Toronto councillors protest decision to not debate city’s financial future before the election
A motion from Councillor Gord Perks failed to bring a report from the outgoing city manager to council for discussion.

TheStar.com
March 26, 2018
Jennifer Pagliaro

Councillors staged a verbal protest on the chamber floor at city hall on Monday over a delayed decision on the city’s financial future.

Councillor Gord Perks moved that council debate a long-awaited report from outgoing city manager Peter Wallace on a long-term financial plan. That report was tabled at Mayor John Tory’s executive committee earlier this month and then punted to the new term for further discussion.

“I can think of no more urgent conversation for this council to have,” said Perks. “I can think of no more important debate for Torontonians to have then whether we are a bare-bones government that just delivers services to property like sewer hook-ups and fire trucks and police and that’s about it, or whether we deliver the suite of services that a modern city has to deliver to be inclusive, to be fair, to be livable.”

By moving the procedural motion to take the item from executive committee and place it on the council agenda this week, Perks created the opportunity for members of council to speak on the issue.

His allies took that opening to take both the mayor and his executive team to task.

“Some people have criticized this mayor for kicking the can down the road,” said Councillor Josh Matlow, who tried to get council to prioritize infrastructure projects based on value for money. “I think what this mayor has done is far worse. No other city is spending over $3 billion on one subway stop. No other city in the world is rebuilding elevated expressways. No other city in the world is neglecting their responsibility to become a 21st-century city and actually start spending money in the right places, such as making Yonge St. safer.”

Wallace’s report summarized advice he has repeatedly given council as, he outlined, they closed in on a financial cliff. In five years time, Wallace’s report said, the operating gap council would have to close to balance the budget would reach $1.42 billion — a significant challenge for a council which yearly approves a nearly $15-billion budget and has frequently closed the gap using one-time, unsustainable strategies like pulling money out of shrinking reserve funds.

Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam said the reticence to have these kinds of discussions in an election year results in a strategy of “delay and duck.”

Councillors Mary Fragedakis and Mike Layton said they were worried that delay would only cause further harm.

Wallace’s report presents three distinct futures council could choose for the city: Cutting services to shrink the size of government; raising revenues to maintain existing services; or significantly increasing revenues to pay for the city-building plans council has already approved. Wallace only presented the paths and did not recommend which one council should choose.

Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, who once aligned himself with left-leaning colleagues like Perks, but has become one of the mayors most vocal allies, accused council members of not coming to executive to debate the item there (Councillors Perks, Wong-Tam and Janet Davis did attend the meeting that was held, at the mayor’s direction, in Scarborough).

“Aren’t you on Twitter? You have 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 followers? Tweet our your position. Aren’t you on Facebook? Don’t you have a website?” De Baeremaeker suggested as an alternative to having the debate at a council session. “Call a town hall meeting.”

An attempt by Councillor Stephen Holyday to end the discussion failed. The debate on the motion lasted an hour and a half.

In the end, council voted down Perks’ motion, 13 to 27, meaning the decision of executive to have a new city manager, who has yet to be selected, return with an implementation plan in 2019 stands. Tory and every member of executive voted against Perks’ motion. That meant that city councillors not on executive were not able to ask staff any questions or move motions related to that future report.

The direction is not binding on a future term of council. If a plan was brought forward, it is likely it would not have any effect until the 2020 budget process.