MaRS scandal shows Ontario Liberals haven’t learned a thing

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Contrary to what Premier Kathleen Wynne has been telling us, her government’s potential bailout of the MaRS II Tower — with over $400 million dollars of public money at stake — is no simple real estate deal. In fact, it’s totally unnecessary.

On the MaRS II deal, the intention of the Wynne government was to use public money to make a scandalous transaction go away — to keep it out of the public eye and protect the Liberal brand in an election year. Sound familiar?

We all know the McGuinty government left taxpayers on the hook for as much as $1.1 billion to cancel two politically-unpopular gas plants. Less well known is the fact that Dalton McGuinty spent about $210 million dollars on the plant closures unnecessarily.

According to an Ontario auditor general’s report, the McGuinty government was on several occasions given the option by its own advisers to protect taxpayer dollars by: defending itself publicly and vigorously in court against a hedge fund lender, and; terminating the contract of a defaulting gas plant developer and fighting the developer in court.

In both cases, the McGuinty government instructed its outside counsel, Rob Prichard, to pay off these complainants and make these problems go away quietly.

Similarly, with the MaRS II Tower debacle (according to government documents, now publicly released), the Wynne government was faced with the option of saving $234 million dollars by foreclosing on the very expensive MaRS II Tower — 70 per cent empty and located on some of the costliest land in Canada, the College/University Avenue area in downtown Toronto.

MaRS, a private federally-incorporated charity, has to date received from the McGuinty/Wynne governments $162 million for program funding and $71 million in capital funding grants.

The Wynne government views MaRS as a key delivery partner for a range of innovation programs. The $71 million was to help MaRS develop Phase 1 and purchase lands for the MaRS II office building.

As in the gas plants scandal, the Wynne government chose to protect its own interests, its brand, its reputation and the reputation of its flawed MaRS program at taxpayers’ expense.

It has been reported that development of the MaRS II Tower was put on hold in 2008, due to the project’s inability to obtain committed tenants and traditional bank financing. Although the commercial leasing and banking markets signalled that a second tower at this location would not be commercially feasible, MaRS and the Wynne government went ahead with the construction of MaRS II, using a $234 million construction loan from Infrastructure Ontario in 2011.

Normally, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario make low interest loans to municipalities for infrastructure projects. This $234 million loan to a private entity for the construction of a downtown office building seems very suspicious; it’s now under investigation by Ontario’s auditor general.

Due to the failure to attract tenants, the $234 million loan to MaRS and its partner, a private American group involved with the construction and leasing of this MaRS II Tower, is in default.

One of the options presented to the Wynne government was for Infrastructure Ontario to foreclose on its loan and take over ownership of the property. That would allow the government to sell the building and recover the taxpayers’ investment.

But, as in the gas plants scandal, the Wynne government chose to protect its own interests, its brand, its reputation and the reputation of its flawed MaRS program at taxpayers’ expense.

Until the election was called, the Wynne government was proceeding quietly and secretly to pay the unnecessary sum of $70 million to MaRS’ American partner for its equity interests, which the Wynne government had the legal right to foreclose on without payment. Another $100 million in public money would be required to fix up the building for new tenants and carry its operating losses for the next several years.

When confronted by this very embarrassing secret deal, Wynne tried to pass off the deal as a means to consolidate Ontario government office space downtown.

In the recent leaders’ debate, Wynne publicly apologized for the gas plant scandal. She said that the public good had been sacrificed for partisan Liberal purposes and she vowed it would not happen again.

Well, that vow didn’t last very long.

Trudeau’s abortion stance isn’t stupid — it’s cynical

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

A few weeks ago, Justin Trudeau announced that opponents of abortion need not apply to run for the Liberal party in the next election — and if they do, they’ll be weeded out during the vetting process.

In a private conversation — recorded without his knowledge — Liberal MP John McKay described Trudeau’s attempt to prevent anti-abortion candidates from running as Liberals as a “bozo eruption.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

Trudeau’s attempt to purify the nomination process was carefully planned to give the Liberals a wedge issue — something to split pro-choice women voters away from the Conservative party. It’s a blatant attempt to resurrect the abortion debate for Liberal partisan advantage — and it’s much worse than any mere gaffe.

Early this month, Trudeau held a press conference to announce the Liberal party’s pro-choice position. There was nothing off-the-cuff about it. This was a very well-organized, well-attended media event timed a day in advance of a major anti-abortion rally on Parliament Hill.

Trudeau laid down the law: All new Liberal candidates must support the party’s pro-choice position. Trudeau stated that current Liberal MPs who hold anti-abortion views — such as McKay and Kevin Lamoureux — would not be kicked out of caucus.

Why did Trudeau address this issue now, and in this way? There was no crisis on the horizon with respect to a women’s right to choose. No vote was pending on a bill or motion that might affect abortion rights.

What Trudeau and his brain trust are doing here is exploiting a highly emotional and divisive issue — not out of concern for women’s rights and freedoms, but for short-term political advantage.

It was a political decision, nothing more or less. Just a tactic to peel off women voters from the Conservatives, who have provided a safe haven to anti-abortion MPs.

What Trudeau and his brain trust are doing here is exploiting a highly emotional and divisive issue — not out of concern for women’s rights and freedoms, but for short-term political advantage. That is, they’re doing this to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives in an effort to go after the undecided female vote and those women who currently support the Conservatives.

By reopening the complex abortion issue — with its myriad moral, religious, medical, political and practical dimensions — Trudeau has unintentionally drawn attention to a question that has been dogging him since he was elected leader. Does he have the intelligence to be prime minister, or is he just an attractive airhead whose strings are being pulled by cynical, unprincipled Liberal advisers?

When questioned by the media after his prepared statement about whether anti-abortion Liberal MPs could still vote their consciences, Trudeau looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He later badly misspoke when he claimed that the Charter of Rights specifically protects abortion rights.

Trudeau is supposed to represent idealism, hope and change — the new and friendlier face of the federal Liberals. In contrast to the controlling Harper, Trudeau was supposed to be in favour of democratic reform and open nominations. But Trudeau’s absolute edict preventing anti-abortion Liberals from becoming candidates undermines his and the Liberals’ alleged democratic reform credentials. It also exposes a harsh truth — that these Liberals are the same old arrogant, unprincipled, cynical operators we remember from Adscam, in new packaging.

I am pro-choice. I see Trudeau’s efforts to politicize and reopen the abortion question as deeply troubling and offensive to both men and women — especially those who, like myself, prefer the status quo. For more than 25 years Canada has had no abortion law on the books. That’s 25 years without a divisive, destructive national abortion debate.

Trudeau and the Liberals are choosing political opportunism and calculation over the principle of a woman’s right to choose. And this cynical political ploy may backfire against Trudeau and undermine his credibility, making it harder for Canadians to see him as an intelligent, principled and competent leader.

Why Is This Writer Hated By So Many Mommy Bloggers?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Lifestyle

There are supposedly over 40,000 mommy bloggers online these days. Most mommy bloggers write very informative, positive, life-affirming articles about relationships, pregnancies and the joys and challenges of raising children. All pretty safe and standard stuff.

Then there is Rebecca Eckler. I consider her a writer without peer in the mommy blogosphere.
Eckler writes with wit and sass. She is ribald, profane, and outrageous and always very funny. Eckler is a well-known columnist in Canada. She has written for the National Post and the Globe and Mail. She is also the author of nine books.

Eckler’s most recent book is The Mommy Mob, a witty expose of the cruel judgmental world of the mommy blogosphere. For several years, Eckler wrote a twice weekly column for an online mommy blog, Mommyish.com. Eckler’s book summarizes her most controversial columns and the sometimes insane vituperative reactions from her female readers.

The book is captivating. Once you get into The Mommy Mob, you can’t get out. The Mommy Mob also reminds me of The Sopranos, but with 4 inch stilettos. Bada Bling, B..tch.

In this book, Eckler portrays herself as the victim of vicious attacks from outraged mommies for her unconventional relationships, parenting views and actions.

The blogging mommies’ online criticism of Eckler is intense and nasty. What I like about Eckler is that she stubbornly marches to her own drummer. Eckler lives by her own code of conduct and behavior. And those who disagree with her, well, that’s their problem. Not Eckler’s.

But why is Rebecca Eckler hated by so many mommy bloggers? Why do so many seemingly sane women get their Laura Ashley knickers in a knot when it comes to Eckler?

For starters, Eckler loves sex. And she is not afraid to talk and write about the most intimate details of her sexual liaisons.

In her first book, Knocked Up, Eckler gives an hysterical account of how she and her then first fiancé, after a drunken engagement party, had wild unprotected sex. Resulting in the accidental conception that night of her first born, Rowan, aka, according to Eckler, “the best accident I ever had.”

Fast forward several years later. In The Mommy Mob, we learn that Eckler had split from her first fiancé. Her daughter Rowan, the love of Eckler’s life is 10 years old. Eckler has literally hooked up with another dude, fiancé Numero Duo.

Eckler advised us that she had sex with her second fiancé on their first date.

Clearly, the sex is amazing, and the relationship is firing on all cylinders. BecauseEckler advises that she convinces her second fiancé to reverse the vasectomy he obtained during his first marriage.

Obviously, the surgical procedure works, because Eckler is once again pregnant , within nanoseconds, with her second child.

Then Eckler goes all in and convinces the second fiancé to have sex with her daily throughout her whole pregnancy. Which apparently, they accomplish, even on those days, when Eckler confesses, she is not really in the mood. But her guy is, and Eckler, manfully womans up and as she wittily noted, “takes one for the team.”

I don’t know about you, women, but as a guy, this Eckler chick is a great literary character in her own right, rivalling Molly Bloom from Ulysses and Defoe’s Moll Flanders.

And frankly, I have not read the depiction of great pregnancy sex since Updike’s classic Couples.

However, according to Eckler, in The Mommy Mob, the mommy bloggers do not share my admiration for Eckler’s sexual “tell all”.

Eckler reports gleefully that these anonymous female bloggers publicly “slut shame” her and call her all kinds of horrible names like, “whore and the “c” word that rhymes with “runt”.

But when Eckler shares her parenting views on raising her Rowan and newborn son Holt, the mommy blogosphere fully goes ballistic.

Irate mommies chastise Eckler for relying on nannies, encouraging Rowan to ditch school, for outsourcing Rowan’s bike lessons, for avoiding changing Holt’s smelly diapers for months, for over programming Rowan and spoiling her with expensive gifts. And the biggest crime, permitting Rowan to treat Eckler’s vibrator and tampons as toys.

What these mommies don’t get is that at the core of Eckler’s unconventional parenting, is her extreme love for and devotion to her children. And that makes all the difference.

I have met the famous Rowan and she is cute, smart, talented, self-assured and adores her mom. Prada case, closed.

I believe that the insane reaction to Eckler’s musings reflect a society whose conventions are under attack. These traditionalists, Eckler’s antagonists, come across as jealous, insecure, weak, scared and threatened. Kudos to Rebecca Eckler for exposing the soft underbelly of conventional Toronto society.

Jim Flaherty: A Tough Fiscal Conservative With a Big Heart

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Jim Flaherty, at 5’3″ was a towering figure both at home and abroad.

Perhaps Flaherty’s greatest success was charting and sailing Canada safely through one of the most dangerous recessions in modern times: The recession of 2008.

When destiny called, Flaherty responded with calm determination, incredible single-mindedness, supreme confidence, toughness and above all, clear-eyed pragmatism. And in the process, he even surprised his most critical political foes with his smooth Gretzky-like stick handling of Canada’s economy.

– ADVERTISEMENT –

Flaherty was born and bred for this career-defining role.

Flaherty was one of eight children from an Irish Catholic home raised in the tough blue collar community of Lachine, in southwestern Montreal.

Flaherty was no trust fund kid. If he wanted a new pair of skates, he had to earn it himself.

I never saw Flaherty play hockey at Bishop Whelan High School or Loyola College.

But my Westmount friends used to play competitive hockey against the tough Irish boys from Lachine.
Even in those days, Flaherty was known as a very scrappy but skillful player, with steel cojones.

He was fearless.

He was the Irish Pocket Rocket, who split the defense and always beat you up in the corner for the puck.

The test of a true Montreal-born hockey player.

And then Flaherty made the leap from the mean streets of Lachine to the ivy-covered walls of Princeton as a true scholar-athlete.

Then an Osgoode Hall law grad, then founder and partner of his own thriving law practice.

Then a leap into provincial politics with the Mike Harris government and the Common Sense Revolution.

At that time, Ontario was reeling from the profligate Peterson Liberals and the tax and spendthrift NDP Rae. (Much like today’s Ontario, under the deficit-loving Wynne.)

Then, (as now) Ontario was on the verge of pulling a “Greece” (and I’m not talking about the Travolta/Newton-John musical).

Ontario was hitting a debt wall. Lenders were threatening to pull the plug.Government spending was out of control. Deficits were soaring.

Harris won an overall majority to stop the economic insanity. Together Harris and Flaherty, as his finance minister, took an ax to Ontario’s bloated and unaffordable health/education/welfare system.

As a result, Flaherty, a true hard-nosed fiscal conservative, was responsible for the closing of hospitals, schools, and removing thousands from welfare.

Teachers and nurses rebelled. The public railed against the slash and burn Flaherty. But Flaherty stood firm and tall against the slings and arrows of liberal/leftist arrogance and myopia.

Flaherty took no joy in shutting down hospital beds, turfing nurses or expelling teachers. But the sorry state of Ontario needed radical surgery, and Flaherty was the man. The patient was saved.

But Flaherty was tarred with the rep of being a cold-hearted Harrisite.

Even by his fellow provincial Tories, who preferred the Tory-lite Ernie Eves and John Tory as their leaders, as opposed to the far more competent Flaherty.

How did that work out, by the way?

I am sure Flaherty identified with Oscar Wilde’s classic aphorism, “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Fortunately for Canada, Flaherty did not flee to the private sector, after his two leadership defeats.

Harper and the federal Conservatives needed someone of Flaherty’s experience and stature to guide Canada’s financial ship.

Once again, Flaherty “manned up” and responded to the call for public service.

The American writer F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that, “there are no second acts in American lives.”
Clearly, Fitzgerald had never met the feisty Flaherty, who in his third act, became Stephen Harper’s finance minister.

Together Harper and Flaherty, formed the dynamic duo of tough fiscal conservatism.

With Harper by his side, Flaherty attempted to reduce the size of the federal government by reducing the GST (from 7 to 5 per cent). He reduced corporate taxes (from 22 to 15 per cent). His overall goal was balanced budgets and stable and sustainable growth. While finance minister, Canada’s economy did outperform the average of the G7 major industrialized countries every year but one.

But in 2008, when Canada and the world’s economies were faced with a potentially catastrophic financial melt down, Flaherty showed Canadians and the world that he was no ideological hard-ass.

Contrary to his own principles and hard right fiscal Conservative orthodoxy, Flahertythrew out the deficit-cutting playbook. Instead, Flaherty pumped $40 billion worth of stimulus in the ailing Canadian economy. He bailed out the auto sector, saving thousands of jobs.

When the credit markets seized up, Flaherty pro-actively intervened in the capital markets and had the federal government buy up billions of dollars of CMHC-insured pooled mortgages,which kept liquidity in the system and sustained both lending and borrowing.

In order to keep the Canadian economy afloat during this period of private sector panic, Flaherty engaged in deficit-financing budgets, which added about $162 billion to the total federal debt.

However, in the last five years, Flaherty determinedly returned Canada to annual balanced budgets.

Also in the early days of the 2008 international financial crisis Flaherty showed decisive leadership. He was credited with convincing his fellow finance ministers to enact a concrete five-point plan, which calmed the global markets. As a result, Canada and the world avoided a calamitous financial breakdown.

For me, Jim Flaherty exemplified the rare fiscal conservative who was also truly compassionate. Flaherty will also be remembered for creating the registered disability savings plan, which was designed to meet the needs of people with physical, developmental and psychiatric disabilities. He was an active supporter of the Special Olympics. But more importantly, Flaherty used his political clout to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in the workplace and in other aspects of everyday life.

Jim, we salute you.

We salute you for your tremendous personal sacrifice, your service to Canada, your humility, your strength of character and above all, your work on behalf of the vulnerable in society.

We you wish all the best, in this, your final act.

Skate free, skate hard, and forever, skate long.

Keeping Jazz Alive Without Government Funding

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Lifestyle

The Ontario Government is carrying about $267+ billion in debt. It is looking at another annual deficit of around $11+ billion dollars.

The Toronto city government has annual, ongoing salary commitments and obligations to police, fire, emergency personnel and city staff. Together with massive capital commitments for transit, Gardiner and public housing, and much much more.

These governments are strapped for revenues. And there aint much extra “cheddar” for small arts organizations.

Somehow the provincial and city governments can find the “flow” for such high profile cultural institutions as The ROM, the Toronto Opera, the Toronto Symphony and TIFF. TO’s culture glam bodies.

But for the hundreds of small TO arts organizations that nourish, sustain and provide the necessary blood for TO’s high and low culture, the government cupboard is generally bare.

But fret not, cultural fashionistas.

There are a few outstanding non-profit arts organizations here in Toronto that thrive and prosper, without a shilling from our government’s coffers.

One such arts organization is JPEC (Jazz Performance and Education Centre).

JPEC is worthy of our attention, because in these times of government cutbacks, the JPECs of Toronto will survive and succeed, while those other Toronto organizations, too dependent upon government largesse, will shrivel and die as taxpayer money dries up.

So what is so special about JPEC? And what can we learn from this David among the cultural Goliaths of Toronto?

Firstly, operators of such small organizations must be passionate, committed, smart, focused, organized and visionary.

As Exhibit “A”, I give you the founders and driving forces of JPEC, the husband and wife team of Ray and Rochelle Koskie. Ray is a retired labor lawyer and pension specialist. Rochelle is a multi-discipline artist and was involved in local Toronto theatre for years in many capacities.

Together they share a lifelong love of music, especially jazz.

Secondly, the arts organization should establish a clear set of objectives which guide and drive the organization and all its employees and members.

For Exhibit “B”, the Koskies, in 2008, set up JPEC as a non-profit charitable organization, “to inspire and grow audiences for jazz music in Canada.”

Specifically, the Koskies established these three inter-related primary objectives:

1. To educate audiences and students of all ages about the rich heritage of jazz, its great works and musicians, and the relationship between jazz and other disciplines;

One method is through performance, by presenting accessible performances by local and international jazz artists at very affordable prices and by reaching out to communities in need with subsidized tickets.

JPEC’s last 6 performance jazz concert series, entitled, “The Flavorful Colours of Jazz at the Paintbox Bistro” featured the legendary American jazz great, Randy Weston
and the unique Cuban jazz of the Luis Mario Ochoa Quintet.

Another method is through featured performers engaging in conversation with the audience-explaining their work and exchanging ideas. JPEC is dedicated to making the music and the music makers accessible and understood as well as appreciated;

2. To provide a Toronto venue so outstanding local, national and international jazz artists can perform their artistry.

As Rochelle Koskie, noted, “We graduate 400 jazz musicians every year in Ontario. Where do they go? Where is the hub?”

Clearly, Ms. Koskie hoped that JPEC would provide a home where jazz artists and jazz fans could meet and experience marvelous jazz first-hand by great jazz artists and converse about jazz.

In order to provide exposure for talented young jazz musicians, JPEC features student university trios for hour long performances prior to each main jazz performance. Personally, I was blown away by the talented Josh Smiley U of T Student Trio, when I attended one of JPEC’s Saturday night concerts.

3. To give back to the community. It is also important for JPEC to bring music and jazz to Toronto public schools in communities where resources for music are limited. JPEC has accomplished this by sponsoring musicians presenting special daytime workshops for school groups and other groups within the community.

Exhibit “C” — Chris O’Neil’s Drum Café, which provided drums to 700 students at the Rockford School. And taught interactive drumming to create co-operation and stimulate learning in the children.

According to the Koskies, mentoring the next generation of talented young Canadian musicians is a major goal of JPEC. They point to studies that link music study to academic achievement and even to success later in life. “Playing music demands dedication, discipline and teamwork,” says Rochelle Koskie. “And it also helps children to solve problems in creative and imaginative ways.”

Thirdly, the ongoing financial support of individuals and public and private corporate sponsors is critical.

The Koskies learned early in this fund-raising process that the best and most enduring financial supporters were those who not only had the financial means, but also shared a love of music and jazz.

Through hard work and determination, JPEC has developed a very strong advisory/financial support group which has sustained JPEC since its inception.

Exhibit “D” — such diverse sponsors and supporters as Daniels Corporation and Mitchell Cohen, Cadillac, Koskie Minsky LLP, Carpenters District Council, LIUNA, Benefit Plan Administrators, TD Bank, RBC and the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers.

Fourthly, strategic networking and partnering are essential.

In the last year JPEC networked with Mitch Cohen and Daniels Corporation, the visionary re-developers of Regent Park and Chris Klugman, proprietor of Paintbox Bistro.

And finally, JPEC found a home in the Paintbox Bistro, a cool bistro and employer of local residents, which is in turn housed in the Daniels Spectrum- a beautiful building for the Regent Park community containing art/music schools, libraries, performance venues and meeting rooms.

JPEC is hard evidence that a small Toronto arts organization can survive and prosper without government handouts.

JPEC is an excellent example of how a non-profit partnered with the private sector can act effectively in the public interest and do good work for the greater Toronto community.

Chow’s Hong Kong Identity Politics Could Backfire

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

PQ’s Pauline Marois exploitation of identity politics in the Quebec election appears to have backfired disastrously for Marois and her party.

Marois played the Quebec “pure laine” identity card with her proposed Charter of Anti-Canadian Values.

As a result Marois is on the brink of ignominious defeat.

You would think that Toronto mayoral candidate Olivia Chow would have learned from Marois’ fatal mistake.

But Chow is an old-fashioned politician, who has been successful in the past in using her ethnic Asian identity in her federal campaigns in Trinity-Spadina.

I guess old habits die hard.

Hence, in a move to counter Ford eating away at her base, Chow has tried to exploit her Hong Kong background by reaching strangely all the way out to Hong Kong for the votes of Hong Kong residents with Canadian passports and property in Toronto.

As reported in Reuters:

“Toronto mayoral candidate Olivia Chow has urged tens of thousands of Torontonians living in Hong Kong to help end the ’embarrassment’ of having Rob Ford as leader of Canada’s biggest city.'”

Chow, whose family migrated from Hong Kong to Canada when she was 13, told the South China Morning Post on Tuesday that Toronto residents living in Hong Kong shared the “sense of shame” that came from having a crack-smoking mayor.

The former MP for the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) said Canadian citizens in Hong Kong who were eligible to vote in October’s municipal elections had the chance to restore pride to Toronto.”

I believe that Chow’s basic message of being a struggling immigrant has not resonated with her base or potential base.

In a recent Forum Research poll:

“Mayor Rob Ford’s approval is especially common to
the youngest (under 35 ‐ 56%), males (51%), the least wealthy (less than $20K ‐
60%), in North York (56%) and Scarborough (57%), but not downtown (26%), among
the least educated (secondary school or less ‐ 58%, some college ‐ 61%) and those who drive to work or school (55%).” Mayor Ford also does well with the income group from $20- $40K.

Those groups in Toronto society who are the least educated and whose incomes are from less than $20K-$40K are the heart of Olivia Chow’s base. These groups are sticking with Ford and not gravitating to Chow.

As a result, Chow has made a desperate appeal to Hong Kong residents with Canadian passports.

This identity politics maneuver has been met with serious criticism from many fronts.

As a business consultant, I have advised many Hong Kong residents over the years and assisted them in investing in Canada, acquiring Canadian companies and real estate and securing Canadian citizenships for themselves and their families. I have been in contact with some of these clients and former clients over the past few days and I have inquired if any one of these Hong Kong residents were “embarrassed or shared a sense of shame” in having a crack-smoking Toronto mayor.

Not one of these Hong Kong businessmen shared Chow’s alleged “embarrassment and shame.” They all thought Chow’s approach to them was ignorant, ridiculous and contemptible.

These men are sophisticated investors, businessmen and entrepreneurs — very similar to the Toronto businessmen and bankers I described in a previous article, who support Ford because he is pro business, pro investment, pro development and anti-high taxes.

As long as Toronto remains democratic, a safe haven for investment based upon the rule of law, these Hong Kong residents are supportive of the Ford administration.

As hard-nosed businessmen, they do not give two figs about Ford’s personal behaviour and whether Ford is or is not an embarrassment to the image of Toronto.

They resent Chow’s blatant approach to their ethnic origins and her attempt to exploit their non-existent feelings of shame for her own political purposes.

These Hong Kong residents are also insulted that Chow would try to appeal to their base emotions, as if these sophisticated Hong Kong residents, (some multilingual) are uneducated, unworldly and unsophisticated immigrant types — and because Chow is from Hong Kong and speaks their language, they must follow her without question.

Chow’s base appeal to ethnic origins may have worked in the past with certain new immigrant groups in her Trinity-Spadina riding.

But I predict Chow’s approach has and will fail miserably with the majority of Hong Kong residents as with the majority of Toronto voters.

Chow’s political approach is very old school. Ward/machine politics. But we are no longer in the 1980s.

This mayoral race is about the amalgamated Toronto of 2014, with its diverse communities from Scarborough/East York to Etobicoke and North Toronto to the waterfront and island community.

To date I believe that Chow has come across as “yesterday’s woman.” Out of touch. Unprepared. Inarticulate. Confused about the issues. And not apparently fit for the job of mayor.

In addition, Chow’s surreptitious interview with the South China Morning Post has been exposed, criticized and ridiculed in the Canadian blogosphere. Such scathing criticism has in turn been reported on by the very same South China Post. And debated on CBC radio.

To believe that the future of Toronto should be determined not by the city’s hard-working actual residents, but by wealthy foreigners with little actual connection to Toronto, just looks bad and smells worse.

As above-noted, it is a base appeal to a shared ethnicity and language. There is no platform of ideas, proposals or vision.

To date, Chow’s platform to Hong Kong and Toronto voters simply consists of : “Vote for Olivia Chow because she is not Rob Ford. She is for kids and families. Ford has embarrassed Toronto. Help her remove the shame that Ford man has visited on Toronto.”

Frankly, I believe such an approach exposes the vacuity and shallowness of Chow’s campaign and undermines her integrity and the integrity of her campaign.

Ford Is Rapidly Taking Over Chow Country

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

I thought former Trinity NDP MP Olivia Chow, would be a formidable challenger to Mayor Rob Ford. But I am starting to have my doubts, as the glow of the brief honeymoon with Chow has dissipated. And Olivia Chow is faltering and fading.

Let me explain.

For several weeks now, my associates and I have been tracking the support of Ford Nation in Mayor Rob Ford’s base — Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough.

We have been talking to folks informally in Tim Hortons, Wendy’s, McDonald’s and in bus stops and subways.

We have been calling, emailing and Facebooking known Fordites.

As we suspected, the support for Ford is holding steady, notwithstanding the arrival of such high profile politicos as Chow and John Tory.

But something strange is also happening in downtown Toronto — the home of such Ford antagonists as dystopian novelist Maggie Atwood and Jane Jacobs-wannabe, Richard Florida.

Anecdotally, we are hearing that downtown Toronto residents are leaving Olivia Chow and gravitating back to Rob Ford. Notwithstanding the continuous media onslaught against Ford by the Star and Globe — and the overt air-brushing of Chow’s politicalimage, by these very same newspapers.

In a recent Forum Research poll of Toronto voters taken immediately after the first TV debate, Mayor Ford’s support increased from 28 to 32 per cent. While Chow’s support of 36 per cent, (taken on March 16 when Chow first announced her campaign) dropped significantly to 33 per cent. Tory’s support was stable, but unchanged at 21 per cent (22 per cent on March 16).

Mayor Ford’s approval rating has also increased from 42 per cent (March 16) to 46 per cent.

Clearly, Ford benefited from the first debate. Chow’s surprisingly weak performance, hurt her.

Effectively, both Ford and Chow are tied.

We had noticed indications of Ford support in downtown Toronto in a previous informal survey of young Toronto residents. Even prior to the official launching of the Ford, Tory and Chow mayoral campaigns.

Since the first debate, the indications are even stronger that Ford is cutting into Chow Country.

The reasons are obvious.

I believe that Ford is clearly drawing support from midtown and downtown Toronto residents who are pro-business, pro-development, low property taxes, pro-Porter Air, pro-subways and pro-garbage privatization.

Chow, according to her own platform and her public statements, is on the opposite side of all these issues.

Both downtown and midtown Toronto residents appreciate that under the pro-business and pro-development Ford Administration, Toronto has continued to enjoy a construction boom of not only residential condos, but office buildings, as well.

Large Toronto-based companies, banks, life companies and pension funds are not running off to Calgary or Vancouver, but are choosing to stay in Ford’s business-friendly and tax-friendly Toronto. And instead they are building new office complexes downtown for the thousands of employees who prefer living and working in downtown Toronto.

I believe that Chow’s pro-children, pro-families, pro-higher taxes around inflation, pro-social welfare agenda/platform, is not attracting this low-tax/pro-business Toronto crowd.

Chow’s agenda recalls an earlier more left-wing extremist period in Toronto politics, pre-Miller time, when the anti-corporate, pro-tax and spend councilor and former mayor John Sewell (and political friend of Jack Layton) ruled the roost in Toronto city politics in the 1970s.

In other words, the prospect of Olivia Chow being mayor, like the controversial former mayor Sewell, scares many downtown and suburban Toronto residents — shirtless.

I also believe that Chow’s anti-Scarborough subway position has hurt her in her efforts to attract voters in suburban North York and especially in vote-rich Scarborough.

Apparently, Chow has thrown Scarborough residents under the proverbial bus, with her strange anti-subway, pro-bus policy.

Chow’s whole position of Toronto transit has been incredibly incoherent and inconsistent.

This is very surprising because for years Chow was the federal NDP transit critic. For years Chow had been criticizing the Harper government and imploring the said federal government to invest in transit.

Well, last year, PM Harper and Finance Minister Flaherty committed about $660 million to the Scarborough subway extension, with the public support of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

In addition, the Toronto city manager last year concluded that whereas the LRT option would cover a larger geographic area, include seven stations and come at a lower cost, the subway extension option, with only three stations, would have higher speed, higher quality service, higher ridership and no transfer for passengers from one mode to another at Kennedy station.

In other words, the subway option was a superior mode of public transit — higher speed, higher quality service, higher ridership and no transfer for passengers from one mode to another at Kennedy station.

Furthermore, this Scarborough subway option had the support of the Wynne government, the opposition provincial Tories, the majority of the Scarborough city councilors. And Ford had agreed to a dedicated tax in support of this subway.

Notwithstanding the above, Chow still opposes the Scarborough subway and now believes the downtown relief line should not even be an issue in this election.

Chow seems to be parroting the views of fellow leftist SWAG (smug white affluent gentry) councilors Matlow and Perks to the effect that the Scarborough subway is too expensive and Scarborough residents should settle for a cheaper LRT.

These self-centred councilors don’t think that their affluent downtown constituents, through their taxes, should pay for a Scarborough subway, despite the fact that Scarborough residents have been financially supporting three downtown Toronto subway lines for years. And notwithstanding that Scarberians are as deserving of transit benefits as their wealthier neighbors in downtown Toronto.

Wow, who would have thought that Olivia Chow, from a modest immigrant background, would have become so SWAG?

Trudeau’s Lack of Support For Christine Innes Will Hurt Him

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Justin Trudeau has done a great disservice to the political career of long time Liberal Christine Innes and candidate for Olivia Chow’s Toronto Trinity-Spadina federal seat.

Trudeau has also seriously undermined the candidacy of his favoured female Toronto candidate, Chrystia Freeland.

Before I elaborate, a brief summary of the facts is in order.

According to National Post columnist Kelly McParland:

“One of the numerous grand promises Mr. Trudeau made on becoming Liberal leader was the pledge to do things differently. No more sneaky backroom shenanigans — only Tories do that. The new improved Trudeau Liberals would be open, honest and accountable. And democratic. Not like Stephen Harper. Mr. Trudeau would be more of a co-ordinator, listening to the party rather than handing down dictates and micromanaging activities.”

Specifically, Trudeau publicly promised that all Liberal nomination meetings in all the federal ridings would be open and democratic.

Recently NDP MP Olivia Chow resigned her federal Trinity-Spadina seat to run for Toronto mayor.

As a result, federal Liberal candidate Christine Innes immediately began organizing her campaign to become the Liberal nominee in the upcoming by-election to fill the Trinity-Spadina seat. Within days, Innes had obtained the endorsement of the local Carpenters’ Union.

To the outside objective political observer, moi, Innes appears to be the ideal candidate, regardless of gender.

Innes is smart, tough, hard-working, articulate, politically experienced and a lawyer by training. She is also very well respected by the powerful provincial Ontario Liberal machine. She is currently a political aide to the Ontario Liberal Tourism Minister Michael Chan.

To her credit, she has run twice against Olivia Chow in the federal elections of 2008 and 2011. Innes lost both times, but in each case, she was very competitive against incumbent Chow, a formidable candidate.

It takes an enormous amount of personal sacrifice, time and money to mount not one but two hard-fought political campaigns.

Frankly, I think Innes should be commended for her political work on behalf of the Liberal party, her tenacity and her willingness to throw her hat in the political ring one more time.

I also think that it is a big plus that she inherited her husband Tony Ianno’s campaign organization and then developed her own strong organization. (Ianno held the riding for the Liberals for 13 years until his loss to Chow in 2006)

The impressive Innes seems Clintonesque in her political drive and ambition.

However, instead of supporting and encouraging Innes’ efforts to win a third nomination, surprisingly and clearly unfairly, Trudeau kiboshed her candidacy and destroyed Innes’ dream of recapturing Trinity-Spadina.

Then Trudeau and his spokesman, David MacNaughton, Ontario campaign co-chair, proceeded to botch the explanation for Trudeau’s unilateral, draconian and undemocratic interference in the riding nomination process.

According to the Post’s McParland, “MacNaughton told Innes she has been banned from running. Ianno, he alleged, had been accused of bad-mouthing Trudeau favourite Chrystia Freeland and trying to ‘bully’ eager young workers into abandoning Freeland for Innes.”

OMG! Ianno committed the heinous crime of criticizing a political opponent. And “bullying” young workers. How absurd and ridiculous.

Innes denied the allegations against her husband, Ianno. But even if what Ianno did is true, so what? Politics is rough, tough, hard, messy, competitive and the ultimate zero sum game where victory goes to the toughest, strongest, most effective and hardest working campaign.

Innes suspected that the real reason for Trudeau’s action is that Innes refused to back away from contesting the nomination against Freeland in the general federal election of 2015, where Freeland was planning on running for the Liberals in a restructured riding which included part of the former Trinity-Spadina riding.

I believe that Trudeau’s intervention has backfired badly — against both him personally and his party.

Liberal Trinity-Spadina riding president Julia Metus was publicly livid. She angrily and publicly denounced Trudeau when she claimed: “There was absolutely no due or fair process…. No one picked up the phone to contact me, there was no opportunity to discuss their concerns, and there was zero local involvement.”

Young Liberal and rising political star, Zach Paikin, son of well-known newscaster Steve Paikin, publicly dropped his candidacy for the Hamilton/Ancaster riding and accused Trudeau of going back on his word.

Ouch. Holy hypocrisy, Justin!

Please note some of Zach Paikin’s gutsy and principled comments published in the Huffington Post. I would like to add to Paikin’s courageous words, that Trudeau has also seriously undermined Chrystia Freeland.

By blocking Innes,Trudeau has sent the public message that Freeland, as a relatively new female candidate, on her own, is too weak and inexperienced a woman to compete against the apparently better organized and more experienced Innes.

Poor defenceless Freeland needs the help of the big boys at national office. So Trudeau has resorted to gaming his own Liberal nomination process. In doing so, in my opinion, Trudeau has acted in a paternalistic and sexist manner.

And he has hurt Innes, Freeland, himself, the Liberal Party and the cause of women in politics.

Does John Tory Have the Right Stuff To Face Off Against Olivia Chow?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

As expected, a recent Forum Research poll has Olivia Chow leading as initial front runner with 36 per cent.

Mayor Ford is second with 28 per cent, his support still holding strong.

The big surprise is the third place finish of John Tory, at 22 per cent. In a previous hypothetical match up between Chow, Ford and Tory, Forum Research had Tory at 27 per cent in a February poll.

I propose to offer some hard-nosed political advice as to how Tory can kick start his faltering campaign.

But first, a brief explanation as to why Tory finds himself in third place.

Lorne Bozinoff, President of Forum Research, interpreting the most recent poll results above, concluded:

“These findings represent relative stability for Ford since the company polled him at 31 per cent in February, “while John Tory, who had just entered the race the last time we polled, has seen his vote decline from 27 per cent.”

Marcus Gee of The Globe and Mail attributed Tory’s weak numbers to the fact “Ms. Chow is a strong candidate with an appealing personal story and she is off to a fast start. She can count on the city’s well-organized left.”

As to Ford’s support, Gee concluded, “Mr. Ford has a core of supporters that seems to stick with him whatever he does. Mr. Tory has no such natural base.”

I have already written a series of Huffington Post articles that explain the unwavering support of Ford supporters, who are sticking with Ford, despite all the allegations, videos and Ford’s personal demons.

My conclusion is that Ford’s support is rock solid. But support for Chow, the new politico on the block, is much softer.

And if John Tory wants to grow his numbers, he cannot wait for seven months to connect to the voters.

As Tory claimed in his kick off speech at a downtown Toronto rally this past week.

I believe that that Tory has four to eight weeks to make a forceful and compelling impression on Toronto voters.

Marcus Gee suggests that Tory can be successful in this mayoral race by trying to occupy the happy middle between hard right Ford and tax and spend Chow on the left.

Gee stated: “The essence of Mr. Tory’s message is that he would give voters Mr. Ford’s respect for taxpayers without the divisiveness and the sideshow and Ms. Chow’s care for the disadvantaged without the hard left swing and the reversion to “tax-and-spend.” That would position him neatly in the middle as a caring conservative, the candidate who would take Toronto “not left, not right, but forward.”

In other words, John Tory, wants to present himself as a “Red Tory.”

I have four words for Mr. Tory and his illustrious brain trust: “Joe Clark/Alison Redford.”

Red Toryism is dead federally (Joe Clark/Peter McKay), provincially (has Toryalready forgotten his provincial losses in the provincial ridings of Don Valley West and Dufferin/Peel/Wellington/Grey, and the disastrous 2007 provincial campaign as Ontario PC leader?) and even, municipally.

Today, there is no happy middle in Toronto city politics.

There is the right, which is: pro Scarborough subway, pro Porter Air, pro Porter Air expansion, pro taming unions, pro garbage privatization, pro privatization, pro minimum increase in taxes, anti-government expansion and pro business/private sector.

And the left which is: pro Scarborough LRT, anti-Porter Air, anti-Porter Air expansion, anti-privatization, pro unions, pro larger increase in taxes, pro government expansion and cool to business/private sector.

If Tory thinks that he can straddle these two political poles, and pick some issues from Column A and other issues from Column B, then I guarantee that Tory will alienate Toronto voters from both the right and the left.

And he will achieve a record-breaking sixth political loss.

Alternatively, I suggest that Tory has to come out now — hard, fast and negative against Olivia Chow. He needs to “Harperize” Chow and define her in the public eye, before she defines herself. In order to wrest Chow’s soft supporters, who really do not know the real Olivia Chow, from the Chow camp.

Because Olivia Chow does not come to this city race, without some major political baggage.

Frankly, I am surprised that Nick Kouvalis, Tory’s own answer to Chow’s political attack dog, Warren Kinsella, has not done a better job in the media and the social media of raising serious questions of Chow’s subsidized co-op housing arrangement in the 1980s at the Hazelburn Co-op Apartments.

Chow, in an interview on Sun TV, with her own advisor, the above-mentioned Kinsella, once again stated that she did nothing wrong because she paid “market rent” of $800 for a three-bedroom apartment from 1988-1990.

The Tory campaign should also question whether Chow’s anti-Scarborough subway, pro Scarborough LRT position, is in reality, just Chow pandering to her downtownToronto SWAG/ leftist elitist base.

Chow has many weaknesses.

The question for John Tory is does he have the toughness and cojones to attack and fight Chow and take support away from her, in order to be the next mayor of Toronto?

Something’s Fishy About John Tory’s Mayoral Campaign

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

According to a recent Globe and Mail article, Andy Pringle, a member of the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) has decided to recuse himself from any discussions of the Fords at the board.

Pringle, a former chief of staff of John Tory, when Tory was Ontario PC leader, and a current fund-raiser for the Tory mayoral campaign, has been accused by Doug Ford, of being in a conflict of interest.

Doug Ford has demanded that Pringle step down from the board because of the alleged cozy relationship between Pringle, Chief of Police Bill Blair and mayoral candidate John Tory.

Ford further claimed that Pringle put himself in a conflict of interest when he took Chief Blair on a fishing trip to New Brunswick nearly two years ago.

Unfortunately, for Tory’s sputtering campaign, Pringle’s decision to recuse himself does not end this matter.

It raises further questions about Tory’s relationship with Pringle both prior to and during this contentious mayoral campaign, and ultimately John Tory’s judgment in associating with Pringle who is on a board that oversees the Chief of Police’s involvement with the Ford investigation.

In order to understand this tangled web of Blair/Pringle/Tory, here is a little background.

In the summer of 2012, Pringle, as TPSB member, took Chief of Police Blair on a three-day fishing junket at an exclusive and private salmon fishing club, of which Pringle is a member, on the legendary Kedgwick River in New Brunswick.

The luxurious accommodations of one such private salmon club, the Kegwick Lodge,are literally and figuratively fit for kings, American presidents, Hollywood notables and captains of industry.

According to a Toronto Sun article,which in turn referred to a previous Globe and Mail article:

“The Globe story also stated Blair and Pringle ‘drove to New Brunswick in the chief’s car, according to police spokesman Mark Pugash. Chief Blair paid for gas; Mr. Pringle covered the accommodation. The chief landed two large salmon.’

“The cost of the junket is unknown but the lodges along the Kedgwick River are known to be as expensive as they are exclusive.”

Estimated cost for three days and nights per person is on average $15,000, at these exclusive salmon private clubs, according to my recent conversation with the manager of the Kedgwick Lodge.

According to the Toronto Sun article, Blair, Pringle, and police board chair Alok Mukherjee repeatedly failed to respond several times to the Toronto Sun‘s questions about the fishing trip.

However, explanations were provided to other media.

“We were in the middle of, as you’d remember, some tough discussions about reducing the police budget,” Mukherjee told a Toronto Star reporter. “In that context, Mr. Pringle said that maybe some informal sidebar conversations in an informal setting might be useful to sort of persuade the chief to see that he had to deliver on the reduction target.”

Pringle told the Globe and Mail: “I considered it part of my responsibility to find out about the organization I’m a board member of, to get to know the issues and challenges better,” and “I don’t see that as unusual.”

In a more recent Globe article, Pringle provided further explanations for taking Blair on this junket in a letter obtained by the Globe.

“Inviting the Chief on the fishing trip resulted, in my view, in forging a better and more productive professional relationship for the benefit of the organization we both serve. I did not consider then and do not consider now that my doing so created any conflict of interest,” Mr. Pringle wrote.

Mr. Pringle further said he covered the cost of the trip, saying he felt it “inappropriate” to ask for compensation from someone he oversees, and noted that he informed Mr. Mukherjee beforehand.

These above facts raise several troubling questions. The explanations for Pringle’s largesse is all over the map, from better understanding the police organization to negotiating a significant reduction in the proposed police budget.

It is very troubling that despite numerous requests by the media the true costs of this very expensive fishing junket were never disclosed. Which makes me suspect that the parties involved are very embarrassed about how much was paid for this junket on the Chief’s behalf.

Recall a recent CBC radio panel discussing the ethics of Peter Mansbridge accepting a fee for speaking at an oil and gas conference. The unanimous view was that Mansbridge should not have received any financial benefit. I believe this same CBC panel would have the same view in this Pringle/Blair matter.

Which leads to the next troubling aspect of this matter.

By paying for such a lavish fishing junket did Pringle hope to gain access to the Chief, informally, with respect to matters that may one day benefit his friend and former boss John Tory vis a vis the Toronto police investigation of Mayor Ford?

Were there any ethical or moral breaches here? I leave that to others to come to their own conclusions. But I believe Salmongate looks bad and appears very fishy.

And John Tory knew, or should have known, that these questions would be asked of him and his campaign.

John Tory is running on the basis that he is not Rob Ford. In other words, he is claiming he is more ethical, principled and has more integrity. Accordingly, if Tory is in fact true to his principles, Tory has an obligation to seek full disclosure from Pringle about Salmongate — especially regarding how much Pringle paid on behalf of Chief Blair, what was actually discussed, and what the real purpose of this junket was.

In my opinion, Tory has a further obligation to fully disclose publicly the nature of all his conversations with Pringle, pertaining to Mayor Ford in the last year in order to allay any concerns about Tory’s judgment in associating with Pringle, and to rebut a presumption that Tory and his campaign may have benefited from informal knowledge regarding the Ford investigation through his relationship with Andy Pringle.