The Ontario election is a fork in the road for Toronto, but only the NDP has offered a map.
We know now that the Ontario provincial election on June 7 is virtually a lock to result in a change of government. All the polls agree that the incumbent Liberal Party led by Premier Kathleen Wynne doesn’t really have a shot. Unless there’s some sort of political Rocky Balboa moment in which the underdog suddenly starts punching her way to victory against all odds as dramatic music plays, Ontario will elect a new premier next week. It’ll either be Progressive Conservative party leader Doug Ford or Andrea Horwath of the Ontario NDP.
This kind of change is not something this city has seen too much, to say the least. The Ontario Liberals have run the province for 15 of Toronto’s 20 years of existence as an amalgamated city. Most city councillors and virtually all the top bureaucrats at Toronto City Hall have known nothing but a Liberal government for the entirety of their political or professional lives.
In other words, this is a pivotal moment. This election will dramatically influence the future of our city. And that shape of that change will differ wildly, depending on the outcome of the election.
So: Ford vs. Horwath. Orange versus blue. For Toronto voters, what’s at stake?
The exact effect Doug Ford’s platform will have on Toronto is hard to evaluate because, well, he doesn’t have a platform. He keeps saying one is coming, but so far he’s only offered delays and excuses, along with a handful of policy proposals like building more subways, lowering the gas tax and making beer cheaper.
But even without a platform — seriously, it’s so weird that the party doesn’t have a platform — Toronto voters do have a solid point of reference for Ford’s views on the issues that affect the city: his voting record as a member of Toronto City Council between 2010 and 2014.
And that record is, at least, consistent. According to the City Council Scorecard I use to track the results of major council votes, Ford voted against almost every attempt to increase the city’s operating budget for city services. He voted against all significant efforts to expand or maintain cycling infrastructure for safer streets. He voted in favour of closing a library branch and reducing the library budget.
He also voted to eliminate positions from the Toronto Environment Office, against a rebate program for water efficiency and in support of a move to plant fewer trees. And, of course, he voted against all transit projects that might slow down nearby car traffic.
And while Doug Ford’s voting decisions at city council may not directly inform his actions as premier, those votes coupled with his party’s lack of a costed platform creates a high level of uncertainty for everyone at Toronto City Hall.
Would a Ford government, for example, respond quickly with funding and resources to help refugees in Toronto’s shelter system? Would a Ford government provide cash and the necessary changes to provincial law to support the city’s efforts to stop pedestrian deaths on Toronto’s streets, even if it means slowing down car traffic?
Without a costed plan, or a satisfying explanation as to how the PCs intend to cut their planned $6 billion from government expenses, it’s fair to wonder.
Horwath, on the other hand, has presented a costed platform, with new spending offset through measures like an income tax hike on rich people. It comes with a lot to like from a municipal perspective.
The headline promise is a pledge to cover half of Toronto’s transit operating subsidy. That’s more than $300 million for transit, kicking in right away. It’s hard to overstate how much that financial support will help the city’s ability to plan long term and fund basic improvements to bus, streetcar and subway service.
There’s also year one funding for supportive housing, co-op housing, increased disability benefits and supports for mental health — all measures that should help in a city that struggled (and failed) to find enough spaces for homeless people to sleep last winter. It’s also got support for a Vulnerable Road Users’ Law to protect pedestrians and cyclists.
Throw in a five-year plan to implement a subsidized child care program — Toronto has more than 12,000 kids on a waiting list for affordable daycare — and these are policies that can, if implemented, have a real impact on municipal issues.
There is, of course, reason to be skeptical of the NDP’s promises. Governments never achieve all their platform goals, and new governments often struggle when faced with the realities of governing. It’s harder than campaigning. But the platform and the funding plan reflect a strong vision for Toronto and an inherent understanding of the big issues facing the city.
I can’t say the same for the PC platform – which, again, does not yet exist – nor Ford’s list of policy proposals, none of which amount to much absent a plan to pay for them. Aside from a vague promise to build subways, little of Ford’s campaign material has addressed the top issues in Toronto: housing, homelessness, transit service and road safety.
When facing a moment of change in a city that hasn’t experienced many of them, that matters. After fifteen years, Toronto is finally looking at a fork in the road. There appears now to be no going back. Doesn’t it make sense to choose the direction that comes with a map?
- Matt Elliott
- City Columnist
- @GraphicMatt
Keep reading
Thanks for outlining Doug's
Thanks for outlining Doug's voting pattern when on city council. It's not surprising. Closing libraries, planting fewer trees? Those are cost cutting measures. Building a safe affordable transit system, dealing with traffic congestion and safety issues? Those are wasteful expenditures!
It's hard to understand why the right persists in seeing destructive mega projects that clear cut watersheds and poison ground water as money makers, and social services, childcare and good education as expenditures that are going to impoverish our economy.........but that is the way we've all been taught to think.
Men's extractivist activities make money, women's care giving professions cost the taxpayer.
And Canadians don't for the most part, want real change; they prefer change lite (talking a good line, but fumbling the implementation: The Phoenix pay system comes to mind) Canadians like to complain about government, which may be why when they tire of the likes of Doug, they opt for the good intentions of a Justin Trudeau.
Of course, in Ontario's current situation, Howeth is the obvious choice.
But the NDP would likely actually try to DO what they are promising. And if children meant anything to us but future consumers, we wouldn't still be listening to promises of affordable daycare in 2018. It would be a national reality by now, employing hundreds of thousands...and giving women real equity in the economy.
But that would be real change. Too scary for MSM reading Canucks! So in Ontario, I'd have to guess its still something of a crap shoot.
"It's hard to understand why
"It's hard to understand why the right persists in seeing destructive mega projects that clear cut watersheds and poison ground water as money makers, and social services, childcare and good education as expenditures that are going to impoverish our economy.........but that is the way we've all been taught to think.
"Men's extractivist activities make money, women's care giving professions cost the taxpayer."
I think you have hit the nail on the head. But libraries, trees, garbage collection and such are social and environmental activities, While they are not necessarily female-oriented, they are perceived as "feminine" activities.
This article from Global Citizen explains that "toxic masculinity" (I'm thinking Ford might fall into that category) considers environmentalism and social support systems to be an affront to their masculinity. In order to appease it, one must somehow find a way to affirm that man's masculinity ("real men support the environment"). Then he will be more likely to support that "feminine" cause.
"Male participants in the study were more likely to say they’d donate to a nonprofit called “Wilderness Rangers,” which had an illustration of a wolf, versus a nonprofit called “Friends of Nature,” that had an illustration of a tree."
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/toxic-masculinity-is-killing-th...
To draw the male voter into voting for issues of importance to many women, it must be seen in that kind of light. Perhaps men could be framed as "providers of financial security for families" by voting for more daycare spaces, for example.
Comments