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:

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?

This Explains A Lot

Surveying various reactions to Trump's latest tariff tantrum is an interesting exercise. Paul Krugman, on his Substack, has this to say about Trump's latest threat against Canada:

The Trade Act of 1930, generally known as the Smoot-Hawley tariff, lost its standing as the worst trade policy action in US history when Donald Trump imposed his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025. But Smoot-Hawley was widely recognized as a terrible mistake soon after its passage, as it provoked widespread retaliation and contributed to the downward spiral of world trade that accompanied and reinforced the Great Depression.

The result of all of Trump's 'volatility' ?

 I see an America that has become an ineffectual bully, sicker, poorer, and riven by political extremism, with no friends anywhere in the world.

Barry Appleton observes: 

We are also being singled out. Canada is one of only two nations, with China, that retaliated instead of cutting a deal, and we are punished for it even as U.S. negotiators fly to Mexico this week to talk. That is how you split a bloc, and it works when the other side keeps diving early.

So we play this smart. Stop guarding the wrong post, because the visible date is rarely the real one. Test the weak points in court: a flat 50 per cent, spread across goods that have nothing to do with the discrimination alleged, is hard to defend as the tailored offset the statute requires, Section 338 has never survived a court, and overriding CUSMA invites a challenge Washington has not had to answer. Press all three. But litigation is defence, and defence alone does not win a match.

Some letters to the editor remind us that we all have a role to play in this battle with the U.S.

Re “Trump escalates trade war against Canada with threat to impose 50% tariffs” (July 21): If Donald Trump thinks additional tariffs will pressure Canadians to resume importing and selling American alcoholic beverages, well, think again.

Although he may not believe Canadians are intelligent, we are smart enough to develop other markets for our products.

Luc Lachapelle Hudson, Que.

So California winemakers cheer additional punishing tariffs on Canadians because we will be forced to buy their wine? A better strategy would be asking their government to stop the tariffs, which started the boycotts in the first place.

Cheering for tariffs does not make trading sense, but American culture does not seem to understand the concepts of fairness, kindness and equity, only war and winning.

This Canadian will never purchase California wine or visit the United States ever again. This is not friendship.

Trish Johnston Central Kootenay, B.C.

 Re “Bets off” (Letters, Oct. 28, 2025): Last year, you were good enough to publish a letter in which I suggested that as a result of our dealings with Donald Trump, “our relationship with the United States will be harsh, distant and purely transactional.” Might I be permitted the minor luxury of briefly saying I told you so?

I concluded my letter with the assertion that “we are a resilient people with vast natural resources. We’ll be okay.” I remain of that opinion.

Michael Royce Toronto 

I do not envy Mark Carney in all of this, but I think the majority of Canadians would agree that the time for concessions as acts of appeasement is over. What we do next must be strong, firm, and leave do doubts about our resolve to stand up to an insane president and his increasingly debased nation. 

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.

The People Speak

  

Sometime when I write, I wonder how many of my views are shared by others. Given current media political coverage, it is often difficult to gauge. That is one of the reasons I always read newspapers' letters-to-the-editor section. And it is there that I almost always find a basis for hope, offering proof as they do that critical thinking is not dead.

The following take issue with the direction the Carney Liberals are taking.

Carney, Smith sign carbon price deal, suggest fall 2027 pipeline approval, May 15

As a lifelong Canadian and supporter of Liberal governments I am very disappointed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s oil and gas agreement with Alberta.

Surely clean air to breathe is a priority for the good health of Canadians. Surely a sustainable way forward is harnessing solar, wind and other non-polluting energies.

Let’s leave our children and their children energy sources that provide clean breathable air, good water to drink and heating and cooling sources that don’t shorten lives.

Judith Murray, Burlington

 

When is our government going to finally put the environment first?

I am a scientist who has worked hard to learn about, teach and protect our earth and its environment.

May I suggest members of the federal Liberal party (and everyone else for that matter) read the following two books: The Lorax by Dr. Seuss (a quick five-minute read) and Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (about an hour’s read).

If you don’t have time, here are two quotes I think sum up what is being done to our environment under the current government, with its many new bills and policies.

Rachel Carson: “The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials.”

Dr. Seuss: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

I have learned over the years we must constantly fight for our environment in both good economic times and the bad ones. As a government priority it has never been given the attention it deserves.

It is time to put solar energy, wind power and the protection of animal and plant habitat on the front burner. It is time for companies to prove something is safe before they are permitted to sell it rather than waiting 10 to 20 years to see the effects on our environment.

It is time for companies to put money up front, before they begin fracking, building pipelines, or transporting toxic materials through our waterways and along our roads, to cover the cost of the inevitable environmental spills that will occur.

Who is going to put the environment first? Who is going to make Canada a great economy built on protecting our environment?

Because, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Yvonne Clifford, Cambridge, Ont.

Oil is a dirty and finite resource. The sun is neither

I boggles my mind why Canada and Alberta are spending enormous amount of money, time and expertise on extracting dirty oil and building expensive pipelines to generate electricity and other forms of energy. Why indeed, when in about 40 years oil will be depleted, as it is a finite resource.

But the sun will shine for millions, perhaps billions, of years, providing free energy to everyone on Earth.

Gwen Petreman, Barrie, Ont. 

As long as the spirit of resistance and critical thinking are alive, falling into despair is not an option.

From Canada's Industrial Heartland

 

While I hardly expect that Ontario should garner much sympathy from the rest of Canada, every so often I can't help but write about our poor state of politics. Led by "Captain Canada," Doug Ford, the legislature spends far more in recess than it does in session. I suspect our 'leader' finds it an irksome impediment to whatever he does with his time, given his Progressive Conservatives command a clear majority that certainly puts a damper on accountability. That is, until he does something that provokes widespread public outrage.

While there is much to condemn in this heavy-handed government's rule, it wasn't until Ford's recent purchase of a $29 million jet that public hackles were raised. As a result, Ford has reversed his purchase, but even now he insists buying it was the correct choice; as with most hubristic politicians, Ford claimed it was not a failure of policy but rather a failure of communication. He didn't do enough to prepare the public for his extravagance.

Well, many people are having none of his nonsense about what has been dubbed his "gravy plane". The following letters to the editor amply attest to this:

Time for a premier who puts Ontario first

This is a typical Doug Ford move. He appears to be driven by self‑interest and a desire for personal attention.  This runs from ordering speed cameras to be removed, mixing up Toronto’s street traffic and  removing bikes and walkways, totally ruining Ontario Place, stating that he’ll expand the island airport for larger planes and spending millions on a new plane to fly himself around. Earlier he was only interested in building new country roads and pulling down country greenspace in order to build expensive homes. None of this does anything to improve Ontario.

Ontario needs intelligent improvements for Ontarians, Canadians and visitors. It’s time to make political changes.

Chris Andrews, Vaughan, ON

Doug Ford the salesman

Ford says Ontario has sold controversial private jet at no loss, April 22

Well, done, Doug! The plane is gone. Now you should terminate the island spa agreement and return Ontario Place to the public, remove the traffic calming barriers being installed in school zones and restore speed cameras. Next, ask your construction buddies to return any money regarding the Ontario Science Centre property along with  refunding any money spent on studies for the tunnel under Highway 401. Only then will it really feel like you have listened to the people. And, oh, one more thing … let Toronto voters decide on the future of the island airport.

Carolynne Canham, St. Catharines, ON 

There was no justification for a private jet for Ford in the first place

How did Doug Ford justify spending nearly $30 million dollars of taxpayer money on his own jet in a province where most locales can be reached on a propeller plane in one hour? And most northern communities don’t even have airports that support a jet!

At a time when our medical care is compromised and our school system is crumbling this huge expense, not just for the purchase of the jet but also for its maintenance, cannot be tolerated by taxpayers.

At least Ford heard the outrage and reversed course.

Ford never campaigned on the promise to buy himself a jet.

Dianne Ness, Toronto

I find it an incredible coincidence that after eight years of Premier Ford in power, the first time he raises the issue of jets using Billy Bishop airport coincides with his now quickly reversed decision to purchase a taxpayer-funded private jet, to the tune of $28.9 million.

Some estimates for the infrastructure needed to allow jets at Billy Bishop will cost in excess of $1 billion.

Ontario taxpayers deserve transparency. Just whose interests are actually being served by expanding the island airport for jets?

At least the premier did the right thing and grounded his jet.

Norm Di Pasquale, Toronto

The problem with winning three majority governments is that you think you are invincible. Ford fatigue has begun to set in. Perhaps it is time for the premier to do some serious, sober soul searching about seeking a fourth term, as he has recently mused about. 

UPDATED: Spectacle Abounds

 

I am old enough to remember the early days of space exploration, days that included John Glenn in orbit, the Mercury space program, followed by the Apollo missions, etc. In those early days, achievements in space commanded a great deal of attention, in part because it was essentially a battle of ideologies, capitalism against evil communism, an ongoing grudge match between the U.S and the Soviet Union. Who would emerge victorious, the world wondered.

But those days are long over. The U.S.  'won', as if somehow its technological prowess atoned for its racism, its foreign wars, its naked imperialism. 

So what accounts for the current fascination with the Artemis 11 mission and its almost endless news coverage? 

There is, of course, the matter of spectacle, an always useful, time-tested way to capture the attention of the masses and divert them from the really important matters that plague all of us. Americans are especially prone to embracing such blandishments, always ready to put hand over heart in patriotic fervour. So what if they started a needless and senseless war? So what if so many of their fellow citizens live on the street, with no chance of better lives? So what if ICE' murders fellow citizens? So what if their president is a dementia-ridden despot? Such matters pall in the face of going to the moon, eh?

But beyond that, it is striking that the news networks seem willing to carry the water for those who benefit the most from such 'excursions': the billionaires who walk amongst us. Consider the fact that the majority of television media are now part of large corporate conglomerates, and you have the perfect conditions for influencing and molding public opinion; thus we become conditioned to cheer on the prospect of a permanent moon base being established in the not-too-distant future. Somehow, that has become the imperative, as if establishing such a base would confer American lunar hegemony and ensure a bright future.

But a bright future for whom? From the perspective of the billionaires, the almost limitless profits to be made from such a feat, almost totally funded by taxpayer dollars, is undoubtedly occasioning all kinds of pavlovian salivation. And while the oligarchs amass even greater profits, the general public is left to hope for a few orts from the table, reminded yet again of their true place in the scheme of things. 

Democracy's ill-health is a precondition of such predatory monetary achievement, and given that the U.S. has now devolved into a vicious autocracy, clearly the conditions are golden for new rounds of pillaging. 

UPDATE: A thoughtful letter-writer offers offers his reality check on the new space race:

Why aren’t we taking more care of Earth? It has everything to sustain life

If only the moon was made of any kind of cheese, then spending $95 billion to go there might begin to make sense. You can’t live on the moon. There is no existing photosynthesis.  Everything to establish a “moon base” must be brought from Terra Ferma. Even if after a trillion dollars or many trillion dollars are spent, building a base in order to launch to Mars is laughable. There is no oxygen on Mars, it gets extremely cold and it has a covering of iron oxide (rust). Trips can only occur every 26 months and there would be no return flights from Mars as re-fueling is not available. The human body could not sustain the change in gravity. We know that interplanetary colonization is impossible. The shame of this waste lies in the forgetfulness of just how magnificent our precious Earth actually is. Everything we need is here, with the exception of more people willing to save the planet from those who seek to destroy it. So, the question remains — why can’t we take more care of a place that provides everything we need instead of chasing dreams of inhabiting the moon?

Dave de Sylva, Aurora, ON

SOS From Ontario

 

As a resident of Ontario, I confess to being disenchanted these days. After Doug Ford has won three successive elections with very substantial majorities, he seems untethered, his megalomaniac plans substituting for competent governance.  

There is, of course, his preposterous plan to build a tunnel under Highway 401, but there are also other ideas that merit ridicule, not sober consideration, such as building an artificial island upon which to build construct a new convention centre for Toronto; he is also keen on extending the local airport (Billy Bishop) to accommodate jets, despite the fact it is a plan widely opposed by those living downtown. 

Ford is also considering opening the HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to solo drivers in 'off peak hours' (whenever that might be in perennially-congested Southern Ontario). As well, citing fiscal constraints,(after eliminating a multitude to revenue sources), he has abruptly cut OSAP aid for university students. Especially worrying for those who value transparency in government, the premier is now in the process of crippling freedom of information requests by excluding cabinet records and government 'business' conducted on personal cell phones. And, of course, there is the long-standing RCMP criminal probe (eight years and counting, I believe) into the Greenbelt scandal. Of his lengthy recesses of the legislature I will not even speak.

I have been wondering of late whether or not people are tiring of his populist poses. If letters to the editor are any measure, there is a sliver of hope that people are beginning to understand that bluster and wild schemes are not a substitute for proper government:

Ontario to make premier, cabinet ministers’ records secret as it tightens FOI laws, March 13

The Conservative Ford Government has plans to exempt the premier and cabinet from freedom-of-information (FOI) requests which would deny the public access to documents held by the office, and signatures upon agreements relating to economic, financial and corporate contracts. The EV agreements the public would love to review will certainly never be made public. With the legalities carried out within the Legislatures and NDAs,  much has been agreed upon and held deep within the shadows of conservative backrooms and corporate parlors.

Ontario is truly for sale folks, and we will never know who the new owners are, what agreements were signed and if financial largess has passed into political party hands.

Steven Kaszab, Bradford, ON 

A premier who fears FOI is a premier with something to hide

Once again, Doug Ford is moving Ontario towards autocracy and non-accountability. A premier who fears Freedom of Information is a premier with something to hide. Here is the litmus test: is this a power you would want every party to have? How would Ford have responded if former Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne had made this proposition? Something dirty is afoot. And blaming the Chinese government is just a tactic to avoid accountability. People should be horrified by this. 

Elaine Jackson, Mount Albert, ON  

Premier Doug Ford has stated his government should be exempt from releasing documents, government records, etc., under the Freedom of Information Act. Amongst his arguments for is the fact he receives 1,000 calls per day about very personal problems and says he feels like a psychologist trying to solve everyone’s personal issues. Therefore, he will not release personal information about people’s lives.  Ford should make  use of an official government phone and  use  his personal phone only when engaged in the role of “psychologist.”

Mary Morrison, Mississauga, ON 

Are HOV users legitimate ride-sharers?

Ontario wants solo drivers to use HOV lanes outside rush hours, but experts doubt it will speed up traffic, March 17

Until the creators/supporters of HOV lanes presents conclusive evidence that the majority of vehicles using HOV lanes are doing so as legitimate ride-sharers the concept of HOV lanes should be considered a sham and a waste of valuable pavement.

Robert Woodcock, North York, ON

While the machinations of Ontario politics may be of little interest to those living elsewhere in Canada, the province surely offers an object lesson for all whenever their next provincial elections may be.