LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Promises don’t pay the bills, but at least Premier Doug Ford is reaffirming is commitment to make life a little more affordable.

Ford says he’s planning on keeping his election promise to lower prices at the gas pumps and he’s calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to deliver federal relief.

Last week, when he was pressed by the media asking if he planned to keep his 2018 election promise to lower the provincial gas tax by 5.7 cents a litre, Ford indicated he planned to do exactly that.

“I will commit to the promises,” said Ford. “Promises made, promises kept.”

While it’s encouraging that Ford has committed to lowering provincial gas taxes before next June’s provincial election, politicians are notoriously forgetful about their promises.

It’s up to taxpayers to hold Ford to his word and to fight for lower fuel taxes.

While a 5.7 cent per litre gas tax cut may not sound like a big deal for well-heeled drivers filling up a Benz, it will mean real savings for everyday Ontario families.

A family filling-up their minivan once a week will save over $200 a year with this single gas tax cut. That buys a decent haul of groceries for a family of four. And, with millions of Ontario families just $200 away from not being able to pay their bills every month, the impact of that kept promise will be felt in a real way.

But at his press conference, Ford went an important step further. He challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to lower federal gasoline taxes and insisted Ontario would match any federal cuts.

He also called on Trudeau to scrap the federal carbon tax, which is driving up prices exponentially.

While Ford’s efforts to reduce prices at the pumps are welcome in Ontario, it is the soaring Trudeau carbon tax that will be the key culprit causing gas prices to skyrocket even more.

Ford’s gas tax cut would be wiped out by Trudeau’s planned carbon tax hikes between now and 2024.

Trudeau is planning to raise the carbon tax from 9 cents per litre to 38 cents per litre by 2030. And his new fuel regulations will add another 11 cents per litre. That would make gas prices in Ontario $1.89 per litre.

These high fuel taxes also make diesel cost more, driving up the price of trucking nearly everything we eat and use in Canada.

Millions of Ontario families need a car to drive to work, take their kids to school and shop for groceries. For them, driving is a necessity, not a luxury. And most families don’t have thousands of dollars sitting around to run out and buy an electric car.

The stark reality is carbon taxes haven’t been proven to reduce emissions.

Look at British Columbia.

B.C. drivers pay the highest gas prices in North America. B.C. was also the first province to adopt a carbon tax. But the province’s emissions are going up, not down.

According to federal government data, emissions in British Columbia have gone up 11 per cent over the past four years.

Politicians at every level have recognized that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis. With inflation ticking upwards and gas prices soaring, Canadians are feeling the squeeze. Our politicians should be trying to help taxpayers get by, not stand in their way.

Ontarians welcome Ford’s recommitment to his pledge to reduce gas taxes and now we want to see it happen. In the meantime, Ontarians also need to turn our attention to Ottawa and tell the Trudeau government that taxpayers cannot afford almost $2 per litre gasoline.

Jay Goldberg is the Interim Ontario Director at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

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.


The ‘phoney’ election campaign starts in Ontario

Ontario’s main parties have launched their first advertising wave in the run up to the 2022 provincial election.

Lots of sound and fury on radio, tv and digital media platforms… but signifying exactly what?

Conventional political wisdom suggests that, apart from partisans,  most Ontarians [ more than 60%] are unlikely to be paying any attention at all to these messages. This is particularly relevant when citizens are still recovering from the message carpet bombing of the federal campaign.

So what justifies two parties flush with fundraising dollars and facing imminent legislative constraints limiting what can be spent in the lead up to the election call to launch such a flurry of activity.

There are legitimate rationale for seeking to frame the provincial race this far in advance of the fixed election date but they rest in seeking to address different political challenges.

Like its federal counterpart, the key to the Ontario election will be all about voter splits.

Government and NDP are seeking to define Liberal leader Steven Del Duca in the public mind as Wynne’s ‘right hand man’  before he can successfully establish his own desired mark. A proven strategy. Federal Conservatives tried to label Justin Trudeau as not ready for prime time; his predecessor Michael Ignatieff was effectively attacked ‘as not coming back for you’.

Del Duca, who candidly admits to a charisma deficit, had been preoccupied with internal Liberal rebuilding:  successfully paying off the massive provincial party debt from the last election, revitalizing the party organization and recruiting a solid candidate base with 50% women and 30 candidates under 30 years of age. As critical as these tasks are in the run up to the election, they had done little to define his ‘invisible’ public persona which also suffered from not being an elected member in the Legislature.

This past weekend’s Annual General Meeting allowed Del Duca an opportunity to use a policy focus to begin this next phase, given that virtual meetings severely constrain the volunteer excitement generated by in person gatherings.

His efforts to frame himself as a ‘positive’ leader willing to acknowledge policies from other parties puts him in stark contradistinction to the early approach taken by the other leaders. Combined with his focus on reestablishing the voters’ trust, the strategy serves as a step to inoculate himself from likely attacks about his reputation for hard nosed politics.

Both approaches also appear likely to appeal in any future minority government scenario.

Andrea Horwath’s attacks against Del Duca reflect the NDP’s ongoing political preoccupations. Entering her fourth election as leader, her critics repeat the view that she has not been able to convert personal popularity into electoral success; most recently, in 2018, she failed to overtake the Conservatives when the Liberal support had collapsed and the Conservatives were led by an unpopular leader.

In short, the NDP attacks show they are worrying about securing their Opposition flanks against a Liberal revival as much as securing a victory against the Ford government.

In the context of Ontario’s federal vote, both the provincial Conservatives and the NDP’s preoccupations with a Liberal rejuvenation have some merit. The Liberal base in Ontario’s biggest urban areas held fast, with vote splits defeating determined efforts by both federal parties in an otherwise favourable election cycle for them.

The latest Leger Post Media provincial poll taken October 8 to 10 reconfirm a similar reality. While the PC’s lead with 35% , the Liberals have overtaken the NDP for second, recovering to early May levels. The NDP sit some 10% behind the first place Ford Government.

Some strategists are content to argue that the flurry of advertising is an investment in buoying the spirits of the PC and NDP partisan base licking their wounds after the federal defeat.

The PCs have likely banked their biggest campaign promise, a tax cut, for release closer to the election. In an early summer 2021 study, the FAO flagged that future Ontario revenue forecast in the budget is lower than the government’s economic outlook, suggesting possible unannounced tax cuts in the future.

The Ford government has also laid the ground work for not balancing the budget any time soon, thereby alleviating the need to explain where proposed spending cuts would be made.

Another explanation for the flurry of activity is that the parties are test driving their election messaging, trying to determine what will stick. Both Premier Ford and Opposition Leader Horwath have laid out a number of policy areas, from Highway 413 to long term care, with which they wish to be identified.

The PCs effort to position Mr. Ford’s government as willing to respond positively- the ‘yes’ party- leaves them open to two lines of attack.

The first criticism is that Mr Ford’s government is willing to satisfy large interest groups at others’ expense. Following revelations MLSE helped the government get its Covid QR  app working [a worthy initiative in its own right], there have been unproven allegation that a quid pro quo was offered to benefit large sporting venues at the expense of smaller businesses.

A second challenge to the PC ‘yes man’ strategy is that it may remind voters of unprincipled people who will agree to virtually anything to curry favour. This type of criticism has been hurled before at Premier Ford during his management of the COVID crisis and carries worrisome political baggage.

With more than 8 months to go, this phoney war will soon pass.

From my perspective, the first campaign investments should be in the constituency ground game- identifying voters, recruiting local volunteer base, and building electoral infrastructure in winnable ridings. The recent federal campaign showed the value of such a ‘vote efficiency’ focus in the latest Liberal victory.

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.


The unusually short October 4 Ontario throne speech didn’t say much. For Green Party leader Mike Schreiner it “had to be one of the most uninspiring throne speeches I’ve ever heard.”

The slender document made more sense, however, as the opening salvo in an as yet informal Ontario election campaign, culminating eight months from now on June 2, 2022.

By October 8 the launch of TV ads by both the Ford PCs and Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats had stiffened this reading of the October 4 speech.

It also suggested that the 2022 Ontario election will have an effectively American-style long campaign, starting early in the fourth quarter of 2021.

There were signs that the Ford government’s address on its near-future plans had been put together hastily as well.

The remarks read to the Legislative Assembly by Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Dowdeswell, for example, highlighted the government’s response to the pandemic over the past 18 months. And they praised the parallel role of  a broader “Ontario spirit” — defined by “Strength. Determination. Compassion. Generosity. Grit.”

But are the Tory speech-writers aware that one key meaning of “Grit” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is : “In Canadian politics a Radical or Liberal”? Is this why Steven Del Duca’s spirited Ontario Liberals are now calling themselves “True Grit”?

The Lieutenant Governor’s talk did put forward at least one new thing.

Unlike the Ford government’s first throne speech of July 12, 2018, the 2021 edition begins by “acknowledging that we are all on lands traditionally occupied by Indigenous Peoples.”

At the same time, the Doug Ford Conservative version of this kind of acknowledgement has evolved from the simpler practice begun by Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals. It is somewhat more complex and historically accurate. The capital city region’s deep past has involved “many Indigenous nations.”

On October 4, 2021 the Lieutenant Governor also acknowledged that “we are meeting in the area covered by Treaty 13, also known as the Toronto Purchase.” And the reminder that (in Ontario at any rate) the lands “traditionally occupied by Indigenous Peoples” were ultimately “purchased” arguably delivers a particular conservative message about Indigenous rights.

Yet again the 2021 throne speech is just a hasty beginning for the long 2022 election campaign. It was quite unusually given at 9 AM in the morning — so Premier Ford and four cabinet ministers could fly to Timmins in the northeastern Ontario mining country in the afternoon.

The trip was meant to spark the local Ontario election campaign of the current Mayor of Timmins (a retired mining executive). He is hoping to take a longstanding safe NDP seat in the great north for the PCs, on June 2, 2022.

The day after the throne speech the Ontario PCs launched a “pre-election advertising blitz,” promoting Premier Doug Ford as another big spender in the midst of the pandemic, not unlike PM Justin Trudeau.

The almost two-thirds of all Ontario seats the Trudeau Liberals won in the recent federal election do seem to be weighing on the PC mind. Premier Ford wants some people of Ontario who voted Liberal federally in 2021 to vote for him provincially in 2022.

Meanwhile, the provincial Financial Accountability Office has published data which illustrate further strands in the premier’s latest intermittent jabs at just getting along with the re-elected Liberal minority government in Ottawa.

The FAO reports that $170.3 billion has so far been spent on COVID support in Ontario. As much as 85% of this sum came from the federal government. Only 15% came from the province.

In the end marketing Doug Ford as more of an old-school progressive conservative than he really is has been an intermittent feature of Ontario PC thought, since the premier abandoned his hard-right populist incarnation from the 2018 throne speech in the summer of 2019.

The fixed-date election day on June 2, 2022 is still eight long months away.

Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats are apparently strong financially. They say they will match PC TV advertising, dollar for dollar.

Steven Del Duca’s Liberals have had some recent success getting media attention.

Yet the struggle between New Democrats and Liberals to define a winning progressive alternative could still prove a great gift to Conservatives this coming June 2.

It is of course far too early to tell. But as the Ontario political universe looks right now, Premier Ford could stand a better chance of winning the next election than he may actually deserve.

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.


The Conservative Party’s defeat in last week’s federal election offers important lessons for Ontario Premier Doug Ford.

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole chose to abandon core principles to try to win an election. Long-standing stances on carbon taxes, balanced budgets and broad-based tax relief crumbled in the face of focus-group gurus.

Politicians have been trying to sell voters on the idea of a carbon tax for years. Proponents claim that a carbon tax is the key to fighting climate change. But those politicians are wrong. Higher prices doesn’t mean lower emissions.

In British Columbia, thirteen years of carbon taxes has failed to stop emissions from going up. B.C. has the highest carbon tax in Canada, but emissions in the province rose by 11 per cent between 2015 and 2019, according to the province’s own numbers.

Carbon taxes simply don’t work.

Ford has stood against carbon taxes throughout his political career. O’Toole, on the other hand, decided to flipflop on carbon taxes to try to win an election.

His decision was a huge mistake. Voters consistently said the high cost of living was the number one election issue. But those who worried about skyrocketing living costs weren’t able to turn to the blue team for relief, as Conservatives were promising a carbon tax of their own.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer expects the carbon tax to cost the average Ontario family over $600 a year by 2022.

Ford ran hard against carbon taxes and won a majority just three short years ago.

Lesson one for Ford: don’t back down on carbon taxes. As Ontarians grow more and more concerned about the cost of living, he needs to be able to point out that the Trudeau government’s carbon tax agenda is hindering affordability.

O’Toole also gave up on trying to be fiscally prudent. He merely promised to balance the budget within a decade, with no reductions in government spending. His forecasts also relied on very optimistic economic growth numbers without accounting for the risk of recessions.

Canadian taxpayers are already paying $22 billion this year in interest on the national debt. Interest payments are expected to double within the next five years, forcing the government to spend tens of billions of dollars on interest payments rather than health care or tax relief.

Voters were unimpressed by O’Toole’s lack of urgency in dealing with Canada’s growing debt crisis. Many saw little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives.

As Ontario’s debt grows larger and larger, Ford should remember that he was elected on a plan to fix the province’s finances after a decade of Liberal deficits. Ontario’s debt is set to hit $450 billion next year, with the province spending more on debt interest payments than post-secondary education.

The status quo is simply unacceptable. Ford needs to offer a clear plan to Ontarians, laying out how and when he will balance the budget, and he needs to be bold.

Lesson two: offer a responsible fiscal agenda that can appeal to common sense Ontarians who worry about racking-up debt and interest payments for their kids and grandkids.

O’Toole also failed to include any kind of tax relief in his platform. O’Toole’s gimmicky one month GST holiday simply wasn’t enough to motivate voters. Ford won on a tax-cut platform in 2018 – including cutting gas taxes and income taxes – but he has yet to deliver on those pledges.

Lesson three: promising to cut taxes helped Ford win in 2018, and it was a key reason why O’Toole lost the federal election. If Ford wants to avoid O’Toole’s fate, its time for him to bring home the goods.

On everything from carbon taxes to deficits to tax relief, O’Toole disappointed hardworking taxpayers looking for change. Ford would be wise to avoid those mistakes.

Jay Goldberg is the Interim Ontario Director at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

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.


Cabinet ministers in Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government have insisted throughout the pandemic that when they close schools or businesses they are guided by science and following the evidence.

But they have ignored the evidence when it comes to regulating political advertising.

The government recalled the legislature in June to tighten restraints on pre-election ad spending by so-called “third parties” (advocacy groups other than political parties).

The old law let groups spend up to $600,000 in the six months before the official starting date of the election campaigns. The new law extends the time to spend $600,000 to 12 months prior to an election kickoff.

The government lost a court decision when a judge decided the $600,000 cap over 12 months was an unconstitutional curb on the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Days later the Conservatives deployed the Charter’s rarely used Section 33 — the “notwithstanding clause” — in a bill to overrule the court.

The opposition parties voted against the bill, probably figuring they benefit from more ads that attack Conservatives. But essentially the opposition and the government agree. They all agree the new law will reduce the influence of election ads, and they all think voters are naïve and gullible.

The government house leader in the Legislature, Paul Calandria, compared spending by the PCs’ opponents with American super PACs, the corporate and union political action committees that spend limitless funds supporting or attacking election candidates.

Without tighter limits on third-party spending, Calandria asserted, “a few wealthy elites, corporations and special interest groups… would be allowed to interfere in and control our elections with unlimited money….”

By reversing his government’s court defeat, premier Doug Ford said he’s “protecting democracy.” But from what?

There is no evidence the public needs protection from political ads because the ads don’t work.

The New York Times columnist David Brooks cites U.S. research showing “in state and national elections” there is “barely any relationship between more spending and a bigger victory.” The evidence Brooks cites found that if one candidate ran 1,000 more commercials than an opponent it translated into “a paltry 0.19 per cent” advantage in the results.

The authors of the book “Negative Campaigning,” political scientists Richard R. Lau of Rutgers University and Gerald M. Pomper of Princeton University, reviewed more than 100 studies and experiments conducted during U.S. elections, concluding that “advertising, negative or positive, appears ineffective at increasing turnout or persuading voters.”

After carrying out experiments during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, University of Rhode Island political scientists Liam C. Malloy and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz concluded, “…Negative advertising appears to never be effective in either increasing a candidate’s margin of victory or driving up turnout for the candidate or driving down turnout for the competition.”

Like other paid advertising, people bypass political ads. Commercials, radio spots and print ads for all kinds of products are failing to deliver. A University of Southern California professor, Gerard J. Tellis, analyzed 750 studies on advertising effectiveness published between 1960 and 2008 and found a 10% increase in ad spending led to only a 1% increase in sales.

Updated research shows ad effectiveness continues to descend.

Sales would rise by only 1% if a firm doubled its TV advertising, according to a study published this year by University of Chicago researchers. They focused on 288 popular consumer goods such as Diet Coke and Bounty paper towels, concluding that the return on investment was negative for many products. Companies spent more on commercials than they earned back in additional sales.

Voters don’t need government protection from election advertising. They are protecting themselves. Around the globe, hundreds of millions have downloaded ad blockers. Voters also have natural defence systems against incoming political missiles. In a national poll in 2011 for the Advertising Standards Council of Canada, 57 per cent said most advertising is truthful, but just 30 per cent said the same about political advertising.

When they make policies about Covid-19 — or about political advertising —  politicians should follow the evidence.

—–

Marc Zwelling is the founder of the Vector Poll™ (www.vectorresearch.com) and author of Public Opinion and Polling For Dummies, published by Wiley (2012) and Ideas and Innovation for Dummies (Wiley, 2021).

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.


I have three unrelated observations to start this campaign.

Here’s the first:

We’ve all heard how politics makes strange bedfellows – but in the 2021 federal election, so far what’s strangest is how the current bedfellows are an exact inverting of the 2019 script.

Whereas in 2019, Justin Trudeau ran – hard – against Ontario Premier Doug Ford, in 2021 we read The StarRob Benzie reporting that there is a “nonaggression pact” between the federal Grits and the provincial Tories.

But it’s more than a ceasefire; is there an actual alliance at play here?

The first sign was when federal Conservative leader Erin O’Toole was in a bind to start the campaign, walking into the trap set by the Liberals over mandatory vaccines. As O’Toole sputtered to clarify his position – ahem, not unlike Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who wanted to try out all the positions before settling on the right one – Ford put out hints that he would unveil mandatory vaccines in Ontario’s health-care settings and in schools.

He then did so, more or less.

As O’Toole launched his platform, a central component of which is to end the Liberals’ agreements with various provinces to deliver childcare, Ford’s education minister was hinting Ontario could reach a deal with the feds to deliver the Liberals’ signature social program.

Here’s the second:

Having canvassed for four Liberal candidates in the Greater Toronto Area – North York, Newmarket and Etobicoke – I have a pretty direct observation.

The gender gap right now is wild. Even doors that our canvassing data management app, Liberalist, says should be historically Liberal come with a wrinkle: the “man of the house” is very grumpy about Trudeau. The rest of the family is still Liberal, but the male of the species is going to shut the door or not-so-politely shoo you off his lawn.

There’s always been a gender gap, but this time it seems pronounced beyond anything I’ve previously experienced.

How will the Liberals look to correct their standing amongst men? Is it about fiscal probity? Is it about something that helps pocketbooks? I’m stereotyping here, because the policy solution seems less effective than just the fact that there is something about this PM and his government that men of a certain age… resent.

As a senior Tory friend said, the one thing the Liberals have going for them is that it’s not clear that these men are inclined to vote for O’Toole just yet. Moreover, O’Toole – notwithstanding his strange Mr Clean slash Men’s Health slash Bouncer at a Gay Bar (to quote Jenni Bryne) platform cover photo – is not working to shore up his support with women. Again, a stereotype, but he is deliberately poking many women in the eye with his vow to “pull a Harper” and cancel childcare.

The final observation:

The Conservative ad is an image of a boxer punching Canadians with red gloves, hitting us with debt and high house prices. But then the solution this image demands is B-roll of some guy who I know to be O’Toole but not everyone does, and then “vote Conservative”. It’s an interesting opening, then followed by not a lot of anything.

The Liberal ad, on the contrary, is all about how Canadians worked together with the Liberals in their corner to get through the pandemic, narrated by a smiling, familiar Trudeau.

Obviously, both messages can’t be true. But at least the Liberal one features the leader.

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.


Ontario’s political parties have a bad spending habit, but they don’t have to pay for it because taxpayers get stuck with their political welfare scheme.

In Ontario, political parties are given millions from the pockets of hardworking taxpayers through a system referred to as the per-vote subsidy.

This money does not go toward funding their official government office expenses at the provincial legislature. Taxpayers are already on the hook for those expenses.

The political welfare money goes to partisan political parties so they can spend it on anything they want. This includes attack ads, lawn signs, and partisan offices for party bigwigs.

When he was running for office in 2018, Premier Doug Ford promised to scrap Ontario’s political welfare system. Instead, he’s only made it stronger. Ford has also teamed up with other party leaders to have taxpayers give politicians a $10 million payday loan by taking future subsidies before the next election.

Disclosures from 2020 reveal that Ontario’s four major political parties spent a combined $15 million on partisan expenses to help run their political arms.

While Ontario’s political parties might try to claim that they’re the ones footing the bill, the truth is that political welfare payments means that these expenses are being paid in large part by taxpayers.

That’s because the province funnels over $12 million of our hard-earned money to Ontario’s political parties every year. And it’s not as though political operatives are toiling in austere sweatshops. Even a quick glance at their spending shows they don’t need taxpayer charity.

Last year, Ontario’s governing Progressive Conservative Party spent $191,145 on “meetings hosted.” Perhaps the PCs could find a way to spend less than $500 per day hosting meetings.

Ontario’s NDP managed to spend $84,175 on postage in 2020. That’s more than three times as much as the PCs and Liberals spent on stamps combined. Hasn’t the NDP heard of email?

As for the Ontario Liberals, the party with eight MPPs somehow managed to spend $134,790 on office furniture and equipment expenses. Just how many people does a party that no longer has official party status need working at party headquarters?

While some may argue that Ontario’s politicians need to have some of their office expenses covered, taxpayers already spend millions covering the cost of official government offices. Every MPP at Queen’s Park already gets $299,000 to pay for their official offices each year, courtesy of Ontario taxpayers.

With all this wasteful spending, political parties, not Ontario taxpayers, should pick up the tab in funding any non-official expenses. That means ending political welfare.

All four of Ontario’s major political parties have come out in support of party subsidies. They rely on taxpayer dollars to pay their bills. Taxpayer subsidies account for more than half of total income for the PCs, NDP, Liberals, and Greens.

But whenever one calls into question the political welfare system in Ontario, the parties get apoplectic.

“There has to be a way of funding democracy,” said NDP leader Andrea Horwath.

Horwath and other party leaders continuously claim that their parties would be unable to survive and operate at full capacity if the province’s political welfare regime would go the way of the dodo bird.

Nonetheless, these reckless expenses indicate that all four parties have plenty of room for savings. And, 10 years after the federal government repealed political welfare at the federal level, national political fundraising continues to hit new records.

Parties can survive and thrive without handouts.

It’s time to take the cake away from Ontario’s politicians. It’s time to end political welfare.

Jay Goldberg is the Interim Ontario Director at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.


While Ontario’s college and university employees have been busy cashing in on massive pay hikes during the pandemic, taxpayers and tuition-paying students have been barely getting by.

The newly minted minister responsible for universities and colleges, Jill Dunlop, now has a full knapsack of homework to do on this expensive file.

With a $33-billion deficit, the number one job of all of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s newly shuffled cabinet ministers should be to find savings within their departments.

In Dunlop’s case, there are plenty of savings to be found.

Consider the numbers from Ontario’s three largest universities: the University of Toronto, York University, and the University of Waterloo.

At the University of Toronto, the number of employees making more than $100,000 ballooned by 8.9 per cent in 2020.

York University and the University of Waterloo also saw significant increases of 7.8 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively.

But as university employees were enjoying raises, everyday taxpayers were losing their jobs. The province lost 355,300 net jobs in 2020. At the end of last year, Ontario’s unemployment rate stood at 9.6 per cent.

The numbers go from bad to worse for students.

Young workers, aged 15 to 24, saw the most significant job losses of any demographic group in the province last year, according to Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office.

For every worker over the age of 25 who lost their job last year, five workers under the age of 25 lost theirs.

Despite these massive job losses, Ontario’s students can expect higher costs when they return to school in the fall, while Ontario taxpayers will be forced to pay for the province’s bloated post-secondary salary tab.

Ontario’s universities spend well over half of their budgets paying their employees.

Compensation accounted for 61 per cent of the University of Toronto’s 2020 budget, 68 per cent of York University’s, and 62 per cent of the University of Waterloo’s.

How does that affect government spending?

The province of Ontario currently spends more than $10 billion annually on post-secondary education.

Based on our province’s three biggest universities, Ontario will spend anywhere from $6.2 billion to $7.0 billion on university employee pay this year.

In addition, the Ontario government’s post-secondary budget has increased by $2.4 billion over the past five years, suggesting that employee wages and benefits were responsible for growing the budget by about $1.5 billion.

With a $33-billion deficit, Ontario cannot afford billions of dollars in pay hikes.

As a new minister bringing a fresh perspective to the colleges and universities ministry, now is the time for Dunlop to show leadership.

That leadership should begin by tackling these outrageous wage hikes.

The Ford government has introduced legislation that, on its face, attempts to rein in extravagant salaries and benefits by capping government employee wage increases at one per cent per year.

However, the legislation has far too many loopholes. It allows raises greater than one per cent for length of employment, performance assessments, and the completion of further education.

In addition, as far as the colleges and universities ministry is concerned, limiting pay increases to one per cent simply doesn’t go far enough.

It’s time for pay cuts.

Dunlop can work with Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy to reduce the deficit by cutting wages in the colleges and universities ministry and closing the loopholes that are facilitating these extravagant annual raises.

It’s simply unfair to keep asking students and taxpayers to pay higher costs to allow those who work for the government to avoid sharing in the burden of tackling the disaster that is Ontario’s finances.

For too long, Ontario governments have allowed the province’s deficit to get out of control by refusing to make tough decisions.

It’s time for Dunlop and the Ford government to act.

Jay Goldberg is the Interim Ontario Director at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.