Article content continued

Gurney: I’m like you. I don’t care where the money comes from, so long as it’s a real plan to come up with actual money, not just some plan to find magic private-sector money or capture savings that never seem to materialize. The original Metrolinx plan wasn’t great, but it was fine, and I’m sure whatever the Golden panel will come up will equal it, for better or worse. But the entire conversation is monumentally academic unless, as you aptly put it, the Liberals recall where they misplaced their … let’s stick with “stones.” Metrolinx had a plan. Further, Metrolinx is a provincial agency tasked with exactly this issue, so arguably, the Metrolinx plan was the government’s plan by default. And then … nothing happened, because the Liberals can’t complete this sentence without having an anxiety attack: “The Toronto region needs transit, transit costs money, we currently don’t have the money, so logically, we should … ” That’s when the cold sweat starts and the Liberals run for the hills. I have a lot of respect for Anne Golden and her long career of service, but unless her panel also found a way to install some backbone into Premier Wynne, we’re right back where we started.

Goldsbie: Whether the Liberals have the courage to advocate for increased taxes (the safe bet generally being no) is only one part of the political question. In its effort to build itself into a populist alternative, the Ontario NDP has taken to opposing any new or increased taxes that would affect individuals rather than corporations; there’s no doubt they would support new business taxes, but it’s also very easy to see them actively campaigning against increases to the gas tax. And regardless of the degree of support at Queen’s Park, it’s not at all clear whether the public at large could be convinced of such solutions, especially when the Tories are out there championing the bulls**t suggestion that infrastructure could be funded solely or even largely through government efficiencies. (Land value capture has its own serious issues as a funding tool, but they’re fairly complicated and so I’m happy to wait for the details of this particular proposal before critiquing it.) For me, the most hopeful thing out of this report is the attempt to tackle the over-arching discourse about the relationships between the public, the government, and money. Whether true or not, there’s a prevailing cultural belief that government can’t adequately be trusted with public funds and that, because of this, new or increased taxes should be viewed with deep skepticism. So, according to the Star, the Golden panel will advocate for “dedicated funding, protected in a trust, so governments can’t use transit dollars to pay for other projects and services.” Such a thing probably isn’t actually necessary — but if it helps ease the public onside, then it could be immensely useful.