Public meeting on school closures April 30.

Navigation

What the party leaders told AMO.

Each of the provincial party leaders took the opportunity to address the 2,000 or so at the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Given the importance of the province and its funding to the daily operations of municipalities, residents may be interested to learn my perception of what they said.

In anticipation of the election, the AMO board had prepared an “ask” list of twelve items: some had a cost, others did not, and some were regulatory changes that could be very easily implemented. We were briefed on these prior to the first speaker. Part of the plan was that the leaders would be interviewed by a political journalist on completion of their remarks. Initially Tim Hudak did not accept this invitation. However ultimately he did, perhaps because of the pressure of the other leaders doing so.

The first to speak to us was Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty. My assessment at the time was that he “came out of his corner fighting hard.” He began with some general remarks on where his government has been taking the province and what its accomplishments have been. He then specifically addressed the twelve AMO “asks” point-by-point. He was the only leader to do so. He said “yes” or “lets talk further” to ten of them.

The following day NDP leader Andrea Horwath spoke to us. She was understandably off her stride as the news of Jack Layton’s death had just been announced. She began by making the point that provincial NDP governments across the country have the best record of fiscal responsibility and management. Going back to Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, the many governments in Manitoba and BC, and now Nova Scotia, she had the evidence to support he claim. The subtext obviously was that an NDP government in Ontario would be a “positive thing.” On some of the difficult AMO requests she refused to be drawn into giving a simplistic answer. Rather she identified the complexities of the issues and indicated that there would not be easy answers.

The last leader to address us was Conservative Tim Hudak. He paid little attention to the AMO requests, concentrating on the Conservative election “Change Book.” As one person commented, he was excellent at staying on message (except that it had very little to do with what he had been asked to address).

Hudak made it clear that he was proud to have been a member of the Harris government, and would follow in its footsteps. For municipalities, given the Harris record of downloads onto the property tax base, that must be a real concern. While he committed to maintaining the McGuinty financial uploads, he would not promise to continue the McGuinty timetable of completing the uploads, and he did not rule out the possibility of new downloads. Under the guise of increasing local autonomy and decision-making authority, he also indicated that he would dismantle many of the policies and programs that have been developed to make Ontario as a province more competitive in the global marketplace.

Kingston taxpayers will know how difficult it has been to put our financial house in order since the Harris amalgamation. However, that we have succeeded is reflected in our steadily improving credit rating. While the Hudak agenda may seem very attractive in the short-term, I believe the long-term consequences would have a very real negative impact and adverse consequences.

At the end of the day, I will make my personal decision on how I am going to vote on the basis of the best financial prospects for Kingston as we go forward. “Heads and beds” is obviously central to that, but it is also part of the larger question of stable funding arrangements.

I welcome your comments on these observations.

613.549.1900
www.billglover.org
bglover@cityofkingston.ca

^ Top

Previous page: Queen's Park way behind the times. - November, 2011
Next page: “Heads and beds” and Dalton McGuinty. - November, 2011