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.

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

When Will Toronto's Social Deficit Be Slain?

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com

The province has announced a cash injection of $42 million for homelessness prevention programs.

Designed to lend a helping hand to people participating in Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), the money will be shared by municipalities across the province. Toronto will receive $12.3 million or about 29% of the money, Sandy Mangat, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Community and Social Services said in an email to NinetyTwoPointEight.

Slum courtyard, Agnes Street, Toronto, 1913. City of Toronto Archives

Poverty is a significant problem in Toronto; about 25% of the city lives without, according to the Social Planning Network.

For some context, the Hamilton Spectator reports Hamilton is to receive $3.19 million. The Standard reports Niagara Region will receive $1.9 million.

In plain language, the upshot of the provincial announcement is this: the province aims to provide some stability for people receiving Ontario Works or ODSP while municipalities develop local plans for poverty and homelessness prevention.

"This one-time funding will work in combination with existing housing and homelessness supports," Minister John Milloy said in a statement. 

Municipalities, including Toronto, have more responsibility for poverty reduction now because the province replaced five previous social assistance programs, which provided directed provincial funding for services including emergency hydro help, emergency rent help and short-term assistance for lodging and personal expenses, with single block grants.

Toronto can use the grants for whichever poverty and homeless initiatives it wishes, be it emergency shelters, permanent housing, food banks or helping residents with rent. 

Clearly, when the province hands millions of dollars over for homelessness prevention initiatives, you don't kick it in the teeth, you thank it, like the Wellesley Institute did in a statement yesterday, calling it "outstanding" and thanking the Liberals for "stepping up to the plate."

And, more local control by Toronto over poverty programs isn't all bad. In fact, it may allow those initiatives to become more relevant.

But in its 2012 budget, the province also eliminated the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit, which helped people with big housing expenses.

And only half the money dedicated to that program will be given to the municipalities in the future.

It's clear there's less cash around to help people. The city has already identified $12.8 million less.

The draft 2013 city budget shows Toronto Employment & Social Services will direct what money it will get to a local assistance program. But the Toronto Star reported in October that those on the front lines of poverty reduction in this city fear their efforts will be hampered by a lack of provincial money.

Accepting cuts to social services is hard in good times, let alone when the province is trying to slay a $15 billion deficit amidst the backdrop of economic instability. Minister Milloy admitted to the Star that the cuts are being driven by the province's deficit.

Also, as the province retreats from social welfare responsibilities, Toronto is faced with the same problem ─ and now with one arm tied behind its back.

And all of this as Toronto's 8% unemployment rate remains higher than the national average.

However, it's not practical to tell the poorest Torontonians that they have to help bail out the province just like the middle class and the wealthy. The reality is, some people can help and some people can't.

If the province can't currently provide for the neediest who live here, it should consider moderately increasing ─ not simply freezing ─ corporate tax rates to balance the social deficit created by the cancellation of the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit.

'Too Toronto'

By Joe Fantauzzi
ninetytwopointeight@gmail.com 

Toronto is clearly a divisive subject.

In their 2007 documentary Let's All Hate Toronto, Albert Nerenberg and Rob Spence are told by Canadians that Toronto is "a buzzkill", "elitist", "unfriendly" and a "city without a soul."

Former New Democratic Party Leader and Toronto Councillor Jack Layton opines to the filmmakers that "someone once said it is a national past time to give Toronto in the eye."

Is this just a cultural foible? Is it also systemic?  

If you get the sense Toronto, with its demands for more power and money, is kind of like a teenager pushing the boundaries of parental authority, you're not far off.

Canadian municipalities, including Toronto, have limited recognition in the Constitution and function essentially as arms of provincial policy.

Section 92.8 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the provinces exclusive power over municipalities. Hence the name of this blog.

So, in practical terms, what does this mean? A few recent examples:

• A lack of guaranteed, stable funding for Toronto's transit system, the largest in Canada, aside from the fare-box and cash the city can set aside, contributes to gridlock. It also keeps Toronto embarrassingly behind the pack of world cities on the transit file;

• Cultural funding has also been slashed in recent years by a provincial government looking to cut costs at all cost;

   

• As the Gardiner Expressway crumbles, leading engineers to believe part of its driving deck will be unusable in about six years, how much easier would it be for the city to find money to repair it if the province had not downloaded the section between Hwy. 427 and the Humber River in 1997 and washed its hands of the expense?
• And, provincial money earmarked for municipal affairs, which  can be used to invest in affordable housing by municipal landlords is falling, critics charge.

Meanwhile, Toronto is also being used as a wedge issue in the ongoing Liberal Party of Ontario leadership race. Candidate Sandra Pupatello took aim at several of her rivals during a debate on December 6, telling them they are "too Toronto" to lead the province. 

Those comments generated backlash.

Indeed, Pupatello's comments may be identity politics, designed to set her apart from the other candidates but they show it is still politically viable to slam Ontario's capital, 18 provincial seats inside which are held by the Liberals Pupatello wants to lead.

Toronto exists at the pleasure of the provincial government. That became painfully clear in 1998 when, despite much opposition, the province amalgamated six former cities into one megacity.

The fight over amalgamation is over but a feeling of lack of municipal agency remains. The city's 2.6 million people deserve better than to be used as identity wedges or for the future of their city to rise and fall on the tides of provincial budgets.

The province isn't to blame for Toronto's problems. It is part of Toronto's problems.  

That's where this conversation picks up.