Disallowance and reservation re: Ford's Toronto CC proposal - would Trudeau dare?

[Rupert S. Lander]

Ever since Doug Ford proposed slashing the size of Toronto City Council, federal Liberals have been talking about doing "whatever they can" to "protect Torontonians" from the proposed legislation.

As far as I can tell, the Trudeau government has three options in terms of legal and constitutional recourse:

1) Reservation - basically, order Ontario's Lieutenant Governor to veto the bill;

2) Disallowance - basically, get the federal cabinet to formally nix the legislation once it becomes law (the feds would have one year following Royal Assent to invoke this);

3) Well, that's it - the proposed law appears to be perfectly constitutional otherwise.

These powers haven't been used in a very long time, probably because their use tended to blow up in the faces of the federal party using them and/or their provincial counterparts. The last time they were seriously invoked was by the Liberals during the Albertan SoCreds' first couple of terms, and the resulting political firestorm played a big role in laying the foundations for that party's dynasty (and the Albertan Liberals' irrelevance). Pierre Trudeau briefly considered disallowing Bill 101 and other PQ legislation, but (wisely) decided it would do more political harm to provoke the separatists in that way.

This is a different situation. Ford is many things, but he's not a separatist. Obviously, the only circumstance under which the Liberals would even consider invoking disallowance or reservation is if a clear majority of the Toronto CC passed a motion demanding the feds do exactly that. That would present quite a decision for Trudeau:

- If he disallows, Ford Nation would go apoplectic, but that in itself might not cost the Liberals a lot of votes;

- OTOH if he ignores such a motion, the NDP would immediately pounce. Singh would charge that Trudeau has turned his back on Toronto, and would warn voters in other major cities that Trudeau can't be trusted to protect their interests if he won't go to bat for Toronto. That could potentially cost the Liberals a lot of votes in places where it would hurt them most.

Thoughts?

Edited July 29, 2018 by Rupert S. Lander

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Rupert S. Lander said:

- If he disallows, Ford Nation would go apoplectic, but that in itself might not cost the Liberals a lot of votes;

Schadenfreude shouldn't come without some price. 

[scribblet]

The feds need to stay out of it.  25 councilors isn't bad when u realize that Toronto has the same or fewer MPPS and MPs, so what's the problem. 

[Michael Hardner]

There are two problems: under representation, and the rash implementation of this.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, scribblet said:

The feds need to stay out of it.  25 councilors isn't bad when u realize that Toronto has the same or fewer MPPS and MPs, so what's the problem. 

Process is the problem. Ford didn't run on this and it's pretty clear that his agenda is at least in part grounded in personal grudges and animosities. As a Torontonian, though, I'm not hugely concerned about a decline in the number of councillors. When you contact their offices it's the staff rather than the politicians who usually respond in any case. In my area of the city I believe there have been multiple development-related concerns raised with local councillors but I haven't heard of anybody who's had a specific complaint (i.e. about traffic disruption, work hours, or pollution from idling heavy vehicles) addressed by an individual councllor. My guess is that with a smaller council, each councillor will have to be furnished a larger staff, which will likely defray the savings held to apply to the change. So, we get back to politics and score settling. Ford owes voters in affected municipalities a broader explanation for his motives.

[scribblet]

He certainly did run on cutting the size of government 

[OftenWrong]

Despite the near-hysterical outcry from some people, there are some councillors who are in favour of this. One who spoke his views very intelligently on CTV news this evening.

I can't cite that because it was on TV today, but here is a link showing this is not a one-sided issue. The idea has some merit, and approval.
Councillor Justin Di Ciano, among other Toronto City Councillors show solidarity to Premier Doug Fords announcement to reduce city council to 25 wards in Toronto, Ont. on Friday July 27, 2018.

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are two problems: under representation, and the rash implementation of this.

The solution is greater autonomy - implemented carefully of course.

The only sustainable solution to the Ford's of the world and the chaos they can wreak is greater decentralization into tighter smaller jurisdictions in which familiarity and solidarity just cannot be penetrated by populism the way large centralized jurisdictions can.   Lots of things are made of many smaller interlocking pieces to make them more resilient and I think the same would be true of our governance. I recognize that the trick is getting the government to agree but I also believe the time will come when sustainability issues simply take command and force the issue.  Hopefully it won't be bloody.  It certainly doesn't need to be.

Edited July 31, 2018 by eyeball

[Rupert S. Lander]

This topic was intended to specifically discuss the implications of the federal powers of disallowance and reservation on this question. If the feds ever signal they may consider it, there will be a lot of articles written in opposition. Here is one in support:

https://nowtoronto.com/news/doug-ford-toronto-council/