If opponents of the Ford govt health care plan were serious, the pushback would be something like: of course improving health care sounds great, but we need more details. What metrics will be used to ensure this is working? How will money be tracked? Etc etc /1 But nope. Notice that the most of the criticism completely ignores the goal and focuses on "the system". You hear the same thing in debates around school choice. As if "the system" is the thing that matters most, as opposed to outcomes. As opposed to PEOPLE /2

Thinking about it more, the deranged reaction to Ford's health care reforms is classically Ontarian, whereby Ontario is its own universe and predictions of doom cannot be addressed by reference to evidence from identical policies already in place elsewhere. /1 We saw this with many COVID policies, and with proposing to allow beer in grocery stores. It's as if many Ontarians believe Ontario is the first place on earth to try everything. Or maybe that the laws of the universe always apply differently here. /2

THREAD: I'll try to reconcile competing views here from @leahwest_nsl and @d_schneiderman (theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…) and @MichaelKempa1 (endorsed by @3mendous): (nationalpost.com/opinion/michae…) /1 First off, I agree completely with West and Schneiderman on the CSIS Act s.2 definition of "threats to the security of Canada". The definition is exhaustive. Sometimes legislation is worded in a way that leaves some wiggle room. Not the case here. /2

THREAD: IMO this is the most jaw-dropping revelation to come out of #PEOC thus far. The PM's national security advisor took it upon herself to make up a new definition of 'security threat' because she didn't like the one that the law required. /1

https://twitter.com/CBCNews/status/1593574893563453441

Thomas' argument is that the Emergencies Act was out of date. She's right: it was clearly drafted not only with the War Measures Act in mind, but with the possibility of violent secession of a province as the most likely unspoken threat. /2

The number of people who continue defending this absolutely massive overreach is shocking. The language of the order is so incredibly broad it captures anyone who "directly or indirectly" supports a protest for any amount whatsoever. Not just for large sums. /1 They could have limited the order to, say, accounts where intelligence information was supplied by the RCMP or CSIS. They could have set a dollar figure threshold. They could have reasonably narrowed it *any number of other ways*.

They did not. /2