Judged And Found Wanting

If the true measure of a society is to be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members, Ontario, under the Doug Ford regime, and all those who voted for it, must be found wanting.

Perhaps it is a function of age, but the older I get as I continue to enjoy a comfortable retirement, the more my thoughts turn to the less fortunate in our society, a segment that was enjoying demonstrable improvement in the quality of their lives thanks to the basic income project imitated under the former Wynne government. Unfortunately, despite his campaign promise to continue with the experiment for its intended three-year term, Doug Ford broke his word and cancelled it early, the final cheque being sent out this month.

And the consequences will be severe:

Under the pilot project, individuals received up to about $17,000 annually while couples could get up to about $24,000. A top-up of $6,000 was available for those with disabilities.

In addition to fewer rules and surveillance, basic income was more generous than social assistance, which provides an annual income for basic needs and shelter of almost $9,000 for individuals, $13,600 for couples and just over $14,000 for a person with a disability.

Consider a few of the people whose lives were starting to show measurable improvement under the program, as reported last year:

Wendy Moore, who has been homeless for almost two years, is looking for an apartment.

After couch-surfing for almost two years, Moore, 60, is using her basic income payment to look for stable housing.

“My biggest focus is getting my own place and giving poor John his apartment back,” said Moore, who has been sleeping on her friend’s living room sofa for about a year.

Before joining the program in October, the single mother of six and grandmother of 12 was “barely surviving” on $330 a month in basic needs allowance from Ontario Works, the province’s welfare program for people without disabilities. [Because she was homeless, she did not qualify for a shelter allowance]

But under the basic income experiment, Moore receives $1,416 a month, an amount that remains constant no matter where she lives.

“It is giving me back my independence,” she said. “I don’t feel so backed into a corner. If I want to eat, I can afford to buy something instead of going to a food bank or a soup kitchen.”

Or consider Lindsay resident Kathy Mahood, 53:

When she joined the pilot project in October [2017], she was living on about $735 a month in federal Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and proceeds from the sale of her house.

“I figured I had a year and a half left before I would lose my apartment and have to rent a room. It was pretty frightening,” she said.

But with $1,200 in basic income every month on top of her disability benefits, Mahood has money for rent and healthy food — and has begun making regular payments to clear her credit card debt.

“If I am careful, I should be debt-free when the program ends in three years,” she said.

Mahood was able to buy modest Christmas gifts for her four grandchildren in December. She could afford to buy ingredients for Christmas baking. She can put gas in her car and has money for repairs.

“I feel healthier and I am not stressed all the time about money,” she said.

But those dreams are all over for many, many people. Here is how a few beneficiaries of the project plan to spend their last cheque this month:

Carmen Lord, 46, of Hamilton, who works part time in a dry-cleaning shop.

Monthly basic income: $1,415

Last payment will be spent on making extra car and auto insurance payments so she doesn’t lose her car.

“When I got the basic income in April (2018) I used the extra money to buy a car so it would be easier to get to work,” said Lord, who had a full-time job at a tech-support company at the time. “When I was laid off last fall, the basic income helped me stay ahead of my bills. But now I’m panicking. If I can’t find a full-time job, I will lose my car.”

Tracey Crosson, 47, of Thunder Bay, who moved to Toronto in January for better medical care.

Monthly basic income: $1,916

Last payment will be spent on credit card debt and advance payments for hydro, phone and internet.

“I need to get ahead of my bills because I am going to be living on $168 after rent (in May),” said Crosson, who has relied on ODSP on and off for the past 20 years due to an accident and will return to the program in April. Her monthly income will drop to just $1,169.

“It’s going to be tight. I need to pay ahead on my bills and get some extra food so I’m not starving. If I don’t do this, I’m either going to be dead or starving in six months.”

Dana Bowman, a 57-year-old grandmother from Lindsay.

Monthly basic income: $1,916

Last payment will be spent on grocery cards, advance payments for phone and internet, and household basics like toilet paper.

“The basic income gave me more courage to talk about poverty. It gave us a chance to give our input on what works for us instead of (the government) sticking us in boxes that haven’t worked in the past,” she said. “It’s going to be hard to go back to living on just $667 a month for basic needs … and not being able to afford healthy snacks when my grandchildren come to visit.”

Broken political promises are nothing new, of course, but to break a commitment on the backs of the most vulnerable surely tells us everything we need to know about the Doug Ford government and those who voted for, and continue to support, it.

All in all, not a pretty snapshot of our species.

A Very Pungent Odour

H/t Theo Moudakis

The source of that pervasive and rank smell bedeviling Ontario has been found. It is coming from an array of spineless politicians in the Ford government who, upon their election, checked any semblance of integrity they might have had at the doors of the legislature. Today's Star editorial captures their essence:

It’s been said that the shortest measurable span of time is from the instant the traffic light turns green until the driver behind honks the horn.

A close runner-up must surely be the time between a man or woman being elected to the Ontario legislature as a government backbencher and their having lost all self-respect and capacity for independent thought.

Standing ovations for Ford and his cabinet ministers have become mandatory for Progressive Conservatives in the legislature, turning the government side into a crowd of fawning applauders worthy of citizenship in North Korea.

His refusal to surrender independent thinking and “stand and applaud” Ford’s every utterance in Question Period appears to be one of the factors led to Randy Hillier expulsion from the Conservative caucus.

Hillier’s assertion that the clapping is a command performance is not difficult to believe, given that no set of adults would behave so obsequiously of their own free will.

To their feet they spring many times daily, furiously applauding dear leader, even as they furtively scan the chamber to ensure the premier’s ever-watchful staff has noted their fealty.

Simply put, this mindlessness is conduct unworthy of grown men and women, especially those who have been given the confidence of their constituents.

The orchestrated ovations are pathetic on the part of those who demand them, shameful on the part of those who meekly obey.

Prostitution has been called the world's oldest profession. For reasons that I hope are obvious, I beg to differ.

Is Resistance Always Futile?

If I ever had the chance to sit down and chat with Randy Hillier, I doubt I would have much to say to the libertarian Progressive Conservative MPP recently permanently ousted from his party's caucus for reasons that appear contrived. He is alleged to have said "yada yada yada" (the horror!) to a parent protesting the changes to the province's autism funding model. Hillier claims he was saying it to NDP member Monique Taylor.

Now it is beginning to look like that was mere pretext for removing a man guilty of a far greater Progressive Conservative Party sin: refusing to be a team player. Unlike the trained and docile seals Premier Doug Ford has surrounded himself with, Hillier dares to think for himself, refusing to go along to get along, kind of the anti-Caroline Mulroney.

It is experience in workplace bullying I would find to be the basis for discussion with the MPP for Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston. Having experienced and resisted it myself in my last few years of teaching, I know there is a cost to standing up for what one believes in.

What does Hillier believe in? A clue is to be found in the reason he alleges he was bounced from caucus:

“MPP Hillier alleges that his expulsion was an act of reprisal against him for ‘raising concerns of possible illegal and unregistered lobbying by close friends and advisers employed by Premier Ford’ ...

It is for this reason the NDP is calling for a (Taverner-less) OPP investigation.

Perhaps more damning of Hillier is his refusal to provide what all cult-of-personality dictators demand: absolute obeisance and subjugation of the will to 'Dear Leader'.

Hillier...says...he was given a list of what he called “questionable and childish grievances” by backroom operatives.

Among them, he alleges, were complaints that he didn’t clap enough in the House and wasn’t actively sharing posts about the government’s activities on social media.

Party apparatchiks are spreading the word about how toxic Hillier is. (Message to MPPs: avoid this man or suffer career consequences.)

Simon Jefferies, a spokesperson for the premier, said “everything Randy Hillier outlined in his letter is an outright lie. These fabrications are absurd and categorically false.

“This further shows Randy Hillier never wanted to be a true member of our PC team despite repeated attempts by Premier Ford to engage him as an important member of our caucus.

Jefferies also disputed Hillier’s claim that he was in trouble for not seeking permission to attend his brother’s funeral.

Judging by the abject, grovelling behaviour of most of his fellow caucus members (Amanda Simard being one exception, having left over Ford's downgrading of francophone services, a departure that earned her the insult of "little girl" by Brian Paper Bags of Money Mulroney while he simultaneously praised the efforts of his daughter, Caroline Ford-Puppet Mulroney) it is fair to assume Randy Hillier will not be leading a revolt against Mr. Ford's oppressive tactics and systematic dismantling of programs that seek to make life more equitable for the people of Ontario.

Only the people can do that, Unfortunately, with the next election years away, it is a safe bet that much more social and economic carnage is on the immediate horizon.

A Cowardly Silence

Human nature is a strange, wondrous, and sometimes shameful thing. For every Nelson Mandela who takes a stand against arbitrary authority, there are countless millions who will simply go along to get along. If an edict, no matter how obviously wrong or unethical, is issued in the name of authority, it is usually obeyed.

"I was just following orders" is a refrain that echoes throughout modern history.

An egregious example of such is surely to be found in this story from Ontario.

The provincial government quietly ordered autism service providers last September to stop admitting new children for therapy and to keep parents in the dark about the move, documents obtained by the Star reveal.

Internal documents — from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services and senior administrators of nine regional service providers — state that the 23,000-child wait-list for autism therapy was closed because of “financial pressures.”

While the Ontario government, led by Doug Ford, and Lisa MacLeod, his Children’s Minister, deny any wrongdoing, memos obtained by The Star paint a totally different picture:

The documents obtained by the Star reveal that the waiting list for therapy has been closed for five months unbeknownst to parents. And while therapists could have been seeing new children during that time, they were instead ordered to spend their extra time elsewhere.

And autism service providers were asked to be complicit in this deception:

A Sept. 27 email to staff from a senior administrator at one service provider states: “As of this afternoon, we have been asked to ‘pause’ on making calls to families (on the wait-list) … We have been assured that this is very short term, and as soon as we get more information from the ministry on how to proceed we will share it.”

Another email to staff from a service provider the following month reveals how the ministry wanted inquiries from parents to be handled: “Note that the ministry has asked us not to stray outside of their messaging (e.g. we would not tell families directly that there will be no service offers…”

And the reason for this immoral obfuscation boils down to politics. One therapist, speaking anonymously for fear of reprisal,

... argued that there are far fewer than 23,000 children on the waiting list. But by freezing the list, the government has allowed the numbers to grow in an attempt to justify its changes...

Those changes include hard caps and severe reductions in funding for each family with an autistic child, changes that have provoked a firestorm of protest at Queens Park.

My point, however, is how readily autism service-providers complied with this government order of secrecy, while at the same time knowing they could be helping more children:

In an interview, one therapist said that she and her co-workers could have been helping new children on the wait-list all this time.

“There was capacity. We did have space on our caseload to pick up children from the wait list but we couldn’t,” said the therapist who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to give media interviews.

And yet they said nothing. Indeed, were it not for the investigative efforts of The Star, this sordid story would never have come to light.

To a one, autism therapists should be deeply and thoroughly ashamed of their collective silence. There can be no excuse for such craven collaboration.

Far Less Than Meets The Eye

The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

-Hubert Humphrey

By the above standard, Ontario is quickly heading for a damning assessment. Under the self-proclaimed "government for the people," the buffoonish thugs collectively known as the Doug Ford regime are moving quickly to make the province a decidedly inhospitable place for the vulnerable. With a tacit philosophy of short-term gain for long-term pain, Community and Social Services Minister Lisa Macleod is promising to clear a long waiting list for autism treatment by giving treatment dollars directly to families.

Macleod says the amount of funding will depend on the length of time a child will be in the program, and support will be targeted to lower and middle-income families.

A child entering the program at age two would be eligible to receive up to $140 000 for treatment, while a child entering the program at age seven would receive up to $55 000.

If you watch the following video, you will learn how wholly inadequate this funding model will be:


And here is another story that brings home the point equally poignantly:



Should you wish to learn more about the devastation this new policy will wreak for the 'ordinary folks' Ford purports to serve, please click here.

Today's Star editorial most succinctly sums up the bait-and-switch nature of the government's new approach:

All the government has done is to distribute the current $321-million budget for autism services among far more people. That means less support and services for everyone who is eligible. And not everyone is eligible anymore, since the government has decided to deny families with incomes over $250,000 the right to even access this aspect of publicly funded health care.

Increasingly, I suspect Ontarians are experiencing buyer's regret in their electoral choice. Unfortunately, by the time such remorse sets in, it is usually too late, and the damage done by reactionary voting is extensive and long-lasting.

Better luck next time, eh?

The Climate Year In Review

Go ahead. Tell me that climate change is an unproven theory.



Meanwhile, if you live here in Ontario, 2019 will likely prove at least as depressing as the second part of 2018 has been:

In the midst of this season of giving, a precious treasure is being taken from Ontarians; the hard-won tools that protect our environment are being stolen in broad daylight by a provincial government that claims the need to do this to fight “red tape” and make Ontario “Open for Business.”

It has taken Ontario’s current provincial government remarkably little time to sweep away an array of laws and policies that are crucial to the protection of Ontario’s natural environment and farmland. It took decades of discussion by previous Ontario governments, academics and other experts for these environmental safeguards to be finally put into place.

The heart and soul of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act is the oversight provided by the creation of an independent environmental commissioner. A bill to cut “red tape” strips the commissioner of many of her powers and much of her independence.

Similarly, the Greenbelt Protection Act, intended to give permanent protection to this area, became law in 2004 after decades of studies, planning and debate. The act was intended to give permanent protection to an ecosystem of forests, streams and farmland surrounding the Golden Horseshoe. Less than six months after their election, the Ford government has introduced legislation that opens the door to development within the Greenbelt.

It has also taken decades for governments, including Ontario’s, to accept that harmful climate change is real and to take action to slow its acceleration. Ontario’s cap-and-trade program was introduced less than two years ago by the former Liberal government.

By July of this year, the Ford government had repealed those regulations and quickly replaced them with a scheme which the environment commissioner considers only a fraction as effective as the one it replaced.

If this were a movie, it would be called How Doug Ford Stole Christmas.

The effects of the Grinch’s theft of Christmas presents were at least limited to inhabitants of the small village of Whoville. The same cannot be said of Doug Ford’s theft of some of our most precious gifts of a clean and healthy environment. The harm will be felt throughout Ontario by both present and future generations. Nor is there any evidence that the eventual redemption of Dr. Seuss’ Grinch will be replicated by Ontario’s Grinch. This movie is not likely to have a happy ending.

John Swaigen, Toronto

Is The List Another Piece Of Fiction From Doug Ford?

My guess is "yes'"

“I could sit here and give you all the items that weren’t accurate in that letter and there’s endless ones. I could give you a list of all the Police (Services) Act that was broken throughout that whole letter, but none of you want to report on that,” Ford said, blasting the media for being “a little slanted” in its coverage.

What They Don't Know Can Hurt Us All

My good friend Dave, who lives in Winnipeg, has a very keen mind and makes it a steady practice to be well-informed about public matters. Consequently, at times he is overwhelmed by the political corruption and ineptitude that, as a citizen, he must bear witness to. Sometimes, in a sardonic moment when confronted with and seized by especially egregious examples of said shortcomings, he says to me, "Lorne, I wish I had been born an idiot!"

I empathize with how he feels, but while both Dave and I know that ignorance can be bliss, we also are acutely aware it can be dangerously destructive, especially when that ignorance exists in high office.

One of the most distressing aspects of contending with people's significant educational and intellectual limitations is that all too frequently, they think they are the smartest person in the room. For such individuals, problems are easily defined, and solutions simple. All the time others spend on lengthy and detailed analysis is time wasted to such people. In the best of situations, the espousal of such misplaced arrogance is limited to family and friends; in the worst, it infects government, and you wind up with ones led by the likes of Donald Trump and Doug Ford, both of whom regard themselves, no doubt, as brilliant, but who others see as manifestly incapable of heading a hot dog stand, let alone a government.

And so we find ourselves in Ontario led by a buffoonish premier, Doug "Backroom Dealer" Ford, taking the province down a path of national ridicule and lost opportunity. It can only get worse.

Happily, there are still those souls (notably outside of government or in the opposition ranks) unwilling to turn a blind eye, resolutely insisting upon a public accounting. Rob Ferguson writes:

The odds are against Toronto police veteran Ron Taverner ever being able to effectively lead the OPP because controversy over his friendship with Premier Doug Ford has done irreversible damage, policing experts say.

Concerns about potential conflicts of interest will always linger, several law enforcement sources said Sunday.

“You’re not doing any favours putting him in that job,” former RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson told the Star, echoing remarks from others in the field.

“I don’t see how this can be fixed,” said a retired senior police executive who requested anonymity to speak freely.

“If there’s any perception of a linkage like the pictures of him arm-in-arm with Premier Ford, how is the public ever going to have confidence?”

The fact that Taverner has temporarily stepped aside should be the occasion of only limited relief. Until his appointment as the new OPP Commissioner is unequivocally quashed, there is still public peril:

Should the appointment proceed, “he’s going to have trouble, subject to the members of the OPP looking over his shoulders wondering about every inquiry he might make,” Paulson predicted.

Because the OPP conducts investigations of politicians, (the gas plant investigation is one well-know instance) any hint of an unseemly relationship with those in power is anathema to public confidence:

“There’s investigations into the government, into the bureaucracy or into departments, things that if they’re not the government that the government would surely want to know and be able to manage,” Paulson said.

“The government knowing about things in advance is not a good idea, particularly in those kinds of investigations. Because then you get into all sorts of shenanigans of tainting evidence and tainting your investigation.”

Michael Armstrong, a retired chief superintendent of the OPP’s organized crime division, had this to say:

“One thing I took out of being in a leadership position is people want to look up to you. Don’t be somebody that they’re making jokes about. They want you to be the person they can look up to and aspire to be.”

I don't envy what lies ahead for the OPP's reputation, practices and morale should Taverner ultimately become commissioner. But I worry more about what such an appointment will do to the people of Ontario. And it will just be more evidence that they elected a man wholly unfit to lead this province in any but a downward direction.

Which Will It Be, Apathy Or Outrage?

In my previous post about the Doug Ford OPP scandal, I wondered if people are still capable of collective outrage. It is a concern shared by The Star's Martin Regg Cohn:

... Ontarians are facing their own moment of truth as the layers of deception are peeled back from the premier’s alleged secret meddling over the next OPP chief. Doug Ford’s loyal chief.

The outgoing OPP chief has blown the whistle on Ford and Taverner. But are we listening?

Are Ontarians to be governed by the rule of law, or by the misrule of a miscreant who bends the rules and rewrites our laws? Shall our premier indulge his personal peccadilloes — in a customized camper paid for “off the books” to deceive taxpayers and lawmakers — and then cover his tracks?

And without question, there is much to be concerned about:

People of all political stripes and partisan colours cannot but be disgusted by the whiff of favouritism, the smell of meddling, and the stench of coverup, for this is not merely a matter of right or left, but reckless wrongdoing. This is not about ideology but idiocy.

Maybe he will get away with it. Possibly the public will put up with it. Perhaps the press will move on. Presumably the opposition will go on holiday. Ultimately the OPP will be transformed into the Ontario Premier’s Police.

And Ontarians will grow accustomed to their chief executive interfering in law enforcement at the very top, just like in America. Trump fired Comey, and Ford hired Taverner.

Fortunately, not everyone is giving Ford a pass on something that is looking increasingly felonious. In The Star's print edition, Ted Green of Ariss Ontario writes:

Re OPP head calls for Taverner review, Dec. 12

Rather naively, I have frequently thought how fortunate I am to live in a province absent the concerns of a turbulent, frightening leader as one can witness south of our border. My smugness is gone and we see more and more similarities in leadership styles now within the governance of our province and the U.S. The most recent concern is the government’s appointment of Premier Ford’s good friend Mr. Taverner as OPP Commissioner. This appointment is so far removed from passing a ‘smell test.’ One hopes the Office of the Ombudsman can remedy another area of a slippery slope that the premier seems to be leading us down.

As well, in another reminder of the vital role the press plays in a healthy democracy, The Star editorial board weighs in:

Of all the destructive things that Doug Ford has wrought since his government took office at the end of June, surely none is worse than the damage he has inflicted on the credibility of Ontario’s most important police force.

Of course, there’s an awful lot of competition. Weakening rules on the environment, axing crucial watchdog positions, sabotaging Toronto’s municipal election, undermining Hydro One... the list goes on.

But naming an old Ford family friend to be commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, manipulating the rules along the way and putting the independence of the force at risk, takes the cake.

So what will it be from the citizens of Ontario? Will it be apathy or outrage, a submissive shrug of the shoulders or a long-lasting and productive anger at a man (and his minions) who now sees the entire province as his and his backroom friends' personal fiefdom?

The answer to that question is of vital consequence both to the province and to the state of democracy today.

UPDATED: Backroom Dealer Doug Meets With Resistance

Doug 'Backroom Dealer' Ford, the buffoon currently occupying Ontario's premier's office, is likely surprised that his appointment of personal pal Ron Taverner, one that reeks of cronyism and corruption, is meeting with resistance. As reported in The Star, the interim OPP commissioner has filed a complaint to Ontario’s ombudsman, asking for a review of the appointment.

The 11th-hour move by interim commissioner Brad Blair is the latest development in a roiling controversy over the appointment, and comes less than a week before Taverner, 72, a close friend of the Ford family, is scheduled to be sworn in as top cop of one of the largest police services in North America.

In a lengthy letter to Ontario ombudsman Paul Dubé, Blair asks for Taverner’s installation to be delayed pending a review of the appointment and makes serious allegations against the Ford government.

The letter's disturbing allegations point to a covert politicization of the provincial police force that should worry all of us, given that any investigation into wrongdoing by politicians is its domain. The reek around Taverner's appointment is only the most visible part of this subversion:

His letter claims the decision to name Taverner as commissioner was made prior to a Wednesday cabinet meeting where the decision was said to have been made; that the job posting was “changed without convincing justification,” and that the hiring panel had “questionable authority” and the interview panel members changed at the last minute.

The letter also claims that Ford’s chief of staff specifically requested that the OPP purchase a “large camper type vehicle and have it modified to the specifications the premier’s office would provide us.” According to the letter, there was a request that these costs be “kept off the books.”

Such a request, asking for “monies spent to be hidden from the public record” is at minimum a violation of the Ontario government’s financial policies, the letter said.

But wait! There's more, as they say, including

... asking for specific police officers to be in his security detail — ones that Ford “would feel comfortable with.” Blair goes on to claim that Ford requested a face-to-face meeting over the issue, and said that if then-commissioner Vince Hawkes would not address the issue, “perhaps a new commissioner would.”

“Ultimately, the premier’s request was approved and implemented by the OPP,” according to the letter.

Only the dimmest and the most ideologically ardent could look at these allegations and see nothing wrong.

Let's hope the ombudsman does his job. Let's also hope that our collective capacity for outrage still exists.

UPDATE: Andrea Horwath is calling for the RCMP to investigate Ford's SUV demand with the best quote I have seen thus far about the scandal:

"It's a bad episode of 'Pimp My Ride,' where the premier actually asks the OPP, or one of his operatives, Dean French, whoever it was, to put together a camper-style vehicle that is pimped out with all the premier's specifications, and that the supplier of said vehicle is somebody that the premier is going to choose," she said.

The High Price Of Willful Ignorance

The other day I wrote a post entitled The Cost of Disengagement. Today's post might be considered a companion piece, inasmuch as disengagement and ignorance often go hand-in-hand. And sadly, much of that ignorance is willful.

I have been a lifelong reader of newspapers; my first memory of them is when my mother would read the comics to me. As soon as I mastered reading, because our house always had a newspaper, I naturally gravitated toward them, initially only in a superficial way that, over the years, grew to include reading stories on local, provincial and federal politics. At about the age of 12 I started what became a lifelong habit of writing letters to the editor. Engagement for me was never a problem.

It therefore pains me that this latter stage of my life has been witness to the decline of news journals. Many have abandoned them in favour of newsfeeds on social media that reflect rather than expand their worldview; others feel there is no need to pay for the news, that it somehow materializes out of the ether, gratis. And still others say that their lives are so busy, they have no time for either politics or any form of news, a complete cop-out for most, in my view. (Even at my busiest as an English teacher, I always took time for papers, either at breakfast, at school, or after work - it is the price of responsible citizenship.)

These sorts of thoughts go through my mind almost every morning over breakfast as I read my print edition of The Toronto Star. Almost every day there are stories in it that are of importance on either the provincial or the national level. Today is one such day, as the implications become clearer of the impending Bill 66, the so-called “Open for Business” act that, in typical Doug Ford hyperbole, will create all kinds of jobs. They are jobs, however, that will potentially come at a very high cost.

Jennifer Pagliaro reminds us of an earlier period of deregulation that led to disastrous results in Walkerton, Ontario:

The tainted-water scandal in Walkerton in the spring of 2000 devastated the community, with thousands falling ill and seven people dying. It was one of the worst health epidemics in the province’s history.

According to the conclusions of an inquiry into the Walkerton tragedy, in May 2000, some 2,321 people became ill from two types of bacteria, including a type of dangerous E. coli, after heavy rainfall caused flooding that flushed the bacteria from cow manure near a farm into one of three groundwater wells that was the source of water for Walkerton.

The number of people who fell ill represented about half the town’s population.

It was concluded after much investigation that the water coming out of the taps in Walkerton had not been properly treated so as to kill off the deadly bacteria, and the tragedy could have been prevented if proper monitoring, protections and oversight had existed.

And now, history seems prepared to repeated itself under Ford's Bill 66:

The stated purpose of the proposed bill, called the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, is to cut “red tape” around planning approvals for businesses looking to invest in local communities.

Under the proposed legislation, if a development has the support of both the municipal government and the province and can demonstrate it would create 50 new jobs in areas with populations under 250,000, or 100 jobs for bigger cities, it could get the green light despite possibly being detrimental to the environment.

One of the key problems with the bill is that it will roll back protections legislated in the Clean Water Act, which came about as a direct result of the Walkerton tragedy.

On Friday, Theresa McClenaghan and Richard Lindgren, respectively the executive director and counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) ... said the attempt to prevent a particular section of the Clean Water Act from applying to certain types of new development is both “objectionable and risk-laden.”

The particular section of the act that would not apply to new developments approved under the “open for business” rules is not some “obscure” provision in the law, but the key part of the act that requires land-use planning decisions in the province to protect safe drinking water, they said.

So that's what I got today from reading a newspaper to which I subscribe. I could go on and tell you how Bill 66 also imperils Greenbelt protection, as Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, writes in the same paper today, but I'll let you read that for yourself.

That is, if you are one of those willing to pay for the news.

The Cost Of Disengagement

I have reached a point in my life where I hold out little hope for our collective future. It is one of the reasons I post less frequently these days. Writing about the word's ills often seems futile.

But that is not to say that I have lost my capacity for outrage. And outrage is what I feel today.

While today's topic pertains to what is happening in Ontario, there is an issue here that has a much wider application: the cost of political disengagement.

It seems to me that Ontario serves as an object lesson for what happens when people either completely ignore politics and don't vote, or vote on the basis of ignorance, anger or the seductive nonsense offered by a demagogue. The typical result is what we see in the Doug Ford majority government, a government purportedly "for the people" that is systematically stripping away workers' rights, French language rights and environmental protections, to name but three, while operating in a way that is costing taxpayers billions of dollars in lost cap-and trade revenue and hundreds of millions owing to its ineptitude.

The occasion of my current outrage is the impending Bill 66, “Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act” an omnibus bill that will do tremendous damage on a number of fronts, damage that the people Ford is 'for' will have to contend with. Writes The Star's Edward Keenan:

The omnibus bill quietly plans to amend dozens of pieces of existing legislation affecting 12 different ministries, all to “cut red tape that’s standing in the way” of “making Ontario competitive again.”

Sounds harmless enough.

Until you read about what is actually being cut: labour regulation, child protection, clean water safeguards, even the greenbelt legislation the provincial Progressive Conservatives promised on the campaign trail they would protect “in its entirety.”

And the damage it will inflict is extensive:

Child-care protections: Bill 66 changes the number of babies — children under the age of 2 — that can be cared for by a single adult in an unlicensed home-based daycare from two to three. The existing regulation came into effect in 2015, after children died in unlicensed daycares.

Environmental and planning protections: The bill would allow municipalities to pass bylaws under the Ford government’s beloved “Open For Business” slogan (literally, they would be called “open for business planning bylaws”) that would exempt developers of commercial or industrial uses such as factories from a whole slew of regulations. Among them are those contained in the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act, the environmental protection anti-sprawl legislation that Ford famously promised not to touch [after he was caught on video promising developers that he would open it up] during the election campaign.

Also at risk under this bill is our drinking water:

... it could exempt developers from are those that protect the Great Lakes and other sources of drinking water, including the Clean Water Act, which was brought into force after the Walkerton tragedy that killed seven people and sickened thousands of others through contaminated drinking water. The bill also repeals the Toxics Reduction Act meant to reduce pollution by preventing industrial uses of certain toxic chemicals.

Labour protections: Among other changes weakening employee protections, this bill would exempt municipalities, hospitals, universities and other big public institutions from rules requiring them to use unionized contractors for infrastructure projects. If the government wants to debate the merits of collective bargaining, it can do so, but it shouldn’t sneak big changes to worker protections through on the misleading premise that it is just clearing away red tape.

I could go on, but I think you get the emerging picture, one that immorally imperils the people Ford claims he is 'for', all in the service of uncontrolled development and deregulation that will serve the interests of the people he is really for.

And I don't think you need me to spell out who that is.

Refusing To Go Along To Get Along

The stench of corruption and cronyism that permeates the Ford government here in Ontario is hard to ignore. (See Martin Regg Cohn's column on the latest example, the appointment of Ford pal Ron Taverner as the new and egregiously unqualified head of the OPP.) And while the times are indeed dark in this once proud province, with Ford cabinet members such as Christine Elliott and Caroline Mulroney regularly prostituting themselves, it is heartening to know that some people will not go along to get along, refusing to surrender their integrity, even when that refusal comes at a high cost.

One such person is Cindy Veinot. She deserves both our attention and our respect.

The Ontario government’s chief accountant resigned earlier this fall because she refused to sign off on Finance Minister Vic Fedeli’s inflated $15 billion deficit, the Star has learned.

Cindy Veinot, the provincial controller, quit in September because she “did not agree with accounting decisions made by the current government.”

The issue revolves around the purported size of the provincial deficit, team Ford contending it is $15 billion, while others regard the government co-sponsored Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan as assets, lowering the deficit by about $5 billion.

It would seem that Ms. Veinot is well-qualified to offer an informed assessment:

Veinot, a leading expert on pension accounting who finished first among 63,000 candidates in the 1998 certified public accountants exam in the U.S., contends the holdings are an asset.

So afraid are the provincial Tories of her truth that they have blocked her from testifying at the 'transparency' standing committee examining the state of the province's finances:

Tory sources, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations, admit there has been concern over what Veinot might say under oath.

And so it goes. Corruption and cronyism continue apace at Doug Ford's hectoring hands, with most willing to do what they can to curry and maintain his favour.

How it must gall the premier and his disciples that not all souls can be bought.

Kim Jong Un Comes To Canada

Well, at least his spirit has. Kim, you may recall, despite the increasingly smiling face he presents to the world, is not a man to be crossed. Just ask those who are the first to stop clapping at one of his military cult rallies. Or ssk his uncle what happened when he fell out of his nephew's favour. (Spoiler Alert - you can't ask them. They are no longer with us.)

Kim's success as a dictator derives from fear, a fear that is cultivated and sustained by a massive surveillance apparatus. And here in Ontario, or Fordlandia, as I like to call it, it would appear that the Doug Ford government has learned some quick lessons from the North Korean dictator's playbook:

The Progressive Conservatives fear some disgruntled MPPs are set to cross the floor to join the Liberals, the Star has learned.

That’s a key reason why Premier Doug Ford is increasing the threshold for official party status in the legislature from eight MPPs to 12, a senior source says. A single defection would give the seven-member Liberal caucus official status.

Based on careful surveillance, Ford's fears seem to be well-founded.

“There are at least two we’re concerned about,” a senior Conservative insider said, speaking like others from the Liberals and PCs on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal machinations.

“We’ve been watching this closely,” the PC source said, declining to reveal which MPPs are suspected of plotting to defect except to say that two are from the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

“No less than seven members want to get out,” a third senior Conservative operative told the Star on Friday.

The fears are based on careful Kim-inspired practices:

Ford’s office closely monitors Tory members. Sources say they track who applauds in the legislature and watch for MPPs who do not quickly leap to their feet for ovations after the premier or ministers respond to opposition inquiries during question period.

“They keep tabs on everything,” said a fourth Tory .... Two party aides noted that speaking out in caucus meetings is also discouraged because they don’t want anyone to undermine team unity.

Another source of fear, as I noted the other day, is PC MPP Amanda Simard, who has grown increasingly vocal about her disenchantment over the reduction of French services in Ontario, touted as an austerity measure:
While the rookie MPP received permission from Ford’s office to publicly dissent on Facebook to help quell outrage among voters, she has not been seen at Queen’s Park since Wednesday.

On Friday a second Tory close to Ford said “we have not heard back from her.”

In my previous post, I suggested Simard will be facing a demotion as a lesson to others about speaking out. Surely it is the path that mentor Kim would follow, except were it in his hands, there would be no opportunity for rehabilitation.

Doug Ford - for the people, or at least those who give him unqualified, unconditional support.

An Unreliable Narrator

In fiction there exists what is known as the unreliable narrator, which can be defined in this way:

It is a character who tells the reader a story that cannot be taken at face value. This may be because the point of view character is insane, lying, deluded or for any number of other reasons.

It is a useful convention for a number of reasons, including the misdirection it allows the author to engage in. An example of such a narrator would be Anna Fox, the protagonist of the recent bestseller The Woman in the Window, by A.J. Finn.

It seems to me that politics, by its nature, encourages the unreliable narrator. All leaders and their surrogates tell their version of truth, a truth diluted, even perverted by their electoral and policy goals. For example, the Conservatives regularly rail against what they see as Liberal fiscal profligacy, while the Liberals are always keen to portray Andrew Scheer et al. as crypto-racists. As for the the federal NDP, well, I'm not sure what story they are trying to tell these days.

Here in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford (and believe me, I abhor using that particular word combination) is proving to be an unreliable narrator extraordinaire as he strives to convince Ontarians that the former Liberal government was nothing more than an extended exercise in flagrant, unrepentant criminality.

Perhaps emboldened by weekend chants of “Lock her up!” the premier convened his caucus first thing Monday, and summoned the media to make a melodramatic announcement:

Doug Ford told Ontarians to “follow the money.” He boasted of a forensic “line-by-line audit” that would prove incriminating. And he claimed the numbers tell a damning story of Liberal “corruption” and enrichment.

Invoking his majority muscle, Ford announced a special “select” committee to “compel” evidence in a legislative witch hunt, lest Liberals “walk away from this.”

The foundation for this exercise in damagoguery is the claim by Finance Minister Vic Fedeli that he has discovered a coverup that puts the provincial deficit at $15 bullion, $8 billion more than was disclosed.

The only problem with this claim is that it is orchestrated nonsense, because

the outside report he ordered up, and relied upon for those claims, said no such thing. For all the overheated allegations that the last government “cooked the books,” the undisputed truth is that its pre-election budget was an open book, fully vetted by the province’s auditor general (even if she disagreed with the bottom line Liberal analysis).

Unreliable narrators rely on people getting swept up in the story, so much so that they do not think about what they already know or should know.

As for that supposedly damning forensic audit, it was no such thing. Peter Bethlenfalvy, the minister who ordered it up, sheepishly admitted to reporters later that it was produced by private sector “consultants” at EY Canada — not qualified auditors in the firm’s audit department. It was “not a forensic audit, not a line by line review,” he acknowledged.

And, in a classic technique employed by the unreliable narrator, Doug Ford is glossing over something the report did reveal:

...the quickie study noted that spending increases within the Ontario public service were virtually zero during the Liberal years. What has risen, significantly, is spending on health care and education — precisely what Ford promised not to cut on the campaign trail.

The Star's Martin Regg Cohn says that these exercises in deception and demagoguery serve only to debase our democratic discourse. That may well be true, but unfortunately, amongst the electorate, there are far too many happy to engage in that kind of destructive conversation.

Ontario's Ongoing Shame

Ontarians are responsible for the election of this buffoon. Ontarians will have to wear this shame for the next four years.


H/t The Toronto Star

This Says It All

Playing To The Lowest Common Denominator

...looks like this:

Feeling Like An American

Now that Ontario is in the thrall of Doug Ford and his Regressive Conservative Party, I am beginning to understand how sane and balanced Americans must feel having an obscene fool as their national leader. It makes everyone look bad.

While Ford and his merry band of obsequious MPPs secured their majority thanks to a minority of voters who were filled with "passionate intensity" while the "best lacked all conviction" and chose to vote in smaller numbers, all of us, because we live in a democracy,' must bear the shame and ignominy.

The tail wags the dog here in Ontario. And make no mistake - just as Trump plays to his base, Ford et al. have every intention of tailoring their time in office to the demands of the minority who elected them. Just take a look at yesterday's Throne Speech:

The Tories will ... free police from “onerous restrictions that treat those in uniform as subjects of suspicion and scorn,” [a return to carding and loose SIU oversight?] end “unaffordable green energy contracts,” and expand beer and wine sales to convenience and big-box stores.

Ignoring the fact that extensive consultation paved the way to the revised 2015 sex-ed curriculum, this benighted new government

... will replace the 2015 “sex education curriculum with an age-appropriate one that is based on real consultation with parents.”

In a sop to the social conservatives who helped him become Tory leader in March, the new premier’s administration will use the 1998 sex education syllabus, which predates Google, same-sex marriage, and social media, until a new lesson plan is developed.

Crazed evangelical leader Charles McVety is delighted, observing that

students can now “go and learn how to tie their shoelaces and do arithmetic and read and write and do what they should be doing in school instead of learning things that belong, really, in post-graduate studies.”

Others were not so kind:

Green Leader Mike Schreiner countered that Ford has “declared war on the modern world.

“I mean, to have no climate change plan and to take our sex-ed curriculum back to 1998 is taking the province backwards,” said Schreiner.

That old curriculum was woefully antiquated, in no way addressing the problems and concerns bedeviling 21st century children:

The 1998 health and physical education curriculum describes a society that few elementary school students would recognize. It does not mention the words cyber-bullying, social media, race, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It only once mentions the word Internet, and only to say that kids can use computers to surf the “World Wide Web” for information.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture that our 'new' government has some mighty 'old' ideas and beliefs.

On a personal note, it is very difficult for me to be anything other than contemptuous of my fellow Ontarians. But that, I suspect, will be the subject of a future post.

Is This Really Something To Be Proud Of?

I find myself these days thinking about the beasts that have been unleashed upon society. In the United States, of course, it is Donald Trump who has made it acceptable to openly hate, mock, exclude and even kill. In Ontario, citizens have selected Doug Ford as their new premier. While both Trump and Ford masquerade as "for the people," they are really devoted only is unleashing the beast that resides in all of us, the most selfish and destructive aspects of humanity, for their own gain. All they have to do, as time goes on, is to find new targets for their diabolical agenda.

I was out walking, and a question occurred to me: What is it that people feel when they have had ample opportunity to spew their bile, vent their prejudices, vituperate a particular group or cause, or given the middle finger to succeeding generations by vociferously opposing any measures that might help mitigate the climate change that is quickly overtaking all of us? At least when we do something positive, whether it be a contribution to a cause, support for an issue, a personal kindness or gesture that recognizes and acknowledges our shared humanity, we are left at least a little enlarged, a little bigger inside for what we have attempted, maybe even a little more fulfilled.

What do those who choose to embrace the darkest paths feel?

Perhaps an appropriate frame, if not an answer, can be found from an episode of Breaking Bad, a series about a high school chemistry teacher who turns his resentments and the fact that he is dying into a crystal meth empire, one that ultimately costs countless lives. It was a show I was addicted to (no pun intended, well, okay, maybe a small one) despite the fact that it was the darkest meditation on human nature I have ever seen.

In the following scene, Jesse Pinkman, seduced into the crystal meth business by his former teacher, Walter White, have a discussion:

And this is where Jesse now found himself. Sat in his partner's living room, trying to set himself free from the life he could no longer be a part of, with Mr White not willing to allow him to go.

Finally, Walt spoke up again, his words hard and determined. And upon hearing them, Jesse knew he was fighting a battle he couldn't win.

"Jesse, you once asked me if I was in the meth business or the money business.” Walt looked up from his glass, and eyed Jesse. “I'm in the empire business.”

Jesse gaped back at him, and managed a small shake of his head. Bringing a hand up to cover his ever worsening head ache, he replied, “I don't know, Mr White. Is a meth empire really something to be that proud of?”

And that is the same question I pose here, in this later part of my life, looking at a world gone mad:

Is your embrace of a darkness that does nothing other than to weaken and to destroy really something to be proud of?