Representation at City Hall

“In Canada there is no Portuguese Act, no Italian, French, Ukrainian, Jewish or German Act.”  But there is, indeed, an Indian Act.”

That was part of the message delivered by NaWalka Geeshy Meegwun (aka Lyndon George) to the General Issues Committee of Hamilton City Council on June 19th.

One of the many negative outcomes resulting from that Act, passed in 1876, was the creation of Indian Residential Schools.  The Truth and Reconciliation Commission addressed the impacts of these schools with 94 Calls to Action. Establishing Indigenous representation on local municipal councils is the next logical step in addressing Reconciliation, George, representing Hamilton’s Circle of Beads group, stated.  Circle of Beads, an Indigenous consultation circle made up of 37 members now officially speaks for Hamilton’s Indigenous Community.

In the meeting, Circle of Beads’ speakers reminded the 16-member Council that many of them had committed to investigating the idea when campaigning in the 2022 municipal elections.

“It is time to walk your talk,” said George. 

At least one Councillor missed the point.  What if other special interest groups came asking for the same thing, he queried?

But Circle of Beads is not a special interest group.  They are speaking for First Nations people who have status as a sovereign nation confirmed in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Wasn’t this clear? 

Halifax

Hamilton isn’t the only municipality to be exploring Indigenous representation on Councils. 

Last fall Halifax took initial steps toward designating a Mi'kmaw seat on its municipal council. The members of Halifax's executive standing committee recommended that regional council ask the province for the power to consider the reform. 

According to CBC Radio, Councillor Waye Mason of Halifax South Downtown, a common theme emerged from Mi'kmaw groups during consultation on Halifax's new culture and heritage priorities plan.

"What we heard, over and over again, was 'we think there should be a Mi'kmaw seat in Halifax,'" Mason said during the meeting. (Mason is a declared candidate for mayor in this year’s election.)

In fact, in 1992, Nova Scotia amended legislation to provide a designated seat in their legislature for Mi'kmaw representation.  That seat has never been filled. Instead, Mi’kmaw leaders hold regular meetings with the government.  The most recent one in June was the tenth such meeting. This arrangement appears to be satisfactory, for the time being at least.

“It is important that as leaders in this province, we do our part to uphold the nation-to-nation relationship established centuries ago by our ancestors. It is vital to discuss important items to help us better understand the vision of where we want to go in the future and how we can do so together as treaty partners,“ Chief Sidney Peters, Co-Chair of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs, stated in a press release following this year’s gathering. 

At Hamilton’s General Issues Committee, Audrey Davis, Executive Director of the Hamilton Regional Indian Centre, told committee that 85% of Indigenous people in Canada now live off reserve in towns, cities and rural areas. 

In Hamilton, census data indicates there are approximately 14,000 Indigenous residents although the number is probably higher.  Mi'kmaw residents of Halifax number about 6,000.   These population figures are small in comparison to other cities. Winnipeg counts 102,080 First Nation, Inuit and Metis (12.4% of its total population). Saskatoon at 34,890 (15%) Indigenous residents and Regina at 24,525 (13%) Indigenous residents are just two examples of denser Indigenous populaces.  

The City of Hamilton has made considerable progress in relations between City Hall and Indigenous residents. An Urban Indigenous Strategy and an Implementation Plan have been developed.  Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Friendship Centre and the City has been delayed by excessive bureaucracy.   But Audrey Davis is optimistic as “the city has committed itself to build a relationship.” 

What’s next?

A seat at council does not put the Indigenous voice first.  It includes and provides “opportunities for change that will improve outcomes of the indigenous people who call Hamilton home,” stated Ms. Davis.

A Motion for the city to ask the province to have changes made to the Municipal Act to permit a member of the Indigenous community to be a voting member of City Council gained support.

Hamilton’s urban Indigenous community may not get provincial support for an Indigenous specific seat in the foreseeable future. In the interim, a temporary non-voting seat at the Council table would be “a step forward, but a small step,” stated Audrey Davis. Whether such a position will be elected or appointed is open to discussion.

At the meeting, Lyndon George spoke to “the-send-them-back-to-their-reserves” racism promoted by nameless Keyboard Warriors. You can expect that they will continue to oppose Indigenous representation. 

In spite of such opposition, it is clear that Indigenous knowledge and expertise on issues of land, water and air should be welcomed at local tables across the country.

-----------

This story was written in June 2024. In early July, Hamilton councillors voted not to explore the addition of a new seat designated for a representative of the urban Indigenous population. See Hamilton councillors vote down Indigenous seat proposal | CBC News

Police Budgets

Here is a timely opinion piece by Mohamad Bsat.  It is called Why is Hamilton's Police Budget so taboo? and can be found at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/election-column-police-budget-1.6587782?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar  

The piece brought back memories from many years ago when I tried to reduce the police budget.I recollected that event in the poem that follows.

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

                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.

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

*Originally published in The Dream The Glory and The Strife, Raymond Fenech (Editor), Barnes and Noble 2016

Not Much Has Changed

(This story was originally published June 07, 2010 on the Hamilton Spectator Poverty Project - No Excuse https://poverty.thespec.com/page/2/ 

A "SHIFT" TO SIDEWALKS FROM SOCIAL SERVICES

The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) assists municipalities with their social program costs. Recently OMPF reconciled the 2008 allocations against real expenditures and costs and as a result many municipalities received more money. Hamilton got about $3.1 million dollars; the Region of Niagara got $2.1 million.

I became aware of this today when reading a bulletin from CATCH (Citizens at City Hall). CATCH is a volunteer community group that encourages civic participation in Hamilton. The CATCH story focused on the fact that Hamilton councillors were all going to be getting about $250,000 each to spend in their wards on sidewalk repairs. "In a shift from normal practice," they apparently decided not to follow the usual priority setting process for allocating funds. 

This is indeed a shift but it is an election year and you'll see more shifts and other silliness before October 25.

The CATCH story went on to note that $3.1 million of the $3.6 million fund being divvied up by the councillors came from the OMPF reconciliation dollars. 

But shouldn't that money be going back into social services? That suggestion was rejected by council.

I mentioned Niagara. It took its monies and put $600,000 into Emergency Medical Services and the remaining $1.5 million into an account to offset the Community Services net deficit. That makes sense; seems logical.   

Up in Thunder Bay, the city got $1.3 million back. Government member Michael Gravelle, the MPP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, was "absolutely delighted about this additional funding for social programs and other services."

Hamilton politicians seem to be marching to a different drummer here. Or am I missing something?

A Preventable Crisis

I recall standing with a one-term Ontario New Democratic MPP on Pine Street in Burlington.  It is a beautiful spring day in 1995.  A newly built non-profit housing project, Wellington Terrace, was celebrating its grand opening.  Balloons, refreshments and there is a ribbon is ready to be cut. 

“You know if we aren’t reelected there will be no more places like this built,” he told me.

No more built, I thought.  While I was sympathetic to his perspective, the view seemed more self-serving hyperbole than realistic forecast.

But the MPP was right. You know the story. 

Following World War II the federal government jumped into the housing field in a big way. Polices were slanted towards home ownership. While social housing and creation of rental housing weren’t high priorities, there were some initiatives.

Major cuts to government funding for social housing began in 1984. The Brian Mulroney government slashed national affordable housing spending by almost $2 billion. In 1993, Mulroney’s successor, Kim Campbell, cancelled all new funding for affordable housing.

Then things worsened with Paul Martin’s 1995 budget. 

On February 27 that year, Martin put on his budget boots and kicked responsibility for social housing down to the provinces.  He cancelled all spending on new social housing projects. The Finance Minister hung his hat on many of the popular clichés of the day calling for “hard choices” and “real change,” “smaller and smarter government,” bucking the status quo and “simple common sense.” 

The rhetoric mattered not at all to those who were struggling to find housing that was safe and affordable. What really mattered, as we have discovered, was that Canada now had no housing strategy; the only developed country without such a plan. 

Back to that spring day in 1995:  As I enjoyed the opening of one of the last non-profit housing communities built in Ontario, we were just months away from more cuts from the new Mike Harris government.  Their idea of common sense (in fact, they called it a revolution) included the cancellation of 17,000 units of co-op and non-profit housing that had been approved but not completed.

New Book

Recently I flashed back to that day in 1995 while reading Denise Davy’s book Her Name was Margaret - Life and Death on the Streets.

Margaret Jacobson died after falling and hitting her head in a Mr. Sub, where she'd gone to keep warm.  She was 51. 

The author gained access to nearly 900 pages of Margaret Jacobson’s medical records going back to the sixties.  Davy is able to show the impacts of deinstitutionalization quite well by doing this. I knew a few specifics about the impacts of this process/policy of discharging people into the community but had never seen it all laid out like this as she has done by using the medical records of one individual.

Her Name was Margaret is a difficult read because it is a reminder of how we lack political will to solve a solvable problem. As the author writes: “If society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable, then the way Margaret was treated shows how we have failed.”

Margaret was a child with great potential who developed mental health issues as a teen.  She had the misfortune of entering into the Ontario mental health system when the new idea of deinstitutionalization was the order of the day. Eventually, 80% of psychiatric hospital beds in Ontario were closed.  The thinking was that people with mental health issues could be better served in the community. However, without appropriate supports available in the community the idea was doomed to failure. 

 Margaret and many others were discharged to rundown unregulated boarding houses (later called second level lodging homes and more recently known as residential care facilities).  She bounced around in this world for 23 years.  Her health did not improve.

Through this, Margaret’s parents were of no help. In a letter, her father put her problems down to her “unwillingness to be delivered from the bondage of Satan….”

Denise Day winds up her book with reasons to hope that things can improve.  She cites various successful Housing First programs running in Canada and around the world.

‘Housing First’ is a recovery-oriented approach to ending homelessness that centers on quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into independent and permanent housing and then providing additional supports and services as needed.   That is how the Homeless Hub, part of a research institute devoted to homelessness in Canada, defines Housing First.

While working with people experiencing homelessness some thirty years ago, we didn’t have this rather wordy rationale for our work. I seem to recall something more like “if people just have stable. safe and affordable housing they will better able to cope with life’s challenges.”    It just makes sense.

Denise Davy asks if Margaret would have responded to those kinds of Housing First programs if they had been available to her. Her answer is yes.

This brings me back to that opening of Wellington Terrace in Burlington more than 25 years ago – the same year that Margaret Jacobson died on the streets of Hamilton.  

Wellington Terrace functions today offering 126 units of housing for older adults. Forty of those units offer some level of support.

That is the kind of support that could have helped Margaret and others.  It was needed then and is needed now but its availability has been greatly reduced by governments’ badly thought out policy and funding decisions.

As Davy says, “The mess that exists today was entirely man-made and preventable.” 

Her Name Was Margaret: Life and Death on the Streets by Denise Davy, Wolsak & Wynn, 2021, 300 pages.

Getting Worse?

There is ongoing dialogue on social media focussing on Hamilton Ontario City Council and the performance of its members.  Today, long time City Hall observer Ryan McGreal notes "they're actually getting worse. More indifferent to suffering, more reactionary, more cynical, more shameless.”

I've  retired and moved away so it is hard for me to judge however, for what it is worth,  I offer this piece from my blog written nearly ten years ago, - May  2011.

Respect for Citizens Needed at Council Meeting 

May 25, 2011

Over the last ten years I’ve attended a couple of dozen meetings of Standing Committees of Hamilton City Council.

Usually I’ve been there to watch; occasionally I’ve been presenting. From time to time I‘ve gone home happy as the issue that had prompted my attendance had been resolved appropriately, from my perspective anyway.

But almost always I’ve headed out into the real world following these meetings out of sorts because of the lack of respect that Hamilton Council consistently shows for the public.

This lack of respect takes many forms.

First, meetings frequently start late, usually because of lack of quorum. Once I was there for a 9:30 meeting that was about to be postponed. Seconds short of 10:00 a Mountain Councillor raced into Chambers arriving just under the wire so the meeting could get started. (Not having a quorum within thirty minutes of the scheduled start means no meeting.) Let’s face it those who are there to present or listen have other responsibilities that need their time.

Second, Councillors, some more than others, feel the need to get up and leave the room a lot. To be fair it isn’t easy sitting for the hours that the job requires and some, OK most, of the dialogue is tedious but these pols knew what the job entailed when they put their names forward.

Third, and this is what really turns my crank, is the propensity some councillors have for talking with the media in the middle of meetings. Way back when we were toddlers we all learned that it was rude to talk when others are talking. And someone - staff, a member of the public or another Councillor - is always talking at a Committee meeting. In my experience most municipalities’ procedural by-laws cover such matters and committee chairs have the power to enforce.

 In this context I found Andrew Dreschel’s column in today’s Hamilton Spectator interesting.

Dreschel reports that Peggy Chapman from Mayor Bratina’s office wants to start “regulating interactions in the Council Chambers.” That would include, apparently, not allowing reporters to talk with councillors during proceedings and restricting councillors from talking privately with reporters during meetings. The columnist seems to think that the Mayor’s initiative may be more about “exercising control than good form.”

But if Dreschel and others took a look around they’d likely find that Hamilton is out of step with other cities who think that at the heart of good form is respect for citizens.

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?”

Receive and File

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton over several years caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens were outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.  

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.”

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton has, not surprisingly, caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens are outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.   

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.” 

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----

Basic Income Pilot Cancelled One Year Ago Today

"What I'm announcing today is about restoring dignity to Ontarians.”

That’s Minister Lisa MacLeod  (right) speaking on July 31, 2018 while axing Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot Project (BI).

On that day, mere minutes ahead of that edict, I had an inkling from reading social media posts what was coming.   

I’d picked it up on a live stream feed shortly after 2:00 p.m. In less than five minutes Basic Income was done.

BI was a three-year pilot intended to test this idea:  Can appropriate financial support programs be delivered efficiently while improving health, employment, and housing outcomes?

The concept of Basic Income goes back at least 500 hundred years. A basic income program ran in Dauphin Manitoba from 1974-79.  When the Ontario pilot was set up in 2017 it was one of the largest in the world.  It has been attracting international attention.

How could the government know that the Pilot was not doing what it is intended to do before any data had been collected, the Minister was asked? 

“Here’s the situation," said the Minister dodging the question.  “We have seen the program isn’t doing what it is supposed to do.” 

What about the recipients? 

We will end it “ethically,” the Minister boasted.

That’s the Minister’s story.  A narrative that fits her government’s agenda but is out of sync with the stories of BI recipients.

Hearing from participants we learn that BI gave them the opportunity to plan their lives.  Prior to the pilot project, poverty and the restrictive bureaucratic rules that came with it precluded having a life plan. 

Participants are fighting back by putting their stories out there.

Jesse Golem is leading the way.  She is a photographer, a writer and a Basic Income recipient. When the program was cancelled, she “needed to do something” so she created a photo series called Humans of Basic Income (@HumansBasic) as a way to tell the stories of those who had been participating in the project. 

Some snapshots from the photos:

I can finally buy Christmas Presents for my Children

It has given me a Chance to Recover My Future

Now I have the Dignity to go back to School

Helps me Stay Healthy

I Felt Human Again

I’m a late convert to BI. I’d always thought that we should live in a society where everyone has decent housing; where people are able to earn an adequate income and, if for whatever reason, they aren’t able to provide for themselves, there will be a safety net that takes care of them. 

But I was naive. Others have been too. Why do we trust these in-the-dark politicians who can’t countenance pilot projects, especially other people’s pilot projects?  So, when the government changed…well, we should have seen it coming.  That is what happened with Mincome in Manitoba nearly forty years ago.

We’ve got no data but the stories tell us that such programs have value; changing lives in ways that decision makers can’t or won’t understand.

Let’s keep getting their stories out there.

CITY HALL MATTERS - City Managers (CAO’s)

Finding a New CAO/City Manager can be a challenge for municipalities.

Take Hamilton, for example.  Their previous City Manager, Chris Murray, left for a similar position in Toronto last summer.

In August, Council put a process in place by determining who’d be on the Steering Committee for hiring a new manager but didn’t do much else, it would seem.

Council’s composition changed significantly with seven new members elected in the fall.  But the process set in place didn’t make room for new Councillor’s involvement in the very important decision of hiring a manager.  Council’s questionable decision to move a Hiring Committee meeting to another City has raised public concerns.  It is a bit of mess and one wonders how it will all impact the work of Council over the next four years.

(An article by Cameron Kroetsch provides some historical context and analysis
https://raisethehammer.org/article/3613/whats_at_stake_in_the_city_manager_hiring_process)

Another Fine Mess

The Southwestern Ontario City of Sarnia has a mess of a different sort.

It has to do in part with building a wall.  No, not that wall. This wall is a real one and separates the mayor’s office from the administrative staff.

A 2016 report concluded that long serving Mayor Mike Bradley had created a toxic work environment by engaging in "egregious bullying and harassment" when dealing with senior city staff.

Mayor Bradley

Council acted on the report by putting sanctions in place against the Mayor.
They docked his pay, restricted his access to City Hall to work hours only and permitted him to only speak with staff through an intermediary.

Perhaps surprisingly, (voter is always right) Bradley won re-election by a large margin in October.  Many incumbent Councillors were defeated or retired.

Now the City Manager has left and a new one is needed.

Earlier this week, Sarnia Councillors voted to keep in place the sanctions on the Mayor.  An issue was whether the sanctions (on or off) will hurt the search for a new manager.

Council also voted to get an outside legal opinion on keeping the sanctions on.  That will take time and cost money.
https://www.theobserver.ca/news/local-news/sanctions-to-stay-for-now

In the Soo

Meanwhile Sault Ste. Marie Council is also looking for a new top staff person.

Mayor Christian Provenzano recommended that a Selection Committee made up of himself, an experienced and a new Councillor be approved.  Those other two members would be gender balanced.
https://www.saultstar.com/news/local-news/cao-and-city-to-part-ways-at-end-of-contract

Council, then, in an open meeting voted for three members to be part of a Selection Committee.

Sault Ste. Marie - City Hall

Mayor Provenzano also put forward the idea that money would be saved by not hiring a consultant.

It that doesn’t work they’ll start the process over again.

“But obviously if that comes to pass, we'll be back here (to Council) and we'll be talking about that," the Mayor told the Soo Today. https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/mayor-hilsinger-niro-lead-search-for-the-next-horsman-1238890

They have some time as the current City Manager doesn’t finish his four year contract until August.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out for these three cities.

Some Reading

Michael Szarka researched the whole idea of the problem of recruiting CAO’s for small municipalities in Ontario. It is an interesting read.  https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=lgp-mrps

A Taxing Time

(An earlier version of this story appeared in the Sherman Hub News and North End Breezes.)

I’ll receive my municipal tax bill in the mail this week.

Just about everyone has an opinion on taxes, right?

Take President Donald Trump. On paying taxes Donald apparently doesn’t.  “That makes me smart," he said during a debate last year.

Others have funny ideas about tax avoidance.  “Dear IRS, I am writing to cancel my subscription. Please remove my name from your mailing list.” (Snoopy - aka Charles Schulz)

I’m partial to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s adage:

“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” 

In that context, most of us look for fairness in our tax systems.  What exactly “fairness” is remains subject to debate.  Indicators, though, should include simplicity, ability to pay and transparency.

That said, multi-residential property taxation in Hamilton fails the fairness test.

Today, there is a greater awareness by tenants that they pay taxes through their rent.   Ten years ago, the Clinic and community partners reached out through the I am a Tenant and I Vote Campaign to bring this reality to public attention.

At the time, tenant advocate Tom Cooper noted that many tenants were unaware that they were, in fact, paying much higher taxes than those in single family homes.

Writing in Raise the Hammer (https://raisethehammer.org/article/577/tenants_and_taxes), Cooper used real property to property comparisons.

Tenant tax rates were, in some cases, “three times higher than the 'residential property tax rate' their neighbors in the bungalow down the street are levied,” maintained Cooper.

More recently, Don McLean, co-founder and coordinator of Citizens at City Hall (CATCH), told a tenant’s conference that the tax rate on multi-residential units in Hamilton continued to be set at 2.74 times the rate on single-family homes.

“Tenants are effectively paying 20% of their rent in the form of municipal taxes,” said McLean in March 2016.

It is a fact that Hamilton is the one of the leaders in the dubious category of taxing tenants unfairly. While cities like Toronto have set out to address the disparity, Hamilton has turned a blind eye.

Finally, the province has taken note of this injustice and last year announced a review of the property taxation of multi‐residential apartment buildings. In April, they told municipalities that property taxes for new multi-residential apartment buildings must be charged at a similar rate as other residential properties.  It is thought that this will encourage developers to build more new purpose-built rental housing.  This is a good thing.

Meanwhile, some municipalities like Hamilton have had a freeze put on any increases in the property tax burden for multi-residential apartment buildings. The freeze is in place while the issue is studied.

Let’s see what happens.  Tenants have been waiting a long time for fairness.