Opinion
BRACEBRIDGE — The Muskoka chair appointment raises a question taxpayers should keep asking: who chooses the person writing the budget, and how can the community hold that person to account?
On November 10, Ontario named Scott Aitchison as District Chair. The outgoing Parry Sound–Muskoka MP is to replace Jeff Lehman, whom District council chose in December 2022. Muskoka residents never voted directly for the chair, but their elected councillors made that choice. This appointment takes that choice away from them.
That does not make Aitchison an outsider to Muskoka or erase councillors’ powers. It does move a consequential appointment from the local council table to Queen’s Park, just as the chair’s executive authority is expanding.
Who the province picked
The province’s backgrounder records Aitchison’s service as Huntsville mayor and deputy mayor, a District councillor and an MP since 2019. It says he intends to resign his Commons seat by the end of November and will be sworn in as District Chair on December 1. The announcement should not be mistaken for proof that he has already left Parliament or taken the municipal oath.
Experience matters, and Aitchison has it. The province argues its appointments will improve efficiency and alignment with housing and infrastructure priorities. Those are legitimate objectives. They do not answer why provincial selection serves Muskoka better than selection by the representatives its residents elected.
What the Muskoka chair appointment changes
From November 15, Ontario’s strong-head-of-council framework applies to these upper-tier municipalities, giving the head of council greater authority over the budget and some senior staffing decisions. Those powers are significant, but they do not abolish council or make every decision the chair’s alone.
Certain by-laws tied to prescribed provincial priorities can pass with support from more than one-third of all council members. The budget follows a separate process, including council amendments, a chair’s veto and a council override requiring two-thirds of all members. The minority-support rule is not a general power to pass any by-law. Under the transition regulation, the first post-election budget for 2027 may be proposed only in 2027.
The appointment legislation also gives the minister authority to remove and replace a head of council. That is a different accountability relationship from being chosen by local voters or their elected councillors.
For Muskoka, the concern is the balance between local scrutiny and executive control. Elected councillors can challenge a chair’s proposals, but a budget-veto override requires a stronger coalition than an ordinary majority. Residents should be able to see those disagreements, the reasons behind them and the final votes.
Pay and the bill residents already face
Ontario’s 2025 salary disclosure records $108,730.04 in salary for Lehman as District Chair. That is a calendar-year amount paid to the outgoing chair, not confirmation of Aitchison’s salary or the full cost of employing him.
The District’s published candidate information quotes the April 2025 remuneration by-law providing a $4,386 annual chair increase from January 2027 through 2030, with an additional inflation adjustment. Residents should receive a clear statement of the incoming chair’s applicable pay and benefits, rather than have to infer them from a predecessor’s earnings.
The reaffirmed 2026 budget set the overall District tax increase at 3.85 per cent. OPP billings rose by $2.4 million; reserves reduced the policing component of that year’s tax increase from an otherwise projected 2.1 percentage points to 0.70.
Water and wastewater customers faced a separate combined user-fee and tax increase of 3.2 per cent. Those figures concern District charges and services, not every component of a household’s municipal tax and utility bills. They are existing decisions, not costs caused by Aitchison’s appointment.
More power must mean more accountability
Muskoka’s budget page says the chair’s 2027 budget will be public in January. That should begin a public examination of spending choices, service outcomes and the use of reserves, with explanations residents can understand.
Aitchison may produce a sound budget. Taxpayers should judge the proposals and results fairly. But concentrating authority makes transparent records, meaningful council debate and clear answers more necessary.
Neither Muskoka voters nor their District councillors chose him for this office. Queen’s Park should explain why its choice is better for Muskoka — and the new chair should demonstrate that serving the community means more than satisfying the government that appointed him.
Feature image: AI-generated conceptual illustration, not a photograph of an actual council chamber, person or event.