City Views

Print

E-mail

Text

It's hard to say how much of a factor our silver-locked mayor really is in federal elections. Does anybody really base their vote on what Mayor David Miller thinks about handguns, public transit or the candidate in Parkdale-High Park? And does that have much impact on how and who the government in Ottawa constitutes itself at the end of the whole thing?

Still, however much effect the mayor has on the outcome of elections - not his own - he cannot help but interpose himself between the Toronto voter and Toronto MP.

He's never gone so far as officially endorsing a party for government. But in elections past, Miller has certainly endorsed his share of candidates. And he's definitely let Toronto know who he doesn't want to see in power.

Miller always, and properly, frames that last statement in terms of what's become known as the urban agenda. And all along, Miller has made it clear that one candidate for prime minister - Stephen Harper - was not a well-known supporter of that agenda. One might even say the two did not get along.

But for all of Miller's careful disapproval ... well, we all know what happened in 2006. And based on every poll conducted up to this writing, we've all got a pretty clear idea about what's going to happen on Oct. 14. If Harper doesn't form at least a strengthened minority government this fall, then we should probably admit we've been wrong about polling all these years and go back to the tea leaves.

Miller seems to be taking those polls seriously. From the moment the election was called, he's made it clear he's staying out of local races. He has some issues to bring to the table: his call for a ban on handgun ownership; a desire for a national transit strategy; national movement on affordable housing and climate change. But he's limiting his kind words to those who speak specifically to those issues and curtailing his harsh words like never before.

For instance on Wednesday after Ontario's Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, Jim Watson, went full-bore attack on Harper's Conservatives for what he called a "disdain" for cities, Miller sounded downright conciliatory:

"(Former prime minister) Paul Martin started funding initiatives ... and this (last) minority Parliament and Mr. Harper made them permanent, particularly the gas tax transfer," Miller said. "Ottawa's pledged this year to make sharing the gas tax with municipalities a permanent policy by 2009. Martin was the first to bring the policy forward, but it wasn't permanent. I think that has to be acknowledged that in a minority situation they (Harper's government) did continue initiatives that were ground-breaking when Paul Martin was prime minister."

The praise may be faint, but it's there. And it signals what will have to be a change in tack on Miller's part if voters return the Conservative Party to Ottawa in a majority government.

Because until now, things have been rocky between the two governments - at least in terms of the rhetoric they toss one another's way. Miller and the city have put intense pressure on Ottawa, for instance, to do the sorts of things that the Harper Conservatives are clearly predisposed against: for instance, sending a cent of the GST to cities rather than back to taxpayers or banning private ownership of handguns across the country. Similarly, Harper's point-man, Jim Flaherty, has suggested fiscal measures be taken in Toronto that are either not functional or, again, utterly against the grain of the prevailing representation here.

The relationship as it stands can't continue. Toronto and other large cities are too important to the health of this country and federal engagement is too important to the health of those cities, to let ideologically based posturing stand between the two levels of government.

Whether it's Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat or Green, the mayor of Toronto will have to be able to make nice with the new government when it's over. It seems as though Miller has worked that out.