Rupert Hotel December 1989*

In light of Toronto City Council further delaying making necessary reforms to rooming house regulations I've updated my poem Rupert Hotel December 1989*.  To learn more see John Michael McGrath's piece at https://www.tvo.org/article/why-does-toronto-exist-and-what-is-it-for

 

         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.

thestar.com

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
that license pinned to the wall
wasn’t worth the paper
it was printed on
as far as the protection it afforded
those 31 tenants
at the Rupert
that wintry December night.

A sprinkler system might have helped;
could have halted the fire’s progress.
And the tenants could have taken some action
if the alarm system had been operable
or if fire extinguishers 
stored in the basement were reachable.

Seventeen long minutes passed 
before someone called 911.
When firefighters arrived 
the whole building was enveloped.
Flames leapt out of top floor windows.
Fearless 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, 
cried 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 sifted through debris to locate bodies.
They found nine men
and a woman who had returned to the building 
to help a friend.
Donna Marie Cann died, 
as the others had
from 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.

*There were fires at 69 illegal rooming houses in the Toronto area between 2013 and 2017 according to the Fire Marshal. At a meeting in October 2012 as City Council delayed once again taking action on licensing, it was reported that there have been 16 fatal rooming housing fires in Toronto between 2010 and 2020 and 14 fatalities were in unlicensed rooming houses. 

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?

Paul Martin and the Common Sense Gang

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. 

Paul Martin

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.

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.

"Truly Troubling"

Back in the day when I was a municipal councillor there was no such thing as an Integrity Commissioner.

Now, according to the Municipal Act, municipalities must have such a person.

That individual is expected to report to Council in an independent manner on a number of local government functions.  For example, they will look at the application of the code of conduct for Council and local Board members and the application of any procedures, rules and policies governing the ethical behaviour of members of council and of local boards.  There are other functions set out in the Act. 

The concept of promoting transparency and ensuring codes of conduct are adhered to is a good one.   There are detractors of course. Cost is an issue.  But that is beyond the scope of this brief post.  

Let’s take a quick look at the 2020 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner for the Corporation of Norfolk authored by John Mascarin.

The report  can be found beginning at page 31 at https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CIC-Agenda-April-13-1.pdf

Here are some highlights.

Complaints

Three complaints were examined in 2020. 

1. It was alleged that Mayor Chopp offended the Code and the County’s Procedural By-law when she displayed a cartoon image of a fecal sandwich in a meeting with provincial staff.  The Commissioner found “when considered in context, however crude and juvenile the display of the cartoon may have been in a formal meeting it did not amount to a breach of the Code.”  We trust that this wasn’t a lunch meeting.

2. A second complaint grew out of the first one.  That complaint “related to the improper disclosure of the identity of the complainant on the part of the Mayor.”  A Norfolk County bylaw is clear.  The Integrity Commissioner shall identify all complainants to the individual who is subject of the complaint and require that the subject maintain the identity of the complainant as confidential. (See Section 14.6 of By-law 2018-33) Mayor Chopp contended that the Commissioner was the one who had breached confidentiality. The Commissioner “concluded otherwise” and determined it was the Mayor who had breached. 

3. This complaint alleged that the Mayor Chopp contravened three provisions of the Code of Conduct in interactions with members of the public in Port Dover on May 2nd.  The Commissioner concluded she hadn’t.

Inquiries

The report summarized  inquiries received over the last year.  They fell into three areas.  People were concerned about that fecal sandwich cartoon and the Mayor’s public square haircut stunt but most importantly, in my view, were concerns regarding the dysfunction of Council. 

Haircut Protest - Photo from blogTO.com

The Commissioner called this situation “truly troubling.”  

Council Relations

The November 17, 2020 Council meeting is cited. Many will recall that the attempted addition of the topic of Council Relations to the Agenda prompted the mayor to make allegations of a witch-hunt, axe and replace the Deputy Mayor, and exit the building in the midst of the meeting.

In an understatement the Commissioner wrote that  “the acrimony between members of Council was never more apparent than at this meeting.” And if you thought that was bad the Commissioner noted that “we have been advised that the level of discord has not abated in 2021.”

Should the average Norfolker care if Council members get along?

For sure.

The report notes: 

• The lack of team unity.

• The “dread” some feel about attending meetings of Council and committee.

• The adversarial and hostile atmosphere both inside and outside the Council Chambers.

• That Council operates in a debilitated state but also in a selectively secretive manner with a “complete disregard for the Code of Conduct, Council and staff policies, and policies that are put in place to protect members of the public.”

Council training and team building, agreed to some time ago,  have not happened yet.  It may be too late for the team of 2018-2022.  But when elections come around in October 2022 voters should expect answers from incumbents and contenders on how this will all be fixed. 

Worrying about “Backyard” Birds

Following is a little piece that I wrote last year before COVID hit and we had other things to worry about then birds in our backyards.   Here is hoping this year we will return to something approaching normalcy.

----------

Last year I had planned to sign up for the Great Backyard Bird Count. I just forgot to do it.  Next year I’ll sign up for sure although it presents some issues for me.

The Great Backyard Bird Count (GBBC) (https://www.birdscanada.org/bird-science/great-backyard-bird-count/) is billed as a free, fun, and easy event that engages bird watchers to count birds.  You can do this for as little as 15 minutes in your backyard or anywhere you want for that matter.  The Count is open to experts, beginners or non-experts like me. 

I wish my excuse for forgetting the GBBC last year was that I was busy. However, for the days in question mostly what I was doing was sitting at my keyboard, concocting excuses for not doing housework and looking out my windows at my bird feeders.  

(I’ve got eight feeders up right now. One family member says eight is too many.  A Port Rowan neighbour has fourteen, I point out, so you can’t really object to eight, right?)

But, back to my point here which is that I’ve been thinking and thinking and thinking some more about backyard birds; the context being that we run a small bed and breakfast and many of our guests are birders.  The contemplation of this conundrum is causing me considerable anxiety.

Do you know any birders? 

I’m generalizing here but birders are much like any other people who adopt an intense interest in a hobby. They are enthused, obsessed;  some even fanatical. 

The French novelist Honore de Balzac has said that,  “a hobby is a happy medium between a passion and a monomania.” 

Humour columnist Dave Barry wrote that hobbies of any kind are boring except to people who have the same hobby.

These insights are not lost on yours truly.  

And then there is the whole problem of what to call the hobby/obsession.

I realized that I wasn’t sensitive to this issue when watching the movie - The Big Year.  In that flick Steve Martin’s character (Stu) is insult put down by a professional for leaving work to go bird watching.  Stu took great umbrage.

“It’s called birding,” huffed Stu!! 

 Our home is located in great birding territory.  Indeed, it is a not so well known fact that more bird species have been seen in the Port Rowan/Long Point area than the much ballyhooed Point Peele vicinity. 

Issues

Carolina Wren seen IN our Backyard

Some have suggested that we ought to keep a list of all birds seen in our backyard. There are, however, a number of vexing issues that the development of such a list would present.

For example, to be counted does a bird actually have to touch down in our yard? That would be a fairly clear-cut definition to use.

But what if, say, one observes a “good” bird flying over one’s yard? We had an immature bald eagle fly past sometime back.   Now, to be frank, it is probably more accurate to say it was over the neighbour’s yard. But let’s face it, our list would be a superior one if I could add that bald eagle. So, I’m leaning to the backyard list inclusion criteria being “seen from my backyard.” That should make for a better quality list.

But here’s another worry. From my front yard I have a distant view of the Inner Harbour of Long Point Bay on Lake Erie and this will surely produce many shorebirds and an enhanced list. In fact, a few years ago on Easter Sunday we recorded a couple of white pelicans flapping and gliding over the Bay. Clearly, it will be more gratifying for my guests, then, if that backyard list captures anything that can be seen from the front yard as well.

White Pelicans seen FROM
our Backyard

 I’m certain the guests will be keen to contribute to the   list. In fact, repeat visitors (some do actually return)   could be encouraged to have their own personalized list.   Perhaps this will be an incentive to return.

 Do I anticipate problems? Well, I’m told that some   birders can be competitive and argumentative.  (Did I   mention that we took photos to document those white   pelicans?)  

 So, if there are disagreements on sightings will it fall to  the reluctant but affable host to resolve disputes?

 And will guests be trampling all over my much-in-need   of  landscaping front yard in an effort to maximize their  viewing range

And what about the neighbours?

Lots to think about....

Raising Social Assistance Rates

I just read an interesting policy paper from Open Policy Ontario.

Authored by John Stapleton and Yvonne Yuan the paper looks at the question of whether  higher social assistance rates lead to higher caseloads during recessions.

Well, they don’t.  

The authors conclude that when you take a look at unemployment data and minimum wage levels over time you’ll see that that higher social assistance benefit levels will not result in more people on social assistance. 

Stapleton and Yuan recommend immediate implementation of either: 

1. Raising the single Ontario Works assistance rate by 14.3% to $838 per month to equal 40% of full-time minimum wages along with parallel increases for other family sizes or 

2. Raising Ontario refundable tax credits by $1,365 per year so that all low-income single people can benefit from an increase in income. 

They also recommend that minimum wages be immediately increased to $15.00 per hour.

Read the report at https://openpolicyontario.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2021/03/culprits-20210219r-sacs.pdf

----------

Fast Facts

• There has been no increase in rates since 2018 a continuation of a gradual downward slide in the value of social assistance that began with a drastic cut in 1995.  
• According to the Ontario government, evidence shows that racially diverse, newcomer and low-income communities have been impacted more significantly by COVID-19 than others.
• The federal government’s response to the pandemic has identified $2,000 per month as a “basic income” for people who have lost their jobs. The current rates for single individuals on Ontario Works (OW) is $733 and for Ontario Disability Support program (ODSP) is $1,169.00 fall far below this “basic income.”. 
• The annual cost of poverty in Ontario is between $27.1 and $33 billion taking into account loss of tax revenue and increased expenses in the health and justice systems (Feed Ontario. The Cost of Poverty in Ontario 2019, p.4).  

Here is a link to a chart that illustrates how the buying power of social assistance rates has continued to sink over the years, because of minimal or no annual increases to match inflation. 

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvRzOEPfSVfDvQTzDtVAYONTQ22W?e=LJGTc5