The Ontario Government has recently proposed legislation which would give the City of Toronto some significant new powers. In what appears to be an attempt to convince those of us who do not live in Toronto of the efficacy of its contents, the legislation is named the Stronger City Of Toronto For A Stronger Ontario Act.

Many of the powers given the City in the Act make a great deal of sense. The ability to set bar hours, regulate environmental standards for buildings, and controls over architectural detail and design are examples. These issue are inherently local in nature, and municipalities are the most local form of government. However, it makes no sense – politically or morally – to give these powers to Toronto without giving them to all municipalities. Surely the only differences between Toronto and other towns & cities is merely one of scale, not kind.

However, giving Toronto – or any municipality – greater powers of taxation doesn’t make sense. While cities are drastically under-funded, the answer isn’t to allow them to raise money through taxation. The answer is to fund them properly through transfers from the Province. The cost of these services ought to be spread among the taxpayers of the province, and not every municipality. Does this mean that taxpayers from larger municipalities will subsidize the smaller ones? In all likelihood, yes. But that is the way it ought to be. Municipalities aren’t governments in their own right; they are creatures of the Province. Those who argue for greater powers of taxation for Toronto, or any city, seem not to understand this.

I watched the English language leader’s debate last night, and there are a few conclusions I think can be drawn from it.

All of the leaders performed at a level that their handlers night call “well enough”. That is, no one took a “knock-out” punch or failed to perform adequately. Now, there’s something to aspire to!

Second, while there were no “I had no option.” lines, there was a winner. While I’m admittedly partisan, I think Jack Layton came out rather obviously on top. He spoke well (better than any of the others, certainly), he said what he should have said, and his manner was engaging. He certainly held the NDP’s ground, and probably gained some.

Third, I doubt if any of the leaders changed enough minds to matter. A few undecided voters may have been swayed, and Layton probably helped bring some NDP voters who are terrified of Harper back from the Liberals, but no one said anything that will have created significant party to party movement. They all likely picked up undecided voters more or less in proportion to their standings in the polls.

Fourth, a comment about the debate format itself. While preventing the leaders from interacting directly with each other does ensure they are able to communicate more efficiently, it does not make for a very engaging debate. It was boring – just a series of short speeches strung together. I’m more interested than most, and I was getting restless half way through. On the other hand, using questions from voters was a great idea.

Let’s hope this campaign gets more interesting – I’d love to be proven wrong in my earlier prediction little will change.

Oh, and if you aren’t sure where the quote in the second point (third paragraph) is from, then take a look here.

And forgive the hyperbole in the title - I may have exaggerated the second point slightly. I can only suggest it is the result of recently reading that Newman book on Brian Mulroney. Can you channel a living person?