Rupert Hotel Fire 33 years Later - Finally Some Progress on Reform

 

Friday December 23rd. 2022 marks the thirty-third anniversary of the Rupert Hotel fire and the loss of ten lives.

I attended a memorial service for the twentieth anniversary in 2009 at 182 Parliament Street.

Michael Shapcott speaks at 2009 event

Since that time, I’ve tried to reflect on this horrible event and the lack of progress in addressing the need for safe and affordable housing in Ontario.  

In the years following the tragedy, about 500 units of Toronto housing were created or upgraded to meet or exceed the already existing standards. Not long after a commemorative plaque was installed (read the plaque at https://www.readtheplaque.com/plaque/rupert-hotel-fire) noting that the fire "sparked action by municipal and provincial governments and community organizations to improve conditions in rooming houses."  The funding that supported the upgrades and advocacy soon ended. 

There has not been much good to report since then.  Three years aback I wrote a poem where I was cynical about austerity policies that meant progress would ever be made in addressing the lessons learned from the fire.

Well I was wrong, so it seems.

Earlier this month the City of Toronto approved a regulatory framework that beginning March 2024 will allow tenants to rent in areas of Toronto where they are currently restricted.  There will be a citywide licensing system that should go a long way in making this form of housing safer.

Rooming houses, now known as multi-tenant houses, are the only option for many in the extremely unaffordable private market in Toronto and all over Ontario for that matter.

“I’ll be honest with you, I have tried 12 times – 12 times! – to get to this vote over the course of the last 14 years,” said Councillor. Gord Perks (Parkdale—High Park), told the Toronto Star. ``It is s a remarkable step forward, and I hope that we continue that momentum.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/12/14/toronto-votes-to-legalize-rooming-houses-citywide-in-2024.html

Good news indeed.  I’m going to see who this all unfolds before I revise my poem.   Find it below.

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

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.

 

 

Court Ruling on Homelessness Item in Regina Budget

A Regina City Councillor took his own municipality to court this week. 

I wrote about the issue last week in Canadian Dimension.
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/regina-has-a-plan-to-end-homelessness-so-whats-stopping-it

On Tuesday December 13th Leblanc was before Justice John Morrall asking him to force the city administration to include $24.9 million for homelessness in the city budget.  A review of that budget began yesterday (December 14th).
 
LeBlanc was pushing for a mandamus order.  Such an order from a court obligates a government official to properly fulfill their official duties.

“Basically, three points are all agreed upon,” LeBlanc told reporters outside the courthouse afterwards as reported by sasktoday.ca. on Tuesday.

“One is the city manager’s duties are outlined in the bylaws. I say that makes it public.

Second is we gave clear direction in June to put this money in the budget.

Third is she didn’t want to do that, so decided not to. I think that’s enough for mandamus, that’s the application we’re seeking.”
https://www.sasktoday.ca/provincial-news/arguments-heard-in-court-fight-against-city-manager-6240813

City manager Niki Anderson, was represented by Milad Alishahi. 

Alishahi’s argument was that the case for mandamus had not been made.  This isn’t a legal issue.  It is a political issue and other options were available to Council members than going to court. https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/city-hall/judge-wont-decide-on-application-to-include-homelessness-plan-in-city-budget-until-wednesday

Judge Morrall agreed with lawyer Alishahi. 
 
“I find that the court should be quite leery of being involved in the political machinations and debates between members of municipal, provincial or federal decision-making bodies,” wrote Morrall.
 
More details can be found at https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/city-hall/judge-dismisses-application-to-add-funding-for-ending-homelessness-to-city-budget
 
"This application is about the principle, not the politics," said LeBlanc. "If unelected officials can choose to not implement the decision of elected bodies then the system simply falls apart," LeBlanc told the CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-ending-homelessness-court-1.6683016
 
From talking with Councillor LeBlanc, I anticipate that he will attempt to get money back into the budget to address the homelessness crisis but in a smaller amount.

Councillors Take City to Court

Earlier this week Canadian Dimension published a story I wrote on city politics in Regina. It is not quite a man-bites-dog story but neither is it something that happens every day.   

Daniel LeBlanc, a Regina City Councillor is taking his own municipality to court.  Here is that story. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/regina-has-a-plan-to-end-homelessness-so-whats-stopping-it

Councillor Daniel Leblanc

There have been some developments since that article was published.   On Tuesday most of the Regina Council signed on to a notice of motion that the Councillors who initiated the lawsuit have violated the Regina code of Ethics by-law.MN22.7 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-city-council-mayor-manager-lawsuit-homelessness-1.6675651

To consider such a motion at yesterday’s (December 7th) Council meeting required unanimous support of Council.  That was received yesterday as the two Councillors who were involved in the suit did not vote because of what, I believe, would be a conflict of interest in Saskatchewan municipalities. https://regina.ctvnews.ca/regina-city-council-passes-motion-of-confidence-in-city-manager-niki-anderson-1.6185099 

In part the motion read: 

 “affirm and convey [council’s] continued confidence in City Manager Niki Anderson” and “express its disappointment over the negative impact on City Council’s operational integrity and oversight that the initiated court action has created.” 

Court proceedings are scheduled for next Tuesday ahead of Regina’s December 14th budget meeting.

A Thought on the Norfolk County 2022 Elections

There was a bit of a brouhaha November 17th 2020 down at the corner of Colborne and Calamity.  Maybe you will remember the occurrence.

Mayor Kristal Chopp called it a witch hunt, proceeded to axe and replace the Deputy Mayor and then left the building.

Of course, when Elvis left the building cheering crowds called for an encore but on the anniversary of the day when two rival municipalities Buda and Pest found a way to get along and merged a similar bonhomie was not to be found in Norfolk County. 

What about this witch hunting phenomenon?  It became the accusation du jour.

Witch hunting can be traced back to 18th century BC in ancient Egypt and Babylonia where punishment for nasty magic was addressed in the earliest law codes. Arthur Miller’s The Crucible  brought the term back and into the world of politics during the McCarthy era.   More recently, former President Trump consistently cast himself as a witch hunt victim on a par with the defendants in the Salem Witch Trials. 

Norfolk has its own tradition with the hunting of witches. Perhaps the witch trap used by Norfolk’s first settler, John Troyer, should be relocated from Norfolk Archives to Council Chambers to prevent any further transgressions.

However, lost in the excitement of that November afternoon’s shenanigans was the whole matter of the need for some clarity on what exactly the Norfolk Deputy Mayor does.

According to Norfolk Council’s procedural by-law as amended in 2017:

Deputy Mayor shall mean a Member of Council who is appointed, by By-Law or resolution of Council, to act from time to time in the place of the Mayor when the Mayor is absent from the municipality or absent through illness, or when the office is vacant and, while so acting, such Member has and may exercise all the rights, powers and authority of the Head of Council and this authority is delegated by Council under Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001 c.25

Not really helpful, is it?

Whatever the outcome on October 24th here is hoping the new Council will function with a much higher level of decorum and respect for its members and citizens.

And maybe they will update that procedural by-law as it relates to deputy mayor duties. 

Writing a Letter

Yesterday I sat down to write a letter to my Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP).

I’ve written similar letters in the past and received no response.  Perhaps I need a new approach. 

Maybe my letters haven’t been clear enough. Do my sentences run on? Does my correspondence suffer from subject verb disagreement?  Surely it must be one of these errors as I ‘m quite certain there would be no disagreement with my theme – fairness.  We all support fairness, don’t we? 

Specifically, my fruitless letters have attempted to address the lack of fairness of the social assistance system in Ontario.

There is much to be said about social assistance.  Space limits me.    First let’s talk about rates. In Ontario there are two basic programs.

The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) is one. This program is designed to help people with disabilities who are in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing. 

Ontario Works (OW) is the other program.  OW helps people in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing.  Both programs can also give support in finding a job.
 
You have to qualify.  It isn’t easy.  But more about that later.

There was a time when social assistance rates bore some relationship to the real cost of living.  Not often did that occur but 1993 was a year where it could be argued that some fairness had been achieved.

Then along came Mike Harris.  During the 1995 election campaign, the poverty denying golf pro teed off on single mothers who were receiving assistance depicting them as some sort of boogie monsters ripping off the oppressed taxpayers of Ontario.  

Harris’s fabricated characterization was successful - politically at least. In 1995 he reduced social assistance rates in Ontario by 22%. It was one of the first acts of his new government.

Former Premier Mike Harris
made Big Cuts to Social
Assistance

Let’s be clear. There was no economic rationale for this move – just a mean spirited, ill informed attempt to make social assistance rates unattractive and presumably to make people find jobs that didn’t exist or that they weren’t qualified to do.

Today those rates are far below poverty levels.  How far?  A single parent with two children receives $1989 per month on ODSP.  The shelter allowance for a single person receiving OW is $390 per month.  Try finding a place to live for $390.  

Earlier this year, John Stapleton, a respected public policy guru, took a look at rates. He went back to those fairer 1993 rates and built in the 16.2% inflation that had occurred up to January 2022 and came up with new rates.    OW and ODSP would have to be raised 67% to get back to those levels.

What needs to happen?

A few years ago advocates drafted legislation that proposed a simple idea. An expert panel would be set up.  Each year the panel would recommend appropriate evidence-based social assistance rates to the Provincial Government. There were details but that was the idea in a nutshell.

An Act to Establish the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board was introduced for first reading as a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature in June 2007. Unfortunately, the Legislature was prorogued the next day in anticipation of a fall election, meaning the Bill was effectively discontinued. Similar efforts have been launched since with the same result.

MPP Ted McMeekin proposed
a rates board in 2007

Another less talked about change took place nearly twenty-five years ago when the Family Benefits program was changed to ODSP. 

First, access to social assistance was made much more difficult as people were forced to reduce their assets before qualifying.  Many “stupid rules” were introduced - over 800 according to a 2004 report from the Ministry of Community and Social Services who ironically administered the stupid rules.  Front line workers spent at least 80% of their time on administrative issues, like filling out forms etc…, and not addressing the needs of recipients. 

With these changes qualifying for the program became a big issue. A majority of people applying for ODSP were turned down.  People had the right to appeal internally and then if unsuccessful they could go to a body called the Social Benefits Tribunal, an administrative body that deals specifically with appeals regarding social assistance, for a final appeal. 

A lot of hoops to jump through but if you did the hoop jumping you were usually successful in your appeal.  In fact, if you had legal help your chances of winning were over 90%.  That legal help (usually in the form of a community legal clinic caseworker) was then seen as a problem so the legal clinics’ funding was cut.   

I’m going to take another shot at writing that letter.  There is more that could be said about fairness but I’m fairly certain that any fool can see that the system is unfair.  Why waste time with that argument.       

I need to focus on eliminating those run on sentences and getting the verbs to agree with the subjects.

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

Looking for Respect

After the recent disturbing verbal assault on Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, I flashed back to 1965.  Remember that hit song Eve of Destruction song by Barry McGuire?  

Songwriter P.F. Sloan bemoaned the disintegration of human respect; found “the whole crazy world  ...just too frustratin'” Grim as it was in 1965, I doubt Sloan or McGuire could have imagined the extent of disintegration we are facing in 2022. 

Based on what I and others observe that is offered up on social media these days this attack on Freeland is not unique. Women. racialized individuals and groups, LGBQT people, non- Christians are all targets.  The list could go on.  

Deputy PM Freeland

In fact, it is pretty much open season for attacks against anyone whose opinion differs from that often anonymous person tethered to the keyboard whose only qualification to shout and fume is their ability to remember a password  

Politicians at all levels are under siege and things are heading downhill fast.

In my time as a municipal councillor (1991-97) it wasn’t like this.  In 1998, after serving for six years I presented a paper at a health promotion conference on local government and how it could work most effectively with community. 

The mainly European audience at a Scottish university challenged my thesis that local government was up to the task.

My theme was based on a fairly positive perception of local government and my optimistic, clearly biased view of elected officials

I put it all down to the fact that we just did a better job of local governance in North America.  The old world didn’t get it.

Then I moved on to other things.

After a nine year break I was back in local politics when my former wardmate moved on down the road to the House of Commons. Nine years away and boy how things had changed.

That change was brought about as people gained access to electronic mail, the internet and social media.

Back in the old days if a constituent had an issue to discuss it could often get resolved through something called dialogue. You remember that concept perhaps.

The councillor would make a phone call or meet in person with the constituent.  There were often nuances or complexities that one or the other had failed to take into account   Issues got resolved.  There was no shouting.

By the 21st century constituents simply had to go to their computer and punch in the requisite putdown, question your integrity and/or intelligence and copy the whole diatribe to everyone on their contact list. 

I should have seen this coming.  Back around 1998 I met futurist Robert Theobald.  Theobald argued that a “failure to listen” by decision makers had meant “that groups with certain attitudes and beliefs may come to feel they have been left out of the democratic process.”  In Reworking Success (1997) Theobald proposed that we move beyond “polar positions” and learn to define problems in wholly different terms.

Something to think about.

In the meantime let’s: 

**Stop the name calling in our public spheres. 

**Teach civics in our schools.  (Ontario is introducing a compulsory half credit program in September 2022 – a positive development)

**Find ways to ensure that news coverage focusses on facts.  I’m pretty sure the earth is round although I haven’t actually seen it in its roundness. We don’t give equal time to the flat earth society.  Why do we give it to crazy conspiracy theorists?

**Establish new rules for social media.  It won’t be simple but a balance needs to be found between the right for us to speak our minds and what is appropriate,  constructive and healthy.