Why cities need strong mayors
We need leaders who can override ‘barter politics,’ says Glen Murray
hen the mayor of your
average Canadian city wants to make a difference in the community, he or she has to consult a phone- book sized set of rules that say what the city can do. If the idea is not on the list, then the mayor is out of luck. Chances are that if the change is creative, innovative and progressive, but was not conceived by the authors when they wrote the rules 100 years ago, then it’s simply not allowed. Most municipal rulebooks, authored by a province decades earlier, are used as a list of house rules governing what an unruly teenager can do when the parents are away from home. It’s very prescriptive. Fortunately for Canadian provinces, they have a vastly different set of rules to follow. The Canadian Constitution lays out in a few pages the authority of the provincial and federal governments and gives them each final authority in areas where they have responsibilities. What the province has authority to manage could fit on an average restaurant menu. When the premier consults it, he or she generally sees a document that says, “ You can do anything except these things.”
If the list doesn’t specifically prohibit the idea, then the premier is free to proceed.
It is very permissive and trusts that the premier, elected by the public, will do what’s best forthe public.
Cities are not included in the Constitution and derive powers
Wfrom provincial legislation. The “ New Deal for Cities” is about changing that relationship. It seeks to grant major municipalities final authority in areas where they have responsibility so that they don’t have to run to the province for approval on everything they wish to do.
Provincial legislatures can do this without a constitutional change. They only have to pass a bill in their respective legislatures.
That is the venture the Ontario government and the City of Toronto are embarking upon as they review the weighty phone book: the City of Toronto Act. As the authors put pen to paper they should consider three things:
The new act should align authority with responsibility. The governance gap must be closed. The citizens of Toronto should no longer have to participate in civic elections where they elect people who have little or no final authority for the responsibilities they are charged with.
The act must also be legislation that is truly “ permissive” and not simply appropriate the “ New Deal” language.
In other words, rather than a laundry list of what the city can do, there should be a simple identification of jurisdictional authority that distinguishes the city’s responsibilities from the province’s and allows it to govern fully within that mandate. For example, city council should be able to enact any legislation within its areas of jurisdiction and select an appropriate taxation measure to pay for it. These are the powers of provincial and federal governments and significant cities should have no less.
Toronto’s ridiculously high property taxes and the bizarre arrangements that transfer property taxes from other GTA cities to Toronto is strong evidence of the problem. Using property taxes to subsidize social assistance payments and subsidize transit operations show just how out of step the city tax regime is.
There has to be a mature government process that gives the mayor authority sufficient for him or her to implement the mandate granted by the people. A strong mayor, leading an executive branch of government with sufficient powers over budget development, committee chair appointments and the timing of the legislative process, is critical. Amayor who takes over the responsibility and resources of budget development, appoints the chairs of council committees and selects an executive committee can then override ward “ barter politics.” And if other cities and provinces can follow suit, it will allow them to throw away the weighty phone books, some written when a loaf of bread cost a nickel. Glen Murray is an urban strategist and former mayor of Winnipeg. gmurray@