text:
Council's Community Services Committee Passes Stop-Gap Funding to Restore Housing Stability Benefit – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 12, 2016
Council’s Emergency and Community Services Committee acted quickly today to implement stop-gap funding to restore and continue Hamilton’s Housing Stability Benefit.
Councillor Sam Merulla walked on a motion to increase funding to the benefit, which is facing a $2.5-million deficit until end of the funds fiscal year on March 31, 2017.
The Housing Stability Benefit is designed to assist people to remain in housing by providing funds for utility and rent arrears. For recipients of Ontario Works (welfare) or the Ontario Disability Support Program, the program also funds appliances, moving costs, and mattresses, as well as bed bug preparation and prevention.
The $5.7-million budgeted fund has experienced an increase in demand this year due to raising utility costs causing arrears, the increase cost of rent in Hamilton, and mattresses for ODSP recipients due to bed bugs.
Council only learned of the deficit two weeks ago, and the General Manager of Emergency and Community Services had to cut the majority of fund benefits to deal with the deficit.
(Video from the November 21, 2016 Council EC&S meeting on the funding deficit)
Councillors heard delegations from four individuals on the importance of the fund.
Among the delegations, Natasha Findlya-Clairmont was particularly powerful. She is facing precarious housing and requires access to the Housing Stability Fund to afford last month’s rent on new housing. Her current housing is unsafe, and without the HSB, she will be unable to afford to move. Her current housing lacks heating and she is forced to use electrical plugin space heaters, and there are other serious issues.
She has found a residence to move into for January, but cannot move without the HSB, because she needs the benefit to replace items due to bed bug infestations.
(A Planning and Economic Development – the department responsible for Hamilton’s Housing By-Law Enforcement – manager spoke with her after the meeting to offer assistance)
Merulla spoke about the HSB being another example of downloading, and that once again Hamilton City Council – and Hamiltonians – are stepping in to prevent suffering from provincial cuts.
Councillor Terry Whitehead spoke about the broken taxation policies that force this social assistance expense onto the property tax instead of income tax.
In the end, Councillors voted unanimously to use any surplus in the Emergency and Community Services, and then the Tax Stabilization Reserve to reinstate the program until March 31, 2017.
The vote needs to be ratified at City Council on Wednesday.
Full video of Council’s debate today is available on The Public Record’s Youtube Page: https://youtu.be/GmG7cObxEyU


text:
Hamilton Community and Emergency Services Committee for December 2016 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 12, 2016
Full video of City Council’s Emergency and Community Services Committee meeting in December 2016.

source: news-thepublicrecord

created: December 12, 2016

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Hamilton Council Highlight: Anna Roberts on City-Wide Fire Levies – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 7, 2016
Hamilton resident Anna Roberts, noting that in many suburban areas, residents enjoy the same fire service but pay a much lower tax rate for the service.
Councillors professionally discussed her points, and asked staff for a future update.
YouTube Video Link

created: December 7, 2016


text:
HSR Inefficiency: 60-Foot-Buses on Stoney Creek Local at Night Instead of King – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 2, 2016
This was originally pushed on The Public Record’s microblog on December 2, 2016. We’ve wrapped up that blog and are reposting here.
Every weeknight, the HSR runs double-length articulated buses from Eastgate Square to Downtown Stoney Creek, Stoney Creek Municipal Centre, and Stoney Creek’s Levi Loop.
The passenger loads on all three routes combined wouldn’t fill one regular sized HSR bus. Meanwhile, the HSR is operating 1-King buses with 40′ buses which have to pass people because they are carrying full standing loads.
Here’s a photo of TWO articulated buses on Stoney Creek and a 40′ King bus I boarded a few weeks ago. The bus had to pass people at Wentworth and Wellington. Meanwhile, those articulated buses were running mostly empty in Stoney Creek.
Why is this?
The Stoney Creek buses interline with the 10-B-Line prior to 6 p.m. each day, and the HSR doesn’t switch buses while in service.
How hard is the fix?
Not hard, after 6 p.m. at the Eastgate Terminal, articulated Stoney Creek buses can pull into the 1-King bus stop, the 1-King can pull into the Stoney Creek stop, the drivers switch buses, and that’s it. Nothing complicated.
The only complication is that fixing this problem would require the HSR’s $125,000 per year senior Manager of Customer Service and Scheduling to add a note to the driver schedules to make the switch.
It also requires operations to monitor, and adjust in circumstances such as a traffic collision delaying either route. (This is fairly simple, cancel the switch that evening or await the next opportunity with both buses at Eastgate Terminal.)

created: December 2, 2016


text:
Join Us on January 12 for The Public Record at The Pub: The roots of Hamilton's Urban/Suburban Divide and What We Can Do To Fix It – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 30, 2016
In the months leading up to the 2018 Election, The Public Record is committed to improve the civic discussion in Hamilton and will be hosting a monthly series of events we’re calling The Public Record at The Pub.
The roots of Hamilton’s Urban/Suburban Divide and What We Can Do To Fix It
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2016
Time: 7:00pm to 9:00pm  (We’ll be at the pub for dinner at 5:30pm, feel free to come early and join the informal conversation)
Location: The Corktown Pub, 175 Young Street East in Ward 2. (Google Maps)
Event on Facebook
Join us on Thursday, January 12, 2016 for a discussion of the roots urban / suburban political divide in Ontario with Dr. Zachary Spicer of Brock University.
Our discussion will look at the roots of our current state of discourse going back to the 1849 Baldwin Act – passed only three years after Hamilton’s founding -, the roots of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth founded in 1973, the forced amalgamation of Hamilton in 2000, and then to today’s area rating and ward boundary debates.
Dr. Spicer is the author of The Boundary Bargain: Growth, Development and the Future of City-County Separation published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.
A leading expert on municipal governance, Dr. Spicer is an associate professor of political science at Brock University. Spicer completed his undergraduate degree at McMaster University and presently resides in Westdale with his wife.
The event will start at 7:00pm with Dr. Spicer taking questions from The Public Record’s Joey Coleman based upon his book, and then we’ll open the floor to questions from the audience.
Prior to the event, you are invited to join us for informal conversation at the pub over dinner and drinks.
Please RSVP on our on Facebook page to assist us in projecting attendance.
See you on the 12th!

created: December 30, 2016


text:
OMB Rules Against Hamilton City Council: 5-Storey Building at 71 – 77 Leland Approved – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 5, 2016
The Ontario Municipal Board has tossed Hamilton City Council’s opposition to a 5-storey 129-unit student-orientated multi-residential development near McMaster University in the Ainslie Wood neighbourhood at 71 – 77 Leland Street.
The land was previously used for light industrial. The existing industrial buildings will be demolished.
The developer, Creek Village Inc, appealed to the OMB after Council failed to decide within legislated timelines.
Councillor Aidan Johnson opposed the development, which City planning staff stated fulfilled the requirements of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan and recommended the approval of. Council hired outside planners to argue their case.
The OMB sided with the developer, writing:
This brownfield site affords an excellent opportunity to realize intensification and rather than penalizing this opportunity by reducing building height and/or unit density for the sake of a numeric reduction, the applications have demonstrated a capacity to comply with prevailing provincial and Official Plan policy and produce a residential, multi density use capable of achieving neighbourhood compatibility.
On November 9, 2016, Councillor Johnson was on The Public Record Radio Show and I specifically asked him about his opposition to this development, and in light of that opposition, where he felt students should live.
Take a listen to Johnson explaining that he believes purpose-built student housing should be on Main Street West, and then former McMaster Dean of Students Dr. Phil Wood responds to Johnson by noting those who say Main West often opposed development on their corner of Main West:
(Download – 3:54 – 1.73mb MP3 file)
The OMB ruling does impose a holding provision on the development, the developer will need to improve water lines to the building for fire suppression purposes:
[T]he Board is amending the proposed rezoning by-law described in Attachment 1 to signal the imposition of a Holding (H) provision to ensure that the enactment of site plan control includes that “Required Fire Flow” is addressed by Creek to the satisfaction of the Senior Director of Growth Management. In accordance with Exhibit 6, the Holding provision will ensure that the required fire flow needs are addressed including the potential requirement that Creek may have to extend the watermain from Emerson Avenue to satisfy water flow needs related to emergency servicing.

created: December 5, 2016


text:
Quick Response to Donna Skelly and John Best's Claims The Public Record is a Proprietor of Fake News – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

December 3, 2016
A quick response to claims by Hamilton City Councillor Donna Skelly and Bay Observer editor John Best that I’m a proprietor of “fake news” posted on Facebook Friday.
You even see examples of wrong news, if not fake news getting out of hand in our local blogosphere. During a recent council budget debate, blogger Joey Coleman tweeted “Donna Skelly says the City should look at installing bike racks on the front of HSR buses as an alternative to Clairmont Bike Track.”
This prompted blogger Graham Crawford to post a satirical cartoon with Skelly’s photo and the headline: “In related news Ward 7 Councillor Donna Skelly said the city should look at installing traffic lights at major intersections.” The trouble is, Skelly didn’t make the comment attributed to her by Coleman and told him so after somebody sent her the tweet. A review of the tape of the meeting makes it clear that Skelly was discussing allowing cyclists free access to the bus racks in order to get up the escarpment. Coleman nonetheless posted a second tweet “I’ll call this “very quick win” because (unknown to those who don’t ride HSR), bike racks already installed.” Here’s the thing; Donna Skelly often rides the bus to work, so she is fully aware that bus racks are already on buses. It was a cheap shot to try to portray her as clueless and the blogger went on to make the false assumption that Skelly didn’t use public transit. Stereotyping? It’s no big deal but between Coleman and Crawford it shows how dangerous it is to be trigger happy with social media.
Here’s what Skelly said during the November 25, 2016 City Council budget meeting:
“Let’s look at one very quick fix, which could be adding bicycle racks to the front of a bus, and then including the bus on the access itself”
I tweeted:
Donna Skelly says the City should look at installing bike racks on the front of HSR buses as an alternative to Claremont Bike Track #YHMgov
Then, I tweeted:
I’ll call this “very quick win” because (unknown to those who don’t ride HSR), bike racks already installed.
Here’s the short audio of Skelly’s statement (0:11 – 142kb MP3 file) and the fuller audio (8:46 – 6,620kb MP3 file) of Skelly’s comments surrounding the comment, giving you the full context.
(Skelly’s comment is at 5:35 in the longer audio)
It is contextual to listen to Skelly’s comments to listen to Sam Merulla’s comments (1:57 – 144kb MP3 file) minutes before during the meeting.
During his comments, Merulla first asked:
Another question with respect to Claremont, I have a constituent who works on Upper James and I was advised by her that there is no bus that actual travels down the Claremont. Can I get clarification on that?
Skelly, who was chaired, did not know the answer. She asked staff:
Is there someone who can speak to the bus routes [pause] Do we have anyone here that can speak to?
I tweeted:
Councillor Merulla asked City staff if there is any bus route on the Claremont Access – none of the Councillors or staff know #YHMgov
Then tweeted:
Seriously, there are 50 senior staff, 13 City Councillors, not one of them knows HSR bus routes well enough #YHMgov
It took a minute to find a staff member, who looking at their laptop, stated there was no buses serving the Claremont.
Skelly says she is a regular HSR rider, I’m not sure how she, being a Ward 7 resident who regular uses the HSR, doesn’t know the 7 “Upper” and 3 other Downtown-to-Mountain buses well enough to know they don’t use the Claremont.
Merulla then suggested that changing HSR bus routes to run on the Claremont and to provide bicycles free access to the HSR as an alternative to building a $2-million cycle track.
If there is a bus, perhaps we can partner with HSR to provide access to bikes down the Claremont on the bike itself … it something we might consider what I think will be far less costly than building the actual lanes itself.”
It was Merulla’s idea which Skelly was supporting.
The words stated by Clr. Skelly are accurate, she did state the City should install bike racks as an alternative to building the bike track.
It’s that simple.
If Skelly misspoke, and didn’t mean to express her idea in the words she choose, I would’ve been very happy to share with readers her clarifying remarks.
Instead, Skelly came to me after the meeting, complained that I was lying about her and that she’ll be acting to correct the public record.
I responded that I would review my recording and publish a correction if I misquoted her.
On Saturday, November 26, the day after, I pulled the audio and reviewed it.
On Monday, I saw Councillor Skelly and told her I reviewed the tape, and that I had quoted her accurately, and that I would happily retweet any clarification she posted.
In regards to the accusation that I’m running a “fake news” site,
I’ve already responded to this by posting the full audio, and this post. There is no further commented needed directly to the accusation.
Sadly, this is just another day at Hamilton City Hall.
Council does not like that I’m covering and recording every meeting so the public can see what their public officials are doing.
They are regularly calling me a liar and making various accusations.
I’ll respond as needed.
I’ll respond further to this if I have an opportunity.
I hope you’ll enjoy an advance release of my The Public Record Radio Show interview for this coming Wednesday’s broadcast.
I interview Dr. Harry Kitchen of Trent University, one of Canada’s leading experts on municipal government finance and taxation, about his recent paper for the Munk School at University of Toronto’s Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance entitled New Tax Sources for Canada’s Largest Cities: What Are the Options?
Our City is facing a serious budget crisis, there is a serious discussion to be had about how we address this. This is why I’m not going to wait until Wednesday to release the interview, we need to be having this discussion now.
“Fake news” is barely distinguishable from mainstream coverage because so much of what passes for journalism today is poor quality poorly research content to fill space between ads and generate clickbait.
That’s the real problem – that serious journalism isn’t happening, and I’m not going to be part of this problem.
I’m committed to working hard to give you high quality journalism, insightful interviews, and to make our City better by helping you to fulfill your duty of citizenship to be an informed participant in our democracy.
I hope you’ll share this post with your friends, to stop the spread of the fake news in Mr. Best’s editorial about fake news.
More importantly, I hope you’ll take the time to read the IMFG tax sources report (it’s only 16 pages and it’s very insightful), listen to the podcast when I post it, and make sure to not be distracted from the major issues facing our City.
Building an informed Hamilton, that’s why I’m proud to serve you, my fellow Hamiltonians.
Thank you for the privilege.
Your fellow resident,
Joey Coleman

created: December 3, 2016


text:
Addressing Social Isolation Among Seniors – Hamilton Seniors Advisory Committee – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 6, 2017
During January’s Seniors Advisory Committee, there was a brief update on research about seniors living in social isolation in Hamilton.
The project is funded by the federal government and City staff are presently in the research and consultation phase of drafting a city-wide plan to reduce seniors social isolation.
Social isolation is a public health concern, research – including at McMaster University – shows that social isolation has health impacts both decreasing quality and length of life.
As the number of seniors – and their proportion of the overall population – increases, addressing quality of life issues such as isolation will be critical not only to seniors, but to all of us as we need to find cost effective means of decreasing health care costs, and finding ways for seniors to meaningfully engage in our community will be critical to the quality of life of all of us.
I wasn’t aware of this study prior to today’s meeting, it’s one I’ll be watching for – this is an important issue, it is good to see planning for it.

created: January 6, 2017


text:
Citizen Seeks Public Police Spending Ledgers, FOI Request Denied. His Letter to Council: – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 23, 2017
The following letter was submitted by Hamilton resident, and retired public sector accountant, Shekar Chandrashekar, to City Council.
Chandrashekar has been tireless in his efforts to bring transparency to civic finances in all departments, and has recently been trying to get the public police account ledgers. The information is legally public, held by the City, and Chandrashekar has been denied access to the information.
Chandrashekar spoke to Council this morning, and submitted the following letter to Council to assist them in understanding the matter. Moved by Councillor A. Johnson, Councillors asked for a confidential staff report on the grounds for denying access to the information.
Date: January 13, 2017
Madam Chairperson and Members of AF&A Committee
As a private citizen and concerned taxpayer of Hamilton, I have been asking City staff to provide all accounting records, including those of police services that do not involve operational matters, based on approved facts and established policy. Nevertheless, city staff continues to shift their responsibility without following City Council authority. I am providing you with supporting documents showing protocols you have set up and other relevant material. I have received verbal confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal affairs that it is the City’s responsibility to provide information to a private citizen.
I ask that the A&A committee recommend that there be:
1) Easier access to accounting records when asked
2) Greater scrutiny by City finance as to the budget and actual costs of police services, and
3) Greater detail and disclosure in published City budget documents.
I humbly appeal to Mr. Mayor, Madam Chair and members of A & A to approve this recommendation. Please don’t just receive it. The City is a publically funded organization. It should be accountable. It should be transparent.
I have followed all possible protocols before submitting this appeal to you and your committee to recommend my request. Even though I am a former City of Hamilton employee, I find it challenging to deal with this runaround. How would a person who is not familiar with city financial transactions deal with it? It does not support the City Manager’s mission to supply customer service and provide public accountability.
My concern is that, as one administrator said, “Staff play politics”.  In a publically funded organization, staff is there to provide unbiased actual information in order to facilitate decision making by elected representatives. As it stands, Councilors have difficulty posing the appropriate questions to staff in their efforts to protect tax payers’ interests. Per Council’s statement,” Why is accountability important to the City? It is to communicate effectively with the public to create a city where people come first”. But does staff follow this goal? Furthermore, City Council policy defines how to request FOI: “How do I access records in the custody and control of the City” and is clearly supported in the note to financial statements. But does staff follow Council policy or does staff follow their own interpretation of policy thereby undermining Council’s policy? This kind of staff politics is a burden costing millions of dollars to Hamilton taxpayers. Wages exceed budgeted amounts by over $1.2 M and sick leave and Vacation pay also significantly exceed budgeted amounts and there are others.
Police Services Concerns
Municipal Contribution to Police Services
KPMG Hamilton audited Police Services Schedule of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. Certain inaccurate financial information presented to the Police Services Board and City Council in KPMG’s report was not analyzed by Police Services and City staff. KPMG of Hamilton arbitrarily reduced the municipal contribution to police services operations by over $1.5 million without explaining the basis for the change in their note two of the Statement of Operations. The municipal contribution and actual contribution must be the same as per Levy By-Law 15-121 established by City Council as that is the amount of funding by Hamilton taxpayers to the operation of Hamilton Police Services. By reducing the municipal contribution, it not only it undermines City Council authority, it is misinforming Hamilton Taxpayers.
Pan Am Games
KPMG Hamilton did not audit Hamilton Police Services’ actual Pan Am game expenditures and receipts. They relied on and recognized Hamilton Police Services’ submission to the provincial Ministry. The provincial Ministry appointed Price Water house to audit all Ontario Police Services involved with hosting Pan Am activities. This raises questions;
Why didn’t Hamilton Police provide a presentation to their board stating actual Pan Am expenditures and receipts as did other police services boards?
Why didn’t Hamilton Police Services Board members demand that Pan Am game financial statements be presented to the Board and to the Public as did other Police services who hosted Pan Am Games?
KPMG Niagara audited Regional Police Services’ Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. Their audit report is clearer, provides much more detail, and includes an audit of Pan Am games receipts and actual expenditures. Their Pan Am costs were reimbursed in the same amount as they expended without any additional receipts. The audit by KPMG Niagara was much more efficient for less than what KPMG of Hamilton charged.
I had contacted other Police Services who hosted Pan Am games, including Toronto Police Services, to determine whether they received receipts higher than actual expenditures. Their answers were “No”. Then the question is, should Hamilton Police Services be any different? I have obtained a ruling from the Ministry and Deputy Minister confirming that Hamilton Police submitted a claim for $2.7 million and received that amount. That amount is significantly higher than the actual expenditures recorded in their actual available funds report obtained through FOI. Hopefully there will be a follow up audit by Ontario Auditor General and there has been an FOI request to the province to provide details. The request has been approved and I am waiting for information. The Pan Am games were funded by Ontarians. This excess reimbursement should not be used to fund a Hamilton Forensic Building.
Police and City staffs have not analyzed the healthy reserves accumulated by Police Services. They are discretionary reserves. They could easily finance Forensic Building without issuing new debt. Why should taxpayers be burdened?
Police Services Salary Contingency Provision
The Police Association contract expired in 2012. Police Services set aside a contingency provision in each of the years 2013 to 2015 while a new contract was under negotiation. This provision has been a great concern of mine because although the amount of provision quoted in the annual budget memo to the PSB agrees with the amounts in Appendix “A”, the actual amount recorded in the accounting records is different, in particular, the 2015 contingency provision by over $3 million. These differences were brought to the attention of HPS accountants and some members of the PSB, including the Mayor, but no action has been taken. For a law enforcement organization to provide inaccurate information is regrettable.
The provision built up for contract settlement exceeded $12 million. The retro-pay resulting from the final settlement of the contract was approximately $9 million. KPMG Hamilton did not bring this excess to the attention of the Police Services board. The excess was written off during the year ended December 31, 2015, when the settlement was made and the excess went to surplus to finance the forensic building. KPMG said that no audit misstatement was identified in spite of the fact that the provision accumulated over the years in the budgets was far in excess of the cost of the settlement.
In my opinion, the Pan Am game reimbursement and the excess contract contingency provisions were preplanned to provide financing for a Forensic building because police services failed to obtain Provincial and Federal funding. The need for a Forensic building is not in question but the method of financing it is in question. As a law enforcement agency, they should go through proper channels. To build up a surplus at taxpayers’ expense in order to finance a Forensic building lacks accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, to say that issuing new debt has no impact on the tax levy is an inaccurate statement. The planned “new debt” is to replace previous debt that is coming due. Therefore, the previous debt that was a temporary commitment by Hamilton taxpayers is now extended.
Employment and Retirement Benefits
Some employment and retirement benefits for police services staff, in particular the chief and deputies are excessive and unreasonable. For example:
Employment contracts for the Police Chief and Deputies cite “exigencies” as a basis for indefinite vacation carryovers without defining what “exigencies” means. It permitted some deputies to carry forward 26 weeks of vacation. As a result, a former Deputy, now a civic employee, was paid over $128,000 in unused vacation time. Information on the basis for this accumulation
The same employee also received personal use of an employer supplied automobile as part of his retirement package. What he paid to police services was not disclosed to the public nor was the model or how many kilometers were used during employment.
The retirement package of the former Police Chief is of great concern and is going to be a third party complaint, in particular, the transferring to him, after retirement, of his office computer and cell phone containing information which he should no longer have at his disposal. The approval of this arrangement was not made by the entire PSB as one of the board members was absent during January and part of February, 2016
I obtained a copy of the Hamilton Fire Chief’s and Deputy Chief’s employment contracts and the retirement package for the former Fire Chief for purposes of comparing the contracts with those of the employment and retirement contracts of the police Chief and Deputy chief. There are vast differences.
HPS Chief and Deputies not only get department vehicles to use twenty-four seven, they also receive car allowances to offset any personal use payments to Police Services. Only Hamilton Police services are entitled to such generous benefits at taxpayers’ expense.
Hamilton Police Services staffs receive two weeks of additional vacation at the time of retirement. No other police services or municipalities provide such generous benefits. It is time to reconsider this in coming negotiations to eliminate such generous vacations at the expense of taxpayers.
In my opinion, it is a discredit to taxpayers that such generous allowances and benefits are granted to police chiefs and deputies.
2017 Police budget
At the December 15, 2016, PSB meeting, I observed that the Police Chief wore his black uniform to present the 2017 police operating budget. It is bleak indeed. Each year the budget is presented with the same slogan that the increase is so much lower than so many previous years. Is it really? Based on our observations that surpluses have resulted from previous budgets, how does the board assess whether a smaller percentage increase will still result in a surplus in 2017? From page one to the last page dealing with operational issues and required funding needed to operate, there is a tactic employed that I call allaying reality. How can they set up a budget without examining the actual expenditures incurred in the previous year on a line by line basis? How would the board members know if the budget is not padded? Don’t taxpayers have the right to know? Taxpayers are funding the operations. Shouldn’t HPS be accountable and transparent? City finance should play a larger role so PSB and Council as a whole can determine what is fair and transparent.
PSB member Councilor Whitehead was successful in reducing the 2017 budget by $114, 461 and associated benefits. I will provide further details regarding Councilor Whitehead‘s concern in my comments on the City budget. However, my concern still remains that Police can still reduce the 2017 budget by over $2 Million without reducing the service level and operations.
Another example of how police have padded their budget year in and year out is concerning funeral expenses. The need to have state funerals is not in question. It is appropriate to recognize those who have sacrificed their life for our country. In the past, two funerals costing over $375,000 have been financially absorbed without disclosing the costs to the PSB. I obtained the information through FOI. How did they finance them without adjusting the budget and reducing the surplus?
Conclusion
Over the years Hamilton Police Services had been operating in isolation without accountability and transparency. Employment contracts for the police chief and deputies should be written by City of Hamilton human resources not a Police Services legal counsel who reports directly to the Police Chief.  Council and City finance should take a more active role. Times have changed.  We are in a digital world. They find it difficult to adapt their autocratic operations without thinking it is to annihilate them. This is not true. The intention is to encourage them to adjust to a new thinking. I am saying that as a Hamiltonian who has followed our front line officers since 1965. Hamilton is a mosaic of 520,000 people. In my opinion, both Hamilton Police Services and Hamilton City Council must examine the composition of the Police Services Board and revise it to reflect the background of Hamiltonians. Having attended regular monthly PSB meetings for the past several years, I have not seen a single minority person holding the position of PSB member or in senior Police Services command. It is time to change that. The provincial government, who selects three members of each police services board, must pay attention to this issue.
City of Hamilton Concerns
Provision of Information through FOI
My sincerest thanks to Councilor Johnson for his frank discussions with me. I am concerned that city staff can sway a decision making body with incomplete or incorrect information. Councilor Johnson was informed by staff that the police have provided the documents I requested, in electronic form, and that I have requested the documents in paper form, and that the matter of whether you have a legal right to the documents in paper (as opposed to electronic form) is now at the appeal stage.
This version of the situation is entirely incorrect. I was only offered the information in paper form, never in electronic form. The issue now under appeal is the cost of the paper form which was offered to me.
Authority for Responding to FOI Requests Concerning Non-Operational Police Services Matters
It is clearly obvious that all Police accounting transactions go through the City and they are stored at City of Hamilton accounting. City of Hamilton’s responsibility for FOI extends to HPS accounting records,
Here are the actual facts, with supporting evidence, that the City not only controls Police accounting records but that actual transactions go through the City books. It is the City’s responsibility to release accounting information for all records itprocesses. As a concerned private citizen I should be making my FOI requests to the city and not to Police Services. The red tape and run around is frustrating to me, a veteran city employee. Imagine how the average citizen would feel? Is stonewalling considered good customer service?
The Municipal Act assigns responsibility for accounting transactions and the formulation of consolidated financial statements to the municipality whose responsibility also entails the submission to the province of their F.I.R. However, as an accountant, I believe the Municipality has the responsibility of police services accounting records for the following reasons:
The assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of Police Services  are “under the control of and accountable to Council”
Accounts Receivable and Accounts payable of Police Services are balance sheet accounts and they are recorded in City books.
Hamilton Police Services’ fixed assets and liabilities are in City books.
All police accounting transactions are processed though one city bank account
Police HST claims are filed by the City, and
The sunshine list, produced by City Payroll and signed by the City Manager, includes Police officers.
Senior Finance staff agreed with all the above points with the exception of two items. The senior staff person did not wish to comment on point 1, that is, whether the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of Police Services are “under the control of and accountable to Council” and With respect to point 4, the senior staff person stated “If your statement was changed to “a City Bank Account” rather than “one City bank account” then the answer would be yes”. I agree with the correction with respect to a City bank account, however, my assertion in point 1 is directly from the financial statements, Note 1, and from the Municipal Act. Furthermore, Senior Accounting Staff confirms that all police accounting transactions go through City books in the preparation of financial statements. He, however, does confirm that the City provides accounting services.
To sum up, it is abundantly confirmed that all Hamilton Police Services accounting records go through City books.
Examples of Inadequacies in City Information
Remuneration and travel expenses for Hamilton Police Services Board members:
Through an FOI request to Hamilton Police Services, I obtained an accounting of remuneration and travel expenses for the board members for the year 2013. The City had published the information in their report for the year 2013 as a provincial requirement. After reconciling the information and talking to one of the members of the PSB concerning a conference, it was apparent that there were significant differences between HPS and City numbers.
In an effort to reconcile the differences, I firstly talked to Police Services as I had been involved in the City side of the provincial requirement when I worked at the City. Police Services stated that, “City prepares those statements based on accounting records that flow through City books, not police.” Secondly, I spoke withthe PSB member who went to the same conference and was not included in the information that I received through the Police Services FOI response. Thirdly, I contacted the City thinking that the City would submit an amended statement based on the information I received from HPS. It was necessary to amend that same statement for City Council once when I was an employee. No amendment was issued. I received an unpleasant email in response. This example shows a real disconnect between the records of Police and City Finance.
FOI request concerning funeral expenses: I obtained information concerning the City’s expenses for a funeral through FOI. The City’s cost was approximately $90,000. I was charged 20 cents for printing one sheet of information and $75 for search time for a total cost of $75.20. The one page printed was informationeasily available from accounting records and involved no search time.
Staff was to have recovered the funeral cost of approximately $90,000 but finance people forgot to claim. The former director of Communications was in touch with Federal representatives concerning this matter I do not know what came out of it.
Taxable Benefits for Police Chief and Deputies: I obtained manually prepared schedules concerning taxable benefits for Police Chief and Deputies through an FOI request from HPS. I also obtained the actual City Available funds Report (A.F.R.) The Chief and Deputies receive the use of departmental cars for twenty-four/seven. Any personal use should be reimbursed to HPS. In addition, they receive a car allowance.  After reviewing Actual Funds Report (A.F.R.) reports for each year I cannot locate where those charges expensed or recovered. Since all police accounting records, including payroll, goes through City books, my questions are:
Which accounting records are charged? It appears that the City is absorbing these costs.
Why do they receive a car allowance? The City Fire Chief does not receive it.
The City manger receives a nominal car allowance because the City manager doesn’t have a departmental vehicle. That makes sense.
City Budget
The City prepares a current budget each year with tax supporting documents and previous year comparative figures. It is an impressive document. These documents include details regarding departments, agencies and Boards. However, some important points are condensed such as full time employees (F.T.E.), organization charts and so forth. This condensed version of budget information would not help provide adequate information without having inside information to interpret them. Councilors may get details either through requests or other channels but the Public would be in the dark.
The City of Hamilton used to publish a detailed line budget that would allow the public and constituents a closer look at the City’s activities. It helped councilors defend their constituents’ concerns. Why has this been discontinued?
Nevertheless, Councilor Whitehead was successful at the PSB meeting on December 15, 2016, in reducing its 2017 financial operations budget by $114,461, plus associated benefits. I hope Councilor Whitehead will adopt the same fairness to the City Budget. One concern is why does the City needs 17 communication officers? Councilor Collins made a public statement to cut the labour force to balance the 2017 Budget short falls. That raises the following question: why did the City hire an external candidate for Manager of Accounting Services? Didn’t the City have any qualified internal candidates? I can name a few. This is another example of City Council being kept in the dark? There are many other instances where the City goes outside to hire when selecting an internal candidate would be appropriate. Through filling jobs internally, it could then be determined at what level not to replace, thereby reducing the workforce through attrition. HR and senior management should be working closely with each other and council to set reasonable targets and objectives if the goal is to reduce the workforce.
Conclusion
The purpose of this extensive and detailed presentation is to provide you with an insight into what a private citizen sees and experiences in his purpose to protect the taxpayers’ interest and to alleviate the tax burden at this critical time. Most Police Services have arrived at a 2017 budget that is less than their respective City Councils mandated including Toronto Police Services’ “Zero” increase. The City of Toronto Executive Committee is presenting to their council this month a proposal to amalgamate various functions with other boards and agencies including Toronto Police Services. This is what the City of Hamilton should be considering. I have mentioned this in the past but have encountered no response.
The City staff is so concerned about external enquiries that they attempt to discourage private citizens from obtaining information. There seems to be a strategy to force citizens to appeal to the IPC and Ombudsman. They should be concerned about millions of dollars that can be saved through efficiencies in an effort to help reduce the tax burden. For example, the Fraser Institute survey must be read. It found that public sector employees are paid more than private sector employees. In my opinion, the City doesn’t have a revenue problem; the City has an expenditure problem.
As a private citizen I am investing my own funds and time placing taxpayers’ interest first and I will continue to do so.
Respectfully submitted by a concerned private Citizen
Shekar Chandrashekar

created: January 23, 2017


text:
Council Backs Jason Farr, Overrules Heritage Committee, Approves Demolition of Gore Buildings for New Development – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 17, 2017
City Council voted to approve the compromise plan supported by Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr to demolish the existing buildings at 18 to 28 King Street East in Gore Park, retain the facades of the buildings of the two buildings at 18 and 22.
Hughson Business Space Corporation is planning to redevelop the site into a mix of commercial and residential uses.
Here’s the full replay of Tuesday’s debate:

created: January 17, 2017


text:
Hamilton Board of Health for January 17, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 16, 2017
Council’s meets as Board of Health to plan the Public Health work plan priorities for 2017, and prioritize their outstanding business.
The full agenda is here, and The Public Record recorded the entire meeting:
Public Health senior managers are setting three priorities for 2017: Health System Integration, Poverty Reduction, and internal workplace culture improvement.
There will be a full presentation to Council on these priorities.
In a rare release, the outstanding business list is public. The City Clerk has restricted public access to Council outstanding business lists this term. There are presently 30 items on the list.
Councillor Judi Partridge has a motion for Public Health to conduct a full review of their services in the city’s elementary and secondary schools. Following the review, staff are expected to bring a report to Council, including a focus on child mental health services.
Kingston’s City Council – sitting as Board of Health in October – passed a motion calling on the province to implement a 20% tax on sugary beverages. They’ve written Hamilton Council – sitting as Board of Health – asking for Hamilton Council to adopt a motion of support.
The proposed 20% tax is requested to be directed to supporting healthy eating programs offered by public health units.

created: January 16, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Audit, Finance, and Administration Committee for January 23, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 23, 2017
Council’s Audit, Finance, and Administration Committee heard a delegation from Shekar Chandrashekar asking for Council to make public police financial information available to the public – Council voted to ask staff to report on the request. At the end of the meeting – after a closed session debate – Councillors on the committee voted 3-3 against moving the City’s Transgender Policy proposal to the General Issues Committee. The policy will return to AF&A at a future date.
Full Video Replay


text:
Hamilton City Council Budget Debate for January 24, 2016 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 24, 2017
Council debated the budget requests of Boards and Agencies:
– Conservation Halton
– Grand River Conservation Authority
– Hamilton Beach Rescue Unit
– Royal Botanical Gardens
– Hamilton Region Conservation Authority
– Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Full Video

created: January 24, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council: Development Industry Liaison Group for January 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 15, 2017
The City of Hamilton’s Development Industry Liaison Group meets on the first business day for City Council in 2017.
Council returns to business on January 16, having started their Christmas vacation on December 14.
The agenda for this Liaison Group says they will discuss new rules on changing to planning applications after public publication prior to Planning Committee meetings, and proposed changes to development rules.. The Public Record is unable to attend. At 9:30am, Council Public Works Committee is also meeting.

created: January 15, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council for January 25, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 26, 2017
Full video of Hamilton City Council’s ratification meeting on January 25, 2017.

created: January 26, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council for January 26, 2017: Library and Police Budgets – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 26, 2017
Hamilton City Council received and debated the 2017 Hamilton Public Library and Police Board Budgets.
The Library budget received extra attention – in the form of praise – from City Councillors following comments the week prior by Councillor Donna Skelly questioning the relevance of libraries in the Internet Age.
Full Video Replay


text:
Hamilton City Council for January 27, 2017: 2017 HSR Budget Debate – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 27, 2017
City Council debated the 2017 HSR budget. The budget proposal was based upon the Council approved 10-year transit strategy, and the year three budget calls for Council to invest in transit after two years of incremental improvements funded primarily by fare increases.
Council voted to ask the HSR’s Director to return with budget proposals of a 3% or 1.8% budget increase.
Full Video Replay

created: January 27, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council General Issues Committee for January 18, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 18, 2017
Council voted to ask the Federal Government to not enter into the TPP,  decided against a non-competitive non-solicited proposal for a bubble dome at the civic stadium, approved changes to the taxi bylaws to allow Uber to operate in Hamilton, and approved a 30-year $106-million sludge plant contract.
Full Video Replay:

created: January 18, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Planning Committee for January 17, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 17, 2017
Hamilton City Council sided with Jason Farr over the Heritage Committee and voted to demolish the Gore Buildings while maintaining two facades, four other planning applications, and administrative matters.
Full Video:


text:
Hamilton City Council Planning Committee for January 31, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 31, 2017
Council voted down a 19-storey development at 860 Queenston Road, and overruled the Municipal Heritage Committee vote to designate the Egerton Shaver House in Ancaster.
Full Video Replay

created: January 31, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Public Works Committee for January 16, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 15, 2017
Council’s Public Works Committee meets Monday to discuss the state of Hamilton’s roads, selling part of an alley in Beasley, the Kay Drage Park Trail, and a citizen delegation asking for bike infrastructure on Sydenham Road.
The full agenda is here, and The Public Record will post a recording of the meeting as soon as possible after its completion. The meeting starts at 9:30am.
Update: Here’s the full video of the meeting
Hamilton’s roads are, on average, average, says a staff report ahead of a presentation regarding new provincial regulations that require the City to complete and submit a detailed plan for infrastructure upkeep and renewal.
The City needs to spend $52.1-million per year just to keep City roads in their current average (and all too often poor) shape, Council is only spending $25.5-million per year.
A developer who owns the former Tim Hortons, Kenesky Sports on Barton, and a property at 263 Wellington is seeking to purchase the alleyway abutting the properties to include in a planned development.
Neighbours are opposed to the sale because they use the alley to access their properties, and they showed up to City Hall in 2016 to express their opposition.
Staff are recommending the sale, saying residents can still access the alley from the Robert street.
A staff report includes a proposed agreement between the Catholic School Board and the City to facilitate the legalization and improvement of an existing unofficial trail connecting the rear of the Christ the King School / Cathedral grounds with Kay Drage Park which runs alongside and east of Highway 403.
Staff will be granted authority to grant road closures for special events, the only restriction is that the closure must be consented to be the local  Ward Councillor. So, while officially the delegated authority of Council is to staff, the practice will be the authority will be vested in the  Ward Councillor
Cycle Hamilton is pushing for a bike lane on the Sydenham Road mountain access in Dundas. Erin Kennedy and Benita van Mittenburg are scheduled to delegate to Council on this matter.


text:
Hamilton City Council Ratifies Decision to Grant Demo Permits for Gore Buildings Project – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 26, 2017
City Council voted to ratify their decision of last week to allow the demolition of the Gore buildings for a new development.
Councillors Matthew Green, Aidan Johnson, and Brenda Johnson voted against the decision.
Full video of the Council ratification debate:


text:
Hamilton City Council Rental Housing Committee for January 30, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 30, 2017
The citizen-majority Council Rental Housing Committee meet on January 30th and it will a lively meeting as the committee debated creating a voluntary rental housing registry.
After heated and difficult debate, the committee voted 7-5 to move forward with the voluntary registry. Of particular note on this vote – well respected rental housing advocate John Hawker and citizen member Nigil Warren both voted against the proposal.
Full video replay

created: January 30, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Hall Building a Smartphone App for Apple and Android Devices – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 6, 2017
The City of Hamilton is building a smartphone application for iOS and Android devices.
A representative of the City Manager’s Office publicly unveiled the plan in a short to the Seniors Advisory Committee Friday morning.
The City says the smartphone application project will include information and updates from various City services and departments, and will ensure citizens are getting accurate information from the City.
City staff did not provide The Public Record with the print handouts of their presentation or report.
A three slide presentation was show to the Committee, which was asked for feedback on their expectations for the plan.
These are the slides show to the Seniors Advisory Committee:


text:
Heritage Committee Commits to Working with Developer of Former Kresge Site, Declines to Designate – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 22, 2017
Hamilton’s Heritage Committee is going to work with the development group consisting of LIUNA and Hi-Rise Group to look into incorporating parts of the front facade of the former Kresge site at 43-51 King Street East in Downtown Hamilton.
The developers are planning to build two tall buildings – 25 and 34 storeys – on the site.
At the request of committee, staff have produced a reportrecommending the designation of the former Kresge building under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The downtown building is a landmark, fronting onto Gore Park and directly across from the Right House building.
A demolition permit application was filed in early December, and as of February 5, the developer will be issued a demolition permit for the entire building.
Sergio Manchia of UrbanSolutions, the planner representing the developer, spoke to the committee. He started by saying he would not be “mixing words”, directly stating the developer does not see any value in retaining any portion of the rear and side of the property.
The committee agreed with him, with numerous members saying they are not looking to preserve the side or rear of the structure.
Manchia said the developer is conducting a full heritage assessment and hired a professional heritage consultant to complete the assessment. They will make the assessment public.
A healthy dialogue followed between the committee and developers agents.
Graham Carroll, a citizen member of the committee, asked many questions about the planned first phase demolition work. He sought assurances from the developer that a decision to not designate today will not result in the demolition of the front portions along King Street.
“If we do this [table the recommendation], we’re putting our trust in you”, Carroll said.
Shawn Marr, Vice-President and Director of Operations for The Hi-Rise responded “we will not touch King Street, we won’t touch the front. We want to get to work in the back, along King William and Hughson … we want to determine site condition.”
In the end, the Heritage Committee voted to take no action, meaning the demolition permit can be issued in early February. The development group committed to returning to the Heritage Committee with their assessment, and the groups will talk further at that time.

created: January 22, 2017


text:
Heritage Committee Votes to Save Shaver House in Ancaster from Demo, Will Council Agree? – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 20, 2017
The plot is familiar to Hamiltonians.
A building of heritage interest is scheduled for demolition, a 60-day countdown to the permit being issued begins, a rush occurs as the Municipal Heritage Committee tries to determine if they wish to block the demolition by designating the building, a heated debate ensues, Heritage Committee decides it should be saved, and then Council ultimately gets to decide.
Thus happened again at today’s Municipal Heritage Committee as a walk-in report announced to the committee that The Egerton Shaver House (Fig 17 on this Ancaster Township Historical Society page) is scheduled for demolition permit issue on February 13, 2017.
The application for to demolition is to facilitate the construction of a “retail commercial plaza as well as a 50 unit, 6 storey multiple dwelling on the site.”
The building, built c.1856, was first identified as being of potential heritage value in 1984.
Staff state the property meets three criteria for designation:
The discussion was lengthy, with various questions asked about the unique value of this home, its association with the Shaver Family Cemetery approximately 500 metres from this property, and the value of maintaining heritage in Ancaster.
The present owner of the site, who is proposing the new development, was asked by Ward 15 Councillor Judi Partridge – a member of the Committee – if they had consulted with Ward 12 (Ancaster) Councillor Lloyd Ferguson. They stated they had the support of Ferguson – this was not independently confirmed.
After much discussion, the Heritage Committee voted to designate the property under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Only Councillor Aidan Johnson voted to designate, with both Councillor Maria Pearson, and Partridge voting against designation.
The Heritage Committee’s decision must be voted on by Council’s Planning Committee at the January 30th meeting, followed by a full Council vote on February 8.
With 2-1 opposition to designated among the Councillors on Heritage Committee, it is unlikely the designation vote will stand. It is more likely Council will vote for demolition of this pre-Confederation home.

created: January 20, 2017


text:
"Renovating" Wendel Clark's Grill Behind on Rent to City – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 12, 2017
Wendel Clark’s Classic Grill & Bar is officially closed for renovations, and that’s what the signs on the windows of the restaurant at 28 James Street North say.
They are also in arrears for their monthly rent to the City of Hamilton.
Rom D’Angelo, the City’s Director of Facilities, confirmed to The Public Record there is arrears for rent. He states the City has not closed the facility, and the decision to close at present is the choice of the tenant.
D’Angelo stressed the City has two letters of credit as part of the lease, and those letters of credit ensure the City will receive the owed rent. He declined to provide the amount of arrears, citing privacy regulations.
D’Angelo says the City is in discussions with Wendel Clark’s corporate headquarters about the future of the location, providing the same information about plans as published in TheSpec last week.
He says the corporate headquarters is committed to the site, and will be renovating to reopen, as they see the potential of the location along the growing King William restaurant area.
The public washroom remain open to the general public.

created: January 12, 2017


text:
Statement on Covering City Hall in Light of Recent Allegations by City Council – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 19, 2017
The Public Record will continue to record public meetings, record Council votes, and continue to practice responsible independent journalism.
Since the 2015 Basse Report into the Ferguson assault incident, my journalism work has been categorized as “eavesdropping” and I’m no longer considered media by City Council and City Hall.
The Ontario Ombudsman publicly criticized the report for its poor quality and unsupported allegations. The City says the findings of Basse Report are supported by this edited partial security video.
This week, Councillor Whitehead is accusing The Public Record of being “fake news“, “attacking the integrity of staff“, “favouritism“, “reporting out of context“, “deleting ‘questionable’ tweets“, and taking favours. Other than the security video above, neither Whitehead or City Hall have released any evidence to support their various allegations.
Mayor Eisenberger and Councillor Skelly have both stated The Public Record is a false news site, fake news. In each instance, the full recordings released by The Public Record prove their allegations false.
I’ll continue to plug into electrical outlets and use the public wi-fi at City Hall. The City made changes to the public wifi in fall to prevent live video streaming in the building, which is their right. I continue to record public meetings, and post the full videos as quickly as possible after meetings.
The reporting of The Public Record will be judged by the supporting documentation, and video, that accompanies reporting on this site.
I wish to thank all of you who believe in and support original local independent journalism. In the era of post-truth politics, knowledge-based journalism is more important than ever.

created: January 19, 2017


text:
The Ainslie Wood Community Association: Some Impressions by Joey Coleman – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 14, 2017
In November, I took the opportunity to attend a regular meeting of the Ainslie Wood Community Association.
There’s been some anti-student rhetoric in the neighbourhood, and I wanted to determine if the AWCA represented a single-issue focused splinter group from the nearly 20 year old Ainslie Wood / Westdale Community Association, or if this represents a natural evolution of local engagement to the creation of a separate neighbourhood association for distinctive area.
The summary? There are residents on the AWCA working to transition it from single issue advocacy to an established neighbourhood association that is focused on community planning instead of reactionary responses to a school closure.
The biggest challenge facing the AWCA will be creating a positive relationship with McMaster students, and allowing purpose built student housing in spite of a strong undercurrent of NIBMYism lead by some of their most predominant citizens.
Politics is not without context, and the long-term residents of Ainslie Wood are dealing with the closure of their public elementary school.
This scars them, it angers them, and it is the catalyst for the creation of the AWCA.
Prince Philip closed in the face of declining enrollment in the past decade as many of Ainslie Wood’s single family homes have become multi-resident (student) rentals during the past twenty years.
The City’s poor (arguably non-existent) planning for student housing is often confused by long-term residents as students being the problem.
Students fuel the economic vibrancy of West Hamilton and provide the customer base that enables so many commercial services to be located along Main Street and across the neighbourhood boundary at University Gardens in Dundas.
The watershed moment that started the transition of Ainslie Wood from a predominantly single-family community began in 1995 with the implementation of the bulk discounted HSR universal pass for McMaster undergraduate students.
The U-Pass opened west Ainslie Wood to student living.
Prior to this, living in the quadrant of Ainslie Wood south of Main Street and west of Ewen Road was not convenient for McMaster students. Now they could ride the bus for “free” as the cost of transit was part of their tuition.
Around the same time, the provincial government cut block funding to universities, and provincial funding was more greatly tied to student enrollment.
McMaster, and other Ontario public post-secondary institutions, responded by rapidly increasing enrollment.
In 1996, McMaster’s undergraduate enrollment was just over 12,000. There were just over 1,500 graduate students.
In 2015-2016, McMaster reported an full-time undergraduate enrollment of 24,797 and full-time graduate enrollment of 3,616.
To put this in perspective, it took McMaster 65 years to reach 12,000 undergraduates, and only 20 years to double that.
While increasing full-time enrollment by over 14,000 students, McMaster has only built two new residence buildings in the past 20 years.
Presently, McMaster lists a capacity of 3578 beds in its residence buildings, 669 of those are in the new buildings. The university did add beds in older buildings by converting double rooms to triple, and a few larges rooms to quads. Even being generous, despite more than doubling enrollment, the university barely added a quarter to their residence capacity.
Each year, McMaster’s enrollment increases. For the university, increased enrollment brings increased revenue. A class of 500 students costs a teaching assistant or two more than a class of 450 students, and is significantly more profitable. There’s no disincentive to adding students in most of the liberal arts programs. (Students are not happy about this either, but they have no customer power to improve learning conditions)
The result for Ainslie Wood has been a shift, the single-family homes are profitable investments as rental properties, and they’ve become just that.
The AWWCA (Ainslie Wood Westdale Community Association) began in 1998 as a reactionary response to students moving further east into the Longwood area.
Known originally as the Ainslie Wood / Westdale Community Association of Resident Homeowners, students were strictly forbidden from joining the association.
I tried to join in 2005, when I lived in Ainslie Wood, and was told renters were not welcome. I covered one of their events in fall 2006 for The Silhouette, and they made clear the McMaster student newspaper was not welcome. Needless to say, I was not impressed to be unwelcome in my own city.
Tensions were high during the late ’00s to early ’10s as a splinter group calling itself “Parents Against Drunk Students” left the AWWCA and fought against the graduate students pub. Ironically, this splinter group improved community relations by allowing the AWWCA to moderate and accept renters as full members. (Behind the scenes, then Ward 1 Councillor Brian McHattie worked to see this change implemented.)
Today, while nowhere nears the extreme of “Parents Against Drunk Students”, there is a anti-student sentiment among some residents surrounding McMaster University.
Much like AWWCA in its first 15 years, the AWCA must navigate this issue.
The November AWCA meeting was attended by about a dozen residents. Held in the community room of the Main West Fortino’s, I found them to be very welcoming.
Committee of Adjustment applications were a significant topic of discussion. Much of the discussion revolved around the concerns of over-intensification, property standards, monster homes, and community security concerns that occur while students homes are vacant during academic breaks and summer.
AWCA opposed the large home additions, and Tordis Coakley took the AWCA position to Committee of Adjustment a week later where she was politely received as she focused on Planning Act arguments. She won.
Previously, former Alderman Mary Kiss represented AWCA at Committee of Adjustment. Her presentations often veer away from planning issues into anti-student rhetoric – creating the impression at City Hall that AWCA is anti-student.
I noted moments of the discussion during which AWCA members talked not about just opposing student housing, but about finding a way to support purpose built student housing.
While the housing variances where the most interesting part of the agenda, there were plenty of other items one sees at NAs. Planning for participatory budgeting, updates on finances, preparations for AGM elections, and discussions of meeting dates.
They need to create a realistic plan for higher density housing in their neighbourhood – more than the usual rhetoric of ‘student housing should be on Main West’ which is quickly followed with opposition to student housing on Main Street which abuts a side street.
It must include medium density student housing on the former light industrial lands along the former rail line, such as is about to be built at 71 to 77 Leland.
The catalyst for their creation – the painful closure of Prince Philip – could be what holds them back from success.
They have to plan on how to encourage McMaster students to stay in the neighbourhood after graduation and raise families. It may 20 years for the community to re-balance after the past 20 of change, it won’t happen if McMaster students don’t feel welcome.
Last week, I had a short discussion with a friend from my days attending McMaster. He and his wife work in Niagara and Waterloo regions, they feel in love with Hamilton (and each other) while attending McMaster, they now live in Westdale.
How do we get more of those stories to happen?
Postscript: Mark Coakley is now the chair of the Ainslie Wood association following their AGM this past Thursday.

created: January 14, 2017


text:
The Hamilton City Council Week That Was for January 16 to January 22, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 23, 2017
Council came back from their month long vacation, and if you were expecting them to resolve to improve their actions in 2017, you were sorely disappointed. Before we get to that, let’s summarize the business of the week.
Three high profile items this week:
You might have missed, only covered on The Public Record:
The Camera May Be Pointed at The Politicians, But it is Really Pointed at Me – from my personal blog, a post explaining how my full recordings of public meetings makes more accountable as a journalist, because everyone can fake check me.
Hamilton Coun. Donna Skelly questions ‘relevancy’ of libraries during budget discussion – Kevin Werner’s coverage of Skelly’s questioning of the relevancy of the library during budget deliberations on Friday, she was trying to be a populist, somehow thinking people don’t support libraries.
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
It was a mixed week for Council. In Committee, they made major decisions this week, and for the most part handled themselves well. While they still are not showing up on time at meetings, and waste time, they did approve two major items on Wednesday: a new private-public-partnership for a $106-million sledge treatment 30-year contract and new taxi regulations that legalize Uber.
On the behaviour front, Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead started the Council year off by launching an eight-hour Twitter tirade in retaliation for The Public Record taking note of votes and attendance at Monday’s Public Works Committee and Board of Health.  The attack is well summed up on this Reddit thread. On Thursday, the City Manager’s Office tried to enforce new rules preventing the public from using electrical outlets in public meeting rooms, during a 3-hour marathon Heritage Committee meeting, I plugged my laptop in, the CMO ordered me to unplug, I didn’t, the public supported my work, and the City is reviewing the new rule.
We’re 21 months from the 2018 municipal election date, and the City Council is in full election mode.
On the election front, Friday, Councillor Donna Skelly decided to try and seize a populist narrative, questioning if public libraries are still relevant. It didn’t take long for Hamiltonians from all walks of life – easily parents of young children – to take to social media to defend the library and tell Skelly that yes, libraries are important.
On Sunday, in what may be looked back as being the first tweet of the 2018 election campaign, Mayor Fred Eisenberger sub-tweeted Skelly’s position by responding to a tweet about visiting a library stating “Did it feel obsolete and irrelevant”.
Wednesday saw some loss of decorum after 4 p.m., nothing out of the usual for this Council.
The Advisory Committees meet and functioned well this week: Development Industry Liaison, Business Improvement Area, and Disability all meet this week. I was in-and-out of the first two, and the Disability Advisory meeting was focused on organizing their plans for the coming year. Due to the overlap of Heritage and Committee of Adjustment, I was only able to observe the tail end of one disputed variance, the CoA gave good reasons for their decisions.
On Saturday, hundreds showed up at City Hall for the women’s march. I wasn’t there (sorry, with budget season, I’m hard pressed to keep up with my readings, and just can’t be everywhere), but took in the photos on social media. Great to see so many people out to express support for women, their rights, and basic decency.
The week ahead (Jan 23 to 29) is jam-packed with meetings each day. I hope you’ll still informed and engaged in the week ahead.


text:
The Two Touchstones Joey Coleman is Watching for at Council in 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 2, 2017
Originally posted on Now.ThePublicRecord.ca, TPR’s microblog
I’m breaking with traditional journalistic convention in this start of the year look ahead post. I’ll pass on listing topics of debate in the coming year and tackle a bigger issue.
In 2017, I’ll be watch for progress on two culture touchstones, because no matter the issue, they’ll define Council’s success during the coming year.
The two touchstone issues are dignity and diligence.
Will Councillors uphold and enhance the dignity of their offices in 2017?
Council decorum continued to decline in 2016.
2016 saw Councillor Lloyd Ferguson insult an entire nationality and only one Councillor spoke up on the issue to challenge the undignified stereotyping.
2016 saw Deputy Mayor Donna Skelly scorning citizens for daring to stand up for City staff when Councillor Judi Partridge took a cheap shot at a staff member who worked late the night before responding to Councillors questions – because with months to prepare for their special Council LRT meeting in October, Councillors were still sending questions the night prior.
Instead of dealing with their decorum issues, and returning dignity to the Chamber, Councillors often walk out of meetings, leaving the rest of us at the mercy of the worst among them.
Will they act in 2017 to return dignity to the Council Chamber and City Hall?
It’s not just at City Hall that Councillors undermine the dignity of their offices and public processes.
In September, Councillors Skelly and Terry Whitehead interrupted a Council meeting to declare they needed to go to a staff-led LRT public information meeting. After an argument in Council, and some undignified body language (pictured above), Skelly and Whitehead returned to their seats. Later than evening, they hijacked the public information session.
The dignity of their public offices require they allow non-partisan staff organized public information sessions to occur without political interference. Councillors are free, and encouraged, to organize their own town halls and to engage in their political advocacy on public matters in those appropriate forums. They didn’t do that either.
Dignity is a touchstone that if Council achieve in 2017, they’ll be able to properly manage and navigate issues both foreseen and unforeseen in 2017. Without it, citizens respect for Council will continue crumble, much like the retaining walls of the Claremont Access.
Diligence is a word rarely associated with Hamilton City Council.
They show up late to meetings, often unprepared, and its not unusual for meetings to be cancelled when not enough Councillors show up to make quorum.
Long-term prioritization and diligent management of public resources get lost in Council’s narrow short-term focus on political posturing.
In 2012, when the first retaining wall of the Claremont Access burst, Council was told they needed to study the retaining walls and start planning to replace the wall, or at least mitigation as a band-aid. Instead, they closed a lane and now four years later, all of the down-bound lanes are completely closed. The millions of dollars in 2012 are tens of millions today, and that doesn’t even account for the economic costs of the long-term closure of the down-bound Claremont.
Diligence requires more than waiting for pipes to burst, retaining walls to fail, or rocks falling off the side of the escarpment before addressing infrastructure issues.
For years, Council has been told their management of Hamilton’s finances is unsustainable, and that reserve accounts were being drained.
Council uses the strategic reserve accounts as if they were free money, regularly drawing on them to artificially support operational spending. Even now, facing a fiscal crisis of their own making, Councillors are trying to pass the buck to future years.
Instead of approving the full capital tax rate increase recommended by staff, Councillors voted to cut 0.5% from the capital budget, which will add millions more to Hamilton’s over $2-billion infrastructure deficit as that 0.5% cut compounds over the years.
The 0.5% cut plays well in the short-term, ‘hey look ratepayers, I cut your taxes by a half-percent’, but much like the Claremont retaining walls and watermains, eventually things burst and taxpayers are on the hook for even higher costs.
I get it, Councillors have a lot to read – I try to read every staff report for every committee, and sometimes run out of time to do so. Pictured below is a typical two week cycle of reading during budget deliberations.
For Councillors, that’s the job they not only volunteered for, it’s the job they campaigned for.
With a $90,000/year salary (the Mayor’s salary is over $200,000/year), support staff, taxpayer funded lunches, and a generous pension plan, Councillors cannot complain about the workload.
Prioritization must be done, and if they means instead of socializing and glad-handing for votes at every spaghetti dinner on the weekend, they are reading their agendas and studying issues, that is the diligence their public office requires.
Too often, Councillors are asking questions during meetings that have already been answered in the reports they were suppose to read.
The average staff report costs thousands of dollars to produce, Council meetings themselves cost thousands of dollars per hour, and hours of expensive preparation in advance on top of those costs.
This is the proper expense of good governance.
In the private sector, it is the same for Board of Directors. The difference in the private sector is directors are expected to show up prepared for the meeting – lest they waste shareholders money.
During meetings, Councillors need to ask insightful and meaningful questions, while being respectful of the time of others.
Officially, Council has a five-minute rule for questions and comments.
In 2016, we witnessed a Councillor take over two-and-a-half hours for their first question. Even after almost four hours of the Councillor monopolizing time and badgering staff, even when Councillor Tom Jackson said enough, the Deputy Mayor let it continue.
Picture below, Terry Whitehead in the middle of his first question on that date:
Diligence isn’t just preparation, it’s showing up to work on time, or in the case of our Council, just showing up to work.
Over a dozen Council committee meetings were cancelled in 2016 due to not enough Councillors attending meetings, many cancellations announced the day of or day prior to the meeting. Even when enough Councillors show up to start a meeting, it’s an open question if enough of them will remain to keep quorum.
The longest Council meeting since amalgamation in 2000 was October’s LRT debate. As the lengthy record approached, Mayor Eisenberger tried to end the meeting, but was foiled by a lack of quorum. The resulting video clip perfectly sums up the problem of quorum at Council.
Ultimately, corporate culture decides if strategic plans are successful (or as the quote which may or may not have been said by Peter Drucker “culture eats strategy for breakfast“).
Council just completed the Our Future Hamilton strategic community vision plan. As the plan enters its second year of implementation, it’s already drawing comparisons to the unfulfilled Vision 20/20 plan which proceeded it.
The turning of the calendar from 2016 to 2017 is an opportunity for Council to reflect, and focus themselves on the tasks at hand.
Will they address their own culture in order to move the City of Hamilton forward, or will 2017 be a repeat of the 16 years of post-amalgamation Council politics?
City Council returns from their four-week break on January 16, The Public Record will be there to let you find out and watch Council for another year.
In the meanwhile, you can join The Public Record at The Pub for a discussion of another big issue in Hamilton – the suburban/urban divide. Dr. Zachary Spicer of Brock University will speak about his research into the topic and his recent book The Boundary Bargain: Growth, Development and the Future of City-County Separation published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.
The event is Thursday, January 12 from 7 to 9pm at the Corktown Pub. If you’ve resolved to be even more engaged in 2017, this is a great event to start fulfilling that resolution. Feel free to show up early for dinner and informal conversation. Full details on The Public Record’s Facebook page.

created: January 2, 2017


text:
Update on Claremont Closure and Escarpment Stabilization Emergency Work – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

January 16, 2017
At the end of Council’s Public Works Committee meeting on Monday, staff and councillors had a 30-minute discussion of what work has been done on the Claremont Access escarpment face, and how they will budget for the work.
City staff say they will be removing 55-metres of the retaining wall from the 2012 collapse location and the most recent wall failure on the eastern edge of the wall near the Jolley Cut.
They’ll be installing fencing at the bottom of escarpment as a traffic protection feature in addition of the current concrete barriers blocking the closed downbound lane.
This is planned to be completed in the next few weeks to see the reopening of downbound lanes, hopefully in late February.
The expected cost of the emergency work to date is $1.1-million, and the cost will rise as the upcoming work starts. The estimate is this will add $750,000 to the cost.
There is hope that the City’s remaining minimal reserves can fund the shoring up of the escarpment face.
Discussion continued about various engineering methods being considered for containing the escarpment face. A report on these opinions will be forthcoming in the future.
Full Video:


text:
City Eliminates 23 Positions: 11 Directors, 5 Managers, and 7 Admin Staff – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 25, 2017
Hamilton City Council eliminated 23 positions as they grapple with a budget crunch as the City’s reserves near zero, assessment growth is not paying the full cost of expanding services, and the City’s debt is forecast to surpass $1-billion dollars.
The cuts take effect immediately earlier this week. The City’s General Manager of Finance says the City will save $3.3-million annual in salary and benefits by cutting the positions. It will cost $1.4-million in severances. (Despite cutting the positions in the last full week of February, the City is creatively charging the 2017 salaries and severances to any 2016 surplus variances to claim full savings in 2017)
The City says this will decrease this year’s tax increase by an average of $14 per household.
The position cuts are:
City Manager Chris Murray says the City is reviewing more cuts during the year, including the possibility of 45 cuts in the social assistance office.
Here’s video of Chris Murray taking questions on Wednesday and Thursday.

created: February 25, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Budget GIC for February 10, 2017: EcDev and Planning Budget – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 10, 2017
Full video of the 2017 budget presentation by Planning and Economic Development Department to City Council on February 10, 2017.
Full Video Link // Full Agenda Link

created: February 10, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Budget GIC for February 23, 2017: Public Delegations – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 23, 2017
Many citizens spoke to Council asking them to increase transit funding and service across the City. Council will vote on the final budget, and the fate of the 10-year Transit Plan in the coming weeks.
Link: Full Video on Youtube
Of particular note, and well worth watching if you only have 10 minutes, were the delegations by McMaster students Natacha Ngo and Stephanie Bertolo who called for Council to increase funding for transit and to improve the existing schedules:

created: February 23, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council GIC for February 1, 2017: Ward Boundaries and More – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 1, 2017
Hamilton City Council meet for their first GIC of February, the headline issue was the final vote on Ward Boundary reform. Councillors voted for their own gerrymandered wards, despite a clear warning from expert consultants that the gerrymander will be indefensible at a Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Councillors also received a task force report on workforce development, which will guide numerous private and public sector partners in the coming year.
Full video replay. (Note: Ward Boundaries starts around 1:25)

created: February 1, 2017


text:
Hamilton City Council Light Rail Transit Sub-Committee for January 30, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 1, 2017
City Council’s Light Rail Transit Sub-Committee meet on Monday to receive staff updates and debate a request to add a LRT stop at Bay Street. The Committee voted to add the stop, which now has to be considered by Metrolinx. Metrolinx has the final say.
Full Video.


text:
Hamilton City Council Public Works Committee for February 13, 2017 – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 13, 2017
Full video of City Council’s February 13, 2017 Public Works Committee meeting.
Link to full video on YouTube // Link to Agenda on City Website

created: February 13, 2017


text:
In CHP. v. Hamilton, Courts Will Decide on Transgender Rights, Political Party Expression, and Federal Provincial Jurisdiction – TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site

February 7, 2017
Update: In June 2018, the Division Court heard the case, here’s our story on those arguments.
It’s easily the biggest legal case out of City Hall yet – the Courts will decide on the balance between transgender rights and political party expression, combined with the classic question of Confederation – the divide and overlap between federal and provincial jurisdictions, this case is likely bound for the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) versus City of Hamilton will define transgender rights, free expression rights for political parties, and the roles of federal and provincial human rights codes – it a case The Public Record will track closely in the coming years.
Here’s an overview of some of the issues and background in this case.
In July 2016, the CHP’s Hamilton Mountain riding association purchased bus shelter advertisements.
The ads showed a person – with a stereotypical male haircut, heavy jacket, and baseball cap – walking into a door labeled “ladies showers”. In the text accompanying the image, the ad stated “Competing Human Rights … Where is the Justice”.
Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Councillor Aidan Johnson determined the ads to be unacceptable and demeaning to the transgender community, and the City removed them from bus shelters.
The CHP filed a Charter challenge of Council’s decision, and the matter is heading to court.
Jim Enos, the CHP’s – a registered federal political party – candidate for the riding of Hamilton Mountain, says the ads were comment on Bill C-16 “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code” which was in second reading and is now awaiting third reading in the House of Commons. Once passed, C-16 will give gender identity or expression the full protection of law.
Councillor Johnson say the ads were a response to the City’s recent policy changes to ensure transgender individuals can use the washroom of their gender identification.
Let’s look at this from three angles which overlap: the current evolving case law regarding free expression and bus advertising, the Ontario Human Rights Code versus the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the ongoing debate surrounding Bill C-16 and the balancing of the role of the Court versus the role of Parliament.
In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the free expression protections of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to advertising on government-operated public transit.
The Charter is not absolute, speech can be restricted. (See the Oakes Test).
In 2004, Vancouver’s public transit agency refused a ‘get out the vote’ advertisement, citing their policy imposing a blanket ban on all political advertising. The Canadian Federation of Students took them to court.
In Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component, [2009] 2 SCR 295, 2009 SCC 31, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled public transit agencies controlled by government are “government” for the purposes of The Charter, political advertising on buses are protected expression, and Translink’s blanket ad was not a defensible restriction under the Oakes Test.
The 139 paragraph ruling does discuss the balance between the Charter and reasonable limits, and the nature of bus advertising due to the very visible and public presence of buses. However, the ruling does not provide a clear example for this CHP vs Hamilton situation.
Common law is built upon case law. Supreme Court of Canada decisions are interpreted by lower courts, and this is ongoing with the 2009 decision. The Canadian Legal Information Institute records 90 cases citing the 2009 ruling.
These cases are favourable to the City. However, none of them involve a registered federal political party expressing itself on a matter being debated in Parliament.
Many cases involve abortion ads, other cases on hot button issues.
An interesting case involved a political ad in Edmonton purchased by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) about “honour killings” and included the logo for an organization called “SIOA” which stands for “Stop Islamization of America”.
In American Freedom Defence Initiative v Edmonton (City), 2016 ABQB 555A, the Alberta Court ruled the City was justified in banning the advertising.
Members of the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law wrote extensively on this case, both on their blog ABlawg.ca and in law publications.
ABlawg.ca summarizes the case well, and my summary here is heavily based upon this work.
The Court held municipalities can impose community standards upon ads (Edmonton is using the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.)
The Court found the advertisement was not designed to help victims of religious extremist but instead designed to (para 94):
…bring the Muslim population of Edmonton, including Muslim/Islamic Faith in general into public contempt or ridicule. This purpose is clear from a review of the AFDI website as well as the SIOA’s website. The aim is to encourage Muslim individuals to leave Islam and convert from their Muslim faith, or alternatively to advocate special treatment of Muslims and their exclusion from non-majority Muslim countries.
For CHP v. Hamilton, the City will likely cite this case.
An Alberta Court recently ruled in favour of Grande Prairie’s refusal to run pro-life/anti-abortion advertisements on their buses. The case, Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform v Grande Prairie (City), 2016 ABQB 734, is already being discussed in legal circles with ABlawg focusing on the case’s use of the captive audience doctrine, and Leonid Sirota writing the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) should appeal the decision in a post entitled Aborting Freedom of Expression.
Here in Ontario, there are no post-2009 court rulings on bus advertising citing 2009 SCC 31.
Recently, in Peterborough, the City choose to not fight the CCBR and reached an out-of-court agreement allowing CCBR ads. The CCBR sought a court ruling that the City was bound by the Charter to run the ads, the court declined to make the order.
The case has another classic element of Canadian constitutional litigation: the clash of federal and provincial jurisdictions.
The City of Hamilton is a creature of the Province of Ontario, while it is separate from the Province and its actions do not represent the Province, the City only has the powers which the Province grants it.
The Ontario Human Rights Code protects transgender and gender non-conforming people from discrimination – this is the basis for the recent settlement between the City of Hamilton and a transgender woman who as denied access to the public washroom at the MacNab Transit Terminal.
The Canada Human Rights Act does not. (At least not yet, Bill C16 will change this.)
The CHP may argue that provinces, and their municipalities, cannot interfere with federal parties expressing themselves on matters before Parliament, and the Canadian Human Rights Act not the Ontario Human Rights Code should apply in this case.
The clash between federal and provincial laws is one of the reasons this case is very likely to go to appeal, and possibility to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The CHP does not have any seats in Parliament. There is a open question of how the Courts balance their role against the role of Parliament in a matter such as this.
The Courts will have to carefully consider the restrictions that can be put in place on expression by a political party related to a matter being debated in Parliament.
On this matter alone, the case will require the depth of review that results from a hearing in front of a panel of justices at the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Both the CHP and Hamilton’s City Council are motivated for this legal battle, and well resourced to wage it. Both hold their positions strongly, and both see a major opportunity to establish favourable case law.
For the CHP, their ability to strongly express their religious views. For City Council, the opportunity to show themselves as progressive political leaders.
For the legal community and the various parties who will intervene at Appeal, this case provides a much need opportunity to clarify the bounds of the Charter in political speech and in paid advertising facilitated by government.
Legal submissions, such as will be entered in this case, often cite dozens of cases. If you are so inclined, I encourage you to read the ABlawg.ca post on the Edmonton case to the end where they discuss the numerous cases related to the Charter tests of hate speech, including the more recent Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott 2013 SCC 11 ruling.
Human Rights Codes across Canada have been updated in recent years to include protection for transgender persons. There is much anticipation for the Supreme Court of Canada to hear a case involving the rights of the transgender community in light of these changes. The hope of this community is that a case will finally get to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that the Supreme Court will declare transgender Canadians entitled to the protections of Section 15 of the Charter. For more on this, and a great background on the legal issues facing transgender Canadians, I recommend reading the thesis of Michael Wun Ho Tam entitled Explicit Legal Protections for Transgendered Canadians: Why it is Necessary and How it Might be Done

created: February 7, 2017