In 2022, the Ontario government passed the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, which gave the heads of municipal councils stronger powers and the ability to veto some decisions of elected councillors. Initially, it was only for Toronto and Ottawa. Later, additional municipalities were added, most if not all, with populations over 100,000.
This month, the Act was amended to include 169 additional municipalities, including all six lower-tier municipalities in Muskoka. The purpose of the legislation is to give mayors more power over council and to veto certain decisions that may not align with provincial priorities.
According to the province, “This significant expansion reflects Ontario’s commitment to streamline local governance and help to ensure that municipalities have the tools they need to reduce obstacles that can stand in the way of new housing and infrastructure development.”
I can understand the need for this Act in large municipalities where there is a plethora of elected representatives, in some cases with partisan political affiliations that often make it difficult to get things done. I have trouble, however, when it applies to smaller municipalities like those in Muskoka.
The Act gives ten powers to the heads of council. Some of them, such as appointing committees and bringing forward matters for council’s consideration, they already effectively have, but some others, in my view, are more problematic for smaller municipalities.
The Act allows the mayor and not the council to prepare the municipal budget. The mayor must present the budget to council for their consideration but can veto any amendment to it, which allows that individual extraordinary control over the municipal budget.
As well, the mayor can hire or fire the CEO and some department heads without the consent of council and can also veto any bylaws passed by council, that he or she believes may interfere with provincial priorities.
This legislation especially gives power to mayors in relation to housing, infrastructure, and transit, although council can overrule some but not all of these powers with a two-thirds majority.
At this writing, it is unclear whether these new powers granted to 169 municipal mayors are mandatory, but they appear to be.
I had the privilege of serving as Mayor of Huntsville for six years. My second term was by acclamation. I learned early in that role that the first rule of politics, at least at the municipal level, was to know how to count. I still believe that.
My job was to provide leadership to council but also to respect their authority as the ultimate decision-makers. If I wanted to get something approved by council, I had to have five votes in agreement. That meant, in my view, better decisions more carefully considered and more representative of our community at large. I believe that process worked, and I believe it still does. I see no reason in Muskoka, where councils are relatively small, to dilute elected members’ power and authority.
One of the major tasks of a council is to develop and approve an annual budget. It is the straight jacket within which all members of council must act. It lays out the agenda and priorities for a whole year (sometimes two). It cannot be a document that the majority of council disagrees with and would have the potential to create a dysfunctional elected body.
A budget in Muskoka municipalities should, in my view, be developed, debated, and approved by all of council and not by a single individual with veto power. It is a process that all members of council should be fully involved in.
Also, providing the mayor with the sole right to hire and fire the CEO and some department heads could lead to favouritism on behalf of the mayor, resulting in senior officials that do not have the confidence of the entire council. It is also not quite clear what that has to do with building more homes, as the mayor and council should make those decisions and not staff.
I understand that more housing and the infrastructure to support it is a top priority in many parts of Canada, including here. But in smaller municipalities, and that includes the towns in Muskoka, where and how (not whether) they are built is a critical part of the planning process.
This is especially so in communities with a high volume of recreational, lake capacity, and environmental issues. I find it hard to believe that a single individual could potentially have the final say over these matters, which could lead to decisions of a self-interest nature without proper scrutiny.
Moreover, the Act could potentially undermine the collaborative spirit that is essential for small municipalities to function effectively. In communities like those in Muskoka, the ability to work collectively is crucial. A system that concentrates extensive power in the hands of a single individual could lead to divisions and resentment and a concern within these communities that their elected representatives have less power and influence than they now have.
While the Act may have its benefits in larger municipalities, its application in smaller municipalities like those in Muskoka is questionable. The Act’s provisions here could disrupt the balance of power and hinder the collaborative decision-making process that is fundamental at the municipal level.
The Act cannot be all things for all people or for all municipalities. We are not all the same. I believe it is essential to consider the unique needs and dynamics of smaller communities before implementing such significant changes to their governance model.
The Town of Parry Sound and some Township of Lake of Bays councillors have already expressed their disapproval of the Act, and I believe the remaining municipalities in Muskoka should do the same.
In Muskoka, the traditional system of shared responsibility and collective decision-making has proven effective, and it should be preserved.
Hugh Mackenzie
NOTE: I have written this article about the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act and about nothing else. Those who want to comment for or against what I have written are most welcome and encouraged to do so. But those who wish to take the opportunity to take on the entire Ford Government will be disappointed as that is not the purpose of this article, and those comments will not be posted. HKNM
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Though I am late to the discussion, I can add the following from “Strong Mayors, Weak Cities” (Fanelli and Kelpin) in “Against the People; How Ford Nation is Dismantling Ontario” (2025).
excerpts (pp. 194-198)
“Yet, the Doug Ford-led Progressive Conservative government had taken constraining the scale and scope of municipal administration to new levels. Collectively, the measures implemented by the PCs have usurped local decision-making, concentrated power in the hands of local executives and provincial ministers, and heightened municipal fiscal pressures owing to weak municipal revenue-raising capacities and governance arrangements.” (p. 194)
“… a top down, undemocratic and authoritarian approach to municipal governance.
One day before the deadline for candidate nominations registering to run cities and towns across Ontario, the Better Local Government Act (BLGA) cancelled the elections of regional board chairs in Peel, York, Niagara and Muskoka. The BLGA changed the rules in the middle of the game and undermined the democratic process by removing from local residents the ability to elect their regional chairs. Instead, the provincial government gave itself the power via the minister of municipal affairs and housing to rule by fiat.”
Though challenged and lost in September 2018, Ford appealed.
This was first in a long line of changes, not mentioned during campaigning (remember, we heard buck-a-beer, no policy disclosure)
August 2022, “Ford government introduced the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act (SMBHA). The bill reversed the long-standing and widely supported view of majoritarian decision-making at council.” The act “said little about actual housing, but it did grant the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa the power to unilaterally appoint the [CAO}, to hire and dismiss senior municipal managers, chairs and vice-chairs of agencies, boards and commissions”
So increased the veto powers of the mayors. “The effect of this legislation is to ensure that provincial priorities determine and control municipal politics and decision-making more explicitly.”
Check in with the Green Party to learn more about environmental laws and protections.
“There have been decisions concerning municipal governance without consultation only to have to reverse them later”(p. 201)
Finally, “It is a cruel irony that Doug Ford has pushed through a singular vision of American-style “strong mayors”, while US municipalities increasingly adopt Canadian-style “council-rule.” (p.202).
Harper and the Ford boys, etc. learned much from the GOP during their State-side visit. Now, it is visited on us in Ontario.
If you worked on getting your facts right Jim people would have more respect for what you write. When the theatre was built and the Town Hall extensively renovated the existing structure issues were fully addressed and dealt with. No engineering reports were ignored. The Nickalls family would be the first to tell you that the land that primarily became River Mill Park, was not donated by them but purchased from them to create River Mill Park by the Council of which I was mayor, at market price. As for turning the Park into a parking lot, I don’t believe that actually happened. In any event, the final design for the River Mill Park was in the hands of the succeeding Council under Mayor Claude Doughty and not by the Council I had the privilege to lead. Your comment is pure fantasy. .
When Hugh Mackenzie was the mayor of Huntsville his council approved attaching a theatre to the town hall without addressing the structural deficiencies prior to commencing construction. Council received engineering reports and were made aware of the structural problems beforehand and chose to ignore it. The foundation of the town hall is compromised.and must be fixed to maintain the integrity of the building.
His council held consultations with the locals and despite their requests they took the generous donation of parkland from the Nickalls family and turned it into a parking lot. We need a theatre no matter what the long term cost implications are. Now how will they address these issues now that the work is completed? Is this the real reason Mr Mackenzie is against more powers for Mayors?
Can’t believe that this ‘Listen Up’ drew such little attention! Is the area so ‘blue’ that any dissention might bring condemnation? Or are people just too disgruntled to bother?
Our area under this kind of mayor has a lot to lose. Just look at the changes wrought with the power in the hands of entire councils. In the hands of a single person, those changes could be escalated severely. And for sure there are mayors that will push the limits because they have no regard for a lot of what is at present, enshrined in Ontario policy.
My voting, life there have been premiers and councils that were cognizant of the importance of the environment and its’ maintenance. I suppose the premier who brought a lot of this to the forefront and did more than his share was Bill Davis. He only disappointed me twice, once by lumbering another tier of government on Muskoka. He was generally good times although Regional government is tragic and waste in the extreme.
My father was set to lead a lynch party. “Our families have built a good community without his help. We don’t need him now!” Cooler heads prevailed, just not my Fathers’.
But now, after 50 or more years of working with conservation as a cornerstone, we are to have it all brushed aside. It all has to be changed so we can build houses. Maybe even fourplexes; right downtown if necessary? Although I think fourplexes were frowned upon.
I think that disregarding the voices representing the voter is getting away from democracy. Wonder what our housing critic MP thinks about all this ‘house-building’ since there doesn’t seem to be a lot of building going on. And him I can trust a lot easier than Poilievre.
Our MPP has to be all for these changes. No voicing any disenchantment of the policy will be allowed by the Premier. You could end up sitting way to the back of the house, or in charge of the coat-check.
And the “undermining of the collective spirit that is essential for small communities” is not a consideration in this quest for houses.
But you can bet that Bill 5 will build a lot of hard feelings in some areas. Whether it builds houses or not is a moot point. Likely another failure, since legislation doesn’t build anything. Not even houses.
Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this change which seems unnecessary. It is important today that people work together and reach consensus. It is slow but it is democratic and appreciation for other opinions is the outcome. Too much power in one person may lead to resentment and ill feeling – not a happy outcome in a small town.
This legislation assumes council is the problem and creates division between the mayor and council.