By Justin Frape
Thunder Bay – Analysis – Over the past several weeks, I have spent more time than I expected examining Thunder Bay’s municipal election. I looked at candidates’ records, read their platforms, followed their public statements and tried to distinguish an appealing promise from a credible plan to deliver it.
In the process, I occasionally found myself being harder on people who had at least volunteered to do a difficult job than on those of us content to criticize from the sidelines. That comes with the territory, I suppose. But the purpose was never criticism for its own sake. It was to ask what kind of municipal government Thunder Bay needs, and who might help provide it.
The electorate has now answered the personnel question. Moe Comuzzi will be mayor, our five at-large representatives are Mark Bentz, Peng You, Kasey Etreni, Julie Colquhoun and Jamie Nichols, and seven ward councillors complete the table. In Northwood, where I live, John Ongaro will be our councillor. But an election determines who gets to make decisions.
It does not settle what those decisions ought to be, nor does it relieve us of the responsibility to examine them.
So, with the campaign behind us, perhaps some unsolicited advice is in order.
First, this council needs to become a council.
Thirteen people have arrived with different backgrounds, constituencies and ideas. There is no reason to expect unanimity, and frankly, we should be suspicious if we get it. What matters is whether they can agree on a manageable number of objectives, argue intelligently about how to achieve them, and accept responsibility for the consequences.
Mayor Comuzzi’s role will be especially important here. Leadership is not measured by how frequently a mayor gets her own way, but by whether the institution she leads can make sound decisions.
Second, there is the matter of the arithmetic. Thunder Bay owns municipal assets with an estimated replacement value of $4.9 billion and has identified an annual infrastructure funding gap of approximately $30.6 million.
This is not a particularly exciting campaign slogan, but it is a rather consequential fact. Every new building, road extension or municipal facility carries operating, maintenance and eventual replacement obligations long after the ribbon has been cut. The new council should establish a credible four-year plan for narrowing that gap, explain how it intends to pay for it, and report publicly on whether it is succeeding.
That does not mean refusing every new investment. It means being prepared to distinguish what we would like from what we can responsibly afford, and understanding when spending today prevents much greater expense tomorrow. A capital budget is not a Christmas wish list. It is a set of choices, each of which precludes something else.
Third, we need to become more precise about economic development. The Smart Growth Action Plan gives Thunder Bay a framework for expanding population and assessment. Both matter, particularly when residential taxpayers are struggling with the cost of supporting an expensive city. But a larger tax base is not, by itself, a complete economic strategy. We ought to care as much about the kind of growth we attract as the quantity.
I have argued throughout this campaign that Thunder Bay should aspire to more than being the place where other people extract resources, purchase services and book hotel rooms. We should be building more companies headquartered here, more processing and manufacturing capacity, and more intellectual property and profits that remain in local hands. Outside investment is welcome. Locally retained ownership matters too. Our economic-development institutions should be assessed not merely by announcements and activity, but by durable outcomes that can reasonably be attributed to their work.
That brings me to institutional accountability. I have previously advocated stronger independent scrutiny of municipal performance, potentially through an Auditor General. The point is not to presume incompetence or misconduct at City Hall, the CEDC or any other institution. It is that public confidence should rest on evidence rather than assurances. What did a program cost? What measurable difference did it make? Would the outcome have occurred anyway? And when a strategy underperforms, who has the authority and willingness to change it?
The same discipline is needed when discussing public safety, homelessness, addictions and housing. These are among the most urgent concerns facing our community, but they are also areas in which municipal, provincial and federal responsibilities overlap. City council cannot solve a shortage of treatment capacity by passing a motion, nor should it pretend otherwise. It can, however, insist that its own expenditures have defined purposes, that other governments are held to their responsibilities, and that partnerships produce something more substantial than another committee.
I hope the different experiences around this table will help. Bentz brings familiarity with municipal finances; Etreni with health care and intergovernmental issues; Colquhoun with organizational improvement; Nichols with business ownership and planning; and You with previous council and entrepreneurial experience. The ward councillors will bring their own neighbourhood priorities and professional perspectives. None of these backgrounds is a substitute for judgment. Together, though, they give council a broad range of questions worth asking before it makes decisions.
Ongaro’s election in Northwood offers an interesting illustration. After years of asking elected officials to explain themselves from behind a microphone, he now has to explain his own votes. I hope he brings the same willingness to challenge assumptions into council chambers, along with an appreciation that governing also requires compromise and the occasional unpopular decision. That transition is, in different ways, one every newly elected representative must make.
Finally, I would like council to give residents a practical way to judge its performance. Select a small number of outcomes for the term: a narrowing infrastructure gap, identifiable progress on housing and serviced industrial land, measurable local business growth, clearer accountability for municipal agencies and transparent reporting on major commitments. Publish the baseline. Report progress annually. Explain setbacks without dressing them up as victories.
For weeks we have asked candidates what they intend to do. Beginning now, we can ask a better question: what actually changed because they were there? The campaign was about earning the public’s confidence. The next four years will be about justifying it. Thunder Bay does not need thirteen people who agree on everything. It needs thirteen people prepared to do the work, make the choices and be accountable for the results.
