The e-library contains information about issues of local autonomy and local self government.

Those who visit the site are encouraged to suggest documents - speeches, research, legislative initiatives, news items, etc. - which might be added to the library. If you have material that you think should be part of the e-Library, please click `suggest a resource' and follow the instructions.

search   |   show all   |   suggest a resource

Description:
Local Government Bulletin No. 50, September 2004

The purpose of this bulletin is to focus debate on the need to increase local self-government in Canada and to help local communities achieve more autonomy. The local self-government website is: http://www.localgovernment.ca

In this bulletin:
***
1. The ups and downs of municipal autonomy in Ontario
2. Plebiscite on ward system, City of Vancouver
3. Election contribution controversy in Hamilton
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
****

1. The ups and downs of municipal autonomy in Ontario

Some days things are looking up for municipalities in Ontario, and some days not. Some municipalities do better than others. And sometimes change in Ontario can ripple across the country.

In August the Ontario Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to ensure “effective cooperation between Ontario and municipalities” in order to “enhance certainty and predictability” and “promote public confidence and sound planning:” This Memorandum replaces a similar document signed between the parties under the from provincial government of Premier Ernie Eves in December 2002 (See Bulletin No. 23, January 2003)

The Memorandum reiterates “that any proposed change in legislation or regulations that, in Ontario’s opinion, will have a significant financial impact on the current municipal budget year or on the current municipal budget planning cycle will be accompanied by prior consultation.”

One notes the limitations on the consultation. There must be a ‘significant’ impact, as judged by the province, and it must be in the current year, not in a future year. The agreement to develop and distribute information by each party is hedged by provisions around confidentiality.

Perhaps of more importance, a schedule states that the Ontario government will consult with AMO on any negotiations that the province is having with the federal government on matters “that have a direct municipal impact.” Specifically named are four areas: municipal infrastructure, immigration, labour market development, and housing initiatives.

The City of Toronto’s Mayor David Miller objected strongly to this particular provision since it seems to cut out any direct relationship that Toronto might have with the provincial and federal government, and would make it difficult for the city to gain a place at the negotiating table. For instance, issues of immigration, labour market development and housing are of significant interest to Toronto, a city of 2.5 million, but only of passing interest to most members of AMO, which consists largely of municipalities with a population less than 10,000. The Mayor’s objections were brushed away by Premier McGuinty, who said the Memorandum doesn’t prevent other kinds of consultations beyond those contemplated in the Memorandum.

The Premier may be right about the flimsiness of this Memorandum. Section 3.2 states: “Failure of the parties to comply with this Memorandum does not affect the validity of any action taken by the parties or give rise to any rights or remedies by the parties.” It’s a wonder the document wasn’t titled Memorandum of Casual Intentions. A copy of the memorandum can be found at http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/library/1/1311447_MOUAgreement.pdf .

The brouhaha led to strong reaction in the city. A motion for the city to withdraw from AMO was unanimously endorsed at a city committee, and that will be considered by Toronto City Council at the end of September. It’s not a minor matter from AMO’s point of view, since fees are based on population.
Perhaps it seems childish for the city to threaten to pick up it’s marbles and go home, but in this case it might not have been such a bad strategy after all. On the weekend of September 17- 8, Mayor Miller hosted a meeting of a dozen big city mayors in Toronto, mainly to press the federal government for immediate action on transfer of a share of the promised federal gas tax (the promises to do something soon were renewed, but nothing more.) Premier Dalton McGuinty was asked to speak to the gathering on Saturday evening, and he talked about the need to give a city like Toronto more power. He recognized the city’s role in the economy, and said the City of Toronto Act would be rewritten.

"Toronto sets the pace in so many ways,” said McGuinty, “yet it can’t set the size of its city council or, in many cases, its own speed limits. We’re going to ensure the city has the tools it needs to remain strong and prosperous long into the future."

"The work we are doing with Toronto is part of the mature new partnership our government is creating with Ontario’s municipalities," said McGuinty. "We’re building strong communities today and far into the future, because when our communities are stronger, our province is stronger."

It’s unclear exactly what’s intended here – dispensing with some of the unnecessary current provincial approvals of city actions, or actually providing the city with the kind of autonomy that big municipalities need as outlined in A New City Agenda. (see http://www.localgovernment.ca ). Present on the occasion of McGuinty’s remarks were other Canadian mayors, such as Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly, who noted that their cities too need better legislation. Perhaps the mayors can make common cause on autonomy issues as they have on financial issues.

2. Plebiscite on Ward System, City of Vancouver

On October 16 a non-binding plebiscite is being held in the city of Vancouver on whether a ward system should be introduced. This follows recommendations by Tom Berger, former judge, on the question of wards (more fully discussed in Bulletin No. 48, June 2004.) Once the voters have made their decision, Vancouver City Council will make its decision.

The issue is becoming quite contentious with the Vancouver Board of Trade taking a very strong position that wards will create havoc for good municipal governance. The Board is bringing in as a guest speaker the former Toronto Chief Planner Paul Bedford. Bedford says that he will be speaking mostly about the damage that forced amalgamation did to Toronto, but it seems likely that when he talks about the ward system in the amalgamated city his remarks will be used as arguments against the ward system.

The strongest group against wards is called Knowards. On its website, http://www.knowards.ca , an unnamed source from Toronto claims that in a ward system staff to the councillors are more worried about the re-election of their boss than about public service; and that councillors are informally assigned their own planning staff so that councillors can massage any professional judgment they don’t like.

In any elected system it is possible to find political staff who care more about re-election than public service, whether it is at-large or a ward system. The claim about planners being assigned so that councillors start to capture the planning system is news to this Toronto writer.

According to its website the Knowards Coalition appears to be relying heavily on the advice of Americans and one wonders how representative these individuals happen to be, both of their own city (whether it is Los Angeles, Seattle or New York), or whether the examples they have given bear any relevance to Vancouver.

Berger made the argument for wards pretty strongly: they provide neighbourhood representation and accountability; they are the best assurance that all parts of the city are represented; and they allow a place in the local political system for the independent candidate of smaller parties.

Mayor Larry Campbell is a strong proponent of a ward system. The Yes Campaign is being headed up by Darlene Marzari, former councillor and a member of the Cabinet when Michael Harcourt was premier of British Columbia in the mid-1990s. Their web site is http://www.yesforwards.ca .

3. Election contribution controversy in Hamilton

In Ontario, the Municipal Elections Act was amended in 1996 to control contributions to municipal campaigns. The legislation limited donations to a maximum of $750 by any individual or company, permitted a local council to rebate some of the amount contributed, and established strange compliance mechanisms. Candidates were required to file financial statements and a list of contributors with amounts contributed, six months after the election. If a citizen felt the statement filed showed information contrary to the legislation, application could be made to the municipal council to appoint an auditor to review the statements for compliance.

It was a law without teeth. Several applications were made to Toronto City Council to appoint an auditor to review candidate filings for compliance following the 2000 municipal election, and in both cases council simply refused the request. That was the end of the matter – the alleged illegalities of overspending by several of those elected could not be challenged further.

But in an omnibus piece of legislation in 2002, the provincial government inserted an appeal mechanism: if council refuses to appoint the auditor requested, the matter can be appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice, and the court can force the council to appoint an auditor to review the filed statements.

That is what is now happening in Hamilton. Joanna Chapman, a local businesswoman and a former councillor in Dundas before it and five other municipalities were unceremoniously amalgamated with Hamilton a few years ago, reviewed the financial statements and contributor lists filed in June by those elected to Hamilton City Council in the election last November. She discovered an extraordinary number of irregularities in the filings made by the Mayor, Larry Di Ianni and eight of the 11 councillors (one seat is vacant, with a by-election scheduled for early October.) There seem to be a number of cases where one individual or company has contributed more than the permitted $750, where proper information about corporate donations is not recorded, and where related companies have given contributions which may not be permitted.

When Ms Chapman’s request for a compliance audit was rejected by council in July, none of the councillors involved seemed much concerned, but now the application to court has been made, the matter is being taken quite seriously, and some councillors have asked for delays to obtain legal counsel. It returns to court on October 1. The outcome of the audit can be catastrophic for a councillor shown to have breached the provisions of the Act: Section 80 appears to provide that non-compliance could result in the office being vacated.

Further information on the application for the compliance audit an be found at http://www.environmenthamilton.org/CATCH/articles/art_0407/art_040730chapman.htm .
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
The bulletin is sent monthly, at no cost, to about 1500 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. Those who receive this Bulletin directly (not forwarded by a third party) are already part of the subscription list. Others who wish to subscribe should go to http://www.localgovernment.ca and follow the instructions. To unsubscribe, please send a message to info@localgovernment.ca indicating your wish to unsubscribe.

More information about the sponsors of the bulletin, a library of relevant and useful documents, and an archive of past Bulletins, can be found on our web site. We appreciate your comments, your feedback (to j.sewell@on.aibn.com ), and items of interest that you wish to share with us and others who visit the web site. Our next Bulletin will be in October.

- end -