City road map lacks direction
It seemed a Herculean task when they started, more than a year ago. At that time, top managers from Queen’s Park and the City of Toronto were told to hammer out a historic shift in power, giving the city new autonomy, respect and new access to money. They were told to review all existing legislation hampering Toronto, including more than 350 often- conflicting rules, some dating back to 1834. In effect, they were to lay the foundation for a new and radically improved City of Toronto Act. The outcome of their findings is a 12- page report, released earlier this week, which, considering the magnitude of the task at hand, is disappointing. Too much has been left out, left open or left behind. There are good things in the report, to be sure, including agreement on a “ permissive” legislative approach that would free Toronto from seeking provincial approval for even minor local changes, such as extending bar hours, installing a speed bump or setting speed limits. That autonomy is important but it was expected from the outset, when, over a year ago, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to lift the legislative and fiscal straitjacket hampering Toronto. In keeping with that objective, the report recommends allowing the municipality to set store hours, enter into agreements directly with the federal government, and set up cityowned businesses to compete with the private sector, among other rights. One surprise in the report was that it urged giving city hall power to tax cigarettes, alcohol and tickets to sports and entertainment events. That came in addition to expected provisions allowing the municipality to set tolls, expand parking charges, and initiate a host of new user fees. Of course, Toronto need not impose all of those charges, but it should have the right to do so. Toronto is, after all, the sixth largest government in Canada. It deserves a good measure of autonomy. But it also deserves other gains — many of which were absent in the report.
Toronto’s desperate request for a share of money from sales tax or income tax was denied. There was no mention of allowing the city to levy a tax on hotel rooms; no local control over setting the property tax on business, and no change in the Ontario Municipal Board’s role of reviewing and often reversing decisions by city council.
One of the biggest flaws in the report is the lack of unified direction on how Toronto should be governed. Granting the power to impose user fees and taxes must be accompanied by tighter, more disciplined decisionmaking. City council is currently too dysfunctional to be trusted with additional powers. Councillors are prone to grandstanding, procedural games, and sacrificing the public good to their own narrow interests.
This system must be replaced by one putting the budget and other important matters in the hands of a well- disciplined executive committee. But rather than agreeing to stronger governance, the city has set up a three- person panel to present options to council.
Hopefully, the report’s flaws will be addressed once legislation is tabled, likely next month. What has been achieved so far can be built upon. More than just Toronto’s fate is at stake. The province is also working on Municipal Act changes covering all the towns and cities in Ontario. The expansion of Toronto’s rights and powers will, to some degree, set a pattern for those broader reforms. So it is vital to get this right.