A sober second thought for Ontario
Ontario is divided between urban Liberals, and rural Conservatives. This division is deep, with the urban Liberals dominating policies that don't sit well with rural Ontarioans. The solution, argues M.P.P. Randy Hillier, is an elected Senate in Ontario.
Randy Hillier, M.P.P. - January 16, 2009
There is a growing chasm between the political demands and aspirations of rural Ontario on the one hand and urban Ontario on the other. Just take a look at an electoral map of the province: federally and provincially, a red blotch on the north shore of Lake Ontario marks the Liberal urban bastion of Toronto. This is surrounded by a blue mass representing Conservative rural Ontario. These maps tell us something we know to be true, but are hesitant to speak of.
Ontario has become, essentially, home to two competing political communities, with different customs, economies, values and expectations. Unfortunately they are represented by a "unicameral" parliament with no upper house to balance the purely majoritarian legislative assembly. The result is a widening of the gulf between the two communities, with every new law and regulation passed by an urban-dominated Queen's Park ill-suited to the needs and wishes of rural Ontario. In fact, the authors of these laws and policies are more often found in the bureaucracy than in the legislature. Nonetheless, the way to correct our unbalanced political landscape is to increase our political representation.
Two Houses Are Better Than One
What we need is a bicameral provincial government with a Senate of 50 elected representatives, one from each county, regional Municipality, and (in the north) district, to lessen this growing urban-rural chasm by tempering urban priorities that cause damage and harm to rural Ontario. Much like the federal Senate, this upper chamber ought to be able to amend or defeat most bills passed by the lower house, but be unable to introduce, alter, or defeat money bills. However, to ensure that they have a greater regard for their communities than for party discipline, provincial Senators ought to be excluded from cabinet posts.
An elected provincial senate whose representation is based on communities of interest, not population, would have the advantages of the federal senate without the failings of political patronage. Arguably, sober second thought and review is more relevant provincially than federally, as there is a more substantial and direct relationship of services between the people and their provincial governments.
The most difficult part of this proposal is that in order to create a provincial Senate, the province must first give constitutional recognition to the boundaries and legitimate jurisdictions of municipalities, counties and districts, just as the federal government does to the provinces. And contrary to popular misconception, this constitutional amendment only requires the passage of legislation in Ontario along with a request to the federal parliament that it be included in the constitution.
Presently, municipalities and counties, the form of government closest to the people, are creatures of the province and can be collapsed, amalgamated, or expanded with the stroke of a legislative pen and three readings. In addition, their responsibilities, funding, and financing dangle on the threads of whatever partisan wind is blowing. Giving them constitutional recognition would free major municipal governments from this faulty master/servant relationship.
Checking Majority Rule
Page 1 of 2