Ontario's Common Sense Revolution at 20: A Look Back [cross-post]

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

Today marks 20 years since the Progressive Conservative Party foisted its so-called "Common Sense Revolution" on Ontario.
Former PC Ontario leader Tim Hudak took to Twitter this morning to extol the virtues of this full-throated neoliberal experiment, declaring it "the most effective, courageous gov[ernment]" in his lifetime.

Some remember those days differently. Here are a few highlights of the "Common Sense Revolution" (1995-99) and the subsequent "Blue Print" era (1999-2003).

• The death of Dudley George/Ipperwash Crisis
• The death of Kimberly Rogers
• The Walkerton water disaster
• A double-digit cut to social assistance rates
• Punitive “workfare”
• Unnecessary tax cuts
• Criminalizing poverty via the "Safe Streets Act"
• The 1997 teacher/student walkout
• Demonstrations against poverty held at Queen's Park
• Health spending cuts
• Eliminating rent control
• The dented cans of tuna fiasco
• The fiscal nightmare that is the Toronto megacity
• The privatization of, and subsequent gouging by, Hwy. 407
• Cancelling Toronto transit projects
• The repealing of proxy comparisons for pay equity (reinstated by court challenge)
• The repealing of employment equity legislation
• The Magna budget and contempt for the legislature

Many Ontarians are still dealing with the aftermath of heartless program cuts initiated by the PC regime and the general neoliberal political culture that continues today at the provincial, federal and municipal (in Toronto) levels of government.
This is not a day to celebrate.

UPDATED: Post-Democratic Trend Lines in Etobicoke [cross-post]

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

UPDATE, OCTOBER 2018

• Michael Ford has been re-elected to Toronto city council.

UPDATE, JULY 2018

• The PC Party government of Doug Ford

UPDATE, JUNE 2018

• Doug Ford has won the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and, following the provincial general election, has become the Premier of Ontario.

UPDATE, SEPTEMBER 2016

• Rob Ford was returned as Ward 2 Councillor in the 2014 municipal election.
• Rob Ford, 46, died March 22, 2016.
• Michael Ford was elected a TDSB Trustee in 2014. He was elected to Rob Ford's former Ward 2 council seat in a 2016 byelection.
• Doug Ford plans to release a book in 2016 (co-written with Rob about the family's base of political support. He also plans to again seek elected office.

---

ORIGINAL POST, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
Since news broke of the decision by Toronto mayor candidate Rob Ford to step away from the mayor's race and be replaced by his brother Doug the term "feudal" has been thrown around a lot.

The argument quite often associated with the use of this term generally appears to be that the Ford family is treating Etobicoke as if control of the borough is to be inherited and that elections are merely a formality.

I understand the need to put what has happened at odds with what should be happening in a healthy democracy ─ I'm even tempted to use the term feudal myself. But, I argue, the nature of what the Ford family is attempting in Etobicoke does not smack of what is prior to democracy but what comes after the democratic institutions we know and many of us cherish. In other words, I argue that the Ford family is acting inherently post-democratic in Etobicoke and that current democratic structures are permitting this.

The origins of the term post-democracy are often attributed to political scientist Colin Crouch. The idea is essentially that a small clique of elites control decisions within democratic structures. Tendencies seen in post-democracy include few common goals, a common agenda, the conflation of the public and private sectors and privatization.
This is arguably what the Ford family is attempting in Etobicoke, and more broadly in Toronto governance.

The Ford agenda can be characterized by the pitting of neighbourhoods against each other (no common agenda), that Rob and Doug are seemingly interchangeable (a common agenda), alleged missteps involving lobbying on behalf of private sector firms (the conflation of the public and private sectors) and the use of private capital to fund major public projects (privatization).

By running Doug for mayor, Rob for Ward 2 councillor and Mike Ford for school trustee, the Fords, a wealthy business family from Etobicoke, are using democratic institutions to achieve what could easily be described as a post-democratic aristocracy if the election sees all three elevated to office. The Fords are up against challengers for every seat but the trend lines are there. A healthy democracy won't permit one family to treat elections as a hoop through which to jump.

Election 2014: A Lost Opportunity To Push For A Real Deal For Cities

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

The Toronto municipal election has been dominated by coverage of issues such as transit, taxes and housing. Each of these issues unto themselves are important and crucial to a healthy, viable city.

However, this election is turning out to be a lost opportunity for Toronto's candidates to call on Queen's Park to loosen the political strings and establish a Real Deal For Cities that locates our metropolis as a viable, respected entity ─ instead of a so-called "creature of the province."

This analysis doesn't call for an amendment to recognize Toronto and other cities as third levels of government in the Constitution Act, 1982, but merely a push ─ a needling ─ of Queen's Park, and by extension Ottawa, to devolve new spending authorities and building mechanisms to Toronto within the framework of Section 92.8 of the Constitution, which as the sidebar to this blog notes, grants municipalities wholly to the provinces as if they were some sort of colony.

Rejecting the conservative and paternal framework of the current province/city arrangement isn't revolutionary. In fact, as Warren Magnusson tells us in "Are Municipalities Creatures of the Provinces?" while municipalities are generally seen to be at the bottom of the constitutional heap, many cities predate the provinces to which they are seen to be subservient.¹ Toronto is one of those cities: "a relatively late creation...(it) had been around in one guise or another for 74 years at the time of Confederation."² In other words, the historical record simply doesn't back up the creatures of the provinces mantra.

The neoliberalism (read: public private partnerships or outright privatization) of the modern age may also, perhaps ironically, back the argument for more official authority at the city level and a divesting of responsibility from the provincial and federal levels. That the federal and provincial governments are seen to have consumed all available sovereignty ignores the idea that many services are now "provided by agencies at one remove from government: private firms operating under service contracts, non-profit organizations with multiple funding sources and missions of their own, public authorities with their own boards of directors, regulatory boards, advisory agencies, joint ventures and all manner of other bodies"³. The provinces do not have "command" over what happens in the day-to-day operations of these agencies other than perhaps funding and defunding decisions, which some agencies may be able to get around depending on their revenue stream(s). The point here of course is that today, there aren't merely two levels of governance at play vis-à-vis services provided to Canadians ─ despite what the Constitution Act says about which level of government is "responsible" for the delivery of service. There are already more players than the province and Ottawa; why can't Ontario grant more power to the local council closest to those agencies making on-the-ground decisions such as the power to fund and defund? Or even the power to abolish and or assume control of?

In fairness, it has been tried before. The much-discussed New Deal For Cities was a hot topic in the early 2000s, culminating locally in the new City of Toronto Act, 2005. The truth, of course, is that the 2005 Act was merely an update to the very Act that precipitated the amalgamation of Toronto in 1998.⁴ The irony of using a tool that led to five municipalities (North York, Scarborough, East York, York and Etobicoke) disappearing overnight to somehow empower the city through new spending measures is rich. 

While the city now has powers of taxation such as the vehicle registration tax and the land transfer tax, substantive taxation powers, such as income tax and sales tax, remain controlled by senior levels of government. These are powers best managed by the city. People work in the city and buy things in the city. It is in the city and to the city that they should pay their taxes.

There is still time for the leading mayoral contenders to take up Toronto's cause. But it is looking less and less likely that such a task, one so clearly connected to the essence of what Toronto is to its residents, will be even discussed, let alone made an item of debate during this election campaign.

_________________________________________________


[1] Warren Magnusson, "Are Municipalities Creatures of the Provinces?" Journal of Canadian Studies, 39 no. 2 (Spring 2005): 7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ron Levi & Mariana Valverde, "Freedom of the City: Canadian Cities And The Quest For Governmental Status," Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 44 no 3 (2006): 456

Transit Debate To Unearth More Than Revenue ─ It Will Show Us Who We Are

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

"Revenue tools."

Those two words seem to be the rallying cry in an attempt to spur transit expansion in a talk-weary Toronto desperate for respite from crowding into subway cars, squeezing onto streetcars and waiting in the cold for another bus after being left behind by the last, packed to capacity.

Metrolinx, the provincial transit authority, has announced $50 million worth of lines on maps called The Big Move. 'Lines on maps' in the sense that the costs of the plan cannot be covered at present. 

And yesterday, Toronto's business community threw down the gauntlet. 

During the release of a discussion paper, the Toronto Region Board of Trade estimated the annual economic cost of gridlock at $6 billion. If we fail to invest in adequate transit expansion that number will rise to $15 billion by 2031, the board said.

To stave off the complete collapse of the Toronto we all know and love, the Board of Trade thoughtfully offered suggestions to raise some cash: a sales tax; a fee on non-residential parking spots; a fuel tax; and high-occupancy lanes that motorists driving alone could access for a price, The Globe and Mail told us. 

In fact, the Globe was so enthusiastic about the Board's advice, its Queen's Park columnist even joined the business bigwigs at the news conference, according to Toronto Community News.

Meanwhile, the civic-minded corporate lobby proclaimed we Torontonians "can't continue to turn our back on solutions" and demanded those who have issues with their suggestions to come up with their own.

A call for action during dire times, it would seem.

The problem is, all of the Board's suggestions would hit low-income Torontonians harder because they serve as flat taxes, meaning everyone pays the same ─ unlike income tax, which rises based on the ability to pay.

In a post today Spacing noted that the only office-holding politician at the Board's policy announcement was Trinity-Spadina's MP Olivia Chow, who serves as the federal New Democratic Party's transportation and infrastructure critic, and who has also been publicly musing about running for mayor in 2014. (Full disclosure: I want Chow to run for mayor and am actively encouraging her to do so. She has not publicly declared her intentions.)

The Ford Administration was quick to dismiss the Board's recommendations because it apparently wants to pursue public-private partnerships that do not currently exist.

Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath also said she wouldn't support the recommendations because they shift the transit cost burden onto residents while allowing corporations to dodge taxes via loopholes, the CBC reported.

Meanwhile, Liberal Party-affiliated Councillor Shelley Carroll, who also harbours mayoral ambitions, seemed content to snipe at Ms. Horwath from the sidelines via Twitter.

Political argle bargle aside, many people likely can't convince themselves in good conscience that, as desperate as they are for more transit, it's fair that the poorest Torontonians should have to contribute at the same rate as the richest Torontonians just for the privilege of commuting to work.

It's just not how a society that acknowledges, and wants to curtail inequality, operates.

Surely, we don't want to go down the path of ends (more transit) justifying the means (disproportionately taxing those who are already struggling). Do we?

No. This is Canada.

It stands to reason then, that we should be asking the wealthiest Torontonians to pay a little more ─ which is something the Board of Trade didn't do yesterday.

The February 12 issue of Canadian Business magazine revealed the amount of so-called "dead money", or money Canadian businesses are not reinvesting into the economy after years of tax cuts, at an estimated $600 billion.

$600 billion. Of idle money.

If we're going to create new taxes, we might as well add one for companies that get giant tax breaks and do nothing with the money. 

Tax that idle cash and invest it into transit. If businesses want an economy free of gridlock, they'll have to pay for it, too.

As a side note, the Canadian Business article identified what the magazine called the "Top 25 Corporate Hoarders" in Canada. The Bank of Nova Scotia was first at $54.8 billion. The Royal Bank of Canada was third at $12.6 billion.

Meanwhile, as an unrelated interesting fact, representatives of both Scotiabank and RBC sit on the Toronto Region Board of Trade's board of directors.

Admittedly, the revenue tools are out there. The tools we choose will define us.

Stronger Commitment To Toronto Student Nutrition Needed From The Province

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

As part of its 2013 budget, the city approved $1.163 million more for a program that provides subsidized meals, primarily breakfasts, to needy children at school.

The motion to add the money, made late in the budget approval process by St. Paul's Councillor Joe Mihevc carried 37-8. In October, Dr. David McKeown, the city's medical officer of health told the Toronto Star the program was underfunded by 60 per cent.

The student nutrition program helps 143,000 kids across the city, according to Toronto Public Health.

Meanwhile, contained in successful motion that led to the money being allocated to the program was a request that Dr. David McKeown, the city's medical officer of health engage in strong appeals to both the province and Ottawa for increased funding for the program. And that he embark on "aggressive" efforts to strike funding deals with the private sector.

At the provincial level at least, word that the nutrition program was granted a cash injection was greeted as good news.

"I’m very pleased to see that the City of Toronto is supporting this important program through additional budget funding," Liberal Minister of Children and Youth Services Laurel Broten said in a statement to NinetyTwoPointEight.

Broten trumpeted the province's previous investments into the program, noting that student nutrition serves as a pillar of the province's Poverty Reduction Strategy, that the province invests $17.9 million a year in the program and also added that last year, the provincial funds helped get breakfasts, snacks and lunches to more than  690,000 elementary and secondary students. The Liberals have quadrupled their investment since they took office, she added.

But the minister was non-committal on a question about whether her ministry would make the subject a priority and push for additional funding for student nutrition during this year's provincial budget negotiations.

That's disappointing.

Past successes are important but difficult to laud when the issue at hand continues into the future ─ especially when it involves hungry kids.

Children should not have to wonder if their school will receive food funding ─ especially during a period during which the city's conservative mayor is leading a charge against spending and was among the eight councillors who against increased municipal funding for the nutrition program this year.

And waiting for the private sector to pony up the cash is not how publicly-funded programs are supposed to work. Would increased private sector involvement lead to a loss of control over the food being placed in front of Toronto's children?

Student nutrition programs are linked to higher math, reading and science grades and obesity prevention, public health tells us.

How much will it cost us in the future if we don't invest into our children now?

Amid Toronto Casino Consultations, A Troubling Lack Of Clarity About Hosting Fees

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

Public consultation continues about the idea of Toronto hosting a provincial casino.

But the lack of concrete information about how much money the city will receive every year by hosting a gaming house means this whole exercise is currently one of best hopes for the future.

Without clear details about a hosting fee, accompanied by some kind of agreement between Toronto and the province via Ontario Lottery and Gaming, the Crown corporation responsible for its gambling assets, to hold everyone to those details, Torontonians are being left in the dark ─ and potentially in the lurch.

Our current municipal administrators are showing questionable leadership on the matter as well.

The Globe and Mail pointed out November 5 that Mayor Rob Ford has pushed ahead with a demand for public consultation without those aforementioned very important details.

And now, in the absence of those details, the estimates being used by the city and the OLG are starting to move in different directions.

In a Toronto Star story Wednesday, City Manager Joe Pennachetti said the city could expect anywhere from $30 million to $168 million as a hosting fee. The $168 million figure is based on a report by Ernst and Young using unaudited information from the OLG.

But the same story notes the OLG now expects the hosting fee to be closer to between $50 million and $100 million.

Even less helpful to Torontonians is that some groups have suggested casino revenue could be used to finance transit infrastructure, while floating numbers that neither the city nor the province are using.

In March, 2012, when the province announced that it was moving ahead with what it termed a "modernization of gaming" and that said modernization would include a casino in the Greater Toronto Area, its statement noted that new gaming initiatives could generate as much as $1 billion.

But, given that Ontario's deficit is $14.4 billion and this province is in the midst of an austerity regime that has already birthed cutbacks and public sector labour backlash, is it realistic to expect the cash-strapped province to negotiate a hosting fee that primarily benefits Toronto?

Public consultations should not have begun on a casino. Torontonians weren't given the information we need to make a real decision.

And OLG boss John Godfrey has already shown he has about as much knowledge about Toronto as residents have been provided by the province and city about a casino being located here.

Both the province and the city must step up with real hosting figures (not one single figure but a reasonable range, since it is unknown exactly how many people would use a casino in Toronto), strike a deal and show a memorandum of understanding that uses those figures to allow residents to make informed choices.

If not, a casino should not be welcomed here, be it proposed for the downtown, in the Port Lands or at Woodbine racetrack.