LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

"We will make Ontario once again the engine of Canada."

—Doug Ford during his election victory speech, 7 June 2018

"I'm not going to have a bunch of extremists [in] downtown Toronto deciding what the people of the north are going to do."

—Doug Ford during an election debate, 11 May 2018

"Hamilton has been ignored.  It has been run by the NDP — the socialists — who destroyed the city for years."

—Doug Ford during question period, 5 November 2019

It would be complimentary to refer to A Plan for Ontario as a political platform.  Short in stature and wanting in detail, the Progressive Conservatives' list of election promises lacked comprehensive costing —ironic from a group that claimed to be "the only party that's fiscally responsible."  The document's brevity rivalled the British Brexit party's recent minuscule "election contract," widely ridiculed for its lack of specifics.

I read through the entirety of A Plan for Ontario, but was left perplexed.  Although I noticed repeated promises to reinvigorate Ontario's economy, nowhere did I spot a commitment to undermine the province's most left-leaning cities.  I failed to observe any pledges to orchestrate vindictive favouritism against urban centres, or wage petty retribution against regions that didn't vote Progressive Conservative.

Yet, here we are.

Not to be outdone by a predecessor who forced a Toronto megacity amalgamation against the wishes of more than three-quarters of local residents, and who burned $40 million by filling in a tunnel already dug for the proposed Eglinton subway line, Premier Doug Ford is determined to steer the Progressive Conservatives to unprecedented levels of spitefulness against Ontario's economic centres.

Ford initially wanted revenge against his former colleagues at Toronto City Hall.  Shortly after coming to power, the Province unilaterally halved the number of city councillors and re-drew the wards map without any public consultation, tossing out years of work on a boundary review that had recently been completed.  When this unexpected reform was initially struck down by a judge, Ford threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause to temporarily override sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom for the first time in Ontario's history.

Ford then ripped up Toronto's transit plan and announced his own scheme instead in April, to the bewilderment of Toronto City Council.  This was another unilateral action that lacked public consultation and hadn't appeared in A Plan for Ontario.  The Sheppard East LRT was cancelled, with a more expensive subway extension planned instead, despite transportation planners arguing that ridership numbers didn't justify the more expensive subway option.  Costs of the planned Relief Line (now rebranded as the "Ontario Line") and Eglinton West LRT both ballooned by billions of dollars — this from a political party that previously cancelled an Eglinton subway and claims to be fiscally prudent.  The discarded Toronto transit plan had involved years of design work and costed millions of dollars, now down the drain.

That same month, the Province announced $1 billion would be cut from the budget of Toronto Public Health as of 2020, which will affect programs such as food safety and water-quality inspections, communicable disease surveillance and immunization controls.

Then another curveball in June: the Province unilaterally replaced Toronto's midtown and downtown development plans.  Again, to the surprise of Toronto City Council.  Again, without any public consultation.  Again, despite not appearing in A Plan for Ontario.

Critics of Ford assumed these destructive actions would largely be confined to targeting the city he once served as a councillor.  But this week we learned that Toronto wouldn't be the only urban centre to feel Ford's wrath.

Enter the City of Hamilton.

On Monday, Ford's government announced it had unilaterally cancelled Hamilton's planned LRT line.  In an attempt to sway public sentiment against the doomed project, the Province cited spiralling costs, releasing an estimated figure of $5.6 billion.  But this amount disingenuously included operating and maintenance costs for 30 years; the actual capital cost estimate was only half as much.

However, even that capital cost estimate of $2.8 billion appears dubious, produced by an "expert consultant's report" that the Province not only refuses to make public, but won't name the author of.  Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger insists the figure is made-up, ballooned to help sink the project.  And the actual capital cost of the project wouldn't have been known until bids were received from three consortiums, yet the entire project was cancelled mere weeks before bids were due.

The surprise decision is yet another example of tremendous financial waste from the Progressive Conservatives.  A decade of work had already been invested in the project.  Metrolinx had spent $165 million to purchase 65 properties for the proposed LRT route.  Several development companies had already begun dozens of projects along the corridor under the assumption that the LRT would be built.

Even Hamilton's business community has been scathing of the Province's unexpected, unilateral cancellation.

"It's going to have a huge impact on the investment climate here," Keanin Loomis, president and CEO of Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, told the CBC.

And rather than reaching out to the federal government for assistance with funding, Ford's team simply pulled the plug on the project.

Curiously, the Province commissioned a third-party review only of the Hamilton LRT project.  As Raise the Hammer editor Ryan McGreal noted on Thursday, Hamilton is being treated differently than all other Ontario communities receiving rapid transit funding.

Is it possible that the decision is largely political?  Could Doug Ford be treating Hamilton with the same vindictiveness as he is Toronto?

Cherise Burda, executive director of Ryerson University's City Building Institute, told the Toronto Star that costs of the Scarborough subway extension keep rising, yet that project has not been cancelled, or even received a third-party review.

Likewise, the Hurontario LRT project, planned for Mississauga and southern Brampton, has not been put under close financial scrutiny, despite having a longer route than the cancelled Hamilton LRT project.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the cancelled Hamilton LRT route would have been located entirely in ridings won by the NDP during the 2018 provincial election, while the unfettered Hurontario LRT and Scarborough subway extension projects are both planned for ridings that voted Progressive Conservative.

This is a government of chaos, not business.  Despite peddling catchphrases about making Ontario "open for business," it has instead been hostile to the province's economic engines.  It thrives on uncertainty, not data-based decision making, to the horror of investors everywhere.  It's more interested in settling one man's personal political scores than improving the lives of residents.

But we already knew this.

What we discovered this week was that if your provincial district didn't vote Progressive Conservative during a hard-change election that pivoted away from the Liberals, and if your community doesn't appear to be a marginal riding for the 2022 election, you're as good as dead to Doug Ford.

One of the most orange-tinted cities in Ontario learned the hard way that voting the "wrong" way has consequences when goons are in power.

Windsor, London, eastern Niagara, northern Brampton, northern Ontario and several other pockets dotted across the province had best watch their back.

Photo Credit: Toronto Star

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


There's an old Goon Show gag where a solemn announcer proclaims the broadcast of the latest fiscal update then you hear insane cackling.  Today instead, a financial update that ought to be delivered, and received, with hysterical laughter is followed by solemnity.

I refer of course to the latest federal Liberal one.  And I do so with a certain degree of bafflement because, as I've said before, Finance Minister Bill Morneau once had brains.  He had a successful career in the financial and policy world, generally it seems on the sensible side.  What on earth happened?

The question demands an answer.  And it now demands a derisive one, because he just told us the deficit would be $7 billion higher than we were promised in the budget scant months ago when he also solemnly assured us it would soon decline dramatically after a brief inexplicable surge.  No, wait.  That's not why.  That's such old news it could be from the Mulroney years.  The reason Morneau's latest egg should be all over his face is he delivered not bad news but fake news.

I realize that term is overused.  I try to avoid it.  But sometimes someone peddles such a lie or delusion that you have to blow that particular whistle.  And the reason this update was fake rather than just old bad news is that, as the National Post's John Ivison immediately pointed out, Morneau's already dismal fiscal update left out $56.7 billion in new spending the Liberals promised in the election and included in the Throne Speech.

Well, I call it dismal.  But of course it was put forward smugly.  And don't get me started on the Throne Speech.  Oops.  Too late.  Because it's actually a constitutional rule in Canada that Parliament may not approve any spending or taxation not requested in an address from the Throne in that session.  It's an old and very important rule designed to prevent the Executive from steamrolling the Legislature by requiring a precise, costed outline of its plans.  But the legislature has since steamrolled itself, with the result that Throne Speeches now sound, and look, like campaign literature.  As does almost everything else.

So back to the campaign-style fiscal update and its idiotic-style losing $56.7 billion.  It's not a subtle error.  Even to Bill Morneau $56.7 billion isn't chump change.  Even spread over four years of reckless spending, surging deficits and fatuous statements.  How do you promise a bunch of new spending then go before a microphone clutching a spending update crafted by fine, and very well paid, minds in the Finance Department, and that colossal sum you couldn't shut up about on the campaign trail two months ago is missing and you either didn't notice or thought we wouldn't?

Somebody's stupid for sure. And it gets worse.  Which can't have been easy.  But confronted with the fact that in 2015 the Liberals promised small deficits that would soon vanish, gave us new less attractive figures in the 2019 spring budget while assuring us the plan was doing fine except it wasn't, then in December 2019 gave us numbers that were immediately revealed to be wrong even before you botched your Grade 4 math, Morneau smirked "Nobody said it was going to be easy".

Now this remark is not just fatuous and insulting.  It's actually insane because, of course, someone did say it would be easy.  And he knows it because that person was his boss Justin Trudeau.  "The budget will balance itself", then-third party leader Trudeau breezily declared in 2014.

His defenders insist that he's been mocked out of context because the full sentence was "the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself."  But he made a commitment that was a commitment to grow the economy.  What's more the economy grew.  But the budget didn't balance itself and nobody balanced it because they thought it was easy.  Just like when his dad was prime minister and laughed off deficits that grew to such menacing proportions that within a generation we nearly "hit the wall" fiscally.

At that point we weren't laughing because it turned out budgets unbalanced themselves with surprising ease if your leaders were glib economic ignoramuses.  And Morneau doesn't even have that excuse because whatever he is, he can't be an economic ignoramus.  He just can't.  So imagine knowing your boss said those words then making a glib joke about it over a document that lost $56.7 billion and still showed looming deficits.

You get the idea?  Far from trying to make sense, or being embarrassed that he wasn't making sense or apparently even trying to on a key issue, he finds it funny.  He laughs in our faces at the idiotic way he and his colleagues are driving the federal government back in the direction of insolvency.  And expects us to nod and go clever, dude.  And… we do?

I don't want to get into a long digression about the irrelevance of truth in the Age of Trump that will offend friend and foe alike.  Trump spouts nonsense all the time, from record crowds at his inaugural to Ted Cruz's father being linked to the Kennedy assassination, that would appal his supporters if Hillary Clinton said it.  But it's not just him, of course.  Bill Clinton told endless lies and harassed women in ways that would appal his supporters if Donald Trump did it whereas because it's our guy it's You Go Big Dawg.

In short, far too many politicians and partisans go around acting like there's nothing to see in a process that amounts to gaslighting voters.  And Justin Trudeau does it too.  When he's not being cosmic about the space-time continuum he alternates gaffes with nonsense in a remarkably blithe way, on everything from deficits to China's sparkling environmental record and admirable dictatorship to how Albertans make terrible Prime Ministers and Quebeckers need to run Canada.  Then he acts like it never happened.

Most people, for instance, would be embarrassed to swagger into the national unity file dragging that last clunker.  Not him.

Oh well.  It's all fun and games, right?  Because you have your truth and I have mine and… hang on.  Bill Morneau has our money and needs way more of it and forgot.

Here's where the rubber hits the cheque.  Deficits are real.  Debts are real.  Interest payments are real.  And we have a Finance Minister who just forgets billions in spending, still can't make the numbers look attractive, and thinks it's funny.

He's not the one who should be laughing.  We should.  At him.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Well friends, here we are again at the end of the year.  A time for giving, sharing time with your family, a time to go back over my predictions column from last year and wonder what, exactly, is wrong with me.

The last year was a weird one, a strange adventure in the bizarre and miserable.  Thankfully, you knew that already because you read my predictions column a year ago and saw it all laid out.  Or, well, maybe not.

If you didn't read it, you were actually probably better prepared for the year that was.  Going in to the year blind is probably the best option, especially when you look at some of what I said was going to happen.  Reading back through last year's column I'm left wondering what underlying issues I have going, because there is some weird shit in there.

If you'd like to read the full thing before we start picking through it, by all means. You can find it here.

Done reading it?  Good.  Let's review those predictions, shall we?

  • This next one was pretty good, though.  Pretty, pretty good.  "Justin Trudeau will remain prime minister through the 2019 election," I said.  "He may not make a historic sweep of things, but he's going to get a second kick at the can."  Nailed it.  I was a little off with how much people lost their love of Trudeau — the SNC stuff I did not see coming — but said the fundamental problem with the Conservatives was they overestimated the public's dislike of the prime minister.  I gotta give it to me: I was right.
  • And speaking of right, here's something that isn't: "Jagmeet Singh will not survive as leader of the NDP."  Yuh-nope.  Not even close.  I hadn't realized two things: how low NDP expectations were, and that Singh was going to be a good campaigner.  I was right that Singh would win fewer seats for his party than Tom Mulcair, I just hadn't realized this would be as close to a victory as the NDP could hope for after it looked like the party would be wiped out.  Set the bar low enough and you too can achieve your modest dreams!
  • Unfortunately no dogs were elected mayor in Canada last year, to my knowledge.  Even worse, in Vermont — which is practically Canada — a dog lost his mayorship to a goat.  A goat!  Goats beating dogs for mayor.  What a world we live in…
  • I really blew this next one: "Asbestos is making a comeback, baby.  As our planet warms, we'll finally realize the only solution to all this heat is the sweet fire protection of highly toxic fibres."  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  So wrong, Asbestos the town is looking to change its name to something less related to mesothelioma.
  • Here comes some more wrong.  "Quebec will not only not separate from the country, but it will become the new seat of power."  And in reality?  Well, the Bloc Quebecois is the third biggest party in the House of Commons, with nearly as many seats in Quebec as the Liberals.  Whoops!
  • This year the economy didn't quite take the dive I'd assumed it would.  However destructive the trade policies in the U.S. are, outside of Alberta, the economy is… fine.  It's not booming or anything of the sort, but the country hasn't slid into the sea either.  Wrong again (which is good, this time)!
  • Justin Bieber did not become some kind of socialist firebrand and protest singer.  It just didn't happen.  Instead, I think he got married or something?  I don't know I really followed the year in Biebs all that closely. But it doesn't seem like he's leading a revolution.  Going to have to put this one down as wrong.
  • Oh thank god, something right again.  "I have no idea how Brexit will turn out, but I'm almost certain it's going to be an extravagant mess in ways we can't really imagine," I wrote last year.  "How things got to where they are now is insane enough, what comes next can only be insaner."  Certainly not wrong.
  • This last one is wrong, and probably wrong in the most painful way.  Last year was not the last year of "Die Hard is a Christmas movie" discourse.  We have not started summarily shooting participants in the discourse.  I, on behalf of society, regret the error.

Well, that was something.  Still not sure what to make of the business with the pile of Furbys, but perhaps it's best not to dwell on it too much.  As for what's coming in 2020, that you'll have to wait until the first week of the year to find out.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.