Tit for tat

Plans to upgrade and run jets at Billy Bishop airport were shot down this past week. As seems to happen, residents opposed to the plan were labeled as a “small fringe group” and Premier Doug Ford’s transportation minister Prabmeet Sarkaria was not amused at seeing the plan scuttled.

Sarkaria’s federal counterpart, Steve MacKinnon, claims the government had received more than 87,000 responses to the project. This hardly equates with a fringe. 

Protectors of the island worry those lands will be spoiled, the harbour harmed and the efforts to retain some semblance of a waterfront in Canada’s largest city will be further imperiled. Think Ontario Place and what has transpired there.

The Globe and Mail offered a further perspective from Sarkaria: “It’s also about building big projects … You know, if Prime Minister Carney and his team, if this is how they’re going to treat bigger projects, I don’t think you’ll get much built.” 

That peculiar tone is problematic, yet emblematic of the current political climate where big is often considered better. We don’t care much for that sentiment, particularly when many of the systems – whether health care, senior needs, rent geared to income housing solutions or other needs – are not up to snuff. Big-ticket items are in that case a distraction.

With this news the government of Ontario signaled it may not continue supporting the massive project of high-speed rail, known as the Alto line. Internal communications to party members suggest they intend to keep pushing the Billy Bishop expansion regardless.

The next source of angst with the story was numerous outlets referring to the reaction from MPs, now speaking against Alto. The fact is, these were MPPs, as we thought. It’s hard enough to keep stories straight without broadcasters adding confusion.

At any rate, this whole debacle and this tit-for-tat reaction makes us wonder how many of these projects are honestly supported as great investments. That quick rejoinder does not instill confidence in weary taxpayers.

Around the corner

Up on Queen Street overlooking Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow and councillors have been discussing in recent weeks “dynamic and surveillance pricing.”

As a champion for privacy rights since the Internet took root, we have heard politicians of every stripe concede that the right to privacy has been lost. 

Tethered to phones for the past two decades, corporations know more about individuals than they may know about themselves. It is spooky, but many will attest “I have nothing to hide.” Yet everyone does.

Under Toronto’s discussion, when companies connect the dots and establish a consumer’s buying patterns, pricing fluctuates. And surprise, surprise, it isn’t necessarily in favour of the consumer. Indeed, as demand increases prices go up.

We could be lulled into accepting that as a natural progression of capitalism and its tenet that supply and demand factor into competition and better pricing. This is not that. 

Examples abound. Sporting and entertainment ticket prices are notorious examples. Ride sharing companies like Uber and Lyft have an incredible app for convenience, but when demand explodes, so do the prices. 

Back in the day one might call that gouging, whereas today, that’s just business.

Many moons ago we remember a gas bar on Highway 24 engaged in this unsavoury practice during a power outage. Able to pump when others couldn’t, they jacked the price up. There was a bit of mumbling and outrage amongst neighbours, but when demand is high and supply is low, people do what they need to do. 

Years later, the pumps are idle and the store closed. While there may be more to the story than that, consumers eventually walk when treated poorly.

There is dreadful irony here: big tech and big business will know where the consumer walked and start the process all over again. Without privacy, it is almost impossible to escape their clutches.

Regulation is needed.