Mayor slams Ford’s plan to cut council
TORONTO — A unilateral decision by Ontario Premier Doug Ford to slash Toronto’s city council in half has dismayed at least one other big-city mayor in the province.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger denounced Ford for announcing out of the blue his plan to legislate the change in the province’s largest city without any feedback from local politicians or citizens just months before municipal elections take place.
“I’m shocked and surprised that, at this late hour, such a dramatic change was proposed or was to be made, certainly without any public consultation, which is the most egregious part,” Eisenberger said.
“Just to do this, without any of that, seems to me undemocratic and unhelpful in terms of providing the public at large an opportunity to have their say.”
Like many other local governments in Ontario, Hamilton has been through amalgamation and ward changes, the mayor said.
After amalgamation in 2000, the city went from 78 councillors in six municipalities to 16 — including the mayor — in one. For the coming election, one ward has been scrapped and another created.
All of this was done only after “extensive” public engagement, Eisenberger said.
Under planned and approved ward changes, Toronto was to have had 47 councillors after October’s election, up from 44. The change would have left undisturbed the approximate ratio of one councillor to 61,000 residents.
Ford, who never mentioned the Toronto plan during last month’s provincial election, said Friday that for Toronto to have nearly four dozen councillors is excessive and that he would legislate the number at 25.
That would almost double the number of residents per councillor to more than 100,000 — far higher than, say, the ratio of one to about 45,000 in Hamilton.
The Progressive Conservative premier said it would make the city run more efficiently and save money.
Toronto Mayor John Tory called Ford’s action an affront to democracy.
Eisenberger said cutting the number of Toronto councillors makes some practical sense in terms of governance.
“Sixteen is difficult enough; working with 47 would be virtually impossible,” he said.
“The way it’s been done, though, and not giving the people an opportunity to have their voice heard on that issue, is undemocratic and unfortunate.”