City-state provinces in Canada? Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver

[mariomike]

I believe it goes here now,

"Starting Jan. 1, 2011, Toronto's garbage will be disposed of at the city-owned Green Lane landfill, near London, Ont."

It is owned by the City of Toronto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lane_landfill

 

[McG]

Isn't there already a National Capital Region w/Ottawa & Gatineau?  Or are you talking more "separate" like "D".C.?

More "separate" is the theme of this thread.

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't there already a National Capital Region w/Ottawa & Gatineau?  Or are you talking more "separate" like "D".C.?

I am talking about something more like D.C.  Something that is separate from both Ontario and Quebec. Autonomous.

 

[dapaterson]

I am talking about something more like D.C.  Something that is separate from both Ontario and Quebec. Autonomous.

DC is the poster child for poor governance.  As an Ottawa resident, we already suffer at the hands of the incompetent real estate mavens of the NCC, who demolished an entire downtown neighbourhood and left it fallow for 60 years (among other things).  Putting the whole of the city under such a "government" would be an unmitigated disaster - much like DC.

 

[Kirkhill]

One might wonder that if a city is beyond the abilities of the locals, on what grounds they purport to manage a country.

 

[dapaterson]

One might wonder that if a city is beyond the abilities of the locals, on what grounds they purport to manage a country.

In DC, it's not the locals inflicting pain.  Similarly in Ottawa, the NCC owes nothing to the locals - its board is appointed from across Canada, and there is no local accountability.  Depending on the Minister responsible, it may also be a cowed agency doing only what it's told by a dictatorial hothead.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sounds like you would benefit from a locally administered, locally elected autonomous region.  A bit of democracy.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Sounds like you would benefit from a locally administered, locally elected autonomous region.  A bit of democracy.

There are already locally administered, locally elected autonomous regions - the City of Ottawa, the Ville de Gatineau, other municipal entities, Province of Ontario, Province of Quebec.

The NCC is not the municipal authority.  It doesn't collect taxes, garbage or much respect.  They don't pave the road or fix the potholes in front of your house or make sure your bodily waste ends up in an appropriate place, however they probably generate a lot of bullshit.  It is simply a federally appointed board tasked, according to the National Capital Act

Objects and purposes of Commission

10 (1) The objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.

Powers

(2) The Commission may, for the purposes of this Act,

(a) acquire, hold, administer or develop property;

(b) sell, grant, convey, lease or otherwise dispose of or make available to any person any property, subject to such conditions and limitations as it considers necessary or desirable;

(c) construct, maintain and operate parks, squares, highways, parkways, bridges, buildings and any other works;

(d) maintain and improve any property of the Commission, or any other property under the control and management of a department, at the request of the authority or Minister in charge thereof;

(e) cooperate or engage in joint projects with, or make grants to, local municipalities or other authorities for the improvement, development or maintenance of property;

(f) construct, maintain and operate, or grant concessions for the operation of, places of entertainment, amusement, recreation, refreshment, or other places of public interest or accommodation on any property of the Commission;

(g) administer, preserve and maintain any historic place or historic museum;

(h) conduct investigations and researches in connection with the planning of the National Capital Region; and

(h.1) [Repealed, 2013, c. 33, s. 213]

(i) generally, do and authorize such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects and purposes of the Commission and the exercise of its powers.

Their importance to most of the residents of the NCR is that they are either the largest property owner or the point of consultation for the largest property owner in the area, i.e. the Gov't of Canada.

 

[dapaterson]

The NCC acts as an interfering developer when it suits them.  I suspect at some point the overlap between the NCC mandate and the assignment of municipal matters to the provinces under the constitution may come to a head, and end up with the Supreme Court to deconflict.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?

It's a misconception that cities subsidize rural areas.  What cities are doing is paying the cost of their own well-being.

Until the cities figure out a way to grow all their own food ("live off their own land") and provide all their own energy and other hard goods, I expect they will continue to fund the "colonies" - all the little places that provide food and energy and other goods, and the roads and other means of delivery that move the aforementioned items, and a few amenities so the "colonists" are encouraged to keep the lifelines going.

Stop the "subsidies" and see what happens.  Living on the 30th floor with a beautiful view ceases to be enjoyable when there is no power for the elevator and every kilogram of water and stick of firewood has to be carried up 30 flights of stairs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

>But in your separation of major population centres from the "good folk living on the land" (apologies for the sarcasm) will the rural (smaller centres) population still want the city folk to kick in the share of provincial revenue that was previously to their benefit?

It's a misconception that cities subsidize rural areas.  What cities are doing is paying the cost of their own well-being.

Until the cities figure out a way to grow all their own food ("live off their own land") and provide all their own energy and other hard goods, I expect they will continue to fund the "colonies" - all the little places that provide food and energy and other goods, and the roads and other means of delivery that move the aforementioned items, and a few amenities so the "colonists" are encouraged to keep the lifelines going.

Stop the "subsidies" and see what happens.  Living on the 30th floor with a beautiful view ceases to be enjoyable when there is no power for the elevator and every kilogram of water and stick of firewood has to be carried up 30 flights of stairs.

Luckily, globalization, Costco and Amazon have probably made traditional farmers obsolete.

 

[CBH99]

I wouldn't call that 'lucky'.  Rather, I'd call that terrifying...that big corporations have managed to replace healthy, traditional farming.  But, that's a debate for another thread.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Luckily, globalization, Costco and Amazon have probably made traditional farmers obsolete.

Right.  Just like we don't need to kill animals because we can just buy meat at the grocery store.

 

[Shrek1985]

City-states would not help us.

We need to change the fact that our governments at the federal and provincial level are chosen by the special interests inherent in a few large cities and the rest of us be damned.

What we'd need to do is find a way to severely reduce the impact of the votes of people living in population-dense areas.

Re-arranging voting districts to give an actual balance between east and west would help, but ultimately you need to come back to a system where the denser your population; the less power that vote has.

None of this is my ideal solution (which is service guarantees citizenship) but it's something.

 

[Lumber]

City-states would not help us.

We need to change the fact that our governments at the federal and provincial level are chosen by the special interests inherent in a few large cities and the rest of us be damned.

What we'd need to do is find a way to severely reduce the impact of the votes of people living in population-dense areas.

Re-arranging voting districts to give an actual balance between east and west would help, but ultimately you need to come back to a system where the denser your population; the less power that vote has.

None of this is my ideal solution (which is service guarantees citizenship) but it's something.

So what you're saying is, according do your system, if I get posted to Ottawa, and you get posted to Shilo, suddenly my vote is worth less than yours in a general election?

Thems fightin' words, my friend.

 

[mariomike]

My uneducated guess is that the GTA will eventually amalgamate, as did New York City in 1898. Maybe even go it's own way.

For population comparison:

NYC 8,550,405 ( 2015 )
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

"Toronto's surrounding region is home to 8.1 million people" ( 2015 )
http://www.toronto2015.org/spectator/discover-toronto

Ontario 13,792,052 ( 2015 )
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/ecupdates/factsheet.html

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So what you're saying is, according do your system, if I get posted to Ottawa, and you get posted to Shilo, suddenly my vote is worth less than yours in a general election?

Thems fightin' words, my friend.

:goodpost:

We have a representation by population system, so why would we need to change anything to "stop cities" from exerting too much influence? My home riding of "Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound" has a federal riding population of 106, 475 compared to Don Valley-West (Toronto) at 99,820, Winnipeg Centre at 82, 026, Cypress Hills-Grassland (SK) at 67,834, or Kootenay-Columbia at 107,589.

This seems to be a reasonably fair assortment of votes as most federal ridings (aside from outliers like PEI and the territories) are within 10,000-20,000 people of one another. It's not Toronto's fault that they are far larger than Grey-Bruce counties.

Also, isn't this the same argument many use to condemn the UN general council? essentially, why should Lichtenstein have the same vote as the United States?

Finally- if we are to create city states, we should loop Halifax into the mix... almost half the provincial population and exerts extensive influence over the rest of Nova Scotia (and the maritimes).

 

[Kirkhill]

What is needed is a recognition that no matter what system is in play their will always be "interests".  I've often heard that states don't have friends, they have interests.  Perhaps it is fairer to say that interests have states.

What we need is a forum where the interests can fight it out - Something like the old House of Lords where the Church and the States fought  their battles with quills instead of swords.  Every Bishop and every Baron had their own tail of followers.  These days we have many "barons" and "bishops" who are fighting it out in the streets because we don't contain them in a cockpit.

The Commons, holding the purse strings, are well positioned to act as Jury to the Senate fights. 

Put all the special interests, all the barons and bishops into the Senate with their tails.  Let them form the governments.  Leave the Commons as unaffiliated representatives of a specific chunk of people.

After that, all you need is a neutral Judge.

Until people start electing local reps on party affiliation again.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

After that, all you need is a neutral Judge.

That's a pretty big ask. What we would be asking for is something akin to Plato's "Philosopher King" whose virtue is beyond reproach. Representation by population for the house of commons isn't unfair. Unfortunately for the west, Ontario and Quebec have the majority of Canada's population. We could attempt to implement some sort of senate such as the US has where each province has equal representation, which would alleviate some of this. However, I don't agree that a prairie wheat farmer deserves any more representation than a maritime fisherman or Toronto Office worker.

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

 

[Kirkhill]

That's a pretty big ask. What we would be asking for is something akin to Plato's "Philosopher King" whose virtue is beyond reproach. Representation by population for the house of commons isn't unfair. Unfortunately for the west, Ontario and Quebec have the majority of Canada's population. We could attempt to implement some sort of senate such as the US has where each province has equal representation, which would alleviate some of this. However, I don't agree that a prairie wheat farmer deserves any more representation than a maritime fisherman or Toronto Office worker.

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

No, the philosopher king had his followers here in Canada.  They are betting on his heir just now.

No.  The "judge" has limited powers - much like those of a constitutional monarch, or his/her rep - much as we have today. 

Likewise, I accept a uniformity of representation, in the Commons.

My point is that the Senate should not just be a home for Regions, or even Provinces.  Make it a home for Churches (read that as Synagogues and Mosques and Gurdwaras and Mandirs and Kamis etc), for Greenpeace, for Unions, Rotarians, Lions, for any organization that can sign up a minimum number of followers - provisions being made to prevent one voter from supporting too many organizations.