Electoral Reform In Toronto! Get In Line......

Behind the unions, environuts, social inactivists, waterfront condo owners, island squatters......

Electoral reform depends on Miller
February 05, 2007

In perhaps one of the most selfless moments in its history, Toronto City Council approved reforms in the fall of 2004 designed to make it easier for political newcomers to win elections. Unfair advantages enjoyed by incumbent councillors were voluntarily surrendered. Speeches were made lauding this move and advocates of reform were elated.

Unfortunately, their celebration was premature. Almost 2 1/2 years after city council's principled decision, measures meant to enhance municipal democracy remain undelivered. The old, unfair rules prevailed during last November's civic election. And, to little surprise, every incumbent but one seeking re-election was returned to Toronto council.

Clearly, the current system is badly out of balance. That's why steps must be taken now to fix it before another election is fought under flawed rules that city council meant to correct years ago.

To that end, reformers led by councillor Michael Walker are putting a motion before council urging that democratic change be put back on track. The measure, likely to go to council today or tomorrow, directs city staff to review the status of the lapsed election reform and study what could be done to rectify the situation.

It also calls for a bylaw that would ban corporate and union donations to municipal campaigns. Such a ban was a key part of the reform package approved in 2004 by the council. It would help political newcomers because unions and companies tend to back sitting councillors, with some incumbents getting 70 per cent of their contributions from such sources.

Other elements of the old reform package included counting the cost of gala parties for backers as a campaign expense, instead of exempting it.

In addition, all campaign money raised, but not used, would have to be turned over to the city instead of amassed for future elections. It is estimated this change alone would have added more than $1 million to Toronto's coffers, had it been in effect in the past.

As well, Elections Ontario would monitor and police local elections. Under current rules, there is no credible arbiter when disputes arise.

These measures withered and died when Queen's Park failed to act upon them in time for the last election, despite having well over a year to do so. This time around, with Toronto receiving new powers from the province, it is unclear how much the city could do on its own and what steps would still need provincial approval. That is why council should instruct staff to sort out jurisdictions and then boldly move forward on election reform.

To ensure action, Mayor David Miller should become the champion of this reform movement. Democracy requires a fair, open and accountable election process. Miller will have a chance to display his commitment to those principles through his reaction to this proposal. Recent changes to Toronto's power structure have given the mayor immense new clout.

Simply put, if Miller wants election reform to happen, it will. And if it ends up dismissed, shunted aside, shoved to the bottom of the agenda and delayed for several more years, then that too would be Miller's choice.