Ford gives casinos a tax break in midst of gambling addiction crisis

 Speaking of Doug Ford, here's just another example of how out-of-touch and how callous the man is.

Yesterday, Ford announced he is slashing the tax rate for casinos, specifically in the Niagara region, as part of his Destination Niagara push to develop the already highly-developed area. He is setting the gambling tax rate at 9.75% for the Niagara region (can he actually do that, set different tax rates for different areas?) The current rate is not publicly known (which is also pretty sketchy) but is thought to be upward of 40%. So this is a big deal, and designed to attract other "world class gaming operators" to the area, which already has distinct low-class circus vibes.

Think of that what you will, but this announcement comes at a time when problem gambling, addiction and associated suicides are spiking in Ontario, particularly after the recent expansion of online casinos. Problem gambling and addiction have tripled in the last 8 years, with some 130,000 Ontarians now showing signs of gaming problems. This July, Ontario (along with Alberta) legalized online gambling run by private companies, and that led to a noticeable spike in cases, following another spike in 2022 when Ontario legalized private physical casinos.

And this is the point at which Ford decides to introduce policies to make gambling and casinos even more ubiquitous! Compare this with the UK, which just increased its gambling tax from 20% to 25%, especially on those machines and stakes "more associated with gambling harm".

Doug Ford does not know more than the BoC

Our Glorious Ontario Leader Doug Ford seems to think he knows more about macroeconomics than the combined wisdom of the financial.egg-heads of the Bank of Canada. The BoC increased its key interest rate by 25 basis point to 2.5%, the first time it has done so since July 2023. This is still quite low, certainly compared to the USA's 3.9%, but there are those who object to any increase, as a matter of principle. 

Mr. Ford's comments on the rate hike were not subtle: "Raising interest rates right now is a massive mistake. Higher rates won't get oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz or lower tariffs on Canadian businsses." Well, duh. Neither will NOT changing interest rates for that matter. And I'm pretty sure the Bank of Canada is quite aware of the stakes here. But things are not as simple as Mr. Ford likes to make them appear.

Of course, the Bank did not take this step lightly. It is quite aware that the Canadian economy is struggling at the momemt, and that this move is likely to dampen consumer demand still further. But inflation continues to be stubbornly high - currently around 3.1% - and so well above the BoC's target of 2%, and this is the main reason for the interest rate hike. It has looked at all the ramifications and decided that on balance, this was the right move.

Doug Ford, however, apparently doesn't care about inflation. Much like Donald Trump, he only cares about the strength of the economy in the province he represents, lest voters decide to blame him for it.

Granted, this particular decision by the BoC was an especially fraught one, and there are those who believe the rate hike may have been premature, given the current climate of uncertainty and the ongoing weakness in the economy. But still, Mr. Ford, let the Bank of Canada do its job. It knows much more than you do about what makes the country's finances tick, and what's good for Canada and Ontario.

PSPP starting to get under the skin of the federal government (and everybody else)

Relations with Quebec have returned to the bad old days. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon ("PSPP") and his Parti Québécois have only been in power for a few days and already the temperature feels 20° cooler. PSPP is clearly finding any opportunity to get under the skin of the federal government, however accommodating they may be in return, and is aiming for maximum annoyance

First, he refused to take the oath of allegiance to the king, and then disrespected Quebec's Lieutenant-General by not even inviting her to - in fact, specifically asking her NOT to attend - the swearing-in ceremony for the new provincial government, a ceremony that she would normally preside over.

Now, he is whining that Quebec is being disrespected by not being invited to speak at a Canada-EU summit later this week, claiming that Ottawa is "refusing to consult Quebec and involve it in negotiations".

As Mark Carney points out, Quebec has in fact been consulted at least three times on the proposed agreement with the EU, even if PSPP himself was not in the room. The upcoming summit is even being held in Montreal, as agreed by St-Pierre Plamondon's predecessor as Premier, Christine Fréchette. 

These are, after all, negotiations at the federal, national level. Quebec, like the other provinces, will be involved and consulted as negotiations progress, although more as a courtesy than anything else.

I get it that the Parti Québécois was elected recently on an independence platform, even if most of the people who voted for them mainly did it as protest against the previous CAQ government and not necessarily for the independence piece (in fact, in spite of the independence piece), given that most Quebeckers still don't want to separate from Canada. But at this point, Quebec is just another province, due no special treatment. Get used to it, PSPP.

Now, he is probably just going through the motions, and merely wants to be seen to be opposing the federal government as often as possible. But this is going to get tired very quickly, both for the rest of Canada and the Federal government, not to mention for the Québécois people, most of whom probably don't want to become pariahs and personae non gratae within Canada.

Actually, only about 5% of Albertans want to separate

It's illuminating that only about a third (32%) of those who voted to pursue a separation referendum actually want to separate (this from an Abacus Data poll). The rest voted for Option 2 for other reasons, like "to get a better deal with Canada", "to send a message to Ottawa", or just because they feel they "deserve a direct say on separation" (i.e. just because). 

An Angus Reid poll yielded similar findings: 37% of people who voted for Option 2 (to pursue a separation referendum) actually want to separate; 60% just want to "send a message to Ottawa". 

This, then, puts support for actual separation in Alberta at between 8% and 8.5% among those who voted (24% times 32% or 37%), so between 160,000 and 170,000 out of the 2 million who actually voted. 

If we consider that voter turnout (about 2 million) was only 62% of the 3.2 million eligible voters, the picture becomes even more stark. It's a reasonable assumption that the vast majority of the surprisingly large number who didn't bother to vote were complaisant federalists and not separatists (who tend to be much more motivated). So, those voting for Alberta independence amounted to 160,000-170,000 out of 3.2 million, roughly 5%.

So, all this song and dance, and many millions spent on administration and advertising, just to assuage the egos of 5% of Albertans?

It certainly makes a mockery of the separatist leaders' claims of a groundswell of public opinion. In reality they are just a small fringe group of discontents, who might just as well move to the USA.

I've seen many articles expressing some variation on the idea that the vote should not be taken as an endorsement of the status quo, because 24% of Albertans voted to pursue a referendum on spearation, and much work remains to be done to placate the would-be separatists, yada, yada. I disagree. A 76%-24% vote is exactly that: a resounding endoresment of the status quo and a strong refutation of the minority view that Alberta should go it alone.

Is equalization really unfair to Alberta?

While we're all still exercised about Alberta separatism - hopefully that will fade soon, now we know that Albertans don't actually want to separate from Canada - let's look at one of the main irritants that the separatists bring up time and time again: equalization payments, and specifically how unfair Albertans think they are.

Many provinces have complained about equalization payments at one time or another - Newfoundland, Ontario, even Quebec - but there is nothing inherently unfair about the idea of equalization payments, and only the most churlish or egocentric Albertan would claim that (were they to even think about it, that is - many separatists that use unfair equalization payments as an arguing point are just repeating the claims of separatist agitators without even understanding what they are or how they work).

Equalization was brought into the Canadian federal system in the 1950s, although its formulation has been changed a few times over the years (the current formula was designed by by an Albertan head of an expert panel under an Albertan Prime Minister, Stephen Harper). It was enshrined in the Canadian Constitution in 1982. 

It aims to ensure that all Canadian provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates, based on each province's "fiscal capacity" (it's ability to raise its own revenues). So, money is taken from the richer provinces and reallocated to the poorer ones. We are, after all, just one country, and not all parts of it were blessed with natural resources and useful geography. 

Thus, mainly by virtue of their vast mineral wealth and booming economies, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (the "have provinces") are net contributors; the other ("have-not") provinces are net recipients, to greater or lesser degrees (a little to Ontario and Newfoundland, a lot to Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and PEI). Just as an aside, contributing provinces like Alberta don't "pay into" the equalization program as such, even if many separatists like to give that impression; it's a federal program funded by federal taxes on individuals and corporations.

Alberta's economy is the strongest in Canada; it doesn't need extra help. Using a complicated but consistent formula based on notional average tax rates, Alberta could raise over $17,000 per person, $4,000 than BC, $7,000 more than Quebec, and $10,000 more than PEI. The system is not perfect: it can be argued that it might encourage provinces to keep their taxes high, under-invest in resources, or undercharge for its electricity (a major bugbear of separatist Albertans). Butprovinces can still have their own distinctive economic policies, even if other provinces object to them, like Quebec's cheap electricity rates and its fracking ban, or Alberta's decision not to impose a sales tax like every other province.

Alberta may not like some elements of the equalization program, but the fact that there are regional winners and losers does not in itself make the program unfair to Alberta. That's just life, the way it is. Even with an equalization program, Alberta is still by far the richest province in Canada.

Whither Alberta (and Danielle Smith) now?

Alberta votes in its ten-question referendum in just a couple of days time. The conventional wisdom is that Albertans will vote overwhelmingly to stay in Canada, although that will only happen if the remain faction is not so complaisant that it forgets to vote.

Either way, commentators are already thinking about what will happen AFTER the vote. Premier Danielle Smith seems to think that everyone should just sigh "Ah, well" and move on, and has vowed never to revisit the issue on her watch. But that seems disingenuous. Separatist sentiment will continue to simmer regardless - it's where the far right in the province is currently hanging their Stetson hat, after previous forays into anti-vaccination policies, the "Freedom Convoy", parental rights and anti-trans sentiment. The referendum has, to some extent at least, legitimized the Alberta separatist movement, whatever its eventual outcome. And, much like with Brexit, the remain camp seem much less energized, urgent and motivated than the leavers, despite the existential nature of the issue, so anything could happen.

As in Quebec, Alberta separatism will not just dissipate into the ether after the referendum, but will continue to fester, at least until Donald Trump leaves power (if that ever happens) when it may see a resurgence. This is especially true if the independence vote achieves the possible-but-unlikely threshold of, say, 40%, which it could do with the addition of voters who don't really want to separate but who want to "send a message to Ottawa", or just a register a protest in some way.

Leading separatists have been very clear that they are not going away: "Regardless of what happens on Monday, we've already won ... we are going to build on our successes, build on our relationships", says one. Of course, this could just be a way of lowering expectations before a vote they will almost certainly lose. But it's also a declaration of intent for the future.

To some extent, the damage has already been done. It's quite possible that the very fact that a separation movement exists, and that it says it will continue to agitate in the future, will act as a dampener on investment in the province, particularly foreign investment. Much as happened in separatist-riven Quebec in the 1980s and 1990s, many companies will be loath to risk new investment money, and may even move out existing investments and representation. The separatists who say they want tot make Alberta stronger may just have weakened it for many years to come.

Meanwhile, the Alberta populace will remain deeply divided and irreconcilable. One interesting study looked at the attitudes of separatists and federalists towards each other. It found that, while most separatists did not have strong feelings either way about their federalist opponents, most federalists were quite bitterly resentful of the secessionists who have put their province at risk in this way. 

Whatever the outcome of the vote, Alberta may have soured and scared off many potential investors, and that's largely on Premier Smith for enabling the separatist vote as she has, regardless of her own opinions on the matter (if indeed you believe what she says). For some time now, she has been walking a very narrow tightrope between left and right (or, rather, between right and far right). 

The next provincial election is coming up in almost exactly a year's time. Most opinion polls put Ms. Smith and her United Conservative Party in a statistical dead heat with the opposition NDP, and her own personal populatity has dropped to new lows. Some think she might call an early snap election (colloquially known as "pulling an Eby") before her chances sour still further, although that could easily backfire (à la Eby). If the remain vote, which she professes to support, prevails, then the influential separatist faction within her own party would of course be baying for her removal (many already are). Or, who knows, maybe Alberta's far right will just latch onto another issue they see as worthy of their attention (and which may be easier to achieve).

It's tempting just to flip off would-be separatists, and tell them to grow up and get real. Or just move to Montana already (I can't get Frank Zappa's Montana out of my mind: "Movin' to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon".)

Either way, Ms. Smith has made her bed and now must lie in it. Don't expect her to get much shut-eye, though.

UPDATE

Question 10 of the referendum -.whether Alberta should pursue separation - was defeated soundly, by an even greater margin than most people predicted (76%-24%). No big surprise there.

Separatists like Let Alberta Decide co-chair Keith Wilson, of course, can just double down on their "I think we've won" claim, regardless of the results. The more ambitious, like Jeffrey Rath of the Alberta Prosperity Society, can use it as a (rather wobbly) plank in their campaign to wrest control of the UCP from Danielle Smith, despite the fact that she handed the separatists a referendum on a platter, almost singlehandedly.

All of this may be just an indication of just how far their heads are up their arses. But it's more a reflection of how little the separatists had to lose in this referendum. If they had won, then their raison d'être could be considered fulfilled. Now that they've lost, they can still use the fact that a referendum was held at all as validation of their cause. You can out a positive spin on pretty much anything if you try! 

As for Danielle Smith, you could argue that she deliberately engineered this whole thing in order to shore up her own shaky position within a terminally divided UCP, by offering a sop to the substantial separatist element in her party. In the end, though, she is despised by the separatists for not doing enough, and disliked by the federalist contingent for risking the province and its future by enabling a referendum inntge first place. Her position is now shaker than ever, with both sides calling for her resignation, and her personal populatity has fallen to an all-time low in recent weeks.

She also may have damaged the UCP's chances in the next election. A Pollara poll taken between 2nd and 15th October shows the Alberta NDP with a four-point lead over the UCP. 

As a political strategy, then, Ms. Smith's initiative can only be described as a fiasco, a debacle, a washout, whatever epithet you prefer. You can't open Pandora's Box and then just say, "Can we move on?"

Toronto's gridlock is actually getting better, not worse

Believe it or believe it not, statistics show that the horrendous traffic in Toronto's downtown is actually getting better.

A measurement called the Traffic Time Index (TTI), used by many cities around the world, compares rush hour traffic times to times when traffic is flowing freely. A TTI of 2.0, for example, indicates that traffic takes twice as long in rush hour as when there's little or no traffic.

This July, Toronto's city-wide TTI came in at 1.587, using navigation data from an arms-length third party. In July of 2025, this figure was 1.698, in July 2024 it was 1.738. If we were to go back to June 2018, Toronto's TTI was an embarrassing 2.324. 

It's unclear to me how this metric differs from that used in its global statistics by Tom Tom, which has Toronto with a traffic index of 47.7% (equivalent to a TTI of 1.477), significantly better than many American, British and European cities, and a world away from Mexico City's 75.9% congestion. But Tom Tom too has Toronto's congestion as improving, as does INRIX's rankings.

Construction is the biggest single contributor to gridlock in Toronto. In July 2024, a huge 18% of Toronto's road capacity was closed for construction. More recent figures are not available, but presumably it has gone down, even if it doesn't feel look it on the ground.

So, by these metrics, Toronto's traffic is not great but not that bad. Importantly, it's improving annually. So, Mayor Olivia Chow, currently standing for re-election, can justifiably claim that measures like increasing traffic agents at major intersections, reducing construction closures, and adjusting traffic signal priorities, are all having a positive effect, even if it doesn't really feel like it in practice.

Traffic and gridlock has emerged as a top issue with voters in the current mayoral race. This report is well-timed to give Ms. Chow a boost.

The commonest birthdays in Canada

Here's a fun thing, for a change: a graphic of the most common birthdays in Canada, based on data from the last 30 years.

Unsurprisingly, February 29th is the least common followed by dates on or around Christmas and New Year - no-one wants to be in labour on Christmas Day or New Year's Eve, and hospital staff definitely don't want them to be.

The most popular birthday is 20th September, for no good reason that I can see. In fact, 9 of the 10 most popular days are in September.

In broader terms, the summer months (lighter colours on the chart) are the period of the most common birthdays, while the winter months (darker colours) are the least common. And it's a pretty stark dichotomy; the only real exceptions are July 1st and 2nd (Canada Day, go figure!)