I'm extremely happy with this result. Bill 5 had a few insuperable problems:
1. Ford cited the 'inefficiency' of a 44/47 person council, and the 'efficiency' of a 25 person council, as one reason supporting Bill 5. But this is unpersuasive:
a. It's arbitrary: there is no reason to believe that 25 is a magically efficient number of councilors. And if the argument is that whatever n number of councilors a city has, < n number of councilors would be more efficient, then why not 24? 23? 18?
Similarly, if the argument is that the number of councilors should match the number of provincial and federal representatives, as Ford seems to have stated, then this either (a) rests on a false analogy between municipal and provincial/federal levels or government, or (b) it should be applied to all municipal councils in Ontario on pain of arbitrariness, which Ford clearly didn't do.
b. It would prove too much: if the inefficiency of city hall is a function of the number of councilors it has, then the same reasoning should apply to all city councils in Ontario, especially ones in larger metro areas like Ottawa, Hamilton, London and Windsor. But Ford didn't target these municipalities with Bill 5, thus giving the strong impression, again, that this Bill arbitrarily targeted Toronto.
c. It's off-target: if we assume that municipal council is not optimally efficient--surely a fair assumption--then a question arises about possible explanations of this inefficiency. The following possibilities come to mind, aside from the number of councilors: i) not having a strong mayor system; ii) archaic constitutional facts limiting the autonomy of municipal government; iii) ineffective procedural rules in council sessions. But Ford gave no reason why he didn't seriously consider (i)-(iii), among many other possible explanations of this inefficiency (cf. 1b).
2. Ford cited cost savings as one reason for Bill 5. But this is also unpersuasive:
a. The 'cost savings' are dubious: with fewer councilors it is reasonable to assume that there will be more staff per councilor to handle the increased workload. It's an open question what the net savings/costs of these additional positions would be.
b. It's also arbitrary: as per 1b above, this either proves too much or too little. It proves too much if Ford agrees that the size of all city councils, or at least those representing large metro areas like Toronto, should be reduced to save money; it proves too little if Ford chooses--as he did--to apply this reasoning only to Toronto. The former position is too strong, which is presumably why he didn't take it; but the latter is so weak that it's revealed as arbitrary.
3. Ford reasoned that fewer politicians would equate to better political representation. This is unpersuasive:
a. Higher ratio problem: with fewer councilors the ratio of councilor per citizen increases. It's patently unclear how increasing this ratio amounts to better political representation.
b. Again, it's arbitrary: assume for argument that increasing this ratio does amount to better political representation. Ford is then again caught back in an arbitrariness trap: why not apply this to all municipalities in Ontario, or at least those representing larger metro areas? Surely all Ontarians deserve the same quality of political representation...no?
Now let's play a little game of inference to the best explanation: given (1)-(3), what's the
best explanation of Ford's motivation for passing Bill 5?
Well, either he's an idiot, since (1)-(3) are patently obvious to anyone who gives a moment's thought to this legislation. But I'm willing to be more charitable. (For the record I do think Ford is objectively rather low IQ. He's barely literate, as shown by his inability to use language with a modicum of grace.) It's that he is willfully ignorant, and this is because he's vindictive and petty.
This legislation has been revealed for exactly what it is, in other words.
A good day for democracy; a good day for the rule of law; a good day for reasonable people who can think through basic civic issues.
A bad day for Ford.