The Government We Deserve?

I can't say that I have ever really subscribed to the above quote by Thomas Jefferson, largely because politicians misrepresent themselves all the time.  One may vote with a certain hope for better things based on their promises, but those promises rarely materialize. Because of that, truly informed decisions are difficult to arrive at. (Of course,  the recent U.S. election proves the exception, with voters willfully embracing the chaos agent known as Don Trump.)

However, I believe there is much truth in the quote when manifestly unfit governments continue to ride high in the polls and repeatedly get re-elected. Such seems to be the situation in Ontario, where Doug Ford, despite his grave fiscal and ethical malfeasance, enjoys ongoing popularity.

This brief CBC report on the auditor general's report gives some insight into the shady and fiscally profligate practices of the government:

In addressing the auditor-general's report on the government, Edward Keenan writes of a theme that seems to permeate the Ford government's decision-making approach, one found in the AG's report:

“Without proper planning.”

That was her description, in Tuesday’s annual report, of how the decision to close supervised-consumption drug sites was made.

On supervised injection sites, the auditor notes harm reduction strategies that prevented 1,500 deaths from overdoses are being discontinued without proper planning or impact analysis. Which sounds like a roundabout way to say people are likely to die.

But six years into the life of a government that has always shown an eagerness to fire before it aims, it seems more like an all-purpose description of The Doug Ford Way.

The report contains plenty of other language that might seem jolting when applied to government actions, but by now seems overly familiar. The decisions to issue minister’s zoning orders (or MZOs)were “not fair, transparent or accountable.” The assessment process for the Ontario Place redevelopment was “irregular” and “subjective,” and “rules and guidelines … were not followed.” 

There are a few themes there that are at the forefront of Spence’s report. Decisions seem to be made quickly and on impulse, according to either the political whims and vendettas of the premier or the backroom desires of developers and corporate interests. Traditional accountability checks or analysis of impacts are discarded. Rinse, repeat.

Keenan asks the question of where all of this leaves us. My answer is, unfortunately, without any viable alternative that will cure people's addiction to the populist premier. When she was first chosen as leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, I harboured some hope that Bonnie Crombie might prove to be that viable alternative.  But as I wrote in two previous posts, one in June and one in November, she really only promises more of the same fiscal recklessness in her desperation for electoral support. In in her latest ploy for popularity, she promises to axe the (carbon) tax. 

I’d rather cut your income taxes permanently than cut you a rebate cheque.”

The rebate remark was a dig at both Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford, who have promised cheques of $250 and $200 respectively to defray the high cost of living. 

Perhaps when they do go to the polls, the people of Ontario can be forgiven for voting for the same old thing, since that is all that will apparently be on offer. 

Bread And Circuses

"Bread and circuses" is a phrase that refers to a government's attempt to distract the public from real issues by providing them with things that make their lives more enjoyable. The phrase is often used in political contexts. 

The Romans certainly had a way of dealing with the masses, and their strategy succeeded for a long time. Nothing works as effectively as diverting people from real problems, especially those either created or and aided and abetted by government. Such diversion can be especially effective at concealing an absence of political leadership.

This is certainly the zeitgeist at work in Ontario, where we have a government led by Doug Ford whose version of bread and circuses consists of 'initiatives' like buying the people with their own money (eg., the recently announced bribe rebates of $200 per adult and child "to make life more affordable", the ending of licence plate fees, the proposed and very expensive ripping up of bike lanes, an ongoing gas tax reduction, etc., etc.)

Unfortunately, there is little to stop Ford and his gimmickry. We have, for example, a feckless Ontario Liberal Party, led by the unelected Bonnie Crombie, that proposes to do more of the same. 

The party's proposal would see Ontario's personal income tax rate for those making between $51,446 and $75,000 reduced by two per cent, from the current 9.15 per cent to 7.15 per cent. 

A party spokesperson said those earning just more than that would also benefit from the plan. Someone earning $85,000 in taxable income, for example, would pay the lower rate on their income between $51,446 and $75,000, and the 9.15 per cent rate on their earnings beyond that.

They estimate this would save the average family about $950 a year. 

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie said Tuesday they also promise to slash the provincial component of HST on residential heating and hydro bills, which could save households about $200 a year. 

In language that rivals our current provincial demagogue, Crombie goes on to declare:

"That is real and ongoing relief for you and your family, ...."

"It's real money back in your pocket to help you afford groceries, to buy your child a new winter coat or pay for overdue repairs to your home or to your car." 

What is there not to like about these promises, you may ask? How about the real cost - the cost to essential social services, healthcare, and education, to name but three. Starving the treasury is never a good idea, except when you are pandering to the public in an attempt to gain political capital.

This pathetic ply, Crombie's version of bread and circuses, conceals a raft of problems that, to my knowledge, neither she nor NDP leader Marit Stiles have ever addressed: the disproportionate burden that provincial downloading has placed on the shoulders of homeowners, who face ever-rising rates of property taxes to deal with costs that should be the purview of the province, including social services and housing, ambulance services, local roads and bridge maintenance and construction etc.

Addressing such burdens would require fearless leadership, and that in itself would by no means guarantee political success. After all, far too many are dazzled by baubles, the promise of immediate cash in hand, the prospect of being able to buy beer at Costco, (despite the quarter-billion dollars that one cost), etc. In other words, politicos know and exploit the ignorance of people, readily offering up their particular versions of bread and circuses to divert the masses. 

Unless someone with real integrity emerges, expect the status quo to continue unabated.

 

Springing The Trap

In his ongoing efforts to evade responsibility for the plight of the homeless and their consequent encampments, Doug Ford set a trap. And like hungry mice eager for an ort from the table, 12 Ontario big-city mayors shamelessly took the bait. 

It all began when Mr. Ford very publicly suggested he wanted 

Ontario’s Big City Mayors, an association of 29 municipal leaders, to show “backbone” and support using the notwithstanding clause by putting it in writing “if they really want the homeless situation to improve.” 

The whiff of cheese too strong,  

the leaders of Barrie, Brampton, Brantford, Cambridge, Chatham-Kent, Clarington, Oakville, Oshawa, Pickering, St. Catharines, Sudbury and Windsor sent a letter to Ford on Thursday...

“We request that your government consider the (measures) … and where necessary use the notwithstanding clause to ensure these measures are implemented in a timely and effective way.”

Too their credit, cities like Toronto, Burlington and Hamilton refused to join in the request, apparently aware that the 'solution' on offer was  misdirection of the vilest kind.

Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward, chair of the mayors’ group, wants to see “one point person, a specific minister or ministry, in charge of solving this” and a province-wide plan including more supports.

She said the “issue becomes, if you are using the notwithstanding clause to close down encampments, but people have nowhere to go, we’re no farther ahead.”

 Others also saw the offer of the notwithstanding clause for the ruse it is.

Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who did not sign the letter, “believes the notwithstanding clause isn’t a real solution,” said her spokesperson Shirven Rezvany, urging the province to create more supportive housing, boost social assistance rates and reinstate rent controls, among other things.  

“I would hope that the government would actually be working with municipalities to build the housing we really need.”

Ontario Green Party leader, Mike Schreiner, had this to say: 

"To me, this is a complete failure of the Ford government to build deeply affordable, non-profit, co-op and supportive housing. If they are going to take the extreme measure of taking the constitutional rights away from people who are experiencing homelessness, where are those people going to go? There are no homes for them to go to."

As I said in my previous post,  Doug Ford, like so many other 'leaders', has debased the nature of the political contract, reducing it to a transactional one. It is good to know that there are at least a few who still understand that the whiff of some pungent cheese is no guarantee of a feast for all.

 

If You Live In Ontario

 ... you will understand the following

H/t Moudakis

One of the dubious accomplishments of Ontario Premier Doug Ford's government has been to reduce the relationship between the governed and those who govern to a transactional one. No more are there entertained the lofty sentiments of a John Kennedy, who famously said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

No, those days are long gone, to be replaced by crass efforts to convince everyone that government exists only to make your life better (an illusion that some people only latter discover is untrue) through egregious vote-buying.

Forget the common good. Forget the larger issues that demand sacrifice from all (climate change, rampant homelessness, drug addiction, etc. etc.) And, of course, forget about the fact that these giveaways preclude any effort to re-upload provincial responsibilities that are bleeding property taxpayers dry.

As is often the case, however, I am prevented from slipping into complete despair by the fact that a few see through the entire facade.

Doug Ford spending nearly half of Ontario’s tax windfall on $200 ‘rebate’ cheques, Oct. 20

What a fiscally irresponsible premier we have. 

First, Doug Ford scrapped the $120 licence plate renewal fee, costing the province about $1.1 billion a year. Wasn’t that money necessary to fix our roads, highways, bridges, etc.? Then Ford broke a contract one year early with the LCBO to the tune of at least $225 million. (This could go as high as $1 billion with the projected repercussions.) Apparently getting beer at the corner store is more important than putting money toward, let’s say, health care.

Now he wants to give $200 to each taxpayer regardless of their income. (Naturally this will not include the most vulnerable among us who do not pay taxes.) This will cost $3 billion. That’s BILLIONS of dollars that could have gone to hire the doctors, nurses and support staff required to cut surgery and emergency wait times; ensure mental health care for children who now have to wait years for help; fund schools properly so they don’t have to fund raise for necessities; subsidize homes for the homeless. Think about this as you spend your $200 bribe for your vote that could have been used for the greater good — improving the lives of the entire population of Ontario.

Susan Ross, London ON 

A deplorable stunt

This is one of the most bizarre decisions that I have ever witnessed by a government institution. Ontario has a huge debt burden which is being compounded by annual deficits. Apparently the Ontario government thinks it should be rewarded (at the expense of their growing debt obligations) but they should be condemned for such a deplorable stunt.

Robert Woodcock, North York

Ford stop this crazy circus. We don’t find it amusing

What kind of a clown act is that, sending us back our own money intended for our welfare? Thanks, but no thanks. That $3 billion is our tax money. It would go a long way in areas in desperate need of funding. We are not amused. The only clown act we want to see from you is of the disappearing kind.

 Frances Sedgwick, Toronto

For Your Consideration

Okay I confess to being a bit obsessed about certain things:

H/t Moudakis

Meanwhile, Star readers weigh in:

An outrageous, insulting and self-centred waste of our tax dollars

Four ways to mock Doug Ford for trying to buy our fleeting love, Oct. 21

I could feel Heather Mallick’s frustration as I read her article and I agree with everything she said. We taxpayers mustn’t overlook where Ford’s $200 generosity is coming from. It is not coming out of his personal pocket. It is coming out of our tax dollars. So, in effect, he is giving us back our own money. This is an outrageous, insulting and self-centred waste of our tax dollars. We need and deserve to have our taxes spent on necessary services that are designed to help every person in Ontario.

Patricia Steward, East York

We’re donating our pre-election cheques to help the homeless

Doug Ford poised to send out pre-election cheques to 16 million Ontarians, Oct. 16

Premier Doug Ford’s blatant bribe for votes is disgusting, shameless and a very typical of his Progressive Conservative government. Our two-person household will be signing over our two cheques to the Ontario Alliance to End Homelessness. We feel the money will be of more use to those homeless folks Ford tells to “get off your a-s-s and start working like everyone else.” One wonders if homeless folks will even get a cheque, since they don’t have an address. Well done, premier. More than $3 billion spent on bribery, when that money could and should go to health care, education and ending homelessness [emphasis mine]. Priorities, folks!

Nancy Van Kessel, Mississauga

What Is Your Vote Worth?

How does $200 sound? That is the price, to put it crassly, that Premier Doug Ford has estimated will buy your vote - $200 to make you complicit in his malfeasance, his corruption. his backroom deals, only some of which have come to light, (with more revelations pending, if Marit Stiles has her way).

Some voters might be insulted by Ford's low opinion of their worth; others will simply take the money and ask no questions, content with his explanation that it is to "stimulate the economy. Thie Star's Martin Regg Cohn is not among the latter group. He writes:

Ford’s PCs want an early election, no matter the cost. Never mind the unnecessary $155-million election expense — that’s the least of it.

If they settle on the $200 figure for every adult and child in Ontario, that works out to as much as $1,000 for a family of five — and perhaps $3.2 billion out of the treasury in total. That money is badly needed to shore up our schools, our hospitals and our homeless, but the premier believes he needs it more desperately to soften up voters.

That is a pretty high tab to be putting blinders on people's eyes, but blinders are what Ford needs, given his' situation'.

The headlines have faded, but few have forgotten the $8.28-billion imbroglio over protected land made available to private developers on the premier’s watch (until he reversed course under pressure). That police probe could be released sometime next year, delivering potentially bad news and a political death sentence.

Rather than wait for the police to rain on their re-election parade — scheduled for June 2026 under Ontario’s fixed election law — the plan is to move the campaign up by more than a year to early 2025. 

Regg Cohn calls it for what it is:

It’s an elegant, if expensive, election plan: a kickback for voters, gifted by a government accused of kickbacks from developers (despite those opposition allegations in the legislature, no criminality has been proven and the police aren’t talking).

But lest we forget, Ford is an old hand at pandering to the public.

Ahead of the 2022 election, Ford’s Tories cut cheques to rebate motorists for licence plate fees that the government cancelled, at a cost of more than $1 billion to the treasury. During the COVID pandemic, parents received as much as $250 per child. And the previous PC government of Mike Harris issued $200 “dividend” cheques.

How to justify such shameless pre-election (early election) vote-buying?

The unspoken reason is to satisfy the premier’s lust for power. The official rationale is to support people’s purchasing power.

Regg Cohn ends his piece with this query: ... does he have voters figured out?

Only you can answer that question.

Worth Repeating

In my previous post, I wrote about the Ford follies involving luxury spas on Toronto's waterfront. This letter to the editor about the premier's predilection for favouring private interests at the expense of taxpayers is well worth reading.

Public vs. private interests

In 1999, Mike Harris’ Progressive Conservative party sold Ontarians down the river by signing away Highway 407 on a 99-year lease to a private consortium. In the quarter-century since, Ontarians have looked longingly at this asset, which has expanded and runs across an increasingly busy part of the province, as it makes money for foreign shareholders, and costs the people of Ontario dearly in access to transportation options, exorbitant tolls and gridlock.

Last Thursday, Premier Doug Ford’s Conservative government, having sold off Ontario Place for a private, foreign-owned spa on prime public land, watched as the urban forest of mature trees on the site was turned into wood chips to make way for the plans. Earlier this year, Ford paid off another private consortium (The Beer Store) to get out of a contract a year before it was to expire just to get beer into corner stores. Last year, instead of using taxes paid by Ontarians to improve public health care, Ford decided to promote private health care by encouraging use of for-profit clinics in the province.

Is it just me that feels that every time we give the Conservatives the keys to our province they insist on selling it off to private interests and stick it to the taxpayers who should have access to, control over and benefit from these assets?

Brigitte Nowak, Toronto

How Sweet It Is

 

People of a certain age will remember Jackie Gleason and one of his famous taglines: "How sweet it is." Delivered with an insouciance only Gleason was capable of,  it was a line that was applicable to many of his skits. Unfortunately, applying it to a real-life situation in Ontario means it must be spoken only in a bitter and cynical way, unless you are part of the Austrian group developing the Therme Spa on Toronto's waterfront. 

The Doug Ford government recently released some of the details of its 95-year-lease with the company, but first, just a couple of details about group:

Therme Canada, the latest deep-pocketed firm with designs on a chunk of Toronto’s waterfront, is a far more opaque organization, privately held, with no publicly disclosed source of financing besides the entry fees and ancillary revenues generated by its spas.

The company, however, has deep local connections, overseen by executives who have worked in the office of Premier Doug Ford as well as lobbyists such as StrategyCorp’s John Perenack and Leslie Noble, and Amir Remtulla, Ford’s former EA from his days at City Hall. Its local architect is Diamond Schmitt, whose renderings have stirred controversy since they were made public in the summer.

Mmm. friends of Doug Ford do have a history of prospering. In any event, the details of the deal that we are thus far permitted to know seem to suggest a very sweet deal at the expense of the usual suspects: taxpaying citizens:

The lease shows Ontario has promised 1,600 dedicated parking spaces for Therme, and the government says it is proposing a total of 2,500 parking spaces for Ontario Place. Some of Therme’s parking spaces are set to be shared with Live Nation during concerts.

Bear in mind that these spaces care being paid by the taxpayer, but the pain doesn't necessarily stop there:

If the province fails to meet its parking obligations before the spa resort opens, or 2030, whichever comes first, the lease compels taxpayers to give Therme $5 per spot per day for a portion of the unbuilt spots, which Lindsay said could total $2.2 million per year.

Depending upon whether those parking spaces are underground, the public could be handing over hundreds of millions of dollars for their construction. This is in addition to Infrastructure Ontario's Michael Lindsay's admission "that provincial taxpayers have so far spent “hundreds of millions” of dollars on site servicing to get all of Ontario Place ready for redevelopment."

But, not to worry, the government insists, because the economic benefits will be astronomical. 

Benefits of the redevelopment plan, Infrastructure Ontario said in briefing documents, “include, at a minimum, nearly $2 billion in estimated revenue contributions from Therme Canada to the province over the duration of the lease and $700 million in upfront capital investments from Therme Canada.

However, like many of the claims by the Ford coterie, these revenue projections are based, to put it politely, on wildly enthusiastic (i.e., wholly unrealistic) expectations. 

The province says it expects the revitalized Ontario Place to attract more annual visitors than the CN Tower and Empire State Building combined, a estimation that some experts are questioning. 

On Thursday, the province revealed it expects 6 million visitors annually at the site, which includes the waterpark and spa being developed by Therme Canada, a concert venue, the new science centre, a new marina and public park land. The estimation was made public when the province revealed its lease with Therme. 

By comparison, the CN Tower sees about 1.8 million visitors a year and the Empire State Building 2.5 million. The six million visitor figure would put Ontario Place closer to Eiffel Tower-level tourism, which sees just under seven million visitors a year.

But Wayne Smith, a hospitality expert from Toronto Metropolitan University,  is rightly dubious of this number:

"But you know when you take a look at that and, we did the numbers, six million guests a year would be almost 16,500 people a day. That's a lot of people."

However, there is one bright spot in the midst of this fiscal morass. The lease with Therme  prohibits one of Ford's passion projects: a waterfront casino.

When you live in Doug Ford's Ontario, you look for victories, however minuscule, wherever you can find them.

 

 

Tunnel Vision

H/t Moudakis

Continuing with yesterday's theme, Star readers offer their views of Doug Ford's latest scheme:

The idea of a Highway 401 tunnel is ludicrous. It can’t be built quickly enough. It won’t be big enough. The cost-benefit analysis will show it was a bad idea before it started. From an engineering perspective, how will entries and exits be done? How will it be ventilated? A better solution to congestion is to move commercial vehicles to Highway 407, and spend the money on health care and social services.

Grant Baines, Uxbridge, Ont.

How many billions of dollars would a tunnel cost? How many years would a tunnel take to dig? Is there not a better way to spend the money a tunnel would cost, like housing, hospital staff or education? Would the tunnel even help congestion? What about the people who don’t drive or own a car? Do they want their tax dollars spent on more roads? We need to let Premier Doug Ford know we won’t stand for him wasting our tax dollars.

Barbara Eckert, Etobicoke

I remember the Big Dig, when Boston decided to replace a relatively short section of interstate. The effort took 20 years from planning to completion. The cost ballooned to three times the original estimate, and totalled $8.08 billion ($21 billion with inflation today). Traffic was a disaster for over a decade and, as of my most recent visit this summer, traffic is still a disaster. Meanwhile, the tunnels leak. 

John Gavin, Toronto

Ontario should do what most other modern countries with big cities have done and go to high-speed electric rail. Look at Beijing, Tokyo, Paris and London. It would help the entire province, not just the 50 kilometres across the top of Toronto, and it helps to solve our emissions problem at the same time. 

Hugh Holland, Huntsville, Ont.

All of the above letters employ both reason and judgement. As such, expect their sentiments to be completely ignored by our current provincial government.

UPDATED: He's A Trial For All Of Us

From Frank Kafka's The Trial

Someone must have left some envelopes upon which he doodled, because Doug F. , without having done any thinking, announced another scheme one fine morning: a tunnel under the 401 highway in Toronto.

While it may not be the giant ferris wheel he once envisaged for Toronto's waterfront, it does seem to be of a piece: fill the electorate with fantastic visions that have no chance of realization, while all the other politicians carp at him about such mundane crises as homelessness, tent encampments, and hospital overloads. 

If one were to search very hard, no doubt would could discern the real philosophy underlying this government: better a sweet lie than a bitter truth.

Expect more bread and circuses as we edge closer to the next provincial election.

UPDATE: Brittlestar gives Ford's 'idea' all the respect it deserves:

Teflon Doug

He's loved of the distracted multitude,

Who like not in their judgment, but their eyes

- Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 3

It is deeply disappointing to discover that Ontario Premier Doug Ford is continuing to show ongoing strength in the polls. Indeed, those polls suggest the above quote from Hamlet is an appropriate explanation of public sentiment toward the retail salesman often called "Teflon Doug."

What explains the popularity of a man mired in scandal thanks to his intimate relationship with big developers? Robert Benzie offers this:

In new polling for the Star, Abacus Data found voters are so far willing to forgive — if not quite forget — transgressions that would have derailed the electoral careers of others.

...the Tories are confident about the two-term premier’s skills on the stump and his ability to connect with Ontarians in their everyday lives.

Pollster David Colletto says:

He’s polarizing in the sense that if you don’t like him, you don’t like him. And there’s a lot of Ontarians who don’t like Doug Ford,” said Coletto.

“But he has enough who do and they think he’s just a friendly, nice guy who isn’t perfect, but admits mistakes when he makes them and tries to fix them,” the pollster said.

“He’s forgiven because he asks for forgiveness.”

Revealingly, when asked how to describe Ford, 44 per cent of respondents felt he was “friendly,” while 20 per cent said he was “mean.”

Similarly, 39 per cent said he “gets things done” while 38 per cent insisted he “fails to deliver”; 38 per cent said he is “normal” while 28 per cent said he’s “weird”; and 37 per cent said he “admits mistakes and corrects them” while 38 per cent said he “refuses to admit mistakes.”

“That’s a winner — during the last campaign that became his new brand: the guy who gets things done,” said Coletto, hearkening to the Tories’ successful 2022 re-election slogan, Get It Done.

Apparently, Ford's mastery of retail politics makes him a winner:

“It’s service above self. He’s very easy to talk to,” said Borecky, a retired program analyst.

To Coletto, “that is at the core of Doug Ford’s brand,” the perception of a folksy populist that has developed since he came to office in 2018.

“He is the guy who will call you back. You run into him in the airport or on the street, he’s going to shake your hand, he wants to meet you — he’s that ultimate retail politician,” he said.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, there is also a darker reason for Ford's ongoing popularity: people's general ignorance of what is going on around them. Matt Gurney writes: 

The average voter and citizen doesn’t spend much time paying attention to the news. They might be able to name Olivia Chow as the mayor of Toronto, but there’s a good chance they don’t know who their local councillor is. They almost certainly know that Justin Trudeau is the prime minister, but it’s not a given that they know he’s a Liberal.

A Maru poll from last year pegged the number of Canadians who were hyper-engaged in the news at 16 per cent, and that felt about right to me.

The catastrophes in our long-term care homes during the pandemic may not have registered with them because they were busy managing the pandemic’s effects on their own lives. The Greenbelt scandal is probably something they’ve heard mentioned but haven’t looked into deeply. The closing of the Science Centre, if it registered at all, was probably forgotten in days. And so on.

So there you go. Unscrupulous politicians (is that a redundancy?) count on a superficial citizenry, one that is easily manipulated by smiling faces, catchy phrases and inflammatory rhetoric.

Truly, they are an autocrat's dream. 

 

 

Not For A Few Dollars More

Sunday sees the start of the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Comprised of 444 municipalities, the conference offers the opportunity to discuss and make recommendations on a wide ranges of issues affecting cities and regions throughout the province.

Without doubt, high on their list will be the high costs of dealing with the massive opioid and homelessness crises Ontario  is experiencing, costs that are being increasingly borne by property tax payers thanks to the downloading that started under Mike Harris and continues to this day. It is an unsustainable model, one that the Doug Ford government is loathe to acknowledge.

Cities and towns across Ontario saw at least 1,400 homeless encampments in their communities last year, according to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), which is asking the province for guidance on how to handle them, as well as more help to house and support people.

"While municipalities did not create the homelessness crisis, they are being forced to manage it without the resources or tools to sufficiently respond," the association wrote.

And the problem is only growing. 

The big city mayors have launched a public campaign to put pressure on higher levels of government to provide increased and consistent funding to municipalities for supportive housing, harm reduction programs, crisis centres and mental health supports.

"Both levels of government have answered the call with some funding for programs over the last year. But it's not consistent or enough, it's piecemeal. Taking on the homelessness crisis takes a whole-of-government approach that spans multiple ministries and multiple levels of government," Meed Ward said.

Peter Bethlenthalvy, Ontario's finance minister, has offered some relief to Toronto and Ottawa, but seems reluctant to do much more than spend the $28 million he has allotted to fight the problems. Big city mayors say that is not nearly enough, given that there is an estimated 240,000 homeless people.

To put pressure on the government, the big-city mayors have launched a Solve the Crisis campaign, which I encourage you to visit and offer your perspective to your federal, provincial and municipal representatives.

The crisis being faced by Ontarians will not be solved by a few dollars more. Nothing less than a total re-uploading of social housing, infrastructure costs, etc. downloaded to municipalizes by Mike Harris will do.

And here's a final thought: for people like Marit Stiles and Bonnie Crombie, who talk a good opposition game, where is your policy on all of this?

The Erosion Of Local Democracy

The dog days of summer often offer opportunities for unscrupulous governments to slip something by the people. With the focus more on partying than politics, unpopular measures can be enacted with minimal consequences, at least that was likely the thought of Doug Ford and his cronies here in Ontario.

After his retreat from the Greenbelt incursions he had promised to his developer friends, the premier has to find ways to atone for his betrayal. One part of his penance is to remove impediments to their schemes.

A provincial law change that curtailed third-party groups’ ability to appeal development decisions has left environmental and ratepayer groups saying they’ve been silenced in a move that puts developer interests ahead of citizen concerns.

Ontario residents can no longer appeal development decisions at the Ontario Land Tribunal — a quasi-judicial body designed to adjudicate planning and other land disputes — after the Doug Ford government introduced legislation that removes the ability of third-parties such as ratepayer groups or environmental groups to do so.

The province says the changes to the third-party appeal rights in the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act (Bill 185), which passed in June, will “help communities get quicker planning approvals for housing projects.”

But this arrack on citizens' rights, contrary to the plan, has not gone unnoticed, as evidenced by these letters from concerned residents of this province. 

With my community, I was part of an Ontario Joint Board hearing (now known as the Ontario Land Tribunal) that successfully protected source water and endangered species from a gravel mining proposal on Mount Nemo in Burlington, Ont. We hired independent experts to make our case, and the evidence we presented was instrumental in the board’s decision to deny the quarry. As citizens, we had real stake in the outcome. Our well water, air quality and surrounding environment were at risk. Removing a community’s right to participate threatens to remove decision maker’s access to the on-the-ground knowledge and concerns of locals. Developers have the right to appeal local government decisions to the OLT. Taking away citizen’s equal rights encourages poorer planning and riskier development. The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act (Bill 185) bolsters corporate dominance, and renders the democratic voice of the people mute.

Sarah Harmer, Burlington

Reporter Noor Javed’s excellent article about new rules barring OLT third party appeals illustrates how our democratic rights are being trampled. The anger is growing daily in this region about Premier Doug Ford’s hypocritical statements about “governing for the people” as precious farmland and natural spaces are being squandered and lost. Our community of Ball’s Bridge and Little Lakes Road in southwestern Ontario has invested years of time and thousands of dollars to try to protect a natural area well loved by the public. We have been abandoned by our local council and have now been abandoned by the provincial government.

Rebecca Garrett, Goderich, Ont.

Bill 185 denies citizens groups from speaking up to protect our precious places. Is this this fair? Is this democratic? Absolutely not. We must fight for our right to be heard!

Wendy Hoernig, Goderich, Ont.

Since the enactment of Bill 185, the right of citizen groups to influence, challenge or contest planning decisions pushed by developers has been stripped away. This egregious action continues to erode our civil society and our democratic process. This seems to be the unspoken Tory agenda. We are “Open for Business” but only for those who are developers. This is hardly “a government for the people.” The worst kind of hypocrisy is to claim citizens are holding up development through appeals when the data shows that many of the appeals recorded over the past decade are by the developers themselves. Shame on the Ontario Conservatives for the their attack on democracy. Shame on MPP Jill Dunlop for supporting this. Bill 185 must be repealed.

David Jeffery, Tiny, Ont.

A somnolent citizenry is something that governments who are "for the people" in name only count on. One hopes that those who refuse to sleep are able to get some much needed traction here.