Pillaging The Public Purse: On Hydro One's Privatization

I have written in the past on my strong opposition to Kathleen Wynne's selloff of 60% of Hydro One. She has no mandate for this pillaging of the public purse, and no good reason for it except her politically and ideologically-driven obsession with balancing the budget before Ontario's next provincial election. She will not be getting my vote.

Recently, Linda McQuaig wrote a column that came out strongly against this sale, offering an historical perspective showing the public good that accrues from public ownership of such a utility.

In today's Star, readers offer their own insights on this issue, one that is likely a big contributing factor in the Liberals' current poor showing in the polls:

Re: The case against privatizing Hydro One, Opinion Aug. 4

What’s most disturbing about reading Linda McQuaig’s strong case against privatizing Hydro One is that it reveals clearly that Premier Wynne seems to be selling it for no worthwhile reason.

When 73 per cent of Ontarians disagree with the sale and she insists on it, then she is not serving the public will. Further, to trade off the long-term benefits of Hydro One for a short-lived infusion of cash for infrastructure is economically incomprehensible.

With this kind of foolish, arbitrary decision, which is symptomatic of the disconnect between the public will and its leadership, Wynne will certainly join the infamous ranks of other failed premiers of Ontario, such as Mike Harris and Dalton McGuinty, who also carried out their personal agenda while forsaking the common good of the electorate.

Pity the serious voters.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

Timing is everything. Currently, along with a several other Ontarians, I am particularly interested in the timing of the Ontario Liberals’ Climate Change Action Plan.

Last Nov. 15, the Ontario Liberals privatized Hydro One when they sold off 15 per cent of the former Crown Corporation. Sad but true.

In April, they sold off another 15 per cent. The following month, Ontario’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change let the world know that Ontario is moving away from natural-gas home heating. Some back-peddling followed. Shortly after that, the Liberals released their official Climate Change Action Plan.

It indicated their intention to move to a more electricity-based society. Once complete, Ontario is to have far more electric vehicles, electric charging hubs, electric home initiatives, etc.

In summary, the Liberals are moving Ontario to a more electricity-based society after privatizing our province’s transmission grid and largest local distribution company! That means Hydro One will now go on to make record profits and a huge amount of potential income is being stripped away from Ontarians.

But why? To balance the current Liberal budget and dangle some shiny gifts ahead of the 2018 election. All this at the expense of Ontarians.

The whole thing reeks of corruption. Just waiting for the smoking gun to be revealed. Timing is everything.

Joel Usher, Newcastle

Thanks to Linda McQuaig for detailing the long history of support in Ontario for a public monopoly on electricity — right up to today. The public instinct is right: it is best to keep this rare and valuable asset so that profits go back to our treasury, and to avoid the risk of the monopoly control falling into the hands of those who would maximize their returns at the expense of consumers and the environment.

Ms. McQuaig could have added that selling off Hydro One is a bad deal, as concluded by Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer. After all, investors are not stupid.

They will not pay full price for the value of the future Hydro One profits they would get as minority shareholders, due to the risk, because key decisions affecting profits are taken by government. The monopoly is worth more to the government as the decision-maker.

If you must sell an asset, this is a particularly bad one to sell.

Kim Jarvi, Toronto

Connecting The Dots?

Here in Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne's decision to sell off 60% of Hydro One, the very profitable public utility that generated a pre-tax income of $803 million in 2013, is causing quite a storm of outrage. Despite her promise to put all profits from the sale toward transportation structure, the fact that the sale will yield a mere $4 billion after taxpayer money pays off Hydro's long-standing debt means the sale makes almost no sense. And, one might ask, why a sale of 60%, a proportion that will put hydro squarely in private sector's control?

Operation Maple has put up an interesting video that comes to some intriguing, although rather conspiratorial, conclusions. But surely such is preferable to the bovine passivity that government counts on when imposing its will on its citizens, isn't it?



Meanwhile, Toronto Star letter-writers do their usual excellent job in the critical-thinking department. Here are but a few examples:

Sell-off will help Ontario, Hydro One, Letter June 2

The government surely disagrees with Keith Summer’s excellent May 2 opinion piece, but Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli’s letter fails to say why. Instead of numerical analysis, all we get is the usual political bafflegab. Boiled down, the minister asks us to trust them. Well, count me out.

Apparently, a valuation of Hydro One has been worked out. I assume this valuation is a report of some kind, with validated numerical analysis. Has it been made public? If not public, has it been made available for scrutiny by reputable independent reviewers? Ontarians deserve this. When there is such a major policy change about the ownership of this vital utility, we all should demand a full revelation of the method and results of the valuation process.

The non-sequiturs in Mr. Chiarelli’s letters confound and astound me. He speaks of a 10 per cent maximum ownership causing shares to be broadly held across Ontario in the same sentence. How does that work? How does any aspect of the sale enable Hydro One to become more innovative, competitive and effective as he claims? It’s just silly to make such claims without any proof or rationale.

This deal is bad policy and Mr. Chiarelli should be admonished for writing such a trivial letter.

Edward Kilner, Mississauga

Minister of Energy Bob Chiarelli repeated the term “much needed infrastructure” four times in his letter to the Star.

Ending his letter he left the impression that selling off 60 per cent of Hydro One “will create more than 110,000 jobs each year and help grow our economy,” without costing the taxpayers any money. But selling off part of Hydro One is not going to create one new job. These jobs for the “much needed infrastructure” are already there and have been sitting on the sidelines for years.

To suggest it will not cost the taxpayers any money reminds of the story of the investor who wanted to open a mink farm. He reasoned since mice multiplied five times faster than mink he could feed the mice to the mink and the mink carcasses to the mice and get the pelts for nothing. It sounded good on paper but as time went on he had to go to the well for more money.

Frank Feeley, Fonthill

After reading Keith M. Summers’ commentary I am more than ever convinced that the Ontario government should retain 100 per cent ownership of Hydro One, with all its healthy profits going into the public coffers rather than private pockets. But if it is in fact impossible for the government to borrow $9 billion at a reasonable rate then it should at least follow Mr. Summers’ advice and focus on raising $9 billion by offering approximately 30 per cent equity in Hydro One, retaining majority ownership and a much healthier percentage of the profits.

Gillian Marwick, Toronto

The Shape Of Things To Come?

Over the past several years, I have become a bit of an aficionado of bourbon. Given that most of my life I have never cared for the taste of straight liquor, how I came to fancy it is something of a mystery, but it is now my hobby that whenever I see a new listing in the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario), if it is within my price point, I will buy it. The other frequent purchase is red wine.

My imbibing habits are really not the subject of this post; rather, it is a disturbing trend I have noticed upon visits for the past several weeks. Product prices are rising, not by ten or twenty cents, but by dollars. For example, a bottle of Barefoot Merlot, a California wine, was retailing about six weeks ago at $9.95. It then went up to $10.05, and quickly jumped thereafter to $10.95. A bottle of Eagle Rare bourbon, (a rare purchase for me, given its price) jumped from about $49 to $54.65. I could give numerous other examples, but I think you get the picture.

Given the relative stability, even upward trend of the Canadian dollar, these increases on American products cannot be attributed to currency fluctuations nor simply a cash grab by the province. I believe there is something more insidious at work.

I believe that the Ontario Liberal government, should it win re-election in 2018. is planning to privatize the LCBO, surely one of our crown jewels, given the huge profits that go into the provincial treasure each year. Indeed, in fiscal 2013-2014, it made a record profit of $1.74 billion, more than our formerly wholly-publicly-owned Hydro One.

What is my evidence, other than the rising prices that would make the LCBO's sale even more attractive to private investors? Consider the pattern:

Before privatizing Hydro One, the government engaged in a series of price increases for electricity, culminating in the current peak rate (weekdays 11 a.m.-5 p.m.) of 18 cents per kilowatt hour. One of the reasons cited is that Ontarians' conservation efforts reduced Hydro One's revenues. Left unsaid is the fact that lower profits would have also resulted in a lower IPO when the first 15% of Hydro One was sold off.

But wait. There's more.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has made a big play to offer a wider distribution of beer, which will ultimately be available, but only in six-packs, in 400 grocery stores. Prior to that, she had expressed public outrage over the virtual monopoly enjoyed by the privately-owned Beer Store, whose proprietors are multinationals: Molson-Coors, Labatt (owned by Anheuser-Busch InBev) and Sleeman (owned by Japan’s Sapporo). At the time, she suggested a licensing fee would be imposed on that monopoly. Needless to say, that never happened, but the fact that beer is now allowed, albeit in limited distribution and quantity in grocery stores, suggests an effort to change the public perception about the virtues of privatization.

Next, there is the recently-announced LCBO delivery service. Finance Minister Charles Sousa said,

the creation of LCBO.com shows the government-owned liquor agency's commitment to evolve and modernize, and will provide greater convenience for consumers.

"The virtual shelf space now available to small wineries and breweries is fantastic," said Sousa.

The online sales site will be a huge boost to Ontario wineries, breweries and cider producers, predicted LCBO president and CEO George Soleas.

As well as a boost to their already fat bottom line, no doubt, thereby enhancing its attractiveness to future private investors.

Consider as well the recent hiring of Bonnie Brooks as the LCBO's new Chair. Known as a turnaround-queen, she joined Hudson Bay in 2008, becoming

its first female president and CEO. Brooks is known for engineering a turnaround for the retailer, dropping its moribund apparel brands and bringing in mid-to-high end fashion products.

Brooks was set to retire from her role as vice-chairman before agreeing to take on LCBO role. She said this new opportunity would allow her to help “build on the great work that has already been done, and to take this exciting retail powerhouse to the next level,” with its expansion online and its new role as wholesaler to grocers.

Cynics like me would suggest that she has really been hired to complete the transformation of the LCBO prior to the start of privatization.

Expect no mention of these plans before the next election. Just as the privatization of the very profitable Hydro One came out of the blue, a cowardly and costly way to avoid tax increases while bringing in her balanced budget in time for the next election, my prediction is that Kathleen Wynne will once more betray the people of Ontario should she win another majority mandate

It is a sad thing when a citizen comes to look upon his government with suspicion and loathing. Yet it is an odium that the premier and her tired regime have justly earned.

A Vanity Production?

Yesterday morning, I read a piece by Martin Regg Cohn on the impending sale of Ontario's Hydro One. When it is completed, 60% of our publically-owned asset will have been sold off. During a brief walk in the afternoon, I decided to write a letter to my local MPP with a copy to Premier Kathleen Wynne to protest the sale. While it may be of some interest to people residing in Ontario, my letter may be regarded by those residing elsewhere as a vanity production, perhaps, given the ultimate futility of speaking or writing to our representatives in our currently debased democracy.

Whatever its ultimate utility may be, writing this missive has at least been personally cathartic:

I am writing to express my deep disappointment over your government's decision to sell off 60% of Hydro One. It is a profound betrayal of the people of Ontario and a flagrant abuse of democracy that I fear will have far-reaching consequences.

I was one of the many who chose to cast my vote in the last election, not for the NDP but for the Liberals. Their platform seemed sound, and I was repulsed by what I saw as the political opportunism of Andrea Horwath in forcing the election. A leader's integrity is one of my paramount considerations when I vote, and I thought I saw it in Kathleen Wynne.

While I admire that Ms. Wynne has shown strength of conviction in some areas, such as the revamping of the sex-ed curriculum, despite fierce opposition from some quarters, I lament the fact that she does not have the same courage and principles to resist the neoliberal siren call of privatization of public assets. As we well know, the private sector's sole responsibility is to its shareholders and the profits they expect, and we have no reason to believe that its majority ownership of our Hydro assets will change that. The public good will always be, at best, a tangential consideration.

Not once during her bid for re-election did the premier talk about privatizing Hydro One. To say that a general review of all assets was to be undertaken as the cover for this decision is, frankly, dishonest and insulting. Also, the Hydro assets are, as you well know, generating very healthy annual profits. To suggest their sale is needed to fund infrastructure projects is disingenuous, and indicative of a very narrow vision that excludes other possibilities, such as road tolls or an increase in the income tax rate to fund such construction. I will also state the obvious: those assets belong to all Ontarians. They are not your government's to sell.

At a time when cynicism about the electoral process is widespread, and voting numbers continue to decline, the decision to sell such a prized asset can do nothing but promote more of the same. If you are so convinced that this is a good decision, then hold a provincial plebiscite. Only with the approval of the people can you make any claim to be representing them in this matter.

I am one of the electorate with a very long memory. I can assure you my support for your party and government ends the day the sale of Hydro One begins. Next election, my vote will be for the NDP.

A Parochial Post?

While I realize that a post about Ontario politics is likely of little interest to those living elsewhere, I believe what has happened in my province serves as a solid object lesson about the creeping privatization of public assets.

I have written in the past about Premier Kathleen Wynne's betrayal of the province. Upon winning a majority in the last election (after the holder of the balance of power, the NDP's Andrea Horwath, decided to go for the gold and triggered an unnecessary election), Wynne announced the sell-off of 60% of one of the province's crown jewels, Hydro One, despite the fact that it generated just under $1 billion in annual revenue. Her avowed purpose was to "broaden ownership" (how much broader can public ownership be?) and use revenues from the sale to finance transportation and other infrastructure projects.

Now, a report by the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) confirms the folly of that sale:



To sum up, as Rob Ferguson reports,

It would have been $1.8 billion cheaper for Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government to borrow money for transit and infrastructure projects than sell a 53-per-cent stake in Hydro One.

Even more distressing,

...the provincial treasury will lose $1.1 billion in dividends from Hydro One this year and an average of $264 million annually until the 2024-25 fiscal year.

So one has to ask, why didn't Wynne simply borrow the money for these infrastructure projects? My belief is that, despite some progressive policies, hers is essentially a neoliberal regime, committed to the notion that government should play only a supporting role so that the depredations of the corporate agenda can prevail. That, and, as New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns observed,

“It was all about making the books look good [i.e., a balanced budget] for the election".

What can the rest of Canada learn from this debacle? If nothing else, it teaches all of us to remain vigilant about our public assets, and to keep a steady eye, for example, on the Trudeau government, which is currently studying privatization of our major airports.

In the latter case, my prediction is we will hear nothing more about it until after the next federal election. Should the Liberals secure another majority, be ready for the next round of corporate nest-feathering at the expense of our federal treasures.

The Art Of Misdirection

While it is difficult in some ways to attribute anything resembling a method to the madness of the American Moron-in-Chief, it would be wrong to think he is totally unmoored and rudderless. Trump's tax-reform plan attests to this. As does the furor that was stoked over U.S. Health Secretary Tom Price's obscene and very expensive use of charter flights on the American public's dime, for which he has now walked the plank. Both serve, I believe, as a misdirection to obscure a much more sinister long-term goal, one that all citizens of so-called liberal democracies, including Canada, should be concerned about.

The first misdirection comes in the preamble to the tax plan:

It is now time for all members of Congress — Democrat, Republican and Independent — to support pro-American tax reform. It’s time for Congress to provide a level playing field for our workers, to bring American companies back home, to attract new companies and businesses to our country, and to put more money into the pockets of everyday hardworking people.
- President Donald J. Trump

I won't belabor the obvious here about the risible and false association drawn above between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's just say the fact that corporate Canada was sitting on about $700 billion in 2014 is a sterling example of how ineffective a low tax regime is in creating jobs.

And there is no doubt that corporations and the wealthy will disproportionately benefit from the proposed changes, which aims to:

- Cut the corporate tax rate to 20 per cent, down from 35 per cent. Conservatives are framing the lower corporate tax rate as something that will increase investment and help businesses create jobs.

- Lower the top tax rate for so-called "pass-through" businesses to 25 per cent. These businesses, such as partnerships, S corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs), are only taxed on individual income.

- Eliminate the state and local tax deduction for individuals, thus taking away a break for taxpayers in highly taxed states such as New York, New Jersey and California.

- Scrap the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which was designed to prevent high-income earners from using loopholes to pay zero tax.

- And repeal the estate tax, a provision that affects very wealthy people who leave money to their heirs. The tax is currently set at 40 per cent.

Then there is the Trump claim that he will not benefit from the tax cuts, something that is demonstrably false.

But the fiction surrounding these tax cuts conceals a far more diabolical truth, one that will become apparent, I suspect, in the not-too-distant future. But to get at that truth, one more fiction needs to be dismantled, the one that says this kind of deficit spending will burden future generations. That assertion presupposes that at some point, taxes will have to be raised, and one's children and grandchildren will be paying them.

Personally, given the neoliberal nature of democracies today, I think that is absolute rubbish.

Putting aside that politicians generally lack the fortitude or the integrity to rescind tax breaks (look, for example at the fact the Harper TFSA still exists under the Trudeau government), let alone raise taxes, the truth is that future generations will pay for these deficits, just not in the way one might expect.

Payment will be extracted, not through increased taxation, but with the gutting of American social programs, entitlements like Medicaid and Social Security, etc. This will be coupled with an increasing rate of privatization of public resources, the neoliberal wet dream. And who will feel these cuts the most? The poor and the working class, most immediately, followed by the middle class through the much higher rates they will pay for newly privatized services, utilities, etc.

Already we have seen this plan being enacted in Canada, with more just around the corner. Consider the great privatization of Hydro One that has taken place under Premier Kathleen Wynne, something about which I have posted in the past. A boon to Bay Street and a bane to Main Street, it was done under the pretense of allocating all of the profits to green infrastructure initiatives. Predictably and cynically, however, Wynne has instead used some of the money to balance the books while also serving as a willing vessel for the neoliberal agenda.

There is every indication that the federal government is watching such betrayals of public ownership with avid interest. I have previously written about Justin Trudeau's secret study to privatize Canada' major airports. Again, the argument being advanced is that it would free up billions for infrastructure projects; more accurately, as Craig Richmond, the chief executive officer of the Vancouver Airport Authority, says,

“This idea of a one-time payment, that’s like selling the family jewels and then regretting it forever..."

Except, of course, there is never any semblance of regret when it comes to the nabobs of neoliberalism and their government functionaries, all of whom view public assets as fit only for corporate plunder.

So yes, everyone should evaluate each policy and event on its own merit. People are right to be disgusted with Tom Price's profligate abuse of taxpayer money, and people should be outraged that Trump's "middle class miracle" will benefit mainly the wealthy. But they should also be acutely aware of and outraged by one other thing: the purposeful misdirection that all such things represent, and should consequently rise up in deep protest as more of the neoliberal agenda is carried out by their kleptocratic Commander-in-Chief and his assorted masters and minions.

Rediscovering Democracy

Since I became eligible to vote many years ago, I have participated in every federal, provincial and municipal election that has been called. Even though it has become something of a cliché, the assertion that voting is a sacred duty has never been far from my mind.

And yet, for all of that, up to a few months ago, I was seriously considering doing something I had never done before: going to the polling station and officially declining my ballot. In that contemplation, I felt a righteous justification.

Why did I consider that option? First of all, of course, the Progressive Conservatives were never a consideration. Just like those who are gun-shy about the NDP after Bob Rae's Ontario premiership, I have never forgiven nor forgotten the depredations of the Harris years, an era when government sought to pit citizen against citizen, stigmatizing people according to socio-economic status and drastically cutting funding for an array of programs, an experience from which we have never fully recovered. And of course, there was the bone-headed move by these self-proclaimed fiscal masters of selling a 99-year lease on the lucrative highway 407 for a mere pittance.

Kathleen Wynne's Liberals were off my radar, having betrayed all Ontarians by the majority sell-off of Hydro One, the publicly-owned power transmission utility. Her justification? To broaden ownership and raise cash for green infrastructure, all without raising taxes. Of course, the first billion dollars was used to eliminate the government's deficit. Currently the government receives about one-third of the revenue from Hydro One it was receiving before privatization, and estimates are for the loss of billions over the longer-term, billions that government can ill-afford to surrender.

So that left the NDP for me to consider, and for the longest time I discounted offering them my support. The last election was triggered by Andrea Horwath's greed for power, despite the fact that the party held the balance of power over a minority Liberal government. And Horwath ran a campaign where the term small businesses was uttered regularly to the exclusion, if memory serves me, of any reference to the working class or working folks (the latter term seeming to have become part of today's political nomenclature). The closer they thought they were to power, the more to the right they tilted, the same error Thomas Mulcair made in the last federal election.

So prospects for voting seemed dim. What changed my mind? It was this column by the Star's Martin Regg Cohn, a journalist for whom I have a great deal of regard. Written at the end of February, it was a piece lamenting the increasingly low turnout in Ontario elections, a trend he sees as a real threat to democracy:

In the last two elections, barely half of Ontarians bothered to cast a ballot — an embarrassing 48 per cent voted in 2011, and a dispiriting 51 per cent turned out in 2014.

They were the worst showings by civic no-shows in our democratic history. And far worse turnouts than in any other provincial or federal election ever.

With the next election coming in roughly 100 days, Ontario’s democratic deficit is creating a crisis of confidence that no party can solve alone. No matter who wins on June 7, the worsening turnouts will prove a losing proposition for everyone — the politicians and the people.

This downward spiral undermines the very assumptions upon which democracy is based:

More than six in 10 Ontarians (62 per cent) believe that “the legitimacy of the government is called into question” if less than a majority of eligible votes are cast in a general election, according to the polling by Campaign Research.

I hope you will read Cohn's entire piece, plus other articles he has written within the past year on democracy. Simply go to the search function on The Star website and put in his name.

In closing, I cite his final sentence in the above-referenced article:

Democracy is an opportunity. Which is why a vote is a terrible thing to waste.

A Broad Canvas

If, like me, you are a retired senior to whom the fates have been reasonably kind, you have the luxury to contemplate the world around you at your leisure. If you are at all engaged in the larger world, however, that contemplation is rarely relaxing or enjoyable. You have seen too much in your lifetime.

A clear benefit and curse of advancing years is the context it confers. Without succumbing to mindless sentiment or nostalgia, I can remember earlier days when our society, although frequently roiled with major problems, was able to preserve and nourish something that now seems to be rapidly receding into the realm of the notionally quaint: the common good. People who ran for political office, it seems to me, more often than not, ran with a mind to represent the entire country or province, not a narrow or divisive constituency nursing some nebulous sense of grievance.

Today, that seems rarely the case. Nationally, of course, that 'narrowcasting' was most obvious during the foul reign of Stephen Harper, its main justification being to secure and retain power. His replacement, Justin Trudeau, while bearing the accouterments of a progressive populist, has disappointed deeply, purveying a neoliberal agenda and readily abandoning his election promises, an electoral reform that could have rejuvenated our waning democratic participation, and his pushing through pipelines without the 'social licence' he averred was sacred. Meanwhile, the Conservatives leader, Andrew Scheer, in true populist style in order to convince the electorate he is 'one of us,' dons a plaid short-sleeved shirt and bluejeans, while NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, courting the press, seeks to fashion himself as a Justin 2.0:



Here in Ontario, things are no better. We have a desperate Kathleen Wynne promising everything to everyone in a proposed spending spree which, should she be returned to power, would ensure at the very least another sale of public assets, the most likely immediate target being the LCBO. Her recent appointment of privatization czar Ed Clark as its chair was a barely concealed hint of a further implementation of the neoliberal agenda.

As a retiree, I am particularly offended at Wynne playing to the stereotype of the selfish senior by promising to remove the deductibles and co-payments under the Ontario Drug Benefit program, which provides seniors with free drugs. This will save the average person $240 per year. My vote really can't be bought, Kathleen.

Then, of course, there is the rise of the reactionary populist Doug Ford, promising to find 'new efficiencies' to save $6 billion with, wait for it, no job loss or government cuts! Shame on anyone who lived through the Mike Harris years for believing such patent malarkey.

Finally, we have the NDP's Andrea Horwath who, in a bald and venal play, gave up her balance of power leverage and triggered the last election, the same one that gave Wynne her majority, thereby allowing her to sell off 60% of Hydro One, a sale Horwath now promises to reverse by buying back the shares and lower hydro rates by 30%.

The contemporary canvas I contemplate is a bleak one. In Voltaire's Candide, Professor Pangloss avers "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds". Notably, the work is a satire. Perhaps it is time for a new generation of readers.

Contempt Of The Electorate?

Tom, a friend of mine, posted the following on Facebook yesterday:

Kind of tired of all the polemical posturing in the latest election. However, can anyone provide one instance in history -- at least, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution -- where, corporate or business tax cuts, the basis of trickle down economic policy, have been primarily responsible for an upsurge in hiring or the oxymoronic fictional concept of job creation.

I replied:

Tom, you are asking a question that the media refuse to ask. Considering who owns most of the media in this country, this is perhaps not so surprising.

To which Tom replied:

I think that's partially true, Lorne. However, how come politicians and supporters of those on the other side [of the] argument don't keep asking the question and insist upon an answer. I've been looking for such an historical antecedent and can't find anything.

I wrote back:

A good question. Perhaps it reflects their belief that the attention span of the average citizen is short, and boring them with facts is counter productive? Sound bites do seem to rule the day.

Tom makes an excellent point about the dearth of questions asked about the right's underlying premises. Indeed, the Liberals have only gone so far as to ridicule the accuracy of the job-creation numbers Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak claims will ensue from both his gutting of public service jobs and reduction in corporate tax rates. Nowhere is his philosophical foundation questioned.

Kim Campbell, in her short career as Canada's first woman prime minister, once infamously observed that political campaigns are not the time to discuss policy. She was much pilloried for that comment, but perhaps it was simply an oblique expression of disdain for the very people whose support politicians seek on their road to power. That contempt seems to be more and more the default position of those who lead us or aspire to.

In his column this morning, Martin Regg Cohn laments the fact that Tim Hudak will not be taking part in the Ontario leaders' debate in Thunder Bay, attributing crass political calculation to his boycott, and not the 'scheduling conflict' Team Hudak claims.

Cohn calls his decision a disrespect for democracy, and yet I have long given up on such debates, reflecting, as they do, the very contempt that is the subject of this post. Far too frequently, instead of engaging in the thrust and parry a real debate entails, politicos are all too content either to simply rework their stump speeches into their responses or answer the questions they wished had been asked, rather than the actual queries. Avoidance and obfuscation seem to rule the day, and the journalists moderating the panels rarely seem to hold them to account.

How we arrived at this sad state is not an easy question to answer, but undoubtedly the pernicious influence of the Harper regime and its worship of ignorance is a factor.

Two brief letters in today's Star make this point:

Gutting Statistics Canada is a pound-foolish strategy, Opinion May 19

Anyone with brains could see that gutting Statistics Canada would be a disaster for future governing of this country. To me, it represented one of the first major steps of Stephen Harper’s “secret agenda” of remaking this country into his little fiefdom of conservative domination into the future ruled by ideology not evidence-backed policies.

It will be the ruination of this once small but proud country.

Ann Goodin, Burlington

I don’t think money is the main motivator behind gutting StatsCan, although it’s a great excuse. It’s been obvious for years that the Conservatives don’t like pesky facts getting in the way of their ideology.

They’ve also figured out how to data mine us so they have info we’ll never see (those pesky facts again).

Ellen Bates, Toronto

That is not to see that any of us gets a free pass when it comes to embracing ignorance. Far too many have stopped taking the political process seriously, seeing it more as a source of soap-operish entertainment than as fundamental to the health of our country. Anyone who doubts that need only refer to the antics of a Rob Ford and the tenor of so many reactions to them. Or ask yourself this: What comes to mind when you think of Maxime Bernier and the misplaced government documents?

I will end what has been perhaps a bit of a meandering post with one final letter from today's Star. During this Ontario election campaign, both Mr. Hudak and Ms. Horwath have made much about our hydro rates. It is taken as undeniable that we pay some of the world's highest rates thanks to Liberal incompetence and corruption. Here are the facts:

Business shifts election focus to power prices, May 15

Most people realise that just because a politician (or party rep) says something, it doesn’t mean it’s true. The latest scuttlebutt is the “sky-high” prices we pay for electricity in Ontario making us uncompetitive and putting a strain on working families.

Let’s face it: nobody wants to pay more for anything, but before voting for political parties who are promising to lower your hydro rates, consider the fact that electricity prices in Ontario are actually not high at all.

Hydro Quebec routinely surveys electricity rates for consumers/small business and large industrial customers across North America. In 2013 it may surprise many people to know that at a kw/h price of $0.1248, Toronto has lower hydro rates than Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Halifax, Charlottetown, and St John’s. In addition, it has much lower rates than Boston (0.165), Detroit (0.1554), New York (0.2175), and San Francisco (0.2294).

If one looks further abroad, a 2011 comparison of electricity rates (all in U.S. dollars per kw/h) world wide indicates that after adjusting for relative purchasing power, Canada has the lowest rates in the entire world. Not adjusting for purchasing power, we have the fourth lowest rates in the world at $0.10, just above India and China at $0.08 each and tied with Mexico and South Africa.

The average price in the U.S. in 2011 was actually $0.12, more than we pay in Toronto. The top five? Denmark: $0.41, Germany: $0.35, Spain: $0.30, Australia: $0.29, and Italy: $0.28. Even Brazil has higher rates at $0.17.

Ontario has a massive electricity grid to maintain relative to its population. Part of this cost is offset by relatively cheap hydro electric power and the artificially low cost we pay for nuclear power, but maintenance on a system this large requires substantial and on-going investment.

Before voting for a party promising to cut prices, ask yourself this question: Who is going to pay for them?

Rob Graham, Toronto

About Those 39 Pieces of I.D. Pierre Poilivre Keeps Talking About

H/t Canadians Rallying To Unseat Stephen Harper

To hear Pierre Poilievre speak, one might think that any Canadian who claims that the 'Fair' Elections Act could very well disenfranchise up to 500,000 Canadians in the next election is intellectually challenged. The ubiquitous Harper weasel, both in the House and on television, assures us that all the experts, both domestically and internationally, are dead wrong in all of their criticisms, since the bill will allow 39 pieces of I.D.* to be used at the ballot box, thus rendering vouching and voter information cards quite redundant.

But are his claims of our collective ignorance/stupidity/hysteria valid?

The CBC's Laura Payton did an investigation of the issue, with some very interesting results.

If you look at the list of I.D at the end of this post, you will see the problem. As Peyton points out, Canadians don't just prove their identity to cast a ballot: they have to prove where they live too.

I have placed an asterisk beside those pieces that do provide an address. One of the key problems with many of those forms of identification is that one would have had to have gone to the trouble of requesting such proof well ahead of an election (eg. First Nations attestation of residence, or such attestation as issued by a soup kitchen, shelter, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility); a second problem would be remembering to have it with you when going to the polls. How many would bother to line up a second time after returning to their residence to retrieve the required but forgotten piece?

But most people have a driver's licence, right? Says Payton:

... while Elections Canada says 85 per cent of Canadians have a driver's licence — based on the numbers they get from provincial licensing offices — that penetration drops in urban areas like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, where better public transit systems mean fewer people require cars to get around.

What about things like insurance policies (which you are far less likely to have if you are a renter) or bank statements? Those are fine, says Peyton,

Unless, that is, the documents are delivered by email. [Don't forget we are always being preached to about the environmental virtues of paperless billing.] A printed version of emailed documents won't suffice. Instead, voters would have to go to the bank or the hydro or insurance company — or dig through their paper files at home — to find an original copy. And they'll have to know that before they head to the polling station to cast a ballot on the advance polling day or election day.

Curious as well, isn't it, that a voter information card, which contains one's address, isn't accepted as one of the two proofs required? Does the government believe dark conspiracies are afoot not only to steal the cards, but also people's other pieces of identity as well?

Given all of the criticisms levelled against this bill, criticisms that Poilievre has facilely dismissed as without merit, there is only one conclusion, in my view, to be drawn. Given those who are most likely to be excluded from easy access to the polls (aboriginals, the poor, the homeless, renters, the 'urban elite,' the young and the very old), people who are less likely to vote for the Conservatives, the Fair Elections Act is, unquestionably, legislation aimed solely at achieving voter suppression.

*Driver's licence
Ontario health card
Provincial/territorial ID card in some provinces/territories
Canadian passport
Certificate of Canadian citizenship (citizenship card)
Birth certificate
Certificate of Indian status (status card)
Social insurance number card
Old age security card
Student ID card
Liquor ID card
Hospital/medical clinic card
Credit/debit card
Employee card
Public transportation card
Library card
Canadian Forces ID card
Veterans Affairs Canada health card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec card
CNIB ID card
Firearm possession and acquisition licence or possession only licence
Fishing, trapping or hunting licence
Outdoors or wildlife card/licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee ID card
*Utility bill (telephone, TV, PUC, hydro, gas or water)
*Bank/credit card statement
*Vehicle ownership/insurance
*Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
*Statement of government benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
*Attestation of residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government cheque or cheque stub
*Pension plan statement of benefits, contributions or participation
*Residential lease/mortgage statement
*Income/property tax assessment notice
*Insurance policy
*Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
*One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: attestation of residence, letter of stay, admission form or statement of benefits

Which Will It Be, Apathy Or Outrage?

In my previous post about the Doug Ford OPP scandal, I wondered if people are still capable of collective outrage. It is a concern shared by The Star's Martin Regg Cohn:

... Ontarians are facing their own moment of truth as the layers of deception are peeled back from the premier’s alleged secret meddling over the next OPP chief. Doug Ford’s loyal chief.

The outgoing OPP chief has blown the whistle on Ford and Taverner. But are we listening?

Are Ontarians to be governed by the rule of law, or by the misrule of a miscreant who bends the rules and rewrites our laws? Shall our premier indulge his personal peccadilloes — in a customized camper paid for “off the books” to deceive taxpayers and lawmakers — and then cover his tracks?

And without question, there is much to be concerned about:

People of all political stripes and partisan colours cannot but be disgusted by the whiff of favouritism, the smell of meddling, and the stench of coverup, for this is not merely a matter of right or left, but reckless wrongdoing. This is not about ideology but idiocy.

Maybe he will get away with it. Possibly the public will put up with it. Perhaps the press will move on. Presumably the opposition will go on holiday. Ultimately the OPP will be transformed into the Ontario Premier’s Police.

And Ontarians will grow accustomed to their chief executive interfering in law enforcement at the very top, just like in America. Trump fired Comey, and Ford hired Taverner.

Fortunately, not everyone is giving Ford a pass on something that is looking increasingly felonious. In The Star's print edition, Ted Green of Ariss Ontario writes:

Re OPP head calls for Taverner review, Dec. 12

Rather naively, I have frequently thought how fortunate I am to live in a province absent the concerns of a turbulent, frightening leader as one can witness south of our border. My smugness is gone and we see more and more similarities in leadership styles now within the governance of our province and the U.S. The most recent concern is the government’s appointment of Premier Ford’s good friend Mr. Taverner as OPP Commissioner. This appointment is so far removed from passing a ‘smell test.’ One hopes the Office of the Ombudsman can remedy another area of a slippery slope that the premier seems to be leading us down.

As well, in another reminder of the vital role the press plays in a healthy democracy, The Star editorial board weighs in:

Of all the destructive things that Doug Ford has wrought since his government took office at the end of June, surely none is worse than the damage he has inflicted on the credibility of Ontario’s most important police force.

Of course, there’s an awful lot of competition. Weakening rules on the environment, axing crucial watchdog positions, sabotaging Toronto’s municipal election, undermining Hydro One... the list goes on.

But naming an old Ford family friend to be commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, manipulating the rules along the way and putting the independence of the force at risk, takes the cake.

So what will it be from the citizens of Ontario? Will it be apathy or outrage, a submissive shrug of the shoulders or a long-lasting and productive anger at a man (and his minions) who now sees the entire province as his and his backroom friends' personal fiefdom?

The answer to that question is of vital consequence both to the province and to the state of democracy today.

When A Government Overstays Its Welcome

I am convinced that all institutions have a 'best-before date,' after which it is time for massive renewal. Comfort with the status quo, a sense of entitlement, a growing separateness from those they serve are all compelling reasons for 'creative destruction.' We have seen that process of renewal take place recently with the election of Pope Francis to head the Catholic Church, a hoary old institution much in need of a shakeup from its massive corruption and complacency. Unfortunately, such dramatic renewals are the exception rather than the rule.

In the political arena, we saw it federally with the election of the Trudeau government, tantamount to a massive rejection of the old fogyism and abuse of power that had become rampant in the Harper regime after almost 10 years. Whether true renewal is actually taking place under the new administration is something that only time will determine.

Then there is the sad case of politics in Ontario. After almost 13 years in power, power that should have ended in the last election but didn't thanks to a new leader, Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal government is showing all the signs of one that is tired, directionless, corrupt and increasingly out of touch with the citizens it 'serves.' To be honest, I reluctantly voted for that party's re-election, but only because there was no viable alternative. NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who had held the balance of power, sacrificed that influence by forcing the election in a bold and venal gambit for power. Tim Hudak, the Progressive Conservative leader at the time, was never a viable option for anyone except those who fancy village idiots leading their province.

And so we are left with the current situation: a government that apparently wanted power for its own sake, has made a fetish of eliminating the deficit by 2017-18, (hence the horrifying sell-off of 60% of Hydro One), and appears to be engineering policy on the fly. It is an administration that has become highly reactive in nature.

Examples abound, and almost all of them result from Toronto Star investigations. Take the issue of fundraising. Thanks to investigative work by Martin Regg Cohn, Ontario is soon unveil new rules that will surely minimize the corrupt practices of the past.

While there is still some way to go, the sweeping measures would represent a dramatic departure from past decades of what amounted to limitless contribution limits by companies and unions in Ontario. The main thrust, announced in late March by Premier Kathleen Wynne after Liberal fundraising practices were detailed in the Star — notably secret targets for cabinet ministers — would be a complete ban on corporate and union money starting next year.

Healthcare in this province is deteriorating. I was talking to a neighbour the other day who told me that he is being treated for lymphoma, but confirmation of his disease was not an easy task. He needed what is known as an ultrasound directed biopsy, but because hospitals are only funded for two per day, they could not even give him an approximate date for the procedure. Fortunately for him, however, he knew a nurse who arranged for a technician to do it for free on his lunch hour. Without that advantage, he might still be waiting.

Again, thanks to another Star investigation, those facing an even more dire situation, leukemia patients awaiting a stem-cell transplant, will get some relief from the risk of long waits due to funding problems, waits that often result in the end of their remissions, making the transplant far less likely to proceed. Indeed, up until now, the Ontario government refused to authorize transplants for those whose remissions had ended.

Thanks to the reactive nature of this government, in response to that investigation the province's Health Minister, Eric Hoskins,

introduced a critical policy change on Sunday that will make an entire group of cancer patients — those who have relapsed after chemotherapy — eligible for life-saving stem cell transplants.

It’s one of several measures Hoskins announced in a statement following an ongoing Star investigation into the systemic collapse of stem cell transplant programs in Ontario hospitals.

The minister, among other things, has committed to:

- Expanding access for stem cell therapy treatment, in Ontario and out of country, where clinically recommended, to leukemia patients who are not in complete remission after chemotherapy.

- Opening a second stem cell transplant centre in Greater Toronto at Sunnybrook hospital to take pressure off of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, which closed its doors to new transplant patients in March. Princess Margaret’s medical director told the Star it would be “irresponsible” for the hospital to add patients to its eight-month waiting list when they know these patients must receive a transplant within two to three months of diagnosis for the best chance of success.

- Streamlining the convoluted referral process for patients sent out of country, a process that takes weeks as Cancer Care Ontario stipulated that a special review committee must vet all cases before funding is approved.

- Creating a ministerial task force to provide the government with “immediate and ongoing advice.” (A ministry spokesman could not say which experts have been assigned to the committee.)

The Star, as it is fond of saying, "gets action," but is this the best way to formulate policy, as a response to public embarrassment and odium?

I could cite a wealth of other examples, but since I am not a believer in long blog posts, I'll end here as I began: reactive policy-making and visionless government are the hallmarks of a tired administration, underscoring once more that famous observation attributed to Winston Churchill:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Another Pending Betrayal

As we become increasingly disillusioned about the growing disparity between the Trudeau promise and its reality, another betrayal of that promise is pending. Like his neoliberal soul sister in Ontario, Kathleen Wynne, who insists that selling off 60% of the provincial crown jewel known as Hydro One is a no-brainer, Mr. Trudeau apparently thinks it is a keen idea to consider delivering our national airports over to profiteers, a.k.a. the private sector, to raise money for his 'national vision.' The upcoming federal budget looks to begin the process:

The budget is expected to signal the government’s interest in finding a way to tap the value of airports with a process, perhaps led by Transport Minister Marc Garneau, to more formally explore selling them off, the Star has learned.

The potential benefit for Ottawa is huge. One study done by the Vancouver airport authority estimated that the federal government could reap between $8.7 billion and $40.1 billion by selling off the country’s eight largest airports, including Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

That may be good news for a government with a burgeoning deficit, but bad news for the rest of us:

Yet the privatization scheme is ringing alarm bells among airlines, airport operators and some municipalities who warn that handing over Canada’s airports to owners with a profit motive sets the stage for rising fees that will force travellers to pay more.

Vancouver airport has teamed with those in Ottawa and Calgary on a public information campaign to oppose privatization.

“We think it’s a bad idea,” Craig Richmond, the chief executive officer of the Vancouver Airport Authority, told the Star.

“This idea of a one-time payment, that’s like selling the family jewels and then regretting it forever,” he said in an interview.

The consequences of such a sale will be far-reaching and costly for those who fly:

... the authority concludes that privatization would add “hundreds of millions of extra costs” that would have to be recovered through cost-cutting, increased fees and reduced investment in airport infrastructure.

“It would be too costly for a for-profit buyer to acquire an airport such as YVR without reducing services and passing these costs on to airport users through higher fees and charges,” the report states.

So while the private sector may salivate over the prospect of windfall profits, as is the norm in the neoloiberal vision embraced by people like Trudeau and his fellow travellers, the rest of us, the mere peons in this 'grand' vision, will be left to pay the price.

Meanwhile, Back At Home

While the Gong Show unfolding in the U.S. will likely continue to preoccupy a great many of us in the weeks, months and years to come, we would be remiss to ignore disquieting occurrences in our own country. Many of these occurrences are unfolding under the blinding glare of our prime minister's sunny smile; indeed, many of them are being orchestrated by Mr. Trudeau, under the not-so-subtle aegis of his neoliberal agenda.

One of these issues is the Infrastructure Bank Trudeau is establishing, one that seeks to meld public and private money to finance projects. The key question one must ask, of course, is what is in it for the institutional and consortia investors he is trying to attract. Kate Chucng, a Toronto Star reader, recently raised a very pertinent point.

So the federal government plans to start an “infrastructure bank.” But we already have one. It’s called the Bank of Canada, and it was set up for this very purpose.

The Bank of Canada exists to make low-interest loans to all levels of government. So why are they wanting to borrow at high interest rates from private investors? Could it be that the 1 per cent controls the government?

It is a question all of us should be asking.

In his column today, Paul Wells writes about a meeting the prime minister and nine of his ministers had on Monday in Toronto at the Shangri-La, where they were guests

of Larry Fink from New York’s humongous BlackRock investment firm, pitching Canada as an investment destination to some of the deepest pockets on the planet.

Around the table were all your favourite emissaries from global capital. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, with $360 billion (U.S.) in assets. Norway’s Norges Bank, which may be the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, though it’s hard to tell and the Norwegians hope to keep it that way. The Olayan Group from Saudi Arabia, with assets somewhere north of $100 billion. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, closer to $200 billion. The Qatar Investment Authority. The Lansforsakringar, which is Swedish for “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”

Interestingly, for a government that promised openness and transparency,

the whole day happened behind closed doors and surrounded by heavy security.

This kind of secrecy and preferred access, so typical of the former Harper regime, should cause all of us concern:

The novelty of it all, and the long trains of zeros and commas following all these visitors around, has generated a very large amount of skepticism among the relatively few Canadians who’ve been following this project so far. How will the investors generate returns? Toll roads? Jacked-up hydro rates? What kind of bargain is it if Canadians pay for all this fancy new stuff through their daily out-of-pocket expenses, rather than through their taxes?

Nearby, at Nathan Phillips Square, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union was staging a protest of the whole business. “When people find out how much of their money private contractors are skimming off the top, they don’t want anything to do with it,” Smokey Thomas, the OPSEU president, said in a news release.

There is no philanthropy in business. Everything is done with an eye to the bottom line. This fact alone should give Canadians deep, deep cause for concern over the direction our 'new' government is taking us in.

Lethal Legacy - Part 2

In Part 1, I wrote about the lethal consequences for many who have worked at GE Peterborough. A toxic workplace that has resulted in crippling disease or death for many is not the kind of legacy these men and women anticipated.

To compound the tragedy of the situation, Ontario's Workplace Insurance and Safety Board has been strangely reluctant to find a relationship between that workplace and the diseases that are killing far too many former employees, accepting only 280 compensation claims from over 660 applications.

Today, I try to understand that reluctance, as well as look at a bill working its way through the Ontario legislature that will potentially make the workplace even more hazardous.

In exploring this issue, the role of the Ontario government must also be considered, given its apparent indifference to workplace health and safety:

A report produced for the WSIB in 2010 determined that the province had “no effective reporting or surveillance of occupational disease or exposures” and no central repository of data on the subject.

Six years later, that status quo remains.

The WSIB itself seems to share that indifference:

The WSIB has a registry for “unplanned exposure incidents,” but it is voluntary, does not record information about the severity of the exposure, does not collect medical information from workers or health-care providers and looks only at individual cases rather than populations at risk. There is no dedicated funding for the program. ... [and] the Ministry of Labour does not receive data from the registry.

Why this strange shared inertia between a government-appointed board and the government itself? Is it possible that the miasma of neoliberalism has infiltrated both? And if so, how can that be, given that the WISB directors themselves, as I pointed out in the previous post, come from diverse backgrounds?

Is there, in fact, an institutional bias at work here?

“There’s a systemic barrier to actually looking at what’s happening to these blue-collar workers behind factory walls,” says Dr. Jim Brophy, an expert in occupational disease whose research into breast cancer in the workplace won him an award from the American Public Health Association in 2013.

“If compensation boards recognize these cases then the onus is on the government to go do something about them. We’re caught in this vicious cycle.”

Are those appointed to the Board, and by extension, those who work for the Board, trying in some measure, even unconsciously, to protect the government from that onus? The fact is that Board approves just over 40% of all claims for compensation, having set standards of proof almost impossibly high for many.

As well, approving too many claims could prove costly for employers.

The Canadian workers’ compensation model is based on an important compromise: employers agree to fund the system through insurance premiums, sharing the liability for workplace injuries.

We all know what happens if we ever make a claim, for example, on our house insurance. Rates rise, sometimes steeply. The same would hold true of employer premiums to the WSIB.

And where is the Ontario government in all of this? While it is demonstrably infected by the virus of neoliberalism (consider, as one example, the sale of 60% of Hydro One in order "to broaden ownership," in the words of Premier Kathleen Wynne), there is further evidence that the disease is progressing:

... new legislation — Bill 70 — is moving ahead and will quietly scale back routine health and safety inspections in favour of employer self-compliance.

UNIFOR is not impressed by the bill:

Health and safety advocates reviewing Bill 70 have serious concerns. The perverse irony this Bill bears the same number as the Bill which birthed Ontario’s original OHSA [Occupational Health & Safety Act] almost 40 years ago is not lost on worker health and safety advocates. Chief among their concerns is the Bill’s intent to allow the government to privatize the processes for setting and approving standards for health and safety training courses...

Equally troubling, in announcing these amendments to OHSA, Ministry of Labour senior staff indicated employers accredited through this possibly self-regulated scheme would be exempt from proactive enforcement by health and safety inspectors and other “routine burdens.”

We have all seen where these efforts at government deregulation to make industry more competitive and self-regulated have led. Walkerton and Maple Leaf Foods are but two examples of what can happen when standards are relaxed.

John Cartwright, president of the Toronto and York Region Labour Council and himself a survivor of occupational cancer, calls the proposal “a horrific mistake.”

“This is a failed policy practice that has been an absolute ideological cover for deregulation resulting in increased harm to workers,” says Bob DeMatteo, an occupational disease expert and former director of health and safety for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

The tragedies experienced by GE workers are, for the most part, irremediable. We honour their losses by reading about them. But our larger responsibility involves making sure that the horrors they have experienced are not repeated, ad nauseam, in the future.

Special Note: In my two posts on this subject, I have only focused on a small part of the Star report. For much more insight into this sad collusion between industry and government, I strongly recommend that you read the entire report here.

On Public Asset Sales

Selling off public assets that yield steady and lucrative revenue streams is rarely a good idea. In Ontario, Kathleen Wynne did just that with 60% of Hydro One so she could claim a balanced budget. It is a betrayal I will never forgive her for.

As I have written previously, Justin Trudeau would like to do the same thing, for similar reasons, with our major airports. It is a very bad idea, as are most of the schemes promoted by neoliberals.

Happily, the possibility of relief from such madness is shimmering on the horizon:

A Parliamentary committee is recommending against the Liberal government’s plan to sell off Canada’s airports to raise billions in capital to be used towards other public infrastructure projects.

“Limit rising passenger and operational costs by preventing the privatization of Canadian airports,” the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, said in its report of the Pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2018 federal budget.

The committee's report, Driving Inclusive Growth: Spurring Productivity and Competitiveness in Canada

summarized the strong opposition to airport privatization by various stakeholders, including the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), which believes that the sale is near-sighted and will result in significantly higher costs for airlines and passengers.

“Recent experience in such projects, for example in Australia, has resulted in costs per passenger to increase by 50% in the decade following airport privatization,” ATAC told the committee in a briefing. “To add insult to injury, the government would impose a huge new burden on our industry and its passengers while not reinvesting one penny of the billions generated back into aviation.”

Empirical evidence like this should carry much weight, but the Trudeau government is refusing to release the privatization study by Credit Suisse Group AG that it commissioned. Therefore, whether such disquieting facts were even considered is unknown. This unwholesome secrecy is opposed by the National Airlines Council of Canada, which is calling for open and public discussion around the entire issue.

I seem to recall Justin Trudeau, upon taking office, promised an open and transparent government. What a difference two years in office have made to that promise, eh?

Those Star Letter-Writers

They never disappoint. They can spot a shyster a mile away.

It’s sad that Doug Ford’s solution to the high cost of gas is to reduce the gas tax. A much better solution would be to incent people to not buy the largest, heaviest and most powerful SUV they can afford. When I switched from a turbo Volvo wagon to a Toyota hybrid, my gas bills dropped by 60 per cent. But what else could we expect from someone who bought his brother a Cadillac Escalade. It doesn’t get any less environmentally friendly than that.

Michael Yaffe, Toronto

Doug Ford’s policy on gasoline shows that he doesn’t care about the environment. Reducing the price of gasoline will only make air pollution worse, as people who are buying more gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks will consume more fuel.

Rene Ebacher, Toronto

PC Leader Doug Ford claims to be upset with the excessive compensation being paid to board members and executives at Hydro One. However, he also vows to cut the corporate tax rate by 8.7 per cent. Who does he think will benefit from this corporate windfall? No doubt already highly paid corporate executives will receive a big slice of it. And who does he think will have to pay more to make up for the loss of tax revenue? No doubt many of the taxpayers he pretends to be looking out for. What a hypocrite.

Peter Bird, Toronto

... Contrary to Ms. Horwath’s posturing, the NDP and Liberals could, and should, find many points of agreement on a plan to govern if the opportunity presents itself. It is only being fair to the majority of Ontario voters to have confidence that such an outcome is indeed possible and would be chosen when and if the election results permit it.

Back in 1985, the Liberals and NDP agreed to a legislative accord when the Tories had the most seats but not a majority. Ontario was well served by this arrangement and it may well be needed again. The very notion and real possibility of a Doug Ford government should be sufficient reason for any progressive person to not pre-emptively and arbitrarily rule out this option.

Simon Rosenblum, Toronto

Shoulder Shrug

Like many of the commentators and bloggers whom I read, I regularly feel a deep frustration over the passivity of people. No matter what the problem, be it political, social, environmental or a host of others, too many have a 'can't-do' reaction that debases so many in a myriad of ways. Indeed, it appears to be one of our species' defining characteristics, one at which Canadians seem to particularly excel, if our current political landscape is any indication.

Perhaps we need a national shoulder-shrug symbol as an expression of the what-can-you-do paralysis that cripples so many, a condition that undoubtedly facilitates the dark manipulation our political 'masters' so gleefully engage in.

My reflections are partly prompted by a column in this morning's Toronto Star by Rick Salutin entitled David Cameron and Jim Flaherty prove fatalism is back. Using the picture of British Prime Minister David Cameron in boots wading through flood-ravaged south-west England, Salutin sums up the photo-op in these terms:

It’s the shots of British Prime Minister David Cameron slogging through the floods there in wellies that convinced me: fatalism is back. He may have looked as if he was trying to do something, but it had nothing to do with addressing the causes of flooding. He was all accommodation: like Noah building an ark after hearing from the Lord that the skies were going to burst.

That image parallels the reactions people had in Toronto and beyond after the ice storm that left so many without power for so long; rather than to start a real discussion about climate change, people instead carped about how long it took to restore power. An 'action plan' in the form of an independent panel convened by Toronto Hydro to address that concern was our way of avoiding acknowledging and confronting the real issue.

Similarly, during the flooding that hit the Toronto area last July, concern seemed to be limited to how long it took to rescue stranded Go Train passengers. Indeed, at the time Environment Canada's senior climatologist urged a stoic acceptance:

"No infrastructure could handle this...you just have to accept the fact that you're going to be flooded."

Salutin offers this observation:

... ours is the first era ever possessing strong evidence that human action has shaped the climate. It’s simply a case of trying to undo what we’ve (with high probability) done. If you had substantial evidence that food or water was killing your kids, you wouldn’t futz around about “the science” being inconclusive. You’d act.

And here he gets to the meat of his thesis:

I’m not talking about the tendency of governments, corporations and ideologues to lie and manipulate. I mean the propensity of populations to meekly accept brutal realities because that’s just how it is.

The columnist then trains his lens on the federal budget brought down the other day by Jim Flaherty, who apparently had more pressing concerns than people's lives in the days leading up to the budget:

The economy’s another example. How dared Jim Flaherty present that budget? Where did he get the balls? He ignored the state of jobs and debt in people’s lives, the way Cameron ignored climate change while wading in the water.

And so things go merrily along, collective amnesia and widespread denial being a comfortable refuge until the next 'unforseeable' crisis.

"Is There A Poltician In Canada Who Will Simply Speak The Truth?"

That is the question Don Graves asks in his hard-hitting lead letter printed in this morning's Star. Enjoy.

I look out my window and see sunshine and vibrant signs of approaching spring. There’s even a Toronto sports franchise winning games.

But when I turn to the news media I read or hear about a glass half empty, half full, a glass smashed, a glass we can no longer afford because we are in so much provincial/federal debt and not to forget the growing number of Canadians who can no longer afford to buy a glass, full, half empty – or even chipped.

The Star last week carried these stories: A doctor who can’t get details about a drug for his pregnant patient; Ontario hospitals woefully unprepared to deal with a growing aging population; a federal government buying votes with our money and then telling us how lucky we are; and a fire sale of Ontario Hydro created by a consultant with no public service record and, gasp, a one cent increase on a bottle of beer.

This litany merely piles on the abuse mountain of veterans’ rights, a federal government that cannot deliver fresh water to our native Canadian population, a festering core of Ontario workers ready to strike and a quickly growing underbelly of people who simply cannot balance their books and play Russian roulette with rent, food, debt, education loan arrears.

And a pox on all the parties: opposition parties who offer nothing better than scare tactics instead of reasoned alternatives. Governing parties whose only true focus is maintaining a majority with a four-year formula of cut+cut+cut+buy votes. Repeat as long as you can con the voter.

Seems like I’m convincing myself that we have no glass but a mirage of political cracked mirrors. All of which has created one senior voter who wonders why it’s worth bothering to read about it or vote. The Star and other media don’t make the news. You do a good job of exposing the reality that our Emperors really don’t have any clothes.

Which leads to a simple question: somewhere, anywhere, at any level is there a politician in Canada who will simply speak the truth?

Don Graves, Burlington

Andrea's Dilemma: Whither Blowest The Wind?

Were I a gifted artist (or any kind of artist, for that matter) I would draw Andrea Horwath in a two-panel caricature. In the first panel, index finger raised, she would be turning to her left, and in the second, to her right, testing the prevailing winds. That would, I believe, adequately capture what I, perhaps a tad harshly, characterize as the political prostitution of the Ontario NDP leader.

Like her long ago party leader, Bob Rae, who even today refuses to admit he made some grievous errors during his time as Ontario's Premier by trying to placate and court business, Ms Horwath seems to be walking the same lover's lane that leads to electoral heartbreak. And while it is true that she has gained popularity through some of the initiatives she has foisted upon the Liberal government as the price of her party's support, she seems to be falling victim to the same hubristic notion Rae did, that somehow she can appeal to the political right via the business community.

This strategy is given short shrift by Michael Laxer in a recent article for Rabble. Beginning with the NDP's rather oleaginous stance on the push for a $14 minimum wage, Laxer goes on to make this observation:

... the leader driven party has not strayed from its message of boutique appeals to minor consumerist middle class issues and its pandering to the fiction of the small business "job creator." While it is true that small businesses create many jobs, it is also true, especially in the absence of an industrial or neo-industrial state job creation strategy, that the jobs they create are often not even worthy of the term "McJob." They are, overall, without any question the lowest paying jobs and rarely have any benefits of any meaning.

Laxer also questions whether the consumerist approach Horwath has taken (lower insurance rates, small cuts to hydro bills, etc.) is consistent with the party's principles :

Minimum wage and non-"middle class" workers do not primarily need small cuts to hydro bills, auto insurance rates (if they even own a car), or to have the worst employers in the economy "rewarded" for creating bad jobs, they need higher wages, expanded and free transit, universal daycare, pharmacare, and the types of universal social programs "progressives" and social democrats once actually fought for. They need a wage and job strategy that is not centered around the economy's worst and least reliable employers, "small business."

They need active parliamentary political representation that will fight for living wages and economic justice.

And therein lies the problem: the Ontario NDP has essentially abandoned those whose interests it has traditionally served and advocated for.

Matin Regg Cohn, in today's Star, opines that under Horwath's 'leadership,'

...the NDP has transmogrified itself from a progressive to a populist party. Now, the third party is riding high in the polls and dreams of a breakthrough. She wants to broaden her appeal in the vote-rich middle-class suburbs and among small business owners by downplaying the party’s radical roots. Poverty is not a rich source of votes.

Hence the abandonment of long-standing party principles, evidenced in the following statement from the party leader this week regarding Ontario's minimum wage which will rise to $11 per hour on June 1:

“Well, look, I respect the work of the grassroots movements that have been calling for the $14 minimum wage, but I think that what our role is right now is to consult with families that are affected, as well as small business particularly that’s also affected,” she told reporters Tuesday.

Some might argue that this is just smart politics, that aligning oneself too much with progressive policy will simply alienate voters. But I am left with one fundamental question: If the NDP refuses to be the party of advocacy, who will be?

To that, I think the answer is obvious.