Survey  Results

Home>Kincardine>2007>Augustt

by Fred Kirby                              August 1,  2007

Leslie Frost, premier of Ontario 1949 – 1961, made Ontario an economic power and gave Toronto the foundation for a vibrant city. Never forgetting his small town roots, Frost started a road building program that connected Ontario communities throughout Ontario. Hospitals and schools were built and growth in the private business sector was encouraged through “fiscal policy and public investment.” Premier John Robarts carried on building Ontario as a good place to live and a good place to conduct business. Both men had a strong sense of Ontario as community and both took a pragmatic approach to governing.

In 1995 Mike Harris becomes premier and government policy became based on ideology. Pragmatism and the sense of Ontario as a community tied together by supportive provincial policies were tossed into the dustbin. One of the decisions of Harris’ government was the downloading the cost of social services to the municipalities.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario writes that nearly half of property taxes go to pay for provincial programs. One example: $600 million from municipal property taxes supports people with disabilities, a provincial program over which municipalities have no control.

When Dalton McGuinty was in opposition he attacked the downloading as a policy that would destroy municipalities. Once he became premier, McGuinty conveniently forgot his indignation. Four years later and facing an election this October, McGuinty has struck a committee to review the downloading policy. He had four years to resolve the problem; he did nothing. He had four years to end the children’s support payments claw-back from mothers on welfare; he did nothing. During the 2003 election, McGuinty said that it would be unfair and discriminatory for parents of autistic children to have to spend up to $70,000 a year for specialized treatment now his government spends $2,414,431 fighting the parents in court just to avoid paying for that specialized treatment.

If anyone believes this government will reverse downloading and assume their proper responsibilities then I have gold bricks I will sell cheaply.

Municipalities will continue to deteriorate until voters send the only message politicians understand. In October, vote for any party except the party that gave us downloading and the party that maintains it.

 August 15, 2007

Lawyers Gone Bad is a recently published book by Philip Slayton that before it even hit the book shops it was being trashed by members of the legal community in Canada. Apparently Mr. Slayton spoke the unspeakable when he reviewed 16 cases of lawyers who broke the law and were found guilty of unprofessional conduct. Such umbrage against one of their own, a distinguished lawyer, a Rhodes Scholar who taught law at McGill and Western, where he became Dean of the Law School, followed by a successful career as a corporate lawyer, made me wonder what could possibly be in the book to cause such offense.

The author does not say that all lawyers are up to heinous skullduggery. On the very first page he writes, “Only a few lawyers are dishonest. Most behave honourably, serving their clients, profession, and community well.” As for the miscreants, Slayton offers a review of the facts, interviews of the principal players, and makes some interesting observations.

So, why the outrage? I suspect the same dynamics are at play that one observes in other organizations, professional or otherwise. Witness what happens to a police officer who blows the whistle on a fellow officer. A number of years ago, in Toronto, a junior officer reported on the illegal behaviour of a sergeant during an operation. The ostracism and open attacks the young officer experienced brought about his resignation. I recall a teacher who was so incompetent and behaviour so inappropriate that no one had a good word to say about him but when an older student was verbally abused in class and responded by physically threatened the teacher, the entire faculty came down on the student like a ton of bricks and, when I spoke up for the student, I too experienced their brickbats. Objectivity and fairness are rare commodities under these circumstances.

The medical profession is another group that appears to protect itself first and will brook no criticism against its members deemed unavoidable. How many complaints must be brought against a doctor before there is the slightest action? How much harm is done by this attitude?

I say little about religious groups except to observe that again it is always the victims or an outsider that expose the wrongdoing.

I cannot say I understand why there is this circling of the wagons whenever any member is publicly critized or a member blows the whistle, but I do know it is destructive behaviour and does nothing to enhance a group’s reputation.

In my work, I came across this attitude many times and many times I found myself on the wrong side of the wagons. Once, after successfully representing ten international students in a major complaint against an instructor, I found myself unwelcome in the faculty office where before I had always been gladly received, my advice sought and where many times I had heard complaints about this same instructor. When I asked the program coordinator why the change in attitude since nothing at the hearing impinged on the other staff, he offered this curt explanation, “I thought you were on our side.”

Is it any wonder critical problems cannot be resolved and public trust in professional organizations is weakened when truth and legitimate criticism is seen as the enemy?

August 22, 2007

Affordable housing in Canada is built under varying formats: government housing, private non-profit, and cooperative, all now falling under the umbrella of social housing and while government policy has been around for a century the earlier policy development was haphazard with little consensus as to its value. What welfare services or income redistribution programs were developed before World War II, arose from conditions at home during World War I, when politicians and the public first realized that there were families in dire straits through no fault of their own but simply because husbands were fighting overseas being paid pittance, returning home with gassed lungs or terrible wounds, while death took away breadwinners. Welfare, very much limited then, was only accepted when the public was persuaded by the concept of the “deserving poor.”

It was not until 1946, when soldiers returned from World War II that social housing took on new life with the creation of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In 1949, Canada became one of the last countries in the Western world to institute a social housing program. By the 1970s, Canada was a model of a strong social housing program and a positive example of government intervention in housing.

Beginning with the Mulroney government, followed by the Federal Liberal government’s debt reduction on the backs of the poor, social housing became virtually non-existent, a shadow of its proud record. In Ontario, the Tories applied the coup de grãce to social housing while slashing other income support programs. It was Social Darwinism in its most destructive form. The incumbent Liberal government has done little to repair the damage ignoring the reality that real security and genuine prosperity will only come from a compassionate and caring society.

Somewhere along the way Canadians lost their way from where community was important and individuals saw themselves, not only as individuals with rights but as part of community with responsibilities to others.

Today, there is no level of government committed to social housing though some talk about the need. But talk does not translate into action and as for municipal politicians the majority supports the Liberals and Tories. They will support expensive development but will pussyfoot around social housing.

But man is not an economic unit. There is a greater dimension to mankind which politicians need to understand if communities and life itself are to flourish.

August 29, 2007

It is a shallow government that governs by handouts at election time. McGuinty and his Liberal backbenchers raise cynicism to an art form. By giving dribs and drabs they make an unthinking public believe something good is happening.

Carol Mitchell, M.P.P. now comes along to hand out some of the dribs and the municipal politicians are delighted at this crude election ploy, ignoring the actual need. Electioneering is not governing; seeking power for itself is not governing; leaving citizens homeless and children hungry is not governing.

Now to a particular housing issue: Russell Meadows Non-Profit Accommodations, 755 Campbell Avenue, is operated by a Kincardine citizens’ Board of Directors. There are 35 units ranging in size from one to four bedrooms and while some units are classed as “market rent”, the majority are “rent geared to income”. The buildings are unique in their design with grass and gardens setting off the attractive buildings. Though funds are always in short supply, every effort is made to keep the buildings and grounds well maintained.

Today the Board of Directors has a major concern which Council could be easily resolved and by doing so Council would take a positive step towards increasing the supply of social housing. Between Reynold’s Drive and Russell Meadows Housing is a landlocked municipal property with access only from Russell Meadows. Council declared the property surplus and plans to sell it. The Board does not have the money to purchase the land for additional units and residents on Reynolds Drive, whose lots back onto the property, have indicated a desire to purchase it in order that they may extend their backyards.

The correct decision for Council is based on moral principle and economic knowledge. Bruce County Housing has 300 people on its waiting list; part of that list includes families in Kincardine. No family or child in Canada should be left homeless or living in unfit shelter. There are many studies showing that the cost of keeping people homeless far exceeds the cost to society to house them; so it comes down to moral principle and whether we are governed by that principle or not.

Council should deed the property to Russell Meadows immediately, allowing the Directors to seek funds for further development. To not support the efforts of citizens in a non-profit moral enterprise would be unconscionable. We can only hope that moral fibre and economic sense will win the day.

 

“You smug-face crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you’ll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.”