Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
I have been a political junkie for most of my life. Ever since, at the age of 13, when I stepped off a bus I had mistakenly taken and wandered into a campaign headquarters in Toronto, just before a Federal election, I have been hooked. Since then, I have been involved in countless political campaigns at all three levels of government and believe it or not, for more than one political party! I have worked in the back rooms and I have held elected office. I really thought I had seen it all.
Nothing, however, compares with the political drama we have experienced recently, thanks to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. In just a few weeks, and only a few months before a general election, they have surgically removed their leader, narrowly avoided a coup from elected caucus members, and staged a leadership race with a stunning and unexpected result.
People will have various opinions about how Doug Ford became leader of the Conservative Party. Some believe it is a clear sign that populism has crept across the border from the United States into Canada. They may be right, at least in part.
My own view is that the Party establishment blew it. When Caroline Mulroney became a candidate, you can bet your mortgage that every political chit, every I.O.U. every plea for loyalty was called in. She was a hat trick as far as the Tory establishment was concerned. She represented a new generation, she is a middle of the road Conservative whose father was once Prime Minister of Canada and she is smart. She continued the dynasty. And so, votes were called in and you risked being seen as disloyal if you did not respond accordingly. Even our MPP Norm Miller was caught up in it. Having twice supported Christine Elliott, he switched to Caroline Mulroney.
This, in my view, is what did it. Caroline Mulroney did not have enough votes to win. Her support did not spring from the grass roots of the Party. That became apparent early in the leadership race. But the die was cast. Mulroney’s establishment support sucked too much oxygen out of Christine Elliott’s campaign with the result that she, too, bit the dust. And so, Doug Ford became the leader of the Ontario Conservatives, a result the Party elite could not have been happy with, especially given Doug Ford’s public statements that these were the very people he was running against.
It is no secret that I did not support Doug Ford in the Tory leadership race. Nothing has happened since to change my opinion. The fact is, however, that he is now the leader of the Ontario Conservatives. Although I know only too well that anything can change during an election campaign, current polling shows that Doug Ford will likely form a majority government in Ontario this June. And in that, I believe, there is a silver lining for the people of Muskoka.
Most of the candidates in the Tory leadership race expressed support for two acute care hospitals in Muskoka. One would expect that. Promises are easy to make when you are in campaign mode. Doug Ford made his commitment at a campaign stop in Huntsville. He expressed support for two acute care hospitals and said he would listen carefully to what people here wanted. Now the difference between what Doug Ford promises in relation to the hospitals and what other candidates have said is twofold. First, he won, they did not. Second and very importantly, Doug Ford lives here. He has a cottage in Port Sydney. We know where he lives, and we know what he has promised.
Recently yet another organization related to hospital issues in Muskoka was formed. It is called Community Advocates for Hospitals and Health Care for Muskoka and Area (CAHHMA). I don’t know much about them yet, but what makes them worth listening to is that two of their founders are Ross Maund and Dave Wilkin, both former Muskoka hospital board members, both with exceptional experience in the health care field, and both of whom left the Hospital Board in disgust. Here is, in part, what they have said on behalf of their organization to the Task Force set up by the Hospital Board.
“You haven’t listened to or respected the Community voice. We want to keep what we currently have – two full-service acute care hospitals. Please stop wasting time on a flawed vision that over 80% of local survey respondents said they didn’t want and move forward with needed upgrades and improvements now, not 15 or more years into the future.”
So, let’s look at where we stand now. First, in spite of saying they are open to other options, the Hospital Board still has on its books a recommendation for a single-site hospital in Muskoka. As well, their recent survey did not provide for an option of two fully acute-care hospitals.
Now let’s look at everyone else. Muskoka’s full-time and seasonal residents have overwhelmingly advocated for two acute-care hospital sites in Muskoka, neither subordinate to the other. Bracebridge and Huntsville councils support the two-site option. Our MPP Norm Miller supports the two-site option as does our Member of Parliament, Tony Clement. And now, we have the man who may well be Premier in a few months saying that he too supports two acute-care hospitals in Muskoka and that he will take his cue from the people.
This begs the question. Is everybody out of step here except the Hospital Board and its Task Force or is it the other way around? Hopefully, we shall soon find out.
Don’t miss out on Doppler! Sign up for our free newsletter here.
Excellent suggestion, Tom. Let’s ask our municipal leaders to put a plain-spoken statement on the municipal ballots this fall as a referendum of sorts!
With all due respect, Hugh, comparing anything Canadian with the American political scene is pretty worthless. In addition, comparing Doug Ford with Donald Trump is also worthless. The only trait they share in common is a bit of populism. It is elementary political science to understand that 1) Populism is a reaction to the centralization of resources and authority. 2) The more deeply entrenched any group becomes in the exercise of authority, the more opportunity for corruption and malfeasance is afforded. As an example, the scale of corruption among the political class which is entrenched in Washington D. C., (which is, in reality, the only political party in D. C.) is long-standing and severe. Having said that, these are issues that are surfacing all over the globe, but each jurisdiction will handle the problem according to their own laws and the will of the body politic.
I would disagree that complex solutions are always required. Sometimes the best solutions ARE the simple common-sense solutions proposed by those possessing same. We have piled up layer after layer of bureaucratic red tape to impede the progress of the citizenry, as we seek to make a more just and prosperous (not to mention, sane) society. Comparing our present hospital situation to issues south of the border are not particularly helpful. By the way, I find Doug Ford’s plain-speaking to be refreshing. Conservatives like me, believe in smaller government, and as much local authority as can be exercised–with little in the way of gobbledygook, by bureaucrats and “professional politicians”.
Fortunately, we, in Muskoka have an issue in front of us that will test the people’s notion that they SHOULD have a say in how their tax dollars are spent (and any money that they are willing to give directly to supplement government subsidies). I would warn the hospital board and their CEO that, disregarding the will of the people will be seen as “taxation without representation” and the Board and the CEO will ultimately reap trouble out of it. One guesses that they understand that they are going to need much more money, for any hospital project, than will be forthcoming from the Province. Without the buy-in from the people, there will be a much smaller amount donated directly from the local citizenry–count on it. One would think that MAHC would be jumping over themselves to please the people.
Tom;
Words well spoken! A clearly defined election ballot at the polls is the only language a government recognizes. Let’s keep the pressure on ’em!
I am a long-time fan of the so-called Red Tories like Bill Davis, but they seem to have died out recently. Having spent the winter watching the chaos and disappointment unfolding in the USA, I fear that Ontario, with the 3rd largest sub-national budget in North America could fall into the same pattern. Doug Ford’s temperament and his simple solutions for complex problems sound too much like Donald Trump.
Not to say they haven’t made some mistakes, but to be fair, the Liberals have been dealing with a perfect storm; a rapidly growing GTA, the baby-boom effect on health care, the need to address climate change, a soft economy with the outsourcing of jobs (mainly by US companies) and workers displaced by factory and office automation. In the private sector, when the economy is soft, revenue and the need for workers go down together. But in the public sector, when the economy is soft revenue goes down and the need for services goes up.
In spite of all of that, when adjusted for exchange and health care (that is essentially private in the US), Ontario’s spending per person is just a bit higher than oil-rich Texas and lower than California and New York. And Ontario’s education and health care outcomes are better. The budget in the March 19 throne speech showed a 1% deficit. Questionable? Maybe, but Ford’s numbers are much more questionable.
As much as I like Norm Miller and respect his party loyalty, we must consider the big picture this time. As Americans have painfully discovered, running a large public sector operation requires very different skills and experience than being sole boss of a condo company, or being sole boss of a small company making labels. The outcome of the election is not guaranteed. Tom Pinckard’s idea of putting the local hospital question on this fall’s municipal election ballot would provide input that could not be ignored by either winner of the provincial election.
Under a Ontario PC win we know that wage increases of workers WILL SLOW, we learn that the PC party says low wage workers are needed so business can operate. We see NO PENSION plans. Do you think then that municipal taxes will go up for costly social supports into the no pension plan days and housing needs stressors will be huge under this have-and-have not ideal ?
Excellent!
The decision will boil down to money and best bang for the buck! Muskoka is not all of Ontario and there are needs and wants elsewhere! First the current regime has to go and then give Ford a chance to understand the issues and review the options! I believe Ford will do what is best for Muskoka now … and … in the future. I believe he is business man and will not squander money on bad decisions and will want to put the Muskoka 2 hospital decision to bed AND move on fixing the important issues for all Ontario citizens.
I am wondering if the MAHC area is the only one in the Province currently facing the consolidation controversy. Anyone out there know?
I am given to this thought following Hugh and Tom’s comments and wondering if Ford would be constrained in the MAHC matter by fear of setting a precedent which would complicate other ongoing situations.
I hope not.
With respect to Mr Ford, I hope we can all, including the press, can cut him some slack and give him a chance and show some support in this, Ontario’s hour of need. It is imperative that the Liberals be turfed out and apparently Ford is in a position to do it.
My biggest concern with MAHC is the incestuous self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing governance structure/scheme that MAHC employs. It is only accountable to itself…not the patients, the staff, the public, or the Ministry. When I was Chair the by-laws were not like that: there were real members “at large”. The public could register to become a member and, as a member, attend an AGM and be heard by voice or vote. Were there enough of them they could replace the entire board. No longer.
In my years of legal practice, with an extensive focus on NFP (and FP) governance and bylaw structures and issues, I encountered many (and occasionally designed and created) structures of this same ilk, similar to MAHC, where a self-serving group accountable only to themselves (and not the public, et al) incorporated themselves for a specific purpose of self-interest. The Members elect themselves as Directors and Officers and, at the AGM, do it again, etc, in perpetuity. In each case they comply with CRA and Ontario or Canada governing statutes…..both as to structure and as to operations. There are no “outside” or “at large” members, and neither the corporation nor its members, directors, or officers, are accountable to any person or persons or entity other than themselves….and the law.
MAHC is structured no differently (there are always variations on the theme) and it appears (from where I sit at least) to be compliant with the law. However, my mind boggles that the governance structure that MAHC employs can be utilized today, in the public sector, receiving multi-millions of dollars from the province, ostensibly for the public benefit, governed by specific health care legislations …..presumably with Ministry approval…or not!?
I question, I really do, whether the current by-laws were actually vetted and approved by the Ministry of Health. It is certainly a question worth asking, and one which the Ministry should feel is worth answering (particularly in the context of the continued failing of MAHC to be responsive or accountable in the least to the entreaties of the public) its patients, ratepayers, and elected municipal representatives.
One last point: with the departure of Minister Hoskins and an upcoming election it will be some time before the new (or current) government will be able to be seized of an issue as minuscule as the “MAHC Affair” and, thus, it will be status quo from the Ministry minions until new direction arrives from the top. The big Question then is this: how to bring the matter to a boil such that it will rise to the top of the agenda of the new incoming Minister of Health and the Premier? A zillion letters and newspaper stories may do it, but I doubt it.
The most effective tool, to my mind, and based on experience (and the timing is perfect given the up-coming Municipal elections in October) would be to have all the Mayors (and Councils) in the MAHC catchment area put a question on each of their respective ballots (a referendum, or similar, perhaps) regarding the “continuing 2 site acute care option”. Word it in crystal clear language, deploy it universally on the ballots in each affected municipality, and the near unanimous resounding result will reverberate down to Queens Park, and right through the corridors of its Ivory Towers. Guaranteed, it will be at the top of the Agenda by November 30….this year….if not before!”
There, my 2 cents worth….
Tom