Mayor Wayne Redekop
April 16, 2026, Volume 7, Issue 16
During much of the first half of the Nineteenth Century, Upper Canada (now Ontario) was governed by a group of wealthy professionals, merchants and clergy appointed to their positions by the Lieutenant General. The “Family Compact” could override decisions made by the popularly elected Legislative Assembly and was accountable only to the Lieutenant General and the British government. Staunchly conservative and loyal to British traditions, it resisted democratic reform. Its power was eventually eroded and finally dissolved by the rebellion led by William Lyon Mackenzie in 1937 and the recommendations of Lord Durham’s 1839 report, which arose from the rebellion and which resulted in the Act of Union, which united the legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada and strengthened responsible government in the colony.
That became the foundation for democracy in Canada as we now know it. Or, in Ontario, as we thought we knew it. Over the past several years, there have been some strange changes to how local government and some provincial agencies operate. Strong mayors have been given the power to override the decisions of the majority of council with the support of only one-third of the councillors. Popularly elected local councils are under pressure to reduce their numbers, while the provincial government has introduced legislation to eliminate elections for councillors in Niagara and Simcoe County. Elected school boards may vanish. Unelected Regional Chairs appointed by the government may be given “strong mayor” powers, including veto power. That would mean that an unelected individual could set aside decisions of the majority of elected Regional Council, made up soon of only the 12 mayors in Niagara, with the support of only 2 mayors who would possess weighted votes.
These changes are unprecedented and represent a clear threat to democracy in Ontario. This drift away from representative government is shrouded in the veil of necessity for the provincial government to meet the housing crisis or the need to save money. But one has to wonder how strong mayors of municipalities, some with a population of 4,500 or 5,000 residents, can generate the environment to expedite housing construction in the face of broader economic challenges. One has to wonder if there aren’t other policies that the provincial government could adopt to allow it to fulfill its agenda without depriving citizens of the right to choose their own local leaders or undermining the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule.
The Premier frequently complains about the number of elected representatives (“politicians”) in Niagara or municipal tax increases or court decisions made by unelected judges. He never mentions that the 126 politicians in Niagara cost its residents less than the 16 members of the City of Hamilton council. He doesn’t mention that eliminating directly elected regional councillors in Niagara will save the residents less than 1/5 of one percent on their tax levy. Nor does he mention that the provincial government short changes Niagara over $100 million each year (over 20% of the general tax levy) through the services (policing, ambulance, public health, community services) that it requires the Region to provide its residents without funding assistance. Nor does he mention that the requirement for municipalities to contribute to the construction of hospitals adds a significant financial burden to property owners. Niagara Health has requested from the Town of Fort Erie $10.5 million for the new South Niagara Hospital. That is the equivalent of a 28% tax increase for our local residents and businesses. Even spread over a 10-year period, that means that for that item alone, taxpayers would face a 2.8% annual tax increase.
The consolidation of power, the drift away from democracy and the alignment of financial responsibilities are not sustainable. And should not be acceptable.
