it. IMHO (others, including the present council of Toronto, obviously disagree) the number of councillors should be determined according to how efficiently the council will function. That's best done through smaller councils with efficient rules of order for council meetings and committee work.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

In fairness to Toronto, it has a population of 2,731,571 while Vancouver is 631,486 or 4.3 times the size. With 11 counsellors, Vancouver has roughly 60,000 people per councillor which is roughly what ratio Toronto has now at 47.

Whatever the math, Toronto is the fourth most populous city in North America, behind Mexico City, New York City and Los Angeles.

That does not include the GTA ( Durham, Halton, Peel and York ).

Prior to amalgamation, our political structure was one Chairman, six mayors, and 28 wards.

( East York had 1 ward, Etobicoke 4, North York 7, Scarborough 6, Toronto 8, York 2. )

Each of those 28 wards had two councillors, for a total of 56 councillors, six mayors and one chairperson.

It seems as our population increases, our political representation decreases.

For example, our councillor in Swansea announced yesterday she will not be seeking re-election. That's unfortunate. She and her family lived in our neighbourhood for many years and we knew them. She worked at the Swansea Town Hall since 2004. She became our councillor in 2010, and was re-elected in 2014.

She is a part of our community.

She also knows Doug from his one term at City Hall, and failed mayoral campaign,

"We know what he wants to do. Now, unfortunately, he's capable of doing these vindictive things he threatened to do when he was a councillor," she said.

My uneducated guess is that much needed transit projects could be on the chopping block next.

The King Street pilot project will likely be the first to go.

 

[Infanteer]

In fairness to Toronto, it has a population of 2,731,571 while Vancouver is 631,486 or 4.3 times the size. With 11 counsellors, Vancouver has roughly 60,000 people per councillor which is roughly what ratio Toronto has now at 47.

As well, Toronto amalgamated, while Vancouver has not.  How many councilors do Vancouver, Burnaby, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, Delta and Langley have together?

Either way, you are right in your latter statement - I don't care what the ratio of electors to councilors is, I care on how efficiently and effectively the city is run. 

 

[mariomike]

From what I remember of the Ford Nation era, my uneducated guess is that he has only just begun to take care of Toronto.

There seems to be little to stop the province from taking over the Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC ).

Or any other Agency, Board, Commission, Department or Service ( the ABCDS ) operated by the city.

He could abolish the City of Toronto Act ( 2006 ) without input from the city.

I care on how efficiently and effectively the city is run.

I live here, so I do too.

You get what you pay for. Depends on what level of service one expects.

Personally, with a budget the size of Toronto's, I like the idea of a sufficient number of councillors to keep an eye on it - and each other.

"In Vegas, everybody's gotta watch everybody else. Since the players are looking to beat the casino, the dealers are watching the players. The box men are watching the dealers. The floor men are watching the box men. The pit bosses are watching the floor men. The shift bosses are watching the pit bosses. The casino manager is watching the shift bosses. I'm watching the casino manager. And the eye-in-the-sky is watching us all."

 

[X Royal]

I'm sorry, but I just can't see this as anything but a petulant vendetta by Ford against a city council for having mocked and 'disrespected' him and his brother for their abysmal behaviour and council attendance. 

It seems to be a growing theme in contemporary politics, and some social circles.

:2c:

I fully agree that it is vendetta by Ford against Toronto council.
If it wasn't many other Ontario cities would have also been targeted.
Why not Ottawa, London, Hamilton, Windsor ect?
Because Ford is upset that Toronto failed to elect him as mayor?

 

[Brad Sallows]

If 5 communities of 120K pop, 1 mayor, and 8 council members each were amalgamated into a Vancouver-sized city, I'd expect the 5+40 to drop to 1+11.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Municipal government is the level of government that is closest to me, not the province or the feds. It seems to me the easier it is to get hold of a person who actually is familiar with my neighbourhood is going to be far more understanding about the impact of delivery of services in my neighbourhood. I have often felt that with all the municipal downloading that has occurred in Ontario, more entrenched municipal authority and better representation at the local level far outweighs the importance of representation numbers that are equal to the provincial or federal riding distribution level.

While I 100 percent agree that the judge made more than a palpable error in his decision about Bill 5, and using 33 was probably the most expedient thing to be done, I'm not impressed with the idea that "finding efficiencies" means taking the axe to local government. If anything, improving local government representation and resources would probably end up being cheaper in the long run. What Ford is doing is creating "bigger" government, not efficient government. It is "bigger" interns of distancing itself from neighbourhoods.
What Ford could have done is change the municipal act to prevent municipalities from engaging in wedge politics issues, like parade permits, sanctuary cities etc. The primary and maybe even the only purpose would be infrastructure, services, zoning and related bylaws and useful things like that. Nothing else to be debated, considered, discussed at taxpayer expense and no power or authority given to a municipality to go down contentious social engineering paths, in fact potentially use legislation to preclude them from even considering it.  I would trade 100 city hall political staff, bureaucrats, lawyers, advisors etc. for 100 more snowplow drivers, crossing guards, health unit nurses, sanitation workers and other services that are more pragmatic.

Fortunately I live in a municipality where many of our board members etc. are volunteers or receive a small yearly stipend. They make decisions like whether to refresh the gravel road, ditch digging and culvert replacement projects, and whether they should send a letter to Joe Bloggins to remind him to fix his fence so his frickin' sheep stay off the road. These are not, obviously, big city problems and it seems to me mega cities have mega problems to address at the municipal level. Ford has not explained how a smaller council can solve those problems, nor has John Tory et al adequately explained how 47 seat council would solve them either.

There are many issues where section 33 could have and probably should be used in the coming months, local government is not one of them.

 

[mariomike]

I'm not impressed with the idea that "finding efficiencies" means taking the axe to local government.

It would have been nice if he had mentioned to Toronto voters that he was going to take an axe to their council before the provincial election.

 

[FJAG]

. . .
Fortunately I live in a municipality where many of our board members etc. are volunteers or receive a small yearly stipend. They make decisions like whether to refresh the gravel road, ditch digging and culvert replacement projects, and whether they should send a letter to Joe Bloggins to remind him to fix his fence so his frickin' sheep stay off the road. These are not, obviously, big city problems and it seems to me mega cities have mega problems to address at the municipal level. Ford has not explained how a smaller council can solve those problems, nor has John Tory et al adequately explained how 47 seat council would solve them either.
. . .

That to me in a nutshell is what's wrong with most municipal councils and why large ones don't work. These are the type of routine decisions that should be made by staff based on policy guidance/limitations provided by council.

Councils should be the visionaries for a municipality. They should set overarching policy based on staff studies and create a vision for the municipality's future. Rather than making routine decisions, they set limits within which staff is free to make all routine decisions and accomplish the council's vision. The more members that a council has the more likely it is to waste energy and time meddling in matters that should be dealt with by staff. This in turn this undermines the staff's authority and makes them less likely to use their own initiative.

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now ruled and released it's decision re the Toronto Council Ward matter.

In short the court stayed the ruling of Justice Belobaba clearing the way for the election to proceed on a 25 ward basis without the need for the legislature to use the "notwithstanding clause".

Along the way the court said the following about Belobaba's decision:

[12]      The application judge’s interpretation appears to stretch both the wording and the purpose of s. 2(b) beyond the limits of that provision. His decision blurs the demarcation between two distinct provisions of the Charter: the protection of expressive activity in s. 2(b) and the s. 3 guarantee of the democratic rights of citizens to vote and be qualified for office. The s. 3 right to vote and stand for office applies only with respect to elections to the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures: Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995, at pp. 1031, 1033. Section 3 does not apply to municipal elections and has no bearing on the issues raised in this case.. . .

[18]      Finally, the application judge’s conclusion that Ontario substantially interfered with the voter’s right of freedom of expression when it doubled the ward population size from a 61,000 average to a 110,000 average cannot be supported. The size of the City’s electoral wards is a question of policy and choice to be determined by the legislative process subject to other provisions of the Charter, including s. 15(1). Whether wards of 61,000 or 110,000 are required to ensure effective representation is a debatable issue that cannot be determined by reference to the right to freedom of expression. Further, we share the application judge’s inclination that there is no infringement of s. 15(1).  . . .

[20]      Our finding of a strong prima facie case on appeal bears upon the analysis under the second and third prongs of the RJR-MacDonald framework: see RJR-MacDonald, at p. 339. We recognize that in this case, Ontario does not have a monopoly on the public interest and that the City also speaks for the public interest. However, having acceded to the argument of the respondents that the more exacting “strong likelihood of success” standard should be applied and having reached the decision that the judgment under appeal was probably wrongly decided, we have no doubt that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if a stay were not granted. It is not in the public interest to permit the impending election to proceed on the basis of a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation duly passed by the Legislature. We do not accept the respondents’ submission that, because Ontario exercised its legislative authority to enact Bill 5, it does not have “clean hands” and should not be entitled to the equitable relief of a stay from this court.

See the whole decision here:

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0761.htm

And the CBC's take on it here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-court-toronto-council-1.4829250

:cheers:

 

[Furniture]

My favourite line in the CBC article; "Unfairness alone does not establish a charter breach."

 

[FSTO]

I have to chuckle when big city mayors go on how they are beholding to the provinces, they should be their own entity and that they shouldn't be ruled by the rural vote.

Excuse me? Last I looked at the federal cabinet all the heavy hitters are from urban ridings and all the provincial cabinet heavies are from urban ridings. In fact in a province like Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg has more seats in the provincial legislature than the rest of the province. I'm pretty sure the Ontario legislature is close to 50% Toronto.

So big cities don't whine to me about your lack of power. In my view you have more than enough power to influence the federal and provincial to bend to your will. I worry about the tyranny of the majority of urban governments when it comes to national infrastructure (ie - pipelines, solar and wind power generation) that can adversely affect rural Canada.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . I'm pretty sure the Ontario legislature is close to 50% Toronto.

Since this whole issue is about reducing the number of Toronto municipal wards to the same number and boundaries as the current federal and provincial ridings that are within the city, it is easy to figure out how many Torontonians sit in the legislature - 25.  Out of a 124 seat legislature, that makes it closer to 20%.

 

[FSTO]

Since this whole issue is about reducing the number of Toronto municipal wards to the same number and boundaries as the current federal and provincial ridings that are within the city, it is easy to figure out how many Torontonians sit in the legislature - 25.  Out of a 124 seat legislature, that makes it closer to 20%.

Thanks, I pulled my number out of thin air.
My point still stands, by sheer numbers urban Canada has all the power it needs.

 

[mariomike]

Thanks, I pulled my number out of thin air.

Fact check,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Toronto#Members_of_Provincial_Parliament

 

[Cloud Cover]

There are 121 Federal Ridings in Ontario, and 124 Provincial Ridings.
The GTA is by far the electoral powerhouse in Ontario with 58 Federal ridings of which there are 25 in Toronto proper.

 

[mariomike]

The GTA is by far the electoral powerhouse in Ontario < snip >

Half the population of Ontario lives in the GTA ( Halton, Peel, York, Durham and Toronto ).
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=302&SR=1&S=3&O=D&RPP=9999&PR=35

Without the GTA ( population 6,054,191 ), the population of Ontario would shrink to 6,797,630.

If the boundaries were redefined to also include the adjacent city of Hamilton to turn the contiguous Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area ( GTHA ), it would supersede the resized province of Ontario as the 2nd largest province by population.

That's from the 2011 census. I believe the population of the GTA has increased considerably since then.