Toronto Mayoral Candidate Brad Bradford Defends Borrowing Strategy and Public Water Utility Plan Ahead of Tight Election

TORONTO, October 21, 2026: Toronto mayoral candidate Brad Bradford is defending his controversial financial strategy, which would increase municipal borrowing, restructure the city’s water services and change how major infrastructure projects are funded, as the race against incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow enters its final days.

With voters scheduled to head to the polls on October 26, Bradford has positioned his campaign around promises of financial reform, lower household costs and accelerated infrastructure development. However, his proposals have sparked growing debate over Toronto’s long-term financial stability and the potential consequences for public services.

Recent polling suggests Bradford has moved into a narrow lead over Chow, raising the stakes in an election increasingly focused on taxation, municipal spending and the future of essential city services.

Speaking Wednesday, Bradford rejected criticism that his proposals would place Toronto under excessive financial pressure. He maintained that the city could responsibly increase borrowing while continuing to operate within a financially conservative framework.

Bradford argued that Toronto needs a different approach to budgeting, particularly when it comes to financing major infrastructure projects that may take decades to complete.

His proposal would reduce the amount of money transferred from the city’s annual operating budget into long-term reserve funds. Instead of accumulating large amounts of money before construction begins, Bradford wants Toronto to rely more heavily on borrowing to finance major capital investments.

He believes the change would allow the city to retain more money for immediate priorities while moving forward with projects that might otherwise face lengthy delays.

According to Bradford, requiring today’s taxpayers to fully finance infrastructure that may not be completed for another 20 or 30 years places an unfair burden on current residents.

He argues that borrowing would spread those costs over a longer period, allowing future generations who benefit from the infrastructure to contribute toward its financing.

Bradford also suggested that accelerating construction could reduce long-term expenses by avoiding future increases in labour, materials and project costs.

The mayoral candidate has introduced several major commitments during his campaign, including reducing the municipal land transfer tax on certain residential properties, creating a separate publicly owned water utility and replacing sections of Toronto’s subway tracks.

Together, the proposals form an ambitious financial agenda that Bradford says would modernize the city’s operations and improve the delivery of public services.

However, Chow and her supporters have questioned whether the commitments can be delivered without increasing financial risks or reducing essential municipal programs.

The incumbent mayor has characterized Bradford’s borrowing strategy as irresponsible, arguing that Toronto must protect its financial position while maintaining reliable services for residents.

Erin Morrison, a political strategist and supporter of Chow, has questioned how Bradford could simultaneously promise lower taxes and major new spending commitments.

She suggested that the financial pressures created by his proposals could eventually force reductions in municipal services, including libraries, children’s programs and summer recreational activities.

Bradford has rejected the broader suggestion that his strategy would undermine Toronto’s financial management, insisting that his approach would make infrastructure financing more practical and efficient.

One of the most contentious elements of his platform is the proposed creation of a separate public company responsible for Toronto’s water and wastewater services.

Under the plan, the city’s existing water operations would be transferred into a publicly owned utility that would manage service delivery and infrastructure financing independently from the municipal government’s traditional budget structure.

Bradford has promised that the restructuring could reduce household water bills by approximately 25 percent.

He argues that residents are currently paying more than necessary because a substantial portion of their water bills is directed into reserve accounts intended to finance infrastructure projects many years into the future.

Bradford claims that approximately two-thirds of current water charges contribute to these long-term reserves.

His proposal would reduce the need to collect such large amounts in advance by allowing the utility to use borrowing to finance infrastructure investments.

He maintains that water rates would continue to reflect the actual cost of providing services while avoiding what he considers excessive advance collections from residents.

The proposed restructuring has become a major point of disagreement between the candidates.

Critics warn that separating water services from direct municipal administration could weaken public accountability, reduce the city’s control over water rates and potentially create opportunities for private investment in an essential public service.

Bradford has firmly rejected those concerns, saying his proposal would explicitly prohibit private investment in the new utility.

He insists that Toronto’s water system would remain publicly owned and that the restructuring is intended to improve financial management rather than introduce privatization.

Nevertheless, opposition to the proposal has emerged among members of Toronto City Council and municipal labour representatives.

A coalition of 16 incumbent councillors, including Chow, has opposed the proposed water utility model, according to the Toronto Civic Employees Union Local 416.

The union, which represents municipal workers and has endorsed Chow, has raised concerns about the implications of restructuring water services.

Councillor Jon Burnside, who is seeking re-election in Don Valley East, has also criticized the idea of using additional debt to finance water infrastructure.

Burnside argues that increased borrowing could ultimately result in higher costs for Toronto residents because of the interest and repayment obligations associated with long-term debt.

The dispute reflects a broader disagreement over how municipalities should pay for infrastructure while balancing affordability and financial sustainability.

Supporters of Bradford’s approach believe borrowing can help governments deliver essential projects sooner and distribute costs more fairly over time.

Opponents argue that excessive reliance on debt could expose future taxpayers to financial pressures, particularly if borrowing costs increase or municipal revenues fail to meet expectations.

The political challenge facing Bradford could extend beyond the election itself.

Even if he defeats Chow, his proposed changes may encounter substantial resistance from councillors who oppose restructuring water services or increasing municipal debt.

Myer Siemiatycki, professor emeritus of politics at Toronto Metropolitan University, has suggested that a Bradford administration could face a difficult relationship with a council containing a significant number of members opposed to his financial agenda.

Such opposition could increase the likelihood of the mayor relying on special powers granted to Toronto’s municipal leadership under Ontario’s strong mayor framework.

Those powers can allow a mayor to advance certain decisions with the support of only one-third of council members, depending on the legislative requirements involved.

However, Siemiatycki questioned whether repeatedly relying on those powers would provide a sustainable way to govern, particularly if major disagreements continued throughout the mayoral term.

The issue could become especially important if Bradford attempts to introduce extensive financial reforms requiring changes to existing municipal structures.

Toronto’s mayoral contest has become increasingly competitive as election day approaches.

Bradford is campaigning on the argument that the city needs bold changes to improve affordability, accelerate infrastructure construction and reform municipal finances.

Chow, meanwhile, is emphasizing the importance of maintaining public services, protecting municipal assets and avoiding financial decisions that could increase costs for future generations.

The disagreement over Toronto’s water system has become a defining example of the competing approaches.

Bradford presents the creation of a public utility as an opportunity to lower water bills and modernize infrastructure financing.

Chow and other opponents view the proposal as a potential threat to financial accountability and the long-term stability of an essential public service.

With only five days remaining before the October 26 vote, the debate over borrowing, taxation and municipal ownership is likely to remain central to the campaign.

The election will determine not only who leads Canada’s largest city but also whether Toronto adopts a substantially different approach to financing infrastructure and managing its public services.

For voters, the central question is whether Bradford’s proposed financial reforms can deliver faster development and lower household costs without creating greater long-term financial obligations, or whether Chow’s approach offers a more sustainable path for the city’s future.

Courtesy: CBC