Category Archives: Ontario Politics

The Ford government’s war against children and women

In a series of announcements in recent weeks, Ontario’s Doug Ford government has made changes to programs and policy that are harmful to women and children.

 

Ontario’s Doug Ford government doesn’t seem to like women and children much.

Witness the following:

An internal memo the Ministry of Education sent to day cares, highlights changes coming to child care programs, including the reversal of a key protection for not-for-profit day cares.
Advocates say the removal of the For Profit Maximum Threshold opens the door to the expansion of big-box corporate day cares in Ontario.

The cap was put into place two years ago and limits how much funding the government can provide to for-profit daycares.

In late July, the Ford government announced that social assistance rates will only increase by 1.5 per cent, not the scheduled 3 per cent, which is below the rate of inflation. As part of the social assistance announcement, the government said that a number of other social assistance changes will occur under a “100-day review” and the basic income pilot project will be cancelled.

Most people who benefit from the province’s two key social assistance programs, Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program, are women and children. Continue reading

Ontario calls it quits on fighting climate change – and both the budget and the environment take a hit.

At the same time that the U.N issued a stern warning that there are only a dozen years for the world to deal with global warming, the Ford government has killed its key program dealing with climate change.

 

Doug Ford has cancelled Ontario’s cap and trade program and in addition to abandoning Ontario’s fight against climate change, it is going to cost the Ontario treasury a lot.

Cancellation of the cap and trade program coincides with a warning by the world’s leading climate scientists that there are only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperature increases between 1.5C and 2C. Continue reading

Can Canadian democracy withstand the era of the strongmen?

Canadians who value democratic institutions such as a free press, an independent judiciary, and fair elections, need to be vigilant in safeguarding these important democratic institutions. Ontario Premier Ford’s justification in invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to overrule a judge who ruled that his legislation to cut Toronto City Council in half was unconstitutional, suggests a leader who seems to think his electoral mandate entitles him to do whatever he pleases and any opposition is illegitimate.

In a recent column, Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes a persuasive argument that the U.S. is beginning a slow drift into “soft” authoritarian rule under the Trump administration and the Republican controlled Congress. He further argues that if the Republicans maintain control of both the House and Senate in the mid-term elections in November, that drift could accelerate. According to Krugman:

“What Freedom House calls illiberalism is on the rise across Eastern Europe. This includes Poland and Hungary, both still members of the European Union, in which democracy as we normally understand it is already dead.

In both countries the ruling parties — Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary — have established regimes that maintain the forms of popular elections, but have destroyed the independence of the judiciary, suppressed freedom of the press, institutionalized large-scale corruption and effectively delegitimized dissent. The result seems likely to be one-party rule for the foreseeable future.

And it could all too easily happen here (the U.S.). There was a time, not long ago, when people used to say that our democratic norms, our proud history of freedom, would protect us from such a slide into tyranny. In fact, some people still say that. But believing such a thing today requires willful blindness. The fact is that the Republican Party is ready, even eager, to become an American version of Law and Justice or Fidesz, exploiting its current political power to lock in permanent rule.”

But could the drift towards a “soft” authoritarian state happen here in Canada? At first blush, the notion seems ludicrous. But then it seemed equally ludicrous in the U.S. until January, 2017,  when the Trump administration took power and the  Republicans took control of Congress.

Soft authoritarianism in Ontario – the Ford government in action.

The best example of the new authoritarianism in Canada is Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s Bill 5, the Better Local Government Act, which arbitrarily cuts the number of City of Toronto ward boundaries from 47 to 25 just ahead of the Oct. 22 municipal election. This change is largely viewed by observers as disadvantaging progressives and advantaging Ford supporters on Toronto City Council. It continues a personal vendetta against progressive Toronto councillors that goes back to Ford’s days on Toronto City Council when his late brother, Rob, was mayor.

This abrupt change in Toronto municipal election rules was done with no consultation of Toronto City Council – or of the people of Toronto for that matter. In fact, Toronto City Council, reflecting broad popular opposition to the unilateral Ford move, voted 27-15 to legally challenge the bill.

Council also voted 25-17 to exhaust all legal avenues to challenge the Ford government’s legislation, including appealing any rulings. A majority also voted to seek to postpone the upcoming municipal election if a delay becomes necessary in order to carry out the legal challenge.

Toronto Mayor John Tory – himself a former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario – supported the court challenge, and called the Ford government’s decision to cut Toronto city council’s ranks “wrong and unacceptable”.

On September 9, an Ontario Superior Court judge declared Premier Doug Ford’s move to cut Toronto city council in half in the middle of a municipal election unconstitutional.
In his decision, Justice Edward Belobaba called Ford’s move to cut the number of city councillors to 25 from 47 “unprecedented” with a municipal campaign under way, declaring that the Premier’s intervention “crossed the line.” His ruling would have reverted Toronto’s municipal election to the 47-ward structure for the Oct. 22 election.

Premier Ford’s response? Within hours of the court ruling he announced that his government would immediately recall Ontario’s Legislature and introduce legislation that, if passed, would invoke Section 33 of the Constitution and ensure the Better Local Government Act is preserved and Toronto City Council is cut in half against its will.

Section 33 of the Constitution is better known as the “notwithstanding’ clause. It allows a provincial government to enact a law even though a court has found it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Never before has an Ontario government used this power.

Ontario Premier Ford’s justification in invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to cut Toronto City Council in half suggests a leader who seems to think his electoral mandate entitles him to do whatever he pleases and any opposition to his government’s actions is illegitimate. He seems to be suggesting there is something wrong with judges overriding government decisions – even when those decisions are found to violate the Constitution’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And Ford said in his speech announcing the move that he would use the “notwithstanding” clause again in the future if his government is challenged.

And he almost certainly means it.

Ford authoritarianism on the education front

The Ford government’s authoritarian tendencies are also manifesting themselves on the education front. In his fight with the province’s teachers, Ford has created what critics are calling a “snitch line” for parents to report teachers who refuse to stop using the repealed 2015 sexual education curriculum.

Ford calls the “snitch line” an online portal for parents “to report any concerns” about what teachers are teaching in classrooms.

But the claim by the Ford government that the portal is aimed at improving classroom teaching is laughable. The form that parents use to express their concern about what is going on in the classroom is anonymous, so it’s of little use to parents genuinely concerned about something wrong in their own children’s classroom.

The online form also presumes parents have “concerns about the current curriculum”. Moreover, it was all announced in a government news release that came with the threatening words from the premier. “Make no mistake, if we find somebody failing to do their job, we will act.”

That’s clearly a threat to teachers — along with their union representatives — who had indicated that they wanted to continue to teach the 2015 sex education curriculum instead of following the government’s directive to go back to the outdated one first introduced in 1998. Many Ontario school boards have voiced similar concerns to those of the teachers and their unions, so the premier’s threat should be taken as a warning to them as well.

Unfortunately, the Ford government’s education provications don’t stop there. Earlier this summer, Ford promised “the largest consultation ever in Ontario’s history” to develop a new sex education curriculum.

But later, he expanded that consultation to include numerous other hot-button issues in education: the math curriculum, standardized testing, the legalization of cannabis, cell phones in classrooms and a committee to create a “Parents’ Bill of Rights.”.

To initially set up a consultation essentially to hear from a socially conservative faction of parents who want less detailed sex education in schools and expand it to include a series of other education issues included only to mobilize the Tory conservative base, is not just bad policy making but demagoguery of the worst sort.

Ford and Immigration

But Ford is doing more than just manufacturing politically motivated crises in our schools and at Toronto City Council.

At the same time he is stirring up the Tory base on education, the Ford government is also waging a rhetorical war with the Trudeau Liberal government over “illegal border crossers” in official statements that misstate reality and incite hostility towards all immigrants.

Ontario’s new Minister of Children and Social Services, Lisa MacLeod, attacked Prime Minister Trudeau for supposedly triggering a mass migration when he (according to MacLeod) “tweeted out that everyone was welcome here, and as a result of that, we’ve had thousands of people cross the border illegally.”

Again, more demagoguery by an Ontario government politician that ignores the facts and yet another effort to stir up the Ford government’s conservative base.

“Soft” authoritarianism in the Conservative Party of Canada

For another example of the drift of the Canadian right towards soft authoritarianism, take the non-binding motion passed at the recent Conservative Party convention  asserting that children born in Canada should not be given Canadian citizenship unless one of their parents is Canadian.

There is no doubt that immigration has become a significant issue in Canada, and that it is the Conservative Party – at both the federal and provincial levels – that is making it an issue. Remember it was past Conservative leadership candidate, Kellie Leitch, who suggested the incorporation of a “values test” for immigrants.

The idea that you can only be Canadian if you can prove your Canadian heredity moves beyond the common conservative concern that “Canadian values” are being swamped by waves of immigrants with “foreign values” and into the dangerous terrain of “purity” testing. Let’s be clear, binding or non-binding, by passing this motion at its policy convention the Conservative Party of Andrew Scheer took a real step towards an illiberal authoritarianism completely at odds with the basic liberal democratic values of Canada and, at least historically, of the Conservative Party itself.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s presidency and the almost complete acquiescence of the Republican majority in the U.S.  Congress to his agenda, has raised a question that few thought would ever need to be asked: Is the U.S. drifting towards a “soft” authoritarianism? This soft authoritarianism consists of a Republican majority party in both Houses in Congress which refuses to hold a president with clear anti-democratic instincts to account, an independent media which is under daily assault from President Trump and his party, a Supreme Court stacked by the Republicans with judges with a literalist view of the U.S. Constitution, and a presidential election manipulated (perhaps with the knowledge of some of the Trump campaign team, perhaps not) by the Russian government.

And what can be said of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s startling  invocation of  the “notwithstanding clause” to  restore Bill 5, the Better Local Government Act, within hours of  Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling that Ford’s legislation to cut the number of Toronto city councillors to 25 from 47 was “unprecedented” with a municipal campaign under way, declaring that the Premier’s intervention “crossed the line” and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Again, the “notwithstanding clause” has never before been used in Ontario.

The fact that conservative party leaders in Canada such as Doug Ford – and many of the drivers of the successful Brexit campaign such as Nigel Farge and Boris Johnston – have many of the same authoritarian political tendencies as the Trump administration and the Republican controlled Congress, suggests a growing trend throughout the English-speaking political right towards a kind of “soft” authoritarianism.

Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explore these worrying trends in the English-speaking political right and elsewhere in their important new book, “How Democracies Die”. They believe that:

“Democracy no longer ends with a bang—in a revolution or military coup—but with a whimper: the slow, steady weakening of critical institutions, such as the judiciary and the press, and the gradual erosion of long-standing political norms”.

Danger signs of precisely this sort abound in the U.S., U.K. and Canada. The questions that need to be asked are whether the forces for Canadian democracy will see these signs for what they are – as a real threat to liberal democracy as we’ve known it – and what they will do to fight it.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Tired of politicians and corporations who don’t tell it straight? Support fact-based, quality journalism by donating to Canada Fact Check. All credit card donations are SSL encrypted meaning your credit card info is completely secure.

Liked the article? Support quality journalism and donate to Canada Fact Check by secure credit card!

$

Or you decide your donation amount!

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.
Billing Details

Donation Total: $1.99

 

 

Trump and Ford: The new politics of resentment in Canada and the United States

Both Donald Trump and Doug Ford practice the politics of resentment to mobilize their base. However, while there are many similarities between the politics of the two men, there are also some important differences.

Introduction

To understand Donald Trump’s victory one has to understand resentment in white America. While visible minority Americans voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, the fact is that whites still make up an overwhelming number of U. S. voters (Pew Research has whites at 74 percent of all voters in 2016 , and second, it has whites without a college degree, Trump’s key constituency, at 44 percent of all voters). This means that American politics is still defined primarily by white voters divided by attitudes towards race, religious values, class and suburban vs. urban lifestyles.

With regard to racial attitudes, when white American anxieties are directed towards racial intolerance by the rhetoric of Trump and the Republican Party more generally, they obviously cost Republicans visible minority votes. But they cost the Republicans white votes as well, alienating urban, university-educated voters who value diversity – even as they mobilize some racially resentful  whites.

The fact that American politics is defined by the politics of white resentment is widely understood and commented upon (often in discussions of the rise of “populism”) and is the conventional explanation of Trump’s surprise victory. But what is less appreciated is that the same working class voters that can be mobilized to vote Republican by anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric, can also be mobilized by economic resentment to vote for left-wing Democrats. And while economic resentment has been used by the Republican Party to stoke hostility to taxes by connecting taxes to programs like welfare and food stamps (programs perceived by many voters as “something for nothing” programs), economic resentment has also been used by left-leaning Democrats and unions to mobilize support for higher minimum wages, better pensions, tougher job protection measures, and improved access to health care.

In other words, while it is true that Trump’s anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric helped him win the white working class votes in the Midwest that gave him the necessary electoral votes to win the presidency, the resentment of those very same voters has historically been – and can be again – mobilized against Wall St. and corporate America by left-leaning Democrats for progressive ends. The fact that Trump won Michigan by taking many of the same overwhelmingly white counties that socialist Bernie Sanders won in beating Hilary Clinton in the Michigan Democratic primary, makes this point clearly.

The politics of resentment in Canada 

Much the same dynamic around the politics of resentment plays out in Canada. However, there are some differences.

On the Canadian side of the border, the politics of racial resentment is in some ways more complicated in that all three major parties seek to attract non-white voters. Canada has no equivalent to a Republican Party that has pretty much written off visible minorities. While the Doug  Ford conservative government in Ontario (along with federal Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer) may be picking a tactical fight with the Trudeau Liberal Government over  “illegal border crossers” in order to mobilize its base, the heart of Ford Nation is still primarily in ethnic Greater Toronto – and much of it is non-white. Even Andrew Scheer’s Federal Conservative Party has to tread carefully on the immigration/refugee issue as they need to win at least some seats in heavily immigrant suburban ridings in greater Vancouver and Toronto to form a government.

As such, the Ford Government has to be cautious in tapping into anti-immigrant/anti-refugee resentment if it wants to keep the visibility minority voters who supported it in the June, 2018 Ontario election. Having figured out how to win with next to no visible minority support, Donald Trump and the Republican Party do not have to exercise such caution.

While for political reasons, the Ford government can’t put racial resentment at the heart of its political strategy the way Trump can, there are two other sources of  resentment Ford can tap into to without alienating heavily ethnic Ford Nation in the GTA. These sources of resentment also have support amongst the Ontario PC’s white, rural base.

First, Ford Nation is extremely hostile to anything that smacks of “handouts” for those who are not perceived as working hard for any sort of government benefit they may be receiving. That is why the Ford government moved quickly to cut a planned 3 per cent welfare increase in half and scrapped a proposed basic income pilot program. The Ford base in rural Ontario shares this hostility to paying taxes for what many in the traditional PC base view as “something for nothing” social programs.

Secondly, much of GTA based Ford Nation – like the Ford government’s rural, white support – tends towards social conservatism. It’s the social conservatism that is shared by the two very different constituencies that explains the prominence the Ford government is giving to repealing the former Liberal government’s  sex-ed curriculum changes first implemented in 2014.    

However, just as it is true that Trump’s anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric helped win him white, working class voters in the Midwest who have historically been supportive of an economic populism (again socialist Bernie Sanders won pretty much the same counties in the Michigan democratic primary as Trump did in the general election), so it is true that the resentment of much of Ford Nation could be guided towards an anti-corporate, economic populism rooted in high wage jobs, good pensions and expanded medicare (pharmacare, etc.). The Ontario New Democratic Party made a strong showing in the GTA in the 2018 election running on just such a program and could easily win a majority of seats in Peel and Durham regions and Scarborough in the next Ontario provincial election. These suburban Toronto communities form the very heart of Ford Nation.

Conclusion

North American politics is now dominated by the politics of resentment. However, whether that resentment results in victories for the right or the left, depends upon whether right wing parties are effective in guiding working class resentment towards an anti-immigrant, anti-tax stance or whether left-of-centre parties can guide the resentment of that same working class voting block towards an anti-corporate, economic populism rooted in high-wage jobs, good pensions and access to high quality health care.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Tired of politicians and corporations who don’t tell it straight? Support fact-based, quality journalism by donating to Canada Fact Check. All credit card donations are SSL encrypted meaning your credit card info is completely secure.

Liked the article? Support quality journalism and donate to Canada Fact Check by secure credit card!

$

Or you decide your donation amount!

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.
Billing Details

Donation Total: $1.99

Will the Ontario Public Service Speak Truth to Power to Doug Ford?

The 40% of Ontarians who voted for the Progressive Conservative candidate in their riding may have been voting for change and fiscal prudence, but they did not vote for the kind of lies, cruelty, chaos, managerial incompetence and demagoguery that we are now seeing under the Trump administration.

Introduction

In Doug Ford, Ontario has elected a Premier without a coherent governing agenda and with little knowledge of key government files. The Ford campaign, a tightly scripted production built around a series of populist slogans recited stiffly off a teleprompter, was just competent enough to keep a sure victory from slipping away. The fact that his nervous handlers were obsessed with keeping reporters at a safe distance from the PC leader, suggests that our new Premier is a man with a very shaky grasp of the issues.

During the 2018 campaign, Mr. Ford made countless false claims and misleading statements. It would be an understatement to say that Mr. Ford has little use for the facts. This strong bias against evidenced-based decision-making was clear when within days of being sworn in, the Ford government fired Ontario’s Chief Scientist, Molly Shoichet, an award-winning professor at the University of Toronto, and eliminated the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science. And in government, the false claims from the PC campaign  continue on many fronts from climate change to federal refugee policy.

Beyond his ignorance of key provincial files, Premier Ford can’t be relied upon to tend to the PC Party’s ongoing operational problems and incessant infighting. One only has to look at the events that brought down former PC leader Patrick Brown and the countless PC nomination meetings in which the results were contested amid accusations of membership recruiting and voting improprieties, to know that there is something seriously wrong with the culture of the Ontario PC party. It is also obvious that Doug Ford is exactly the wrong man to fix those problems.

It is the central argument of this article that a non-partisan, public service willing to speak truth to power is especially crucial with the ascendancy of right-wing, populist governments headed by men such as Mr. Ford and U. S. President Trump. This is because both men consistently display a troubling dis-regard for hard facts and institutional norms.

In other words, the existence of a fearless, professional public service – along with an independent judiciary and a free press – assumes  greater importance given the erratic behaviour of such right wing, populist leaders.

In our  Westminster style political system, all governments – whether of the left, centre or right – require a strong, non-partisan, public service willing to speak truth to the elected government of the day. As such, it is more than a little unsettling that astute Canadian observers of both the federal and provincial scenes have long worried about a decades long decline in the capacity and willingness of our professional public services to speak truth to power. These concerns recently spilled onto the front page of the Globe and Mail when Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick (Canada’s top public servant) challenged Auditor-General Michael Ferguson’s assertion that the problems with the federal government’s Phoenix pay system were rooted in “pervasive cultural problems” in the federal public service.

In a Globe op-ed on June 24th, Ralph Heintzman, a senior fellow of Massey College in the University of Toronto and a former head of the federal government’s Office of Public Service Values and Ethics, summed up the ongoing debate over problems in public service culture and, in particular, the important contribution to this debate of the Gomery Report of 2005. That report included several recommendations calling for accountability changes at the Deputy Minister level that would provide for a much more supportive environment for public servants speaking truth to power.

The changes proposed by Gomery would have allowed for a clearer distinction between what the elected government of the day is accountable for (policy) and what the public service is accountable for (administration and program implementation). The Gomery report argued convincingly that a clear distinction can and should be made between policy accountability and administrative accountability and that by making it clear that the public service is accountable for administrative failures and the political side for policy failures, the public service is actually in a much stronger position to speak truth to power. Not surprisingly, putting the mechanisms in place that would allow for a clear distinction between public service accountability and political accountability elicited strong opposition from both the federal public service and federal politicians. It is a sad fact of Canadian public life that both groups saw it as being in their interest to maintain the confusion over their respective areas of accountability.

Another key recommendation of Gomery was to take the power to appoint Deputy Ministers away from the political side and give it to a more neutral body. This would also strengthen the ability of the public service to speak truth to power. But as Heintzman points out, none of the key recommendations were implemented by the Harper government as recommended by Gomery – even though they have long been in place in the U.K. and have been enormously beneficial to the effective functioning of the U.K. Parliament. The results of this inaction are countless failures of program and policy implementation at both the federal and provincial levels for reasons similar to those that caused the failure of the Phoenix pay system. 

There are those that continue to argue that changes such as those recommended by Gomery are not needed, that there is little to worry about, and that Canada’s professional public services are strong and more than capable of restraining a populist leader such as Mr. Ford. However, the sight of young children being torn from the arms of their parents along the Mexican – U.S. border should be a reminder to all Canadians not to take for granted a government rooted in a respect for human rights and the primacy of the rule of law.

Leaders such as President Trump and Premier Ford – men with little respect for facts and an impatience with institutional norms –  require democratic institutional constraints. In the case of Premier Ford, the Ontario Public Service is likely the most important institution that could provide such constraints. However, there is a growing body of evidence (alluded to above and detailed below) that the senior ranks of Canada’s non-partisan, professional public services increasingly lack the will to speak truth to power. If that is in fact the case, Ontarians could be in for a very rough four years under Mr. Ford.

Continue reading

The Ontario election: Why Doug Ford is the enemy of the “little guy”

While campaigning as the voice of the “little guy”, Doug Ford’s PC’s are actually joined at the hip with corporate interests that are pushing a detailed policy agenda that will make life worse for many Ford supporters.

Introduction

A previous post made the argument that the core appeal of Doug Ford populism (much like Trump populism) is a cultural resentment against the professional class as opposed to an economic populism in which working and middle class resentment is directed against the wealthy and large corporations. In other words, the “elites” that Ford rants against are professionals such as bureaucrats, academics, lawyers, journalists and teachers who Ford portrays as “looking down” on average Ontarians and recklessly spending their hard-earned tax dollars.

The previous article also described economic populism – in contrast to Ford/Trump populism –  as a politics that argues that the “elites” who really need to be reigned in are the large corporations whose business practices have directly resulted in an increase in part-time, low wage jobs and the loss of high wage, full-time jobs. This decline in good quality jobs with benefits has hurt many Ford supporters and the article asserts that economic populism embraces a set of policies that would significantly improve the economic lives of Ford voters.

The article also argued that Ford, a rich man’s son like Trump, has no interest in improving the lives of everyday Ontarians and his PC program (such as it is), is evidence of this. Put bluntly, Ford supporters are being duped into voting against their pocketbook interests by being led to believe that they are somehow striking a blow against “elites” by voting for Ford. In fact, the reality is just the opposite. Electing a Ford government would hand the province over to a tightly knit network of corporate interests that already have too much influence and whose policy agenda would hurt non-wealthy Ontarians. This is discussed in detail below.

The reality is that a Doug Ford government would hurt the people who voted it in because it would take its marching orders from corporate interests (the real elites) who have a detailed policy  agenda aimed at enriching themselves and the wealthy at the expense of average, hard-working  Ontarians. Those corporate interests are already talking amongst themselves as to who will fill staff positions in the Doug Ford Premier’s Office, in Ministerial offices (Finance, Health, Education, etc.), and in key positions in the Ontario Public Service. They want their people to implement their policy agenda and this agenda will hurt all but the wealthiest Ontarians.

These corporate interests are named below and parts of their policy agenda are discussed in detail. For years, these corporate interests have been working closely with PC MPP’s and staff at Queen’s Park and have had immense influence on the policy positions the PC caucus took on Liberal government legislation and other policy issues.

It is important to note that the two kinds of populism (Ford/Trump populism on the one hand, and economic populism on the other) have considerable appeal to Ontario voters with broadly similar social values – voters who value being fairly compensated for their hard work and for “playing by the rules”. However, when it comes to voting intentions, those not affiliated with a union (many of which are  rural residents not living in communities with a labour tradition), mistakenly lean towards a Ford-style cultural populism which portrays the elite “villains” essentially as “know-it-all” professional types who “think they are better than me”. In contrast, those with a union affiliation (or who live in urban communities with a labour tradition), lean towards an anti-corporate, economic populism most associated with the NDP.

The previous article further argued that Andrea Horwath’s NDP are in a good position to tap into those who hold to this anti-corporate, economic populism. Recent polls suggest that this is exactly what is happening in the Ontario election with a surge in support for Horwath’s NDP – especially in the economically hard hit regions of the Southwest, North and Hamilton/Niagara which have seen a massive loss of well paying manufacturing and resource jobs  in the past decade.

While the NDP may be pulling even with the PC’s in terms of the popular vote, as of this writing (June 1), the most recent polls still suggest that the Ford PC’s have an excellent chance to win  a plurality of seats and a good chance of forming a majority government. Therefore, the question of what a Doug Ford government would actually do during its time in office needs to be examined closely. Continue reading

Ford populism and the 2018 Ontario election

While there is an element of economic resentment in Ford populism, economic elites are not its targets and it is first and foremost an appeal to Ontarians who feel ignored and disrespected by what might be called Ontario’s “professional class”. However, there is also considerable support in Ontario for a very different sort of populism – an economic populism – that would actually improve the lives of working and middle class Ontarians. Andrea Horwath’s NDP are in a good position to capture that vote.

Introduction

This is the first in a series of articles on the upcoming June 7, Ontario election. The series will look at both the partisan political strategies and policy issues at play during the election.

This article takes an in-depth look at the dynamics of Ford populism and the basis of its appeal to its supporters. The basic argument is that the core appeal of Ford populism is cultural resentment against the professional class as opposed to an economic populism in which the resentment is directed against the wealthy and large corporations.

The article argues that the two kinds of populism appeal to voters without university degrees with broadly similar social values. However, when it comes to voting intentions,  those not affiliated with a union nor living in a community with a strong labour tradition, lean towards a Ford-style cultural populism. In contrast, those with a union affiliation (or living in a community with a strong labour tradition), lean towards an anti-corporate, economic populism.

The PC’s seem destined for at least a plurality of seats

All Ontario polls done since Doug Ford was elected PC leader suggest a solid, PC majority government on June 7. These polls are relatively consistent with polls done before the Ford PC leadership victory although the consistency likely masks at least some shifts in PC support at the riding level (i.e. PC support has likely gone up in working class ridings in the GTA and down in affluent, well-educated ridings in central Toronto and Ottawa).

As of this writing (May 10), CBC’s Poll Tracker (which combines and weights recent polls) gave the Ford PC’s 41.1% of the vote, the Horwath New Democrats 27.2%, and the Wynne Liberal’s 25.7%.

The Poll Tracker gives the PC’s a 90% chance of winning a majority government and a 95% chance of winning a plurality of seats.

 

Continue reading

Is a Basic Income Guarantee the Right Choice for Ontario?

Ontario has introduced basic income pilot projects in 3 Ontario communities that aim to provide a living wage for all. For those who believe in a living wage, the question is whether or not the approach being tested in the Ontario pilot projects is the best way to achieve this objective.

Introduction

In 2017, Ontario introduced pilot projects related to a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) benefit in three Ontario communities. The Ontario pilot projects apply to both low-income individuals in the workforce and low-income individuals not in the workforce. The objective of the pilot projects is to assess whether there is a simple way of providing a living wage that would lift all Ontarians out of poverty.

Before assessing BIG in the context of both working and non-working low-income Ontarians, here is how the BIG benefit works in the three Ontario pilot programs now underway.

Four thousand low-income Ontario residents in three communities have been offered a spot in the pilot study. Non-working Ontarians receive a Basic Income payment instead of standard social assistance and those working will receive what amounts to a wage supplement. The annual payment is set at $16,989 for single individuals, or $24,027 for married couples. An additional $6,000 per year will be provided to individuals with disabilities. Recipients get to keep any child benefits, dental and pharmaceutical access, and disability supports to which they are already entitled. However, their Basic Income payment shrinks by 50 cents on each dollar of work related earnings, and by 100 cents on the dollar of CPP or EI income.

Eligible participants are those living on a low income (under $34,000 per year if you’re single or under $48,000 per year if you’re a couple). There are no asset tests involved in determining eligibility. Continue reading

The unfinished business of labour law reform in Ontario: A strategy for implementing sectoral bargaining

Workers and community activists protest at Tim Hortons as some Tim’s Ontario franchisees eliminated paid breaks, fully-covered health and dental plans, and other benefits for their workers in response to an increase in the province’s minimum wage.

Introduction

This post on sectoral collective bargaining is the first of a number of posts related to the unfinished business of labour law reform in Ontario that will be published by Canada Fact Check during the run-up to the June 7, Ontario election. Future posts will focus on a range of topics related to employment standards, pensions, health and safety, and the WSIB.

While the post contains a fair amount of detail on the specifics of sectoral collective bargaining, it is first and foremost a political strategy paper. As such, if and when readers feel they’ve had enough of the fine points of the Changing Workplaces Review and Ontario’s Bill 148, they should feel free to scroll down to the “Implementing the strategy” section.

The context

On November 23, the Ontario legislature passed Bill 148, a sweeping revision of Ontario’s employment standards and labour relations legislation. While there was (and continues to be) substantial media coverage of employer opposition to the bill’s provisions to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr., there was far less coverage of other aspects of the bill, particularly the labour relations portion. In part, this is because labour relations is a somewhat more abstract concept than employment standards. Employment standards sets out a basic floor for all workers in areas such as wages, overtime, and vacation time. In contrast, Ontario’s Labour Relations Act sets out the rules by which employers and unions relate to each other including the initial certification process to form a union as well as the rules related to subsequent collective bargaining – including strikes. These rules can be highly technical and it was predictable that the debate over options to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act would be pretty much ignored by the media.

Most of the changes in Bill 148 (albeit not the minimum wage increase) were rooted in recommendations contained in the final report of the Changing Workplaces Review, a two-year effort led by co-commissioners, Michael Mitchell and John Murray. Mitchell was a long time union-side labour lawyer while Murray represented the management side on the review.

The purpose of this post is to highlight a sub-set of labour relations options the Changing Workplaces Review labelled “broader-based bargaining”. While the Review’s discussion of these options was largely ignored by the media, behind the scenes unions, employer associations, academics, and lawyers representing both management and labour, engaged in an intense debate over the pros and cons of broader-based bargaining options with unions  (to varying degrees) endorsing the concept and employer groups unanimously opposing it.

One of the broader-based bargaining options strongly endorsed by the final report of the Review involved measures making it easier for unions to organize franchise operations. It is the author’s opinion that the Ontario Government’s refusal to include this very modest proposal in Bill 148 was a serious mistake and a completely unnecessary capitulation by the Wynne government to employer lobby groups opposing the measure. The franchise proposal is discussed in detail later in this post but the long-term implications of not implementing the Commissioners’ franchise recommendation is articulated nicely in a January 11, Star Op-ed by Ontario Steelworker head, Marty Warren. In addition to allowing for greater unionization of franchise employees as Warren suggests, the Commissioners’ franchise recommendation could have served as an effective “bridge” to a more ambitious broader-based bargaining regime.

But before addressing the specific broader-based bargaining options discussed in the Changing Workplaces interim and final reports and why such regimes are important, some context is in order.

Continue reading

Reining in Canada’s Financial Giants – Are Consumers Getting a Fair Break?

While arm’s-length regulators at both the provincial and federal levels do the heavy lifting when it comes to regulating Canada’s financial services, it is ultimately politicians such as Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa and Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau, who are accountable for protecting the interests of consumers in their dealings with Canada’s banks and other  financial institutions.

Introduction

In an important piece in the July 31 issue of the New Yorker Magazine on the decline in the prosecution of white collar crime in the U.S., author Patrick Radden Keefe cites a telling 2002 incident involving ex-FBI director James Comey. Keefe relies on the description of the incident contained in the journalist Jesse Eisinger’s recently published book, “The Chickenshit Club”.

Keefe writes:

When James Comey took over as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in 2002, Eisinger tells us, he summoned his young prosecutors for a pep talk. For graduates of top law schools, a job as a federal prosecutor is a brass ring, and the Southern District of New York, which has jurisdiction over Wall Street, is the most selective office of them all. Addressing this ferociously competitive cohort, Comey asked, “Who here has never had an acquittal or a hung jury?” Several go-getters, proud of their unblemished records, raised their hands.

But Comey, with his trademark altar-boy probity, had a surprise for them. “You are members of what we like to call the Chickenshit Club,” he said.

What Comey was saying, of course, was that avoiding risky prosecutions aimed at reining in Wall St. might have been seen as career enhancing under the previous U.S. Attorney responsible for keeping an eye on Wall St. but with Comey as boss, such an approach was going to be a career killer.

This post is the first of a series of Canada Fact Check investigations asking the question: does Canada have a Chickenshit Club problem when it comes to the development and enforcement of financial services regulation?

The answer for impatient readers? The next 12 – 18 months will tell and Canada Fact Check will be there to tell the inside story.

Here’s what we know now.

Finance Minister Morneau’s response to CBC investigations of hyper-aggressive bank sales practices

On March 6, the CBC’s Erica Johnston broke the first of a number of CBC stories on shady sales practices in Canada’s banking industry. The CBC reports revealed a constant pattern amongst big banks and credit unions of signing consumers up for products or services without providing all the required information, particularly about fees, costs and penalties related to the products. In many cases, bank employees were signing people up for products without even notifying them.

On March 15, in response to the CBC reports, Finance Minister Morneau turned to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) and announced that the Agency would be conducting a separate industry review to examine Canada’s financial institutions’ sales practices. The FCAC has the primary mandate to represent the interests of consumers on “systemic” policy matters effecting federally regulated financial institutions such as banks, trust companies, life insurance companies and property and casualty (auto, property, etc.) insurance companies.

The FCAC has indicated that it expects to publish its initial findings by the end of 2017. Furthermore, FCAC officials expect to conclude the review of bank sales practices in June, 2018 and will publish a final report soon after. Finally, FCAC may conduct additional specific investigations flowing from the industry review. For example, if a FCAC  follow-up investigation determines that a specific violation has occurred, the Commissioner may make public the nature of the violation, which financial institution committed it, and the amount of any monetary penalty levied by the FCAC on the financial institution. Continue reading