Meanwhile, Back At Home

 

Most eyes are rightfully upon the American midterms tomorrow. We hope for a change from a Republican-dominated corrupted Congress to a Democratic-led renewal of the legislative branch. Whether the latter eventuality results in Canada being treated better in the months to come is an open question.

What is not in question is that while our attention is directed southward, things at home in Ontario continue to deteriorate under our homegrown demagogue, Doug Ford and his many enablers. Content to drive up the deficit while willfully cutting off sources of revenue, the strains are evident in a number of areas, healthcare and education not the least of them.

However, it is always reassuring when caught in moments of despair to know that others think clearly and are able to see the self-inflicted damage of a government still riding high long after winning its third-term majority. The following letters are instructive.

Doug Ford’s big deficit

Ontario deficit hits record $16.9B as Trump tariffs batter economy, Oct. 29

Why are Doug Ford and the Conservatives in charge at Queen’s Park blaming Trump for Ontario’s financial woes?

It was Doug Ford who scrapped the modest vehicle plate renewal fees, a hole in Ontario’s economy of more than $1 billion every year.

It was Doug Ford who handed The Beer Store $225 million to get out of the contract a year before it would have expired anyway. That, and losses to the LCBO (that pay for education and healthcare) add up to another $1 billion, annually.

I’m not an economist or a Finance Minister, but I’ve never blamed anyone else for any mismanagement that I have caused.

If Ontario is hurting. At present, it isn’t because of Donald Trump, it is because of our Premier, Doug Ford.

Brigitte Nowak, Toronto

This Ford government has 37 cabinet members which is more than any previous government in Ontario history. How much is this costing Ontario taxpayers?

Ford campaigned in 2018 on responsible spending and reducing government costs.  There are many examples I could cite of irresponsible spending by this government. Consider the costs related to their new Ontario Place, the Science Centre and the Skills Development Fund where much of the $1.3 billion dollars was spent giving money to lower-rated applicants who had hired lobbyists. So much negligence in the government’s spending ... it irks me that they use our tax money to advertise about how well they are doing. 

Bill Fox, Oshawa

From the Globe and Mail is this missive. 

Don’t bet on it

Re “Ontario calls for new investors in Niagara casinos, slashes tax rate for operators” (Report on Business, Oct. 29): Doug Ford’s desire to attract big-name casinos is all part of his plan to boost the Niagara region as a tourist destination, add billions of dollars to the provincial economy and add thousands of jobs.

I can only assume either Mr. Ford is ignorant of the numerous studies that illustrate the growing negative impact of gambling and its relation to the health and welfare of Ontarians, or is blinded by billions of dollars in tax revenue. He touts the jobs that casinos will bring, but there would also be jobs in social work and addiction treatment centres for those tasked to deal with the consequences of this policy.

Maybe I am naive in believing that governments are elected to serve the best interests of the public.

Michael Gilman Toronto

Perhaps government members should read this report, which outlines the deleterious effects of gambling, including suicide. 

A CBC News investigation has found that at least 220 problem gamblers in Canada have died by suicide in the last decade, which includes a tripling of gambling-related suicides in Ontario since 2022. 

Keeping an eye on the government ball is an onerous, if not impossible task, for many. The cost of such dereliction of civic duty, however, is very, very high.

Amidst The Tumult

 

Amidst the tumult of the trade war, it is easy to suspend one's critical thinking and simply join in the national fervour of support for Mark Carney and his initiatives. As I have written before, while I find much to applaud in the Prime Minister's initiatives, it is easy to forget that a blanket endorsement in not in anyone's best interests. 

The following letters to the editor point out a few of things we should be pondering.

A healthy economy comes from everyone paying their fair share

Doug Ford applauds Mark Carney’s new ‘mega’ deduction despite $2-billion hit to Ontario tax revenues, Sept. 16

It is correct corporate welfare isn’t working.

But why does the idea persist corporations should be taxed less?

Low corporate taxes can be seen as another form of corporate welfare. Why should Canadian individuals bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden?

This is a fallacy that needs to be challenged.

Corporations are not entities that need to be coddled. Their fundamental purpose is to generate profit. But they also depend on people — as workers, consumers and members of the communities in which they operate. They cannot generate profits without them.

Meanwhile, wages for ordinary workers have stagnated while executive compensation has risen dramatically over the past several decades. That raises a broader question about who is benefiting from the economic growth that corporate tax policy is intended to encourage.

The Fraser Institute is right that corporate welfare deserves scrutiny. But so does the assumption that keeping corporate taxes low is inherently good for society.

The real question is simple: Who should bear the tax burden, and what is a fair contribution from those who benefit from our economy?

If we’re serious about creating a prosperous economy we should be asking everyone who benefits from it to contribute their fair share — corporations and individuals alike.

Martina Wood, Mississauga

Writers from The Globe and Mail, in response to an editorial, chime in on the Carney attitude toward labour:

You applaud the Building Canada Strong Act because the legislation “rebalances” the power between unions and employers. Needless to say, employers are unanimously in favour of these reforms.

The new law would empower the government to terminate a lawful strike and impose arbitration by ministerial fiat, from behind closed doors. One would have thought any “balance” of interests would start with the fact that the government proposes to curtail a Charter right in favour of business efficiency and profit.

Moreover, the government already has the power to enact back-to-work legislation in Parliament after full public debate and discussion. Surely the existing parliamentary process brings far more transparency and accountability rather than a minister’s direction initiated by an employer’s initiative.

To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister who proposed this new law: Charter rights are not “written in pencil” to be negated by government upon the request of big corporations.

Paul Cavalluzzo CM, O.Ont, LSM; Toronto

In your support for the government’s proposed labour law reforms contained within Bill C-39, you argue that they would “only apply for disruptions with significant national impact.” Therein lies the rub.

Who gets to determine whether a strike has “significant national impact?” Presumably, the federal government will define “significant” as it sees fit.

That you cite, with approval, measures to limit the right to strike in the United States, where successive administrations have for decades rolled back the rights of both unions and workers, is downright scary.

David Bright St. Catharines, Ont.

It is easy to overlook things we don't like when we are in a battle against a deranged United States. The above letters suggest giving our government an uncritical pass is hardly in the national interest.

Trust, But Verify

In these troubled times, when existential threats force Canada to undertake bold, new initiatives, it is sometimes difficult to fully exercise our critical thinking skills. We have a prime minister taking our country into new realms as he seeks to bolster both our resilience and defence against deep hostility from the United States, a country still inexplicably in the thrall of a madman, and I applaud him for many of those undertakings. He is surely the correct person to be leading us at this time.

However, as expressed in my previous post, I think he is making a big mistake in his plans to privatize the operations of four of our major airports: Montreal, Torotno, Calgary and Vancouver. And I am hardly alone in those misgivings.

The Star's Althia Raj offers her thoughts:

Airports are cash cows. Mostly monopolies, they are fantastic investments, where new investors are often able to set prices on everything from passenger charges to parking fees and force them upon a captive audience. 

On the CBC, economist Jim Stanford warned, “This is going to be Highway 407 of the skies.”

Highway 407 was built north of Toronto using public money, then turned over on a 99-year lease to a private consortium, which steadily increased tolls to the point where it is now one of the most expensive tolled highways in North America. 

Even Liberal caucus members are divided on the issue, likely fearing that such a sale will mean only one thing for passengers: higher costs to park, higher costs from airport concessions, higher costs to fly.

Australia serves as a cautionary tale:

Australia privatized a number of its major airports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. While the government was able to get a good price for those sales, consumer costs went up, according to Rod Sims, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

"They removed the regulation on the airports prior to privatizing them. That meant those buying the airports knew they had a free rein more or less to do what they wanted," he told CBC News.

The Canadian Labour Congress has a similar warning: 

“Private investors don’t put billions into airports unless they expect to make billions back. The government is pointing to Australia as its model, and we’ve already seen the results there: higher costs for passengers and airlines, pressure on workers, and more airport revenue flowing to private investors.

Those who drop off passengers may be in for a rude surprise, if the privatized Heathrow Airport is any indication:

A £7 charge applies at Heathrow every time a vehicle enters the terminal drop-off areas*. Drop-off areas are located right outside each terminal, making for the easiest and quickest way to drop-off passengers.

And, as always, there is the voice of the people: 

A reminder that from the end of the Second World War through 1975, between 20—25 per cent of Canadian public debt was financed and held by the Bank of Canada. During that period, federal government capital expenditure funded highways, bridges, schools, hospitals and yes, even airports. The government did not go begging for cash from hedge funds.

But today, Prime Minister Mark Carney plans to sell off Canada’s major airports and recycle the proceeds for other infrastructure. In other words, investors will get up-and-running projects with established cash flow (where prices can easily be jacked up), whereas Canadians will carry the heavier risk and less profitable investments until mature enough for private owners to buy.

Modern capitalism in action: Corporations get the rewards; Canadians pay the charges and take the risks.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver, B.C.

 

Privatizing airports is a big mistake — just look at Hydro One

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he is selling our public airports but keeping the land beneath them. That’s like selling an art museum with millions of dollars in art for a bargain price but keeping the land the museum sits on. Carney says he is “unlocking” the value of our public airports. Then says he is going to reinvest that money in other important infrastructure.

We heard the exact same argument and plan when then Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne privatized Hydro One and sent hydro rates through the roof. It used to be, privatization was only done by Conservatives. Now our public assets will be used to maximize profits for corporations. There is no free money, investors expect a good return.

Given the failures and dismal record of public asset privatization here in Canada and around the world, it is astonishing that Carney continues to promote privatization of public assets and infrastructure. Carney is engaging in public relations propaganda to pretty up profit, selling the myth it’s a beneficial way to finance infrastructure. The privatization of long-term-care homes where many died from neglect during the pandemic and Highway 407 and Hydro One has left the people of Ontario with no appetite for any more privatization of public assets. The privatization of Connaught labs by then prime minister Brian Mulroney also hurt us severely during the pandemic.

The privatization of rail, electricity and water and hospitals along with Brexit has made the UK’s economy a complete disaster.

During both World Wars and the Great Depression governments did not privatize public assets. They wisely kept them and we worked our way out of those terrible times with a robust public sector and non-profit public enterprise.

Carney and his Liberal caucus need to be reminded that the provincial Liberals were sent to the political wilderness for three elections in a row for their sale of Hydro One and the resulting rate crisis. Privatizing airports is a really big mistake. The same goes for seaports.

Paul Kahnert, Marham, ON

 What could private investment mean to Pearson airport and Toronto travellers? Here’s what the experts say, Sept. 16

This article mentions a $19 drop-off-fee at London’s Gatwick Airport. Gatwick is privately owned. What could that look like here? If you took the UP Express train to Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you took the TTC Express bus to Pearson, would you be charged a drop off fee? What if you wanted a drink from the water fountain at Pearson, would you be charged a fee? What if you wanted to use the bathroom at Pearson, would you be charged a fee — and extra for toilet paper? 

I have been at privately-run airports where it cost $5 for a bottle of water and at another where you had to pay to use the restroom and pay extra for toilet paper.

I reluctantly voted Liberal in the last election because I believed Mark Carney was the best candidate to defend Canada, but if they follow through with this ill-conceived idea, I will vote against them in the next election.

Gerrard Weedon, Toronto 

Debate is healthy, and one of the backbones of a well-functioning democracy. Let us all hope Mark Carney respects that fact. 

 

So Many Questions

 

I have avoided posting anything thus far about Mr. Carney's economic summit and his trip to Europe in which Canada has been offered "associate membership" in the European Union. The main reason is I am still reading about and digesting these developments. However, one large, billowing red flag is the prime minister's intention to sell long-term concessions (think Ontario's privatized Hwy 407) in four major major airports (Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver). Its putative purpose is to raise capital for improvements at other, smaller airports,  

This decision has nothing to do with asset development and everything to do with enriching the rentier class. In our rush to escape the slimy tentacles of Trump and his disciples, we may be giving far too easy a ride to schemes such as this, but the threat is not going unnoticed.

The following letters to the editor raise some very valid concerns:

Look what happened when they privatized Highway 407

Carney government will allow private investments in Canadian airports, Sept. 15

As much as I like Prime Minister Mark Carney’s approach in welcoming foreign investment, losing control of our airports really scares me. Just look at what happened to the privatization of Highway 407. That was a huge mistake and one I personally can’t forgive.

Norbert Hibbeln, Oshawa, ON

How to keep Canadian ownership and control 

Instead of selling off another asset to investors, I would suggest the following: Establish a direct link between Toronto Pearson International Airport and John C. Munro International Airport in Hamilton. Busses to start and a rail link to follow. Think the UP Express. Designate Pearson as the main international hub and Hamilton the main domestic hub. Pearson could be 70 per cent international and 30 per cent domestic flights with Hamilton 70 per cent domestic and 30 per cent international. Offer discounts on landing fees to airlines willing to use John C. Munro over Pearson.

This solution would reduce congestion at Pearson and make better use of an already existing but under utilized asset in Hamilton. It would also ensure that Pearson remains under Canadian ownership and control.

Peter Smith, Ajax, ON 

Question for the PM: Who is supposed to get rich here? 

When it comes to the privitization of public assets, the only real question I have for Prime Minister Mark Carney is “who is supposed to get rich here?” Or should I say richer?

John Gavin, Toronto

So, Canada is for sale?

When U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to “buy” Canada by declaring Canada as the 51st state of the U.S., there was outrage across Canada.

Now “Canada for Sale” is being considered by Canada itself, and its starting with the sale of Canadian airports. After airports, what comes next? Trump will be first buyer in line with top bid. Let us see what happens next after we sell off Canadian airports.

Qasim Abbas, Mississauga, ON

Then there is this Globe and Mail missive from a former airport authority chairman:

Ain’t broke

Re “Ottawa to announce steps toward opening up airports to more private investment, sources say” (Sept. 15): I believe any rationale for airport privatization falls short when weighed against the financial successes and positive economic impact of Canada’s not-for-profit, community-based airport authorities.

Under the 1990s National Airports Policy, about 20-plus major and regional airports were transferred to local arm’s-length authorities. Since then, these organizations have financed tens of billions of dollars in improvements through landing fees, concessions and airport improvement fees.

Local governance allows airports to respond to regional needs with boards that include business leaders, municipal representatives and labour voices. Why sell strategic assets, possibly to foreign investors, when they already generate stable public revenue and community benefits?

Privatizing airports would shift priorities from regional development to shareholder returns. A fragmented hybrid system, with some airports community-run and others privately owned, would weaken co-ordination, partnerships and the seamless airport connectivity Canadians rely on.

Mark Carney should abort this harrowing flight before it leaves the runway.

Gerry Gallant Former chairman, Charlottetown Airport Authority; Souris West, PEI

Transportation Minister Steve McKinnon is going out of his way to reassure Canadians about this development, saying that Ottawa will protect consumers from "unjustified price increases" The devil is in the details, of course, and I seem to remember similar assurances about reasonable tolls on the 407 when that was sold off by the Mike harris government in a 99-year lease. Today, it has, I believe, the highest tolls in North America.

Trust, but verify, as the saying goes. That can only happen if and when Canadians doff their rose-tinted glasses and begin to examine Mr. Carney's moves in the harsh light of day.

No Indication Of Change

In my previous post, I discussed a myriad of incompencies and corruptions within the Doug Ford government in Ontario,  expressing the hope that the three byelections would convey a message of discontent. Unfortunately, with a turnout of about 25%, (having them at the end of summer was no accident, I am sure) the status quo was maintained.

With a provincial general election in the relatively distant future, we can be sure Ford and his ilk will view these results with pleasure, emboldening them to ever greater heights of ineptitude and backroom deals. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon those who are able to remind people that this is a government with a rather abject contempt for democracy as we know it, not to mention egregious hypocrisy. Some letters to the editor serve that function.

Doug Ford calls Donald Trump a ‘loser’ now, but he was a fan not so long ago, Aug. 29

I’d like to thank Robert Benzie for reminding us that Ontario Premier Doug Ford was caught on a hot microphone indicating that he had favoured U.S. President Donald Trump to win the 2024 presidential election. I guess his support for the Republican ticket in 2020 is more defensible, as Trump wasn’t a fully known quantity yet. But Ford’s continued support in advance of the 2024 election is much harder to understand. By that time, Trump was already a convicted felon and had lost a civil lawsuit to a woman who’d accused him of sexual abuse.

When Ford’s presidential preference became known, more journalists in Canada should have been asking tough questions about his support for a man who had already been exposed as a lawbreaker and miscreant. His answers might have revealed something important about Ford’s character and helped inform Ontario voters in the 2025 provincial election.

John Connolley, Aurora, Ont.

Ford and Trump are cut from the same cloth. Both are bullies; both make uninformed, reactionary decisions; both like to put down journalists; and both enjoy bloviating. Ford’s words in defence of Canada may sound good, but let’s not forget his actions. For one thing, the premier keeps giving tax dollars to companies based in the United States. The best current example is the $750 that Ontario teachers will receive to purchase school supplies, which they will have to spend at Staples, an American corporation. When I was teaching, I mostly bought my supplies at Dollarama, a great Canadian company. It was also much more cost-effective. Go figure.

Astrid Budd, Toronto

Ford is and always has been a Trump clone, whose policies have proved time and time again to be just as destructive and foolhardy as the U.S. president’s.

Sophie Tanel, Vaughan, Ont.

That Ford was an ardent Trump supporter is embarrassment overshadowed only by the fact that so many Ontarians voted for him, twice, despite his clearly being a bad judge of character. Hopefully this huge red flag will be waved — in addition to the Maple Leaf — at the next provincial election.

Julia Bowkun, Toronto

Hopefully, as the years wind down on Ford's mandate, more people will begin thinking for themselves and realize a drastic change is necessary.

UPDATED: It Doesn't Sound Good

 

Given the scarcity of information surrounding the putative trade deal between Canada and the U.S., I can only rely on my gut in this post. From what I have read, it sounds to me like Canada has folded once more rather than confront the U.S. and its trade aggression against our country. The Globe and Mail reports Dominic LeBlanc as saying that Canada 

protected supply management, but he didn’t respond when asked about the result of negotiations to lower sectoral tariffs levelled under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

American trade envoy Jamieson Greer,  

said on social media that the deal includes “market access for all American goods, economic security commitments, digital trade alignment.”

I smell capitulation here. In any event, if the deal is as bad of a sellout as I suspect it is, clearly our negotiating team cares not a whit for Canadian public opinion, which has expressed real vehemence against a bad deal. Here are some letters from The Star that express that view. 

Canada needs to stop trying to appease Trump and finally call his bluff on tariffs, Aug. 15

Thank you to Star business columnist David Olive.

It’s about time someone spelled it out in plain language: Canada should not be looking to make a deal. President Donald Trump is in trouble, and all we need to do is wait him out.

It has been clear from the beginning that Trump’s tariffs hurt the American consumer. The numbers David Olives quote clearly reflect Canada’s superior economic performance on many fronts, — our lower inflation, better job creation, stock market performance and foreign investment.

It’s time Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc takes notice of public sentiment. Either the Americans stand down or we stand up and walk away. Let Trump and his minions look elsewhere for a solution to the disaster of their making.

The Canadian public needs a show of strength and resolve.

We don’t need more concessions.

Enough is enough.

Phil Warne, Pickering

It’s time for Carney and Co. to put a stop to the bullying

The U.S. is putting pressure on Canada with tariff threats. It puts a great deal of pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney.

However, our prime minister cannot put pressure on ordinary Canadians and he must not force us to buy American products.

It’s down to Canadian customers. So let’s join together and tell Trump and his like to take a hike and show them what civilized refusal to bullying looks likes.

Ajit Zacharias, Newcastle, Ont.

Canada must stop making concessions because now it’s expected by Trump

David Olive makes the useful observation Canada has more leverage than it has so far chosen to exercise.

The deeper problem is habitual. For years, the Canadian approach has resembled a man who keeps feeding the same raccoon ever-larger sandwiches in the hope it will eventually develop manners and leave the porch.

When one side makes clear that almost any concession is preferable to friction, the other has every incentive to keep raising the price. Unused leverage decays quickly. At some point, the polite posture is clearly a nervous tic.

David Woodard, Tampere, Finland

Why shouldn’t Canada push back on U.S. tariffs? What have we got to lose?

Why have we not heard from our federal government regarding the inclusion of an export tax on critical items the United States needs? Potash, electricity, aluminum, B.C. soft lumber, critical minerals come to mind.

We have seen conciliatory moves have only been viewed by the U.S. as weakness.

It has appeared, since the first tariffs were imposed upon Canada, our government has been in a reactive stance as opposed to taking the initiative and using all of our tools available to meet the U.S. as an equal at any negotiating table.

If they squeeze us, then we should be squeezing back.

And as a shoutout to support our Canadian journalists, our government needs to bring back the Digital Services Tax.

Eric Edelsward, Mississauga

As they say, more to come, but if our negotiators have sold us out, I would not be voting for the Liberals in any of the three upcoming by elections if I lived in one of those ridings. Our 'leaders' should be aware that there is more than one way for people to express their strongly-held views.

UPDATE: This sounds like a big ask of the provinces:

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston says Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked provinces to restock American alcohol on their shelves as Canada finalizes a trade deal with the U.S. 

From the information I have been able to glean from the media, softwood lumber tariff reductions seem unlikely. If that is the case, I don't see how B.C. Premier David Eby could acquiesce in the restocking of American alcohol and have any political credibility left. 

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: