Ontario’s so-called “strong mayors” legislation hands undue power to city halls at the very moment residents are crying out for restraint and public accountability. This week, Woolwich Township council urged Queen’s Park to review – and ultimately repeal – the policy.
Their instinct reflects the growing realization that top-down diktats, even when marketed as efficiency fixes, threaten the collaborative spirit municipalities need to manage everything from property taxes to public safety measures.
Locally, large tax hikes have been the norm in recent years. Councillors offer little more than feeble explanations, blaming inflation and service demands even as internal budgets balloon.
Residents dealing with lingering inflation, most notably at the supermarket, deserve more than numeric excuses. Food prices have soared, vacations have been put on hold, and now our local governments ask us to dig deeper simply because they can. Councils, already prone to rubber-stamp staff proposals, have shown no appetite for cutting redundant programs or trimming administrative roles. If a “strong mayor” with just one-third of councillor support can steamroll any debate, the only restraint on municipal spending will be the whims of a single individual.
High-profile examples from other regions highlight just how badly this can go. In Vancouver, former mayor Gregor Robertson wielded expanded powers to reshape the city’s budget – only to preside over a dramatic surge in spending and taxation. Public input dwindled, and ill-considered projects proliferated, saddling residents with higher bills and fewer say in how their communities evolve. If anything, that case study should caution Queen’s Park against duplicating the same mistakes here in Ontario.
The folly of consolidating municipal authority is further underscored by past local fiascos, council-approved yet plagued by cost overruns and delays. Imagine those blunders executed under a strong-mayor regime, without the push-and-pull of a full council oversight process. The province’s rationale – that decisive leadership will solve the housing crisis and expedite infrastructure – rings hollow when history shows such concentrated power invites unchecked enthusiasm, overspending and community alienation.
Strong mayors also risk deepening political polarization. Municipal councils serve as microcosms of community values, bringing diverse neighbourhood voices to the table. When one office can shut down debate, dissenting perspectives vanish. Grassroots activists lose faith, engagement drops, and decision-making narrows to whatever agenda the mayor chooses to champion. Ontario’s cities and towns are far from homogenous – what works in Toronto’s core won’t necessarily suit a rural township or a midsize city grappling with different growth pressures.
Rather than grafting sweeping mayoral authorities onto our municipalities, Queen’s Park should invest in strengthening local governance: provide stable funding formulas, offer more planning resources, and reinforce transparency requirements. If housing targets are the goal, boost municipalities with technical expertise and conditional grants, not authoritarian powers. Fiscal discipline must start by compelling cities to prioritize spending – cutting waste before raising taxes – rather than dangling unjustified executive authority.
Ontario’s strong mayors policy is a dangerous experiment with democracy itself. It undermines the principle that local decisions should reflect broad community consensus, not the decree of a powerful few. As Woolwich council and an increasing chorus of municipal representatives have stressed, now is the time for Queen’s Park to backtrack. Repeal the strong mayors act, restore decision-making to fully elected councils, and recommit to the collaborative governance that built this province. Our communities deserve nothing less than accountable, inclusive leadership.
