Have we developed a catchy name for the debate over Ontario Premier Doug Ford's attempt to halve the number of Toronto's municipal representatives?  Fordgate?  Billghazi?  #CouncilSoBig?

No?  Just Bill 5, then?

The amount of vitriol that has been spewed over what is primarily a procedural matter is astonishing, and likely would not be so had it begun with anyone less divisive a figure than Ford.  As expected, his defenders have dismissed his critics as "special interests" seeking to protect the jobs of politicians, while his critics have gasped about his "direct assault on freedom."  Your own opinion largely depends on who you would favour as a matter of course: Ford, Mayor John Tory, Toronto's city council, Justice Edward Belobaba, or the Constitution of Canada itself.  Yet a step back reveals that Bill 5 has been mishandled all the way down almost.

For those who are too cynical to have a dog in this race, it is possible to hold all of these opinions at once:

1. Toronto has too many city councillors.

It does seem odd, at first glance, that one city has 47 councillors but 25 MPPs and an equal number of MPs.  You could argue that this shouldn't matter because municipal politicians are required to be closer to their constituents, addressing their complaints about day-to-day matters like streets and sewage, and as such shouldn't be given a greater number of those than they can represent effectively.  Even so, there is always a trade-off, depending on what you expect from your councillor.

2. The size of a city council shouldn't be Ford's business.

You'd think a small government type like him (ahem) would prefer to avoid interfering in local matters and instead leave them to those who were elected for that purpose.  That he is doing so now has struck many as a reflection of his bitterness over the years when he was a councillor himself and his late brother Rob was mayor, doing battle daily with mostly left-leaning colleagues.  His own comments haven't helped to dispel that notion.

3. But it is.

Like it or not, Part VI, Section 92 of the Canadian Constitution gives the provinces the final say over how many powers that cities can wield unto themselves.  With Canadian society becoming far more urbanized in the 151 years since this arrangement was established, now would be a good time to re-examine it.  I tend to believe that a city of Toronto's size and importance in global commerce would be better off as a member of a new, intercontinental Hanseatic League.

4. Belobaba's ruling against Bill 5 was wrongheaded.

The ruling primarily concerned the timing of Bill 5, set to be implemented four weeks ahead of Toronto's municipal elections.  Because of this, per Belobaba, the province "substantially interfered" with the freedom of expression of candidates and voters, in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This is quite a reach as both parties still have all the freedom in the world to campaign and express political opinions.  Belobaba's personal distaste for the policy is evident in his effort to conflate "unconstitutional" with "a dick move."

5. Ford's rhetoric against the ruling suggests a lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary.

Ford is within his rights to appeal the ruling and to invoke the notwithstanding clause.  He could have done both without resorting to what has, unfortunately, become a typical response from governments when judicial rulings don't go their way: point out that they were elected and the judge was not  oh, and by the way, this Liberal appointee would probably rule against Ford anyway.  This kind of rhetoric gives Ford's base cover to complain about an accountability to "the people" that judges are not meant to have.  Their loyalty, flawed or not, is to their interpretation of Canada's Constitution.

6. The notwithstanding clause was a bad idea.

Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, while adding that the clause is "not evil," clearly wishes it had not been required for the support of Canada's premiers during the 1982 creation of the Charter.  This section, allowing governments to enact laws even if they violate Charter rights, was designed to protect the supremacy of the legislative branch.  If that doesn't sound like a horrible objective to you, give it a few more election cycles.  It will.

7. Tory shouldn't have tried to involve the feds.

The one person who comes out of this debacle looking better is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who wisely declined to disallow Bill 5 to disallow Bill 5, as Tory evidently hoped he would.  Even though he has the power to interfere with the business of a lower level of government, he's keeping his nose clean and leaving it to conduct its own affairs.  Take a lesson, Doug.

Written by Jess Morgan