Strong Mayor or Trojan Horse?
The Ford Government recently announced plans to give expanded powers to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa. This surprise initiative, not mentioned by the Conservatives during their recent successful election campaign, and intended to take effect with the imminent new term of councils in Ontario, has understandably generated considerable debate and controversy. Most of the concerns have related to the way these powers will adversely affect the other members of council and also the municipal staff. I would argue, however, that the biggest threat is the way that the supposedly strong mayors could become – indeed, might even be intended to be – puppets of the province. Let’s take a closer look.
Strong Mayor Features
The new legislation will give the mayor the power to appoint the municipality’s chief administrative officer, to hire and fire department heads, to appoint the chairs of council committees, and to create and reorganize city departments. In addition, the mayor would have the power to prepare and to veto the budget and to override approval of a by-law that councillors have passed that is not “aligned with provincial priorities” such as housing development and “critical infrastructure projects.” A two-thirds vote of council would be required to overcome the mayor’s veto power.
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Steve Clark, had previously pointed to the province’s housing crisis as an example of why mayors need expanded powers to “get shovels into the ground” and a primary objective of this new legislation (Bill 3) is evident from its title – The Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act.
领英推荐
Trojan Horse Features
To understand the danger to municipal government inherent in this legislation, we need to remind ourselves of how much municipal powers and freedom of operation have been enhanced in the 21st century as a result of legislative changes and court rulings. The 2001 Municipal Act authorized municipalities to exercise natural person powers within a number of general spheres of jurisdiction – a major change from the need to find specific legislative authority for anything that a municipality wished to do. In lieu of these spheres of jurisdiction, legislation in 2006 gave the City of Toronto a broad power to “provide any service or thing that the City considers necessary or desirable for the public.” These broader municipal powers were bolstered and reinforced by a series of court decisions which held that these powers reflect the fact that municipalities now require greater flexibility in carrying out their statutory responsibilities.
As already noted, the new strong mayors would have veto powers to override approval of bylaws that councillors have passed that are not aligned with provincial priorities. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has indicated that provincial priorities will be specified in regulations from the government. He added that there will be provincial oversight if it is found that mayors are misusing their power. How would we determine that a mayor has misused power? Would this include situations in which mayors did not veto municipal by-laws when the province thought they should have? Are we really creating a strong mayor or a puppet of the provincial government, charged with imposing its priorities on the city?
The new governing arrangements about to be imposed by the province completely devalue and disregard the expertise available within the municipal civil service and the valuable contribution that career professionals can make to municipal decisions. They also ignore the essential role of municipal councillors to represent and make decisions on behalf of their constituents. In large, diverse cities, this can mean lengthy discussions, contrasting views, and difficulty in reaching agreement. Such is the messy process that comes with a democracy! In fact, however, since John Tory became mayor, there is little evidence to support the notion that Toronto city council has been unable to govern. Ottawa’s mayor, Jim Watson, questioned the need for these new mayoral powers, indicating that his council had been able to come to decisions on almost all issues.
From what one can determine at this point, this initiative is not about creating strong mayors. It is about imposing increased provincial authority over these cities, contrary to the trend of the past two decades. If the legislation passes as it is, the result will be weaker municipalities and the undermining of local democracy.
President, Ontarioawestcoasthomes
2 年This not the way to increase housing supply! A major step backwards for local democracy. Practically, this would create a new super CAO position on a short term basis.
Fire, Emergency Management and Life Safety Professional
2 年Having a real hard time finding any legitimate or historical need for such a shift in power. Motivation is certainly suspect.
Executive Fellow, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary at School of Public Policy, University of Calgary Senior Associate, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, School of Cities, University of Toronto
2 年Based on experience with this government, the latter is most likely. The regulations will be most interesting as will the fiscal consequences depending on the pressures placed on municipalities.
Another well-written and argued article by Richard. This proposal has a number of layers to it and its impact will not be fully digested until it has had several years or perhaps a term or two to function. While the concept may appeal to members of the Big Cities Mayors' Caucus, their Councillors ought to understand that utilized in its full glory, this may draw us closer to an expansion of the distance between the Mayor and their Council. It may also, perhaps unwittingly be the forerunner of the loss of an "order" of government and the re-creation of a strong City-State model.
Board Member - Former City Manager, Deputy Minister, President
2 年Maybe the Federal Government will introduce a “Strong Premier” law so that the provinces will follow federal priorities!