logo
‘Crazy idea': Ontario councillors push back as strong mayor powers reach small towns

‘Crazy idea': Ontario councillors push back as strong mayor powers reach small towns

TORONTO - A month after Ontario's government extended strong mayor powers to a swath of new municipalities, some leaders are promising never to use the measures — but a chorus of small-town councillors warn that local democracy is under threat.
As of May 1, another 169 mayors in the province can now veto bylaws, pass new ones with just one-third of council in favour and hire or fire municipal department heads unilaterally.
Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Rob Flack said last month that the province decided to more than triple the number of mayors who can access the powers in an effort to build housing faster and streamline local governance.
The measures were first introduced in 2022 and initially only applied to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario's two most populous cities.
Several municipalities are taking active steps to reject the powers now that they have been granted more widely.
Mark Hunter, one of 10 city councillors in Stratford, recently got unanimous support for his motion to reject the new powers. Hunter said it was symbolic and designed to show that municipal democracy shouldn't be 'subject to provincial whim.'
'What it effectively does is get rid of majority rule in our council,' he said.
'It's the expectation of the residents in our community that their representatives are able to fully represent them and this change puts some level of diminishment on that.'
Hunter said his fellow councillors can have strong disagreements at council, but lively discussions result in better decisions for the community. Anything that diminishes that discussion is worse for residents, he said.
Councillors aren't concerned about Stratford's current mayor abusing his power, said Hunter, but they are worried about what could happen in the future.
'It's another example of concentrating power in fewer hands. Unfortunately in human history, that doesn't always work out so well,' he said.
David O'Neil, a councillor in Quinte West, said he is also concerned about strong mayor powers, adding they represent 'a real misdirection' by the province.
'I think this decision is on par with the crazy idea of building a tunnel under the 401,' O'Neil said, referring to Premier Doug Ford's promise to add a tunnel under the major Ontario highway.
He added he is skeptical that strong mayor powers would lead to new housing being built in his community, and thinks the province should waive development fees if it wants to see more housing built.
Zack Card, another councillor for Quinte West, said he believes the expansion of the strong mayor powers will 'erode the democratic traditions of municipal councils in Ontario.'
'I believe effective councils work collaboratively and with an understanding that all voices carry equal weight. Tipping that balance could potentially hinder governance and make solving issues within our communities more difficult,' Card wrote in an email.
Neither O'Neil nor Card would speak to the recent dismissal of the municipality's chief administration officer, which was described on the municipality's website as a 'mayoral decision' pursuant to the legislation, made on the first day the powers were available.
Quinte West Mayor Jim Harrison said in an email to The Canadian Press that 'the decision was made in close collaboration and consensus with council, utilizing strong mayor powers to move forward.'
Less than a week after the decision, he told a council meeting that he wasn't planning to make use of the strong mayor powers.
O'Neil suggested his concern is more future-oriented: it's unclear what could a different sort of mayor do with these powers five, 10 or 20 years down the road.
David Arbuckle, executive director of the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, said unilateral power threatens a local government's administrative authority and staffers' ability to give non-partisan, evidence-based advice.
'It's changed the dynamic where (a city staffer) now has to be mindful of the fact that they could be hired or fired by the mayor at any point in time,' Arbuckle said in a recent interview.
'The advice they're bringing forward may not be as neutral as possible because ultimately they are now responding to one individual.'
Corey Engelsdorfer, a councillor from Prince Edward County, said he's worried the powers will exacerbate existing divisions on his council and, should they be used, could 'sideline' constituents even as the community experiences a boom in development.
The traditional model of majority rule is already divisive, Engelsdorfer said — especially when it comes to housing decisions — so decisions being made with even less support could lead to even more public cynicism.
'The way we build homes is by working together as a council and not by one person or a third of council pushing through what they want to push through,' he said.
'I always hear Premier Ford say that these changes cut red tape, but democracy to me is not red tape. I don't think it's something that needs to be in place at all.'
Mayor Steve Ferguson said in an interview that he was working to defer several of the strong mayor powers, including personnel decisions, back to council.
The council also unanimously passed a resolution asking the province to rescind strong mayor legislation, Engelsdorfer said.
Despite the concerns, Matti Siemiatycki, director of the University of Toronto's Infrastructure Institute and a professor of geography and planning, said the uptake of the powers has been 'fairly underwhelming.'
Before last month, there were only 46 so-called strong mayors in Ontario. Only a few made use of their powers.
High-profile examples include Hamilton Mayor Andrea Horwath advancing affordable housing development on two municipal parking lots in April 2024, and Mississauga's former mayor Bonnie Crombie passing bylaws to build fourplexes in October 2023.
But Siemiatycki said he fears there's greater risk for strong mayor powers to go unchecked in smaller municipalities, where there is less oversight and, often, less journalistic scrutiny.
'We've seen an erosion and a decline of the local presses across Canada, and it's no more visible than in small communities,' he said.
'If you're concentrating powers, what's really needed is external oversight bodies. And the media is one of those, so smaller communities might struggle to have that accountability and people being aware of what's happening.'
Siemiatycki said while he sympathizes with the province's desire to tackle a housing and infrastructure crisis, he agrees with the councillors who have raised concerns.
'It doesn't necessarily mean you'll go further just because you're aiming to go faster,' he said.
'The thing that's more sustainable over the long term is acceleration through processes that have very clear accountabilities and timelines to them.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 1, 2025.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Democrats say a GOP plan to redraw House districts in Texas harms Black and Hispanic voters
Democrats say a GOP plan to redraw House districts in Texas harms Black and Hispanic voters

Hamilton Spectator

time2 days ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Democrats say a GOP plan to redraw House districts in Texas harms Black and Hispanic voters

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Democrats argued Friday that a Republican plan for redrawing districts in Texas to create more winnable U.S. House seats for the GOP is not only a power grab by President Donald Trump but also an attack on Black and Hispanic voters that violates the landmark federal Voting Rights Act. The plan's Republican author acknowledged during a state House committee hearing that his proposed map is designed to help the GOP pick up five seats in Texas, something Trump is pushing to preserve the party's now-slim House majority. The Texas House committee expected to vote on the plan by Saturday, allowing the full House to vote as early as Tuesday, before going to the Senate. Democrats have few options for thwarting the Republican plan during a 30-day special session called by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, and calls for offsetting efforts in Democratic states intensified among Democrats outside Texas. Democratic legislators in Texas can walk out, go to another state and prevent either chamber from conducting but would face fines — and also block relief for victims of deadly flash flooding last month in the state's Hill Country. Republicans disputed that their plan dilutes the power of Black and Hispanic voters to elect candidates of their choosing and said it could give them better representation by uniting some communities that previously have been split. But the new lines likely would make it harder for four Hispanic incumbents and two Black incumbents to retain their seats in 2026. The Texas delegation would go from a 25-13 split in the GOP's favor to a 30-8 advantage. 'I've never seen anything this brazen, this broken and this spineless,' said former Democratic U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, who's running for the U.S. Senate. 'If you do this, we'll see you in court and at the ballot box.' Defending the map and partisan motivations Texas once was required by the 1965 Voting Rights Act to submit its redistricting plans to the federal government for review because of its past history of discrimination, but the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2013 that the requirement was outdated and unconstitutional. The act requires states to have the number of districts in which minority voters can elect a candidate reflect their percentage of the population. The GOP plan creates five new districts without any incumbents, and sponsoring Republican state Rep. Todd Hunter noted that in four of them, at least half of the voting-age U.S. citizens are minorities, and there would be 10 Hispanic-majority districts, rather than the current nine. 'It's a good plan for Texas,' Hunter said. Hunter acknowledged that the lines were being redrawn 'for partisan purposes,' which he said is allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said a law firm was consulted as the map was being drawn. Other Republicans testified in favor of the plan for other reasons, many of them mayors or local party chairs. Melinda Preston, Denton County's GOP chair, said the new maps will reflect the booming population in the state of 30 million. The redistricting push could move to other states Democrats argued that if Republicans succeed in redrawing the districts in Texas, Trump will push other states to redraw theirs before they'd normally do so, which would be in 2031 or 2032, after the next nationwide census. States are required to adjust the lines at least once every 10 years to keep the districts as equal in population as possible after population shifts. That's led Democrats in California and New York to consider redrawing their states' lines to help Democrats, though each state has an independent commission for drawing the lines. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, chair of the Democratic Governors Association, also said Democratic governors should retaliate, if they can. 'We need to respond in kind, which I think we do to protect the American people,' Kelly said Friday at news conference during a DGA meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. 'I hate the fact that we're here, that we even have to consider something this drastic.' Why walking out is hard for Democrats Texas is unusual in requiring two-thirds of members to be present for the House or Senate to conduct business. That rule would allow Democrats, particularly in the House, where they hold 62 of 150 seats, to shut the chamber. But Democrats haven't publicly promised to do that, though they've used the tactic in the past. House members now face a fine of $500 each day they're absent, and the chamber's rules prohibit lawmakers from tapping campaign funds to pay them. In addition, the chamber also couldn't consider flood relief proposals — which Democrats have insisted should be the focus of the special session. Democratic state Rep. Rhetta Bowers accused Abbott and his fellow Republicans of holding that relief hostage so they could 'slice up Black and Latino communities just to please Donald Trump.' 'Let me be clear: We will not allow flood relief to be used as a bargaining chip for racially rigged maps,' Bowers said during a briefing for reporters and others. How the map could change the partisan balance Under the exiting lines, which were in place for the 2022 and 2024 elections, Republicans won all of their seats in districts carried by Trump by at least 10 percentage points. Democrats won all 11 districts carried by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, and Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vincente Gonzalez won reelection in districts that Trump won by less than 10 points. If the GOP's proposed map had been in place in 2024, Harris would have won eight districts, and Trump would have won the other 30 by at least 10%. In San Antonio, Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro would be drawn out of a safe blue district into one that Trump would have won by nearly 22 points. And in Houston, Democratic Rep. Al Green would live in a majority-Hispanic district — but 72% of the Black voters he now represents would not. He would go from being in a district that Harris carried by 44 percentage points to one Trump would have carried by 15 points — with a GOP incumbent. 'This is not democracy,' Amanda McLaughlin, a North Texas resident, said. 'Is it worth destroying Texas to give the president five more seats?' ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas. Also contributing were videojournalist Lekan Oyekanmi in Austin; Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, and Brian Witte, in Annapolis, Maryland. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day
How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day

New York Post

time27-07-2025

  • New York Post

How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day

In the same week that Hunter Biden burst back onto the public stage to play the victim and lash out at Democrats, we also heard from his one time protector turned reluctant nemesis, Special Counsel David Weiss, with similarly self serving and disingenuous testimony to Congress. Weiss, the former US Attorney in the Bidens' home state of Delaware who presided over the troubled five year investigation into the former First Son, told the House Judiciary Committee that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify charging Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). His investigators 'couldn't put together a sufficient case,' he said in June testimony released last week. Advertisement That's pretty rich, considering that those very IRS investigators complained bitterly about the obstruction and slow walking they faced on Weiss' watch every time they pursued an investigative trail that led to Joe Biden and the lucrative foreign lobbying Hunter did in his father's name. That's why IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joseph Ziegler blew up their successful careers and became whistleblowers. Hunter's business model during his father's vice presidency and beyond revolved around foreign lobbying — including for the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma that was paying him a million dollars a year, Chinese government-linked firms BHR and CEFC, and an oligarch client in Romania. Advertisement In fact, the very first email this newspaper published from Hunter's infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive, thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. It wasn't just any old meeting, either. Hunter had invited VP Biden to a private dinner at Georgetown restaurant Cafe Milano in April 2015 to meet his partners from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan, as his former 'best friend in business' Devon Archer told Congress. In their upcoming tell-all book, 'The Whistleblowers v the Big Guy,' Shapley and Ziegler point out that, along with that Burisma bombshell, emails and communications they recovered from the laptop showed that Hunter's relationship with DC lobbying shop Blue Star Strategies was tied to his position on the Burisma board and that the firm had been hired 'to influence U.S. government officials on Burisma's behalf.' Advertisement 'These connections raised red flags about potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA and any comprehensive warrant would naturally include references to individuals who may have been involved, even tangentially.' And so, when their team drafted a search warrant related to potential FARA violation, Weiss' top U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf ordered them to remove all references to 'Political Figure 1,' the DOJ pseudonym for Joe Biden. 'Please focus on FARA evidence only. There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,' Wolf wrote in an August 2020 email, according to their whistleblower testimony to Congress. Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Whenever their investigations might lead to Joe Biden they found subpoenas were denied, interviews were canceled or not allowed, and Hunter's lawyers were tipped off before search warrants could be executed. Prosecutors cited bad 'optics' or questioned whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze' For instance, Shapley testified that Wolf refused to approve a search warrant for a guest house Hunter had been staying in on Joe's palatial Delaware estate as part of FARA-related evidence collection. When they discovered incriminating WhatsApp messages Hunter wrote to a business partner at Chinese energy company CEFC on July 30, 2017, citing his father, the investigators were blocked from using phone location data to confirm that Joe really was in the room. 'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter wrote, demanding $10 million. 'I am very concerned that the Chairman has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.' Advertisement Hunter also threatened that his father would retaliate if the Chinese did not do as he commanded: 'I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.' Here was Hunter explicitly claiming his father was involved in his business negotiations. Apart from the fact that Joe claimed that he knew nothing about his son's overseas business dealings, Shapley and Ziegler decided there were serious tax implications to the conversation, but they were blocked from pursuing them. They weren't even allowed to find out if Hunter had sent the message from Joe's house. 'The message was clear,' Shapley and Ziegler write in 'The Whistleblowers v. the Big Guy.' 'Although we were investigating Joe Biden's son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden. Advertisement 'Even when we needed material that might be in one of Joe Biden's homes or storage units, we couldn't mention him. The document might leak to the press, and that would make the Biden campaign look bad. 'And in the summer of 2020, there was nothing that the leadership of the FBI wanted less than to make Joe Biden look bad. Doing so might help elect Donald Trump for a second time.' How different was the way the FBI handled Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden. Whether it was the fake Steele Dossier the FBI treated as if it were legitimate evidence, or the raid on Mar a Lago, there was no concern about the 'optics' of investigating a sitting president or presidential candidate when it was Trump. Advertisement As for FARA, the once little-used law against lobbying the US on behalf of foreign interests has been selectively used to target Trump allies and Democrat enemies. For example, Paul Manafort, former chairman of Trump's 2016 campaign, was charged with FARA. So, too, was Gal Luft, the original Hunter Biden whistleblower, who told FBI and DOJ officials in a March 2019 secret meeting in Brussels that Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden were on the payroll of the Chinese. His accurate information was buried and then, one week before Republicans took back the House in 2022, Luft was charged with FARA and other violations. He is currently languishing in jail in Cyprus while Hunter escaped scot free. Advertisement In the last days of his presidency, Joe issued a uniquely tailored pardon for his son, stretching back 11 years and covering Hunter's conviction on gun charges and guilty plea on felony tax evasion charges that Weiss was forced to press after the sweetheart plea deal he'd stitched together with Hunter's lawyers fell apart in the wake of Shapley and Ziegler's revelations. In the end, Weiss forced the IRS to remove Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation as soon as he suspected Shapley had blown the whistle. The Office of Special Counsel last year determined that the IRS had illegally retaliated against the pair by removing them from the investigation after they made protected disclosures to Congress about DOJ interference in the probe. All the obstruction and interference and slow walking past statutes of limitation happened under the benign leadership of David Weiss. So spare us his mealy mouthed justifications for squibbing what should have been the most consequential political corruption investigation in history.

Coal mine stalled in 'groundbreaking' climate decision
Coal mine stalled in 'groundbreaking' climate decision

Yahoo

time24-07-2025

  • Yahoo

Coal mine stalled in 'groundbreaking' climate decision

A controversial coal mine expansion has hit a stumbling block after a court found possible climate change harms had not been fully considered, a ruling that could have implications for other fossil fuel projects. A community environment group from the NSW Hunter region successfully challenged an Independent Planning Commission decision to allow the expansion of the Mount Pleasant open-cut mine, near Muswellbrook. Operator MACH Energy applied to deepen the mine and double its output, extending its life for 22 years to enable the extraction of an additional 406 megatonnes of coal. The commission consented to the expansion in September 2022 and a judicial review brought by the community group was dismissed by the Land and Environment Court two years later. Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group took its fight to the Court of Appeal, arguing the environment court had erred and the commission failed to consider the likely climate effects in the region. The Court of Appeal on Thursday found the commission had accepted the project's emissions would contribute to global climate change, but there was nothing in its reasons to indicate it had considered the local impacts. The commission's consent referred to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, noting that the mine's emissions would be "accounted for" in the countries where the coal was burnt. "The commission's obligation to consider the likely impacts of the development on the natural and built environment in the locality of the mine ... required it to address the potentially adverse effects of climate change in the locality," the judgment said. "This obligation could not be discharged by general references to the effects of global warming on the planet generally." Environmental lawyer Elaine Johnson, the director of the firm that represented the community group, said the court's decision was groundbreaking. "The NSW Court of Appeal has just confirmed that the local impacts of climate change on communities are a direct consequence of continued fossil fuel production in NSW," Ms Johnson said in a statement. "From today, climate harm must be specifically considered when deciding proposals for fossil fuel expansions." NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson also said it was a significant legal breakthrough. "With this decision, the government must now reckon with the fact that they have a responsibility to the whole planet when it comes to allowing more coal to be dug up and burnt," Ms Higginson said. "The status quo of setting emissions reduction targets domestically and then exporting the climate crisis is now broken with this decision." The case will be returned to the Land and Environment Court to consider and MACH Energy was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The company was contacted for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store