Is the writing on the wall for the Doug Ford-led  provincial government in Ontario?

It’s hard to answer that definitively, but there’s no question that things are lining up against the premier being able to hang on to his job past 2028, which is generally viewed as the next chance for voters to go to the polls in a general election.  I mean, he could go to the polls early again, like he did two years ago, but I don’t know if that would work for him as well this time, that is if persistent polling showing him tanking is to be believed.

There’s a shelf life for all politicians, especially those that occupy the top post.  Ford isn’t stupid, and while he might not like it, I’m sure he’s aware of the history around political longevity of governments of any stripe.  I also don’t believe he’d be interested in being defeated at the polls, as that would be calamitous to his self-esteem and pride.  And so I look for him to resign before Ontario goes to the polls next to select a provincial government.

Two things happened to “save” the Toronto Maple Leafs from the precipice of disaster, and they happened at roughly the same time.  

The most obvious boost was winning the NHL Draft Lottery, while the second, and perhaps more contentious suggestion, was the hiring of John Chayka as the new general manager to replace the departing Brad Treliving.

I’m not a fan of the Leafs but have watched them my entire life.  I’m certainly no expert, but then again, neither is any Leaf fan.  None of the people tasked with running the franchise have produced a Stanley Cup winner in fifty-nine years, as any Leaf fan knows, these were the people who had all the information and decision-making capacity to make that happen, yet didn’t, or couldn’t.

I’m not here to suggest the hiring of John Chayka is a direct precursor to a parade down Yonge Street, but I will argue that his hiring was just the thing to keep this team together while it still had some sort of a semblance of a competition window to compete well into the playoffs.

 “CLRCS has never indicated that our community participation support (CPS) programs are closing.  In fact, we have communicated our intention to improve the availability of our CPS programs and expand offerings so that people can receive the support they need to take part in our community in the evenings and on weekends.”

Jennifer Lavallee

So, if that’s true, why then are these very same services suffering what appears to be the slow death of starvation?  Why does it appear that, ever since the dramatic societal shifts that came with the COVID 19 pandemic shuttering such programs, those programs never really re-established themselves to anywhere near where they were before 2020, both in the number of participants and in the quality of service and support?

I can tell you that the number of potential clients needing this service has not dwindled, because It never dwindles.  And with inadequate government funding, if anything, the waiting lists for acceptance just gets longer.

In October, the province’s financial accountability office predicted a $1.5 billion funding shortfall for the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services in 2025-26, a $2.4 billion gap in 2026-27 and a $3.1 billion deficit in 2027-28.

Yet that same ministry says it has made “historic investments in the development services sector,” including nearly $4 billion this year, as well $407 million over three years for agencies delivering ministry-funded services.  Our very own Community Living Renfrew County South falls under this umbrella.

So who do you believe?

Another day, another email from the Executive-Director, sent as usual to a closed in-house email chain.  As she surely knows that email chain has had its security compromised, so must also be aware that the contents would be “leaked.”  In the biz we once called this kind of thing a “plant” because we knew it was going to end up in certain hands.

I can’t say if this is a plant or not, but there is some text that can be worked with, and so I shall make the attempt to comment on it, hopefully fairly.

Nine points are made by the Executive-Director to dispel the “myths” that are out there relative to her positions on a variety of things.  It’s not like she communicates publicly or anything, so all we have are these periodic emails that we’re not actually invited to.  So when it comes to the Executive-Director, what she might be thinking has always been a swing-and-myth proposition.

OPSEU Local 472 issued a media release late in the week, perhaps Thursday, and the release touched on two main points of contention:  the back-and-forth issue of mediation that seems to have energized everyone, and the Bill 124 remedy, which seems to have energized everyone as well.

On the mediation front, the union has offered to “front” the cost of a new private mediator, one William Kaplan, apparently the best of the bunch if you’re picking up what the union is throwing down.  Whether he is or he isn’t, it’s up to the employer to decide if they want to take the union up on this offer, and at the time of writing, I have no indication that they have or even intend to.  Management tends to pause when the word “private” prefaces the word “mediator,” mostly because they likely fear a loss of situational control if they move away from “ministry-provided conciliation officers” and mediators working for the Ministry of Labour, and therefore government employees.  Managers may feel that they’d be giving something up, perhaps leverage of some sort, by allowing mediation to happen out-of-house with a private mediator.

When your bargaining position is built upon a rickety foundation, I guess wanting to keep as much control over things represents a compelling strategy in the absence of any other strategies offering greater credibility.

It appears we’re going to be treated to a textbook example of how communications often deteriorate during a labour dispute as both sides dig into positions that run at cross-purposes to one another, sometimes to the point where you’re often driven to wonder if it’s intentional.

And sometimes it is.

People say things. They say half-things. They leave things out. They omit things. Sometimes it even carries the impression that people are not being entirely straight with us.

Nobody in their right mind would ever want a strike, although there are those who feast upon the opportunity to make money advising and facilitating the parties of a strike, or any other type of labour disruption.

Political consultants, labour consultants, communications and intelligence consultants, lawyers, private security, and private investigators would all fall into the category of the types of people who actually benefit from a strike.

There are also people out there with political agendas involving ulterior motives, and by no means are such people necessarily confined to just a single side of any argument or dispute.  Even if there were to be obvious good guys and bad guys in a dispute, the good guys are always going to have a bad guy in there somewhere, and even the bad guys will have a good guy somewhere in there.  So these terms can be interchangeable for either or both sides of any dispute.

But no matter what, no matter what your personal view is of strikes, work stoppages, lockouts, unions, or government underfunding, it really boils down to the same thing:

Any work stoppage, for any reason, represents a failure.

According to CLRCS Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee, there’s no money to provide raises for her striking workers.  

So that got me thinking.  Maybe it’s time to take stock of how much this labour dispute has cost us, the taxpayers, in dollars and cents.

Although the strike has now reached its twelve week mark, I’ve arbitrarily selected a ten-week period to make a comparison between wages earned by replacement workers over that ten-week period and the earnings an OPSEU Local 472 member would have earned had they worked those same hours.

Documentation is important.  Recently, I feel I got some, albeit indirectly.  Nevertheless, it was Important.

An email from Executive-Director Jennifer Lavallee landed in the inboxes of clients and client families, people connected to Community Living Renfrew County South through active participation in agency activities and supports.  In other words, their children are the direct clients of the agency and its mandate.

The email was very sure of itself, and I don’t mean that as a criticism.  It was definitely addressing union talking points, and assertively countered those talking points in what struck me as a confident manner.  So the tone of the message sounded less defensive, at least that’s what I feel I noticed.

But what made things different for me was her attachment of a document that claims to be a Letter of Understanding between CLRCS and OPSEU Local 472 as to the remedy required after the repeal of Bill 124.