David Miller explains "his" Toronto

Mayor discusses issues ranging from Julian Fantino, the waterfront to St. Clair West

We have laid the foundation for the commitments on which we were elected." In an interview to Corriere Canadese-Tandem, David Miller talks about his plan for the megacity and talks about his first 12 months as mayor of Toronto. He talks about the major issues he has to deal with in the future, like the waterfront, and the issues he had to deal with in the first part of the mandate, like the dispute over the extension of the contract to police Chief Julian Fantino.

Mister Miller, a year has passed by, are you happy with your performance?
"A year is a long time but also a short time. We have laid the foundation for the commitments on which we were elected."

Let's start from the waterfront...
"There is still a lot to do but we made a start on Harbourfront. The airport issue was about whether we were going to allow the waterfront to remain industrial or to try to move forward. We decided to move forward. We did very well to start to have the city clean again. We are not there yet, but we have made good steps. With the initiative we have announced last week we will engage people and business, that's the intent. We also have safety plans. We took two full strategies this year. We have invested in the biggest annual increase for police spending. That's an ongoing war. We have to work very hard at that. In Malvern in particular and in North Etobicoke we have had very good results so far."

Are you happy with the relationship you have with Queen's Park and Ottawa?
"We are pleased with federal-provincial governments. We have the size of a Province but, when the economy grows, our expenses go up, but our revenue doesn't, not even a penny. For this reason we need a change in the arrangements with the provincial and the federal government. It's a good start. Premier McGuinty and Prime Minister Paul Martin have been very helpful. Not, perhaps as much as we hope in the future, but it has been a very good start. Finally, the way this government works. We have invited people back in. At a municipal level, it is about involving people in the decisions that will affect them. And we have made good progress with that."

A few years ago we had the "three amigos" who committed $1.5 billion for the development of the waterfront. Is the money still there?
"We have now three different amigos. We are now in a sort of a pause. Partly it's because the federal election intervened. They have many priorities. We do still have a billion and a half still committed from the three governments. The City doesn't know which is land and which is money, but we will work that out. I think we are in the cusp of really starting to see the waterfront change. There are a lot of plans, but now it's time for some action."

Talking about plans. There was one presented by the then Liberal MP Dennis Mills. Did you like it?
"Some of the ideas were very good. But one concern I had was that we have a three-way partnership on the waterfront and I think it is very important to keep that partnership. We have to act together and none of us should be making plans without involving the others."

So the problem was that he did not consult with you and the Province?
"Yes. The announcement was made without the input from the Province or the City."

Let's go back to the broom. Are you surprised by the reaction of the council to your restructuring plan?
"No. In the end, in that administrative restructuring, the vote overwhelmingly supported the changes. We are Canada's sixth largest government; but we are governed by municipal rules. We have a difficult job, and it is true inside our administration, balancing the local and city-wide priorities. The restructuring that I've proposed allows the service area to deal with citizens, locals, to be distinct, but also to have a city-wide view at the city manager and deputy city manager level. The only way to do something like that is for the mayor and the city manager to bring it forward. You can't have 45 people involved all the way. I did speak to the majority of the members of the council during the process to make sure I was going in the right direction, and I think that the vote shows that I was. One of the things I'm proud of about this council is that it often makes decisions with unanimous or overwhelming support. And it's not just decision about the agenda I was elected on, but other issues. We work out things so that people can support them. There are concerns expressed on the way I handled that, but I believe it was the right one."

The Toronto Star wrote that you consulted with only six councilors.
"That report was completely false. I'm quite surprised, the journalist interviewed me and asked me. The majority of the members of the council were consulted. By the time we had the council meeting, I had personally spoken to most of the members, not all. There are some things that the mayor has to do, and the mayor has to lead. And, when it is an internal administrative issue, the mayor and the city manager have to bring forward those recommendations. That is the job of the mayor. The members of the council know me very well. Somebody who brings people in and consults, that's my style. They may be surprised but, especially when you have people's jobs involved, you have to be very careful. It's not public debate when somebody is hired or fired. It's not fair to them. The only way to bring forward our internal restructuring is through the city manager and the mayor, the way I did it. I've spoken to the majority of the members of council privately and asked them if I was going in the right direction. Now, if we were talking about something like the committees at council, you have to involve all the members and have a public kind of a process, engage all politicians through the committees. Toronto is not much smaller then Alberta in terms of population and budget. If you had an administrative restructuring in the Province of Alberta, nobody would have said 'you have to consult the public'. I think that some of the members of the council have to understand that we are almost like a Province. We have to start managing that way."

Let's go back to the relationship with the Province and Ottawa. They feel uncomfortable with the changing numbers of the cost of some projects, like the extension of Front Street and Union Station. Are they just confused?
"I don't think they are confused. Front Street is only at a proposal state and we are trying to define the cost. The environmental assessment, the public consultation process with the public asking for changes to the project that made it much more expensive. It's an expansive project. We only need it if part or all of the Gardiner Expressway will come down. The extension is essential if it does. That way we connect it to the waterfront. It is because that's the area where the Gardiner most needs to come down."

What about the station?
"The station is a very complicated concept. You're trying to re-build the subway station that is already operating. That's expensive and pushes together two phases that are supposed to be in two stages. Yes, it turned out to be more expensive than originally contemplated when we were at the drawing stage. That one is critical because all waterfront revitalizations depend on it being built on public transit. Union Station subway stops are full, they can't accommodate any more people. So you wouldn't be able to run the new live rail transit down to the waterfront and bring it into Union Station without expanding the subway platform. Unfortunately the cost estimates are going up."

St. Clair. There was a lot of protest against your plan. Did you decide to go ahead because you believe that they were not the majority, or because in this case it was not necessary to reach the consensus?
"I believe there was a split. Very loosely put. The business tended to be opposed to it, while the residents tended to be in favour. Not that the businesses were against and the residents in favour, but there was a split. We tried to build a consensus, but the constrains we had is the process we had to use, the Provincial Assessment Environmental Act. The process itself doesn't encourage the kind of community building the city likes to do and bring people together. So we hope in the future the Province, on public transit, are allowed to run our own consultation and get better results. However, there are other people whose interest is affected. The residents have the right to a say, I firmly believe that, but there are 30,000 people who daily use that system, in two days the population of Peterborough. They have a right to a say too."

So the plan will go ahead.
"The tracks have to be rebuilt anyway; all of the havoc from the construction is going to happen. The only question is do we rebuild them in a way with little curbs so that the streetcar service becomes reliable and becomes an above-ground subway at 1/5 of the cost. That's about 30-40 million dollars. The other 20 million are going to be invested in the community, enhancing the public space. In fact it is a project that is going to revitalize St. Clair West. Part of St. Clair West is magical right now: St. Clair and Dufferin is fantastic. But there are other parts of St. Clair West that is not so lucky and desperately needs the kind of investments that this kind of project is going to bring to the neighbourhood."

According to media reports it is you who pushed Police Chief Julian Fantino out.
"I never said that and I don't understand why one would say that. I've appointed three people to the police board. I've suggested publicly that the decision should have been deferred. Of the three people I've appointed, according to the media, one voted against that and said let's make the decision today, the others voted to defer the decision. That was lost on the tie vote, then, according to the media, they had the vote on the proposed renewal and it was also a tie. One of my appointees voted in favour, the other two voted against. The board is a provincial-municipal board and I don't control it. There is a tradition in the police that at the end of five years they are going to have a new chief. The chief is someone I work closely with. I got off the phone with him 10 minutes before you came in. He has an honourable record, he has done a lot of good things. That doesn't mean that you don't move on and have a new perspective."

According to the contract, Mr. Fantino had to express his request for an extension right at that time.
"We know that in every employment situation there is always ways to work things out. The way it happened from the point of view for being a tie, it is unfortunate. The chief is giving very good service to the city, and I think he will be respected as a chief that stood up very strongly for law and order. One of the things I've worked with him on, and it pleases me, was an addition to our police budgeting increase to the community safety plan and the strong cooperation with his senior officers with our police safety workers. In particular getting to young people more at risk of being involved with gangs."

So, you didn't speak to any member of the board about Mr. Fantino's future?
"I told several members of the board to defer the decision until they had the majority board."

Media, especially the Toronto Star, list the denial of extending Mr. Fantino's contract as an accomplishment by the mayor of Toronto.
"I certainly did not push him out and I can't speak for the board members. And, I think you have six different opinions about the chief's strength and weaknesses among the six board members at the time."

Publication Date: 2004-12-12
Story Location: http://tandemnews.com/viewstory.php?storyid=4716