The province's 'strong mayor' bill goes way beyond housing

Affordability is possibly the hottest political topic in Ontario at the moment.

It was a top issue in this past spring's provincial election, and is certain to be a key issue in local campaigns leading up to the Oct. 24 municipal elections.

So perhaps it's no surprise that the Progressive Conservative government's unexpected proposed legislation to give the mayors of Ottawa and Toronto far more unilateral power by Nov. 15 is being presented as a way to get more homes built — which the province argues will also make homes more affordable.

But Bill 3, called the "Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022", which passed second reading last week and has been sent to committee, is set to give those mayors powers over city matters that expand well beyond increasing the supply of homes.

A mayor could single-handedly write the budget, reorganize the structure of the city and directly hire department general managers (with a few exceptions), choose the chairs of all committees and boards — including police and health — and veto bylaws. 

• Strong mayor powers to be expanded to more Ontario cities, Doug Ford says
• Next Ottawa mayor should reject 'strong mayor' powers, Watson says
• Key mayoral candidates not in favour of new mayoral powers

Clearly these powers could help a new mayor achieve their priorities more easily and quickly than the current system allows. After all, a mayor is elected by voters from across the city, which gives them a mandate to move forward with their campaign promises, whether that's reducing greenhouse gases or expanding transit or constricting property tax increases. 

However, the legislation — if passed in its current form — has the potential to transform the municipal government system into one that includes fewer checks and balances, is more open to cronyism and, in the wrong hands, abuse of power.

Priorities not spelled out in the bill 

What decisions by Ottawa city council impeded a housing project or housing affordability and could have been improved upon with the new strong mayor powers?

CBC put that question to Ontario's minister of municipal affairs and housing, Steve Clark, when he was in Ottawa last week.

Clark said the best example is the statistic that Canada has one of the lowest levels of housing-per-capita ratios of any OECD country. He also said his government's housing affordability task showed there were "very big inconsistencies in getting shovels in the ground at a national level."

Not exactly a direct answer.

Perhaps he believes Ottawa's development charges are too high, or that the official plan didn't include enough expansion. But these are decisions that Mayor Jim Watson — not exactly considered a radical — supported. So even if Watson had had a special veto power, he would not have needed to use it. 

(A pertinent side note: Clark has been sitting on Ottawa's official plan since it was passed last October.  The planning blueprint calls for intensification and urban boundary expansion, which should lead to increased housing supply, but the minister still hasn't approved it. It's unclear what changes, if any, that Clark may ask for or impose.)

Here's a possible future example. The city is now working on a comprehensive zoning bylaw to match the new official plan, whenever it is finally approved, It's expected to be ready for council approval in 2024. But the next mayor could veto the bylaw if they believe it could "interfere with a prescribed provincial priority."

Which priority does it relate to, and how might the huge bylaw interfere with it? Excellent questions. One of the concerning aspects of this bill is that those provincial priorities will be spelled out later in the act's regulations. 

Shouldn't we know the precise language of those priorities before passing a new law that gives the mayor the power to uphold them?

It's true that two-thirds of council could supersede the mayor's veto, but the wide range of powers could make any override difficult.

Easier for mayor to control city hall

Because the bill is proposing to give mayors power to organize both the political and bureaucratic arms of city hall, and directly appoint — and dismiss — department and committee heads, it will be much easier for them to have control over the municipal government.

Consider this post-election scenario. Ottawa's new mayor sets up eight standing committees and names like-minded councillors to chair them. Those chairs are also members of a new executive committee that deals with important matters before they proceed to full council.

Now, with all this extra work these councillors will have chairing committees and being on the council executive, the mayor may decide they should all be paid an additional 10 or 20 per cent, or about $10,00 to $20,000. So there's suddenly some financial incentive, as well as political motivation, to be in the mayor's inner circle.

And because the mayor writes the budget — which, by the way, is not constrained by the provincial priorities — the mayor's nine-person executive committee would be able to block any veto overrides to the budget or other bylaws, because it constitutes more than a third of the 25-member council. 

A similar scenario could play out in Toronto, too, where Mayor John Tory has already said he supports expanding the power of the mayor's office.

Questions about other powers

If the aim of these new powers is truly to build more homes, it's not clear why the province wants to give mayors unilateral power to hire not just the city manager and planning head, but also the general managers of the public works department, environmental services, infrastructure, or emergency and protective services.

As Mayor Jim Watson has shown during his record-holding term of office, the head of council can have considerable sway at city hall. It's unlikely that any public servant was named to a high-level position at the city without a thumb's up from Watson's office. 

But this new system goes a step beyond moral and political persuasion. It would allow a mayor to appoint friends and supporters to roles who may not be the most qualified, or who are overtly political, instead of civil servants who are supposed to act objectively and give their best professional opinions.

There seem to be few ways to stop a mayor who's bent on abusing the new law, save for the risk of not being re-elected in four years. Perhaps that's what the province intends. But that does leave a lot of time for a mayor to wield considerable power at city hall — power that has little or nothing to do with housing.