October 10 and City Hall

Cross-posted from Eye Daily.

Considering that everyone on council knew that everyone was in favour of reopening community centres on Mondays, they sure spent a lot of time discussing the matter before finally voting on the motion. Questions and debate went on from around 10:30 this morning until about 3:30 this afternoon, but of course community centres alone weren’t the only topic of discussion. Mayor David Miller was grilled on whether or not he had the right to ask staff to implement cutbacks without council approval (Councillor Michael Walker has his legal advice, City Manager Shirley Hoy has hers). Councillors also questioned the mayor on what he was doing to pressure provincial parties to promise to upload services. With the October 10 vote not far away, it’s clear that the provincial election is top of the mind of many councillors — some seem to think that council can squeeze bigger commitments out of provincial party leaders, while others seem to want to use the election to forward their own causes.

Wearing two hats

Councillor David Shiner took some time this morning to enlighten his colleagues on John Tory’s platform. Out of everyone on council, he should know it best since he’s also running as a Progressive Conservative candidate in the provincial election.

In the midst of questioning Mayor David Miller on the cost containment measures, Shiner took the time to remind everyone what John Tory would offer cities before asking if the mayor would show more support for provincial party platforms that provide financial relief for Toronto.

Many members of council responded with heckles.

“You shouldn’t be here!” someone shouted.

Councillor Pam McConnell was noticeably peeved. “Please take a leave of absence!” she yelled from her seat.

Shiner stopped talking and asked Speaker Sandra Bussin to control council.

“I’d like to control the world,” she replied, “but I’m doing my best.”

Miller said he was happy to discuss all the parties’ platforms and that he would continue to advocate for fair funding from the province. “None of the platforms solve our problems immediately,” he said.

Never ever land

Councillor Cliff Jenkins wondered whether implementing the new taxes, which are projected to bring in $350 million, might prevent the province from paying their share of the bills. “Let us say that the city implements the new revenue tools; what incentive is there for the province to address the $700 million [they owe us for cost-shared provincial services] if $350 million has gone away?” he asked the Mayor.

Forget the outrage over the recent cutbacks that came on the heels of the last deferral — it would appear that Jenkins is looking for a reason to defer a vote on the land transfer and vehicle registration taxes yet again. And just when you thought councillors might have learned a lesson on the cost of putting off new much-needed sources of revenue.

Miller showed no uncertainty in his response: “If we do that, it’s my view the province will be in an impossible position, because we will have gone to the people of Toronto and said: we’ve made a very difficult decision; we’re asking you to do your part, and the province would never, ever, be able to push back on their obligation. Never, ever. If we don’t do it, I think it puts the province in a position where they’re actually quite strong and can rebuff us.”

Post election pressure

Councillor Susan Hall questioned the mayor on his game plan for lobbying the provincial government after the October 10 vote.

“I wonder what you have in mind, if you’re working on a plan between October 10 and October 22 to promote Toronto as much as possible with the new government with respect to loan forgiveness, with respect to uploading,” she said. “Are you prepared to really hit the road after October 10 and get to the government?”

Miller replied that this was part of this job. “I never stop doing this, it’s one of my most important responsibilities as mayor,” he sad. “We have ongoing discussions with all the political parties, in fact, if I look at my Blackberry, there’s probably an email from John Tory right there.”

You want the truth?

Council voted to defer the vote on the proposed “revenue tools” back in July so that they could try convincing the province to upload social services first. What they didn’t expect (though they did get fair warning) was that their vote would unleash cutbacks that would outrage their constituents. Here, Councillor Karen Stintz and Mayor Miller argue about this side effect of the notorious vote.

Stintz: You indicated that 3000 part time people were laid off because of the vote. In fact, they weren’t laid off because of the vote. I just want you to clarify those comments a little bit.

Miller: That’s my opinion.

Stintz: But that’s not in fact the truth. The vote simply deferred a revenue tool, the vote didn’t lay off staff.

Miller: No but at the time people were told that the delay would mean the revenue tools would be implemented later so there’d be a significant budget pressure next year and we would have to manage through that this year, and that’s what I announced in council the next day. Council made a decision to defer. I was very clear before the vote and clear after the vote what the consequences were. This was the consequence and I’m sorry, I’m not going to resile for that position because it’s the truth.

Stintz: Well, sorry, just a point of clarification, but that’s your truth not the truth.

Click here to leave a comment.