A ‘strong mayor’ thought experiment

Big number: 28, the number of major council votes that got more than one-third support, but less than a majority, during then mayor Rob Ford’s time in office. If Ford had the same “strong mayor” powers John Tory is set to receive, they all could have passed.

When asked about new strong mayor powers, Mayor John Tory’s message has been simple: trust me.

“You will be able to see that my motives are pure because I am not seeking re-election. I am here to do this job with as much energy and hard work and collaboration as ever,” he said in a speech at the meeting of Toronto city council held to kick off the new term, referring to the powers he’s set to get once Bill 39 passes in the Ontario legislature. The bill will allow him to pass bylaws with the support of just onethird of city council.

But Tory’s defence underscores the big problem with the new powers.

Even if we’re willing to trust that Tory will only use these powers for good, Tory will not be the mayor forever. Assuming he’s serious this time about not seeking another term, someone new will take his job — and the powers — in 2026.

I can’t predict the future, but it’s not hard to imagine really bad scenarios, because, well, from 2010 to 2014, Toronto lived a bad scenario. Tory’s predecessor, the late mayor Rob Ford — brother to Premier Doug Ford — came to city hall ready to slash and burn programs and services.

Needing to secure a majority vote on council was the only thing that worked to check some of his most destructive and chaotic impulses.

To illustrate, I went back and looked at the votes from the Rob Ford era I tracked with my Council Scorecard — a very nerdy spreadsheet chronicling the results of significant votes taken by city council.

I identified 28 major votes that were supported by the mayor and at least one-third of the elected council at the time, but that failed to secure a majority.

Under Ford, for example, there were 21 members of city council — including the mayor — who wanted to cut $15 million from the 2012 operating budget. Reports had warned the cuts put a variety of programs and services at risk, including dental programs for seniors, and cuts to weekday hours at city arenas.

A majority of 23 members on the (at the time) 45-member council blocked the move. But, of course, a majority wouldn’t be enough under a strong mayor scenario.

If he had only needed one-third council support, Tory’s predecessor would also have been able to ram through a bunch of other questionable policy proposals he supported, but a majority of council did not. Like, for example, charging swimmers a per-swim fee to swim in all of the city’s outdoor pools, or cutting nearly $4 million from the library budget, or opting not to topup a reserve fund for social housing.

He also could have succeeded in charging charities for garbage pickup, reinstating the sale of bottled water at city buildings, taking staff away from the city’s ombudsman office, and cutting community environment days that provide free compost and electronic recycling.

And, with strong mayor powers, Toronto transit planning would have somehow been even messier.

Ford’s push to direct funds from other transit projects — like the Finch West LRT — to pay the enormous cost of tunnelling the entirety of the Eglinton Crosstown could have succeeded, despite having only 40 per cent of council on side. And Ford would have been given licence to continue his quixotic quest to get the private sector to pay for extending the Sheppard subway, despite just 42 per cent of council believing in it.

Defenders of the new mayoral powers may point out the supposed safeguard the province has written into their legislation. The new power to pass things with just one-third support only applies to matters aligned with set “provincial priorities.”

But suggesting this is any kind of barrier is like suggesting a “keep out” sign is good enough to secure a bank vault.

These priorities are malleable and vague. Current legislation stipulates that “building 1.5 million new residential units by 2031” is the main priority, along with “construction and maintenance of infrastructure to support accelerated supply and availability of housing.”

That’s broad enough that you could make an argument for darn near anything. A mayor who wants to cut funds for libraries or recreation programs, for example, could claim it relates to the provincial priority, arguing the savings will be directed to funding housing-related infrastructure.

It’d be a bad-faith argument, but we have no shortage of bad-faith politicians who might have an eye on the mayor’s seat. Toronto is better today because council has had the ability to serve as a check on those kinds of politicians. Tory may believe he’s earned Toronto’s trust to wield new powers, but is he really willing to assume the same of his successor?