More power to mayor . . .
Province staging tactical retreat but will still push for ‘ strong mayor’ system that most councillors oppose
For months the Queen’s Park Liberals have been saying privately that the City of Toronto would not get new powers without a new governing structure. Toronto now has a “weak mayor” system, where the mayor has no more legal authority than any of the 44 councillors. The province favours a U. S.- style “ strong mayor” system, with the mayor having direct responsibility for strategic planning and for preparing an annual budget. The province believes that the current structure, where the whole council gets involved in writing the budget, lends itself to irresponsible and parochial decision- making, not to mention an annual request to Queen’s Park for a bailout. So a reformed governing structure was one of the province’s goals when it launched talks with the city a year ago about the devolution of power to Toronto. But when a joint province/ city report emerged from those talks this week, there was no requirement in it that Toronto adopt a strong mayor structure. The report notes that province “ would like to see a more effective governance model in place for the city.” While not actually referring to it by name, the report leans toward the governance model recommended earlier this year by the Toronto Board of Trade: a stronger mayor but not one with all the powers of, say, Richard Daley of Chicago. Under the board’s model, the mayor would be responsible for producing a budget and a strategic plan, but he would have to work through an executive committee of council. But the report leaves to city council the final decision on what form of government is right for Toronto.
Given that 44 councillors are unlikely to agree to cede any of their existing powers to the mayor, that seems to be a recipe for the status quo. So has the province backed down on its stated goal? Not exactly.
Rather, fearful of a political backlash if it were seen to be forcing a particular model on the city, the province is staging a tactical retreat.
Instead of unilaterally writing a new governance model into a new City of Toronto Act, the province will attempt to achieve its goal by piggybacking on the city’s own reform initiative.
Earlier this year, Miller appointed the Governing Toronto Advisory Council ( chaired by Ann Buller, president of Centennial College) to study the various options. Its report is due to be released next week.
If, as expected, the advisory panel recommends something along the lines of the board of trade proposal, Miller could personally campaign for these recommendations.
At a press conference earlier this week, Miller denied he had a tacit agreement with Premier Dalton McGuinty to do just that. But Miller added that he would try to steer the panel’s recommendations through council anyway “ because I am the mayor, not because of any commitment to the premier.”
It will tax Miller’s political skills to the maximum, however, to get a stronger mayor structure through city council. And if he fails, what might the province do?
While the McGuinty government is committed to introducing a new City of Toronto Act ( based on this week’s report) by year’s end, the legislation won’t be passed until some time in 2006.
Thus, the province could choose to delay third and final reading of the legislation until after the city had adopted a new governance structure to its liking. Of course, such a move would itself be interpreted as the province trying to force the city’s hand. It would not be quite as obvious as writing a stronger mayor system into a new City of Toronto Act, but the effect would be the same. Which is why everyone involved would prefer that city council make the decision without a provincial push. Ian Urquhart’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. iurquha@thestar.