Ford’s folksy cover for the real agenda at hand
Trevor's Take
A graduate of the University of Toronto, Trevor Hutchinson is a songwriter, writer and bookkeeper. He serves as Contributing Editor at The Lindsay Advocate. He lives with his fiancee and their five kids in Lindsay.
A lot of us have passion projects – something that we are emotionally invested in and will do whatever it takes to try and complete.
Our premier is no different, I guess. On the surface, our premier seems overly passionate about alcohol. All of us will remember his ‘buck-a beer’ promise during his first (successful) election campaign. Of course it didn’t happen, but it was smart politics. Approximately 75 per cent of Canadian adults consume alcohol, and beer holds the largest market segment of types of alcohol among those who drink.
Within hours of the first LCBO strike in the history of the province, the government made a map available showing where Ontarians could still buy beer, wine and spirits.
Don’t get me wrong. I love a good infographic. It’s just that I don’t remember any map showing which rural emergency departments are closed. Way back in the pandemic, I don’t recall a universal map showing where vaccines were available. I do remember having to inquire online at each privately owned pharmacy to see if I could protect myself and those around me.
Now, I have no problem with drinking. The health and social costs of alcohol use is one factor in the complicated value proposition we make that attempts to balance social well-being with individual freedoms and taxation revenue.
In a recent Advocate online piece, Professor David Rapaport succinctly outlined the importance of our provincial liquor sales model to essential services funding like healthcare. In fact, going back to Premiers’ Leslie Frost and Bill Davis (two of the best we have ever had), the importance of alcohol tax revenue made LCBO workers an essential service. There was a time when doctors could legally strike but your local LCBO clerk was forbidden by law to do so.
But perhaps the focus on alcohol by a non-drinking premier is more than shameless populism and an appeal to the beer-drinking electorate? What if – and hear me out – it is a folksy cover for the premiere’s real passion project: the privatization of all public services?
The legitimate backlog of medical procedures resulting from COVID was used to justify private clinics rather than more hospital funding. And maybe getting my driver’s license renewed at, say, an office supply store will be convenient, but I doubt it.
And it could be just a coincidence that the Ontario Science Centre was speedily closed (despite the objection of architects and an offer of private funding to fix the original); and that a big developer who also owns property adjacent to the centre also owns property on provincially expedited highway 413.
I’m not close enough to the powerful to be able to answer my own questions. But I do know that I wouldn’t lose millions of badly needed public money so that I could get my favourite beer or cooler four minutes faster.
I can’t help but find this piece short sighted from the bigger picture at hand. What is so wrong about change and as the old saying states, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Can we really say that all our tax dollars are spent in effective and efficient manners and that our public sectors don’t have waste or out of date operations. Well in many cases our public systems are broken and in need of fixing, change, or revitalization. So in the same manner, its logical to state if it’s broken, fix it. Why is it that people fear some aspects of of society being privatized as if its cruel, unusual, or going to plunge us into the stone age. If we broaden our lens and look to other countries around the world we can see where and how things are done and then use those models to build our own.
Canadian’s pay some of the highest taxes on alcohol in the world and is entirely controlled by the LCBO. European countries allow for beer/wine/spirits to be purchased at grocery and corner stores without issues from private corporations. Health care in most European nations is a mix of public/private and have some of the best healthcare systems in the world. Ontario place has sat dilapidated for decades now as the public/government systems previously could never agree on what to do. Isn’t it more beneficial to redevelop the property and get tax/tourism revenue and eliminate the scar in the city. The amount of tax money that is wasted on public systems is astonishing. Take fees and Development Charges (DC’s) paid on new construction. The average new home in the GTA has roughly 30-33% of its purchase price going to taxes/levies/fees. So on a million dollar townhouse that equates to over $300,000 and that didn’t even purchase the land, pay for the material and installation of the services, pay for the materials and installation of the building itself, let alone give a business profit to actually be in business. All that money and there isn’t over staffing, under production, inefficiencies or waste in the public system?
My point simply, at what point do we stop funding public systems in fear of some privatization when there are nations all around the world that have done so for decades. It’s not one or the other. We can have a mixture of both public and private working in unison to deliver services to Ontarians and Canadians in the most economical, effective, and efficient manner. It’s about time we start change as change takes time and there’s no time like yesterday for the benefit of all.
The bad taste in my mouth is not fear of privatization, but the profit margin rather than the service provided is what ends up being the main focus, take for example nursing homes, the profit margin , not the actual quality of Care ends up being the number 1 priority that is focused on, why do you think we have such a shortage of staff, PSW, nurses, are being forced to provide a level of care to peoples loved ones that would be deemed cruel and inhumane to our pets.
Ontario Place was not dilapidated and news coverage has shown this. Doug Ford only care about money he and his buddies can make , so any changes he proposes should be feared , take for example the Green Belt land issue as another example of his friends benefiting from his decisions, he does not have the local taxpayers interest at heart, only the potential profit margin he and his friends will make is at heart for him.
I have no problem with change, as long as it is done ethically and a full and fair review has been done on proposals before being put in place. This expediting of bills and planned proposals needs to stop.
So your main point of argument is comparing expanding the sale of alcohol to nursing homes which provide a healthcare related service. There’s a huge difference between expanding where and when a product can be sold vs caring for elderly. Separate issues all together, however to my point you simply have to look to European nations that have a mixture of private/public which deliver some of the best healthcare to their citizens in the world. Again I refer back to my short sighted comment. The best way to solve a problem is to address the root cause. The root cause is not privatization but rather bad actors or companies in your example of nursing homes. Have stronger tougher penalties for those not meeting standards rather than not allow privatization. The same logic applies for expanding alcohol sales.
To Ontario place, it is dilapidated and has generated very little revenue over the last decade. Isn’t it more beneficial to replace this with something new that cleans up the area, brings in revenue, and spurs other commercial developments to want to invest in the area.
The green belt was handled poorly absolutely, however the root meaning behind it is logical. Why do you suppose housing costs have skyrocketed? Maybe the fact that the GTA and surrounding areas are cut off by lake on one side and the greenbelt on the other. Now from that total acreage of land inside those constraints, subtract all the other conservation lands, floodplain, environmentally sensitive lands, etc., what is remaining. Perhaps it would make sense to remove some lands deemed, “greenbelt”, that exist close to existing infrastructure and replace those lands elsewhere.
Why are things always so polarized and having to be one or the other. Why not have a mixture of public and private, why not replace old infrastructure driving no economical value with new vibrant infrastructure, why not swap out greenbelt lands where and when it makes sense to help bring more housing close to existing infrastructure. Finally to your last point, why do you think things take so long and are as expensive to complete, too many levels of bureaucracy. If we don’t expedite some approvals, nothing ever gets done and the cost balloons. Sometimes its better to do simple quick reviews and get on with things rather than scrutinize every last detail.