Rupert Hotel Fire - 31 Years Ago

Wednesday December 23rd marks the 31st anniversary of the terrible fire at Toronto’s Rupert Hotel.

This past November the City of Toronto took steps to come up with new regulations that would be part of a comprehensive city-wide regulatory framework for multi-tenant houses.  

These regulations would be developed using a human rights lens thus “ensuring regulatory oversight to protect tenant life safety and create liveable,  well-maintained and affordable places to live.” 

You can read a report that talks about this process at http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.PH18.2 

This is good news.  Hopefully new polices will be in place soon. 

Meanwhile many in our province continue to live in perilous and dangerous conditions like those that I wrote about last year in Rupert Hotel December 1989*. 

---------------

                         Rupert Hotel December 1989*

         Gordon was sorry

         but it was tough keeping warm

         and he’d had some to drink 

         so setting fire to those papers on the floor in the middle 

         of his second-floor room made some kind of sense.

         At the Rupert Hotel, a three-storey brick walk up 

         in a licensed city rooming house 

         off Queen Street East 

         at Parliament

         those with few options and few dollars could exist, 

         in a way. 

         Gordon’s warming fire soon leapt out of control 

         flames and choking smoke filling the corridors 

         as the fire gained full possession of the hallways.

         The license pinned to the wall wasn’t worth the paper 

         it was printed on as far as the protection it afforded 

         the 31 tenants at the Rupert

         on this wintry December night. 

 

         A sprinkler system might have halted the fire’s progress.

         Perhaps tenants could have taken action 

         if the alarm system had been operable 

         or fire extinguishers stored in the basement were reachable.

 

         It was 17 long minutes before someone called 911.

         When firefighters arrived 

         the whole building was enveloped. 

         Flames leapt out of the top floor windows.

         Firefighters using ladders forced their way 

         into the searing heat of the second floor.  

         Later a witness called it 

         “A Vision out of Hell.”

         As the fire raged people screamed, crying out for friends.

         It took six hours and eighteen crews to subdue the blaze.

         Thankfully, some tenants were saved and many escaped. 

         For days crews chopped through ice and debris to locate bodies. 

         They found nine men. 

         A woman had returned to the building to help a friend 

         Donna Marie Cann died, as had the others, 

         of heavy smoke inhalation.

        Soon an inquest was held.

        Recommendations were made    

        new rules created 

        regulations established

        housing planned.

        After a while all was forgotten.

        Rules and regulations lapsed, 

        were ignored or opposed 

        and the programs ended.

        In the city today austerity policies 

        compel people to rent rooms 

        in perilous and dangerous buildings. 

        Many flee the downtown to illegal suburban homes 

        where life is cheaper.

*According to the Fire Marshal, there were fires at 69 illegal rooming houses in the Toronto area between 2013 and 2017.

----------

Rupert Hotel December 1989* was published earlier this year in Literature for the People (Editor Raymond Fenech) and received honourable mention in the Norfolk Literary Prize competition.

Getting it Right

 

Reforming Social Assistance - Evidence Based Rates

Of course, we need social assistance rates that have some connection to the cost of living.  Here is a story I wrote and posted on my blog on that topic nine years ago.  I’ve updated it slightly.

------

In the mid-nineties Mike Harris’ government reduced social assistance rates in Ontario by 22%. 

There was no economic rationale for this move – just a stupid, mean spirited, ill informed attempt to make social assistance rates unattractive.  By doing this it was presumed that to people would find jobs that didn’t exist or that they weren’t qualified to do.

In addition, getting on to social assistance was made much more difficult as people were forced to reduce their assets before qualifying.  What kind of reductions?  Well, today (2011) a single person applying for Ontario Works is permitted to have a maximum of $592 in assets in order to qualify so that they can receive a maximum of $7,104 annually.

The issue of inadequacy of social assistance rates must be addressed.  At the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, where I work, we believe that social assistance rates need to have some relation to the actual cost of rent, food and other basic necessities in communities across Ontario.

A few years ago the Clinic, with the leadership of staff lawyer Craig Foye (pictured below) drafted legislation that proposed the idea of setting up an expert panel that each year would recommend evidence-based social assistance rates to the Provincial Government. “An Act to Establish the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board” (Bill 235) was introduced for first reading as a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature by MPP Ted McMeekin on June 4, 2007.

Unfortunately, the Legislature was then prorogued the next day in anticipation of a fall election, meaning the Bill was effectively discontinued. The Bill has not yet been reintroduced. Since that time the Clinic and others have continued to advocate with government to implement a process for determining evidence-based social assistance rates.  

 The Clinic has advocated for: 

an arm’s length body to recommend evidence-based social assistance rates on an annual basis. Those rates should be based on an analysis of the actual costs of rent, a healthy food basket, and other basic necessities in communities across Ontario, and should provide a level of assistance that will allow individuals and families to live with dignity. An example of such a body is the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board as proposed in the former Bill 235 introduced on June 4, 2007.

The NDP’s Paul Miller has championed a similar bill over the last several years. https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-60

In its current form, passage of the bill would establish the Social Assistance Research Commission. The Commission would recommend social assistance rates and makes other recommendations about social assistance policy. The Commission would consist of people with expertise relevant to the Commission’s work.

The Minister would be expected to prepare a written response to the recommendations in the annual report.  That written response would be available to the public within 60 days after the Minister received the report.

Ontario: No Place to Stand

It seemed appropriate on the 25th anniversary of Mike Harris being elected Premier in Ontario and days after an elderly protester was pushed to the ground by police in Buffalo that I reprint this story of mine from August 2000.

----------

Gordon Askwith recalls visiting the provincial legislature in 1990 for a large open house.

On that October evening over 5,000 people wandered through the legislature.

That seems like a long time ago to Askwith now.  Nearly ten years later on June 15th (2000), the 79-year old was knocked to the ground at Queen’s Park during a riot.  He believes it was the police who put him there.

Askwith was not part of the demonstration that day.  He had been attending a course at the University of Toronto, just a stone’s throw away (no pun intended), and decided to come over and see what was going on. 

Photographs Askwith took that day document a smoke bomb going off on the steps of the legislature, mounted police officers moving into the crowd and more.

The one picture that is missing is of a woman being arrested by six officers.  Askwith was preparing to take that shot when he suddenly found himself upended.

He tells me he was well away from the demonstrators at this time, under some trees.  The only individuals close him were Toronto police.

I have known Dr. Askwith, a Burlington resident, for some time.  An artist, veteran of World War II, social worker, active in his church and on peace and social justice issues, he doesn’t know why he couldn't stand under some trees approximately 75 metres from the legislature’s doors.

This should concern us.  There seems to be nowhere for those who disagree with the policies of the Harris government to stand.  In days gone by, protesters could expect to convene outside the legislature and criticize the government of the day.  Opposition politicians and government representatives would be cheered and jeered.  That is what is supposed to happen in a democratic society.  But that opportunity doesn’t exist anymore

The demonstrators had gathered some distance from Queen’s Park, listening to the emotional accounts of the 22 homeless people who had died since last November.

Brenda Dolling, a retired schoolteacher who was part of the protest, says they proceeded to Queen’s Park “in an orderly, calm fashion.”

(Other accounts, mainly from a Harris-friendly media, suggest some had come looking for the fight they got.)  Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) leaders demanded an opportunity to address the legislature.

Now, Premier Harris will stand in his place and accept responsibility for creating a housing crisis in Ontario before OCAP leaders will be given the opportunity to speak to our Provincial Parliamentarians.  OCAP knows this.  But apparently, they believe the symbolism of not being allowed to speak makes an important statement.  Unfortunately for their cause, this “statement" got lost in the mad media rush to denounce the protesters as instigators.  An inquiry now being called for by a coalition of community groups and unions may, in fact, show that it was the police who were out of control,

Whatever is proved, it’s clear that OCAP has not been successful at getting its message to the broader public.  What do opponents of the Harris government need to do?

Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has spent a lifetime fighting for justice.  His tactics, described in Uncivil Obedience – The Tactics and Tales of A Democratic Agitator, could provide a blueprint for those wanting to develop a broad coalition.

Simply put Borovoy believes that there is no justification in a democratic society for breaking the law to get justice.   Borovoy believes that there are enough legal tools at the disposal of activists to right injustice without resorting to breaking the law. 

“We should obey the law but stick it to the government anyway,” he writes.

Some recommendations from Borovoy:

• Exert enough pressure to make authorities negotiate but not so much they will lose. Arguing against the use of violence for moral and tactical reasons, Borovoy believes the key to any kind of victory is public opinion.  You have to get the fence-sitters on your side and the way to do is to negotiate and compromise.

• Speak over the heads of those attending.  While only the converted may attend a rally or demonstration, the message must go over the heads of those present to be effective.  A well organized event achieves this.

• Use the strength of your opponent.  Borovoy recognizes that publicizing the extreme positions of his opponents was often the key to success.  Pull your adversaries’ tails and they will squeal obligingly.

To be effective groups must use strategies like these to broaden their collation and present effective alternatives.

When this happens people like Gordon Askwith may feel at home at Queen’s Park again.

----------

This story originally appeared in FOREVER YOUNG in August 2000.

The Budget

On a long ago budget day, a procedural quirk

put a simple regional ward councillor

in a position to freeze the police budget.

Ward councillors don’t obstruct police budgets

because, as we all learned as kids,

the police(man) is our friend

does important and dangerous work

protects and keep us safe and

for all of this deserves to be well paid.

These are things that ward councillors,

even simple ones, should understand.

But since the common sense drumbeat

set the revolution in motion

we have come to know that the best government is

to have practically no government at all

and respect for hard earned taxpayer’s dollars

is the order of the day.

Others are compelled to run their ship tightly

while the law and order liner sails unimpeded

through the calm waters of political indifference.

On that budget day, the simple ward councillor

Having, for a time, ascended

to the lofty heights of budget committee member

advanced what was (by his own humble admission)

a particularly persuasive presentation

convincing the one colleague who needed convincing

that police spending should be apprehended and

it was a great day for local democracy

or at least it seemed that way.

But the votes aren’t counted

until the politicians raise their hands

and when they did

the police got their money, as they always do.

No media or public witnessed the sad event though

police brass made time in otherwise busy days

to behold the councillor’s misbegotten manoeuvre.

Following his 15 minutes of small town fame

our councillor drove his car like an undertaker.

Even now, my lane changes are by-the-book perfect

and inviolable police budgets escalate still.

This piece was originally published in the Dream, the Glory and 

the Strife edited by Raymond Fenech, Hidden Brook Press, 2018.

Contracting out employment services in Ford’s Ontario

Less than three months ago I wrote this piece for Canadian Dimension.  At the time I worried that contracting out employment services for social service programs might not be the best idea because maybe there weren't jobs out there.  Then came the C-19 Pandemic and the disappearance of countless existing jobs.  What now?  Maybe a rethink of these prototype projects would be in order.  

----------

Ontario’s self-styled Government-for-the-people has announced new “prototype” projects to run social service employment programs.

Prototype service mangers were revealed in February for Hamilton-Niagara, Peel and Muskoka. 

Employment services for social assistance recipients will now be integrated into a new regional level of bureaucracy called Service System Managers.

The government seems confident that lessons learned from the prototypes should shine a light forward for province–wide changes by 2022. 

Premier Ford -
May find this file more Complicated
than License Plates

But, dare I say, this is a much more complicated file than the recent “Open for Business Invisible-at-Night” car license plate roll-out.

Questions and Concerns

These changes are needed, the government says, because an Auditor General’s report said key Employment Ontario programs were not effective. In that context, handing over more responsibility to Employment Ontario is a curious step.

Let’s look at Hamilton where the service manager will be an American non-profit company.  Fedcap promises “to spread the power of possible.” Hopefully, what’s spread won’t run afoul of authorities like in New York and New Jersey where in 2018 the Labor Department determined that Fedcap stiffed 443 employees out of nearly $3,000,000 of legally required pay and benefits.
An understanding of and a respect for employment laws ought to be a given for those running employment programs.  Knowledge of the local labour market is too and Fedcap lacks that knowledge.

In Peel Region, WCG, a Canadian subsidiary of a multi-national corporation based in Australia, will be the manager. Presumably, they’ll have more Canadian knowledge than Fedcap since they have been operating similar programs in British Columbia and Alberta for some time.

They’re a private company though.  And that’s a concern since the three prototype organizations (Fleming College is the Muskoka manager) will be paid according to how many social assistance recipients they connect to jobs.

A new report by the Maytree Foundation cites research from Australia.  Down under private companies running similar programs had difficulties meeting placement targets that their funding was dependent on.  The companies responded by focussing efforts on helping those clients who had better chances of finding employment. 

That raises more questions.

Does this government understand the system it wants to reform? Are there actually jobs out there to place people in?

The job market has changed significantly in the last 25 years since a previous Conservative government applied their dogmatic Common Sense ideology to these matters.

The old economy featured decent jobs requiring routine skills for which many people were qualified. But today about a quarter of new jobs in Ontario are considered non-standard (temporary, part-time, on-call and self-employed work) and not within reach of many.

And what about the people on social assistance? They are staying on assistance longer because of significant systemic and individual barriers that experts say require a range of service and supports.  

To be fair, the government seems to recognize this need. They’ve indicated that a wrap-around supports model will focus on “life stabilization” for people who would not immediately benefit from employment and training services.  
Typically, with this government details are vague.

This employment services transformation “prioritizes the needs of employers at the expense of social assistance recipients.”  That’s what policy experts at the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) say.

I’m afraid they’re right.

This story originally appeared in the March 5th edition of Canadian Dimension https://canadiandimension.com/articles/author/bob-wood
Canadian Dimension is the longest-standing voice of the left in Canada.

Empty Buses

I see that Hamilton City Council is deliberating on public transit issues as part of their budget discussions today.  And, it is no surprise that one Council member has raised the false issue of empty buses.  

Here is a little story I put together based on my experiences as a Councillor and transit advocate back two decades ago.  Clarovista is a fictional place.

----------

One thing I’ve learned in my short career in municipal politics is that municipal politicians know how to problem solve.  It is what they do.

And the elected officials at Clarovista City Hall are no exception.

Take the issue of public transit for example.

Public opinion is divided on transit in Clarovista.

Some people want it.  And others don’t.

Now the people who want it are mostly those that use it or would use it if the service was any good.
Those who don’t want it or don’t want much of it or don’t want it on their street mostly have garages and two or three cars in their driveways.

These people with cars and garages worry about buses a lot particularly the matter of empty buses.  And they let their Council members know.

Councillor Roger Harris is particularly responsive.  Few buses run through Councillor Harris’ ward. 
Those that do sure look empty to his constituents.

I’ve tried in public and in private conversations to explain empty buses to Harris. They happen routinely in the transit world, I say. They get empty when going in the opposite direction to rush hour peak flows and at the end of routes. Some times of day are less busy and some areas of the municipality have fewer riders.

Harris himself has not been on a bus since riding a yellow one to day camp back when Diefenbaker was Opposition leader and C.D Howe and the Liberal Party were arrogant and flogging pipelines.
Harris has ideas on how transit management can address the empty bus dilemma. Small buses are the way to go. They cost less and the optics would be better.  And, if the route ran every hour instead of every 20 minutes, we could save money.  Councillor Harris puts energy into the sketching out better routes for the buses.  Tricky stuff. 

Tonight, we receive the annual transit review.  It is the only area of our responsibilities that we review each year.

Questions of staff focus on efficiency, pros and cons of raising fares, decreasing support from the province.  Councillors have ideas in all of these areas.

But Councillor Harris’ brainwave stops the meeting.

“Why can’t the buses just go back to the garage when they are empty?”