By Gazette Staff

March 18^th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

Leader of the NDP Opposition Marit Stiles going after Premier Doug Ford in the Legislature

Marit Stiles, Leader of the Ontario NDP and Official Opposition is calling out Doug Ford’s latest excuses for his sweeping Freedom of Information (FOI) changes:

“These are ridiculous excuses,” said Stiles. “The Premier isn’t worried about China, he is worried about what the people of Ontario will see when his phone records are released.

“This is democratic backsliding, plain and simple. The Premier is making every excuse under the sun to justify changing the rules so he and his Cabinet can hide from public accountability.

“Under Ford’s latest rules, a Greenbelt developer would no longer need to pass brown envelopes to the minister’s chief of staff at an industry banquet; they can just send an email, and none of it would be FOI-able.

“Ford proudly proclaimed in 2019 that he would ‘restore trust, accountability, and transparency in government,’ but his government has become the very thing that he promised to protect Ontarians against – a scandal-ridden government that’s out-of-touch with Ontarians.

“The only person Doug Ford is protecting is himself. This is about his phone records. He lost in court and now he is moving the goalposts to hide the truth from the public. Premier, what exactly are you afraid that the people will see?”

By Gazette Staff

March 17, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

Last Friday, March 13^th, cabinet minister Stephen Crawford,  Minister of Public and Business Service, Delivery and Procurement, announced some sweeping changes how Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are going to be handled.

For the last four decades, FOI legislation has allowed journalists and members of the public to ask for documents from ministers’ offices and from the Premier’s office.

This is a huge change, and more importantly, it’s going to be retroactive.

Freedom of Information laws have given journalists and the public a window into how government really works, but now the Ford government says it plans to change those rules in a way critics warn could slam that window shut. The province wants to rewrite the laws so records held in the offices of the Premier and Cabinet ministers are no longer accessible through FOI requests. The change would apply retroactively, affecting ongoing battles over documents tied to issues like the Green Belt scandal, the Skills Development Fund and even the Premier’s personal cell phone records.

This is going to impact several of the long-standing battles over public documents.

Journalists and the public won’t get anything from Minister’s offices.

In a Zoom call between Michael Friscolanti: Editor-in-Chief, Village Media and Scott Sexsmith: Podcast Host/Editor at Village Media and  Jessica Smith Cross, the editor in chief at the Trillium Queen’s  Park Bureau,

Michael Friscolanti: What is a Freedom of Information request and is it an important tool in our toolkit, and maybe what that process looks like when filing one.

Jess:  This is a process that’s open to anybody, not just journalists and opposition parties and activists, these are the the people who probably use them the most. You go online and there’s a form that you fill out, you pay $5. Describe the record or records that you’re looking for and where they’re held. It could be the minister’s office or the ministry.

Jessica Smith Cross, the editor in chief at the Trillium Queen’s  Park Bureau.

It could be a university or publicly funded college. There are a lot of institutions that to these requests. Staff will go through and look for those records, and then just make a decision about whether or not they can be released under the Freedom of Information Law, and if they can be sometimes they’re released with redactions, and usually have to pay a fee for the processing time.

If you’re looking for a single record that’s easy to find, it actually might not cost anything. But if you’re asking for big, broad requests, you know all the emails sent by people on this issue within the government, which you can ask for, you could be talking hundreds. We have some requests out on behalf of the trillion that have been giving $1,000 plus price tags.

This has been the practice for more than 30 years. Today’s change is that ministers offices and the Premier’s offices are going to be exempt. Now this isn’t a change that’s happened yet. The province just announced that it’s going to table some legislation that, when passed, will do this. I’m going to get into the weeds a little bit here.

It’s always been off limits to get the documents related to cabinet decisions. The idea behind that is that when the Premier and Cabinet Ministers get together to make big decisions about government policy, they should be able to speak their minds freely and disagree with each other, and nobody gets to know what goes on behind the closed cabinet doors, and that extends to records that would show those deliberations.

And for years, there have been battles between journalists and activists and governments about how broad that cabinet confidentiality should be interpreted. But now the government is saying no, no records held by cabinet ministers at all or the premier, and making that even more complex and worse for us, quite frankly, is they’re doing it retroactively, so all of the requests that are outstanding now, and there are many, are going to have that standard applied once the law passes.

Friscolanti:  Tell us, in a practical way, what this means to people looking for documents?

Jess: we’ve submitted a whole series of requests looking for documents that have to do with the Skills Development Fund scandal. Our interesting listeners probably know about it. This is these training funds that were given out, and we determined it was two people who tended to have some kind of relationship with the government, who had donated money to the government, had used a lobbyist who’s quite friendly with the government, that sort of thing. We’ve been reporting on this. And what we really wanted to see was the emails, the messages that would make that clear and describe that what we know already and add to it, but now, if this law is passed as described, before we get those records back, any of those emails, messages, documents, memos, whatever that are, just in The minister’s office, like the political staff side of things, it would be we won’t get them, so we would still get stuff from the non partisan civil servants who administer the process the program, but it was the political staff in the minister’s office, in the case of this program in particular, who was making the decisions, the decisions that We believe need a lot of public safety.

Friscolanti: That’s the thing that just it blew my mind as I finished watching the press conference. To be able to do that retroactively is going to have a huge impact on these requests that you and others have done, and the money that we’ve spent, and others have spent.

It sure sounds to the average person, that there’s something to hide  – that they’re saying, well, let’s just make it retroactive so we never have to give the journalists these things. What do they say to that? When they were asked that question

“Most people have no idea that FOI exists or how journalists use it, how opposition politicians or advocates use it.

It’s been a complaint of the Privacy Commissioner who oversees all this stuff and journalists for a long time that because of the access to information system, government officials are not actually documenting, thinking their decision making process, they’re avoiding creating records so that records can’t be foied and it’s harder to make good decisions when you’re avoiding things in that way. There’s also this ongoing issue that this law may interfere with government staffers using private email accounts, which they’re not allowed to do, but do anyway have done anyways in attempts to evade the foi system. So by changing it to make sure all political staffers and ministers offices are exempt from the system, they can presumably talk more freely, and we will never know what they’re saying.

Jess:  We don’t need to know that a certain cabinet minister disagreed with a government decision, but is putting on a brave face in front of the public, that’s politics, and that’s okay. But if you have you know political staffers in their office talking about the political ramifications of something that should be, something that the public could be aware that they’re talking about the drawbacks to a policy, if they’re, you know, saying something they really shouldn’t be said. And maybe the public should know,

Michael Friscolanti: Editor-in-Chief, Village Media

Friscolanti:Have you spoken any experts who think there could be a legal challenge here?

Jess: I have not been able to do that yet. Though, I think that’s a really good idea overall. When the province passes the province has a right to set the law. It’s what it can do. There are times when this government has gotten in trouble with the court challenging its decision decisions.

Friscolanti: Sure, it’s the retroactive nature of it, too. That’s where I wonder, like, how, whether there’s legal grounds to be able to say that this for sure going forward you can make this change, but how, whether it can impact these previous one but you’re right. This is something can be something that they’ll be talked about in the days to come. How do you think the public will react to this? Jess, that’s a key thing to idea. The Ford government’s obviously making this announcement on a Friday morning. Are they just hoping that this blows over? And do you think that this is the kind of thing that the public will care enough about? Friday is the day for news dumps.

Jess: I think that some people care. I can tell that, because there’s been a reaction to our first breaking news story audit already. These are people who really are highly involved in politics, who care about politics and follow it closely. The gist of the decision is pretty easy to understand. Even if you’ve never filed an foi request, you understand what the government is doing here, as for the general level of engagement in politics, some people may hear it and be like, oh, yeah, that’s politicians for you.

Jess: We’ve done all sorts of requests, but we’ve purposefully filed a handful of some really broad ones. We asked for all communications that were in the labor Minister’s office or the offices of the deputy minister and associate at the Associate Deputy Minister level, all communications about the awarding of these of this money to a handful of different groups, the ones that have been in the news, in our news stories, and what why we did it so broad is because we were hoping to get a glimpse of the why, right? Why did the minister’s office award money to these groups, and in many cases, after the Civil Service had said, Actually, these groups aren’t the most deserving in the province, the minister came in decided to award some grants anyway. So we are looking for any, anybody who had written down the why that happened, or what the consequences could could be. So that request spanned both the political Minister’s office staff and senior civil servants when this law change goes through, assuming it does anything that was just in the political staff’s hands but never made it to the civil servants discussing this stuff, I don’t think we will get any more. We should get stuff that is helped by the civil servants. Still that shouldn’t change as a result of this

Jess: One really interesting one is about an ongoing court case. Global News asked for the Premier’s cell phone records for a particular span of time. This was a really interesting one. Ususually, politicians have government issued phones that they use for government business. The premier uses his personal phone for government business. So after foi ing the government phone that had no records, they foi for the Premier’s personal cell phone records related to government business, and it actually won with the Information Privacy Commissioner and then the Divisional Court in its efforts to get those cell phone records to find out who the premier was talking to in this particular week of time. Now, if this law goes forward unchallenged, it would. It should, in theory, cut that off completely.

Friscolanti: It still amazes me. They can just do that on a Friday morning.

Friscolanti: It still amazes me. They can just do that on a Friday morning. Jess just explain to people why information is so important to our democracy, to the way we do business, why it’s so important that government records are accessible to the public, not just journalists, but the public as a whole,

Jess: The government makes decisions that are incredibly impactful in all of our lives. They have incredibly large communications teams that they use to sell those decisions to the public in the best and most flattering light. I’ve been a journalist for a long time now, and there is always more to the story than what they’re going to tell you willingly, and it’s our job as journalists to find out what they don’t want to tell us.

Access to Information laws is one big way that we can do that, to find the other side of the story that the politicians aren’t going to want to tell you willingly. Sources help. You know analysis of open documents helps too, but fois are a big part of that as why this decision makes me sad. It’s gonna make that job harder.

I knew there was something going.  It’s another element of sneakiness.

On Monday, Premier Doug Ford said he is tightening Ontario’s access to information laws to “protect” himself and his cabinet ministers from “communist China” and other hostile powers. After it was announced the government would be excluding the records of the premier, ministers and parliamentary assistants and their aides from those released under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), Ford defended the move.

By Duncan McCallum

March 17^th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

This essay is part of the Prosperity’s Path series.

In a time of geopolitical instability and a shifting world order, the challenges facing Canada’s economy have only gotten more visible, numerous and intense. This series brings solutions.

What would you do if your mortgage came up for renewal and you couldn’t afford to keep your home? A lot of Canadian homeowners have had to face that question.

The Bank of Canada went on an aggressive interest-rate hiking cycle in 2022. Prime rates, bond yields and mortgage rates followed. Most homeowners were on fixed-rate mortgages and not immediately affected, but they faced the prospect of much higher rates at renewal.

Foreclosure is an ugly business that creates problems that take years to overcome.

Consider a homeowner who’d bought in 2018 with a five-year fixed-rate mortgage. By the time of renewal in 2023, five-year rates were as much as four percentage points higher. The homeowner’s mortgage payments would have risen by nearly 50 per cent. That could be close to $2,000 per month for a million-dollar mortgage. If the homeowner was unable to afford the increase, they would have been forced to sell.

Fortunately, those high rates lasted only a year before they started coming down, and so homeowners who had mortgages coming up for renewal dodged the peak. But all still faced higher rates – manageable, but painful. In hardest-hit Toronto, delinquency rates – the proportion of mortgage holders who are behind in payments by 90 days – have more than quadrupled since the low.

Canadian homeowners have now had a taste of renewal risk – the risk that rising interest rates will cause mortgage payments to grow on renewal – but they are still unable to protect themselves from it. Available mortgages remain the same, so home ownership continues to be both more risky and less affordable than it needs to be. Can this be fixed?

First, we need to acknowledge the fundamental needs of mortgage borrowers. For most borrowers, their home is their largest asset, and it is a very long-term asset indeed. The land will be there forever and the house might be good for a hundred years. The best way to borrow for such a long-term asset is with a long-term mortgage, what I call a “Matching Mortgage,” for which the interest rates and monthly payments are fixed until the mortgage is repaid. Imagine a 25-year Matching Mortgage. Homeowners would completely avoid renewal risk.

But these needs of homeowners clash with the needs of the banks, the dominant providers of mortgage loans. Their money to finance mortgages comes mostly from short-term deposits, such as chequing accounts and savings accounts. The safest way for them to lend is with floating-rate or shorter-term fixed-rate mortgages that typically run for terms of one, three or five years.

With long-term fixed-rate mortgages, banks would face the opposite renewal risk – the risk that monthly mortgage payments didn’t rise even when their cost of deposits did. Banks cannot face this renewal risk, so banks cannot provide Matching Mortgages.

Canadian bond market is valued at $6 trillion – innovative mortgage executives are looking at how that money could be tapped.

If we want a better mortgage system, we must look elsewhere. We can start by looking to the $6-trillion Canadian bond market. Banks are active players in the bond market but only for shorter-term bonds, such as those seen for the standard five-year fixed mortgage.

In Toronto, delinquency rates – the proportion of mortgage holders who are behind in payments by 90 days – have more than quadrupled since the low.

The natural lenders for Matching Mortgages would be life insurance companies and pension funds, who have a longer horizon. We call them long-term lenders because they have long-term liabilities that are best matched by long-term loans. Matching Mortgages could be a perfect fit between Canadian homeowners and insurers and pension funds. Not only are they incentivized to provide such long-term loans, their long horizon allows them to bring special capabilities too.

Imagine a life insurance company offering a “whole life mortgage,” under which they would allow homeowners to move their mortgages from one home to the next, add and blend new borrowing if required, and even transition to an interest-only or reverse mortgage basis as they approached retirement. Imagine a pension fund offering an inflation-indexed mortgage under which the initial monthly payments would be set 20 per cent lower in exchange for an agreement that payments would be adjusted each year in line with inflation. If we can welcome a new class of lenders to Canadian residential mortgages, the innovation and benefits may be endless.

So why don’t insurers and pension funds offer Matching Mortgages already? Their problem has been an ancient piece of Canadian legislation called the Interest Act. After the first five years of a mortgage, it prohibits lenders from seeking compensation for losses they might incur if borrowers repay their loans early. Without this protection beyond five years, lenders will not lend for more than five years. While purportedly protecting homeowners from unfair charges, the Interest Act actually denies them the ability to protect themselves against renewal risk and protects banks from competition.

Homeowners’ inability to protect themselves from renewal risk by choosing Matching Mortgages leads to a number of unintended consequences. Risks can behave like dominoes. Homeowners’ renewal risk becomes lenders’ credit risk because lenders need to protect themselves against borrowers being unable to carry their mortgages on renewal. And lenders’ credit risk can then become a risk to Canada’s banks because of the massive size of their residential mortgage holdings. If lenders’ inability to renew leads to a large number of foreclosures, we will also have to fear a vicious circle with the economy declining.

With all these dominoes at play, regulators of financial institutions take notice, and with that comes another problem.

With all these dominoes at play, regulators of financial institutions take notice, and with that comes another problem. Regulators require lenders to protect themselves in at least two ways: first, ensuring that homeowners’ earnings would be sufficient to support the mortgage payments even if interest rates were two percentage points higher; and second, limiting the amortization period, perhaps to 30 years. That’s because rising mortgage rates can lead to significant growth in required monthly payments, and longer amortization periods will make these increases even larger. But in protecting themselves against potential borrower distress, short-term lenders reduce potential homeowners’ borrowing capacity by about 25 per cent. This significantly reduces the affordability of home ownership and may also exacerbate the wealth gap between younger and older Canadians.

Home ownership continues to be both more unpredictable and less affordable than it needs to be, as Canadian homeowners face the risk that rising interest rates will cause mortgage payments to grow on renewal.

Many homeowners think they are adequately served by the current system, but they face limited choice, higher monthly payments and unavoidable exposure to renewal risk. If interest rates ever returned to the levels reached in the early 1980s, the result would be calamitous.

We can and should offer homeowners the option to protect themselves against renewal risk. Matching Mortgages today would have slightly higher interest rates than five-year mortgages, in just the same way that 10-year bonds have a higher yield than five-year bonds. This could be offset by extending the amortization period by about five years, after which the monthly payments would be about the same.

Once borrowers are protected against renewal risk, we can safely adjust the mortgage underwriting process to permit lower monthly payments and greater housing affordability.

Innovation to Canada’s mortgage market is long overdue. While renewal risk to borrowers was largely forgotten during 40 years of declining interest rates, interest rate increases over the past few years have brought it back into focus. Matching Mortgages may not be the best solution for all borrowers. Nevertheless, with the addition of new lenders, new competition and new mortgage alternatives, they will bring an improvement for all.

Duncan McCallum is a former managing director and head of infrastructure finance for Canada at RBC Capital Markets. He is currently the President and CEO at NextGen Mortgage Company Inc.

By Gazette Staff

March 17th, 2026

BURLINGTON, ON

Amid a more complex and unpredictable security environment, Canada is taking decisive actions to strengthen its security and sovereignty and to reinforce the resilience and long-term strength of the country.

David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, announced an historic $200 million investment in core infrastructure for a Canadian-owned spaceport, along with other major new space-related capabilities and initiatives. This marks a significant step forward in Canada’s sovereign space program as outlined in Security, Sovereignty, Prosperity: Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.

Canadian-owned spaceport

Demand for timely and resilient launch options are at historic highs worldwide and sovereign access to space has become a critical capability underpinning national security, economic competitiveness, and reliable access to essential space‑based services.

The investment is a 10‑year, $200‑million agreement to lease a dedicated space‑launch pad that will serve as the central foundation for a multi-user spaceport near Canso, Nova Scotia. Operated by Maritime Launch Services, this spaceport will support the operational needs of the Department of National Defence (DND), the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), and the wider Government of Canada, while also offering ad hoc access to allies and partners.

Launch the North

Minister McGuinty also announced was the selection of innovators for the first round of the Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program’s Launch the North contest. This contest is providing $105 million in multi-year grants to support the development and demonstration of breakthrough technologies to advance Canada’s sovereign space launch capabilities. The goal of this challenge is to enable the launch of Canadian payloads from Canadian soil, achieving an initial light lift operational capability by 2028. For the first round of this contest, the following three highly ranked applicants have each been conditionally approved for $8.3 million in funding:

Rahul Goel, a University of Toronto who designed and built the rocket that will be used in testing the launch facility in Newfoundland.

NordSpace – NordSpace Tundra Canadian Responsive Scalable Launch

The launch site is located on the Burin Peninsula in Newfoundland

Location: Near the old Middle Head Lighthouse, just outside St. Lawrence, NL.

Facility Name: Atlantic Spaceport Complex (ASX), operated by NordSpace.

Geography: Selected for its southern position on the island of Newfoundland, allowing for safe over-water flights into the Atlantic Ocean.

Purpose: Developed for both suborbital (Taiga) and future orbital (Tundra) rocket launches. 

Rendering of the site that is under construction.

The site features two main areas: SLC-02 for suborbital flights and smaller vehicles, and SLC-01 for larger, orbital rockets. 

Canada’s contribution to the Space Race. The Canada Arm is used on most of the space flights.

Owned and operated by NordSpace in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic Spaceport Complex (ASX) is aiming to be the first operational Canadian orbital spaceport, and make Canadian history as the nation’s gateway to space. The spaceport is being designed and built for NordSpace’s workhorse orbital launch vehicles, Tundra and Titan, for year-round launches. Situated at a mid-Atlantic latitude of approximately 46° the spaceport balances orbital efficiency with geographic flexibility.

This is really exciting stuff.  Canadians created the CanadaArm, which has been used on every space mission.  The east coast locations have advantages the Americans don’t have.

The Gazette will follow up later in the week on the other two space companies involved in the competition.