A joyful year end message to council from city staff

How happy Ottawa City Councillors must be to receive a year-end message from city staff (Rain causes sewer system to overflow into river, The Ottawa Citizen, Dec 30, 2009) confirming that:

“Staff have visited the sewage gates meant to keep sewage flowing to the city's treatment plant under normal conditions, and all regulators are working normally…When older sewers, mostly downtown, get too full of water and sewage, they're designed to vent the excess directly into the Ottawa River.”

Very reassuring to learn that Ottawa’s sewage system will continue to perform normally in 2010!

Oda, Kenney and Harper (bad, badder and baddest)

Inevitably government leaders make unpopular decisions at times when parliament is not in session and also when the news media is less attentive. This holiday season the Conservative Government in Ottawa has taken several decisions that would have the full attention of the media and the public at other times. The effective shutting down of investigations of alleged torture and abuse of detainees handed over to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military immediately comes to mind. But there are other issues some of them equally or more serious.

One of these is the government’s decision to cut off CIDA funding to KAIROS, an ecumenical Christian organization that works for peace, development and social justice around the world (Shaming us all, Janice Kennedy, Ottawa Citizen, December 27, 2009). Bev Oda, minister for the Canadian International Development Agency announced that KAIROS was being cut off because its priorities didn't match CIDA's. Then Jason Kenney, Immigration Minister, said the de-funding of KAIROS was part of the Canadian government's vigilant efforts to disempower anti-Semitic groups.

Kenny apparently believes that KAIROS is anti-Semitic. It is true that the organization has expressed concerns about some Israeli government policies regarding the treatment of Palestinians, as many Israeli Jews have also done. But it has not promoted, nor does it support, any anti-Israel sanctions.

Interestingly, despite the seasonal media hiatus, this decision by the federal government has received a lot of media attention in Canada and internationally. But as parliament will not be in session again until the end of January, later if Prime Minister Harper decides to prorogue parliament, there is no effective platform from which to challenge the decision.

Understandingly, not all MP’s work takes place in parliament. They have important responsibilities to constituents in their home ridings. But shutting down parliament for extended periods during holiday seasons (winter and summer) and allowing important government decisions to be made without parliamentary accountability is just plain wrong.

Nothing wrong with banning corporate and union donations

I don’t understand the concern that Jim Watson or anyone else has about a proposed ban on municipal (and provincial) election campaign donations (Cullen, Watson conflict over ban, Lee Greenberg, Ottawa Citizen, September 14, 2009). The article indicates that business owners have already found a way around corporate donations by making individual donations instead. In Ottawa I have also noted that other company executives and senior managers also make substantial campaign donations.

This makes it a little more difficult to track down links between companies and donors, but it can be done; Google is pretty helpful! I recall that Ottawa City Council passed a motion this year requiring candidates to provide a list of their campaign donors within 4 weeks of the election date. Presumably, they will be required to update this list at the end of the campaign as well, so that citizens can vote with full knowledge of candidates’ campaign donations? I hope I have this right?

In the article Robert MacDermid notes “…The 2003 Liberal campaign platform dedicates an entire section to ‘reducing the influence of money in politics’” MacDermid also says “…the McGuinty Liberals have become dependent on corporate donations and are unlikely to ban them in Ottawa and elsewhere. 'They would look incredibly hypocritical if they banned it at the municipal level and didn’t ban it themselves’…”

The only immediate solution is for City council to take steps itself as Toronto City Council has already done.

And talking about AVTC brings us back to Delcan

It has been understood for some time that Delcan was to play a leading role in design of the AVTC. What I don’t recall is how Delcan was selected as the lead consultant. Was there ever a competition to select design consultants, or is this yet another sole source contract?

Delcan was the contractor of record for the AVTC environmental assessment (EA). Surely there is a serious conflict of interest here? If mistakes and oversights occurred during the EA process, there is a high likelihood that these will now be promulgated in the detailed design.

Notwithstanding any detailed knowledge that Delcan might have gained during the EA study, there are sound reasons for contracting a different organization to undertake the detailed design. This will allow for a second, independent look at study findings, design guidelines and other recommendations made by Delcan during the EA process.

Make Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC) a 2010 City Budget Issue

Yesterday the following message was posted to the Our-Ottawa discussion group, courtesy of Michael Richardson. Now is a good time for Ottawa city councillors to discuss the need for this road and to put any design/development work on hold pending a decision to have the road removed from the official plan at the earliest opportunity. The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus would be better served by simply providing improved bus services along existing corridors. Contact you ward councillor on this issue today. Have the AVTC removed from the 2010 city budget.

“The first phase is a $70+ million for a 1.2 km link from Riverside Drive to the General Hospital (on Smyth) -- $5 million is set aside in the 2010 budget for design work. The lead consultant is Delcan -- who also conducted the EA recommending that the road go ahead (while declining to include a transit-only option in the study) despite the Ottawa 2020 Plan that included a goal of trying to get people to use other means of transportation besides private vehicles. Ironically, as I understand it, the hospital that this link is supposed to service has never formally come out in favour of the road -- and in fact has made it clear that it does not want a transit corridor road to bisect the hospital grounds per se (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a dedicated transit link to the hospital).

“It's worse than that. There is $45M in the ‘LRT tunnel’ plan to build a second transit bridge across the Rideau River next to the current one so that buses can ‘temporarily’ use that bridge while the tracks are being laid. ‘Temporary’ is something like 10 years.

“That bridge aligns with Nicolas and the AV parkway. Delcan is also one of the leads on parts of the LRT tunnel work. It's important to understand that the current "LRT tunnel" plan isreally just an excuse to build a lot of really expensive roads.”

At least the Fernbank subdivision planning decision is going to be discussed!

It is pleasing to read that the OMB has agreed to hear the Friends of the Greenspace Alliance appeal of the Ottawa City Council approved Fernbank development plan (OMB approves appeal of Fernbank subdivision, Neco Cockburn, Ottawa Citizen, December 9, 2009). Hopefully the hearing will convince the OMB of the foolishness of proceeding with this development until existing Glen Cairn flooding problems are clearly understood and measures are put in place to eliminate any likelihood of future flooding events. Measures must include guidelines to prevent similar occurrences in any new developments.

Toronto city councillors agree to ban campaign donations from corporations and unions

According to an article in today’s Toronto Star, city councillors have decided they will no longer accept campaign donations from corporations or unions, putting pressure on the provincial government to ban the practice in all municipalities across Ontario (City clamps down on election donors, Paul Mulroney and Vanessa Lu, Toronto Star, Dec 3, 2009).

The vote was passed 29 – 12 following a day-long debate. Council also voted 27-13 to study the feasibility of providing some city funding for campaigns. Robert MacDermid a York University professor and advocate for election reform told reporters. "...It's the first step to get rid of this kind of influence. It's about removing the unfairness and discrimination that's involved in the system…"

Some Toronto councillors now want to lobby Ontario Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson to push for a similar ban across the province, by changing the Municipal Elections Act.

This is a step in the right direction. One wonders whether Ottawa City councillors have the ethical foresight to follow Toronto’s lead here.

Fallout from the Auditor General’s Report

I sent this letter to the Ottawa Citizen, but they didn’t publish:

“The recent finding by the City’s Auditor General that city staff are making excessive use of sick-leave suggests that it is not individual employees who are sick; rather it points to a sickness within the city’s work environment. This suggests that good leadership is seriously lacking within senior management ranks as well as within City Council.

“One reason that people abuse sick-leave is that they are anxious or unhappy, so don’t want to go to work. City Council can help solve this problem by reviewing its own behavior as well as that of its senior managers.”

City management has since made some changes to its communications organization. After firing the head guy, who never really did anything wrong, they hired three local hot shot journalists in the hope that this might help improve the City’s public image. I’m not sure how one can really make bad management and council decisions look good to the public after the event.

What the City really needs are leaders, both councillors and managers, with the wisdom and judgment to make good decisions related to both policy and execution.

Corporate donations to municipal election campaigns

The issue of corporate donations to candidates campaigning for office at municipal and provincial levels has been a concern of mine for a long time. At the federal level Elections Canada took steps to eliminate corporate donation some time ago. Why are the two lower levels of government not introducing similar legislation?

If the province introduced income tax credits at the municipal level, similar to those that already exist at federal and provincial levels, more people would consider donating to municipal candidates’ campaigns. This in turn might result in renewed levels of interest in municipal elections and help increase the number of voters who turn out.

It was disappointing, though not surprising, to learn that Ottawa City councillors have turned down yet another opportunity to speak to the provincial government on this issue (Bid to ban corporate, union donations fails, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2009). A motion by Councillor Alex Cullen to ask the province to prohibit such donations was defeated by a vote of 4-6 by the audit, budget and finance committee.

Dare’s article notes that only five councillors out of the 24 on council do not accept corporate donation and union donations. However, at least one member of this group of five receives a substantial amount of donations to his campaign from individual owners, executives and senior staff of corporations, primarily developers. Interestingly, this individual voted in favor of Cullen’s motion.

New municipal election rules that are being considered by the province will put a limit on the maximum value of contributions that any individual, corporation or other organization can make. But this does not prevent a large number of individuals with ties to a particular corporation or organization from donating. This defeats the intent of the proposed legislation.

It’s time for this issue to be cleared up once and for all. No matter how much councillors take offence and protest that their votes cannot be bought when challenged on this issue, the perception will always be there. We just need to remove the temptation.

Chair and past chair of Planning and Environment Committee oppose flood relief grant

It is disappointing to read that the present chair (Councillor Hume) and past chair (Councillor Hunter) of the City’s Planning and Environment Committee were the only people to vote in opposition to the motion to pay a small grant to residents in Kanata who have been affected by three flooding occurrences over the past 15 years (Committee passes flood relief grant, Jennifer Burden, Kanata Kourier-Standard, November 18, 2009).

The proposed motion to go before city council is already considered by many affected residents to be too lean and restrictive. Surely being affected by only a single incident of flooding should be sufficient to justify some payment and the amount of compensation should be cumulative, on a per occurrence say? The flooding results from bad development decisions in the first place. It is not the fault of residents. The expenditures involved are peanuts when compared with some of the obscene spending decisions that this city council makes.

Of course, if the Hume/Hunter duo opposed the motion because they think the city should pay more, then I’ll eat my words!

A Riddle

Question: Who would vote to make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse?

Answer: Ottawa City Council!

Yes, that is what Ottawa City Council did yesterday when it voted to conditionally approve the OSEG’s Lansdowne Plan. Make no mistake, the motion amendments that apparently made the deal sweet enough for a majority of council to approve are pure window dressing. Proposed changes to the deal might even make the matter worse.

Watch out for scope change negotiations as any resulting contract proceeds. With less incremental money coming to OSEG as the city attempts to recover it’s share OSEG will be hot to recover the cash elsewhere.

Also, Councillor Hume’s amendment has no real substance. Design decisions on planned retail areas of Lansdowne will do little to influence the type of retailers who elect to set up shop there. No design competition is going to control OSEG’s right to lease the retail space to whomever they choose, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary by Councillor Hume.

And don’t expect ongoing transportation/transit planning to produce any significant improvements. Lansdowne is still a landlocked site on Bank Street with serious traffic congestion and only limited access to public transit. Nothing can change this.

It is unlikely that significant changes will result from these studies to be undertaken by city staff and consultants. And it is unlikely that council’s decision will be any different in May 2010. The high point of any contract award is typically the day the contract is signed; from that point forward it’s usually downhill. It’s as if they have signed the contract already. And remember, it’s still an unethical sole-source deal!

Over the past few months many people have commented that the public consultation process was simply window dressing. This observation is clearly correct. A large body of negative feedback from citizens during the consultation process and from public delegations last week has been largely ignored. Is this what democracy means in the City of Ottawa? Citizens of Ottawa, at the next municipal election, vote with your feet!

The Green box fee or tax

This updated post reflects the Tuesday November 11, 2009 vote by the city’s planning and Development committee to recommend a “fee for service” approach for the Green-bin, Blue box and Black box collection programs. This decision was taken despite the fact that many members of the public are very concerned about introduction of the fee for services approach (Green-bin approach has many seeing red, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 10, 2009).

Following the vote Councillor Peter Hume, chair of the committee, said the program, and why it's needed, had not been well explained. And he said the city should have had the debate about how to pay for it long before budget time. Hume said it was too late to make significant changes to the program. He said contracts have been signed and bins are being distributed, so it's not possible for the city to retreat from the $17-million program now.

This leaves me confused as to where Councillor Hume really stands on this issue. His response to a recent message I sent him, and other members of council gave me the impression that he was not in favor of the Green-bin user fee, but preferred an approach that would apply user fees to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green-bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.

Apparently Hume did agree to study a true user-fee program for regular garbage disposal, a tag-a-bag program that would see residents only pay for the trash they put out. But this would not come into effect before 2011 at the earliest. Why are these issues not being debated now, and where are the incentives rewarding the public for using the recycling programs? Following is a copy of my original message, along with Councillor Hume’s response.

Dear Councillor Hume,

Today's Ottawa Citizen editorial on your proposed Green box user fees helped gel my concerns over this issue (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Trash+this+idea/2185830/story.html).

The proposed Green Bin user fee is being applied against a service that will significantly reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. In the long-term this will save the city oodles of money. It also brings long-term profits to the commercial enterprise that is composting the green waste. Why else would they be doing it?

It would be better to apply the user fee to the garbage disposal process, thus making people pay for bad behavior and rewarding people who make effective use of the Green Bin, Blue Box and Black Box programs, as has been done in other Ontario municipalities.

One town (Saugeen Shores) went to a User Pay system for garbage last year, and has shown very positive results. Starting bag tags took waste disposal entirely off the property tax base and avoided a 4.9% budget increase. Garbage drops offs on roadsides went up a bit, but the revenue from the bag tags allows the town to send out staff to pick up the garbage as needed. People will continue to throw garbage on roadsides, no matter whether there is a cost for bags or not.

There has been a significant drop in the amount of landfill tonnage. The additional savings from this system is going into environmental projects the town's committee has identified as priorities next year. The waste diversion rate increase has been only good for everyone in giving more years to landfill, and helping people see the connection between how much garbage they are producing and the cost.

This way as well, people who compost their own yard/kitchen waste will receive the same benefits as people using the Green Box. Sure there is a short term deficit as the program is introduced. The City needs to find a more equitable means of dealing with this, because eventually the expense should be recovered.

Sincerely,

Colin Hine

“Dear Mr. Hine,

“We may not agree on many things but on this issue we agree on this issue. The City moved to identify the costs of waste management so that we could move to system that would do exactly as you indicate. Given the response to the green bin program and most has been I don't want the program I would be willing to move to pay per bag system - using tags or stickers -- as soon as possible. Yesterday I met with the Environment Minister to push for full product stewardship for blue and black box materials and I expect him to make the producers 100% responsible for the cost of recycling these materials and I also expect that in moving to full product stewardship disposal costs will have to rise so a per bag fee is the proper way to go.

“Sincerely,

“Peter Hume”

Mayor’s comments suggest that council intends to proceed with Lansdowne Live whatever the public has to say

Listening to Mayor Larry O’Brien speak on CBC Radio this morning suggested to me what many have believed all along; that the city intends to proceed with the OSEG proposed plan in some form whatever the public have to say about it. Mayor O'Brien was commenting on the results of the Nanos Research survey on the Lansdowne Live proposal - see this morning’s article in the Ottawa Citizen (Stadium survey results tell council to “just do it").

This conclusion is reached by 23% of respondents in a poll of 1,000 residents conducted by Nanos Research on October 17 though 19, 2009. This means that 73% of respondents believe that the city should be doing something else, though exactly what is unclear.

This doesn’t sound like a strong mandate to proceed to me!

The article also summarizes a report by Nanos Research on a survey of 3,000 residents gathered from survey forms filled out at public meetings and on-line. Interestingly respondents were least favorably disposed to inclusion of the only elements of the plan that will likely make the project profitable to OSEG members (retail space, residential development, office space, movie theatres and a hotel).

Again, this doesn’t sound like a favorable public response to me!

Municipal Election Campaign Donations

Concern over municipal election campaign donations from corporations and unions appears to be building (Councillor calls for corporate donations ban, CBC Ottawa web site, November 2, 2009). Whether or not proposed changes to the Province of Ontario’s Municipal election Act are passed, remains to be seen. But ethical dilemmas will persist for Councillors who receive contributions from prominent individuals who’s firms or employers could benefit from later decisions and actions taken by city council.

The phrase “my vote cannot be bought” has been heard quite often recently, particularly in connection with OSCG’s Lansdowne Live proposal. Nonetheless there were significant donations from corporations and prominent individuals to elected Councillor’s campaigns in 2006 (http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen, Political donations and Lansdowne Live, David Reveley, September 30, 2009).

Reveley concludes he is comfortable “...that none of the winning candidates owes his or her seat on council to money from the Lansdowne Live proponents. Any connection is sure to be more subtle….” However, the article also notes that “…When a candidate got money from these guys, chances are he or she also got money from other developers and builders and consultants, for instance, who might get pieces of Lansdowne work if Lansdowne Live goes ahead…”

While the total amount of contributions is small in relative terms, it is difficult to believe that such contributions do not influence collective decision making in some way. Only nine elected Councillors did not accept donations from OSEG members in 2006.

I have posted previously on the issue of corporate campaign contributions. My concerns will not be satisfied by proposed amendments to the Act now being considered by the Province. It is disturbing that provincial law continues to allow contributions of this nature when strict measures to limit implications of inappropriate election contributions have been enacted at the federal level.

Butler-Jones challenges Rumsfeld

Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, David Butler-Jones, commenting on the H1N1 vaccine shortage on Thursday made a comment that might challenge the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s historical 2003 statement on the international intelligence situation. Here are the two comments:

First, David Butler-Jones “What I know today is not what I knew yesterday morning. And tomorrow I may find out something new,…”

Now Donald Rumsfeld “As we know there are known unknowns. There are things we know we know. There are also unknown unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

Butler-Jones’ brevity, while admirable, will likely keep him out of first place on this topic.

Hydro-Québec’s purchase of NB Power raises serious concerns

This is not a municipal issue but it grabbed my attention as it highlights problems with governance in Canada. Are we a country, or just a bunch of provinces looking after their own interests?

This week news emerged about a deal between Québec and New Brunswick (Hydro-Québec buys NB Power, Ottawa Citizen, October 30, 2009). Québec Premier Jean Charest announced this $4.7 billion deal with New Brunswick for Hydro-Québec to take over most of NB Power’s assets as a move to get greater access to energy-hungry markets in the United States. Charest stated “We see in front of us a unique opportunity with what is happening in the United States. The Americans need clean renewable energy and they need lots of it. And guess what? We in Canada are the ones who can supply it.”

Well guess what else Premier Charest: other Canadian provinces need more clean renewable energy too! In particular Ontario is planning to spend a fortune in the coming years, so that it can shut down its coal fired generation plants. Controversially, in addition to exploiting new power generation from renewable sources, it also plans on spending a fortune for power from nuclear plants.

So why not consider doing a deal with Ontario before exporting all this clean energy? Free trade issues aside, Canada needs to cut back on pollution and the money Ontario could save by minimizing investment in new power generation could help get the province and the country out of deficit. Surely this huge hydro-electric energy resource should be used to maximize benefit to Canadians before reserves are sold to the U.S.

H1N1

It’s difficult to comment negatively on a major initiative in the city that is providing urgent protection for citizens. Front-line workers (nurses and other officials) are working hard to immunize people against the H1N1 pandemic, but the process initiated by the city’s public health authority has some serious flaws. Efforts and plans being made by multiple levels of government authorities involved in the process seem to be uncoordinated and their priorities are not always consistent. Coupled with this, the media is overzealous on the issue and reporting is often inaccurate and inconsistent.

With a limited initial supply of vaccine available from the start, the primary goal should be to inoculate health care workers first. This could have been done more effectively if initial supplies of the vaccine had been sent directly to hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities (paramedics, etc.). Steps should also be taken to ensure that individual family doctors are inoculated. Extending the priority list as the city has done, without an adequate supply of vaccines available and with only a few injection sites available has resulted in long queues, and serious confusion.

There is no question that this issue is being over-reported by the media. This is resulting in conflicting and inaccurate information being reported on the radio, TV and newspapers. As an example, exact information on who is included on the priority list for early vaccinations has not been communicated accurately by the media and this is still a confusing issue. A report on CBC television indicated that turning up for an injection if you were not on the list would result in one being turned away. Firstly it is unclear what the list consists of:
* Is it just the list of categories (health care workers, pregnant women, young children, adults in high risk categories, etc.)?
* Or is it a list with named individuals?
If it is the former, the decision as to who qualifies is being left in the hands of individual members of the public. If it is the latter, this is personal information, where did this information originate? The public health authority is also responsible for much of the confusion here. Their approach has not been clear or consistent.

It is unclear why vaccinations for the general public are not being handled in the same way as seasonal vaccinations at family doctors’ offices. This would significantly reduce the pressure on public vaccination sites. Public sites present their own special problems; bringing such large numbers of people together in one location for extended time periods increases the possibility of cross-infection before people are vaccinated and before immunity becomes effective. As healthy school aged children appear to be particularly vulnerable to H1N1, why are vaccinations not being made available in school? These measures would all help to relieve pressure on public sites and reduce waiting times to manageable proportions.

Public health authorities are learning from some of these early mistakes and are implementing some of the measures noted here. If all three levels of government were to work together more closely during the planning and preparation stages of a crisis many of the current problems could have been avoided altogether. Effective cooperation between multiple levels of government continues to be a serious problem in Canada, particularly within the Province of Ontario.

The Role of Community Associations

Last Wednesday I attended the annual general meeting of my local community association. Guest speakers included our local MP David McGuinty who actually had to be cut off by the MC because his speech was too long (Why can’t elected representatives give apolitical speeches?). Our local councillor, Peter Hume, also attended to present well deserved community volunteer awards on behalf of the association.

Due to another local community association event, Hume could not stay for the main event, a talk by Professor Christopher Stoney from Carleton University on how community associations influence local decisions. This is unfortunate because he could have learned a thing or two about the effectiveness of bottom-up, grass roots democracy.

Because of the excessive amount of time occupied by McGuinty’s speech, Chris Stoney had to cut back on the scope of his talk, but he still managed to do a very effective job. His abridged talk raised a lot of questions from the audience. In addition to outlining his research into community governance, municipal government and citizen engagement he also addressed the topics of infrastructure projects and multi-level governance.

He spoke on some local government initiatives including Light Rail (LRT), Lansdowne Live and Hintonburg neighborhood renewal. He also addressed the effectiveness that Neighborhood Planning Initiatives (NPI) can have on the outcomes of city projects that effectively engage local communities. NPI is “….a new integrated planning process that will better utilize city resources and provide value-added services to the citizens of Ottawa through their involvement in the planning process.” (Internal EMC briefing document, March 2006)

Chris spent some time examining the degrees of engagement between governments and citizens. He provided some examples including work done in other countries. Here is an example from the Queensland Government in Australia:

· Information: a one-way relationship through which government delivers information to citizens.
· Consultation: a two-way relationship through which citizens provide feedback on issues defined by the government.
· Active participation: a collaboration through which citizens actively shape policy options, but where government retains the responsibility for final decisions.

Looking at these three levels of participation from a City of Ottawa perspective, in my view most issues are addressed by local government at the information-only level. Attempts to solicit and listen constructively to the views of citizens are token at best. However, recent issues in the city, notably Lansdowne Live, have energized the citizenry of Ottawa and the city has been forced to respond. How seriously the city’s response will reflect concerns raised by citizens remains to be seen. Other issues, like LRT, might eventually capture citizens in a more united way than they have in the past.

One of the roles of community associations is to provide an instrument through which citizens can unite to raise issues and concerns with their ward councillors and the city. Unfortunately, it does not always work this way. I have witnessed situations in which councillors try to use community associations as a platform for their own initiatives. This is entirely counter to the intended process. In some cases associations or individual members are actually chastised by their councillor for raising contrary views and ideas and they are punished in a number of way, one being withdrawal of support from community newspapers and other local initiatives.

For more information on Professor Stoney’s work on NPI initiatives visit http://www.cure-crfmu.org/

Urgent need to update the Municipal Elections Act

Longstanding concerns over allowable municipal election campaign contributions from within the development industry are the focus of an article in today’s Toronto Star (Municipal Elections Act need urgent update to curb abuses, Robert MacDermid, The Star, October 14, 2009). The article addresses the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and surrounding municipalities but the points that arise are applicable elsewhere in the province, including the City of Ottawa.

I quote fairly extensively from the article in the following paragraphs in order to make my point. In recent election campaigns a large percentage of City of Ottawa Councillors accepted donations from developers and from individual owners, executives and senior employees within the development industry. The parallels here with the situation in the GTA are very clear.

Quoting from the article:

“The City of Toronto auditor's report showed that 29 of 45 elected members of council violated the campaign finance reporting laws. And the Star's long-running campaign has pointed out abuses in municipal elections…There is evidence of the pervasive influence of the development industry in electing municipal council members. In Brampton, Mississauga, Oshawa, Pickering, Richmond Hill and probably Vaughan more than 50 per cent of the money for council members' 2006 campaigns came from the development industry. And 28 of 132 winners in 10 inner-GTA municipalities gathered more than 66 per cent of their campaign cash from the development industry.”

Several Ottawa City Councillors have noted that the maximum allowable campaign contribution limit ($750) is too low to possibly influence a Councillor’s vote were they prepared to be bought. However, as the article notes “ it will get access to a councillor and, when coordinated with other contributions, it ensures that some, or even all, council members are favourable to development proposals – no matter how dysfunctional from an urban planning perspective.”

MacDermid states that:

“You would think that the parade of municipal representatives to the courts for violations of campaign finance law would have spurred Municipal affairs Minister Jim Watson yo reform the Municipal elections Act

“...The minister's reform package, if it is passed in time for the start of elections in January, is likely to be piecemeal and allow little or no time for public hearings.

“It is expected that he will raise the expenditure limits. This is something that incumbents want because it raises the bar for challengers – but the legislation should encourage challenges. Incumbents already have an advantage over challengers. Moreover, 75 per cent of 674 candidates in 10 GTA municipalities had total expenditures in 2006 that did not surpass two-thirds of current limits, so there is no need to raise them.

“More fundamental reforms are needed to end the embrace of the development industry. The stakes are high. Municipal councils create profits for developers by rezoning and servicing land and current residents subsidize new development because developments charges are too low. Campaign contributions from corporations and unions should be banned from municipal politics, as they are in federal politics and Quebec and Manitoba provincial politics.

“It is not just that corporate money is prevalent but as long as big companies have the right to make campaign contributions, it allows the owners to give in their own name and then direct money from one or more companies as well.

“…These are some other reforms that are essential to make municipal elections open and transparent.

- “The minister should change the law to prevent winning candidates carrying forward surpluses that give them a head start over challengers at future elections.
- “He should require that municipalities form compliance audit committees so that citizen complaints about campaigns go to an independent tribunal rather than council members who, all too frequently, have declined to investigate their colleagues.
- “He should limit the number of contributions someone can make to five. For example, the Greater Toronto Sewer and Water main Contractors' Association gave to 95 candidates (72 of them elected) in 10 municipalities in 2006.
- “And he needs to close the most egregious of loopholes, allowing companies to pay employees while they work on campaigns without the expense being considered a contribution from the employer.

“All these reforms are badly needed to restore credibility to the municipal democratic election process.

“The McGuinty government was elected on the promise of democratic reforms. There is no better place to show that commitment than by enacting meaningful changes to the Municipal Elections Act before the starting bell for campaigns rings in January of 2010. The time is short and the need to restore legitimacy is great.”

People I have spoken within the City of Ottawa would like Minister Watson to go even further by allowing contributions only from voters.

Lansdowne Live is not the only sole-source plan that is alive and well in the city of Ottawa

It appears that Lansdowne live is not the only example of blatant sole-source contracting in the City of Ottawa. It has come to my attention recently that by-passing the City’s procurement rules has become a convenient short-cut by the City to fast-track projects and to help keep them from public scrutiny. Here are a couple of recent examples that also appear to break other rules:

The City of Ottawa’s $47.7 Million Terry Fox Drive extension, funded under the Infrastructure Stimulus Program is purported to be "shovel ready." However it appears that the City was in no way to proceed with this project when funding was announced. In order to have a faint hope of starting construction of some portions of the project within timelines of the funding program, the City sole-sourced a $1.9 Million engineering contract to Dillon Consulting. That's right, $1.9 Million sole-sourced (See Page 47 of Document 1 in June 16, 2009 Corporate Services Committee Report: http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2009/06-16/08a%20-%20ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0021%20-%20DOC%201.pdf)!

The project traverses 1.5 km of Carp River floodplain and is likely unprecedented in the Province of Ontario in terms of the amount of floodplain storage that will be displaced since the Flood Damage Reduction Program was introduced in the 1970's. Under this program the three levels of government signed an agreement that they would not build, fund or approve projects where floodplains had been mapped (http://www.ec.gc.ca/Water/en/manage/flood/e_agree.htm#1)

The site of the project lies just downstream of a flood damage center, on a reach of the Carp River where an Order of the MOE Minister has been issued. The City has not yet responded to the conditions set in the Minister's Order. So why is this project being funded?

Secondly there is a $510,945.69 sole-sourced contract awarded to Novatech Engineering for the $65 Million Hazeldean Road Expansion Project that includes building new bridges over the Carp River: (See Page 89 of 100 Page Document 1, available at: http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2009/10-06/04%20-%20ACS2009-CMR-FIN-0041%20-%20DOA%20-%20Apr%201%20-%20Jun%2030%20%202009-%20FINAL.htm).

Just like the Terry Fox Drive project to the north, the Hazeldean Road project overlaps with Carp River floodplain where issues about flood levels have yet to be sorted out with the MOE Minister. More concerning about the Hazeldean Road project is that it is just downstream from Glen Cairn where hundreds of homes flooded on July 24th, and the City is not expected to complete its investigation until summer 2010 of what caused the flooding, the third such incident for may residents over the last 13 years.

So again, why are these projects being funded through sole-source contracts?

Changing the scope of the Lansdowne Live plan does not address the sole-source issue

Reducing the size of the retail elements of the OSEG plan for Lansdowne Live might make some retailers feel more comfortable and allowing some elements of the plan open to a competitive design process might appease some people (Coucillors huddle over Lansdowne, Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen, October 13, 2009). But it does not alter the fact that development and operation of a major city asset is still being awarded to a contractor without competition. Neither does it address other concerns at the site like parking and transit access.

A new mantra for the mayor

Mayor O’Brien abandoned his old mantra “zero-means-zero” but apparently he has taken up a new one – "revenue neutral-means revenue neutral" (O’Brien pledges Lansdowne plan will be revenue neutral, Tony spears, Ottawa Citizen, October 7, 2009)! This new mantra certainly doesn’t roll off the tongue so smoothly and the term can be interpreted in many different ways.

At the day long Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee meeting yesterday, City Manager Kent Kirkpatrick did a pretty good job summarizing some of the financial details around the proposed commercial development at Lansdowne Park. But his morning presentation was followed in the afternoon by a large number of delegation presentations none of which was in support of the proposed development. In fact, the delegate presentations and ensuing discussions around the committee table raised many questions about the proposed partnership between the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) and the City.

Yesterday’s session along with the five public hearings that have now been completed appear to have struck a nerve with at least one member of the OSEG team Roger Greenberg. Hence his defensive Opinion Column article in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Here’s the truth about the Lansdowne plan). His article does not add any clarification to concerns raised by the public at the open houses; neither does it address the issues and criticisms raised by the delegations yesterday.

Press coverage of yesterday’s proceedings does not appear to tell the whole story of the proceedings. The credibility of some of the work and analysis performed in support of this proposed deal was seriously challenged and no constructive response was offered by OSEG or by the city.

Some people are of the opinion that the city is simply going through the motions and that the Lansdowne Live plan is a done deal. Hopefully yesterday’s session was an eye-opener to many members of city council and they will demand some serious answers before moving forward.

A big week for local issues

A number of local issues in the news this past week alerted my bullshit detection antenna.

Local produce quality and pricing

There were two stories this week in the Ottawa Citizen about local food. The first story in yesterday’s paper (Local produce sold here via Ajax, Joanne Chianello, Ottawa Citizen, September 26, 2009) concerns locally grown tomatoes (SunTech Greenhouse, Manotick) that are supplied to Loblaws and other supermarket chains. SunTech sells produce to Loblaws, first shipping it to Ajax, Ontario for distribution to individual stores (a round trip from Ottawa of 700 Km.). Then Loblaws has the gall to advertise itself as a source for local produce. Really!

The second local produce story concerns price setting in local farmers markets (Paying the market price, Ron Eade, Ottawa Citizen, September 27, 2009). The writer reviews pricing at various farmers markets in Ottawa including Lansdowne, the Byward Market, Parkdale Market and Carp. Produce prices at Byward and Lansdowne are particularly high and the writer discovered that there is an informal price setting arrangement in place at these locations. Farmers claim that this is not price fixing, just an informal agreement in their mutual interests. Also prices are not discounted at the end of the day. This discourages bargain seekers arriving at the end of the day to buy their produce.

Pricing of local produce at farmers markets is beyond the reach of many people, especially as one can buy produce in most supermarkets for about one third of the price in farmers markets. Market prices that cover costs and make a profit are fair and reasonable. But there’s got to be a middle ground, especially when one considers the transportation and distribution costs that supermarket chains have to cover.

Glen Cairn’s flooding problems

An interesting news item reported in a community news paper this week (Flooding fracas, Blair Edwards, Barrhaven this Week, September 22, 2009) concerns a letter that Ted Cooper, a City of Ottawa water resources engineer, sent to the premier of Ontario. Cooper believes that the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) is responsible for Glen Cairn’s flooding problem and that they signed off on development in an area with an inadequate storm management system. He is asking the Province to investigate MCVA’s stewardship of the Carp River flood plain. Remember that Ted Cooper blew the whistle over the city’s computer modeling error in the Kanata west development.

In light of Mr. Cooper’s concerns it is very disturbing that Ottawa City Council this week voted down a motion to put a temporary hold on development in the area (Development moratorium nixed, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, September 24, 2009). The motion rejected at Council is a much diluted version of a motion debated by the Planning and Environment Committee. The original motion called for a development moratorium until corrections to the Glen Cairn flooding problem are resolved. The motion put before council called for only a few weeks of delay. I’d really like to know who is paying the piper here!

Light rail in Ottawa - dumping the tunnel

I really appreciated Ken Gray’s column this week (Dump the expensive rail tunnel, Ken Gray, Ottawa citizen, September 24, 2009). In the article Grey suggests that the city should have another look at the original North South line plan including its above ground link to the University of Ottawa. This is a transportation link that the city can undertake and likely afford within the foreseeable future.

Then of course there’s the ongoing issue of Lansdowne Live

As Councillor Clive Doucet says in his letter to the Citizen (Lansdowne Live is an unsolicited, exclusive proposal, Clive Doucet, Letters to the Editor, Ottawa Citizen, September 25, 2009), the proposal is “…set up to ensure that only one proponent has the opportunity to pitch their proposal to the city. Why?…” When will people come to their senses about this outrage?

As well as dumping the light rail transit tunnel and Lansdowne Live we need to go further and dump a majority of existing council. Let’s make sure there is a good slate of refreshing new candidates running for office in 2010.

What a fiasco at city hall

There was no shortage of media commentary surrounding last week’s marathon council meeting. I was unable to attend myself but comments from others who attended help confirm the negative impressions left by the media articles. Here are some references drawn from the Ottawa Citizen:

- Stadium meeting a “circus”, Patrick Dare, September 3, 2009
- Flood response more talk than answers, Randall Denley, September 5, 2009
- City prepared to fix Kanata flooding problems: Hume, Patrick Dare, September 5, 2009
- Senseless waste, Gary Cross, letter to the editor, September 5, 2009
- Time for a clean sweep at City Hall, Randall Denley, September 6, 2009

First the Kanata flooding issue; it is clear that the City’s initial response was inadequate and no long-term solution appears to be in the works. How could it be, this being the third such occurrence over many years? This is why I was astounded by Planning and Environment Committee’s inability, at the previous week’s meeting, to come up with a clear recommendation to put further developments along the Carp River on hold pending a long-term solution to the problem being put in place.

Chair of the committee, Councillor Peter Hume, missed an opportunity to demonstrate some leadership on this issue by failing to take-to-task some committee members for their negative response to Councillor Peggy Feltmate’s motion to put development on hold. Instead he claims that solutions are on the way, sitting on the fence as he often does. Long-term, “concrete” solutions require extensive planning and preparation by City staff not city council.

It was also disappointing that City solicitor, Rick O’Connor focused on the issue of liability surrounding the flooding problem. While it’s his responsibility to help protect the City from legal claims, surely he could have made note of the City’s ethical liability on this issue. The first step is to ensure that residents (tax payers) are taken care of. A lot of money will have to be invested whether the City is legally liable or not!

Discussions on the Lansdowne Live stadium proposal were equally frustrating. It is still difficult to understand how council came to vote to negotiate this unsolicited bid. Apart from the irresponsible decision to consider such a high value proposal without soliciting bids from others, the business case for restoring the Frank Claire has never been proven. As Gary Cross states in his letter-to-the-editor, “…Ottawa has not been able to sustain a CFL franchise. Nothing currently indicates otherwise. MLS franchises have already been awarded or promised to other cities, leaving Ottawa out of the picture….”

This is another issue over which Councillor Hume is proving to be a fence sitter. Until recently he has shown support for Councillor Clive Doucet’s concept for a design competition. However, he is now showing interest in aspects of the Lansdowne Live. Could this have anything to do with the fact that several members of the Lansdowne Live team have provided financial support for Hume’s campaigns in past elections?

The new tree bylaw

Introduction of the ill thought-out residential tree preservation bylaw is likely resulting in the premature destruction of many trees that might otherwise have been preserved for years to come. Judging by a report in the Ottawa Citizen (Tree bylaw gets chainsaws revving, Robert Sibley, Aug. 29, 2009) many trees have been cut down prematurely in the days leading up to the September 1 bylaw enforcement deadline. Over the past few days CN (or possibly VIA) have been cutting down mature trees along railway rights of way in this neighborhood (Riverview). No doubt similar work is being undertaken elsewhere too.

Action to implement the bylaw resulted from recent rural clear-cutting of forested land in rural areas of the city. Previously there was no perceived need for measures of this magnitude to be introduced in urban residential areas. Most residents go to some lengths to preserve and protect their trees. However, some residents do plan on removing trees for reasons other than because they are unhealthy/dead, or because of possible damage to house structure/foundations that is permitted in the bylaw.

What if a resident wishes to plant a vegetable garden? Plants need healthy soil, free of tree roots and with access to sunlight in order to grow productively. It is unclear that tree clearing for such purposes is permitted. This is yet another example of city council interfering unnecessarily and setting their priorities wrongly.

Delaying Kanata/Stittsville Development

It was disappointing to hear the negative comments from other west-side members of City Council’s Planning and Environment Committee regarding Councillor Peggy Feltmate’s motion for a moratorium on development, pending a solution to persistent flooding problems in the area (Councillors reject Kanata development ban, Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, Aug. 26, 2009).

It is also wrong that leadership on this issue is being left to members of city council. Why are expert members of city staff not coming forward to council with recommendations? There is clearly a lot of work to do before this problem is fully understood and a viable solution can be implemented. Why invite the possibility of further disasters to householders in the area by proceeding as if there is not a problem? Hopefully sounder minds will prevail when the motion is debated in a couple of weeks.

Senior level government responsibilities to cities

Federation of Canadian Municipalities President, Basil Stewart,writes an excellent letter in the Ottawa Citizen (MPs must not offload responsibilities to cities, Ottawa Citizen, Thursday Aug. 26, 2009). He expresses concern that the federal government will attempt to balance its budget on the backs of municipal property tax payers.

The same issue also exists at the provincial level; a double whammy to the municipal tax payer. It is evident that the various levels of government fail to cooperated and provide longer term solutions to problems that affect them all. Instead we see announcements of band-aid financing that provides short term fixes that make individual governments and politicians look good.

Added to this, in Ottawa we see municipal councillors and provincial ministers sparing with each other about important municipal issues like storm drains and sewers as they try to position themselves as possible candidates in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. In the meantime they fail to address these important issues in a cooperative and constructive manner.

The Greens don’t need a seat, Really?

In his Ottawa Citizen column of August 24, 2009, (The greens don’t need a seat) Andrew Potter suggests that Green Party members occupy their time as the environmental wing of the Liberals and spend their time lobbying on issues rather that in pursuing seats in parliament that they are unlikely to win. This opinion piece is both arrogant and misguided.

Firstly, the Green Party of Canada can only accomplish what it does because it secures funding from supporters and from Elections Canada because of its ability to secure a significant share of votes in federal elections. Without funding and without securing visibility through the electoral process, it would be able to accomplish little and its volunteer base would disappear.

Secondly, lobbying is primarily in the domain of issue specific organizations (e.g. the Sierra Club of Canada on environmental issues). As a political party the greens address the full spectrum of political issues within the federal domain, not just the environment. It is true that the Green Party vision addresses issues from a sustainability perspective but it maintains a viable perspective on all of them. Further, within Green Party members there is diverse opinion and there is democratic debate on all issues.

The issue that prevents the Green Party from winning seats and having the voice it should have in Parliament is the current electoral system. Over 10 per cent of voters support the Greens, yet they do not have any representation in Parliament (Ottawa Citizen, Letters-to-the Editor, Give Greens a chance, K. Jean Cottam, Aug 26, 2009). As K. Jean Cottam the letter states: “The answer is to change the outdated, seriously malfunctioning Canadian political system.”

Not all of Ken Gray’s Advice is good

Ken Gray’s editorial comment in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Some advice for Larry O’Brien, August 12, 2009) is interesting and entertaining but not all of his advice is good. He suggests sending Councillor Peter Hume to Queen’s Park to solicit financial support from the provincial government.

Despite Hume’s apparent popularity with the McGuinty family dynasty it should be remembered that Councillor Hume has been a player on city council throughout the various incidents of sewer flooding that have occurred in Kanata and elsewhere. During this time, much of it as chair of the city’s Environment and Development Committee, he has been in a position to initiate action. Only now and only to criticize a potential opponent for the 2010 mayoralty campaign is he making himself heard on this issue. Why should we believe him now?

More on the sewage spill crisis

An interesting letter in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Sewage spill record is our national shame, Tor Rustad, Nepean, Aug 11, 2009) reacting to Councillor Peter Hume’s response to Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson’s concerns. Rustad notes that “If Hume believes that this track record is something he can be proud of, we should all be very concerned.”

For the record, I shall not be supporting either Peter Hume or Jim Watson, should either of them run in the 2010 mayoralty campaign. The have both been in municipal politics far too long and should now be put out to pasture.

Flooding follow-up

Kathleen Petty interviewed Councillor Peter Hume on CBC Ottawa Morning today (Aug 10, 2009). The key issue was insurance industry concern over the large increase in claims due to storm related flooding. Hume did not really have anything new to say, but instead used the interview as an opportunity to attack Jim Watson. He agreed with most of Kathleen Petty’s observations and acknowledged that the Fernbank development might require rethinking. But no evidence of any real plans was offered.

Councillor Gord Hunter is also weighing in on this issue; suggesting that home buyers likely could not afford increased home prices that would result if builders were required to install sewage/storm drainage pipes and infrastructure that would handle the types of flooding that has occurred recently. Really! Does this mean that we can look forward to continuing construction of homes and subdivisions without adequate drainage infrastructure? And what about all the existing homes that are susceptible to flooding? Again, no talk of real plans!

The term “hundred year storm” has been used many times recently in connection with recent flooding events. This term is clearly misused in the context of changing weather patterns resulting from climate change. Neither the City of Ottawa, nor City Council, has the required skills or the necessary resources to mange this issue alone. Long term solutions are needed and this needs cooperation from all levels of government.

Methinks thou doest protest too much

It is interesting to see Councillor Peter Hume re-emerge, responding to Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson’s “attack” on the city’s performance (Councillor seething over minister’s sewage remarks, Ottawa Citizen, Aug 8, 2009). Hume challenges the accuracy of Watson’s remarks; he notes that the city has a five year, $203 million plan to stop spills and reduce the number of overflows following storms. But he misses the point that the city continues to be tardy addressing sewer problems in Ottawa overall. Witness the lack of a solution to the latest round of flooding in Kanata. Further to this, it is likely that city plans to develop the Fernbank community will lead to further flooding problems in this area. Expansions like this can only contribute to an already overloaded sewer system.

Watson makes the point that the problem is getting worse and that much of the work will not even be started before 2010. So we can expect flooding and overflow problems to persist for years. How come things were ever allowed to come to this point? Perhaps because councillors and bureaucrats prefer to punish farmers posting quirky homemade signs and people who don’t manicure their lawns to some imaginary standard! Clearly the city continues to have its priorities wrong.

Hume’s salvo signals a start to his mayoralty campaign. All he is signaling is his ongoing disinterest in, and aggression toward, anyone who speaks out about the deteriorating state of the city and suggests that there is a better way forward.

Kudos to VIA Rail and Teamsters Canada Rail Conference

An excellent letter in the Ottawa Citizen today (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Desirable+relations/1839388/story.html). I was mulling over writing one in a similar vein, but Keith Egli beat me to it! I never expected to be singing the praises of VIA Rail but OC Transpo and the Amalgamated Transit Union could certainly learn something about consideration of public interests from this example.

A viable alternative to Rogers

We’ve decided to cancel our Rogers cable subscription and are investing in an Over the Air (OTA) antennae system that gives us excellent reception of local stations (these are the ones we view most often anyway). In a few months we will recover our initial investment in the antennae and will be viewing television for free, released from steep monthly fees from Rogers, mostly for the many channels we never view anyway. This move will also simplify the change-over to DTV that will take place in 2011.

Message to Rogers: Your inconsiderate decision to eliminate Cable Channel 64 (PBS Watertown N.Y.) precipitated this decision and we are encouraging friends to take similar action. Our cell phone service from Rogers is the next on our list to go.

Update, July 30, 2009: I am very pleased to learn that today Rogers backed down on the WPBS Watertown issue. However, this will not influence our decision to give Rogers the boot. This firm, like other TV and cellphone service providers is a deal to greedy and arrogant.

Putting greed before need

A lot of folk are expressing anger about Rogers’ unilateral decision to eliminate Cable Channel 64 (PBS Watertown N.Y.) and to force them to subscribe to digital channels if they want access. Their response, or lack of response, to Ottawa resident’s complaints demonstrates what their real priority is (increased profits, no matter what!).

Rogers is inconsiderate to customer concerns and needs in so many ways. Another issue that came to my attention recently relates to their “pay as you go” cell-phone service. Subscribers are being bombarded by unsolicited junk calls for which they are charged. Rogers is benefiting from this unexpected revenue stream at subscribers’ expense and inconvenience. It’s time to change and to look for viable alternatives.

The State of Democracy in Canada

The subject of the June 9, 2006 D4D meeting was the state of democracy in Canada. Ottawa City Councillor Clive Doucet opened up the meeting with some observations on current issues and events. Unfortunately Clive had to leave early because of prior commitment but his comments stimulated much discussion amongst participants. Following is a summary of comments from Clive and others during the course of the meeting.

In Canada, as in many other countries, many aspects of the democratic process are still quite superficial. Inadequate controls are in place and there is still no real accountability by the people in power. Successive governments have encouraged degradation of Canada’s nation institutions:
e.g. the health care system and CN Rail. At the local level, facilities and infrastructure have been allowed to degrade. In almost every case, after allowing these institutions to fail universal solutions appear to favor privatization in some form.

In the health care system privatization of selected services and hospitals is seen by many as a viable solution.
After CN failed due to lack of adequate financial support from government it was privatized and is now virtually a U.S. focused company. Canadian based services and facilities continue to degenerate.
The City of Ottawa has allowed facilities like Lansdowne Part to degenerate and crumble year after year. The City is now considering a sole source contract arrangement with a developer group that will virtually take over develop and operate the entire Lansdowne facility for a period of some 30 years returning it to the City’s care just in time for its mid-life refit.

Participant observations on democracy in Canada suggest it is weak or failing:

We live in a democracy of the rich (e.g. banks, investment institutions and insurance firms) not the people. Rightwards shifts by dictatorial groups are appearing from nowhere. Democracy was stronger before the industrial revolution than it is today. Corporations and financial institutions have undue influence over the political process.

The existing “first past the post” electoral system tears the country apart and angers people. The coalition government strategy launched by the opposition parties in response to unrealistic budget plans by the Harper government last December offered an excellent opportunity to demonstrate a different form of government in Ottawa.

At the municipal level in Ottawa local government amalgamation driven by the Harris led provincial conservatives has urban and rural representatives who do not have the same interests or priorities voting on each others issues. This has resulted in ineffective government and stalemate on many issues. It has never achieved one of its primary objectives, to save money. In fact it has had the reverse effect. When faced with disappointment people tend to turn to the “strong guy” not necessarily the most sensible solution!

The city’s decision not to proceed with the southern light rail initiative has hurt the local economy significantly. Also an opportunity to quickly reduce air pollution has been lost. The democratic process was seriously compromised as a result political interference from higher levels of government.

Participants felt strongly that some form of proportional representation would go a long way toward reinforcing/restoring effective democracy in government. In a post meeting note Clive Doucet opined “democratic reform is the key to having our governments work better but is (apparently) the initiative of least interest to the public. It is a conundrum I don’t have an answer to but we need fair tax sharing between governments and proportional representation more than we need to change (replace) the inhabitants of the political chairs. But how do we get the message out there? I commend your efforts but as you can see, it’s not easy.”

Whilst attendance at this event was not as high as we had anticipated the level of interest and concern expressed by participants was very clear. Events will resume in the fall, likely at a new location. Stay tuned.

Municipal Elections Campaign Contributions - Proposed By-law Amendment

I sent an edited version of the following letter to the Ottawa Citizen last week. Unfortunately it was not published.

Proposed election contribution by-law a cop-out

Ottawa City Council yesterday made the unfortunate decision to not outlaw municipal election campaign contributions by businesses and unions (Council agreed to ask province to create election contributor by-law, Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2009). The article cites analysis that suggests some candidates rely heavily on election campaign contributions from developers and other businesses that deal directly with the city. Contributions of this nature are no longer allowed in federal election campaigns. It is time that the city and the province enact similar legislation.

It should also be noted that while some candidates do not accept contributions from businesses or unions, some do receive significant contributions from business owners and executives whose firms deal directly with the city. The watered-down agreement that will ask the province to allow the city to enact a by-law requiring candidates to submit a list of campaign financial contributors within 30 days of an election will help a little, but it does not go far enough and will do nothing to eliminate possible conflicts of interest.

The Official Plan still requires attention

Some see this week’s vote by Ottawa City Council to cut back on the urban boundary expansion originally proposed by city staff as a small victory. However, it does nothing to address the need to radically change the overall plan that is really required. At the moment, this city is really being planned by the developers and not by the city (Development Plans lack proper direction. Randal Denley, Ottawa Citizen, June 11, 2009).

A well thought out Official Plan will provide for the development of communities that are more self-contained; communities in which a majority of residents can live, work and play. This requires a long-term vision as well as a high level of consultation and cooperation by all three levels of government.

Let us hope that in the five year period until the next mandatory (did someone say arbitrary?) review of the plan that council undertakes serious consultations with its provincial and federal counterparts and also directs city staff to rethink the planning process.

The law and ethical behavior do not always coincide

Mayor Larry O’Brien’s defence strategy announced this week in support of his criminal trial is outrageous. O’Brien’s alleged offer to help arrange a federal appointment for Brian Kilrea, legal or not, is a blatent interference with the political process.

One of two candidates with a similar political orientation (left or right) agreeing to one of them to stand down so as not to split the vote is one thing, but offering incentives such as a political appointment is quite another. Political appointments negotiated by elected officials expedite government actions and decisions. But during an election, these same negotiations deny voters the opportunity to express their electoral preferences at the polls.

Whatever the outcome of this trial Mayor O’Brien will carry the stain of unethical conduct. He should stand down and allow the democratic process to be restored in the City of Ottawa.

Dialogue for Democracy Meeting, June 9, 2009

• The date for the next D4D meeting has been brought forward to Tuesday, June 9, 2009.
  
  Time: 7:00 pm
  
  Location: St. Thomas the Apostle Anglican Church, 2345 Alta Vista Drive.
  
  The topic for this meeting is “The State of Democracy in Canada.”
  
  There are many issues in the news today that challenge the democratic process at all three level of government in Canada. Here are some examples:
  
  over 1 million federal voters across Canada cast their votes without receiving any representation in parliament from their party of choice;
• a prime minister prorogues parliament for the sole purpose of avoiding a vote of no confidence; a political party launches personalized attack ads that seek to differentiate between citizens (immigrants, residents and non-residents);
• a public judicial inquiry is under way into the business dealings between an ex-prime minister and an international business man and lobbyist;
• a criminal trial of the mayor of Ottawa for pretending to have influence over the government of Canada or a minister of the government in order to gain a benefit; and for soliciting, recommending or negotiating an appointment in order to gain a benefit, both contrary to the Criminal Code;
• provisions of the provincial and municipal elections acts that allow election campaign donations from corporations and unions in areas where there is real potential for conflicts of interest.
  
  Councillor Clive Doucet, a local politician and activist with a particular interest in governance issues will introduce the topic. This is a large subject that will likely take more than a two hour session to cover effectively, so we are considering holding follow-up D4D sessions. Speakers from other levels of government will be invited to attend.
  
  This should prove to be an interesting and exciting meeting. You are invited to come along and have your say. This will be the final D4D meeting of the season. Meetings will resume again in the fall.
  
  For further information please visit out web site http://www.ottawasouthgreenparty.ca/ or phone Colin at 613-739-2784.

Hold the Line

Hold the Line was the theme for the Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa’s noon-hour rally at the Human Rights Monument on Elgin Street today (Tues. May 12). Will Murray, an Ottawa lawyer organized the event in cooperation with Ecology Ottawa. The issue is Ottawa city council’s current agenda to amend the official land-use plan by increasing the urban boundary by nearly 850 hectares, much of which will eventually be occupied by single family dwellings.


The original plan amendment proposal and the modifications that are currently being debated were originally put forward by city staff. The opposition that now has emerged urges council to opt for zero land for suburban expansion with a focus on new development within the existing urban areas of the city. It is argued, rightly, that suburban expansion is unsustainable both environmentally and financially.

A number of like minded councillors attended the rally today as well as supporters from political parties, Sierra Club of Canada, the Raging Grannies and representatives from different communities across the city.


With respect to city staff, that do the background research and craft the Official Plan and amendments, it should be noted that they act based entirely on directions from city council. They actually do a pretty thorough job but a majority of council decided that an urban boundary expansion that would accommodate projected demand for single family dwellings was the way to go.

The Coalition for a Sustainable Ottawa is advocating a mix of housing development. Murray notes that distant suburbs have an environmental cost and are costly to maintain with services such as water, sewers public transit.

Hospital Link-Cumberland Transit Study Open House

There was good attendance at this open house held at the Jim Durrell Centre on April 29, 2009. The purpose of the open house is to present preliminary plans for the environmental assessment of the proposed Hospital Link – Browning Avenue section of the bus transit corridor that is now under way.
The presentation is in the form of display boards that include a summary of plans including specific ground rules for the project.

Representatives from the City of Ottawa and from the consulting firm that is undertaking the study (Morrison Hershfield Limited) were available to answer questions. Attendees were invited to submit written comments on forms provided and many people seemed to be taking advantage of this opportunity.

The display boards contain a lot of information, much of which is difficult to interpret and in many cases representatives were unable to clarify details satisfactorily. However, we were told that all the information on display at the open house would be uploaded to the City of Ottawa website, http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/public_consults/hospital_cumberland/index_en.html, giving people an opportunity to review it in more detail prior to submitting comments. This will also provide an opportunity for people who were unable to attend the open house to review the plans.

Unfortunately, there has been a significant delay in making this information available, and as time is of the essence for this study it is possible that the deadline for submitting comments might pass without members of the public having the opportunity to submit informed comments. Today I was informed that the information should be available by Friday May 8. I’m continuing to hold my breath!

The Lansdowne Debate

Following is a copy of a message I sent to Ottawa city councillors on the subject of the future of Lansdowne Park. I sent the message on Sunday, ahead of the Monday, April 20, 2009 public hearings. So far I have received responses from two councillors endorsing my position.

Members of Ottawa City Council,

I am writing regarding Monday's meeting on the future of Lansdowne Park. Unfortunately I am unable to attend in person, but have some views I would like you all to hear.

These views concern:
- city finances and associated risks,
- the viability of professional sports franchises in the City of Ottawa,
- stadium locations, and
- suitable uses for Lansdowne Park.

Firstly, the city does not have a viable track record sustaining and supporting professional sports teams, one exception being the Ottawa Senators NHL franchise. The professional football franchise has failed twice and baseball teams have also failed twice at the Coventry Road stadium location. Why then should the city take on any risk associated with a third try at sustaining a CFL franchise or a soccer franchise? With regard to professional football, notwithstanding the viability of a local franchise, the long term viability of the CFL itself is questionable. With regard to soccer, while amateur soccer participation is growing, long term viability of a professional franchise in Ottawa still needs to be proven. Football and soccer franchises combining under one roof might do something to minimize the risk if one or the other should fail. Failure of both would be a disaster.

All risk associated with the proposed enterprise should therefore be taken on by the consortia submitting proposals. If investment of any magnitude is needed it should come from private investors, not the tax paying citizens of Ottawa. Any city involvement in such an enterprise should be limited to providing a suitable stadium location at reasonable lease or purchase conditions. Financing of stadium construction and management is entirely a private sector responsibility. Clearly private sector money will only become available if the sports franchise is viable in the long term.

With regard to stadium locations, Lansdowne is unsuitable as it is not effectively supported by public (mass) transit, neither is it supported within the local community. Any site considered should be served by transit within the planned timeframe that a stadium is constructed. It should also be respectful of neighborhood concerns, something that this council seems to be incapable of addressing. Council might wish to place other condition regarding the long term location of a sports stadium within the core of the city.

With regard to future uses for Lansdowne Park, to date no concrete plans for the location, other than the work done by the Lansdowne Live consortium has been undertaken. Efforts to initiate serious planning and design studies have been thwarted and delayed. Serious planning work must be initiated. I do not see time as an issue because the city has many higher priority issues that need financing for the next several years. In the short term the integrity of existing infrastructure must be preserved, pending any final decisions on the site. The Civic Centre itself needs to be preserved and upgraded as it serves the Ottawa 67s franchise effectively and many exhibitions are held there. New uses for the park area, including the Farmers' Market that will be of increasing importance in the future are also emerging. Clearly there is a lot of work to do but entertaining the Lansdowne live proposal is not a solution.

Regards,

Colin Hine

First Open house for the proposed Hospital Link/Cumberland Corridor study

It is reported that the first open house for the "Hospital Link/Cumberland Corridor study" will take place on Wed. April 29th, 18:00-21:00 at Ellwood Hall in the Jim Durrell Rec. Centre on Walkley Road. There is no confirmation of this on the City of Ottawa web site with less than 2 weeks to go before the event. Very strange!

These meetings will provide some of very few limited opportunities to challenge the planned Browning corridor being used as a transitway. This is an alert to everyone who would like to be heard on the matter.

Deja vu all over again

The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) ruling of the proposed Minto subdivision in Manotick (OMB ruling outrages village residents, Maria Cook, Ottawa Citizen, April 11, 2009) reminded me of a similar ruling by the Ontario Minister of the Environment with regard to the Alta Vista Transportation Corridor (AVTC).

With regard to Minto’s Mahogany subdivision, Brian Tansley, president of Manotick West community association, notes "Disappointed would be an understatement, we lost big time. Every single point that we raised was ruled down…The primary disappointment is the lack of justification for the ruling. In a legal document there's references to prior rulings to provide rationale for decisions. There were none of those.”

In the AVTC case many community groups, spearheaded by Citizens for Healthy Communities (CHC) and the Sierra club of Canada worked for many years to highlight environmental, induced traffic, economic, public transit and other community concerns surrounding the proposed development. Despite this, the minister ruled down every single point raised by the community.

These are two examples of governments, municipal and provincial, failing to treat community concerns seriously. In both cases public concerns were simply discounted in the interests of developers.

Ottawa Citizen - letter to the editor

I sent the following letter to the citizen.

Defence trade show ethics

An article in today’s Ottawa Citizen (Mayor called on ethics over show, Jake Rupert, March 31, 2009) addresses the possible conflict of interest resulting from Mayor Larry O’Brien’s support of the CANSEC 2009 defence industry trade show at Lansdowne Park because of his relationship with Calian Technologies Ltd. At the heart of this is the debate regarding the ethics of using City of Ottawa facilities to promote and market defence industry products and capabilities.

I worked in the defence industry sector for most of my career and felt privileged to work on many exciting state-of-the-art project initiatives. The technology is evermore fascinating and one can easily be blinded to the dehumanizing consequences of using sophisticated systems and weaponry in warfare. Over time I have come to realize that the application of war and military solutions to conflicts is, in most cases, no solution at all and that alternative measures involving peacekeeping, development and diplomacy offer preferred paths.

Social changes do not happen overnight however, so for the foreseeable future wars will continue to be fought and military systems and weapons will continue to be needed. Nonetheless steps can be taken to reduce the glorification of war and warlike activities as well as the promotion of defence procurement activities in public arenas.

Whilst trade show access might not be open to the public, there is inevitably a lot of press surrounding these events and contractors advertise their products and capabilities extensively in public. Unlike other types of government procurement, products being acquired for defence/military purposes are not sold to the general public. So why promote them publicly? Defence contractors’ marketing and sales efforts should be directed to government procurement groups outside of the public domain.

Going further, why the need for military air shows and military flying displays, for example the Snowbirds? Attractive as these events might be to the public, they help promote the acceptability of military solutions and the interests of defence industry suppliers. Do defence contractors really require use of such arenas to sell their wares to governments and the military?

A great public forum on city governance

Councillor Clive Doucet sponsored an excellent forum, “Governing Ottawa Better”, last evening in the council chamber at City Hall. It was very well attended; there was a well informed panel of speakers; and there was lots of opportunity for individual citizens to speak and make their views known.

I think that a majority of people attending were likely in favor of some form of re-amalgamation of the city from its present structure. However, we also learned that getting the mission accomplished might not be easy.

There a couple of ways that a re-amalgamation (sounds more positive than de-amalgamation!) could be pursued by:

- local referendum or
- direct legislative change initiated by City Council.

Both options have pros and cons, but either way the provincial government has to buy in. The past history of attempts to de-amalgamate in the Province of Ontario shows that the government has rejected past attempts on the basis of uncertainty regarding fiscal sustainability, adverse property tax shifts (property tax fairness) and lack of council endorsement. Any proposal to change the present municipal structure would have to address the first two issues effectively. This requires a lot of effort.

If this initiative moves forward Clive and his team will need a lot of help and support.

If you are willing to help lobby your local MPP for municipal reform in Ottawa, or participate in working groups looking at alternate governance structures, please visit Clive’s web site. Electronic copies of a governance questionnaire are also available at Clive’s web site: http://www.clivedoucet.com/.

Hard to believe

I was amazed to learn that Ottawa City Council was unable to debate the issue of the pilot project for a transit pass for University of Ottawa students (24,000 of them) on what appears to be a rules of procedure technicality. So there will be no pilot project even though council’s transportation committee had voted unanimously in favor of the program.

According to Patrick Dare (Ottawa Citizen, Councillors vote against waiving rules for debate, March 12, 2009) city solicitor Rick O'Connor said council should waive the rules of procedure because the university pass issue was already debated on in December 2008 and he was supported on this issue by the mayor. The required three quarters majority required to waive the rules was of course not there, good going Mr. Mayor!

To my recollection this debate was never completed, because council agreed to resume debate on the issue after the budget was passed and this indication was certainly given to students attending the council meeting back in December. And of course the transit strike has further delayed resumption of any discussions.

It is now unlikely that a student pass will be available in the City of Ottawa for several years. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when the city is trying to recover ridership figures again after a long and inconvenient transit strike.

Signs of Spring and Municipal Elections in the Air

Although there are still twenty months to go before the next municipal election in Ottawa, there’s lots of talk about council leadership. This results from speculation around the possible outcome of mayor Larry O’Brien’s upcoming trial as well as public concerns regarding council performance as a whole.

There are calls for new candidates to come forward and challenge incumbent councillors, many of whom have been in place, virtually unchallenged, for far too long. Along with this some are suggesting political parties at the municipal level, and term limits for councillors.

Term limits might not be needed if voters have more than one viable candidate to select from at election time. It is costly to run an effective campaign, making it increasingly difficult for newcomers to run against incumbents. A party approach might help here as the party organization can work on fundraising and community issues more effectively between elections.

Changes will also be needed in the area of funding of political parties and financing of municipal election campaigns. Right now the province’s municipal elections act permits funding for candidates from corporate sources and this has led to perceptions of conflict of interest for many candidates and incumbents. This will become even more pronounced if political parties are involved. Either way, changes to the elections act similar to those enacted at the federal level are needed urgently.

Changes of this sort will not come easily as similar campaign funding rules are also in place at the provincial level. It would be a tall order to get necessary changes in municipal elections act enacted before the next election. It has been suggested that political reform should come from within the community and cities (Problem of Leadership, Ottawa Citizen, March 5, 2009) but current provincial laws and regulations prevent this from happening.

Ontario’s Proposed New Green Energy Act

Following is the original text of a letter to the Ottawa Citizen from Dick Bakker, CEO of the Ottawa South Green Party EDA. The letter published March 4, 2009 was edited because of space limitations. The full original text is included here.

Re: McGuinty’s mighty wind.

Randall Denley, Sunday March 1, 2009

The proposed Green Energy Act (GEA) is the start of a fix to Ontario’s electrical albatross. Rather than focus on hot buttons like home energy audits, windmills and bureaucratic deregulation the public should be looking at the intent of the Act and where similar efforts have been successful.

As a Green Party member I am quite pleased to give credit where credit is due and put partisan views aside for a moment. I am not great supporter of Messer’s McGuinty and Smitherman, but I am fully behind them on this.

What is the state of our present electrical system? Taxpayer subsidized consumers, nuclear overruns/underproduction, never-ending debt retirement charges, centralized power generation ensuring 10-20% transmission power loss, and dirty coal plants. What to do? How will Ontario get reliable estimates for new nuclear or coal plants in this climate of tight credit? Who will deal with any cost overruns? The taxpayer of course! Again!

The GEA is an omnibus Act intended to tilt Ontario’s energy production from big centralized power facilities towards a decentralized model. The Act calls for a plethora of Renewable options; bio-mass, bio-gas, geothermal, bio-fuel, tidal, run-of-river hydro, co-generation, wind and solar. It encourages Co-ops, native bands and property owners to become generators. Municipal, building and environmental regulations are to be streamlined, enabling speedier development of Renewables. Conservation will finally be a core objective of all government.

Feed-In Tariffs (FIT) are a key component. FIT’s are a method to kick-start the Renewable sector on a ‘performance only’ basis; no money is paid without delivered energy! Fixed rates are guaranteed for up to 20 years and tailored to the generation technology, with guaranteed grid access for the producer. This encourages smallscale production, the development of a distributed grid and localized employment. As of 2007 over 44 jurisdictions had implemented FIT’s; Ontario is the first in North America.

The GEA is based on Germany’s Green Energy Act and Feed-In Tariff success. Over 8 years Germany added 31,000 MW of NEW Renewable Energy to their electrical grid. This in a country with a higher population density and fewer natural resources than Canada! The sector employs over 280,000 and is the world’s leading renewable technology exporter. The incremental cost of this capacity has added only 36Euro/year ($50Cdn) to the average German consumer. In 2000, Germany’s renewable energy share was 6%, growing to 15% in 2008; and growth is accelerating FIT rates are regularly lowered to reflect industry learning curves and cost reductions.

Germany has introduced more new renewable power production in 8 years than Ontario generates from all of its nuclear stations, which were built (and refurbished) over the last 40 years! Renewable costs drop every year, input costs are near zero!

Wind and solar now deliver less than 1% of Ontario’s production. What was it 2 years ago? World wind production has been growing at an annual rate of 30-40% for 20 years? Solar has been growing at a rate of 50-70% over the same time! It is time for North America to catch up.

Wind is intermittent, but it is always blowing somewhere and the cost of wind power has been dropping for years. Hydro is a natural partner technology to wind and Quebec’s hydro grid should be interconnected with Ontario’s to provide the natural backup. Solar of course, is only available when the sun shines, this happens to match the point in the day when we have peak energy demand. Therefore, every new solar electric capacity reduces the need for expensive peak time production. The other technologies mentioned have different production profiles, and can each add to the electrical mix in different ways.

Smitherman is probably wise to back off on the house Energy Audit requirement. This is not the time to get realtors and house sellers upset when they are focused on dropping home values. The Audit provision is an excellent means to get home owners to take energy conservation seriously. There are other ways to get this done that will not directly raise the hackles of a stressed out Realty industry. In order to get this law passed the government may need to placate widespread political opposition, they can give in a bit, but not on the core intention of the Act.

Otherwise, I do not see significant changes needed. The bylaw, building code and environmental regulations must be tailored to favour small localized energy production, rather than the present indirect reinforcement of large centralized and expensive plants.

The alternative to small renewable projects scattered across the province would be more large Nuclear/Coal/Gas facilities with government guaranteed insurance and taxpayer funded cost overruns. The Ontario Government is still planning to proceed with nuclear expansion. This is wrong, expensive, dangerous and inefficient.

The Green Energy Act is the start of necessary improvements to the Ontario electrical system. Let’s give McGuinty and Smitherman credit for this move. There is a lot of work and opportunity before Ontario as this Act gets implemented. More ‘Work’ and ‘Opportunity’ is what Ontario needs today.

If we can get a few years of good growth similar to Germany’s experience, the justification for nuclear expansion will wither.

Off-topic

This blog post is off-topic but my ego was stimulated by an article in today’s paper, Small businesses squeezed out of federal deals - association, Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 27, 2009. In the 90’s I was a small business consultant and worked with a group of like-minded consultants pursuing contract opportunities, largely with federal government clients. As a group we experienced highs and lows but the competitive environment was more open to small businesses and contractors than it is today. We were able to win a reasonable share of contracts based upon the quality of our proposals, the experience/qualifications of our people, and the competitiveness of our consulting rates against those of larger corporate competitors.

Small business consultants pursuing government contract opportunities today are forced to contract their services to large contracting organizations in order to secure work. As second or third tier contractors their consulting rates are severely squeezed. The big guys, in turn, mark-up subcontractors labor rates and make a reasonable profit while carrying little or no risk. The subcontractors become virtual employees of the big firm, with none of the benefits of employment and at rates that fail to bridge gaps that inevitably occur between contract engagements.

Government clients feel that they benefit from doing business with a smaller group of large firms using standing offers and other supply arrangements. But in reality they are missing out on the benefits of dealing with small specialist groups and individuals who often possess unique skills and experience that never surfaces through the large corporation.

Current contracting regulations are very restrictive to government mangers and directors. As a result there are losers at both ends of the chain:

• Government customers lose out by not having access to the unique skills of individual people at competitive rates;
• Small business consultants are discouraged from pursuing opportunities with government clients. Instead, they become just a group of expendable bodies working at marginal rates for large contracting organizations that take all the profit with minimal risk.