PEC candidates reject strong mayor powers but what would that mean in office

Three candidates, three clear answers. Asked whether they would use strong mayor powers to approve a single development, Ernie Margetson, Brad Nieman and Terry Shortt each said no. When invited to explain how they would use the powers more broadly, all three rejected that approach to governing.

For voters concerned about decisions being concentrated in one office, that may be reassuring. Yet the exchange leaves an important question: what would those promises mean once the winner becomes mayor?

Ontario has already changed the rules governing Prince Edward County. Some exceptional powers can be left unused or delegated; other responsibilities remain part of the job. Understanding that distinction helps residents assess both the candidates’ commitments and the arguments for keeping these tools available.

What the candidates promised

Margetson described a preference for persuasion and collective decision-making:

“I see myself as building a consensus, if possible, leading with my knowledge and my values and what I think is best, and voting democratically with my council to come up with a decision.”

Nieman grounded his objection in the representation residents receive through the entire elected council:

“The residents have put all council and mayor in there. We are your voice. So if I was mayor and I used those strong mayor powers, I just took your voice away.”

Shortt’s commitment was equally direct:

“I would not use the strong mayor powers. I believe in democracy.”

Terry Shortt said he would vote with council.

Their explanations differed, but this exchange offered no basis for suggesting one candidate was more willing than another to override fellow councillors. All three committed to governing collectively.

The question for voters is how that principle translates into specific decisions about budgets, staffing and development.

What the powers actually do

PEC entered Ontario’s strong mayor framework on May 1, 2025. The authority comes from provincial legislation; the next mayor inherits an office operating within that framework. 

The powers cover several areas. Certain staffing, organizational and committee responsibilities can be delegated to council or the chief administrative officer. Separately, a mayor can bring forward qualifying bylaws connected to prescribed provincial priorities and have them pass with more than one-third of council supporting them. A mayor can also veto certain bylaws believed to potentially interfere with those priorities; council can override that veto with a two-thirds vote.

That changes the balance considerably. With PEC’s 14-member council, assuming all members are eligible to participate, five affirmative votes could pass a qualifying mayor-proposed bylaw. Overriding a veto would require 10. Those figures are calculations from the statutory thresholds and council’s composition.

However, the housing-related mechanisms are not available simply because a mayor considers something beneficial. The prescribed priorities are building 1.5 million residential units by December 31, 2031, and constructing or maintaining infrastructure supporting housing, including roads, transit, utilities and servicing. 

The moderator’s question about a single development therefore touched on a genuine possibility, although it compressed the process. These powers can affect an individual project through its implementing bylaws; they do not automatically supply every approval that development needs.

Ajax offers a recent example. Its September 2026 notice for a proposed 66-unit townhouse development explicitly invoked the minority-support provision for the implementing zoning bylaw. The notice also provided for a statutory public meeting and written submissions, and explained applicable appeal restrictions. Planning procedures still matter. 

The budget complication

The annual budget makes a blanket promise of non-use more complicated. Preparing and proposing it is a statutory responsibility assigned to the mayor, which cannot be delegated. Council can amend the proposal, with a separate mayoral veto and council override process. 

A collaborative mayor can involve councillors extensively, ask staff to prepare the working documents and accept council’s amendments. Those choices can preserve meaningful collective input while fulfilling the mayor’s responsibility.

PEC already provides an example. In May 2025, Mayor Steve Ferguson announced delegations of employment matters to the CAO, and CAO appointment or dismissal and committee structure matters to council. He acknowledged: “Some strong mayor powers, like presenting the annual budget, I cannot delegate.”

The County’s published 2026 budget material describes council deliberations informing the budget Ferguson would present. Its procedural bylaw also says the mayor will normally seek council’s comments on a draft before presenting a proposed budget. 

Consequently, a mayoral document confirming council’s work or delegating authority should not be treated as equivalent to overriding council. Residents need to know what a decision actually accomplished before judging its significance.

The rules also changed this election year. Regulatory amendments effective June 22, 2026 prevent a mayor from proposing the budget for the year following a regular election before that budget year begins. Other restrictions apply in specified election circumstances. The incoming administration therefore has an important role in shaping the next budget, making candidates’ commitments to participation especially relevant.

Whose interests should prevail

There is a reasonable argument for keeping exceptional authority available. A project may offer benefits across PEC while creating concentrated impacts in one ward. A councillor representing the affected neighbourhood could face strong opposition even where the proposal addresses a broader need.

Housing makes that tension easy to imagine. Future residents who might benefit from new homes may not yet live here, while nearby property owners can participate immediately. Equally, those neighbours may identify genuine problems with servicing, traffic or the proposal’s design. Their objections deserve examination rather than an automatic label of resistance to change.

The mayor is elected across PEC, but councillors also have responsibilities beyond ward boundaries. Ontario’s councillor guide expects them to consider the municipality’s overall well-being and interests. A County-wide perspective belongs around the entire council table. 

Still, disagreement can persist. The difficult question is whether exceptional authority offers a justified way through an impasse, or allows one elected official’s interpretation of the public interest to displace the judgment of others.

Calling a proposal good for the County should invite scrutiny of the evidence: who benefits, who bears the costs, what alternatives were considered, and whether consultation changed the plan. Those questions remain useful regardless of the voting threshold used to approve it.

A housing example with real local consequences

Hamilton illustrates that dilemma. In March 2024, Mayor Andrea Horwath vetoed the portion of a council bylaw that prevented city-owned land from being made available for affordable housing, citing the provincial housing priority. 

An April directive confirmed that council subsequently passed a mayor-proposed bylaw under the minority-support provision to dispose of two Stoney Creek properties for affordable housing. It also acknowledged the elimination of 57 parking spaces, concerns about access to medical services for people with mobility challenges, and the removal of an existing Veterans’ Lane. Horwath directed staff to research and consult on parking and recognition of veterans. 

The intervention advanced housing, but the local concerns were specific and consequential. Readers may reasonably differ about whether the decision struck the right balance. That is precisely why the example is useful: evaluating the powers requires examining both the public objective and the costs imposed on others.

What the wider evidence tells us

StrategyCorp’s 2026 report, based on confidential interviews with 36 municipal CAOs and city managers, presents a mixed picture. Participants raised concerns about staffing instability and blurred governance roles; some also described more efficient budgets and benefits from moving delayed matters forward. One respondent put it simply: “Strong mayor powers work well with a good mayor.”

A minority saw potential value when ward interests or prolonged deadlock impeded municipal objectives. Many remained skeptical about housing results. These are informed professional accounts, rather than a causal study proving how many additional homes the legislation produced. 

AMCTO’s separate scan received responses from 201 municipalities. It identified administrative burdens alongside instances of streamlined decision-making. The association explicitly opposes the staffing-related powers, an advocacy position readers should understand when considering its findings. 

Promises worth clarifying

Delegation offers a concrete expression of restraint, but it can change. Cambridge’s public record shows organizational and employment powers delegated in 2023, reclaimed in May 2025 and delegated again later that year. A delegation is therefore useful evidence of a governing approach, rather than a permanent removal of authority. 

PEC Connect invites Margetson, Nieman and Shortt to clarify which powers they would delegate, whether their commitments rule out minority-supported bylaws and vetoes of council decisions or budget amendments, and how they would resolve prolonged disagreements between local impacts and County-wide needs.

We also invite the County Clerk to explain how existing PEC delegations carry into the next mayoral term. Candidates, municipal staff and residents with relevant information or experience can comment below or email PEC Connect; we will update this article accordingly.

All three candidates have offered a clear principle. Explaining how they would honour it would give voters a fuller understanding of the government they are being asked to elect.

Candidate quotations are from the supplied mayoral debate transcript at 00:46:51 to 00:48:59. Numbered references below correspond to the article text.