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.