FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,782
- Points
- 1,160
Just for the record, when the City council voted in 2017 to increase the number of wards from 44 to 47, there was considerable opposition to it and in fact many (including some councillors) favoured the 25 ward system. The matter ultimately went to the Ontario Municipal Board for a review on the grounds that the 47 wards would not have voter parity due to unequal distribution of voters. It is notable that of the three OMB members, one-Blair S Taylor-dissented and would have imposed a system using the 25 federal riding boundaries.
There are some interesting facts including the one that starting in 2000 and lasting until 2017, the city used the then existing 22 federal ridings as the basis of their wards taking each riding and dividing it in half so that there were 44 councillors representing roughly 60,000 people each. Going back to the federal ridings should therefore not be that difficult albeit that there are now 25 and that under the Ford legislation there is only one councillor for each and therefore representing about 120,000 people.
The real issue it seems is not so much the voter parity (because everyone acknowledged that the 47 ward system that the city designed wouldn't achieve that anyway for a few elections but the number of people being represented by each councillor. In fact the federal riding system achieved better immediate voter parity than the 47 ward system. The dissenting board member stated:
Or, of course, the decision on the number of councillors is also one within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
See full decision in this article:
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/12/13/omb-approves-47-wards-for-toronto-for-the-2018-election.html
Long story short, from a constitutional point of view, using the federal ward system achieves voter parity before the 47 ward system by probably some two elections and is therefore the federal ward system is more constitutionally sound. The number of councillors is an open question as to whether it should be 25 or 50 but typically, the larger a committee becomes, the more dysfunctional it is as a decision making body.
I'm not a member of Ford Nation but I think that his use of the notwithstanding clause is fundamentally defensible in this very unique case.
:cheers:
There are some interesting facts including the one that starting in 2000 and lasting until 2017, the city used the then existing 22 federal ridings as the basis of their wards taking each riding and dividing it in half so that there were 44 councillors representing roughly 60,000 people each. Going back to the federal ridings should therefore not be that difficult albeit that there are now 25 and that under the Ford legislation there is only one councillor for each and therefore representing about 120,000 people.
The real issue it seems is not so much the voter parity (because everyone acknowledged that the 47 ward system that the city designed wouldn't achieve that anyway for a few elections but the number of people being represented by each councillor. In fact the federal riding system achieved better immediate voter parity than the 47 ward system. The dissenting board member stated:
[52] Sixth, I find that the use of the FEDS {federal electoral district} would result in a fair election in 2018, that the continued use of the FEDS would provide the basis for future elections that are fair, that they will result in boundaries that are derived from regular, thorough, arms-length, open public processes and which can be quickly, reliably, and relatively inexpensively adjusted and adopted by the City on an ongoing basis.
[53]Finally, I strongly disagree with the submission of City’s counsel that: “…there is no jurisdiction or statutory authority that the City must achieve parity [of voter/population] in any particular time frame”
[54] I find that the City is dealing with a fundamental right provided under the Charter such that when the City is proposing a ward boundary review, the cornerstone of such a review must seek to achieve acceptable voter/population parity for the forthcoming election and not be aimed at an election event in 2026, (eight years hence following innumerable City Council votes, resolutions and By-laws), the result of which would be to unduly dilute the fundamental, Charter given, right to vote for thousands of citizens during that entire intervening period. In short, I find that the Charter provides the jurisdiction and the authority that requires the City to achieve parity [of voter/population] in 2018
[55] There will be those who will say that the FEDS with 25 wards will result in 50 councillors. That might be, but that is an issue that the Board has no jurisdiction over. That decision rests solely with City Council.
[56] However, it appears to this Member that there are a host of options open to the City, including but not limited to these four as set out by Dr. Sancton:
1. 25 councillors (1 councillor per ward);
2. 30 councillors with 25 councillors (1 per ward) plus 1 area councillor for each five groupings of five wards;
3. 35 councillors with 25 councillors (1 per ward) plus 10 councillors elected at large; or
4. 50 councillors with 2 councillors elected per ward.
[57] City Council has the jurisdiction to make decisions on the number of councillors, and I would have left that to City Council.
Or, of course, the decision on the number of councillors is also one within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
See full decision in this article:
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/12/13/omb-approves-47-wards-for-toronto-for-the-2018-election.html
Long story short, from a constitutional point of view, using the federal ward system achieves voter parity before the 47 ward system by probably some two elections and is therefore the federal ward system is more constitutionally sound. The number of councillors is an open question as to whether it should be 25 or 50 but typically, the larger a committee becomes, the more dysfunctional it is as a decision making body.
I'm not a member of Ford Nation but I think that his use of the notwithstanding clause is fundamentally defensible in this very unique case.
:cheers: