In business life, I would always tell my teams: “Plan for the worst and work to realize the best.”

This simple strategy was predicated on my belief that if planning was based on the worst case scenario, then we would have a rock-solid foundation upon which to leverage new opportunities and potentially achieve maximum returns. And it was a guiding philosophy that resulted in multiple start-up successes.

But, sometimes I really hate when the worst case predictions hatched in my cynical old brain are proven to be right.

As those who read this column regularly may recall, I have strongly asserted that there is no longer any real motivation for the provincial government to amalgamate Niagara Region.

Why?

Allow me to explain some of the rationale underwriting my position. 

Quite simply, amalgamation was never about saving money – because, despite Premier Ford’s claim that he had “never seen” it, there is uncontestable proof (“Arch-i-text: Amalgamation costs less? Some researchers disagree,” Feb. 26) that amalgamated jurisdictions show increased costs rather than decreases (something that I’m sure the “bright sparks” in his office were completely aware of).

Nope, cost savings and efficiencies certainly didn’t drive the Ford government’s penchant for amalgamation, rather I’d opine that it was a mechanism to vest centralized control of policy and decision-making down to the regional level into the hands of the provincial ministers and, ultimately the premier, sitting in their palatial Queen’s Park offices.

Apparently Mr. Ford continues to voice the belief that he can do better — in spite of having mismanaged Ontario into the dubious distinction of being perhaps the most indebted sub-national jurisdiction in the entire world with a projected 2026-2027 debt of $485 billion (notably more than 146 global nation states including New Zealand); driving up that debt by nearly 44 per cent since taking power in 2018.

Or, perhaps like the orange man south of our national border, he lives a fictional narrative that, if repeated enough times, becomes reality; provided, of course, his invested stakeholders are satiated by government largess to the point of agreeing to maintain the fairy tale.

It is true that centralized provincial control of regional policy and decision-making would facilitate the Ford government’s agenda.   

And, driven by that arguably warped perspective, as apparently viewed through the rose-coloured glasses that everyone in the premier’s office wears, I can imagine one of the “bright sparks” on his staff explaining to the premier that the government’s “control” objective could be effectively accomplished by abandoning the amalgamation option in favour of a provincially reimagined regional governance model.

Continuing on this conjectural theme, it is not a stretch to envision the “bright spark” advising we would effectively achieve our desired centralized control objective with much less political blowback from the public by completing the following:

Restructuring regional councils to eliminate democratically elected representatives (since they are potentially an unknown and difficult to manage variable that may actually feel a responsibility to represent their voters);

Vesting the remaining regional council seats to only the municipally elected mayors augmented by the installation of a carefully selected appointed council chair (a Ford employee in all but name) gifted with the equivalent of “strong mayor powers”;

And, finally, establishing a rep-by-pop weighted voting system on this reformed council such that the three mayors of Niagara’s largest municipalities plus the chair could effectively carry all important decisions that came before said council.

After all, simply providing enhanced access to provincial decision-makers (and potential preferred funding that flows from those offices) should keep these “big-city” mayors aligned. And, if it doesn’t work, we can always return to amalgamation.

Now, this backroom conversation is purely an invention. However, within the past few short months, the Ford government has enacted legislation to restructure regional governance along these exact lines.

Last week, the province introduced a proposed weighted voting system for the restructured Niagara regional council. The representation by population calculation that has been suggested is based on one vote per each 20,000 citizens rounded to the nearest whole number (that is 20,000, 40,000, 60,000 and so on).

Under this system, the mayors of St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Welland will have an aggregate total of 15 votes (seven, five and three respectively) while the combined votes of all the other municipal mayors will equal 10.

The appointed chair also has one vote, but also has veto power over budgets and bylaws that can only be over-ridden by a two-thirds majority (17-plus votes) of council — a majority that cannot be achieved without the support of either St. Catharines or, Niagara Falls and Welland or, some combination thereof to equal or exceed the required 17-plus vote threshold.

If you are one of the approximately 191,000 Niagara residents that live outside the boundaries of the three large cities, you have just been marginalized as a perpetual member of the minority.

There are far better solutions than this proposal, but I doubt the Ford government is listening.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on design, restoration and heritage.