Is it time for Ontario to be split up into new Provinces?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Maybe make a new capital in Barrie?

It's centrally located and still close to the population centres of the south. It's also a gateway to the northern regions of the province.

The problem with Barrie is that it's within Toronto's economic orbit, increasingly integrated into the GTA.

The whole point of such a thing would be to reduce the GTA's influence within the bureaucracy. In order to accomplish such a task the new capital would have to be outside the GGH entirely, or all the time and effort would end up being wasted.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Juneau and Tallahassee were both the heart of their States when chosen. Springfield is basically in the centre of its state, which if you ignore Chicago is fairly evenly population, and Pierre is smack dab in the middle of South Dakota where the largest cities are on opposite ends of the the state.

And then there is Albany, the capital of New York state.

Using the idea that it should be in the middle, somewhere north of Sudbury would become the capital. Chapleau is about 1100km from Kenora, Cornwall and Windsor.
Chapleau is tiny. It could use thee boost in jobs.

[1overcosc]

I'm not really sure if this whole thing is even addressing a problem that exists.

The media loves to talk about the province being a GTA vs. everyone else divide, but that's not really true. It's more of an urban vs. rural divide.

In the last election, the Liberals didn't just win the GTA. They won Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Guelph, Barrie, Kitchener-Waterloo, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, etc. It just so happens that as the GTA absolutely dominates this crop (~45 or so seats in the GTA; by contrast, Ottawa, the next largest, has only 7), that fact is often ignored in the media hyperbole.

Ottawa's and Kingston's interests & political views align more with Toronto than with rural Eastern Ontario. Ditto with Kitchener and London with respect to rural SW Ontario.

And, furthermore, this pattern is only really apparent in the last two elections. Liberals got a decent number of rural seats in 2003 and 2007. PCs had a large number of urban seats in the 1990s. I'm not sure if it's a pattern that will persist forever that justifies such dramatic change to the province's way of doing things.

If it is a permanent pattern, though, greater local autonomy is a more logical approach as it properly accounts for the true nature of the divide, which again is urban-rural not GTA-all else.

[Acajack]

While I understand some people are uncomfortable with the concentration of economic, political and demographic power in a single urban area, I am generally a fan of having the largest city as the capital.

In most places (but not all) in the world where this is the case, it seems to work best and yield the best outcomes.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not really sure if this whole thing is even addressing a problem that exists.

The media loves to talk about the province being a GTA vs. everyone else divide, but that's not really true. It's more of an urban vs. rural divide.

In the last election, the Liberals didn't just win the GTA. They won Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Guelph, Barrie, Kitchener-Waterloo, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, etc. It just so happens that as the GTA absolutely dominates this crop (~45 or so seats in the GTA; by contrast, Ottawa, the next largest, has only 7), that fact is often ignored in the media hyperbole.

Ottawa's and Kingston's interests & political views align more with Toronto than with rural Eastern Ontario. Ditto with Kitchener and London with respect to rural SW Ontario.

And, furthermore, this pattern is only really apparent in the last two elections. Liberals got a decent number of rural seats in 2003 and 2007. PCs had a large number of urban seats in the 1990s. I'm not sure if it's a pattern that will persist forever that justifies such dramatic change to the province's way of doing things.

If it is a permanent pattern, though, greater local autonomy is a more logical approach as it properly accounts for the true nature of the divide, which again is urban-rural not GTA-all else.

The funny thing is, in the 1970s and 1980s, the rural east and rural southwest were strongly Liberal while the GTA was mostly Conservative, and many of the rural southwest ridings even rejected Mike Harris and stuck with the Liberals then, while today those are the weakest regions for them. It is like they are always meant to be polar opposites. The number of GTA seats is increasing to over 60 after redistribution, which is enough to form a majority with zero votes elsewhere. I believe 13 of the 15 new seats are in the GTA, one is in Ottawa and one is in Kitchener-Waterloo. None are in rural areas, most of which are shrinking in population. Interestingly, today, northern Ontario has a lot more in common with the rural east and rural southwest than it did even fairly recently.

It is somewhat like in many parts of the US (the Northeast and many urban areas were strongly Republican for many decades, while the rural areas and South were strongly Democratic - it is reversed now).

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While I understand some people are uncomfortable with the concentration of economic, political and demographic power in a single urban area, I am generally a fan of having the largest city as the capital.

In most places (but not all) in the world where this is the case, it seems to work best and yield the best outcomes.

These are federal capitals though.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

The funny thing is, in the 1970s and 1980s, the rural east and rural southwest were strongly Liberal while the GTA was mostly Conservative, and many of the rural southwest ridings even rejected Mike Harris and stuck with the Liberals then, while today those are the weakest regions for them. It is like they are always meant to be polar opposites. The number of GTA seats is increasing to over 60 after redistribution, which is enough to form a majority with zero votes elsewhere. I believe 13 of the 15 new seats are in the GTA, one is in Ottawa and one is in Kitchener-Waterloo. None are in rural areas, most of which are shrinking in population. Interestingly, today, northern Ontario has a lot more in common with the rural east and rural southwest than it did even fairly recently.

Not quite. Rural southwestern Ontario was the base of Liberal support at Queen's Park for most of the 20th century. It can be traced to the Clear Grit populism of the 19th century. Rural eastern Ontario, the heartland of Loyalism, was traditionally Conservative.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by BenTheGreat97

We could split it up into three:


National Capital Region
Province population ~1,400,000-1,500,000 estimate
Capital City, Ottawa/Gatineau (de-facto by federal district) (100% province population)
Rural areas are conservative strongholds, urban areas are mostly liberal but they can swing a bit. I don't know how they'd do election-wise.
This is an interesting bit, because it involves removing Gatineau/Hull/Aylmer from Quebec and merging it with the National Capital Region + Ottawa Valley to form a single federal entity.

Thoughts?

I would just concentrate on extricating Ottawa and any environs out of Ontario first. Such an entity would be better able to discuss various cross border issues with both Gatineau and Quebec once shorn of the complications of provincial overlordship.

The best way to convince Gatineau to join in is to demonstrate that things would work better by providing an actual functioning example.

Originally Posted by Acajack

The Quebec government has a law on the books that makes it illegal for it to cede or sell land to the federal government or any other province.

Quebec won't even sell land to the feds in order to expand the federal NCC's Gatineau Park, even if the NCC promises to retain it as parkland only.

Plus a majority of people on the Gatineau side of the river would not go for this.

If Quebec has such a law, I wonder how additions to first nations' reserves are handled. I suppose if the land being handed over is private land acquired by the feds, then the Quebec law would not apply, but I imagine in many cases the land to be handed over is provincial Crown Land.

The law, as far as it pertains to the cession of sovereignty of land parcels to other provinces or the feds, is a tad redundant anyway given that modifications to provincial boundaries constitutionally require the consent of the legislatures of all provinces involved. In any event, all it takes is a single act of the National Assembly to cede any land: it would just have to modify or repeal the existing act along with consenting to the cession.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dado

I would just concentrate on extricating Ottawa and any environs out of Ontario first. Such an entity would be better able to discuss various cross border issues with both Gatineau and Quebec once shorn of the complications of provincial overlordship.

The best way to convince Gatineau to join in is to demonstrate that things would work better by providing an actual functioning example.




If Quebec has such a law, I wonder how additions to first nations' reserves are handled. I suppose if the land being handed over is private land acquired by the feds, then the Quebec law would not apply, but I imagine in many cases the land to be handed over is provincial Crown Land.

The law, as far as it pertains to the cession of sovereignty of land parcels to other provinces or the feds, is a tad redundant anyway given that modifications to provincial boundaries constitutionally require the consent of the legislatures of all provinces involved. In any event, all it takes is a single act of the National Assembly to cede any land: it would just have to modify or repeal the existing act along with consenting to the cession.

Still difficult if not impossible to do politically. The last time the NCC wanted to expand Gatineau Park I think it was the Charest Liberals that said no to the land transfer.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

If we were to move the provincial capital for some reason, I would advocate for North Bay. It's a small city that has seen average growth, has a major highway connecting it to the GTA, and is "close" to several major Ontario cities; Sudbury, Toronto, and Ottawa. It's at the edge of Northern and Southern Ontario and in a relatively central location given Ontario's particular shape.

[Dado]

Heh. Funnily enough, I think the location of North Bay would have made a good location for the national capital. A location that far from "civilization" (such as it was c.1860) would likely have advanced the construction of the Canadian Pacific and western settlement by well over a decade. We'd also probably have built the Ottawa-Mattawa-Lake Nipissing-French River canal system. The capital, whatever its name would be, would probably be a federal territory as well, being beyond existing settlement.

[toaster]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm not really sure if this whole thing is even addressing a problem that exists.

The media loves to talk about the province being a GTA vs. everyone else divide, but that's not really true. It's more of an urban vs. rural divide.

In the last election, the Liberals didn't just win the GTA. They won Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Guelph, Barrie, Kitchener-Waterloo, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, etc. It just so happens that as the GTA absolutely dominates this crop (~45 or so seats in the GTA; by contrast, Ottawa, the next largest, has only 7), that fact is often ignored in the media hyperbole.

Ottawa's and Kingston's interests & political views align more with Toronto than with rural Eastern Ontario. Ditto with Kitchener and London with respect to rural SW Ontario.

And, furthermore, this pattern is only really apparent in the last two elections. Liberals got a decent number of rural seats in 2003 and 2007. PCs had a large number of urban seats in the 1990s. I'm not sure if it's a pattern that will persist forever that justifies such dramatic change to the province's way of doing things.

If it is a permanent pattern, though, greater local autonomy is a more logical approach as it properly accounts for the true nature of the divide, which again is urban-rural not GTA-all else.

You must not be from Northern Ontario. It is not a rural vs. urban divide, people from Sudbury or Timmins city proper (urban centres relative to their areas) have views in line with the rest of rural Northern Ontario, in thinking that the GTA controls everything, and not enough is done for them. The "left", which is much more labour left, in the North are probably further away from their left peers in the GTA than their right peers in the North.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by toaster

You must not be from Northern Ontario. It is not a rural vs. urban divide, people from Sudbury or Timmins city proper (urban centres relative to their areas) have views in line with the rest of rural Northern Ontario, in thinking that the GTA controls everything, and not enough is done for them. The "left", which is much more labour left, in the North are probably further away from their left peers in the GTA than their right peers in the North.

If the province were to split, where ever became the capital would see this attitude of them vs us. They have fresh roads, we don't. They have a new park, we don't. They have better employment opportunities, we don't.

The real problems are perception. Case in point - GO vs ONR
The Northlander has been shut down for over a year. Has it harmed the north? Except for some people complaining, not really. You can still take a bus from those places that the train served. cities and towns did not shut down. There was not a major economical loss.
Now, what if the GO trains were to stop running? Even for a day? There would be 215,000 people who would not be able to get to work. That is more than the entire city of Greater Sudbury! With that may people not working, the GTA would have some serious issues. People may start driving again, but then the traffic would be as bad as some 3rd world countries.

The issue is that most of the people live in southern Ontario. There is the biggest demand for infrastructure. We can bounce around on the horrible roads at speed without the train running. The GTA cannot.

[ssiguy]

I agree that Ontario seems to be more urban/rural divide than GTA/rest of Ontario one.

Ott/Lon/Wind are all solidly Liberal/NDP territory. I think the problem is that Toronto seems to get special treatment in terms of infrastructure that cities outside the GTHA don't. Wynne and company have been blatantly unfair in how they are rolling out the transit money.

Toronto/Ham/Miss are all getting their billions worth of LRT and GO transit expansion paid for 100% with the province not asking for one plug nickel. Ottawa and Kitchener on the other hand have had to fork over one-third of the cost of their LRT expansion. Hamilton which has low transit ridership and the slowest growing over the last 15 years seems to be especially treated with kit gloves.

London is also expected to come up with a third of it's LRT price tag despite London having 30% fewer people than Waterloo Region or Hamilton and yet London has higher ridership levels than either of those 2 cities and considerable higher per-capita ridership than those two and higher than Miss or Brampton.

I have heard that London may demand 100% financing for it's LRT which only seems fair as Miss/Ham just got their free announcements so they can't say it was under a different funding scheme or even budget. If they are refused then it will reinforce the idea that there are 2 types of urban Ontarians.........those that live in the GTAH and everyone else.

It cannot be justified how Toronto with 2.8 million is asked to chip in one dime for their LRT but London with just 385,000 is suppose to find $200 million. This of course doesn't even include the billions in free GO transit expansion.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I agree that Ontario seems to be more urban/rural divide than GTA/rest of Ontario one.

Ott/Lon/Wind are all solidly Liberal/NDP territory. I think the problem is that Toronto seems to get special treatment in terms of infrastructure that cities outside the GTHA don't. Wynne and company have been blatantly unfair in how they are rolling out the transit money.

Toronto/Ham/Miss are all getting their billions worth of LRT and GO transit expansion paid for 100% with the province not asking for one plug nickel. Ottawa and Kitchener on the other hand have had to fork over one-third of the cost of their LRT expansion. Hamilton which has low transit ridership and the slowest growing over the last 15 years seems to be especially treated with kit gloves.

London is also expected to come up with a third of it's LRT price tag despite London having 30% fewer people than Waterloo Region or Hamilton and yet London has higher ridership levels than either of those 2 cities and considerable higher per-capita ridership than those two and higher than Miss or Brampton.

I have heard that London may demand 100% financing for it's LRT which only seems fair as Miss/Ham just got their free announcements so they can't say it was under a different funding scheme or even budget. If they are refused then it will reinforce the idea that there are 2 types of urban Ontarians.........those that live in the GTAH and everyone else.

It cannot be justified how Toronto with 2.8 million is asked to chip in one dime for their LRT but London with just 385,000 is suppose to find $200 million. This of course doesn't even include the billions in free GO transit expansion.

Do you realize Toronto already spent close to $1 billion for their share of the cost of the Spadina subway extension? It is far far more than what Ottawa and Kitchener are spending on their LRTs.

Mississauga already spent around $133 million on its BRT.

Hamilton is not in the GTA and it is solidly NDP voting. To suggest Wynne favours Hamilton is just ridiculous.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Doady

Do you realize Toronto already spent close to $1 billion for their share of the cost of the Spadina subway extension? It is far far more than what Ottawa and Kitchener are spending on their LRTs.

Mississauga already spent around $133 million on its BRT.

Hamilton is not in the GTA and it is solidly NDP voting. To suggest Wynne favours Hamilton is just ridiculous.

I think his point is valid, if perhaps a bit of a simplification. You can make a case for Toronto either way: they do pay from their local tax base for a lot of transit, but then again have by far the largest and most diverse tax base, and are the only ones with the revenue streams of the Toronto Act. Mississauga, though, got full provincial funding for its LRT; so did Hamilton. Waterloo and Ottawa did not, and there's no chance London would.

As a Hamilton resident, I can see why residents of other municipalities would be less than thrilled to see a city which has chronically under-invested in transit and seen the results you expect, to receive full-funding for an LRT it's not clear that it wanted. It's not about the city's political allegiance (which is not as solidly NDP as most people think), but the fact that it is the 'H' in 'GTHA.' Whereas London and Windsor are just small municipalities out there in the hinterland (the provincial government's apparent opinion, not mine).

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

If we were to move the provincial capital for some reason, I would advocate for North Bay. It's a small city that has seen average growth, has a major highway connecting it to the GTA, and is "close" to several major Ontario cities; Sudbury, Toronto, and Ottawa. It's at the edge of Northern and Southern Ontario and in a relatively central location given Ontario's particular shape.

North Bay is probably the city that is most representative of Ontario as a whole. I lived there at one time.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by toaster

You must not be from Northern Ontario. It is not a rural vs. urban divide, people from Sudbury or Timmins city proper (urban centres relative to their areas) have views in line with the rest of rural Northern Ontario, in thinking that the GTA controls everything, and not enough is done for them. The "left", which is much more labour left, in the North are probably further away from their left peers in the GTA than their right peers in the North.

I agree with your comments as we live in the same place. I would say that many of the "left" people here are more to the left in most ways than in the GTA, not just labour reasons.

The funny thing about Northern Ontario is that rural areas are more to the left than urban ones. Lately urbans areas have been quite Liberal while rural areas have been heavily NDP.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I think his point is valid, if perhaps a bit of a simplification. You can make a case for Toronto either way: they do pay from their local tax base for a lot of transit, but then again have by far the largest and most diverse tax base, and are the only ones with the revenue streams of the Toronto Act. Mississauga, though, got full provincial funding for its LRT; so did Hamilton. Waterloo and Ottawa did not, and there's no chance London would.

As a Hamilton resident, I can see why residents of other municipalities would be less than thrilled to see a city which has chronically under-invested in transit and seen the results you expect, to receive full-funding for an LRT it's not clear that it wanted. It's not about the city's political allegiance (which is not as solidly NDP as most people think), but the fact that it is the 'H' in 'GTHA.' Whereas London and Windsor are just small municipalities out there in the hinterland (the provincial government's apparent opinion, not mine).

I am confused. What LRTs are planned in London and Windor that require funding?

If you blame someone for unequal funding, you should blame the federal government for their refusal to cooperate with the Ontario government and help fund these LRTs. Federal government is supposed to pay 1/3 too.

Hamilton, Mississauga and Toronto's LRTs came after Waterloo's and Ottawa's. After Harper decided he will not talk to Kathleen Wynne. It has nothing to due with the GTA. Hamilton is not in GTA. It's just about the timing.

[Doady]

To ensure that the ROO (The Rest of Ontario, the real Ontario) gets its fair share of investment from the province, maybe the GTA should be split off from Ontario and made its own province. Without the need to pay for LRTs in the GTA, the amount of money flowing into Windsor, London, Northern Ontario, etc. would increase drastically. Even as a GTA resident, I would support kicking the GTA out of Ontario 100%, for the sake of the ROO. Let's do it.