Host: The government says strong Mayor Powers have been paying off in new housing. We look at what the record says and whether there have been trade-offs for democracy. David Arbuckle is the executive director of the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario. Lindsay Jones is the executive director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Natasha Salonen is the mayor of the Township of Wilmot. Great to have both of you in studio and great to have Natasha on the line. Lindsay, I'm going to start with you. Help us understand what issues were strong mayor powers designed to solve.

Lindsay Jones: Well, strong mayor powers were a way for municipalities to be able to move forward more quickly on issues, particularly of provincial priority. It really came into being when the province was moving forward quickly with housing targets.

Host: Okay. Now let's talk about those housing projects and development. Since housing was the priority, I think it was 1.5 million homes and starts by 2031. Where have we been effective in hitting those numbers? David.

David Arbuckle: Well, certainly the numbers that are bearing out is that we haven't been effective province-wide. If we're speaking to the issue related to strong mayor powers, you know, there are examples where mayors have used the powers in order to maybe move a project or two forward in relation to housing. However, we've also seen mayors who have made decisions that have stopped housing from moving forward. So I think overall, as an association, our issue has been that the powers that have been brought forward, there's no evidence to support that they're making any difference as it relates to the actual construction of housing.

Host: Give me an example. What do you mean by stopping?

David Arbuckle: Yeah. Well, there's a very good example recently from Markham in relation to Mayor Scarpitti, who vetoed a decision from council related to Fourplexes as an example. So as a right, municipalities are owners of those properties, being able to put four units instead of one unit on those properties, that would increase density for a number of reasons, which, you know, Mayor Scarpitti indicated in relation to the pressure that it puts on housing or on the infrastructure, on traffic, on other things as well. Mayor's committee decided that that was not a good initiative to move forward with. So there have been a number of examples like that that I don't think is entirely what the province had intended in relation to giving mayor powers in order to move housing forward.

Host: Natasha, let's pick up on that. Has it been effective enough for the purposes of housing, when we talk about strong mayor powers?

Natasha Salonen: I think some great points have already been made. Some cases we have absolutely seen that, others not so much. But I would also point to Lindsay's kind of start off as to why these powers were brought forward. Of course, publicly, a lot of it had to do with housing. But if you actually read the legislation, it gives a lot of other tools for other decision-making to be sped up. And certainly in my case, in using them, I've used them to help bring more information forward for my councils for decision-making, including I brought in KPMG to help do our budget when we were going through some credibility issues with our finances, and it really gave my community the ability to better understand our finances. So again, I'd say the tool isn't only for housing when you read the legislation.

Host: I'm just curious, outside of those two examples that you have listed, have you used those powers at all outside of that?

Natasha Salonen: So I did also use the powers pretty soon after I got them. My municipality was going through a lot of leadership instability. We'd had an acting CEO for almost a year by the time that I got strong mayor powers, and it was due to a stalemate amongst my council as to how to proceed forward. And we are an even-numbered council. So it was three-three. So I did use them to hire some support and head-hunters to help us come in and get that process moving, which ultimately resulted in my council unanimously agreeing to bring on our current CEO.

Host: All right, so Natasha is one example of many mayors in this province that have the powers. Lindsay, a recent Toronto Star analysis reported a huge variation in how frequently the 200-plus mayors are using powers. Why might a mayor be reluctant to use them?

Lindsay Jones: Well, particularly when they were brought in. We heard from a lot of our members that they were not really keen to use them, and in part because when they were elected, these were not powers that were on the table. So a lot of mayors felt that it wouldn't necessarily be consistent with the mandate that they were given from the electorate. We've seen this evolve, I think, over the past few years. Mayors are using them pretty strategically in targeted ways. A lot of mayors, though, are very mindful of the dynamics that this creates with the rest of their council, as well as staff.

Host: Natasha, have you been reluctant to use those powers?

Natasha Salonen: I would say I see them as another set of tools in my toolbox. I'm certainly not jumping to want to use them, but every time I have used them, have been in step with staff because I do recognize it actually, in some cases, removes autonomy from staff. So that's how I've chosen to apply them, as well as, like I said, really utilizing them to bring forward better information for my councils for decision-making, including I brought in KPMG to help do our budget when we were going through some credibility issues with our finances, and it really gave my community the ability to better understand our finances. So again, I'd say the tool isn't only for housing when you read the legislation.

Host: David, you were quoted as saying that the strong mayor system has created a chill right amongst municipal workers. Help me understand this.

David Arbuckle: Yeah. So just give you some context. So we are Ontario's largest volunteer association for municipal staff. CIOs, clerks, treasurers make up the main body of our overall membership. And we've been highlighting really from the start that our major concern is that it's going to create some challenges and some blurring of the lines as it relates to the the politics and the administration, because traditionally council, city manager, model, city manager, council makes policy decisions. Those policy decisions go down to the city manager. They make decisions or they make decisions in relation to implementation of those policies. That has been blurred in most strong mayor communities. So now you have mayors that have the opportunity to to bring mayoral decisions, but also mayoral directives, so they may not ultimately have to. The legislation is pretty clear as it relates to mayoral decisions. You have to have a website that indicates what mayoral decisions have been made. Mayoral directives are not as clearly defined within the legislation. So in the research that we've done with the 46 municipalities that have have received the strong mayor powers, is that there is some some real challenges in relation to those mayoral directives. I had one one of our clerk member staff said I would have a full time job if I had to dictate how many mayor directives my mayor has given to our staff in relation to the work that they've had to accomplish. So that's where that's where we've flagged really early on that not only from a political administrative divide perspective, but also the operational and the, the operational and the, the, sometimes the confusion in relation to who's in charge in that municipality, who's direction am I following? Am I following the cows? Am I following the mayors? Am I following councils? It really has created a bit of a muddy, muddy situation. And that chill I spoke to is in relation to. Sometimes staff may not want to bring a decision forward. They might, you know, staff are always in a position to bring forward stuff that is evidence-based, based on fact, based on policy. But ultimately they may there may be a bit of a chill in that space if they are not able to bring something that they think is going to be politically salable, politically salable. And if a mayor has an ability to remove that individual from that position, then they are less likely to bring forward necessarily good policy decisions to the to the to the council and to the mayor.

Host: Yeah, Lindsay.

Lindsay Jones: I was going to say so. AMO, of course, has had to balance a lot of different competing perspectives in some of the work and the positions that we've taken around strong mayor powers because, of course, we represent both mayors and councilors, the councils and the municipal governments as a whole. But one definite clear line that we drew as an association with our membership was the concern that this issue creates when the mayor can impact and make decisions about staff below the CEO level, it really is not consistent with the principles of good public administration, good corporate governance. And we're definitely seeing staff thinking twice about bringing forward that kind of advice that they would have in the past.

Host: With that being said, if you were advising a mayor, what criteria would you suggest on, you know, when to, when to, when to use your powers?

Lindsay Jones: Well, I think the most successful uses that we've seen are really about trying to make that process of municipal decision-making a little bit more streamlined. So, for example, mayors who are able to ask staff like Mayor Salonen to bring forward recommendations or information on areas that they know that there's a lot of support on council already. You can shave a couple months off really important decisions around housing or things like that. We've seen, I think, successful examples in London when it comes to decision-making around certain housing programs. So where there is support and where there are these recommendations from staff, that is a pretty safe use of the powers.

Host: Mayor Allen, let's get you in on there. I imagine you are not, you know, wielding with a heavy hand here in council at all. But have you, when we talk about this chill amongst, you know, employees of the municipalities, are you are you hearing that?

Natasha Salonen: So certainly because I also sit around the board table, we've had some really great discussions across our membership about this. But I think the other thing to recognize is that there are 444 municipalities across Ontario, and every single one has a different internal dynamic and relationship between their council and their staff. And although on paper, yes, this is veering away from what traditional governance would be in a political science course. However, I think depending on how those relationships are formed, it might not cause the issues that are being predicted or that we're seeing in some communities. Again, in my perspective from my municipality, certainly I can't speak on behalf of staff, but I've personally felt a change in dynamic from before having the powers and that political or sorry, that leadership instability that I was talking about, we were really able to stabilize it within the organization and through our budget process, because again, this was our first budget with strong mayor powers. It enabled my council to be more involved in the budget actually being developed, which already happened in some municipalities before strong mayors. But that's never happened in my community until strong mayor powers. So I think, again, we need to acknowledge that this is going to be used as a tool differently and that all of these relationships between staff and councils vary in every municipality, as well as vary with each election. Obviously, as councils change and as staff change as well, sometimes maybe it's just not the right environment for certain people and they'll move on to another community, both political and staff wise as well.

Host: All right. The mayor had mentioned traditional governance. You know, one of the things that critics have been arguing is that the strong mayor powers undermine democracy by concentrating authority. And so, David, help me understand what safeguards should be implemented to help prevent that.

David Arbuckle: Yeah. So through the strong mayor implementation, our members have been talking a lot about, you know, how it's ultimately impacting them from a day to day perspective. So some of the recommendations we've given to the government, one is to remove the power of the mayor to hire and fire the CEO and senior management staff. I, you know, as Lindsay sort of mentioned, there is, you know, there are some some good evidence to support that, that type of decision making. But we've also said, let's tighten up the legislation. You know, again, we've talked about provincial priorities. The provincial priorities have never been defined by the province. So there is some some ambiguity in relation to the usage of those powers. We've seen in a number of municipalities where decisions have been made, where it would be a real stretch to be able to make a determination of whether or not that is helping housing in any way, shape or form. So we've talked about tightening up the legislation. I mentioned the mayoral decisions versus mayoral directives. Some of that tightening up would be would be of value. Again, I don't think our members are. One of the things we've always said is our staff can implement change. So and they're more than willing to implement change. So ultimately, if it's a mayoral veto veto that's put in, whether it's a budget process, which which the mayor is articulated quite well, staff can work within those those boundaries. I think the mayor ultimately has to be accountable to the public in relation to those changes and those decisions that they've made related to that. But staff can implement those things. One of the things they can't implement is, is ultimately their job and their position. And again, we would very strongly state that there is very little evidence, if any, that supports the fact that a mayor can, can hire and fire a CEO or senior member of staff, and that is ultimately going to have some impact on their housing target numbers.

Host: Lindsay. And talk about safeguards.

Lindsay Jones: Yeah. Well, I mean, one of the most problematic elements of the legislation is the ability for the mayor to be able to pass decisions without the support of a majority of council. So there are instances where bylaws or elements in their budget can move forward with just the support of a third of council. And that's, that's, that's fundamentally undemocratic. So we've again, spoken out against that element of the legislation. We've asked that that get removed. And I think that we would also urge our members not to take advantage of those provisions.

Host: All right. Mayor, I do want to ask, when we talk about provincial priorities, you are not only the mayor, but you also sit as a regional councilor in your area, provincially appointed regional chairs. We'll also have strong powers. And so I want to get, I want to get all of your stances. But I'll start with the mayor. What is your stance on Bill 100 right now?

Natasha Salonen: Yeah. So again, I think Bill 100 is trying to solve multiple problems across a few different regions and bringing in and giving that ability and power forward could be tools that are well utilized. They could also cause problems. I think we'll have to kind of see how that plays out post-election. One thing I'd love to see though, is clarity on the ballot. If it's going to actually be elected chairs or if it's going to be appointed. I personally would prefer clarity prior to the election, because I don't think that necessarily the electorates are really paying that much attention on the day-to-day. I think there's some really engaged folks and there's some that might be caught off guard if the province decides to appoint after the community already elects someone in that role.

Host: All right. Lindsay, Bill 100.

Lindsay Jones: Yes. Well, again, there are some potential advantages, and we do agree with the need for a review and thinking about local governance in a regular way, where we do have some pretty serious concerns is where you'll have the combination of an appointed chair with those strong chair powers. So not only is this person not directly accountable to the electorate, but you can have situations where in fact they would be overruling members of their regional council who are. And this, again, is fundamentally undemocratic. And we have called on the province to remove those elements from the bill.

Host: All right, David, you got the last word on that.

David Arbuckle: Yeah. And I would echo some of Lindsay's comments. Certainly all of the things that I mentioned previously. So the administrative burden piece, the decreased transparency in relation to decision making that's happening. The again, the divide or the, sorry, the blurring of the political administrative lines, those things all fall into the Bill 100. But then you add on to it someone who may not be elected, who is appointed by the province, whose only accountabilities are to the province. These are multibillion dollar corporations with major decisions being made in relation to infrastructure, healthcare, paramedics, all of those different services. And ultimately, you're giving powers to someone to be able to overrule, as Lindsay eloquently said, overrule elected individuals around that table. It really is overly concerning, but certainly from a staff perspective, all the same issues that we've highlighted in relation to Strong Mayor will also follow the strong chair, please.

Host: All right. We are going to have to leave it there. I know we will all have a close eye on how this all plays out. Natasha. David, Lindsay, really appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

Lindsay Jones: Thank you, thank you. David Arbuckle: Thank you, thank you.