[BurlOak]

Its interrelated. Hand gun sales and imports also increased dramatically after the registry was destroyed.

Its not the only part of the problem, but it is a piece of it.

Really the government needs to go harder after the biker gangs that are importing illegal weapons. But we have people in power who are friendly with these assholes.

Replace "biker gangs" with "natives"

 

[narduch]

Replace "biker gangs" with "natives"

I don't think replace is the right word. As they are supposedly working together.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

It is interesting people are correlating the long gun registry with all the shootings, but somehow carding is off limits as a cause for the shootings?

 

[steveintoronto]

It's a contract between the federal government and the province because the City of Toronto act does not give the mayor (or city) the ability to bind the province to that type of agreement.

What the feds can do is ask the mayor about their priorities (say Project X), then provide a cheque with a contract stating the funds are strictly for Project X; but a provincial representative signs that agreement. So funds flow from Fed to Province to Project X (huzzah, gave money to a city project; Harper did this project specific type funding regularly).

It's very rare that a province turns down free money but if Ford feels his political promises are being bypassed or hampered, say the feds want to fund 100% of Sheppard LRT, then I can guarantee Ford would have it blocked even if the city wants to accept.

From the Library of Parliament:

MUNICIPALITIES, THE CONSTITUTION, AND
THE CANADIAN FEDERAL SYSTEM
Prepared by:
Michael Dewing, William R. Young
Political and Social Affairs Division
Erin Tolley
Economics Division
Revised May 2006

[...]
MUNICIPALITIES, PROVINCES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
[...]

Because of the broad range of federal activities that impinge on local areas, however, the provinces have not been able to prevent at least ad hoc contact between federal departments and the municipalities. Historically, such linkages have followed informal and functional lines. For example, federal transportation specialists deal directly with municipalities about bridges over level crossings of railroads and roadways. It is also important to note that local governments are subject to various federal actions that can affect municipal options and significantly alter the physical and social fabric of urban centres. One example of this might be the impact of federal immigration policy on larger cities, such as Toronto, Montréal or Vancouver. A second example might be the impact that federal cuts to social programs, such as Employment Insurance, may have on homelessness and poverty. The federal government can also exert some control over municipal activities by means of the conditions it attaches to grants to the provinces.

Lack of coordination between ad hoc federal activities and relationships and the rapidly expanding municipalities began to cause problems in the 1960s. It became evident that the solutions to local problems often had more than a local impact and that federal projects could have undesirable environmental or developmental consequences for municipal governments. For example, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s financing of residential construction near Toronto International Airport in the 1960s pre-empted any plans by the federal Department of Transport to expand that facility. In the late 1960s, programs administered by 27 federal agencies had some influence over urban development plans. Other federal actions had unintended consequences for urban life. For example, the Income Tax Act deduction for businesses providing parking spaces to employees contributed to urban street congestion.

Insofar as municipalities are concerned, recent social and economic developments have conclusively demonstrated that a major argument for changing either government structures or the Constitution is that:

… the problems of our large cities are no longer merely municipal or local problems. The Canadians whom our provincial and federal governments serve are now predominantly urban Canadians. The national goals of high employment, high growth, stable prices, viable international payments’ balance, the equitable distribution of rising incomes must now be primarily accomplished within our cities.(6)

The contacts between the CMHC and the municipalities evolved over time. In 1949, amendments to the National Housing Act (originally passed in 1938) authorized joint federal-provincial programs to provide low-priced homes for sale or rent. The amended Act authorized cost-sharing by the federal and provincial governments for land assembly and servicing (75% was paid for by the federal government). Municipalities were allowed to participate in this program if their province passed legislation authorizing local administration of the provincial aspects of these housing activities. A further series of amendments to the National Housing Act in 1964 created more comprehensive programs aimed at overall urban renewal and not just housing. As a result, the federal government could authorize a 50% contribution towards the preparation of plans, the acquisition of land and buildings, and the installation of municipal services in urban renewal plans. The federal government could also make loans to the provinces and municipalities to finance up to two-thirds of their costs.

Until the end of the 1960s, the provinces generally went along with these activities, in large part because the condition in the cost-sharing agreements gave them considerable control and also because, as a Crown corporation, the CMHC developed its policies with relative autonomy and without direct control by the federal Cabinet. The CMHC also established functional relationships with municipalities and interest groups, which tended to minimize Cabinet intervention in its affairs.

The intense constitutional discussions of the late 1960s produced a set of circumstances that ultimately altered this relationship but did not satisfy either the municipalities or the federal government. The Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities intervened in the constitutional debate to state its position, but the municipalities consistently related their vaguely expressed constitutional propositions directly to their very specific financial difficulties.

The Federation established a Joint Municipal Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (JMCIR) to elaborate its views throughout the constitutional debate. In 1971, the JMCIR presented a brief to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution. However, the only clear conclusion that emerged from the municipalities’ submissions appeared to be that there should be some form of “tripartitism” either in the division of powers or, more commonly, in a consultation process. For example, the JMCIR proposed that federal-provincial conferences should become trilateral meetings. Constitutional recognition of federal-provincial-municipal conferences would mean that the municipalities would still be “subject to provincial law but this would be modified by their right to be consulted and to be heard, a right which would be formally recognised and would no longer be a matter of provincial sufferance…”(8)

The Trudeau government tried – unsuccessfully – to marry the municipalities’ concept of “tripartitism” (although not enshrining it in the Constitution) with the “pragmatism” of the historical links between the federal and municipal governments. In theory, not only could this avoid the constitutional hurdles but it would “rationalize” federal-municipal relations and establish greater political control at the federal level. Accordingly, in March 1971, a Minister of State for Urban Affairs was appointed to take on responsibility not only for the CMHC but also for a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Given the inescapable constitutional limitations, this ministry had no program responsibilities but had a mandate to: plan, coordinate and develop new urban policies; integrate federal urban priorities with other federal policies and programs; and develop coordinating intergovernmental relationships. Given this mandate and its lack of funds for programs, the MSUA had to rely on the clout and persuasive powers of its Minister to achieve its goals.
[...continues at great length...]

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp276-e.htm

Here's Adam Vaughan's statement on the matter: (The Law is not definitive on this, and in fact, aspects of that are being examined in a Toronto courtroom right now)

Feds prepared to work around Queen's Park as Ford plunges Toronto ...
https://ipolitics.ca/.../feds-prepared-to-work-around-queens-park-as-ford-plunges-toro...
Jul 27, 2018 - Adam Vaughan, a Toronto Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary for urban affairs, says Ontario ... Vaughan says the federal government will work around Queen's Park, if necessary, and fund programs directly to the City of Toronto. ... Trump announces trade deal with Mexico, Canada on sidelines ...
A National Urban Strategy for Canada - Adam Vaughan
https://avaughan.liberal.ca/.../op-ed-five-ways-ottawa-can-help-canadas-cities-adam-v...

 

[SunriseChampion]

Replace "biker gangs" with "natives"

And add a few other groupings of people who would identify as neither.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm just so shocked, shocked I tell you! Phhhhhh....

https://twitter.com/cselley?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

OntCons think 'constitution' means moving their bowels regularly....

 

[Rufus8]

And add a few other groupings of people who would identify as neither.

biker gangs, natives, whatever I can guarantee you they are all on bail/probation and very well known to the police but you will never hear the cops say that.....

 

[BurlOak]

It is interesting people are correlating the long gun registry with all the shootings, but somehow carding is off limits as a cause for the shootings?

It was discussed very briefly a short ways back.
I looked at the effect of Carding, and was surprised the numbers don't show it to be a huge effect. It is a part of the general trend over the past 3 years that the political leaders just didn't care about public safety.

It's hard to place the blame soley on carding.

• The carding ban was brought in by the Liberals for the start of 2017. Since that time, there have been 136 homicides, or a pace of 82/yr.
• Trudeau and the Liberals came to power in very late 2015 (say Nov. 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). Since that time, there have been 225 homicides, or a pace of 79/yr.
• As a reminder, Harper and the CPC got their majority in early May, 2011 (say May 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). In his time with majority until the end of October, there were 242 homicides, or a pace of 54/yr.

So, carding caused an increase in homicides of 3%, while voting for Trudeau has lead to a 48% increase in homicides.
It appears it can easily be argued that having Trudeau as the PM, and his complete disregard for any safety related policy, was a much bigger factor than carding in the skyrocketing homicide rate.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/carding-ontario-police-government-ban-1.3918134
http://homicidecanada.com/toronto-homicide-victim-list-2018/
https://app.powerbi.com/view?
r=eyJrIjoiNmFiNjgyYzYtMjlhZi00ODA4LThkNjgtNDZmZWFjYjhhY2IyIiwidCI6Ijg1MjljMjI1LWFjNDMtNDc0Yy04ZmI0LTBmNDA5NWFlOGQ1ZCIsImMiOjN9

I've updated the numbers to the end of August.

• The carding ban was brought in by the Liberals for the start of 2017. Since that time, there have been 137 homicides, or a pace of 82/yr.
• Trudeau and the Liberals came to power in very late 2015 (say Nov. 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). Since that time, there have been 226 homicides, or a pace of 80/yr.
• As a reminder, Harper and the CPC got their majority in early May, 2011 (say May 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). In his time with majority until the end of October, there were 242 homicides, or a pace of 54/yr.

So, carding caused an increase in homicides of 3%, while voting for Trudeau has lead to a 48% increase in homicides.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

I'll repeat what was p0sted the other day

Your conclusion is completely bereft of all logic.

"Carding caused an increase in homicides"?
"...voting for Trudeau has lead to an increase in homicides"?

W
T.
F.


....are you on?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It was discussed very briefly a short ways back.
I looked at the effect of Carding, and was surprised the numbers don't show it to be a huge effect. It is a part of the general trend over the past 3 years that the political leaders just didn't care about public safety.
I've updated the numbers to the end of August.

• The carding ban was brought in by the Liberals for the start of 2017. Since that time, there have been 137 homicides, or a pace of 82/yr.
• Trudeau and the Liberals came to power in very late 2015 (say Nov. 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). Since that time, there have been 226 homicides, or a pace of 80/yr.
• As a reminder, Harper and the CPC got their majority in early May, 2011 (say May 1 to obtain monthly data from TPS). In his time with majority until the end of October, there were 242 homicides, or a pace of 54/yr.

So, carding caused an increase in homicides of 3%, while voting for Trudeau has lead to a 48% increase in homicides.

Oh where to even begin disentangling this ridiculous use of "statistics"?

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Oh where to even begin disentangling this ridiculous use of "statistics"?

AoD

lol...with full apologies to the UK
Office for National Statistics
I used to call them the Orifice for Notional Sadistics when participating in UK economics forums. Fortunately, it was well taken, 19 times out of 20, within a 3% error rate (era irate)...

 

[Northern Light]

Oh where to even begin disentangling this ridiculous use of "statistics"?

AoD

I have a thought on where to begin, an examination of the correlation between the number of nonsense posts by BurlOak and the violent crime rate!

 

[Jasmine18]

It is interesting people are correlating the long gun registry with all the shootings, but somehow carding is off limits as a cause for the shootings?

Its the same people who say policing has nothing to reducing or decreasing crime levels but say police officers should be cut when crime goes down lol

 

[narduch]

When police forces were asked to prove carding was affective they couldn't .

All it was good for was intimidating young black males.

Most carding was happening downtown.

There is zero correlation between what is happening now and the banning of carding.

 

[rbt]

From the Library of Parliament:
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp276-e.htm

Every single dollar spoken about in this document flowed through the province. Some earmarked for specific projects, other bits having specified structure to how it's spent (regional, population breakdown, etc.); but every penny flowed through the provinces bank accounts and the province signed contracts making them responsible for meeting the spending requirements. Obviously the easy way to do that is pass funds down to the municipalities for implementation; which did they where practical.

You cannot negotiate with Waymo without involving Google.
You cannot negotiate with SPG without involving Marriott.
You cannot negotiate with the City of Toronto without involving the Ontario government.

From the Library of Parliament:
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp276-e.htm

Here's Adam Vaughan's statement on the matter: (The Law is not definitive on this, and in fact, aspects of that are being examined in a Toronto courtroom right now)

If the feds try to fund something Ford has very strong feelings about (such as Sheppard East LRT), Ford can and will block it regardless of how the mayor and council feels about it. If the mayor/council throws a fit, Ford can dissolve their positions and replace them very quickly. Ford would be judged by Ontario electorate at the next election.

When Vaughan says "work around the province" he means they will either:
1) no longer require the province as a partner for the project (fund 100% themselves) though the province must still agree to accept the funds and the strings attached or 2) the feds can threaten to revoke other sources of funding if the province doesn't cooperate (like Health Care or education funding) but that likely won't go over well. Any "workaround" the feds find
must function within Ontario Legislation.

If you and the courts believe the City of Toronto Act does give the mayor the ability to sign for federal Sheppard East LRT funds (it doesn't, but lets pretend) and begin construction without provincial authorization; the City of Toronto Act will be changed immediately after such an agreement is made and Toronto council will be ordered to halt the process and return the funds. The City of Toronto is a subsidiary of the Ontario government and must obey the directions given by the Ontario government.

Even the Canadian Constitution/Charter doesn't provide an out. If the feds find something there that lets them do whatever they want in Toronto without the provinces blessing, use of the "notwithstanding" clause is a hammer the province can (and probably should) use to override those agreements and close that hole.

Feds may fund projects the province either agrees with or is indifferent toward; they'll not get anywhere funding projects Ford vehemently objects to. Waterfront transit is on the table for federal funding; Sheppard LRT or rebuilding the SRT is not.

Lets just elect David Miller for Premier in 2022 and call it a day.