From Ford’s shut down of the Science Centre to what comes next for Trudeau
In our first couple of weekly updates, we focused on Parliament Hill.
This week, I speak to Ford’s incompetence and the Ontario Science Centre, Poilievre’s absurd attack on a doctor working to save lives, and what comes next for Trudeau after a tough by-election loss.
Check it out here:
If you have ideas or questions for future updates, let me know!
—
Welcome to Uncommons Weekly. The last two weeks we’ve focused on Parliament Hill, and this week we’re going to focus on a few things off the Hill.
And yes, I have some thoughts on the recent by-election in Toronto-St. Paul’s. We’ll get to that.
But let’s start with some Ontario politics, where Doug Ford and Bonnie Crombie are both declaring that the other is the better friend of Justin Trudeau.
As if that matters.
Here’s something that matters to me. I have fond memories of the Science Centre when I was a kid, and I have fond memories of taking my kids there.
Now it’s closed. Abruptly.
An engineer’s report said the roof needed some repairs by October, and the government rushed to shut it down on a Friday afternoon in June. Day camps and programs cancelled in the chaos. The Science Teachers of Ontario called it a profound loss for STEM education in Ontario.
Strangely, the CBC says over 400 buildings that use the same lightweight concrete roofing material, only the Science Centre will be closed. Less than 2.5 percent of its roof has high-risk panels.
Wealthy tech and AI folks, who care about science, have since promised to pay for the short-term repairs.
The Toronto Society of Architects and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada called on Ford to reconsider its plans, Canadian architect magazine chief editor argued that much of the Science Centre could be safely open during repairs, and the original architectural firm, Moriyama and Teshima, says they’ll work for free.
The late Raymond Moriyama, for what it’s worth, is one of Canada’s great architects. He built his first structure while in an internment camp during the 2nd World War, and went on to design the Canadian War Museum, the Toronto Reference Library, the Science Centre and more.
Public art? Public science? Public anything? Ford is more interested in privatizing anything his friends can get their hands on.
I joked during the leadership race last year that you can accuse Doug Ford of many things, but you can’t accuse him of competence.
And here we are, with a rush to close the Science Centre, a costly move to find a temporary replacement, and an even costlier move to Ontario Place, where we will also be spending $600 million in public dollars to build a parking garage to accommodate a private spa.
There is no public imagination, no competence, and no understanding of priorities.
More than 2 million people don’t have a family doctor in Ontario, and we are spending hundreds of millions of your money on a parking garage and canceling a bad beer store contract that was ending soon anyway.
But hey, beer’s only a dollar right.
Of course, as Ford obsesses about his next alcohol-related policy announcement, he maintains a war on drugs mentality otherwise and opposes harm reduction measures in a toxic drug crisis.
He’s not the only one. Pierre Poilievre has repeatedly argued against similar measures, especially against the idea of safer supply.
Safer supply – in which physicians prescribe regulated opioids for people at high risk to reduce their reliance on the unpredictable unregulated toxic drug supply from the street.
Dr. Andrea Sereda – is the leading doctor on the issue and founder of London’s Safer Opioid Supply program that provides prescription hydromorphone to a small number of patients.
Poilievre and his team now want her medical licence taken away. Sounds kind of wacko, if I’m being honest.
Dr. Sereda attended at committee and said there was no evidence of diversion. She then went to a public AGM for Moms Stop the Harm, and said we have to take concerns about diversion seriously. The Conservatives claimed the public meeting was “behind closed doors” (it wasnt), that she was lying (no, they are), that “by her own admission, has seen dangerous drugs end up in the hands of kids.” (wrong again), and that her licence should be suspended (it shouldn’t and entirely inappropriate for a would-be PM to say it).
Safer supply is an idea broadly supported by experts but there isn’t unanimity. It is a contested idea among some addiction specialists, including some who support harm reduction measures , but question whether safer supply adequately reduces harms overall.
But how about we listen to Kieren Moore, Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health. In his year-end report, he wrote:
“When thousands of people are dying from preventable overdoses each year in Ontario, the system must take urgent steps to keep people alive…” And to avoid the negative consequences of the toxic illegal drug supply, we need to “increase access to evidence-based safer supply programs and continue to evaluate safer supply programs for any risk of diversion”
Imagine that, following the evidence, testing new approaches, adjusting as necessary.
Or there’s this from the British Medical Journal – assessing almost 6,000 people with opioid or stimulant use disorder who received safer supply prescriptions: Pharmaceutical alternatives to the illegal drug supply are promising interventions to reduce mortality in people with opioid use disorder.
Or there’s this from the BC Coroner’s Service:
“Fentanyl continues to drive the toxic-drug crisis, appearing in more than 85% of test results. There is no indication that prescribed safer supply is contributing to unregulated drug deaths.”
Of course, safer supply isn’t going to save as many lives as housing, poverty reduction, employment, treatment and a truly comprehensive approach to fixing this crisis.
But we need to keep people alive for any approach to ultimately work.
Or, as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police put it 4 years ago now:
“We must adopt new and innovative approaches if we are going to disrupt the current trend of drug overdoses impacting communities across Canada.”
Of course, feelings and evidence aren’t always aligned in our politics.
Which brings me to Toronto-St. Paul’s and the recent by-election.
I knocked on doors, but far too small a sample to have a real sense of the riding there.
My colleague John McKay pointed to support for Israel as a flashpoint for the by-election. It’s impossible that increased rents and mortgage renewals at higher interest rates didn’t play. And capital gains changes may have swung a few points.
Carolyn Bennett represented that riding for almost 30 years. Leslie Church was smart and hard-working, but didn’t benefit from a very contested nomination, or from Bennett’s endorsement, because the government had appointed her to be an Ambassador before the race.
There were some basic operational mistakes here and complacency was our enemy.
And then there’s how people feel about the Prime Minister and his government. Governing wears on governments, people are unhappy for a variety of reasons, and a by-election is a good way to let that be known.
It’s a message that something has to change, which the PM acknowledged.
But does that include a change at the top?
I’m not running again, so none of this is personal for me, except that I care about a progressive direction for this country.
Justin Trudeau re-energized a downtrodden Liberal Party and brought it from third to first in 2015. He’s won three elections.
He’s imperfectly advanced a progressive direction:
Strong climate action,
Prioritized reconciliation,
Child poverty reduction and childcare,
Improved pensions,
Worker protections and a federal minimum wage,
A return to social housing investments,
Action to address the opioid crisis,
and more.
I could run down the list of frustrations too – electoral reform at the top of the list, now more than ever – but he’s earned the right to right the ship.
Of course, if you care about this country and its direction, and you’re worried, as I am, about a Poilievre government, there isn’t necessarily unlimited time to right the ship.
The Prime Minister has articulated the need to protect our progress as he answers questions about running again, and he and his team should now articulate why he’s the best person to protect it.
And that isn’t to say he isn’t.
I’ve said before that it’s hard to take your ace out in the 7th inning, if he still believes he’s got gas in the tank. And to belabour that metaphor, let me add that the decision ultimately depends upon who is in the bullpen warming up.
Would Carney perform better in 2025? My local crossing guard seems to think so, but Carney’s got a lot to learn about campaigning. And it’s not yet clear to me at least what his version of a progressive direction for this country means. What does he mean by inclusive growth?
There are some smart and charismatic people in the current cabinet too. Who knows.
It seems to me there’s one way to answer the question: and that’s to put it to the Liberal membership. Forget the anonymous Liberal MP quotes in the media, of which I will never be one.
Let’s have members, activists, organizers, and grassroots donors across this country decide.
That’s what I would do if I was the Prime Minister. Rally the troops. Tell us why you want it and what comes next. Put it to the members.
And sure, the media set the by-election up as a referendum on Trudeau. Makes for good headlines, sells papers.
But let’s remind Canadians that the next election will be about a choice – a choice of leaders, of governments, and of the kind of country we want.
On my second visit to the Legion in Sioux Lookout during the leadership race last year, I spoke to a disgruntled long-time Liberal who told me that he didn’t like my boss but was still voting for him. “I know what I’m getting with Trudeau – too much spending and too many apologies – and I don’t know what I’m getting with the other guy.”
That’s one way to frame the choice, to be sure. And enough for a disgruntled Liberal to stay Liberal.
But too many people in Toronto-St. Paul’s voted against Trudeau with no consideration for what the alternative is.
And we need to intelligently and honestly remind Canadians about who Pierre Poilievre is.
He is a talented public speaker who opposes climate action, has a track record of:
Anti-union advocacy,
Wants to gut our public broadcaster,
Will cancel harm reduction measures that save lives,
Stood with the convoy in a public health crisis,
Opposed the residential school settlement,
Thinks policing washroom access for trans people is acceptable,
Will use the notwithstanding clause to undermine Charter rights,
Will rollback dental care and childcare,
Will attack the media every chance he gets.
You can add that he has a very socially conservative caucus.
He has the ideology of Preston Manning with the approach of an angry talk radio host.
Say what you want about Trudeau, and I’ve had my fair share of disagreements with him, but I’m on the side of the disgruntled Liberal in that Sioux Lookout Legion.
This isn’t about one person. This is about our country. Trudeau would do well to remember that, but the rest of us need to remember that too.
