[steveintoronto]

Federal government action and legislation can, however, legally impact municipalities if the federal government is exercising one of its exclusive powers under the Constitution. The power giving most potential for direct federal-municipal interaction is the spending power, iv together with the powers of Peace, Order, and good Government, The Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Navigation and Shipping and Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money. ( Constitutional Act, 1867, Section 91 and paragraphs 22, 10 and 15 of Section 91. )(iv) See Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, Chapter 6 )

https://www.toronto.ca/ext/digital_...N_Jurisdictions/Powers_of_Canadian_Cities.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

If you and the courts believe the City of Toronto Act

I'm very familiar with the City of Toronto Act, Municipal Act and others. And the Courts are quite adept at interpreting the Law. If you think otherwise, then petition to appeal.

That has no bearing on the Constitutional powers the National Government has, and it has no bearing on the Constitution's enshrined Rights legislation. Bill of Rights beside, it would also come under the aegis of "Good Government".

Toronto City Council cannot legally accept those types of agreements.

Of course they can. Specify what legislation, act or statute makes your case.

Here's just one example of many:
https://fcm.ca/home/funding/funding-for-canadian-municipalities.htm

And more:

http://www.camacam.ca/sites/default...icipal Guide to Federal Funding 2017 docx.pdf

 

[rbt]

I'm very familiar with the City of Toronto Act, Municipal Act and others. And the Courts are quite adept at interpreting the Law. If you think otherwise, then petition to appeal.

That has no bearing on the Constitutional powers the National Government has, and it has no bearing on the Constitution's enshrined Rights legislation. Bill of Rights beside, it would also come under the aegis of "Good Government".

Absolutely true. Which is why I mentioned the "notwithstanding" clause which allows the province to override both those those. A single line addition to the City of Toronto nullifies anything found in those documents. I expect Quebec would do the same to protect Montreal/Quebec City from unwanted outside influence.

Of course they can. Specify what legislation, act or statute makes your case.

There is no legislation that I know of; which is my point, it's something that needs to be given. All authority rests where it starts. I cannot prove something does not exist other than showing where it probably would be done (City of Toronto Act) and noting that it's not there..

If the courts do find that that authority was granted, it's also an authority the province can revoke. For this area* there is no legal document written by the Province of Ontario, Government of Canada, or Municipality of Toronto that Ford cannot either change directly or override.

Either way, it remains impossible for feds to fund a project the province is vehemently opposed to; read as willing to publicly stop the project and take a risk with the Ontario electorate won't agree with that decision.

* Some things like the definition of Marriage are not possible for the province to override. There are very very few areas where feds have total authority though.

Here's just one example of many:
https://fcm.ca/home/funding/funding-for-canadian-municipalities.htm

And more:
http://www.camacam.ca/sites/default/files/inline-files/Comprehensive Municipal Guide to Federal Funding 2017 docx.pdf

More examples (except for the GST rebate) of funds and agreements with the province on the behalf of municipalities. Feds ask municipalities for a list of projects, feds write a cheque to the province with stipulations all funds are for those projects, the province agrees to those restrictions and pushes funding to where execution can happen best which is the municipalities most familiar with the projects in question.

Harpers Canada Action Plan is the largest and broadest example of that type of program.

The GST rebate is different; those are funds not collected. I suppose feds could opt not to collect CPP, payroll, and other taxes from the municipalities too (if they do so today).

 

[Jasmine18]

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.

Then what is the solution to this problem apart from building more basketball courts and banning guns that are already illegal.

I am not saying carding is the solution but I dont see any real solutions being offered.

 

[narduch]

Then what is the solution to this problem apart from building more basketball courts and banning guns that are already illegal.

I am not saying carding is the solution but I dont see any real solutions being offered.

I don't know. That's not my fucking job.

All I know is that carding was racist and not affective.

Bringing back carding won't fix it either.

One thing I would do is go after the illegal gun trade. But our authorities don't seem to have the balls to tackle that problem.

 

[JGHali]

Absolutely true. Which is why I mentioned the "notwithstanding" clause which allows the province to override both those those. A single line addition to the City of Toronto nullifies anything found in those documents. I expect Quebec would do the same to protect Montreal/Quebec City from unwanted outside influence.

Section 33 (the “notwithstanding clause”) allows legislatures to override the “fundamental freedoms” in Section 2 or the legal or equality rights in Sections 7-15 of the Charter. It has nothing to do with divisions of legislative powers between the provinces and feds. What’s more, it has nothing to do with the federal spending power. There has yet to be any constitutional restraints on said power, despite what various provinces have demanded over the years.

Moreover, the feds retain the powers of “disallowance” and “reservation” to override any provincial bill or law for any reason. So if we want to talk about theoretical powers, the feds have the upper hand and always have.

 

[King of Kensington]

I despise virtually everything Ford does but I'm uncomfortable with relying on "disallowance." It has not been used in 75 years and could set a very bad precedent.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a situation in the 2020s where the progressive legislation of an NDP government in Ontario is blocked by a Conservative government in Ottawa.

 

[JGHali]

Yeah short of Ford printing his own money or trying to raise an army it’s not going to happen.

 

[Northern Light]

I despise virtually everything Ford does but I'm uncomfortable with relying on "disallowance." It has not been used in 75 years and could set a very bad precedent.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a situation in the 2020s where the progressive legislation of an NDP government in Ontario is blocked by a Conservative government in Ottawa.

The obvious distinction in this sub-thread is between powers that exist and powers that are politically feasible to use.

Reservation, disallowance and the notwithstanding clause are all politically infeasible in Ontario at either level of government.

An exception may come along, but it would have to involve something so egregious as to be causing 'general strikes' or the like; and with a firm legal consensus behind he use of said powers.

***

The Federal government deals w/municipalities directly all the time. It occurs frequently in areas such as public health, but many others as well.

Could a province intervene in some fashion? Sure, the obvious way would be to penalize a municipality financially in some fashion, the challenge would be in targeting the 'offending' municipality.

That said, there are ways to do it. But I can see few cases where a province would do it, there's little political value, and its a fair bit of effort expended.

 

[Northern Light]

Then what is the solution to this problem apart from building more basketball courts and banning guns that are already illegal.

I am not saying carding is the solution but I dont see any real solutions being offered.

There are two 'sets' of solutions.

The first is medium to long-term. That is both your guns and basketball courts type of program-set.

Its about preventing a young person, a 12-15 year old male from becoming a gang member, criminal or addict in the first place by providing opportunity, distraction, supervision etc; as well as making it more difficult on someone to become a criminal (not impossible, just a bit less easy).

The shorter term issue is about the people who are engaging in shootings or the like, right this moment. They are already criminals, they already have guns, and for the most part 'soft' programs simply won't work for them. Even where they might (helping someone exit a gang, learn a trade, finish high school or get addiction treatment) it would most often require they be arrested first before an offer of those types of assistance might work.

In the case of the shorter-term problem, arrests are needed. In particular the two or more gangs clearly engaging in a turf war/revenge and who have an impression that doing so in broad daylight, in public, around innocent third parties is ok, have to be put in their place. That means mass arrests.

What we don't know is the extent of police undercover investigations, how much intelligence they have on the responsible actors, and how much evidence is trial-worthy.

I think we owe them the benefit of the doubt that such operations are underway, and presumably will bear fruit soon.

No question, that type of action is needed in both an absolute sense but also in the sense of re-assuring the public.

I don't, however, think that there is any evidence that carding is useful in this sort of enterprise.

What's required is confidential informants, gang members who turn, under cover officers, plain clothes street-crime unit officers who can get a feel for what's going on, involving whom and why; then the appropriate arrests and charges must follow.

But that in no way diminishes the value of actions that help reduce crime in the longer term.

The cost of 200 life-long criminals, who average 10 years in jail a piece and otherwise have less than successful lives is substantial to society Prison, courts, cops, legal aid, parole alone would be over 2M per offender, add in far below average taxes paid, and the costs to victims and you can bank on a cost exceeding 4M per offender.

That's 800M over let's say 80 years. Even a break-even scenario allows for 10M or more per year to prevent that much crime being a very useful investment.

I would much rather pay for a basketball court, or late-night rec centre hours, or before/after school care etc. than I would a prison.

Action on guns can be useful and needs to be understood not as something that makes it impossible for a determined criminal to get a gun, but something that makes it more difficult, costing more money, taking more time and engendering a greater risk of arrest.

What that does is make some criminals less determined, and it reduces gun violence at the periphery. It doesn't wipe out 90% of it; but it can knock it back by 20-40%.

Its one part of a larger strategy (or it should be).

 

[jje1000]

Still an uphill slog- Keesmaat needs to continue to simplify her message and push the populist buttons.

Poll says John Tory has big lead, but Jennifer Keesmaat is gaining

Mayor John Tory’s main opponent Jennifer Keesmaat gained a slight surge in support from Toronto voters this past month, but it’s not enough to put her close to the lead, according a new poll.

Thirty-five per cent of respondents said they would support Keesmaat if an election were held Aug. 28 (a day after the Forum Research survey was conducted), up from 30 per cent on July 27.

“Keesmaat has narrowed the gap on Tory, but his lead is so substantial she needs more gains, and quickly to have any hope at the mayor’s chair,” Bozinoff said.

Tory’s high approval rating did not change from July, with 58 per cent of respondents approving of his performance as mayor. Twenty-four per cent said they disapprove of Tory, down from 26 per cent in July.

Respondents most likely to say they support Tory are 55 to 64 years old and live in North York or Etobicoke. Those most likely to say they support Keesmaat are 35 to 44 years old and live in East York or Scarborough.

https://www.thestar.com/news/toront...ig-lead-but-jennifer-keesmaat-is-gaining.html



Interesting comments from this Reddit thread:

The challenge in beating out Tory is the lack of anything that you can point at. There's been no great scandal, no brilliant vision that's gone unfulfilled and no public dust up that has grabbed headlines.

The "big one" would the vaporware that is smart track, but Toronto has become so used to transit planning going nowhere that he'll likely skate away with it.

It's exceedingly frustrating that he's got a real shot at reelection by being the incumbent and not actually doing anything. Which is exactly the opposite of what we should have at this point in our development.

Keesmat needs to simplify her message. It’s unfortunate, but nuanced messages don’t resonate with most of the electorate and don’t get headlines.

(It) requires suburbanites to understand what dithering means. things people remember are often very, very simple.

• "The Rent is too damn high"
• "Downtown elites"
• "Change for the better"
• "Can't someone else do it"
• "Make America great again"

One of those is a Simpsons reference.

for her i'd suggest something like "let's get it done."

Put out an ad asking if Torontonians feel safer now than when Tory was first elected.

Yeah it's dirty politics but emotion always trumps logic in these campaigns.

I'm cautiously optimistic for Keesmaat. It is still a long shot - the two times since amalgamation that incumbent mayors ran for re-election, they increased their vote shares. Name recognition that comes with being mayor is a pretty big deal. That she's up to 1/3 already is actually a pretty good sign.

Here's the other reasons why I think Keesmaat stands a chance:

1. She's media savvy. The newspapers and TV love her.
2. Tory has no base. 4 years ago, Tory won the Old City (minus the west end which went for Chow). He won on a "I'm not Doug" platform.
3. re: 2. Tory is now depending on the areas of the city where he lost to Doug. He's the conservative choice, but a lot of conservatives may not be too keen to support "not Doug". He's now in the sticky situation of fighting Doug on Bill 5 while courting Doug's voters. There's certainly room for him to screw this up badly.
4. Speaking of Doug, Bill 5 may have stirred up some anti-Queens Park sentiment, and Keesmaat is probably going to capture more of the "Defend Toronto" vote. Even people who are happy with Tory might want someone more willing to fight against the bully Premier.
5. She doesn't have to share the progressive vote. No offense to Sarah Climenhaga (whom I was going to vote for before Keesmaat declared her candidacy), but I'm pretty sure that the former Chief Planner just ate her lunch.
6. A 25 Ward election might actually help Keesmaat. With the prospect of a major change in Council (not necessarily new faces, but a lot fewer instead) - turnout might be higher. People who don't vote because their votes "don't make any difference" might think otherwise if they get to kick out one of two incumbents. And the people who tend to think their votes are irrelevant tend to be younger people, who are more likely to vote for Keesmaat.
7. or maybe 6.5 - a 47 Ward election also helps Keesmaat out. New wards also mean that "my vote doesn't mean anything so why vote" won't apply. The three new wards are two in the core and one in North York. And while Tory is strong in North York, Keesmaat is slightly higher than her city-wide average in the Old City.

I think her game plan is pretty solid too. She's running on Tory being ineffectual. She's telling Toronto that they don't need no-fun-no-personality bland as warm dishwater John Tory anymore. That maybe he was what Toronto needed for the world to forget about Rob Ford, but it's time to move on with a new mayor.

So cautiously optimistic. Keesmaat has a lot of things lined up for her and I think she has the ability to capitalize on them. That said, it's still going to be a long shot.

https://old.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/9cv8mp/poll_says_john_tory_has_big_lead_but_jennifer/

Honestly if I were to do attack ads on Tory I would focus on the fact that he was silver spooned and out of touch. Attack him for failing to go into the TTC subway cars a few years back when the air conditioning didn't work (he eventually did but by then it was closer to the end of the summer...and if he tries to argue this argue it took him months to do it). Attack him for living a privileged life while failing to address the issue of affordable housing by going after his plan to create 40,000 units in 12 years when the cities population in that period will increase by close to 400,000 in that period.

This is one of the big reasons why Keesmaat doesn't stand a chance of winning. She's not a populist candidate. If you want to beat a boring, establishment candidate like Tory you need to go populist. That can be on the right or left. You can't just take comfortable positions and only attract votes in the downtown core. You need to actual appeal to voters in the suburbs and build momentum.

https://old.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/9b9tei/toronto_mayoral_candidates_release_duelling/

 

[christiesplits]

Still an uphill slog- Keesmaat needs to continue to simplify her message and push the populist buttons.

https://www.thestar.com/news/toront...ig-lead-but-jennifer-keesmaat-is-gaining.html

I'm surprised how well she is doing in Scarborough. Small sample size?

 

[sixrings]

So Keesmaat is doing well in Scarborough. I guess there are some Scarborough people in here who owe her an apology. Mainly the other day OneCity said thankfully she is irrelevant. Perhaps One isn't as connected with the people he hangs out with as much as he thinks he is. Does that mean he may be wrong on Scarboroughs transit needs too?

 

[King of Kensington]

It's interesting though I wouldn't read too much into one subsample of one Forum poll.

But the thing is...Tory isn't particularly popular in Scarborough either.

 

[Thorns_Embrace]

It's interesting though I wouldn't read too much into one subsample of one Forum poll.

But the thing is...Tory isn't particularly popular in Scarborough either.

I don't really understand why, but Tory has been relatively week in Scarborough. If you look at 2014 he did worse in Scarobrough than anywhere else including Etobicoke.