It was only yesterday that Mayor Rob Ford proclaimed proposals for a Toronto casino “dead.” In the wake of the province’s foot-dragging on the issue, and reluctance to commit to giving the city the $100 million Ford thought was a “fair share” of the gambling revenue any new facility would bring in, the mayor abruptly cancelled the special city council meeting that had been scheduled to debate the issue on Tuesday, May 21.

Twenty-four hours later, a majority of councillors have signed a petition that will overturn the mayor and reinstate the meeting, ensuring that council holds its debate after all. The goal: clearly vote the casino proposal down, rather than follow the mayor’s preferred course and hold off on making any decision at all. Councillor Mike Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina) called reporters together to announce the news late this afternoon. We haven’t seen the list of signatories, but he said the councillors on the list represent a range of political views on council, united by the desire to have a clear decision on the issue.

City council will meet as originally scheduled on Tuesday, starting at 9:30 a.m. The full text of Layton’s letter announcing the petition follows.

Councillor Reinstate Casino Meeting by Torontoist

We don’t know whether he did it or not, but we do know this much: three reporters say they have seen a cell-phone video that appears to show Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack.

After the news broke on Gawker Thursday evening, the Twitter reaction was immediate and explosive. The silence in local media, meanwhile, was deafening. No Toronto outlet other than the Star had seen—or, at any rate, would admit to having seen—the video in question, which was recorded, supposedly, by a man believed to have provided Ford with the crack he allegedly smoked.

After the Star‘s article went up, around midnight, it took until morning for much of the rest of the city—and the world—to catch up. And boy, have they.

Here’s what’s being said about Ford’s latest scandal.

Locally, various city councillors have begun to weigh in. Ford’s deputy mayor, Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre), had this to say, according to the Globe:

“I have not seen any indication of him using any substances like this, or anything else for that matter.”

Meanwhile, John Parker (Ward 26, Don Valley West), Ford’s deputy speaker, called on the mayor to address the allegations head on:

“We all hope that the inferences that are floating around are untrue and the only one who can set us straight on that is the Mayor.”

And the police are also aware of the situation. The same Globe article quotes TPS spokesperson Mark Pugash saying the following:

“…we are monitoring the situation closely.”

Whatever that means.

Ford isn’t the first big-city mayor to find himself in this position. In 1990, Marion Barry, who was then the mayor of Washington D.C., was videotaped smoking crack by the FBI. He was later convicted of drug possession.

In an interview with Washington Citypaper, Barry had this to say about the Ford case:

“Unless he was entrapped by the government, it’s not similar.”

It’s worth noting that although Barry lost the mayoral election following his arrest, he did win a city council seat after being released from prison. Then, in 1993, he was elected mayor again.

And that’s not the only international press the story has attracted. Spurred on by Gawker, lots of out-of-town outlets are starting to discover Mayor Ford.

The BBC has picked up the story on its website.

New York Magazine has something on one of its blogs.

NBC is running a wire story from Reuters, meaning Mayor Ford’s name could start appearing in lots of other places fairly soon.

And, naturally, there’s a Taiwanese animation of the story now making the rounds on YouTube:

Another thing to come out of this whole affair was a Twitterfight between a Gawker editor and a reporter at the Toronto Star. The main bone of contention was the fact that the Star is referring to its story on the crack video as an “exclusive,” despite the fact that Gawker had reported on the video hours earlier.

Granted, it was a pretty one-sided fight. Let’s take a look, shall we?

And finally, let’s not forget the several Indiegogo campaigns that have sprung up in an attempt to pay for the crack video’s release. The owners are reportedly asking for six figures. There’s one semi-legit one that was set up by the Vancouver Province, and then at least one other whose legitimacy we can’t vouch for.

And, in the past hour, Gawker has launched its own Indiegogo campaign. It probably stands the best chance of succeeding, but that’s not an endorsement of spending your money on this. We all want to see the video, but do we really want to pay off the guys who took it?

Toronto mayor Rob Ford is denying allegations that a video seen by reporters at two outlets—Gawker and the Toronto Star—shows him smoking crack cocaine. After brief encounters with reporters outside his home and his office earlier this morning, Ford held a scrum at City Hall at about 12:25 p.m. that lasted no more than a few seconds. His remarks in full: “Anyways, like I said this morning these allegations are ridiculous. It’s another story with respect to the Toronto Star going after me. That’s all I have to say.”

Flanked by security, Ford then got into the elevator outside his office and went down to the City Hall roof, for an appearance at the rainbow flag raising to mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

Given that Gawker has claimed that they have seen a video of Rob Ford smoking crack, and further that Toronto Star reporters have confirmed they saw what seems to be the video weeks ago, and their descriptions of it corroborate Gawker’s story, this is as good a time as any to discuss libel in Canada versus libel in the United States, because major American media and Canadian media organizations have just alleged that Rob Ford potentially smokes crack. (And let us be clear: Torontoist is not alleging this.)

Canada is a very friendly jurisdiction to libel plaintiffs. Defamation (which encompasses both libel, i.e. defamation with a permanent record, and slander, which is usually spoken-word defamation) is a strict liability tort, which means that all the plaintiff has to prove is that the defaming comment was made, and the defamer is then liable for the tort.

The defaming party, however, then has defenses against the tort. The most common defence against a defamation claim is that the statement is true: if you can prove the “defaming” statement is the truth, that is an absolute and total defence against a defamation claim.

The other important defence against defamation, in this journalistic context, is the “responsible communication on matters of public interest” defence. This defence was outlined by the Supreme Court in Grant v. Torstar Corp in 2009; essentially, it allows journalists (and other individuals who disseminate information, such as bloggers) to publish potentially defamatory information, even if it is untrue, on the basis that it is in the public interest for media outlets to be able to report the news, and sometimes that means getting something wrong in order to report the news in a timely fashion.

However, in order for this defence to apply, the party making the defamatory statement has to prove two things: first, that the matter about which the statement was made was one of public interest, and second, that the statement-maker acted responsibly and diligently to check the reliability of their sources and attempted to get the other side of the story.

So, how does this apply to the current situation? The answer for Gawker is “not at all, really” because they aren’t Canadian. They’re American, and defamation judgements made against Americans in foreign jurisdictions are not collectible in the United States. Rob Ford would have to bring his case against Gawker in American court, where in order to prove defamation you typically have to prove that the defaming party acted “maliciously”—for instance, that they knew it was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. It is much harder to win a defamation lawsuit in the United States than in Canada.

(Some commenters on Twitter have suggested that Gawker published the story expressly because they wanted to entice Rob Ford into suing them, which would allow them to subpoena the video and therefore produce the video in the process. This is not technically incorrect, but that strategy would rely on (a) Ford electing to sue Gawker in the first place and (b) the tape-holder or any tape purchasers not destroying all copies of the video.)

Within Canada, Toronto Star also report that they have seen the tape, and their account corroborates Gawker’s description of it for the most part. (The Star’s description is in fact far more detailed.) Would Ford win if he sued the Star for libel over their story? Well, let’s go back to the responsible communication defence outlined above. Clearly, whether the mayor of Toronto is indulging in illegal drugs falls within the purview of “the public interest,” particularly after a wave of drug-related gang crime over the past year. And one would expect the Star to take reasonable steps to check the veracity of the video, as well as reach out to Rob Ford himself for comment. They did both: their story explicitly states that they sought comment from the mayor’s office, that they refused to pay for the tape (as the video-owners requested), that two reporters took notes on the tape independently of one another, that they saw this tape on May 3 (the inference being that they were making efforts to get more information and Gawker forced their hand by publishing first), and they give as much detail as possible about their sources and about the video itself (not just its content but how they viewed it, how it appeared, et cetera).

Of course, I write as someone who has not seen the tape himself. But on balance, even if the tape is a fabrication, a successful libel lawsuit seems unlikely at this point, because the tape exists, and it is responsible journalism to report on that fact.

Breaking with just about every precedent of his mayoralty thus far, Rob Ford has decided to call it quits on an issue he’s championed rather than fight it out (and lose) on the floor of the council chamber: today he proclaimed proposals to build a casino in downtown Toronto “dead” and cancelled the special meeting of city council that had been scheduled for Tuesday, May 21 to debate the issue.

Seeking to overturn his cancellation, just minutes later several councillors said they were going to try and hold the meeting anyway. Those councillors, all opposed to a casino, aren’t satisfied with a cancelled meeting: they want to make sure the matter is well and thoroughly settled, and decidedly vote against the proposal. Officially, it won’t be dead until and unless they do.

Speaking at greater length than he usually does, the mayor convened a press conference this afternoon to say that he remains committed to the idea that a major “entertainment complex” including a casino is a good choice for Toronto if it meets certain conditions, and in particular if the province guarantees to give the municipal government a “fair share” of the revenue it generates—at least $100 million a year. The province has been dragging its feet on confirming how much revenue Toronto would receive, however, and in the wake of today’s announcement by Finance Minister Charles Sousa that the province might not be able to commit to a hosting fee formula before city council met, Ford decided to cancel the debate altogether:

If the province won’t agree that $100 million then, folks, the deal is dead. We are not going to carry on with the casino debate.

I had planned to tell you today how I [intended to] recommend council allocate that revenue… The full $100m we could put towards transit: more specifically, [to] what council adopted last week, a subway extending the Bloor-Danforth subway line to the Scarborough Town Centre and north to Sheppard, and extending the Sheppard [line].

(According to all estimates this would provide only a fraction of the needed money.)

Ford also said that he had planned to move a separate motion which would see any additional property tax revenue generated from a casino put towards Toronto Community Housing’s major repair backlog, and another that would require any casino operator to “commit at least $4.5 million a year to a Toronto community benefits fund that would be divided up equally between every councillor and ward in the city…for improvements to their parks and public spaces.”

Painting a casino complex as a major economic boon to Toronto, Ford blamed the premier for dashing his hopes: “I don’t think the premier gets it.”

Context and Background: A Toronto Casino?

New-ish premier Kathleen Wynne has certainly been far cooler to the idea of expanded gaming in Toronto than her predecessors. (By contrast, former Finance Minister Dwight Duncan waxed enthusiastically about a “golden mile” on Toronto’s waterfront, anchored by a casino development.) Given that a clear majority of city councillors had already confirmed that they’d be voting against a casino proposal when the time came, however, Wynne’s reluctance may not be causing them much distress.

Not Over Yet

In light of all this, the mayor said that instead of holding a special meeting next week the casino item will be added to the agenda of the next regularly scheduled council meeting, at which point he’ll recommend that councillors simply go through a basic procedure that would see them receive the major staff report about a potential casino for information, but take no action.

One consequence of that: the issue wouldn’t actually be dead, since council wouldn’t have decidedly voted against a casino at all.

Just moments after Ford finished speaking, news broke that a petition was circulating among city councillors to override the mayor and hold next Tuesday’s meeting anyway. (A simple majority of city councillors—which is 23 of them—can trigger a meeting on a particular issue by signing a request that gets forwarded to the City clerk’s office.) Some councillors learned yesterday that the mayor was thinking of cancelling the casino meeting, and began talking amongst themselves about whether to proceed despite him. “It’s not up to him to make that decision,” Mike Layton (Ward 19, Trinity-Spadina) told us shortly after the mayor spoke, saying that this debate has gone on for too long already and that many councillors want to have the issue settled one way or another for good: “we should be saying with conviction what we think should happen.” Several councillors told us that they do believe the required support exists to convene that special meeting, and that it is likely to go ahead on Tuesday despite the mayor’s announcement.

The Hosting Fee Question

Also right after Ford spoke came this response from the provincial finance minister, via a spokesperson: “The City of Toronto should make its decision based on the various characteristics of a casino. We appreciate the Mayor’s comments but we’ll put out the formula when we’re ready and are confident that it is fair to all municipalities.” In short, if Ford’s idea was to try to pressure the province into committing to a hosting fee, they’re not biting.

Meanwhile, Layton said, the hosting fee isn’t actually a decisive consideration for many councillors. “This has much more to do with what we’re hearing from our constituents, that this will overwhelm infrastructure and suck money out of the local economy,” he concluded, “and that the people of Toronto don’t want to be raising government money off of addiction.”

The question may well be moot: the Toronto Star is reporting that they’ve learned the proposed hosting fee for Toronto, including both a downtown casino and the existing Woodbine site, would be $53.7 million—far short of the $100 million needed to secure support from the mayor and most of the swing votes on council..

“The hosting fee, whatever number it is, is probably not the question that council has before them…It doesn’t seem to me, that whatever the number is, is going to matter much to their decision.”

—The provincial finance minister warning that Toronto city council may not learn how much the City would receive each year in hosting fees, if it decided to permit a new casino. Council is scheduled to debate and vote on whether to green-light a new gaming facility on Tuesday, May 21, and many councillors have said that their support for a new casino would be contingent on a substantial amount of new money flowing into municipal coffers—$100 million is the minimum most of them cite. The Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation sent a set of several potential revenue-splitting formulas to the ministry recently; Sousa said those options are still under review. Given his downplaying of the hosting fee, however, his remarks are likely to make many councillors even more concerned that they wouldn’t know what they’d be getting into if they decided to approve a casino in principle.

Public Works looks at public space, urban design, and city-building innovations from around the world, and considers what Toronto might learn from them.

Photo by rosebennet.

On May 21, city council will decide whether to move forward with the possible construction of a casino/resort/convention centre/shopping complex in Toronto. The meeting is the culmination of months of heated debate and Simpsons memes: on the one side, citizen’s groups, councillors, and most of the local media wringing their hands and thinking of the children; on the other, the Brothers Ford, would-be casino operators, and lobbyists pitching glitz and jobs with a whiff of monorail.

It’s widely expected that the vote will put a stake through the heart of the casino idea, even though no concrete plan has yet been proposed (the MGM back-of-a-cocktail-napkin concept notwithstanding). Questions about land use, traffic, crime, social issues, and general tackiness are understood to have swayed enough councillors to ensure the idea won’t be pursued any further.

On the small chance that council does decide to permit a casino, however, there’s a whole other conversation we must have about how it could, and should, actually operate. Allowing a casino in principle needn’t mean allowing any kind of casino operation in practice. At least one other major city, faced with concerns similar to Toronto’s, allowed casinos, but only subject to a range of measures that constrain their day-to-day management and ensure that they work the way the government wants.

Legalized gaming had been debated in Singapore for years, and rejected. Hence it was a surprise in 2005 when the famously straight-laced city-state announced that it would introduce casino gambling as part of a strategy to broaden an economy largely based on manufacturing and finance—and not just a puny three million square foot facility like the one spitballed by prospective developers for Casino Hogtown. After considering several proposals,the Singaporean government approved two “integrated resorts,” massive sin palaces occupying over five million square feet each and incorporating Vegas-style attractions such as a permanent Cirque du Soleil facility, a Universal Studios theme park, and a host of celebrity-branded restaurants (including an offering from Toronto’s Susur Lee).

By any financial yardstick, the Marina Bay Sands and Resort World Sentosa have been successful since opening in 2010.

Hot Topics: A Toronto Casino?

In the two resorts’ first year of operation (and while they were still under construction), the city saw an all-time record number of tourist arrivals and a 49 per cent increase in year over year tourist expenditures. By the beginning of 2012, it was estimated that the two sites had created more than 60,000 jobs (22,000 of them directly) and were contributing between 1.5 and 2 per cent to Singapore’s gross domestic product. Even as business slowed in 2012 thanks to a sputtering Chinese economy and the resorts’ waning novelty, the impact on the local economy has remained huge. The effect is particularly notable considering that Singapore has gone head-to-head with regional gambling hub Macau, which is well-established and a four hour flight closer to the lucrative Chinese market.

So how did Singapore, a country where you can be fined for not flushing a public toilet and where corporal punishment isn’t just the name of a Schwarzenegger comeback vehicle, come to embrace gaming on an industrial scale?

Well, money, of course. But we’re talking about a place where, writes one academic, the new resorts challenged “core beliefs that run deep within Singapore’s society…that gambling was inherently evil, potentially detrimental to society” [PDF]. In 2005, some 30,000 Singaporeans signed an online petition opposing the government on casino gambling, a bold move in a country where the same party has been in power for more than fifty years and where political dissent may be viewed as dangerously anti-social.

In response, policy makers reframed the question: instead of asking whether Singapore should have casinos, they looked at how integrated resorts could be introduced while minimizing the feared social problems. The outcome was an array of regulation intended to mitigate negative effects on the community while still yielding the financial benefits of Vegas-style gaming.

Among the new rules Singapore implemented:

• Singapore citizens and permanent residents must pay a fee of of $80 (Canadian) for a single casino visit or $1,600 for a year of access (it’s thought that about a quarter of casino visitors are local). Fee revenues go to the Totalisator Board, also not a Schwarzenegger film but a government agency which funds social and charitable causes.
• Marketing aimed at local residents is prohibited, including advertising, loyalty programs, and free shuttle buses.
• People on social assistance or who have declared bankruptcy are not permitted in casinos. Individuals can self-request a ban, and families can also request that members be banned.
• No ATMs are allowed on casino grounds.
• The maximum floor space allowed for gambling is 15,000 square metres (161,000 square feet) per integrated resort (in each case about three per cent of the total, although gambling accounts for some 70 per cent of the revenue).
• In an effort to avoid associations with criminal gangs found in other jurisdictions (notably Macau) the law forbids the ownership or management of a casino by anyone who the government believes “has any business association with any person, body or association who or which, in the opinion of the Authority, is not of good repute having regard to character, honesty and integrity or has undesirable or unsatisfactory financial resources.”
• There are also significant restrictions on junket operators, who are paid commissions to bring in high rollers, and who drive much of the VIP traffic in other gambling hotspots.

The government continues to tweak the law. Rules were beefed up this year, raising the cap for fines on casino operators who allow entry to minors or “excluded persons” from $800,000 to a potential $160 million, and allowing the regulatory authority to specify the maximum number of visits that a deemed “problem gambler” can make to a casino each month.

How to Make Casino Gambling Less Addictive

Have the regulation been effective?

If there has been any major negative fallout from the new resorts, it’s not yet apparent. The government claims that problem gambling rates haven’t increased following the casino openings. And it appears that rather than sucking dollars away from local business, the resorts have created a mini-boom for Singapore’s hospitality industry.

Singapore has some similarities with the GTA. Both are affluent, culturally diverse regional centres with populations of around five and a half million people, and both can access a large pool of potential customers a few hours away by air.

Singapore’s solutions won’t translate directly, however. Attempts to exclude classes of individuals from gaming could be met with legal challenges. Traffic issues would be considerable here, given that Singapore has a much more advanced public transit network and an automated system of road user charges to combat congestion. There are also some significant differences in the role gambling plays in Canadian culture.

Nevertheless, the broad approach—ensuring the development process is guided by government and not casino operators—makes sense. Singapore spelled out a set of conditions to be placed on any gambling facility before considering specific proposals, and made licensing contingent on operators accepting any future regulation they might choose to impose.

Toronto has already set out a list of 47 conditions that a potential casino would have to meet (although they’re far less draconian in addressing social issues than those imposed in Singapore). However, unlike the Singaporean government, which isn’t beholden to any higher authority, Toronto is subject to the whims of Queen’s Park. This is why many councillors feel forced into a binary choice: that their only real decision is the yes/no question of whether to open up this question. If they do allow the process to go forward, they fear, they won’t have the capacity to direct the development process thereafter. Though the province has said it will listen to the municipalities, subsequent negotiations will largely be left to their creature, the OLG (“creature” in this case being not only the technically accurate term but also one that serendipitously conveys just the right tone).

Also, even if the province and OLG were to agree to include Toronto’s conditions in any negotiation, many of those conditions are sufficiently vague (“the casino will have an urban form that is designed to fit within its local context”) that there’s plenty of weasel room, particularly when the cash-strapped government is under pressure from a developer dangling bags of Yankee greenbacks and resistant to anything that might hinder efforts to hoover loonies from the pockets of hopeful punters.

Singapore seems to have found a trade-off that works, largely through its willingness to take a strong stance on regulating the casinos it has allowed. It’s an example that suggests Toronto could introduce casino gambling in a way that could be an economic and—don’t laugh—a cultural asset. But to get there, the province would have to let the City drive, or itself take on the task of regulating the facilities very strongly, and the prospective operators would have to sit in the back seat.

It’s hard to like our chances.

Photo by wyliepoon, from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

What happens to old street signs when the City removes and replaces them? Perhaps, unsurprisingly, most of them get sold for scrap. But now city council has an opportunity to make sure some of them get set aside for members of the public to buy.

A proposal that goes before council’s public works and infrastructure committee on Wednesday calls for the City to set up a website where Torontoians can browse an inventory of decommissioned street signs and place orders for the ones they want. The proposed price for each sign is $30. True, it’s more expensive than tearing one off a pole, but it’s cheaper than the eight beers you’d probably need to drink before doing that seemed like a good idea.

The City currently has about 950 decommissioned signs in stock. Included among them are many victims of the City’s efforts to replace older styles of signs with the new, standard blue-and-white ones. This could be your big chance to get a nostalgic, acorn-topped street sign (like the one in the picture, above) of your very own.

If city council gives final approval to the idea at its meeting in June, we could all be buying signs as soon as late July or August, according to estimates from City staff. The notion was first formally proposed by Councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina) over a year ago.

The City has been keeping a wait list of requests for different signs. Right now, according to Allen Pinkerton, manager of signs and markings, the line is about 2100 requests long and growing, recently, at an average 300 requests per day.

Which street signs are in the highest demand? And how can you get on the wait list yourself? Well…

The streets below are currently the ones that have been requested the most. These numbers, which come from Pinkerton, are running totals.

• Queen Street: 20 Requests
• Spadina Avenue: 12 Requests
• College Street: 10 Requests
• Roncesvalles Avenue: 9 Requests
• Danforth Avenue: 9 Requests
• Bathurst Street: 8 Requests
• Bloor Street: 8 Requests
• Dufferin Street: 7 Requests
• King Street: 7 Requests
• Ossington Avenue: 7 Requests
• Yonge Street: 7 Requests

Could it be that Queen Street has twice as much nostalgia value as the next-most-nostalgic street in Toronto? That’s what the stats seem to suggest, at least for now.

To get on the wait list, send an email to signsandmarkings@toronto.ca and include all the pertinent information: what signs you want, who you are, where you live, and how to get in touch with you.

Things could quickly get competitive at this rate, not least because the City probably won’t be selling every single sign it tears down. City staff say that 90 to 95 per cent of decommissioned signs are so badly damaged that they can’t safely be entrusted to members of the public. Some of them are unreadable. Some have “extremely sharp edges.”

UPDATE: May 16, 2013, 2:50 PM It looks like the wait for signs will be a little longer than anticipated. The public works and infrastructure committee sent the idea back for further consideration on Wednesday, partly so City staff can figure out how to handle unexpectedly strong demand from the public.

Rob and Doug Ford in the studio. Photo courtesy of Newstalk 1010.

A few days after Toronto’s “greatest day” at council (at least, according to Mayor Rob Ford), will we have the greatest Ford radio show in history? Will we finally solve transit? Or maybe break it for good? Who knows! Find out next.

1:09: Rob opens with a Mother’s Day salute. Moms are awesome, he says, and we agree.

1:12: Diane Ford, Rob and Doug’s mother, is on the show. She describes Rob’s birth as an “afterthought” and says that he was supposed to be a girl. Rob’s response? “Wow.”

1:15: Diane says she’s very proud of everything her kids have accomplished.

1:20: We now have a marmot from the zoo on the show, which does not make for good radio. The next 20 minutes are pretty boring.

1:40: Here we go. Doug says a fuel tax to fund public transit would absolutely kill the economy, and Rob proceeds to name all the councillors who voted in favour of one at the last council meeting. Oh, I get it, Rob is trying to shame those councillors and gain an electoral advantage because he feels they don’t represent their constituents well.

I like this idea! Here’s a list of councillors who voted for more subways at that same meeting without supporting a single way to pay for them: Vincent Crisanti (Ward 1, Etobicoke North), Doug Ford (Ward 2, Etobicoke North), Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre), Gloria Lindsay Luby (Ward 4, Etobicoke Centre), Mark Grimes (Ward 6, Etobicoke Lakeshore), Giorgio Mammoliti (Ward 7, York West), Anthony Perruzza (Ward 8, York West), Maria Augimeri (Ward 9, York Centre), Frances Nunziata (Ward 11, York South-Weston), Cesar Palacio (Ward 17, Davenport), Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 28, Scarborough Centre), Mike Del Grande (Ward 39, Scarborough-Agincourt), and Ron Moeser (Ward 44, Scarborough East).

These are the councillors who tell you that you can have it all without making sacrifices, and they’re either not being honest with themselves or not being honest with you.

1:42: Scarborough councillor Michelle Berardinetti (Ward 35, Scarborough Southwest) joins the show and says she thinks the most important vote was the one on extending the Bloor-Danforth subway into Scarborough. She goes on to say it’s “problematic” that downtown gets underground transit whereas in Scarborough it’s at-grade. You know what else is problematic? Applying a silly “downtown privilege” lens to transit without discussing the underlying merits of what mode of transit works best in different situations.

1:45: Berardinetti cites Japan’s transit system, although Japan has far different population-density numbers than we do. She adds that she’s not opposed to light rail eventually, but wants the subway first, to provide the “bones” of the system.

1:48: Rob says that his opponents thought they were going to be heroes by bringing the idea of dedicated taxes and fees for transit expansion to council, and they wanted to raise taxes by $1,000 a year. First of all, no one wants to raise taxes, but if the alternative is to face far more costly congestion down the road, then it might be necessary. Second, Rob’s $1,000 figure is inaccurate. The Globe thinks it’s closer to $500, and if the implemented revenue tools were regional and also captured tourist dollars, it could be half of that. It’s like that old journalism maxim: if you see round numbers, there are probably hollow arguments.

1:49: Rob is angry. We just spent $1.2 million on showers, he exclaims, even though the City actually spent $20,000 on showers. The $1.2 million was spent on a new underground bike-parking station at Nathan Phillips Square with showers, 380 bike parking spots, and a bike mechanic workshop—plus the cost of the design and implementation. But in the kindergarten world of City Hall, Rob just really hates showers.

1:51: Rob is angry. He opposed a traffic light in Maria Augimeri’s ward that he felt wasn’t needed, but council voted for it. It was a waste of money, he argues, and plus it slows down our City’s godly cars. We can’t have that.

1:52: Rob is angry. He doesn’t like how a development in Kristyn Wong-Tam’s ward (that’s Ward 27, Toronto Centre-Rosedale) requested lower-than-minimum parking requirements. (It’s across the street from a Green P parking lot and steps from a subway station.) He argues that the development needs free parking for visitors, even though there’s no such thing as free parking, because it will just be reflected in the cost of the units to tenants. But, at least to Ford’s way of thinking, if there’s one thing people are entitled to, it’s free parking.

1:54: Doug gives his weekly reminder that he and Rob had a solid plan for a Sheppard subway. I give my weekly reminder that they did not.

2:08: Rob tells everyone to call their councillor in support of a casino for Toronto, saying that they need to put on a full court press. “We need to win this vote,” he says.

2:09: Doug says that he’s never seen an entrepreneur attacked as much as Porter Airlines CEO Bob Deluce was at council’s meeting last week. “Only in Toronto this would happen, Rob.” Doug is referring to a moment when Gord Perks (Ward 14, Parkdale-High Park) argued that council was elevating Deluce’s desire to make money over the priorities of other stakeholders involved in the Island Airport issue. That Deluce is out to make money is no secret, and my guess is he’d be proud of that fact.

2:11: Doug, who was forced to apologize at council for homophobic remarks relating to the proposed City Hall bike station, doubles down with even more ignorance when he sarcastically says, “Why have a splash pad when you can have a nice little shower with a towel boy downstairs.”

2:18: Doug reads out the names of the Toronto intersections that get the most vehicle traffic, and Rob says “subways” after each one. Of course, many of those intersections already have subways that are underused, but that’s something only a pesky fact-checker could care about.

2:40: Rob calls Gus Cusimano a “great candidate” for Ward 9, and says he’ll run in the next election. Of course, he has had campaign finance difficulties, including allegations of cheque fraud. He was also accused of voting illegally, but no bother.

Rob should really watch campaign violations of his own, including organizing for candidates like Cusimano before election season.

2:43: A caller suggests raising money for subways by selling nameplates at stations, like they do in hospitals or theatres. Doug lauds the caller for thinking outside of the box, and chastises the TTC for not doing the same. But he singles out Andy Byford for praise—Byford being the same guy who steadfastly states the Downtown Relief Line should have priority over suburban subway lines, and that the City needs to gain more political will to make transit solutions happen. Sigh.

2:49: Rob and Doug talk about the Humbertown development proposal, and Doug reiterates his opposition. He adds that they always do what the community wants, not the developer. This is likely news to people who live on the Toronto Islands, people who supported the original Port Lands plan, local opposition to a downtown casino, people in favour of ending Pusateri’s valet parking, and many more.

3:00: We get our customary farewell, as Doug blesses the GTA, but “most importantly” Ford Nation.

Well Raccoon Nation, we got through another one. We heard a lot more transit nonsense from people who clearly have no interest in getting anything done, but at least we got to hear from Mama Ford, who seems quite nice. Two out of five marmots.

“It was and remains up to the Province—not the City of Toronto—to decide how it wants to pay for its transit intentions for the GTHA region. The majority of my council colleagues decided to follow the lead of Mississauga and other GTHA councils by not endorsing any particular transit tax.”

—TTC Chair Karen Stintz (Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence) on this week’s city council meeting, in which council voted in favour of introducing new taxes and levies to pay for transit in general, but declined to actually endorse any of the proposed revenue tools in particular. They rejected about a dozen of them, and neither supported or rejected three others (sales tax, development charges, and a corporate tax cut rollback).

Toronto city council wants to improve health care for medically uninsured residents, especially those who avoid treatment because they lack immigration status in Canada. They can’t do it all directly, but on Thursday night, councillors voted 21-7 to ask the provincial government to strengthen access to basic health care programs for residents ineligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).

Many refugees, undocumented residents, people who have lost their identification, and even permanent residents of Canada do not qualify for OHIP benefits. Dr. David McKeown, Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, says that expanding health care access is both humanitarian and practical. “Early intervention is almost always less costly than dealing with a more advanced illness later in its course,” he told council.

According to a Board of Health report on the medically uninsured [PDF], the most vulnerable of them are undocumented residents, many of whom avoid hospitals for fear of deportation. When these individuals do access emergency medical services, they are routinely billed several times more for services than insured residents. That too needs attention, say some. “The billing system needs an overhaul so that anyone can access health care at a fair price,” maintained Denise Gastaldo, associate professor at the Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, after council’s vote. “Today’s decision is a step in the right direction.”

Toronto to Consider Becoming ‘Sanctuary City’ for Undocumented Residents

Also among those who can’t access services: permanent residents, who are eligible for OHIP benefits, but only after a three month waiting period. Council has asked the province to eliminate this gap in service, citing the fact that permanent residents spend years going through the application process before being accepted, and that by the time they arrive here they have already met immigration requirements.

McKeown also attempted to dispel myths about so-called “medical tourists,” who migrate to Ontario simply to receive medical care. “That’s not in fact what happens most of the time,” he said.

A few councillors remained unconvinced, arguing that medical tourists are indeed taking advantage of health care services in Ontario. “You can land at Pearson, and come into Toronto and say ‘I’m here, give me services,’ ” said councillor David Shiner (Ward 24, Willowdale). Councillor Mike Del Grande (Ward 39, Scarborough-Agincourt) said that he’s heard criticism of the proposal from older, “bonafide” immigrants. “Now all of a sudden, there’s a different kind of attitude with new immigration that you meet them at the door and have to provide everything,” Del Grande said.

Councillor John Filion (Ward 23 Willowdale) questioned the sincerity of such arguments. “If [Del Grande] saw an injured child, he wouldn’t say, ‘show me your citizenship,’ ” Filion argued. “It’s very easy to push your no button when it’s a bunch of faceless people you don’t meet.” Filion and others also argued that uninsured people with communicable illnesses threaten public health if they refrain from seeking treatment.

The province already funds services for the medically uninsured, mainly through local community health centres. Yesterday’s recommendations include requests to increase funding for those services. Council has also asked the federal government to restore cuts to critical refugee health care funding, made last summer.

Axelle Janczur, executive director of community health care hub Access Alliance, said that while some health care solutions for the uninsured involve navigating complex immigration circumstances, many are easy to solve. “We need to know who exactly has access, and provide them with better information,” Janczur said. “That part is not really controversial.”

At times, it seems like the idea of expanding public transit in Toronto is going nowhere fast. Photo by Alfred Ng, from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

When it came Frances Nunziata’s (Ward 11, York South Weston) turn to speak, you could see the words floating above her head in all-caps. “ARE WE CRAZY?” she asked. She answered her own question. “Yes, we are.”

This neatly sums up the tenor of the two-day transit debate at City Hall. The back-and-forth on the floor of council was a demonstration of why so little gets done when it comes to public transit expansion, and it was filled with enough facepalm-worthy moments to make your forehead red. There were councillors arguing in favour of reopening established agreements in order to serve parochial interests, proxy fights conducted on behalf of provincial parties, and no clear vision from the mayor’s office to unite council. It was, in a word, predictable.

Here’s a look at how we got here, and the chaos that ensued.

Two days before the April 23 meeting of Mayor Rob Ford’s cabinet-like executive committee, Ford told reporters that he wouldn’t vote to send a report from the city manager, on revenue tools for expanding public transit, to city council for its consideration. City Hall watchers rolled their eyes. It seemed absurd that a politician could come to this view. The city manager’s report represented months of consultation with residents over their preferred ways of funding Metrolinx’s Big Move, and the regional transit agency wanted council’s input before releasing its own recommendation on May 27. If the city didn’t make a recommendation, Metrolinx would go ahead anyway, and the City’s voice wouldn’t be heard on one of the GTA’s most pressing policy dilemmas.

The mayor doesn’t subscribe to Metrolinx’s 25-year, $50 billion transit strategy for the Toronto region. He even made a retching noise when asked by reporters about the prospect of implementing taxes and fees to pay for it. After all, he doesn’t believe in taxing the taxpayer. Despite this, it was a surprise to many at City Hall that the mayor followed through on his offhand comment.

At executive committee, the mayor won a 6-4 vote to defer the report until after Metrolinx issued its recommendations. It was instantly apparent that not discussing transit funding at council was not an option for many councillors. It wasn’t long before the likes of left-wing councillor Adam Vaughan (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina) and right-wing councillor Karen Stintz (Ward 16, Eglinton-Lawrence) started trying to seize control of the motion.

To do so, they needed supermajority (that is, two-thirds of the councillors present in council chambers at the time of the vote) to support reopening the item for debate. Even so, the Ford opposition seemed confident. Everything was shaping up for another spectacular Ford loss at council, especially after Ford loyalist and executive committee member Gary Crawford (Ward 36, Scarborough Southwest), who had voted to prevent the item from going to council, changed his mind and supported opening up the debate.

Then Glenn De Baeremaeker (Ward 38, Scarborough Centre) happened. The left-wing, bike-riding, Scarborough councillor occupies an odd position at council. He’s frequently a progressive voice, but will often vote otherwise for self-serving ward-specific interests. That is to say, neither council’s left nor its right-wing factions are particularly fond of him.

With the possibility of the revenue-tools debate being reopened at council in the air, De Baeremaeker saw an opportunity for a transit gambit that would deliver a subway to his region, Scarborough. Rather than build a light rail line to Malvern in lieu of the soon-to-be-decommissioned Scarborough RT, why not build a subway for only $500 million more, he argued. That De Baeremaeker’s proposal would be 20 per cent shorter than the planned light rail line, would actually cost $1 billion more, wouldn’t reach Malvern, and would have fewer stops and half as many people within walking distance was all secondary. Scarborough deserves subways, dammit.

More councillors joined the chorus of subways, subways, subways, with Scarborough councillor Michelle Berardinetti saying that she would only vote to debate revenue tools if Scarborough got a higher order of transit.

And so we went to council. By a vote of 27-13, council voted to seize the revenue-tools file from Ford’s executive committee. The vote was very close; had the Ford team stalled for Mike Del Grande (Ward 39, Scarborough-Agincourt) to get back from a doctor’s appointment, they would have won. (Responding to this lapse in strategy, one City Hall staffer said, “Strategy? They couldn’t spell cat if you spotted them the ‘c’ and the ‘t’.”)

All of a sudden, De Baeremaeker’s idea to slap on a different transit line seemed grand to many councillors. So they added their own motions. James Pasternak really likes the idea of a subway on Sheppard Avenue, so he put that forward. Peter Milczyn (Ward 5, Etobicoke-Lakeshore) had his own ideas for the best transit routes. Sarah Doucette (Ward 13, Parkdale-High Park), perhaps to prove a point, asked Milczyn about resurrecting the Jane Street light-rail route. Even Denzil Minnan-Wong (Ward 34, Don Valley East), a world away on a trip to Rome, had a raft of motions introduced on his behalf.

Council had plunged down the rabbit hole, and was more than eager to add squiggles on maps. This was far from the rational, coordinated discussion about transit funding that Metrolinx had requested. In fact, it was up to the most quiet and mushy councillors to remind the room of its responsibilities. Paul Ainslie (Ward 43, Scarborough East) and Josh Matlow (Ward 22, St. Paul’s) argued for sticking with the plan and following through on funding it. Ana Bailao (Ward 18, Davenport) spoke about the economic benefits of alleviating congestion, while the typically soft-spoken Mary-Margaret McMahon (Ward 32, Beaches-East York) expressed righteous indignation, which was refreshing, coming from her. By the time they were all done making pleas for reason Matlow had put together and distributed a fact sheet comparing the Scarborough options, distributing it to media and councillors alike.

But the bright spots were overshadowed by the silliness. Doug Ford falsely claimed light rail costs more than subways. The mayor referred to a dedicated transit fund as a “slush fund.” Giorgio Mammoliti (Ward 7, York West) claimed 80 per cent of people along Finch Avenue don’t pay their transit fares. Anthony Peruzza (Ward 8, York West) and Maria Augimeri (Ward 9, York Centre), carrying the NDP banner for Downsview, dismissed dedicated revenue tools in favour of asking the province to raise corporate taxes. Adam Vaughan jokingly proposed a levy on vinyl labels, which would hurt the Ford family business. Doug Holyday (Ward 3, Etobicoke Centre) clipped his nails on the council floor.

It was chaos, filled with self-serving and short-sighted politics, and it offered confirmation to any cynical viewpoints on City Hall. What was supposed to be a mature conversation about how Toronto must get to the next step in building public transit was, instead, the strongest possible evidence that oversight from Metrolinx is needed.

Even before the voting had started, city councillors had already sent the strongest message they could to Metrolinx and the province: they can’t get their shit in order.