Why Is This Man Exuberant?

 

Well, he has just become a trillionaire, one of the many reasons Elon Musk must feel chuffed these days. Being a master of the universe is surely a heady experience, one denied to almost everyone on the planet. But this visionary entrepreneur, according to a recent column by Mark McQueen, represents an opportunity for all of us, and should be thus lionized, not villified as he is by many:

I don’t care whether Musk is personally worth $1 billion or $1 trillion — both are tough to fathom. But he didn’t steal that money from his neighbours, like some embezzling tinpot dictator. And by allowing others to invest alongside him, Musk’s actually sharing his unique gifts in a far more tangible way than the world’s most talented opera singer or footballer.

Do you want to guess which group of Canadians probably don’t hate him? The beneficiaries of the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan.

A canny $300 million pre-IPO investment into SpaceX is now worth more than $20 billion to 346,000 Ontario teachers. It’s a windfall that must surely be the single best payday in the history of their plan. For every teacher in the plan, the pension fund has already gained over $35,000 from Musk’s efforts — capital that can be used to enhance future pension benefits or reduce payroll deductions.

Silicon Valley’s much maligned “Bro culture” delivered handsomely for our educators, a sector that’s about 75 per cent female.

Not so fast, says Star letter-writer Tony D'Anrea of Toronto:

Mark McQueen argues that entrepreneurs who amass millions or trillions are good for Canada because their success helps fund teachers’ pensions — 75 per cent female, no less. On first glance, his claim that one man’s towering fortune lifts us all seems a prosperous insight. But it does not follow that every rich person’s singular fortune is a social good.

McQueen treats Elon Musk becoming a trillionaire as a win-win. Instead it’s a zero-sum game. Adam Smith wrote convincingly about how self-interest working cooperatively achieved “the wealth of nations.” There is no proof that the wealth of one man benefits a greater number.

The “rising tide” defence of extreme wealth requires the tide to actually rise. Consider the ledger. Musk spent $250 million helping elect Donald Trump, then ran DOGE, which gutted some of the very programs McQueen credits the wealthy with sustaining. USAID dismantled. Children’s cancer research defunded. The Department of Education abolished. A boon for Canada’s teachers’ pensions is cold comfort in the face of all this gutting of programs. Some of these programs may have even benefitted Canadians down the road. 

The issue is not entrepreneurship but scale. Beyond a certain point, extreme wealth purchases political influence, reshapes public priorities and amplifies one individual’s power over millions. No Musk fortune, no Trump war in Iran, no daily trauma visited on the Cuban people and no unending disruptions of the world order.

A trillion dollars in one pocket is not a social dividend. It’s a bill the rest of the world is paying.

Readers of McQueen’s millionaires’ prosperity gospel should remember: “caveat emptor”.

With great power comes great responsibility, something people of Elon Musk's ilk seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Meet The Enemy

If you have young children or grandchildren, you will know who this lovely lady is. Unfortunately, In Trump's Amerika, she is regarded by some as a treasonous subversive for her advocacy.

UPDATED: An Exercise We Should Be Avoiding At All Costs

While I am all for exercises that help keep us healthy, supple and mobile, as Canadians there is one that we should never undertake: bending over for bullies. The flexibility it engenders is bad for our national reputation.  Unfortunately, however, it is looking increasingly like our federal government's exercise of choice in pursuing its relationship with the U.S.

Consider the 'suppleness' we have shown thus far: removal of most of the retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.; removal of the digital services tax; the pending removal of the CRTC's order for streaming giants to start paying 15% of their Canadian revenues toward productions in this country.

For all of this, what have we gotten from the U.S. and The Beast that leads it? Nothing, coupled with a claim of indifference to renewing the CUSMA agreement, and a demand to be 'compensated' for the new Gordie Howe bridge before it can open, despite the fact that it was built entirely on our dime.

These exercises in submission, a far cry from the elbows up we were urged to practise for so long, have yielded nothing but more American disdain, and it has undeniably gravely hurt our national reputation, as well as our national pride.

Columnist Mark McQueen offers his thoughts on what we have done to ourselves viv a vis the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which was to be officially opened today:

When asked for a reaction, the White House threw a wrench in the works, saying that the “president’s position on the Gordie Howe Bridge has not changed. The Administration remains committed to securing the best possible deal for the American people.”

One could take that statement to mean either that the bridge would be opening, despite the president’s prior objections. Or, ominously, that Ottawa’s announcement didn’t have the support of the U.S. Administration.

On Wednesday, the trump card was quickly laid, with the president telling reporters that he is “not looking to renew” the CUSMA. Period.

Sound a bit like The Beast's famous dealing? Guess it worked:

Terrible poker players that they are, the federal Liberals folded immediately. Early yesterday, Ottawa formally rescinded its invitations [for the opening].

What the feds could have done, according to McQueen, was something quite different.

 If Ottawa wanted to give life to its “Elbow’s Up” campaign, it would have been poetic to unilaterally open Howe’s namesake bridge. The president clearly wasn’t on board with the opening in the absence of a broader trade deal, meaning that Ottawa proceeded without Trump’s consent.

That was a valid, NHL Enforcer-like strategy, had the Liberals just stuck to it.

One of two things would have happened: Washington would have acquiesced, recognizing the economic benefits of improved border flows might help Republicans prevail in key Senate races in Michigan and Ohio this fall.

In the alternative, Washington was within their rights to keep their U.S. Customs plaza closed tight. But that wouldn’t have stopped Carney from capitalizing on the summer tourist season by opening the bridge to U.S. vacationers and truckers looking to take Gordie Howe into Canada.

Instead, Canada’s new ambassador to Washington, Mark Wiseman, allowed the worst of all scenarios to play out: Ottawa kicked the president in the shins, only to immediately capitulate, yet again.

And what final form that capitulation will take is the thing that troubles me most. Instead of keeping all the tolls until the bridge is paid for, will Carney try more appeasement? Will he offer half the bridge to the Americans? Will he agree that the Americans should get all the tolls? The possible scenarios are many, all with the same result: more national humiliation.

UPDATE: If you subscribe to The Globe, I'd suggest you read this article. If you don't, here are a few salient points:

The existing century-old Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by the billionaire Michigan-based Moroun family, who charge vehicles at least double the rate paid at publicly owned crossings in other parts of Ontario.

Despite having a monopoly for many years, the Morouns want more:

United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra are trying to negotiate a deal that would save the Moroun family from losing too much money once they have to compete with the publicly owned Gordie Howe bridge, The Globe reported.

The Moroun family, which also owns a trucking empire, has fought for years to shut down any competition to the Ambassador, pouring tens of millions of dollars into federal and state politics along the way. That includes donating more than US$1-million to a campaign group supporting U.S. President Donald Trump. The family had also employed a lobbying firm – Ballard Partners – well-connected within the Trump administration, counting Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and his ex-attorney-general, Pam Bondi, among its former employees.

A commentator on the site suggested closing down the Canadian portion of the Ambassador Bridge, citing drug and gun traffic. That'll never happen, of course, but anyway, one can dream of a government with spine, eh?

A Very Costly Innovation

 

Having instant answers at one's beck and call would seem to be a dream come true. Ask any question and get an almost instant answer, complete with citations and statistics. What would have seemed like magic but a few years ago is now becoming commonplace.

Artificial intelligence is here, and it's not going away. The question then becomes, "How do we regulate it?"

And there is no doubt that regulation is needed, if not because of its outsized social influence on people's lives, then because of its huge demands upon the environment and its resources. Consider, for example, the following A.I centre being planned by Kevin O'Leary for Alberta:

The project is planned for approximately 65 square kilometres owned by the Municipal District of Greenview, including Crown land transferred to them in a series of purchase agreements. A plot that size would fit about 130 West Edmonton Malls.

Physicist  Robert Davies has a well-considered description of such megaprojects:

“From here on, I’ll refer to these energy-and-heat behemoths—massive compute fused with massive power generation—as Gigascale AI Smelters, smelting data and material strip-mined from people and planet.”

At a realistic generation efficiency for a gas plant, Davies said supplying 9 GW of electricity would mean “burning fuel at a continuous rate on the order of 16 to 18 GW, day and night, year-round.”

 And this project cannot be  looked upon in isolation.

Because numerous companies are already extracting resources from the area, creating “dense access networks through the surrounding forest,” Davies said cumulative effects studies should be done and a “whole systems analysis” is needed.

Wonder Valley is proposed in a region struggling with drought conditions, about 460 kilometres north of Edmonton, near Grande Prairie, Alberta, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas deposits, the Montney Formation.

“Everything is connected: feedback loops in complex systems like this mean effects of one kind generate other effects of other kinds,” Davies wrote. 

“Essentially the entire fuel burn ends up as heat released at the site, because the electricity is consumed onsite and degrades, in full, to heat.”

An open house was held to 'allay' concerns, but judging by some of the comments, it did not achieve its objective.

 Ret Louise, another Grande Prairie resident, posted her concerns on Facebook after attending the open house, asking “why should anyone trust what Kevin O’Leary says?” Louise added that ordinary Albertans are left bearing the risks of billionaires granted approvals without Indigenous consultation.

She emphasized the need to protect water resources and air quality, mitigate impacts to wildlife, and align major projects with the province’s long-term interests. Sturgeon Lake is preparing to argue in court that the Crown failed to uphold its duty to consult with the First Nation in granting a water licence for Wonder Valley. O’Leary is challenging the Nation’s assertion the municipality had a duty to consult.

It would be foolish to look upon this megaproject as a one-off, and signs are that the public is becoming increasingly concerned about environmental and quality of life issues surrounding A.I. data centres. For example, a recent committee of adjustment meeting in Hamilton drew hundreds to the council chambers over a proposed severance of land to facilitate the building of one on former Stelco lands. Their collective voice was so strong that the severance was denied. That doesn't mean the project will not ultimately come to fruition, but at least a public obstacle has been placed in the path to development.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government have embraced A.I. as one of the keys to Canada's future. One can only hope that future is not embraced at any cost. 

Refreshing And Succinct

I was writing recently about the sad state of politics in Ontario under Doug Ford. Manitoba offers a refreshing contrast under its NDP government, led by Wab Kinew who, according to friends in that province, is doing a fine job for the people.

I especially like his response to American whiners like Pete Hoekstra and Jamieson Greer, who demand that 'trade irritants', such as the ban on American alcohol in most provinces, be rescinded.

UPDATED: Summertime

 

"Summertime, and the living is easy", or so goes the song. With the Ontario legislature rising for for an almost five-month recess after having sat for a gruelling 29 days this spring, this will surely be the case for our MPPs. For the rest of us, maybe not so much.

Clearly, Doug Ford's Progressive Conservatives prefer the natural heat of the summer to the sauna-like conditions provided by opposition parties at Queen's Park:

The 148-day recess — after MPPs sat just 30 days since an unusually long winter hiatus — has opposition parties accusing Ford of avoiding scrutiny over controversies like student loan cuts and his purchase of a $28.9-million jet dubbed the “gravy plane.”

“This government can’t get out of this place fast enough because we are calling them to account every day,” New Democrat Leader Marit Stiles said Tuesday after grilling Ford in question period over affordability issues, branding him “out of touch.” 

 Green Leader Mike Schreiner scoffed at that rationale to justify a five-month break.

“They directly interfered in Toronto elections back in 2018 so it’s BS,” Schreiner charged, referring to Ford’s move to cut the size of Toronto city council before that year’s municipal vote. 

“The only reason we’re not here is Doug Ford can’t take the heat,” said interim Liberal leader John Fraser, who trolled Ford over the jet in the legislature by handing the premier silver pilot wings to pin on his lapel.

My guess is that Ford thinks this long recess will heal all wounds, the kinds that he has inflicted by his dictatorial style of governance. And yet to anyone who cares about democracy and holding our representatives to account, this is a flagrant and deep insult, one many of us will not forget. 

We cannot forget, for example, being saddled with an inept and corrupt government, (will the RCMP investigation, which will reach its three-year mark in October, ever end?). 

We cannot forget that here is a man with such a parochial vision that he governs like the mayor of Toronto. Here are some of his 'achievements' :

• bike lane removals, 
• the pending expropriation of land for an expanded Billy Bishop Airport, 
• the removal of speed cameras in school zones, 
• the closing of the Ontario Science Centre, 
• the shady deal to get a luxury spa built on the waterfront

And as the premier, Ford has presided over 

• schools in crisis
• growing homelessness and addiction
• hallway medicine
• downloading that has left municipal taxpayers barely hanging on
• tunnel-under-highway schemes that would cost countless billions
• an expensive purchase of a jet, later rescinded after widespread outcries
• gutting the OSAP program, leaving many students in precarious positions
• etc. etc.etc.

The voting public has granted Ford considerable leeway, given his Captain Canada schtick, playing Mark Carney's pitbull against the deranged Donald Trump, but after a certain point, that persona grows old. 

One of my biggest beefs is the massive spending of taxpayers' dollars on how well Ontario is doing in protecting jobs, making life more affordable, etc. to the tune of at least $103 million in 2025. They are a regular feature of ads during newscasts and a multitude of other broadcasts. *

Marit Stiles, the provincial NDP leader, offers this withering assessment of the Ford regime and its sad record:

They say you can run but you cannot hide. One hopes that those who oppose this government will hold it to account, both within and without the legislature.

* UPDATE: Here are some letters to the editor that attest to Ontarian's dismay over the ads:

‘Truth in advertising’ should apply to Ford government

The Ford government’s relentless marketing machine, May 30

I couldn’t help but read the full-page advertisement the Ford government recently placed in the Star regarding Ontario’s bail system. At the bottom of the page there was a small message: “Paid for by the Government of Ontario.” I’ve heard that phrase used frequently in the government’s radio ads, too. It strikes me that, in fact, the ads were ultimately paid for by Ontario taxpayers. I believe this material should instead indicate that it’s been “Paid for by the Government of Ontario on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.”

Richard Kadziewicz, Toronto

The Ford government is misusing taxpayer dollars by purchasing what are clearly campaign ads. These ads should be paid for by the Progressive Conservative party. We need a provincial government that’s willing to ensure every Ontarian has access to safe shelter, healthy food and high-quality health care.

Marcia Zalev, Toronto

It seems I can’t watch a Blue Jays game or turn on the radio or even go to the movies these days without seeing or hearing these Ford government ads. Just how much are these adds costing our province? And by the way, the disclaimer should read: “Paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.” Shame on Premier Doug Ford for squandering our tax dollars.

Mary Lou Calce, Toronto

The Ford government needs to stop spending Ontario taxpayers’ money on advertisements touting how well the province is ostensibly doing. It seems whenever I turn on the television, I see another commercial telling us how successful the Tories have been on housing, jobs and the economy. I don’t need expensive TV ads trying to convince me everything is going well. The money should be directed toward essential public services instead. Education and health care are facing real pressures. Schools in Ontario are stretched thin and classrooms are overcrowded. Our hospitals continue to struggle with staffing shortages and long wait times. These are the areas in which taxpayer money could make a meaningful difference. Government advertising should provide necessary information to the public, not serve as a marketing campaign. When I see these commercials, I don’t feel reassured; I feel my money is being wasted. Ford should focus less on self-promotion and more on funding the public services Ontarians rely on.

Lee Hull, Godfrey, Ont.

I read with interest a letter to the editor written by Lee Hull of Godfrey, Ont. This letter, which is critical of the Ford government’s relentless advertising campaigns, should be republished on a daily basis so that more Ontarians are made aware of how Ford is wasting our tax dollars. I’d like to know how much is really being spent on these ads that serve only to pat the PCs on the back. As Hull notes, the premier should be spending that money on improving provincial services instead.

Judy Worsley, Toronto

Old Or New - What's The Difference?

 Robert Rech gives us the opportunity to ponder the question: