Opinion: Why Was It So Hard for Owen Sound Council to Take a Stand on Strong Mayor Powers?
Owen Sound Council said no to strong mayor powers — but only after delays, legal advice, and 30 questions. What’s the cost of this way of governing?
EDITORIAL OPINION
On April 28, Owen Sound City Council voted unanimously in a special meeting to ask the province to remove the city from the list of municipalities set to receive “strong mayor” powers on May 1.
First introduced in Toronto and Ottawa in 2022, strong mayor powers have since been extended to 47 municipalities across Ontario. The Ontario government announced on April 9 that it intends to expand them to 168 municipalities, including Owen Sound.
Queen’s Park has positioned these powers as a means to streamline decision-making and advance key priorities, such as housing and infrastructure.
However, the powers granted mayors allow them to unilaterally hire and fire senior staff, propose and veto budgets, and override certain council decisions tied to provincial priorities such as housing and infrastructure.
It’s a system many critics say gives mayors too much authority and undermines democratic decision-making.
Rejecting this “generous offer” from the province was a no-brainer for many.
In Essex County, all seven municipalities had voiced their opposition to strong mayor powers by Easter.
Orillia rejected the idea vehemently and early in a 7-2 vote on April 7.
Leamington's mayor, Hilda MacDonald, had already decided to "respectfully decline" the ministry's offer of strong mayor powers by April 10.
The Municipality of Arran-Elderslie also took a clear and early stance, formally opposing the legislation in a letter to the province following its April 14 council meeting.
Here in Owen Sound, it’s taken more than two weeks, a 30-question list, a legal presentation, and a nearly two-hour special meeting to get there.
It’s possible no council in Ontario has spent more time, energy, or legal expertise understanding strong mayor powers than Owen Sound. We may well be the most thoroughly briefed city in the province.
Did we really need to be?
Owen Sound Council’s decision was made only after a special presentation from John Mascarin of Aird & Berlis LLP, described by City Manager Tim Simmonds as “one of the top experts in municipal planning and local government law.”
Mascarin had already presented on the same topic at a joint meeting of Grey County municipal councils (including some Owen Sound councilors) and senior staff earlier this month.
So why did Owen Sound need its own version of the briefing?
In their April 14 meeting, Council decided they just didn’t have enough information to take a position and asked for a staff report instead. That report, authored by City Manager Tim Simmonds and City Clerk Briana Bloomfield, was delivered on April 28, along with Mascarin’s presentation.
Council then spent roughly 90 minutes getting the presentation and asking questions before running out of time. Some of those questions (30 in total) had been compiled and sent to Mascarin in advance.
They ranged from the highly technical (“Do there need to be changes to the confirmatory by-law?”) to the conceptual (“What checks and balances would you suggest to prevent abuse?”) to the big-picture and philosophical (“What does the Healthy Democracy Project have to say about this?”).
It’s fair to ask: how much staff time and legal expense was spent on a process that other municipalities were able to handle more directly?
Did Owen Sound Council really require a bespoke presentation from a leading municipal governance lawyer in order to reach the same conclusion that dozens of communities are arriving at on their own?
More importantly: why is it so difficult for this council to move decisively?
Mascarin's presentation had to be cut short by Mayor Ian Boddy due to time constraints. The vote that followed was almost anticlimactic, with Simmonds noting that regardless of Council’s decision, staff would need to proceed with implementation if the legislation comes into force.
“Come May 1, we will be a strong mayor municipality if the legislation passes,” said Simmonds, noting that staff would need to begin reviewing internal procedures either way.
This isn’t the only place City Hall seems, at times, to be plodding along in cement boots.
The long-running Vision 2050 strategic planning process, which promises to “create a North Star that will guide the work of the City over the next 25-30 years,” has been dragging on for over a year and remains incomplete.
The consultant’s final report — expected in March, according to the project plan — has now been delayed until June. When asked by The Owen Sound Current for the reasons behind the delay, the City Manager did not respond.
City staff have also cited capacity issues as a reason why other issues, such as the long-running discussion on backyard chicken coops, have been unable to advance within the same year they were raised.
When a corporate services committee member raised the issue again last July, Simmonds said at the time that since it wasn’t on his radar, committee members should “bring it back in 2025 during Council and Committee when we’re looking at work plans.”
This is after Georgian Bluffs, an immediate neighbour, had just passed similar legislation.
If the expansion of strong mayor powers truly came as a surprise, as staff noted in their report, the response has still raised deeper questions about the pace and process of local governance in Owen Sound.
Why has decision-making become so cumbersome?
What level of complexity truly warrants outside consultation?
And how does this level of delay serve a city trying to position itself for growth?
Council came to a decision in the end. But did it really need to be this difficult?
We elect nine people to sit around that horseshoe and make informed decisions, not to kick the can down the road until a consultant, a lawyer, or a staff report tells them what to think.
When every issue, from backyard chickens to major governance shifts, gets bogged down in process for the sake of process, the city loses momentum. The community loses patience. There are real costs: in time lost, in public money spent, and in trust eroded.
Good governance isn’t about always having the perfect answer. More often than not, it’s about having the courage and conviction to lead.