“Tory with a tax increase.” That was prolific Toronto X user Joshua Hind’s withering verdict on Olivia Chow’s record thus far as mayor of Toronto, in comparison to her predecessor, John Tory, and I can’t put it any better.
I warned Toronto progressives — especially younger ones — that they were likely to be disappointed in Toronto’s latest NDP mayor. I said Chow was much more similar in general outlook to fellow Baby Boomer Tory, who resigned in bizarre circumstances last year, than they imagined. OK, she rides a bike to work … but she lives about a five-minute bike ride from work. OK, she carries with her the sainted legacy of her late husband and partner-in-politics Jack Layton. But Layton ran his last and greatest NDP campaign resolutely from the centre (and then Tom Mulcair got blamed for it).
Chow’s performance thus far has been considerably worse than I expected, though. Last week alone was something for everyone on the buffet of disappointment.
At city council on Wednesday, just before lunch break, nominally progressive Coun. Paula Fletcher moved a motion to “receive” the city Ombudsman’s report, published last week, on the city’s decision to let refugee claimants sleep in the rain rather than offering them shelter beds. (To “receive” a report basically means it’s not debated or discussed, but rather thrown behind the proverbial couch.)
This report was most unflattering, and would not have looked good on Chow’s CV. It found the shelter decision was “unfair,” “inconsistent with the city’s commitment to the right to adequate housing for everyone living in Toronto” and “contrary to several of the city’s own policies,” and — eep! — that it “amounted to systemic discrimination on the basis of citizenship and race, specifically, anti-Black racism.”
Now, obviously there is no “right to adequate housing for everyone living in Toronto.” This is why you shouldn’t miscast aspirations as rights — because someday someone might actually take you at your word and insist upon those rights. (It also cheapens real rights, but that’s another column.) But said right is indeed codified in the city’s “Housing Charter.”
The accusation of racial discrimination, meanwhile, is based on nothing other than that “many or most of the refugee claimants who were affected came from African countries.” It’s facile.
Luckily, city council exists to discuss such matters! But that would have been awkward, so with a show of hands councillors approved Fletcher’s motion and memory-holed the report. Coun. Michael Thompson, who is Black, wasn’t in the chamber at the time and responded angrily after lunch, convincing Fletcher to move a motion to reopen the debate.
It lost 9-14. Disgracefully, Chow left the chamber rather than vote one way or the other.
Last week alone was something for everyone on the buffet of disappointment
That wasn’t all that happened during that meeting.
With just a single vote against and seven absent, council decided against allowing new corner stores and cafés in residential neighbourhoods. You might ask: Who doesn’t like little shops and cafes in residential neighbourhoods? Answer: Most single-family-home-owning city councillors — which is to say most city councillors — and this city’s insufferable latent-Methodist residents’ associations, who despise change so much they would oppose the city paving their streets with gold.
City staff were forced to concede that a new neighbourhood café might even apply for and receive a liquor licence — can you imagine? — which was probably enough to kill the idea all on its own.
Councillors also voted to prioritize three new transit stations on existing GO commuter train lines, and effectively throw two others under the train for want of money to build them. One of the prioritized stations, Bloor-Lansdowne, is in one of the best-connected transit locations in the city. One of the stations forsaken, King-Liberty, is in one of the worst-connected transit locations in the city core. There are reasons for this. It’s still dismal.
Let’s see, what else has happened recently. Chow removed 38-year-old Coun. Brad Bradford, a useful voice on the housing file — the city’s number-one issue — as vice-chair of the planning and housing committee and replaced him with 74-year-old Coun. Frances Nunziata, a former Rob Ford loyalist who is not at all known as a particularly useful voice on the housing file.
It’s not all bad. Chow successfully moved a motion to offer more access to the Toronto Islands for privately run water taxis. Trouble is, council only approved that without debate because the expensive and stupidly nostalgic new electric ferries the city ordered are way behind schedule (and monstrously over budget).
The week before, Chow’s executive committee unexpectedly backed off capping the number of rideshare vehicles in the city, which is good news from my point of view — but certainly not for the many Toronto progressives who despise (or claim to despise) Uber, Lyft and their ilk.
Chow has wisely steered clear of pointless arguments with Queen’s Park, despite her supporters’ demanding she “fight for Toronto” and save provincially owned attractions Ontario Place and the Ontario Science Centre. But Doug Ford government’s plan to rip out bike lanes in Toronto, including ones recently completed to which it had expressed no prior objection, is simply absurd — and Chow, who bicycles to work don’t you know, has been oddly quiet about that as well.
A lot of people hate bike lanes, I get it, but the bigger issue here is whether you really want the provincial government micromanaging a city of three million people to that extent — and I submit that you should not. Perhaps Chow is keeping her powder dry with Ford (whom she knows well and is friendly with) to win some kind of big-deal concessions for the city’s benefit.
If so, at this point, she had better hope it comes good.
National Post
[email protected]