News   Nov 11, 2019
 295     1 
News   Nov 11, 2019
 1K     2 
News   Nov 11, 2019
 1.1K     7 

2018 Municipal Election: Toronto Council Races

How many non-incumbent winners will there be on council?


  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
^There may also be a basis in law for civil action to recoup losses. There's very real irony in that if some of these claims were from American companies or individuals, they would have a case under Nafta.

Here's an example, and this doesn't even have the protections of Nafta clauses:
German company to seek damages after Ontario wind project cancelled

SHAWN MCCARTHYGLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED JULY 11, 2018UPDATED JULY 11, 2018
FOR SUBSCRIBERS
A German-owned wind-power developer said on Wednesday it will pursue at least $100-million in compensation after Ontario’s new Progressive Conservative government announced it is killing the firm’s contract for a nine-turbine project in Prince Edward County.

After years of battling local opponents, wpd Canada Corp. received approval to proceed with construction of the 18.5-megawatt White Pines project in May, a few days after the election campaign began. [...]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-german-company-to-seek-damages-after-ontario-wind-project-cancelled/

How long is Caroline Mulroney going to last at the losing end of chronic court decisions? Her reputation would be served far better by working for the Mafia.
 
Last edited:

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
879
Location
Scarborough, Ontario
There is no mechanism in the Constitution for secession....errr...provincial separation from the nation besides.
Nunavut did it. Originally Nunavut was a section of the Northwest Territories until the Nunavut Act declared it a separate territory.

All I am saying is that it is possible albeit unlikely. Hazel McCallion floated the idea years ago then dropped it.
 
Last edited:

ttk77

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
262
Location
Harbourfront
This is not a response to the above few posts, but to all who were indicating that 25 (or fewer) concillors may be enough.

A comment was made in defense of this cut (further up in this thread, or in another thread where this issue is being discussed) indicating that it is the bureaucracy that citizens should be interacting with, and not their councillors. This is the exact opposite of how things should work. The bureaucracy runs the government. In a representative democracy it is the elected officials that tell them how to do it, and the elected officials are accountable to us, the citizens who vote for them. Elected officials MUST be available to field voters concerns or we've lost the entire point of our democratic system.

At a federal or provincial level where they deal with higher level issues ~100K people per representative may be enough but when we're dealing with matters around how people live their everyday lives it certainly is not. The very examples that are being used to justify a smaller council (London, LA, etc...) show the argument has little actual supporting evidence. They actually have far more elected officials than Toronto. Additionally, considering issues that larger cities face in larger proportion to less dense population centers (transit, poverty, homelessness, mental health, etc...) I would expect that the needs for representation would be higher in larger cities, not less. Yet, this legislation would target Toronto specifically giving its citizens far less access to their elected officials than any other city in the province.

The idea of cutting down on the number of elected officials in Toronto is just anti-Toronto nonsense.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
Nunavut did it. Originally Nunavut was a section of the Northwest Territories until the Nunavut Act declared it a separate territory.

All I am saying is that it is possible albeit unlikely. Hazel McCallion floated the idea years ago then dropped it.
That was a division of a Territory, completely a federal matter.

On April 1, 1999, Nunavut separated from theNorthwest Territories to become the newest Canadian territory. The creation of Nunavut was the outcome of the largest aboriginal land claims agreement between the Canadian government and the native Inuit people.
Nunavut: Canada's Newest Territory and Governed by the Inuit
https://www.infoplease.com/well-have-nunavut
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
A comment was made in defense of this cut (further up in this thread, or in another thread where this issue is being discussed) indicating that it is the bureaucracy that citizens should be interacting with, and not their councillors. This is the exact opposite of how things should work.
This is exactly the case of the SCC guidelines, as detailed prior post #811, the essential point being that what's apt for MPs and MPPs in terms of ridings isn't for municipal wards:
[...]
2.2 COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION Effective representation is an inclusive phrase used to consider how well residents are represented in our form of government, which we call “representative democracy”. At a general level it means that one person’s vote should be of similar weight to another person’s. Applied to wards, it suggests that wards should be of similar population size. In some jurisdictions this is referred to as “rep-by-pop”, or representation by population. In the TWBR it is referred to as ‘voter parity’. In the Canadian context, the Supreme Court of Canada has employed the term “effective representation” to set the standard for creating municipal ward boundaries and provincial and federal riding boundaries. Effective representation has evolved to include several components, all of which need to be considered in designing a ward structure. These components are:

[...]
Capacity to Represent
Capacity to represent is often equated with Councillors' workload. It encompasses ward size, types and breadth of concerns, ongoing growth and development, complexity of issues, etc. For example, wards with high employment, major infrastructure facilities, tourism attractions, or special areas such as the Entertainment District, generate a host of issues a Councillor has to deal with, in addition to the concerns of local residents. The courts have noted that Councillors perform two functions. The first is legislative and refers to passing by-laws and considering city-wide issues. All Councillors have this role in common. The courts have referred to the second function as the “ombudsman role”, which is interpreted as a constituency role. It speaks to a Councillor's responsibility to represent the interests of a ward’s residents to the city government and its administrative structure. This latter function, the constituency role, is captured by the concept of the “capacity to represent”. This role can vary greatly depending on the issues prevalent in any given ward. There is no specific information or data set to quantify this criterion. Some data on development pressures can be gleaned from development pipeline reports and areas that play a special role in the city's economic life are known. Wards with these types of issues can remain in the lower reaches of the voter parity range. Homogeneous, stable wards can rise to the upper end of the voter parity range.

[...]
Balancing the Components of Effective Representation
Designing a new ward structure requires balancing all the components of effective representation. While all of the components have to be taken into consideration, they are not all equal. Some need to be weighted more heavily than others in determining a new ward configuration. Voter parity is pivotal and is a key determinant of effective representation. Respecting communities of interest is another high priority consideration, along with well-defined, coherent ward boundaries. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that voter parity is required based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provision of the “right to vote”. Besides just voting, the right to vote asserts that one person’s vote must be similar in weight to any other person's vote. Voting weights do not need to be identical but they must be 'similar' and within a reasonable range. Within this range other factors such as geographic communities of interest or capacity to represent are considered. Ward boundary reviews need to look into the future. Toronto is growing at a rapid rate. In its pursuit of effective representation, the TWBR looks ahead to 2030 when Toronto’s population will have grown to approximately 3.2 million. The TWBR uses total population numbers in a ward and not electors. Councillors, once elected, represent all people in a ward, not just those eligible to vote. Also, as a ward alignment lasts for several elections, some people not eligible to vote currently will become voters in future elections.

[...]
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8d62-Attachment-1-TWBR-Final-Report-FINAL.pdf
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
The very examples that are being used to justify a smaller council (London, LA, etc...) show the argument has little actual supporting evidence. They actually have far more elected officials than Toronto.
All Ford proves, time and again, is that he knows dick about shid. Not that many of his disciples realize or care. Thank God they're still a minority in this province.

On London:
How many councils are there in London?
The London boroughs are 32 of the 33 local authority districts of the Greater London administrative area (the 33rd is the City of London). Each is governed by a London borough council.
London boroughs - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_boroughs
Search for: How many councils are there in London?

The Greater London Council was the top-tier local government administrative body for Greater London from 1965 to 1986. It replaced the earlier London County Council which had covered a much smaller area.Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
879
Location
Scarborough, Ontario
That was a division of a Territory, completely a federal matter.
Federally it would take an act of parliament and 2/3rds of the Canadian Population to support it. What that means is all of the provinces west of Ontario and Quebec would need to support it. If they did we could theoretically secede but if we did it would open pandoras box.
 

JGHali

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
524
Reaction score
357
It really wouldn't. "Opening" the constitution isn't some all-or-nothing affair. It's simply received wisdom that we must necessarily repeat Meech Lake and Charlottetown to make *any* changes. Kinda like how Canadians apparently won't tolerate budget deficits.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
Federally it would take an act of parliament and 2/3rds of the Canadian Population to support it. What that means is all of the provinces west of Ontario and Quebec would need to support it. If they did we could theoretically secede but if we did it would open pandoras box.
You're completely missing the point as to how this has nothing to do with a *city seceding from a province*! There was no change to the Constitution or one needed. It was an Act of Parliament, plain and simple:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28.6/FullText.html?pedisable=true&wbdisable=true

There is no such mechanism for Parliament to extend same to a part of a Province, since provincial integrity and powers are guaranteed under the BNA Act and other sections of the Constitution.
Territorial Government in Canada
Under Canada’s federal system, the powers of government are shared between the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments. The territories — Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon — are governed by their respective governments, which receive their legislative authority (the ability to create laws) from the federal government. Ottawa has given territorial governments authority over public education, health and social services, and the administration of justice and municipal government. More and more of these powers have been handed down from the federal government in a process called devolution. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada is the federal ministry responsible for the territories.

What are the Differences between Provinces and Territories?
Authority to Govern

The main difference between provincial and territorial governments has to do with the separate roots of their authority to govern. According to the Constitution Act, 1867, territorial governments are under federal control and therefore do not have the same status as provinces. Provincial governments, for example, receive their legislative authority from the Constitution, while legislative authority in the territories is delegated (or handed down) by the federal government in a process known as devolution. Federal law allows the territories to form elected councils, which are given powers similar to provincial legislatures, including authority over public education, health and social services, and the administration of justice and municipal government.

Constitutional Change

Since legislative powers described in the Constitution are divided between the federal government and the provinces, changing those powers requires a constitutional amendment (see Constitutional History and Constitutional Law). Since the territories fall constitutionally under federal control, changing the powers delegated to territorial governments can be achieved through an Act of Parliament. Similarly, the creation of a new province requires constitutional amendment, while the creation of a new territory only requires an Act of Parliament.

Territorial governments are not included in the amending formula of the Constitution. Beyond representatives in the House of Commonsand Senate, who may vote on constitutional change, territorial representatives are not involved in the process of changing the Constitution. Each territory has one seat in the House of Commons and one seat in the Senate.

The Constitution Act, 1982 provides each province with the power to amend the constitution as it applies in their province; however, assent of the House of Commons and Senate is also required. Since territorial constitutions are federal statutes, only the federal Parliament can amend them.

[...]
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/territorial-government/

Feel absolutely free to quote a legal means for Toronto to secede from Ontario. I'd be delighted...
 

JGHali

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
524
Reaction score
357
You're completely missing the point as to how this has nothing to do with a *city seceding from a province*! There was no change to the Constitution or one needed. It was an Act of Parliament, plain and simple:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28.6/FullText.html?pedisable=true&wbdisable=true

There is no such mechanism for Parliament to extend same to a part of a Province, since provincial integrity and powers are guaranteed under the BNA Act and other sections of the Constitution.
I think his point was that, yes, secession, i.e. the creation of a new province, is possible but would require constitutional amendment. Specifically, the assent of Parliament and at least two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at the time of census greater than 50% of Canada's population. (Section 41(2)(f) Constitution Act, 1982) That's not going to be easy but not impossible under the right circumstances.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,100
Not popular to say this. But I'm okay with the council size change as long as it comes with a strong mayor system. The more I think about it.

Reality is that most people don't know who their councilor is or interact with them. But if boundaries line up with fed/prov ridings, the profiles are suddenly much more substantial.

That also means we'll get far more capable candidates in there, who will truly see municipal politics as a stepping stone.

Next, as long as this comes with a strong mayor system, the net effect will be positive. It's time to stop pretending that Toronto can be governed like a small town. A strong mayor system is desperately needed.

And heck, Ford's successor can double the size of council if needed . And I think once some of those MPPs and MPs start feeling the heat from high profile councilors, they'll be begging for it.
 
Last edited:

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,947
Reaction score
2,100
I think his point was that, yes, secession, i.e. the creation of a new province, is possible but would require constitutional amendment. Specifically, the assent of Parliament and at least two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at the time of census greater than 50% of Canada's population. (Section 41(2)(f) Constitution Act, 1982) That's not going to be easy but not impossible under the right circumstances.
Practically impossible. Most of the rest of Ontario would be a have not province. No way the other provinces agree to another one sucking at the teat.

Better idea is to get strong regional government. I mean a Metrolinx with the powers of the old metro government and an elected board and council. One that doesn't have to rely on Queen's Park for funds.
 
Last edited:

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
10,437
Reaction score
5,212
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Not popular to say this. But I'm okay with the council size change as long as it comes with a strong mayor system. The more I think about it.

Reality is that most people don't know who their councilor is or interact with them. But if boundaries line up with fed/prov ridings, the profiles are suddenly much more substantial.

That also means we'll get far more capable candidates in there, who will truly see municipal politics as a stepping stone.

Next, as long as this comes with a strong mayor system, the net effect will be positive. It's time to stop pretending that Toronto can be governed like a small town. A strong mayor system is desperately needed.

And heck, Ford's successor can double the size of council if needed . And I think once some of those MPPs and MPs start feeling the heat from high profile councilors, they'll be begging for it.
I think the main objection to Ford's proposal is that it came from nowhere and deals with only one (rather small) aspect of municipal government. As I have said somewhere above, I can see the advantages of a smaller Council and with using Federal/Provincial ward boundaries but if one reduces the number of Councillors you also need to look at their salaries, their staff, their exact responsibilities and, yes, the role of the mayor Do you need Community Councils (as now, composed of councillors) or do you need local 'councils' composed of citizens (like LA). Municipal government is VERY complicated and very close to citizens so Councillors will always have more citizens who want to talk to them about small (but important) things that affect their daily lives.
 

ttk77

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
262
Location
Harbourfront
Not popular to say this. But I'm okay with the council size change as long as it comes with a strong mayor system. The more I think about it.

Reality is that most people don't know who their councilor is or interact with them. But if boundaries line up with fed/prov ridings, the profiles are suddenly much more substantial.

That also means we'll get far more capable candidates in there, who will truly see municipal politics as a stepping stone.

Next, as long as this comes with a strong mayor system, the net effect will be positive. It's time to stop pretending that Toronto can be governed like a small town. A strong mayor system is desperately needed.

And heck, Ford's successor can double the size of council if needed . And I think once some of those MPPs and MPs start feeling the heat from high profile councilors, they'll be begging for it.
I fundamentally disagree with this. Individual councillors are a product of the wards they were elected in. Their job in council is to fight for the needs of of their constituents. The reason they have so much trouble coming to consensus is because the needs of the different wards in the city are so different. All a strong mayor system would do is make it easier to impose a solution to one set of needs on the whole city. If the mayor sides with downtown the suburbs lose, and if the mayor sides with the suburbs then downtown loses. The solution is to delegate more power down to a community/borough council level...decentralize further so that each community can service its own needs rather than concentrate that power further at the top. A smaller council and mayor as oversight at the top is fine as long as we have strong local, elected councils.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,334
In fact, not only does our constitution allow for it and lay out the required steps, it has happened already — and recently. In 1999, Nunavut seceded from the Northwest Territories.
I think his point was that, yes, secession, i.e. the creation of a new province, is possible but would require constitutional amendment. Specifically, the assent of Parliament and at least two-thirds of provincial legislatures representing at the time of census greater than 50% of Canada's population. (Section 41(2)(f) Constitution Act, 1982) That's not going to be easy but not impossible under the right circumstances.
Then how did Nunavut get mentioned by two posters and used as an example of what Toronto could do? Who exactly would Toronto appeal to constitutionally to change the Toronto Act? The competence lies completely in the hands of the Province. Where federal jurisdiction comes into play is in the ward provisions, and that under Federal jurisdiction as per the Rights Charter:
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that voter parity is required based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provision of the “right to vote”. Besides just voting, the right to vote asserts that one person’s vote must be similar in weight to any other person's vote. Voting weights do not need to be identical but they must be 'similar' and within a reasonable range. Within this range other factors such as geographic communities of interest or capacity to represent are considered.
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/8d62-Attachment-1-TWBR-Final-Report-FINAL.pdf

Nunavut was never in a province. It was in a Territory, directly the jurisdiction of the federal government.
 
Last edited:

Top