A Strong Parliament for Ontario

John K Walker

88 Starwood Rd., Nepean, ON, K2G 1Z5

Some past governments of Ontario have let Ontarians down by misguided legislation and poorly managing fiscal and other provincial resources. For instance, the Rae government increased the debt substantially and the Harris government decreased staff and environmental guide lines so that numerous citizens were put at risk and many became seriously ill and a number perished. As a result, Ontario has a considerable debt and still a modest deficit and also an infrastructure debt. The productivity of the province is decreasing and the unemployment is slowly increasing and health care costs are also increasing. Global warming and the decreasing supply of oil will cause considerable stress on the economy for most of this century and undoubtedly the next one. Ontario must become very energy efficient in order to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and yet remain productive within the next few decades. Finally, the oncoming demographic challenge of an aging population and a shrinking workforce will limit tax revenue for all three levels of government for the next few generations. Wise and frugal management is now required at all levels of government but little is being done to address these different challenges. Hence Ontarians require a strong government with some backbone that can address these and other problems and optimize the necessary programs to the benefit of all.

It has long been recognized that checks and balances are necessary in a system of government to ensure that individual power is not abused. A Parliament to which the executive government, the ministry, is responsible for its actions is one such check. Parliament is the law-making assembly where the opinions, interests and beliefs of the people are represented. It is the foundation upon which modern democracy is built. It is Parliament's role to ensure that government is answerable to the governed.

Generally in a federal or provincial parliament, the opportunities for the House of Commons (or legislative Assembly for a province) to operate as an effective check on government are significantly reduced because the party or coalition of parties forming the government usually holds a majority of its seats. Then, through extremely rigid voting discipline, it controls the House. However, the development of the Australian system of responsible government, under which the federal government is responsible to the Senate as well as the House of Representatives, has ensured that the federal Parliament, through one of its Houses, is able to perform its role as a check on government. (See the Australian Government Information link.)

The Australian Senate fulfills its role as a check on government by scrutinizing bills, delegated legislation, government administration, and government policy in general. It does this by way of procedures utilized in the Senate chamber itself and through the operation of the Senate committee system. As a result of this check on the government by the Senate, Australia and its’ states are all nearly debt free and there is little misuse of power, abuse of special taxes or other funds. Hence each tax dollar is utilized for its intended purpose and little is wasted such as that for servicing large debts.

The Ontario Parliament does not, of course, have a Senate and hence it is fairly easy for a majority government to adversely change the nature and direction of government. The population of Ontario is nearly that of Australia and large sums of resources and development are sometimes altered for misguided political reasons and sometimes sound programs are put into jeopardy. It is proposed that Ontario explore the possibility of an elected Senate so that there is a check on legislation and on government administration. A Senate should be about a third of the size of the Legislative Assembly, commonly referred to as the ‘House’ in Ontario. Hence for Ontario the Senate should have about 35-45 representatives. Elections Ontario could readily combine three contiguous House ridings into one for each Senate constituency or riding. However, the House is now dominated by members from the urban and suburban regions of Ontario and so the rural and Northern regions are not well represented. The Senate can be used to bring some balance to a parliament. Consequently, it is suggested that only two rural or Northern House ridings be used to form a Senate riding to improve their representation in the Senate. This will result in a few more senators but it will make it somewhat fairer for these remote communities and for their representatives. It would also reduce the rather large ridings for these members and hence reduce the amount of travel and associated time and costs for the member.

The senators are at the top of the political ladder and we might ask a little more of them. They should sit for two terms of government (~8 years), unless a term is less than a year. While they might sit beyond the age of 75 they should not run for a seat if they are older than say 70. However, they should be at least 35 years of age, of sound character and have at least a post secondary education diploma/degree or a demonstrated level of knowledge in two fields of endeavor. They should also have some land in the riding, assets of say $50,000 and at least 100 sponsors for independent candidates otherwise 50 sponsors for candidates of political parties. Furthermore, the country needs more prosperous families as the reproduction rate is now only 1.5 children per woman. Also, recent research has found that women who are in a strong family relationship are seldom depressed and men generally need a woman otherwise they sometimes become slovenly and indifferent to the nature of others. Hence for the well being of women, families and of the country, the senators should be family oriented as they are the leaders of their community and often represent the province nationally and abroad.

The first Senate election for Ontario should be half way between those for the House in order that their platforms do not become confused with those of the other chamber. There should also be at least a 50 day campaign period (most senators have large ridings) rather than the 36 days for a House election. However, the campaign budgets should be the same as for members of the House. The elections for the House are now fixed at a four year period beginning on the first Thursday of October 2007 so the first election for the senators should be on the first Thursday of October in 2009. This would give time for the acquisition of facilities for the new Senate and for the parties to establish platforms and find candidates for the constituencies. Because women are not well represented in most parliaments it is suggested that a third of a parties candidates should be female to hopefully improve this deficit.

A recent study (See Scientific America, March, 2004.) has found that the fairest way of holding elections when there are more than two candidates is for the voters to rank them. This method gives the truest way of reflecting the interest of the voters and hence should be used for electing representatives for both the House and the Senate. The method also helps to separate out two very similar candidates. This method may also help independent candidates and women with limited resources. The voter should not have to rank all the candidates but only those that he/she feels would make a suitable representative. Most voters will only have in mind two or three candidates and hence it is suggested that the voter be limited to ranking three candidates. This can readily be accomplished by placing three open circles by each candidate’s name on the ballot and the voter simply fills in the number of circles (1-3) by the candidate to rank them in the order of his or her preference, if they do wish to rank the candidates. The voter fills in the three circles for their first choice and then two circles for the second choice, if they want to designate a second choice, and one circle for a third choice if they have one in mind.

The New Zealand experience of electing some members based on the popular vote has found them to be sometimes slovenly and, of course, of no accountability. They have also found that these proportional representation members are sometimes indifferent and that only some are responsible. The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform has proposed that 39 seats be distributed among members of parties by popular vote and hence unelected and unaccountable. The idea of legislators being appointed by a party central committee is reminiscent of Communist regimes more than democratic Ontario. This will result in a two tier government and numerous unaccountable legislators. This system is likely to result in minority or coalition governments and fringe parties holding disproportional power over policy. An increase in brokerage politics will only make positive change more difficult while adding to voter cynicism. More than 800,000 Italians recently signed a petition for politicians to produce a new electoral law that reinforces a two party system and reduces the power of smaller parties. Hence, proportional representation or any related undemocratic system cannot be recommended and must not be part of Ontario’s government or any other Canadian legislature.

There should not be any parliamentarians appointed from an ad hoc list based on a popular vote of parties as it is an undemocratic system and they will not be accountable. The single transferable ballot system proposed in B.C. is very complex and also an unaccountable system and hence untenable. Democracy is rule by an elected and hence accountable representation system with a majority not by an unaccountable system of minority parties. Such non-responsible members could harasses the house and cause it to become dysfunctional. They could also join with other minority members and possibly defeat a strong minority government.

The elected senators should be able to sit in the cabinet, on all standing committees and on the boards of crown corporations to help the Senate meet its mandate as a check on parliament and its agencies. They should be able to amend bills and introduce bills that involves modest amounts of money. The leader of the Senate should be elected solely by members of the Senate by ballot and using the ranking method if there are more than two candidates. He/she should remain leader for the duration of a senate term. The leader of the Senate could be present at all First Ministers meetings to provide the premier with advice on historical and Constitutional matters. The role of the Lieutenant Governor might be downsized and the leader of the Senate should probably fill this position so there is balance with the House and its leader.

Ontario will most assuredly move ahead with a strong accountable Senate that can significantly improve the integrity and effectiveness (backbone) of parliament. The representatives for both the House and the Senate should be elected by the voter ranking his or hers two or three preferred candidates if they choose this method. The senators might study and debate some of the long term economic and natural forces that will soon dominate Ontario and the country. There must be fairness in representation of parliamentarians and of the benefits of the province to all regions. The Senate can fulfill this role for the rural and Northern regions by providing stronger representation in these regions. Such an elected and accountable representation and governance system will be much more effective than a one house parliament. This enhanced parliament should start with the election of senators in October, 2009 if at all possible.