Toronto needs 'powers of a province'

[GraphicMatt]

I really hate these far-reaching platitudes railing against whole governments for being ineffectual or stupid even if, sure, they're sometimes true. Let's look for ways to reform what's broken instead of wallowing in cynicism.

Also, do those who despise Miller's brand of government really like McGuinty much better?

 

[afransen]

Forget Miller. Once the stakes are high enough and there is a party system in place, the level of competitiveness of politics would rise and people like Miller would have to be sharper to stay in office.

And McGuinty has been a friend of Toronto. What Toronto has to fear is another Mike Harris.

 

[lordmandeep]

The difference between Mcgunity and Miller, is that when times are well, Dalton can run a sustainable govt.

Miller cannot and that is his biggest fault...


They both believe in the nanny state though. Really I am starting to think Dalton and Miller are surrounded by people like Helen Lovejoy from the Simpsons.

I really hate these far-reaching platitudes railing against whole governments for being ineffectual or stupid even if, sure, they're sometimes true. Let's look for ways to reform what's broken instead of wallowing in cynicism.

The way our current democracy is structured, I think the only two things I can do is vote and wallow away in cynicism...

My solution is that we should elect centrist leaders, who have some common sense. Smart government...

 

[Hydrogen]

What do you mean by a 'sustainable' government?

You should be aware that the 'governments' McGuinty and Miller lead are quite different and with different structures. Directly comparing them suggests some misunderstanding concerning each of these governing bodies.

My solution is that we should elect centrist leaders, who have some common sense. Smart government...

That's an opinion, not a solution. What you think a centrist is may not be what another voter thinks is a centrist position. Your opinions about 'nanny' states alone is an indicator that your centrist view may not as centre as you imagine it to be.

Vagueness is never a solution.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I really hate these far-reaching platitudes railing against whole governments for being ineffectual or stupid even if, sure, they're sometimes true. Let's look for ways to reform what's broken instead of wallowing in cynicism.

Also, do those who despise Miller's brand of government really like McGuinty much better?

I agree completely but growing government, which is what would happen in making Toronto a province, is not the reform we need.

Here is another platitude to chew on:

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

 

[allabootmatt]

@GraphicMatt:

Good point about the "brand of government" issue. One odd characteristic of Toronto/Ontario politics is that there's a widespread perception that the City--which operates on an unbelievably tight budget--is "wasteful" and disrespectful of taxpayer money, while the province is a paragon of efficiency and moral probity.

That's complete BS, of course, and largely a function of the intensity of media coverage at City Hall. John Barber, as he so often does, did a nice job of skewering this a couple of summers ago when he noted the absurdity of Queen's Park lecturing Toronto on running a tighter ship right after the breaking of the infamous provincial grants scandal.

David Miller is far from perfect, but I think he is at least as responsible, well-informed, and sensible as the current premier, and miles ahead of the prime minister.

 

[jn_12]

I agree completely but growing government, which is what would happen in making Toronto a province, is not the reform we need.

Here is another platitude to chew on:

"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

Or you know, "An economy big enough to supply you with everything you need, is an economy big enough to take away everything that you have...."

Given the choice, I'd always take a bigger government over a lesser one. Some of the best places to live in the world have the biggest "hands on" governments. Look at quality of life and you'll find that a Scandanavian country always ranks at the top (apart from when we had that run in the 90s). Why do you think that is the case? Now I don't want to get into the political structures and issues that face remote Norwegian towns, but there's something to be said about that. Even in terms of market competitiveness places like Sweden and Denmark rank highly, and if their governments were ever transplanted and moved here you'd be having a fit.

In all seriousness, Toronto's government should have more power. But then again, every place should. It makes little sense for local economies to be held up by provincial or national issues. We should have moved beyond this point ages ago, but no one wants to relinquish power. I think there needs to be devolution of power in so many areas. The only ones that shouldn't be touched are things like health care where differences between place to place can mean life or death for citizens. Otherwise, give municipalities or regions the taxing power and more responsibility.

 

[Glen]

"The first thing to remember is nations don't create wealth, cities do."

What a crock of shit. Where does such aggrandizing ideas come from?

 

[Archivist]

Whatever the benefits, Toronto's not going to get more power because after the 1980's and 1990's Canada has become incredibly sclerotic in all affairs constitutional - which is what it would take for anything to truly change. Look at Harper's pathetic and misguided semi-attempt at Senate reform - if he was even halfway serious about senate reform it would require opening the Constitution to a discussion not just about how Senators are chosen, but how powers are divided between the Senate and the House of Commons, how the Senate reflects the Canadian population, etc. No one would consider opening the constitution for any reason right now, we need another couple of decades before anybody would consider it.

So, it may be fun to speculate or to make arguments in one direction or another, but it's not gonna happen.

 

[lordmandeep]

What do you mean by a 'sustainable' government?

simple when times are well, being able to keep a balanced budget without having to increases taxes or by very little...

About the Nanny State, I agree with Dalton on the cellphone ban and pit bull ban.

However some ideas go way to far, like when he tried to ban passengers in cars for people under 20!!!

I believe the government should try its best to stop people from doing something stupid. However it should not ban things that are perfectly safe and sensible just in case someone dies from it. Like that law was really going way to far into the lives of people.

About Finland, one person says you will enjoy a great life but you would never be able to own more then a $15,000 car their. I would like to see everyone being well off, but I don't know if I want to surrender my ability to be more well off then everyone else...


Really I don't think gigantic tax hikes are needed, things need to be done more smartly by Government. Like for ER room in hospitals, we know that almost half the people in their just need to see a family doctor. Why not open up a walk in clinic, or have nurses give out prescriptions and healing small cuts or bruises.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Really I don't think gigantic tax hikes are needed, things need to be done more smartly by Government. Like for ER room in hospitals, we know that almost half the people in their just need to see a family doctor. Why not open up a walk in clinic, or have nurses give out prescriptions and healing small cuts or bruises.

Because your supposedly rational individuals decided that using ER is a good idea for them, even when it is inappropriate, in spite of the higher cost to the government and at the end of the day society? Most individuals do not care whether society suffers in the long run for their short-term, individual benefits. It's not that government aren't smart - it's just that people in general are selfish - and selfish action translates into societally sub-optimum outcomes - and in more extreme cases, collective seppuku.

And for the record, the government is doing all these things (or trying to do all these things) you've mentioned (and quite a bit more you haven't mentioned) - which is in turn stymied again by individual self-interest.

AoD

 

[GraphicMatt]

Whatever the benefits, Toronto's not going to get more power because after the 1980's and 1990's Canada has become incredibly sclerotic in all affairs constitutional - which is what it would take for anything to truly change. Look at Harper's pathetic and misguided semi-attempt at Senate reform - if he was even halfway serious about senate reform it would require opening the Constitution to a discussion not just about how Senators are chosen, but how powers are divided between the Senate and the House of Commons, how the Senate reflects the Canadian population, etc. No one would consider opening the constitution for any reason right now, we need another couple of decades before anybody would consider it.

So, it may be fun to speculate or to make arguments in one direction or another, but it's not gonna happen.

The 'powers of the province' thing is over-reaching, but a serious 'New Deal for Cities' that would see restructuring of municipal governments and additional revenue streams for all large CMAs across the country (to avoid the optics of this being a 'Toronto thing') is feasible, provided we get a federal government that doesn't think urban-dwellers are irrelevant.

Start by kicking in one or (ideally) two percent (one provincial and one federal) of the total sales tax directly to the CMA in which that tax was incurred. That small change would have a transformative effect on the way our city, and others, budget.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What a crock of shit. Where does such aggrandizing ideas come from?

Apparently he hasn't heard of offshore oil rigs, oil sands, mines and farms. He has forgotten that cities require, food, fuel and raw materials.

Like Ed Begley Jr in an episode of the Simpsons, Hume and others believe left to their own devices they can power their city with their "own sense of self-satisfaction"

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually it's from Jane Jacob's Cities and the Wealth of Nations

Apparently he hasn't heard of offshore oil rigs, oil sands, mines and farms. He has forgotten that cities require, food, fuel and raw materials.

Not to say that what you've said aren't important - but one should keep in mind what percentage of the GDP in first world nations is derived from primary production? If not for cities-based manufacturing processes, much less their preminent command/control, R&D functions - there would be no need for oil rigs, oil sands...

AoD

 

[lordmandeep]

Well cities do create wealth no doubt about it.


However all you urbanites do not think its all barren wasteland outside of the main cities.

Cities do create a great deal of wealth, well really Ontario would be in worse position then the Atlantic provinces if it were not for the Golden Horseshoe.


The main economic engines of Canada will still be the Vancouver area, The Calgary-Edmonton Corridor and of course the Golden Horseshoe and yeah Montreal.