More On The Democrats

In my previous post, I wrote about the need for the Democratic Party establishment to lose its fear of embracing progressive policies that actually help people. Afterwards, I came across this brief video by Robert Reich, who expresses similar sentiments in a little over three minutes, probably much more effectively than I did.

As well, a lengthy article in The Guardian addresses the progressive movement within the party, which the Trump regime has helped to stoke, says Larry Jacobs, director at the University of Minnesota's Centre for the Study of Politics and Governance.

“There’s a sense that the Democrats have been patsies in the face of Donald Trump. When Democrats say they want to fight back, they mean it.

“Donald Trump has radicalised the Democratic party,” he said. “This revolt within the party would not have happened without Donald Trump. He is provoking a kind of earthquake, raising lots of unsettling questions within the Democratic party - its direction, its leadership, its policy priorities, its beholdenness to big donors.”

If the right can conceive a radical programme in documents such as Project 2025, why can the left not be similarly ambitious?

One of the biggest impediments facing progressives in the party is the fact that the 'traditionalists' ("timid incrementalists") are beholden to powerful interests, says Joseph Geevarghese, director of One Revolution, 

“Because some of their funding depends on corporate donors, moderates have to pull punches. They are not able to articulate the causes of people’s problems. You’ve got progressives who are able to call out the corporate class and the corruption of our politics and how that affects people’s standard of living.”

Norman Solomon, director of RootsAction and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said: “One might say that hell has no fury like corporate Democrats scorned. I’m thrilled by the results in Michigan but at the same time I’m a bit apprehensive about the blowback from the powerful forces that have been accustomed to literally running the national Democratic party for many decades, arguably since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was so successful at the beginning of the 1990s.”

The DLC, founded by Al From, has the progressive movement in its sights.

From reflected this week: “We’ve been focusing on beating Republicans and the democratic socialists have been focused on beating us. We’ve got to fight back. We’ve got to make it harder for them.”

As well, the rhetoric from the Republican Party paints progressives as true threats to the very foundations of America.

Trump and the House speaker, Mike Johnson, have been seeking to revive a cold war-style panic by branding democratic socialists as “radical Marxists” and “godless communists”.

The Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Continued internecine attacks against the party's progressive movement may well accomplish what Trump and his minions alone cannot. In my opinion, only by embracing a diversity of views that, yes, challenge the status quo so favoured by party traditionalists, can they stand a real chance of gaining power in the near future.

 

UPDATED: Inspiring Terror In America: The "S" Word

 And that word would be socialism.

Particularly in America, socialism seems to evoke an extreme response among those who prefer not to think like human beings but rather react, in Pavlovian manner, to dog-whistles. For the MAGAT crowd, socialism is indistinguishable from communism and would destroy all that is holy in America, including mom, apple pie, and baseball.  To embrace socialism is to hate your country.  

Or so the narrative goes and is believed by many. Consider the following: 

Now, it is easy to mock the profoundly ignorant. Unfortunately, however, they are not the only ones to be terrorised by any hint of socialism or real progressivism. The Democratic Party is also cowering. While the party has never been very comfortable with boat-rockers like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it was largely able to keep its powder dry until the advent of two events: the election of a Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, as NYC mayor, and the Michigan Democratic Senate primary victor, Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive who holds a number of 'controversial' views, including (horrors!) healthcare for all. 

An article on Axios after Mamdani won the mayor's race is instructive:

Many Democratic leaders and donors are panicking about Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old democratic socialist who won the party's nomination to be the next mayor of New York City.

Why it matters: Establishment Democrats looking to recover from 2024's losses fear Mamdani could hurt the party's brand nationally — while young progressives believe his formula could spread beyond New York.

• Democratic leaders largely rallied behind former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York's mayoral primary, and Mamdani's shocking victory Tuesday was the latest example of the party's establishment being disconnected from many of its own voters.

• The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
• New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
• Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."

Many Democrat Party stalwarts are also nervous about Abdul El-Sayed, especially his critical view of Democrats' unconditional support for Israel, despite their genocidal depredations in Gaza.

El-Sayed, the child of Egyptian immigrants, ran on a left-wing platform with the backing of such liberal stalwarts as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Stevens [his Democratic primary opponent] had the backing of Democratic leadership in Washington, an established record as an elected official in Michigan and deep financial pockets, including $32m from Aipac - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Outside groups favoured her over El-Sayed by a margin of nine-to-one.

Aipac now plans to mount a campaign to defeat El-Sayed in the November election. 

 ... the group is unbowed and now appears willing to put what is expected to be tens of millions of dollars behind Mike Rogers, the Republican, as some of AIPAC’s major backers are urging, according to a half dozen people who have spoken with the group’s leaders.

The fear among many 'traditional' Democrats is that, in addition to his Israeli stance, El-Sayed's policies,  including government-sponsored health insurance, efforts to lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy and campaign finance reform, may not play well to rural voters. 

Sadly, for far too long, progressivism has been treated as the third rail of politics, leaving one to conclude that what the people want and need does not necessarily coincide with the Democrats' needs. As far as I can tell, that need is to secure power. Why? Because Democrats want power. I see no grand vision there; I see no higher calling to serve the public, only that naked desire for power. And although I hope they do well in their mid-terms, I don't hold out hope of major directional changes, outside of curbing some of Trump's most egregious corruption.

Trump has turned the Republican Party into a far-right apparatus that benefits only the few. Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to embrace the idea of becoming a leftist party, one that truly takes the needs of the many as its blueprint for electoral success.

UPDATE: This letter from The Globe and Mail sheds some light on a major political disincentive to work for "ordinary" people:

American way

Re “Donald Trump has turned the United States into an economic banana republic” (Opinion, Aug. 1): A compelling picture of the United States functioning like a banana republic.

The rich growing conditions for “bananas” were well-fertilized on Jan. 21, 2010. In the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down spending limits on independent political expenditures by corporations as violations of First Amendment protections on free speech. In other words, the court equated money and speech in politics as having equal protections.

Political leaders paid attention to the millions upon millions of dollars in donations which started to flow from the very rich, and now seem to only pay lip service to voters individually and collectively. Only when the impacts of this decision are reversed can America return to the growing conditions required for grassroots democracy.

Martin Birt Uxbridge, Ont.

UPDATED: A Tiresome Man

 

I know I'm not the only one who finds the incessant government of Ontario ads tiresome, just like the man behind them. Self-promotion paid for by the taxpayers, (last year about $111 million), they paint a picture of Ontario that would be in economic and criminal peril were it not for the 'wise' stewardship of Premier Doug and his gang. If you have ever seen them (it is hard to escape them in this province), you know what I am talking about.

One of the ads extols the fact that they have never raised taxes. In these times, I'm not sure that is something to brag about. Although it is a topic people don't like to think about, given the increasingly more frequent and severe natural disasters fanned by climate change, increased taxes are necessary. Fires and floods abound. 

This past week, for example, St. Catherines was hit by two major storms, both times resulting in flooded basements and much property damage.

Mayor Matt Siscoe, himself a victim, 

said the flooding has hit thousands of homes.

 "I've driven through entire neighbourhoods where every single house was dealing with it, and that was [before] Sunday night. There are entire neighbourhoods where the driveways are filled with construction debris and furniture that's been destroyed.

"There were cars floating down the street."

Every worker in his office has had their homes flooded, and most of them will need basement tear-outs, said Siscoe.

Siscoe is calling on the Ontario and federal governments to provide St. Catharines with immediate assistance, and help communities pay for upgrading critical stormwater infrastructure to better prepare for such devastating storms.

At least in Ontario, that plea is falling on deaf ears. as the provincial government has offered to send a cadre of  volunteers to assist with the cleanup, but no new dollars.

St. Catherines is just a local canary in the coal mine. Climate change is accelerating. This summer we are still contending with over 170 wildfires in northwestern Ontario, smoke from which a few short weeks ago made going outside next to impossible. A quick look at national and international news demonstrates that the dangers posed by climate change are worldwide and unrelenting.

For a long time now, Doug Ford has tried to shield himself with a cape from his Captain Canada guise, but that shtick is wearing thin. A new poll reveals that only 24% approve of his performance as premier, and 72% disapproving. Ford's most recent misstep, which I wrote about here, is just the latest one that displays how out of touch with the people he is, seemingly favouring only those that support unbridled development as the expense of everything else.

It is heartening so many are seeing through the Ford facade, a fact also attested to by letters to the editor. Here are three such missives:

Premier Ford wants to make Ontario safer. He’s doing all the wrong things

Doug Ford’s ‘Protect Ontario’ ads and messaging are a scam trying to hide the damage he’s doing, June 26

Premier Ford, please stop catastrophizing and fear mongering with your full-page safety ads.

If you want to make Ontario safer, I suggest the following: increase funding to our hospitals, provide more money for women’s support and shelters, make radar and speed cameras mandatory, stop tearing up bike lanes, bring back funding you have slashed for fighting forest fires, provide greater support for our Indigenous communities, provide more housing for the needy so they don’t have to pitch a tent, work and listen to those who support folks with addictions rather than against them.

And, lastly, repeal Bill 97 with its totalitarian undertones, which more than anything else has created a very unsafe Ontario for all.

Matthew Marosszeky, Aurora, Ont.

Come election time, Ontarians must show Ford and Co. the door

My stomach churns every time I see one of the Ford government’s ads in print or on television regarding how they are making Ontario stronger and safer.

The ads tell us they are making Ontario safer by not allowing encampments in public parks. Have they no shame, no compassion? They will not increase assistance rates or do anything to give the less fortunate a chance to improve their lives, yet they are spending thousands on advertising.

This is blatant abuse of public funds and a clear lack of interest in the welfare of our citizens.

Premier Ford and his lackeys have had their chance and have blown it.

Vote them out.

Mary Louise Reiman, Hamilton

DiManno shines light on the truth of Ford’s follies

You lost the battle of Billy Bishop, Doug Ford. Now, give the city back its seat, July 31

Star columnist Rosie DiManno gave a great summary of Premier Doug Ford’s many terrible projects, which we are all paying for.

And we are paying for those awful ads.

Thank you Rosie.

Martha Gould, North Bay, Ont.

Ford has long fashioned himself as a man of the people. The problem is the people he serves are not ones I, or countless others, know.

UPDATE: Perhaps this ad reveals a greater truth about Doug Ford's Ontario:

UPDATED: Who Do You Trust?

 

One of the pleasures of writing this blog is the opportunity it gives for expressing my and others' views. Although I often draw upon the thoughts and analyses of others, I try to frame them through my own observations and experiences, having lived a reasonably long life.

Such a life has taught me the importance of being aware of events that affect our country and our world. Reading as widely as I can has helped me hone some critical-thinking skills, skills I always say are in development, never fully realized.

All of which is my rather long-winded way of saying that when I offer my many criticisms of our federal government, led by Mark Carney, I do so with critical-thinking, analysis and personal values uppermost in my mind. And as I have stated many times here, I believe that, despite some really good trade-diversification initiatives, Carney's submissiveness to the Trump regime is leading us nowhere good.

In that conclusion I am not alone. Well-regarded writer Luke Savage has similar concerns, suggesting there is a huge gap in the rhetoric Carney used in his election address and his actual practice, promising muscularity against Trump but providing only mewling responses.

Since last year’s election, however, the Carney government has repeatedly assumed a far more deferential and obsequious posture in its dealings with Washington. In trade negotiations, it capitulated to U.S. tech giants by abandoning plans for a Digital Services Tax, dropped retaliatory tariffs and introduced draconian border legislation that has been justly criticized by human rights groups.

Moreover, this approach has also taken us down some dark avenues.

Earlier this year, Carney offered swift backing for the illegal U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran (even as that war’s earliest casualties included nearly 200 children killed in the bombing of a school.) He has similarly backed the administration’s Orwellian “Board of Peace” plans in Gaza, indicated a willingness to sign on to its proposed “Golden Dome” defence initiative, refrained from criticizing Marco Rubio’s attempts to dismantle the International Criminal Court through coercion and sought to reassure American investors by pledging to help “Make America Great Again.” Last fall, the government also invited Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts — a key Trump ally and architect of the far-right blueprint Project 2025 — to attend a closed-door meeting with members of cabinet (the visit was ultimately cancelled, almost certainly thanks to the ensuing backlash.) Does anyone seriously think this was what Canadians elected the Carney-led Liberals to do?

Even worse was to lend, by attendance, Canada's imprimatur to a summit convened by Marco Rubio on "left-wing terrorism" (in all practical terms, anyone who challenges the Trump agenda).

 [T]he conference is part of a wider neo-McCarthyite push to criminalize political opponents (as journalist Ken Klippenstein notes, related administration documents even make explicit reference to the likes of Black Lives Matter, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the union that represents Amazon workers.)

When asked about Canada’s attendance at the summit, officials at Foreign Affairs said only that the government “reg­u­larly exchanges views with other coun­tries on viol­ent extrem­ism trends,” further stressing the “long history” of co-oper­a­tion with the United States in the fight against ter­ror­ism. 

Savage says some will argue that Carney is simply doing what is necessary  to reduce the damage inflicted by the deranged Trump. If that is the case, we have gotten little from such acts of prostitution. But the writer posits another possibility:

But we should also consider the possibility that Carney’s apparent promise of a new and more independent global posture was never really genuine in the first place.

Both at home and abroad, the Trump threat serves as a pretext for a form of would-be pragmatism that is really just conservatism by any other name. Within its own borders, Canada is increasingly being run less like a country and more like a business.

There is much evidence to support this thesis:

[Canada's] abandonment of climate targets and gutting of environmental regulations; its tax cuts for the wealthy; its slash and burn attitude toward the public sector; and its overzealous embrace of AI. 

This also helps explain the very stark difference between the prime minister’s campaign rhetoric and his incessant pursuit of cosy relations with Washington. After all, key planks of the Carney program — from the construction of new oil and gas infrastructure to the ramping up of military procurement and the supercharging of AI — will ultimately require the close involvement of U.S.-based companies and investors. Among other things, that practically guarantees strategic alignment with the Trump administration and the maintenance of friendly relations with America’s unapologetically pro-corporate president as long as he remains in office. 

Many will be loathe to accept such a critical take on Mr. Carney's government, preferring the pleasing illusion that he is moving all of us in the right direction for the right reasons. However, if, as Luke Savage suggests, something more sinister is at work, we would be well-advised to look a little closer at our prime minister and his policies, and bear in mind the old advice about not being fooled by a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

UPDATE: Here's an interesting thought from a Globe and Mail reader. While I don't agree with his thoughts on alcohol, he poses a question many of us have probably had:

While I agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent plan to rule out restricting exports of oil or natural gas to the U.S. in retaliation for tariffs and insults, I question why he chose to make that position public. He has repeatedly said that Canada would not negotiate in public, yet this announcement seems to do exactly that.

A more effective response would be to charge world market prices for the energy we export to the United States. That move would benefit Canada far more than restricting supply and is better than retaliatory tariffs, which ultimately raise costs for Canadians.

And speaking of restrictions, removing American liquor from store shelves was a mistake. Put it back and make Ottawa’s task easier.

Peter M. Gallop Toronto

Watching And Waiting

 

My friend Dave from Winnipeg called last night, and, as often happens, talk to turned to politics. I expressed my growing doubts about Mark Carney's ability to effectively negotiate with Trump, given his myriad concessions to the Mad King, about which I have written many times in this blog. Dave, on the other hand, seems to still feel a measure of cautious optimism about our prime minister, suggesting that compromise is always necessary when dealing with someone as unhinged as Trump.

I suspect that August 19th, the day Trump's threats about new 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods (including CUSMA compliant ones) are supposed to go into effect, will go a long way toward settling the question. Doing nothing will only invite more rapacious abuse. A strong response, some will argue, will invite even harsher retaliation from Trump. Ultimately, however, we have to ask whether our sovereignty is something we prize above almost all else, or merely a fungible and quaint concept.

Toronto Star letters to the editor offer some thoughts on the matter:

How Canada should retaliate to Trump’s tariffs

Trump has threatened a 50 per cent tax on some more Canadian exports to the U.S., July 20

So, Trump wants to tax Canadian exports to the U.S. at 50 per cent, but not all exports. He has exempted energy and potash. I wonder why? Is it because a 50 per cent tax on petroleum would be paid by all consumers in the US? A tax of 50 per cent on potash would massively increase the cost of fertilizer to U.S. farmers which, not inconsequentially, mostly voted for Trump.

I think that if Trump’s 50 per cent tax does go into effect Canada ought to impose a 50 per cent export tax on energy and potash which would be borne by U.S. consumers and farmers. Canada could send the proceeds of the tax to the provinces where the products originated. The provinces could then distribute the proceeds to the affected companies. It would not likely make them entirely whole because there would be some drop in demand due to the higher cost, but it would mitigate the loss.

David Crowe, Toronto

The suggestion by Cameron McCuaig (Letters, July 27th) that Canada is overly dependent on American goods overstates the case. Virtually everything Americans sell us can be obtained elsewhere at similar or better prices. Examples are winter vegetables (South & Central America) and cars (Korea, Japan and China).

However, the U.S. is highly dependent on Canadian raw materials and energy. There is no easy replacement for Quebec electricity, or western heavy petroleum. There is absolutely no replacement for Canadian potash since Canada is, by far, the world’s largest exporter and producer!

Canadian aluminum is found in every gasoline-powered car’s cylinder head and often cylinder block too. American smelters have been unable to compete and many have closed. Americans have not been buying our copper, cobalt, nickel, softwood lumber and pulp because they “like” us – we offer quality product at a better price.

I would like to see Canada quietly impose a modest (say 5 per cent) export tax on all these goods. Trump would complain, but imposing even more tariffs on us would not be clever. Remember, Trump’s tariffs are actually a tax on Americans!

Let him puzzle out where else these essential commodities could be sourced. Appropriate supply chains would yield higher priced goods (why we were preferred suppliers), and take time to organize.

If Trump didn’t begin to lower tariffs on Canada, within (say) 8-10 weeks, we should bump up the export tax by another 5% - and mount an advertising campaign telling Americans why we were doing this.

This should hit consumers just in time for the mid-term elections. 

Peter Bursztyn, Barrie, Ont.

To fight dependence on the U.S., Canada needs to rediscover its resilience

For more than eighty years, Canada has grown increasingly dependent upon the United States. During those decades, economic integration brought prosperity, a rising standard of living, and the comforting assumption that our closest ally would always remain a reliable partner. Comfort gradually became complacency.

An ancient Japanese proverb observes, “Matters long neglected slowly change in response to the various forces of nature.” Canada neglected to ask a fundamental question: What if the United States ceased to be dependable? Over the past decade, tariffs, economic pressure, and shifting political priorities in Washington have exposed how vulnerable Canada has become to decisions made beyond our borders.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge illustrates this imbalance. Financed largely by Canadian taxpayers at a cost of approximately $6.4 billion, it was intended to generate toll revenues that would recover Canada’s investment. When the United States later sought different financial terms, Canada found itself negotiating from a position of weakness. The episode demonstrated how difficult it is to resist American pressure when so much of our prosperity depends upon access to the U.S. market.

If sovereignty is to be preserved, Canada may need to rediscover the resilience that sustained earlier generations through war, hardship, and sacrifice. Prosperity has brought many blessings, but it has also encouraged dependence. Greater national independence may require greater self-reliance.

Trust is the foundation of every enduring partnership. Once confidence is lost, agreements become suspect, cooperation becomes conditional, and every negotiation is approached with caution. Rebuilding trust is far more difficult than preserving it.

Canada has enjoyed more than eighty years of peace on its own soil, yet history reminds us that nations seldom lose their freedom in a single dramatic moment. Independence is more often surrendered gradually through convenience, complacency and dependence. Canada’s challenge is not merely to protect its prosperity but to ensure that prosperity never comes at the expense of sovereignty. 

John Leberg, Toronto

Just a point of clarification: export taxes are usually borne by the exporter, but those costs are recovered by higher prices charged to the importer. Many, of course,  will cite concerns about domestic unity as a reason not to apply such levies to products from Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, we must ultimately ask this question: Does Canada have what it takes to defend ourselves, no matter the potential cost?

He's Done It Again

 

We probably all remember an activity in elementary school called show-and-tell. It consisted of bringing something to school to explain to classmates how it worked, what it was for, etc. It was an activity designed to foster public speaking and student confidence and, according to some, helped build character. It was part of most people's early education.

I can only imagine it was one of Mark Carney's favourite activities when he was a youngster. Unfortunately, that early experience does not seem to have served him well as prime minister. How else can one explain how he keeps telegraphing to Donald Trump and his minions our negotiation 'strategy' (if it can even be called that) in advance of CUSMA renegotiations and pending punishing new tariffs of 50%, set to begin in August.

Despite averring that "everything is on the table" in anticipation of those new tariffs, Mr. Carney has essentially shown and told the opposite.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is ruling out restricting Canada’s oil and gas supply to the U.S. in the face of President Donald Trump’s expanding trade war, removing a potent bargaining chip as Ottawa seeks a deal with Washington.

Mr. Carney’s government is also planning to scrap a tax on online streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, the latest in a series of concessions to U.S. trade demands for which Canada has not received anything in return.

Make no mistake - oil would be a potent bargaining chip, and even though we might be very reluctant to turn off the taps, there are other possibilites, such as substantial export taxes.

The U.S. is heavily dependent on Canadian oil – importing about four million barrels a day, nearly two-thirds of all its petroleum imports – making it a powerful potential leverage point.

As well, Carney justified another capitulation as an affordability measure:

Mr. Carney also defended Ottawa’s decision to end a 5-per-cent tax that streamers must pay to support the creation of Canadian television, movie and music content. A government lawyer wrote in a July 17 court document that Ottawa intends to “eliminate” the levy.

The Prime Minister insisted on Wednesday that the policy U-turn was about keeping streaming services affordable. “Most Canadians have one or two or more of these streamers and it’s real money. This stuff adds up.”

These most recent measures are but part of a larger pattern:

Since taking office last year, Mr. Carney has made a string of concessions to Mr. Trump, such as rolling back retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and cancelling a planned digital services tax. Earlier this month, Ottawa agreed to give the U.S. half the net toll revenue from the new Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, even though Canada paid the entire $6.4-billion price tag to build the span.

The result of these appeasement measures? 

So far, however, Mr. Trump has only increased tariffs on Canada and the two sides have not reached Mr. Carney’s promised trade deal.

Former U.S. diplomat Scotty Greenwood sees the folly of such capitualatory measures, saying we need to show strength to the Americans:

“Canadians have been hesitant or reticent to flex their muscle. It’s time to be really tough and really flex,” she said. “With this particular President, this particular counterparty, you’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength.”

I 'm sure I am but one of millions of Canadians growing increasingly dismayed by Mark Carney's 'tactics'. Indeed, they suggest only that he is preparing to bring just one more thing to his show-and-tell performance with the United States:

 

 

UPDATED: Meanwhile, In Ontario

 

Contrary to what its citizens may think, Ontario generally and Toronto specifically do not occupy centre stage in most Canadians' minds. Therefore, I don't often write about the province where I live; however, sometimes there is a confluence of national and provincial politics. The decision not to expand Billy Bishop Airport is one such instance.

Although I do not live in Toronto and visit it as infrequently as possible, I was almost jubilant when I learned that the Carney government had said no to power-mad premier Doug Ford's intention to expand the airport to accommodate jets. A city with a history of blighting its waterfront with towering condos that block views and access to Lake Ontario, it was heartening that city residents rallied in force against Ford's plan, which would have seen the expropriation of parkland and Toronto Island land to allow for those jets. Esthetics aside, it would also have meant exposure to much more toxic pollution for anyone living nearby, since jets expend a great deal of fuel both taking off and landing. 

Nonetheless, the Ontario government is unwilling to admit defeat. And that refusal also reveals what it thinks of those who actively engage in their democratic rights.

Blasting the federal government for listening to “a small fringe group in Toronto,” provincial Transportation Minister Prabmeet Sarkaria insists the Billy Bishop expansion is not dead. 

“We’ve seen the federal government here listen to a small fringe group in Toronto, but we, as the province, will continue to push forward on modernization of this airport because it’s the right thing to do and it makes sense,” he said Tuesday at an unrelated announcement in St. Thomas.

Sarkaria's thoughts epitomize how this government exercises its power. It operates on the principle that it knows best about all things, and voters have only to accept that 'truth'. Such is reflected in the fact that prior to the decision, Ford disempowered Toronto as one of the tripartite partners in the operation of the airport. The city lost its authority through provincial legislation, and there is clearly no desire for the Ford government to reflect upon its decisions.

Perhaps provincial NDP leader Marit Stiles says it best:

“This premier’s obsession with Toronto has gone on long enough. Minister Sarkaria referring to the people who opposed this project as a ‘fringe group’ is a pathetic insult to the tens of thousands of people who fought back against this ridiculous project,” said Stiles.

“Doug Ford didn’t get his way, and his ministers are lashing out at constituents for using their democratic rights. We don’t need jets in the middle of Toronto. Bill 110 is still law, and Doug Ford has given himself the power to do whatever he wants with Little Norway Park and the Toronto Islands. It’s time for the premier to end this land grab, kill Bill 110, and return these lands to the city of Toronto.”

Is the expansion of Billy Bishop dead? That remains to be seen, but, as Theo Moudakis reminds us in the above editorial cartoon, three federal byelections are pending. With Toronto having so many Liberal MPs, the results of those byelections will determine whether Mark Carney continues with his majority.

As always, politics being what it is, I believe it is wise to exercise a degree of cynical caution about the course of future events.

UPDATE I thought a few comments from Globe and Mail readers might be a useful illustration of what people think of Mr. Ford:

The Ford government is increasingly becoming disconnected from reality. They’re so self-absorbed and arrogant that they’re unable to acknowledge reality. Calling tens of thousands of Torontonians, and the silent majority who did not want this expansion, a “small fringe group” is language straight out of the Trump playbook and the reaction of a child. It’s pathetic and sad to watch.

 Wake up Premier Ford, this is definitely NOT a small fringe movement.

I was chatting today after golf with 11 other golfers in our group, one had not heard about the issue, the others who pan the political spectrum all spoke up in favour of the Federal ban on the proposed 10 fold expansion of the Island airport.

I live in the north of Toronto, and am steadfastly agin the proposed huge expansion, Reasons are many, including > heavy traffic congestion already in the area, (it takes around 25 mins by free shuttle from the CP Royal York to the airport).

> heavy erosion of Toronto's lovely waterfront and islands via 10 times more airplanes, mainly jets, together with their noise and pollution.

> the fact that Hamilton airport can be dramatically expanded, and just needs a GO train into Union, which could take maybe 30 mins, similar to the bus ride from the Fairmont. Further Hamilton airport is ideally located in regard to the population of the Golden Horsehoe, (Hamilton, Burlington, KW, London etc).

So Premier Ford, please wake up to reality....and if you do not believe me, do a phone MR Study. Oh wait a second, don't put that on the taxpayers tab.

 

I'm a Montrealer, but I visit Toronto a few times a year and the Islands are the best part of your beautiful city. Multiplying the traffic of Billy Bishop would ruin so much of your waterfront and parks, and the UP Express makes it very easy to get to Pearson so the expansion is not needed