GTHA Regional Transit Amalgamation Discussion: Superlinx/Subway Upload

[christiesplits]

Has there ever been discussion about merging Mississauga and Brampton transit, Oakville and Burlington, similar to YRT?

 

[JasonParis]

Similar to Durham too. A Halton and a Peel Transit would be welcomed from my persepctive, but I suspect the Ford government has something in the pipes anyway regarding regional governments which probably means ending their existence in some cases. In others, probably merging some of the lower tier municipalities. I guess we'll have to see how that shakes out first.

 

[W. K. Lis]

For Doug Ford, "sense" doesn't make "cents" in his mind.

Similar to Durham too. A Halton and a Peel Transit would be welcomed from my persepctive, but I suspect the Ford government has something in the pipes anyway regarding regional governments which probably means ending their existence in some cases. In others, probably merging some of the lower tier municipalities. I guess we'll have to see how that shakes out first.

Doug Ford seems to think have more individuals in government, or departments, is not "efficient". A single person or dictatorship is best where he (or maybe she, unlikely for Doug) does everything or does as per edict.

 

[TOareaFan]

Has there ever been discussion about merging Mississauga and Brampton transit,

only every 5 minutes or so.

 

[asher__jo]

Doug Ford seems to think have more individuals in government, or departments, is not "efficient". A single person or dictatorship is best where he (or maybe she, unlikely for Doug) does everything or does as per edict.

Agreed. Look at Montreal's 'over-government' to disprove that more politicians isn't worse.

 

[Hopkins123]

Agreed. Look at Montreal's 'over-government' to disprove that more politicians isn't worse.

Speaking of Montreal, which city region seems to be seeing more transit progress overall in the forum's opinion?

In my view:
Montreal:
REM (under construction)
Blue Line east to Anjou (nearing the construction phase)

Toronto:
Crosstown (under construction)
BD Line east to SCC (nearing the construction phase)

But lots of transit priorities in both regions like the Pink Line and the DRL are still unfunded with austerity-leaning regimes provincially in both cases.

 

[nfitz]

Speaking of Montreal, which city region seems to be seeing more transit progress overall in the forum's opinion?

In my view:
Montreal:
REM (under construction)
Blue Line east to Anjou (nearing the construction phase)

While the REM finally appears to be proceeding, after a decade or so of discussion of what to do with the new tracks over the St. Lawrence - the Blue Line is nearing construction? That 5-station extension has been nearing construction for over 30 years, and has been cancelled and delayed time and time again. There hasn't been a single Metro station opened on the Island of Montreal in over 30 years! Toronto has had 10 in the same timeframe (plus 2 in Vaughan ... while 3 were opened in Laval over a decade ago), with Eglinton Line 5 adding another 12 stations (and 10 surface stops) in 2021. If the Blue LIne construction starts in 2020 as currently discussed, it's not going to open until 2026.

Meanwhile the core of the REM itself, is the 95-year old frequent commuter Deux-Montagnes line. The plans to convert this to Metro-like frequencies is so old, that it was called Line 3. They started constructing Line 4 in 1964! There's been many, many, iterations of this plan since 1961.

Sure, they are progressing on it now - but put it in perspective. The REM adds 6 new stations when it opens in 2021. WIth 6 more stations for the proposed Airport and Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue branches if they are constructed.

 

[robmausser]

Speaking of Montreal, which city region seems to be seeing more transit progress overall in the forum's opinion?

In my view:
Montreal:
REM (under construction)
Blue Line east to Anjou (nearing the construction phase)

Toronto:
Crosstown (under construction)
BD Line east to SCC (nearing the construction phase)

But lots of transit priorities in both regions like the Pink Line and the DRL are still unfunded with austerity-leaning regimes provincially in both cases.

Montreal gets bonus points for the REM because of how quickly it came to fruition and is being constructed. Thats unprecedented in Toronto.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Toronto does not consent to Ontario’s proposed subway takeover – and that matters

 

[steveintoronto]

Toronto does not consent to Ontario’s proposed subway takeover – and that matters

I delved into that for a while yesterday. I couldn't find any definitive results in the legislation or legal precedent rulings.

Be aware though:

(John Sewell) earned a law degree from the University of Toronto Law School in 1964 and was called to the bar in 1966.

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

And yet the City has (gist) "accepted the right of QP to do as they wish". That being said, the City's solicitors have been proven wrong a number of times.

I'm with Sewell inasmuch as this should be tested in court. First stop, Ontario Superior Court....but I have a feeling it will become Federal in nature, and be accepted by the SCC, whether considered a Federal matter or not. There's some legal aspects that complicate the case, one being that part of the subway, at Union Station, is on the RoW of a federally regulated rail corridor (USRC) and thus technically under the aegis of Federal regulation. SCC rulings in the past have established that. The subway is a "railway" on (or under) the Esplanade Viaduct, and clearly that is federally administered:
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto - SCC Cases (Lexum)

Toronto also has the right to apply for regulation of the subway federally.

[...]
City legal staff say that by law the province could even completely dissolve the TTC.

Only the federal government could put a check on provincial authority over the subway system, according to the opinion.

Under the Constitution Act, the federal government could theoretically claim jurisdiction over the subway system by declaring it to be a public work for “the general advantage of Canada.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...way-system-confidential-city-report-says.html

I'd be interested to know who Spurr spoke to for that info. He's correct, but it's a little-known power made clear in SCC judgments, as per the one linked above.
Pg 613:

Prior to 1888, the Grand Trunk Railway Company operated a portion of its railway upon the "Esplanade," in the City of Toronto, and, in that year, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company obtained permission from the Dominion Government to fill in a part of Toronto Harbour lying south of the "Esplanade" and to lay and operate tracks thereon, which it did. Several city streets abutted on the north side of the "Esplanade," and the general public passed along the prolongations of these streets, with vehicles and on foot, for the purpose of access to the harbour. In 1892, an agreement was entered into between the city and the two railway companies respecting the removal of the sites of terminal stations, the erection of overhead traffic bridges and the closing or deviation of some of these streets. This agreement was ratified by statutes of the Dominion and provincial legislatures, the Dominion Act (56 Vict. ch. 48), providing that the works mentioned in the agreement should be works for the general advantage of Canada.

Pg 622:

Section 1 enacts that all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act.

Page 626

The special Act invoked as ousting the jurisdiction of the Board was one passed in 1893, declaring (1) all works to be done or in pursuance of the agreement therein mentioned to be works for the general advantage of Canada; (2) an agreement dated 26th May, 1892, made between the Grand Trunk Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the City of Toronto "to be in force and binding upon the parties thereto"; and (3) that each of the parties might do what was necessary to carry out its undertaking under that agreement.

Page 673 (One of the Judge's findings)

I come now to the consideration of the agreement of 1892, and the statutes confirming it. There are two statutes, one (provincial), 55 Vict. ch. 90, giving the municipality authority to execute the agreement; and one (Dominion), 56 Vict. ch. 90, declaring the works to be for the general advantage of Canada, enacting (sec. 2) that the agreement shall be "in force and binding on the parties thereto," and (sec. 3), empowering the parties to do all things necessary to carry its provisions into effect. There are two rival views of the nature of this latter statute. The respondent argues that it is merely a statute authorizing an agreement inter partes which, notwithstanding the statutory authorization, still remains a private agreement. The appellants contend that it is a special Act within the meaning of the Railway Act creating a scheme with a view to providing accommodation for the two railways, and establishing means for the protection and for the convenience of the public in relation to those parts of the railways of the appellants, which are specially dealt with in the order appealed from, and that according to the terms of section 3 of the Railway Act the provisions of this special[...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do

I'd suggest that parties interested in having this case heard before the SCC also submit several other points of contention for the same judgment, one being the Rail Deck Park and the City's ownership of the USRC. There are some properties that QP *can't* take from the City. The USRC (or at least the part common with the original Esplanade Agreement) can only be changed by "The Parliament of Canada" by statute. Good luck with that Mr Ford...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Thank you for sharing, although I do remain a bit confused.

So the jist of what you're saying is that Union Station Railway Corridor is exclusively regulated by the Federal Government. Because the TTC Union Station, and surrounding TTC infrastructure, exist within the Union Station Railway Corridor, the Federal Governement retains exclusive legislative rights over TTC's Union Station.

Now how exactly does this impact the Provincial Government's plans to upload the subway? It appears that the Federal Government clearly has the power to block the transfer of TTC's Union station to the Provincial Government, as it exists on a federally regulated rail corridor. However this doesn't mean that the Provincial Government needs to explicit permission of the Federal Government to complete the transfer of ownership. In other words, the transfer of ownership would only be blocked if the Federal Government explicitly stepped in and blocked the transfer. So if the Federal Government just sat at the sidelines, nothing would stop the Province from completing the transfer. Is this correct?

 

[rbt]

Toronto does not consent to Ontario’s proposed subway takeover – and that matters

John misses a key point, this is not an expropriation.

Toronto is a department of the province known as Municipality of Toronto, so it is an internal reorganization of assets. The head of the Toronto Department (the city manager, not the board) will simply receive a lawful order to transfer the asset. The City Manager is obligated to follow provincial law and orders, council makes decisions where allowed by those laws/orders, but they cannot override the province.

The hope is Ford will both have a good reason to follow through and will compensate the city for political reasons but it's not legally required (either the compensation or a good reason).

You would think this would be well understood after Harris/Ford municipal restructurings; not to mention the GO download/upload/forced funding combo.

 

[steveintoronto]

Now how exactly does this impact the Provincial Government's plans to upload the subway? It appears that the Federal Government clearly has the power to block the transfer of TTC's Union station to the Provincial Government, as it exists on a federally regulated rail corridor. However this doesn't mean that the Provincial Government needs to explicit permission of the Federal Government to complete the transfer of ownership. In other words, the transfer of ownership would only be blocked if the Federal Government explicitly stepped in and blocked the transfer. So if the Federal Government just sat at the sidelines, nothing would stop the Province from completing the transfer. Is this correct?

I think a court case would come first. And this is about a lot more than just the subway. It goes to the heart of the Constitution Act and the Fed's ability to exert jurisdiction where provinces had *thought* (whether rightly or wrongly) they had absolute jurisdiction over municipalities.

An example of this Fed/Prov skirmish is already headed to court over Carbon Pricing and method. It's considered that the Feds will win an easy victory on that one. But the subway? The Feds (not all, anyway) might be reticent, as responsibility to rule also means costs.

Now that Sewell wrote that opinion piece, well exposed by TorStar, btw. guaranteed there will be more opinion pieces on the matter, and from Constitutional Lawyers.

I'll keep digging and see what I can add later, but the legal precedents clearly exist. Ford will have no-one to blame when he ends up losing rather than gaining on this...

 

[steveintoronto]

John misses a key point, this is not an expropriation.

Toronto is a department of the province known as Municipality of Toronto, so it is an internal reorganization of assets. The head of the Toronto department will simply receive a lawful order to transfer the asset. The hope is Ford will both have a good reason to follow through and will compensate the city for political reasons but it's not legally required (either the compensation or a good reason).

You would think after Harris (restructuring + shifting around GO including forced funding) we'd understand this by now.

This is the "completely a creature of the province" argument.

The interpretations and actions have changed since Harris's time. The SCC has become *much more proactive* in interpretations, since the Law is not precisely written. I studied the "expropriations" last night, and the more I read, the more it became apparent that the only terms applicable under the various manifestations of the Municipal Act were for third parties, not municipalities.

I've yet to look under other Acts, but if you're so sure of your stance, then please provide reference for perusal. The Feds have their own ways to 'coerce compliance' and they've already used it for injection clinics and other cases. They'll fund directly, and the province is just by-passed.

We're going to be hearing a lot more on this in the next while. For the record, I favour uploading of transit, but not with this pathetic excuse of a regime.

 

[steveintoronto]

Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, also known as the works and undertakings power, grants the provincial legislatures of Canada the authority to legislate on:
“
10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes:
(a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Roads, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province;(b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country;(c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.”

Section 92(10)(a) and (b) grants federal jurisdiction over modes of interprovincial and international transportation and communication, leaving intraprovincial transportation and communication to the provinces. Section 92(10)(c), however, applies to works of all types. The Parliament of Canada exercises authority over these three matters under section 91(29), which states:
“
29. Such Classes of Subjects as are implicitly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.
”
Contents

• 1Extent of jurisdiction
• 2Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)
• 3Notes
• 4Further reading

Extent of jurisdiction[edit]
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that:

• "These works are physical things not services."[1]
• "'Undertaking' is not a physical thing but is an arrangement under which of course physical things are used."[2]

A work or undertaking will be under government control under section 69(10) where it is connecting the province with something outside of the province. This does not mean that physical connection is sufficient. An undertaking will be considered "connecting" where business operations extend beyond the provincial border, or has a close operational relationship with an inter-provincial undertaking [3]
The reference to "Telegraphs" has been held to include telephones[4] and radio broadcasting.[2] In the latter case, radio broadcasting was held to have no provincial dimension, and was therefore exclusively a federal matter. That has since been extended to include television and cable television.[5]
Declaratory power under section 92(10)(c)[edit]
In general terms, works declared by the Parliament of Canada to be "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" tend to be part of the national infrastructure.
Whenever parliament invokes the power, it gains not only jurisdiction over the work but also any necessarily incidental operations. In Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (1993), such a declaration had been made with respect to Ontario Hydro's nuclear plant. The Supreme Court held that that declaration gave Parliament the authority to regulate the work "as a going concern" which included jurisdiction over workers at the plant and their labour unions.
The declaration must be made by the passing of legislation, but in addition to declaring specific works, whole classes of work can be defined as being "for the general advantage of Canada" by default; the Atomic Energy Control Act, for example, deemed all nuclear power plants to fall into this category. From 1867 to 1961 there were 470 uses of the declaratory power, of which 84% related to railways.
As of 2006, the declaratory power has been invoked at least 422 times,[6] but not since 1961,[7] and of which 64% was related to railways.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_92(10)_of_the_Constitution_Act,_1867

Even though I haven't cited them here, there are cases of the SCC finding that the Feds were justified in declaring 'Provincial Works' (railways chartered provincially) as coming under federal regulation by virtue of just *crossing* federally regulated ones...with no switching interchange.

"Ah" one might say, but that's not *ownership* which is what Ford is discussing. Except under the Transportation Act, that is also federally regulated by the CTA. And Ford et al would have to make an application for change of ownership to the CTA Board.
(Edit: Contingent, of course, to the Feds declaring the subway "for the general Advantage of Canada"...except that can be determined by the Court if Transport Canada is directed to do so on the basis of the Esplanade Corridor already having that status, which it does.)