 |
| Map of Ontario ((c) Google) |
The Argument from a legal standpoint
Sponsored Link
The argument is plausible, cogent and possibly convincing to some: Of course budget has to be balanced and funds funneled to areas of importance. Who wants to spend money on councilors' salaries when a smaller number of councilors can get the job done? Not to say also that the decision appears within the vires of the province. Even Canadian courts had decided on the power of provinces to alter the administration city councils. The most apt decision on this came when the province of Ontario decided to restructure city councils in the province by amalgamating two or more councils (for instance, the City of Ottawa as it is now is a product of the amalgamation of Nepean, Carleton, Orleans, Ottawa, etc). Despite the public criticism and city councils' argument that the restructuring was inchoate until city councils are consulted and the consent of the majority obtained, the court held that although the decision may be unfortunate it was within the province's vires (See, Citizens Legal Challenge Inc. v Ontario (Attorney General) 36 OR (3d.) 733).
Sponsored Link
The argument may still be apposite in this situation: what the current Ontario administration wants to do is less impactful on city council's independence than the amalgamation of two or more councils. But just as in the previous decision, this one also reels with concerns bothering on democracy. I concur with the Supreme Court's decision in Quebec Reference that the Constitution of Canada is beyond the texts to include certain constitutional principles. These principles are held to be one of the touchstone of Canada's sovereignty and nationhood. As the Supreme Court noted in the case at bar, these principles have equal force as constitutional texts and should guide the interpretation of the texts in order to fully ascertain and achieve the intentions of the founding fathers.
It is without doubt that democracy features as one of the cornerstone constitutional principles: the Canadian legal and political system emanated as a function of democracy. It was not war, conquest or imposition that ultimately gave the world Canada but democratic consultations (of course, I am sympathetic to indigenous peoples causes and understand the magnitude of historical injustice they experienced). As democratic consultations led to the establishment of the Canadian political system, so should it be adopted going forward in restructuring the system: dictatorial enactments should not be given any value within the system. Therefore, in interpreting provincial powers, democratic consultations should be read in as a caveat and given due effect.
Sponsored Link
The Province of Ontario's decisions is everything but democratic: it is being implemented in a hurried manner, regardless of its implications on the lives of millions of people living in Toronto; it is implemented just a few months away from city elections, when election process is already triggered; and it is implemented under the guise that it was part of the administration's political manifesto in the just concluded provincial election, even when the topic was not explicitly broached during the campaigns. This is not how a democracy should work; even if the actions are within provincial vires, it should be implemented with great circumspection and regard to electoral processes and democratic principles.
Another constitutional principle implicated by this action is the principle of rule of law and constitutionalism. Admitted, the disparate use of the principle of rule of law to question any governmental action should be discouraged (See, British Columbia v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd 2005 SCC 49). But this is not such disparate use: if rule of law means that all actions should accord with the law of the land; and constitutionalism means that the Constitution of Canada is supreme, overriding all other inconsistent laws and actions; and we all agree that democratic principles are part of the Constitution of Canada, then we will begin to appreciate the argument that the extant provincial action may be in contravention of the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism.
Sponsored Link
The Argument from a Public Policy Standpoint
Away from the niceties of legal argument, this provincial action may be impugned from a public policy standpoint (although much scholarship will not be expended on this topic). I believe that the essence of municipal government is to bring government to the people. It is for this reason that municipal governments are delegated such powers and authority over matters of immediate concerns to residents. As a corollary, therefore, it will be counterproductive to suggest or even propose that the number of councilors be equal to the number of MPPs and MPs. This will make councilors somewhat detached from the people, as they will appear to be like the MPs and MPPs. It is for this reason that I find absurd the argument that reducing the number of councilors to 27 by redrawing municipal maps in a way to correspond with provincial and federal elections maps will reduce government cost.
Conclusion
The argument for the reduction of governmental expenses, while laudable, can be pursued through other means. The other argument that it will reduce the decision-making process is being propagated with little regard for the essence of municipal government and flies in the face of reason: being saddled with the task of making decision on issues that are of immediate concern to the people, enough time should be dictated to such decision-making process and more public participation should be encouraged. This will enhance the quality of decisions taken by the council and any action implementing such decisions; it will also ensure that all interests are accounted and taken care of.
Sponsored Link
No comments:
Post a Comment