We Need a National Public Transit Strategy

I’m getting more or more concerned that decision makers aren’t going to get their heads around the need for better transportation and transit planning in this country.

A couple of years ago I was optimistic that METROLINX would make a difference.

I’m not so sure now.

In that context it may make sense to look to the federal scene for leadership.

Stephen Harper, you say?

Well no - but there is a private member’s bill championed by MP Olivia Chow that, if passed, would begin the process of developing a national public transit strategy.  Most countries have one.

Bill C-305 contains goals that most of us could agree with.

Increasing use of transit, reducing commute times, improving economic competitiveness of our communities and reducing greenhouse gases are a few that are mentioned in the Bill.

To achieve these goals certain measure are recommended.  For example, the proposed strategy would include an investment plan, funding mechanisms and a leadership role for the federal government.

If the Bill passed the Minister of Transport would be required to convene a conference within six months.  That conference would include provincial governments, municipal representatives, transit authorities and aboriginal communities.

This group would develop funding mechanisms, set targets for programs and develop principles of an agreement between federal and provincial governments.

To me such a conference would seem at least as worthwhile as those First Ministers’ gatherings that we have become so accustomed to.

It is true private members bills don’t succeed very often.  In fact, not that long ago a Conservative Member of Parliament told that his party doesn’t support other party’s private members bills.  This would seem to defeat the purpose of such bills but don’t get me started.

In the meantime find out more about Bill C-305 (http://www.oliviachow.ca/2012/05/national-transit-strategy-join-the-team/) and consider contacting your Member of Parliament to ask for support.

Transit Talk

This Wednesday, I will be appearing on Unusual Sources, a CFMU radio show.

Paul Bedford will also appear on the second half of the show which is hosted by transit advocate Doug Brown.

Bedford wil be talking about the recent "OneCity" proposal for a $30 Billion programme of subway, LRT, and transit infrastructure in the City of Toronto.

This proposal calls for an increase in municipal taxes and other measures to fund an ambitious programme so that Toronto's transit system will be able to move people  efficiently through all parts of the City and end the gridlock.Paul Bedford has long advocated for a large increase in transit and transit expenditures throughout the GTHA.

I'll be talking with Doug to update listeners on the transit situation in Burlington.

While the City of Toronto is pushing for increased taxes to provide  billions of dollars for new transit funding, the City of Burlington ponders an interim service plan that would provide no net increase in transit service hours while removing holiday service and increasing  mid-day wait times to one hour on routes serving north east Burlington.

Unusual Sources runs from 5:00-6:00pm every week at 93.3 FM. The first half of this week's show features "Taxi Talk", an ongoing series on efforts to get better working conditions for taxi drivers in Hamilton and Toronto. The second half of this week's show will focus on transit in the GTA and in
Burlington.

Provincial Budget, Municipalities and Social Assistance

As we wait to see how provincial budget negotiations between the McGuinty Liberals and the NDP s go over the weekend I’m a little surprised that little very little has been said about the impacts that the budget will have on Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens and our municipalities for that matter.


While the NDP appears to be working to establish a pathetic 1% increase for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) recipients your blogger’s easily boggled mind is sidetracked by the fact that Horwath and Company have apparently shown no interest in an increase for Ontario Works (OW) recipients.


A long term solution would be to establish evidence based social assistance rates.  Having rates attached to the real cost of living just makes sense.


I’ve written about this before and Craig Foye, a staff lawyer at the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, has done considerable work to make this idea a reality (see Fact Sheet #1 at http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/did-you-know.cfm)


In the meantime we should worry about other matters in the budget that will impact our most vulnerable citizens and our municipalities.


A case in point is the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB).

CSUMB is a mandatory benefit provided to eligible recipients up to a maximum in a 24 month period. The CSUMB assists in establishing a new principal residence, to prevent eviction or to prevent the discontinuance of utilities or heating in an existing residence.  CSUMB may also be issued where there is a threat to the health or welfare of a recipient or a member of the benefit unit in a non-start up situation.  There is currently no cap on funding for this crucial benefit.

Right now the amount of the CSUMB payable is up to a maximum of $1,500 for recipients with one or more dependent children in a 24-month period; or up to a maximum of $799 where there are no dependent children in a 24-month period. 

But the budget brought forward on March 27^th calls for the transfer of the CSUMB to the Consolidated Housing and Homelessness Program.  That program is run by municipal government.  Locally that government is the Region of Halton.

This has been called a transfer.  It is not.  The provincial government would only be sending along 50% of its share of the CSUMB funding.   No one knows what the program will look like. 

What is known from the budget document is there will be a limited and lesser amount of funding spread over a greater number of applicants.  

How will that work for municipalities?  Will they step to the plate with more dollars for their vulnerable citizens?  Don’t count on it?

The consequences for individuals and families in receipt of provincial social assistance will be serious.  The proposed changes should be stopped.

Burlington MP leads the Way Reforming Parliament

“So there you go.”

(Mike Wallace at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, December 13, 2011)

We talk primarily about municipal politics here. 

But we ought to learn from all levels of government.

So when former Burlington and Halton Councillor Mike Wallace, now the Burlington MP, brings new procedural ideas to a democratic body such as the House of Commons we pay attention.

On December 13th at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) Wallace insisted that this committee go into camera to discuss future business of the committee.  Not just at this meeting but at all future meetings. 

There followed some procedural discussion. It appears that Wallace needs to put forward a notice of motion to be voted on before a final resolution of the matter.  Since Wallace’s Conservatives (aka Harper Government) have a majority the outcome of that vote is inevitable – all discussions of “future business” of this committee will take place in camera.

The Globe and Mail reported on this last week. (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-attacks-motion-to-make-commons-committee-debate-private/article2271681/?service=mobile)

Their story quoted Michael Behiels, a professor of political history at the University of Ottawa. Behiels said that in the past committees used discretion to decide when to go in camera.

 “You do your best to make sure that as much of the committee’s business as possible is open to the public for scrutiny, and so members, in a sense, can be as accountable as required under the law and under the proceedings of Parliament and under democracy.  Simply to shut all that off legally, I think, is sending a terrible signal to Canadians that much of the government’s business is in fact closed to them.”

Wallace is one of the Vice Chairs of the Committee.  I was his wardmate from 1994-97 and in those days he believed in openness of government.  Have his views changed or is Ottawa democracy just different from the local variety?

The mandate of the OGGO includes the study of the effectiveness of government operations, expenditure budgets of central departments and agencies and more.  It oversees Privy Council Office/Prime Minister’s Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Crown Corporations like Canada Post and human resources matters in areas like the Public Service Commission.

It looks like OGGO does important work but most of it will be behind closed doors from now on.

Stupid Questions

I spent a frustrating day this week attending a portion of the Hamilton City Council’s Emergency and Community Services Committee this week.

I lasted three hours, which was about the time it took to wrap up the couple of issues I was interested in.

Way back when in my councillor days I was told you shouldn’t ask a question unless you knew the answer to it.

I’m not sure that all Hamilton councillors got this lesson.  Although, I suppose, you can ask a stupid question and know the answer to it.  Anyway there were a lot of stupid questions asked at this meeting.

But Hamilton councillors would surely come up short if there was an award for the stupid question of the week.That award would certainly go to Toronto Councillor Doug Ford, brother of the mayor.

Bruce Cox Executive Director of Greenpeace was a deputant on Wednesday addressing Toronto Council regarding the environmental impacts of cuts to urban forests and public transit.

Robyn Doolittle, a Toronto Star reporter was live blogging at the meeting and I’ve copied her comments below:

Doug Ford does not disappoint. Asks Bruce Cox if Greenpeace staff are unionized. (Some are). Then he says he just had a great book dropped off at his office "Confessions of a Green Peace Drop out" it's a "fabulous read" he says. When Cox asks if he's read it, Doug giggles and says no, clarifying he was "told it was a fabulous read." Room bursts out laughing. There is an implied "oh snap!" tone. Sadly - Doug Ford has now handed the floor back to budget chief

For some reason the phrase “some mother’s do have them” comes to mind.

Annual Ontario Environment Report Out Today

Gord Miller, Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, came out with his annual report today.

I'll read it - haven't yet although I'm not looking forward to it as the media release that accompanies the report is disturbing.

Basically,  Miller's argument is that the province has lost momentum on addressing the pressing environmental issues.

The report, Engaging Solutions, notes there has been "no shortage of talk about the problems such as climate change, waste diversion, and the loss of biodiversity.  But when it comes to doing something there doesn’t seem to be a lot actually happening, says Miller.

For example:

• On Waste:  The MOE  has written four different reports and discussion papers outlining options for increasing waste diversion in the province" but little action has resulted.
• On Species at Risk:   We are "not doing enough to protect and recover species at risk."
•  On Funding:  Good legislation has not been accompanied by the  additional resources needed  "to oversee and monitor new legislation while also covering ...core responsibilities."
•  On the Great Lakes:  Lengthy negotiations "threaten to paralyze progress towards further" clean-up.  Meanwhile the Americans are making investments.

What most disturbs me is Miller's comment that the "lack of action is not accidental" and is rather "actually the goal of critics of environmental protection."  We can't move forward when responding to people who say there are no problems “by going back to the research findings to debate and explain it all over again." 

These delays open us up to the legitimate criticism that ours is "a culture of inaction and procrastination," the Commissioner concludes.

For the full report, visit http://www.eco.on.ca.  It won't be the most uplifting read.

I'll have more to say later in the week.

YIMBY not NIMBY

Not in my Backyard (NIMBY) is a term coined thirty or so years ago to refer (negatively) to residents’ opposition to development in their neighbourhood.

Usually it’s about housing – like stopping a group home or rallying neighbours concerned about apartment building heights.

There can be legitimate concerns about development, redevelopment or infill projects.
However, too often NIMBY comes out of narrow minded attitudes and uninformed opinions.

Over the years I’ve been developing a list of my favourite examples of NIMBYism.

Like the time when politicians in a neighbouring suburban community forced non-profit housing residents to install uniform and identical window blinds.

Or on another occasion when assertions from residents that the addition of a new city bus route would bring violent crime to the neighbourhood led to the route's cancellation.

Probably my most memorable NIMBY moment, though, occurred when a resident suggested that the addition of a painted centre line to a local street (recommended for safety reasons) would bring down property values.

It is good, then, to see that the lesser known movement YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) is coming to the fore in Vancouver.

The driving force for YIMBY in this city is the Pivot Legal Society. Pivot uses the law to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. To deal with NIMBY they have put together a YIMBY toolkit.

According to a news release this kit “is intended for people who understand the value of addressing homelessness, addictions, and mental illness in a proactive and positive way...” The toolkit will help people “who want to say “Yes in my backyard!” to projects that help people get off the streets.”

The 44 page guide explains the right to housing, offers useful myth busting information and includes some exercises as well. The Cringe Test, for example, challenges you to ask some basic questions in order to tell the difference between discrimination and a legitimate objection to supportive housing.

“If it sounds wrong when you say the same thing about a racial, ethnic or religious minority, then you know you’ve heard a discriminatory statement.” And that kind of statement goes against basic human rights.

The kit also details the human rights and legal framework supporting the YIMBY position, case studies such as the UBC Hospice and success stories like the Rain City Housing and Support Society’s development in Vancouver.

This excellent community building resource can be downloaded at http://www.pivotlegal.org/

(This article was originally published in North End Breezes - (http://www.northendbreezes.com/)