Frances Bula header image 2

Canadian politicians gathered in Vancouver to talk about both the serious stuff (solid waste, housing) and the not-so-serious (Rob Ford! The video!)

June 4th, 2013 · 123 Comments

If you were trying to get a hotel room in Vancouver from Thursday on last week, good luck. They were filled up with city councillors, mayors, city managers, and city financial officers from across the land, coming here for the annual convention.

While they were focused on garbage, sewers, housing and roads, we in the media found other worthy subjects. The Province’s story this morning is about local councillors who stayed overnight downtown in hotels. Many writers continued to focus on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, even though he was notable mainly by his absence and sniping from Toronto about how people out here were drinking martinis (martinis? in Vancouver? I think not) and not really doing city business.

Meanwhile, at the convention, most politicians I talked to had zero respect for Mr. Ford or his comments. One, from Dauphin, Manitoba, suggested wryly that Ford probably didn’t want to come out to a gathering like this because he might “get too learned-up.”

My relatively staid stories about the weekend non-festivities here and here.

As I said on CKNW this morning, there’s a kind of politics of resentment being played these days, where the most popular thing a politician can do is to attack other politicians for wasting taxpayer money. It’s easy, when everyone is a little worried about whether their job is safe or what will happen if mortgage interest rates go up, to play on everyone’s anxiety by blathering on about how some politician got a nice meal or took a taxi or stayed in a hotel room.  (Strangely, none of the aforementioned ever offer to give up their salaries as part of their deep concern for the taxpayers.)

The problem is, those attacking frequently don’t distinguish between the hard-working ones, spending their convention days going on landfill tours or sitting through excrutiating discussions of cellphone-tower agreements, and those who are just taking a freebie and not putting in too much effort. It’s discouraging to those who are working hard. A little more critical analysis would be good.

 

 

Civic leaders gathered in Vancouver at the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities this weekend, taking time to mark their progress on securing greater financial commitments from Ottawa to battle gridlock and to set new priorities.

A federal cabinet minister and two opposition party leaders, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau, beat a path to the get-together, addressing the group that boasts it represents 91 per cent of Canadians.

 

 

One voice absent from all those discussions: Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

The Toronto region is the subject of an ambitious plan by the provincial government of Premier Kathleen Wynne to raise and spend $2-billion annually on transportation – which has drawn a cool response from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Mr. Ford has denounced the plan to tap taxpayers and insisted more government waste could be eliminated. Mr. Ford has not attended FCM meetings since becoming mayor in 2010 and on his radio show Sunday made no secret of his scorn for “the lefty caucus” and Toronto city councillors whom he accused of “having a good time” in Vancouver at taxpayer expense.

Some municipal leaders remarked that the controversy hanging over Mr. Ford, who has been besieged by questions about a video that allegedly shows him smoking crack cocaine, would have made him a “distraction” at the FCM meeting in any case. Others questioned his criticism of the body that has led the way on lobbying Ottawa to share a greater proportion of tax revenues with municipalities.

Karen Leibovici, an Edmonton councillor and FCM’s departing president, says the ground gained by the organization in areas such as infrastructure spending show how powerful local governments can be if they speak in unison.

“If you have 100 competing demands, how are you going to ask for anything?” Ms. Leibovici said.

The high-powered weekend crowd at the FCM included federal Transportation Minister Denis Lebel. He reiterated Ottawa’s pledge for $53-billion in infrastructure spending over 10 years, money included in the past federal budget. Substantial portions of it is a continuation of long-standing federal funding for municipalities, including transfers of a portion of the gas tax and GST rebates. It also includes a $14-billion federal fund for new buildings, and a $1.25-billion fund for private-public partnerships.

Mr. Nenshi said conversations over the weekend focused on what more can be done. “We are talking about a dedicated fund nationally for transit and how that would look for big cities and for smaller towns,” he said.

He believes that the one-on-one meetings that city politicians had with federal ministers last year helped pave the way for the new Building Canada Fund announced in the budget, as well as new agreements on getting gas-tax revenue for cities.

This year’s meeting came amid growing alarm about the state of infrastructure across the country.

In Toronto, there is rising concern that gridlock is hurting the city’s future. On Sunday, Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa called for a meeting with his federal counterpart to urgently discuss public transit funding in the province as part of its bid to fund new projects across the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

As mayor of Toronto, Mr. Ford has denounced the plan to tap taxpayers to pay for transit expansion.

Of the 18 Toronto councillors who went to the FCM meeting, Mr. Ford and his brother, Councillor Doug Ford, argued that only four had any business being there.

“Even four’s a little high,” he told listeners of the radio show the two men co-host. “But then 18 councillors, 18 councillors flew out Thursday. You know, the same councillors said ‘aw, you know, the city’s falling apart.’ Well where were they Thursday? Where were they Friday? You could shoot a cannon off at city hall.”

Councillor Paula Fletcher, one of the group singled out for attack by the mayor, called the conference a “learning opportunity,” for municipalities and a chance to see “heavy hitters from the Hill.”

“I don’t apologize for trying to learn more so I can do more for my constituents,” Ms. Fletcher said, questioning why the mayor and his brother think it was fine to go on a trip to Chicago last year with business leaders, but not to a meeting where they can discuss best practices with other civic leaders.

Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti, a former member of Mr. Ford’s cabinet-like executive committee, was one of the four given a pass by the mayor and his brother. But he also challenged the radio criticism. “Anyone who says this is a junket doesn’t understand the work that goes on here,” he said.

Cornerbrook Mayor Neville Greeley was one of four to come from his Newfoundland community’s seven-member council. “Maybe the mess [Mr. Ford’s] in is because he hasn’t taken the opportunity he’s had to learn how to be a more effective mayor,” he said.

After Mr. Ford spoke Sunday, some of those attending the FCM shot back that the meeting was far more important than he appears to think.

“It’s nine hours of meetings a day … we get a lot of work done,” said Surrey Mayor Diane Watts. “The meetings I have with other mayors across the country are valuable. I don’t know how one would connect like that by e-mail. For the smaller communities, especially, they have an opportunity to tap into a network.”

Mr. Ford is not the first Toronto leader to take a pass on the annual FCM meetings. While former mayor David Miller was an active member of the federation, taking a lead role in the group’s efforts to secure municipal funding from Ottawa through gas taxes, another former mayor, Mel Lastman, was in the habit of letting a young city councillor speak in his place – Jack Layton.

With reports from Campbell Clark

SECOND STORY

 

 

 

Canada’s big-city mayors are taking on a new battle: low-cost housing.

And they have kicked off a campaign to persuade the federal government to continue a decades-old form of support for subsidized housing that is used to reduce the rent for 600,000 households.

“There’s $500-million a year in housing investments expiring in 2014. That’s the big bombshell that’s landing,” Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention in the city on Thursday.

Mr. Robertson is the chair of the Big City Mayors’ Caucus, which represents the country’s 22 largest municipalities.

“Until now, we’ve been focused on infrastructure. That work culminated in the last federal budget. Our next priority now is housing. It’s a big complex challenge.”

The problem for many social-housing units is that they were built under agreements with the federal government that they would get subsidies for the term of their mortgages.

When those mortgages expired, 30 or 40 years later, it was expected that the apartments could still be rented out at low rates because the loan payments would have ended.

But many of those buildings require substantial renovations now.

So, without ongoing subsidies from the federal government, operators – non-profits, co-ops and local governments – will have to forgo maintenance or start charging more rent to pay the bills.

Many non-profits and co-ops operate on a model in which some renters pay full market rent, some get a small subsidy and others get a much larger subsidy. Having one-third of each type of renter has been seen as the norm.

But as operators get squeezed to meet new expenses, they are forced to rent more of their units to those who can pay market prices and provide fewer subsidized units.

Some organizations will be able to continue without too much change, either because they built up reserves or are not facing serious maintenance issues.

But about a third of the units will likely be at risk, according to a national study by Ottawa-based housing expert Steve Pomeroy.

Mr. Robertson said he will talk to federal ministers James Moore and Denis Lebel during the FCM convention.

He will also meet with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.

“The outreach is to all the stakeholders to get the conversation rolling,” he said. “We will need changes in the 2014 budget. And, with a federal election in 2015, we need all the parties to recognize the urgency of this.”

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Dan Cooper

    @rf:

    Who is this “you” that you speak of as supporting tax breaks for the film industry? Certainly not me! The only ones I know of who did this were the BC NDP as part of their recent election campaign, which went to great pains to be pro-business (with the notable exception of oil and gas pipelines/tankers). Hmmm…perhaps you’re thinking of that famous corporation hater, good old Glen “President of the Jim Pattison Group” Clark?

    As for me, I thought the film industry tax cuts/subsidies were a ridiculous idea, just one more example of good old racing-to-the-bottom, in which we cut our tax rates, then Ontario cuts their tax rates, then Quebec cuts theirs, then we cut ours again, until all the jurisdictions are handing money collected from regular middle-income wage earners hand over fist to corporations, have nothing left for public services, and have pretty much the exact same number of jobs in each location as they did when they were all charging higher rates/not issuing subsidies.

  • spartikus

    The OECD maintains an excellent online resource for taxation statistics, FWIW.

    You can learn all sorts of things there.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    @Dan Cooper: Along the lines of “at least one is a mole”, it used to be a sort of bitter joke among Communists that you could tell who the RCMP infiltrator was because he was the only one who paid the monthly dues.

  • MB

    @Dan 97, so as the result of standing up to the multinationals and for the people, Norway made 700 times what that bastion of good management Rob Ford supposedly saved.

  • Chris Keam

    @gman

    You claim:
    “you’ve (me) derailed the thread and nothing regarding the subject of the post has even been discussed…..again. ”

    but I see a number of commenters having a reasonably polite and productive conversation very much in the vein of:

    “A little more critical analysis would be good.”
    (last line of Frances’ original post)

    If you wish your understanding of this thread to be that I played a role in that, who am I to disavow you of this notion?

    If you wish to discuss Rob Ford’s accomplishments I’m sure you’ll find plenty of takers. I suspect they may not be quite as likely to buy into his questionable claims of financial acumen as you might wish however.

  • Bill

    @Chris Keam #82

    “Out of respect for the readers who don’t comment, I think it’s important to steer away from making statements that one doesn’t even believe, simply because it’s politically expedient”.

    Many topics are just “proxy” issues for some commenters. For example, if someone accepts AGW is real and a threat to the planet then they will oppose pipelines and tankers because that gets them to their real goal of reducing the production of CO2. They will not be moved by any safety measures that might be put in place because their goal is to stop the oil from moving and not moving it in a safe manner. It is not a case of making a statement they don’t believe but rather they are not concerned whether it is true or not. Making the statement advances what they see is a worthwhile objective.

  • MB

    @ Bill, it’s not too much to ask that commenters back up their statements. Credibility is founded on credible sources.

  • babalu2

    For gman, fgl and others…..
    Nothing trickles down, man. Nothing.

    http://www.nationofchange.org/story-may-day-fed-apple-and-trickle-down-economics-1367503093

  • gman

    CK@104
    I see you’re having another Alinski moment Chris.But there comes a point where obfuscation,misrepresentation and spin turns into out and out dishonesty Chris and you’ve reached that point a long time ago.You are showing the same traits as the failed muckrakers you so much want to defend and you could care less about the people of Toronto.
    Now maybe you could answer the question that is the point I have so clearly made,do you think the failed antics of these muckrakers has been good or bad for the citizens even though none of their failed accusations have anything to do with the running of the city.

    MB you should crawl back under the rock you have obviously been under if you haven’t seen the billion dollar number that has been reported on by every media outlet in the country or maybe your browser is broken and you need me to link to every news outlet in the country for you.Or is it more likely that you’re just piling on because you fell for CKs spin.Or maybe you would like to answer the same question Ive asked Chris that is the only thing that really matters.Then you have the gall to talk about credibility.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    MB observes that “Credibility is founded on credible sources”.

    Like Somali drug dealers. Or Deloitte, take your pick.

  • gman

    FHL
    bwa..ha…ha

  • Dan Cooper

    @F.H.Leghorn (Jun 11, 2013 at 9:11 pm):

    Oh my! That line just made my day. (Oh, and now I’m laughing again…)

    Actually, that’s pretty much what the author posited both sides doing in the novel in question, with the rebels in particular making a point of their leaders always, on the surface, following all the laws and giving Caesar his due; even if everyone else was using a fake passport, they used real ones. So yes, I must admit this was not hard research but science fiction aimed squarely at the youth market; indeed, it’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. (Notably, though, I’ve seen the book mentioned by several big name economists both of “left” and “right,” in the way Starship Troopers – the book not the execrable movie – sometimes gets cited by military theorists and used in military education.)

  • Chris Keam

    @gman

    “But there comes a point where obfuscation,misrepresentation and spin turns into out and out dishonesty Chris and you’ve reached that point a long time ago.”

    Look, at least part of the original topic was politicians actually doing the work and critical analysis of the claims of those who accuse them of doing otherwise. I’ve stayed on topic throughout this pointless attempt to get you to provide even the slightest indication as to how you came to believe Rob Ford has saved Toronto a billion dollars. Further, if Mr Ford had actually done so, surely a good leader would attend a meeting of his peers to share his insights into how one achieves this financial feat? No, I’m sorry but in your attempt to tag me as going off-topic, it turns out you’ve failed to notice the little dot on the rattle-can is pointed straight back at you.

    Not only that, how do you come to believe I have some Svengali ability to make others decide to continue to discuss the questions I’ve put to you and Leghorn? Namely where do you come up with the facts to support your position? Neither of you have made the slightest attempt to provide a rationale, and instead choose to try to attack me for daring question your unsupported claims.

    Finally, you control your own comments. If you wish to ignore my request that you provide some semblance of proof for your claims, go for it. If you wish to continue to discuss whatever it is you think the actual topic of the thread is, then do so.

    There comes a point where obfuscation, misrepresentation, and spin turns into out and out dishonesty Gman. Yes, indeed. I agree.

  • Chris Keam

    “if you haven’t seen the billion dollar number that has been reported on by every media outlet in the country or maybe your browser is broken and you need me to link to every news outlet in the country for you.”

    It truly stretches the limits of credulity to expect the regular readers of this blog to believe you’ve suddenly had a vision on the road to Etobicoke and now accept the mainstream media’s reports as Gospel. For someone who is so skeptical of a huge volume of reportage to assume that media reports saying Ford makes such a claim must mean that it is true is a laughable premise.

  • gman

    CK
    Lets look at what Ive said Chris.
    My comments,
    #4 “As I understand it since Ford has been in he has saved the city one billion dollars in wasteful spending and efficiencies”

    #57 “Are you saying a politician juggled a budget in order to paint themselves in a better light……frankly I’m shocked I am. And what is even worse they got an award for their budget….I’m shocked again I am.”

    #57 Here I provide a link to the budget

    #72 ” Well Chris if you really want to know where the billion dollar number came from you could turn on your FREAKING TV or open a bloody newspaper.

    #79 ” I agree,the billion dollar number was just a sound bite out of Fords office and Ford himself that has been repeated by every media outlet in the country.To ask me if I believe it or any other politicians numbers or can I prove it is ridiculous. ”

    #84 ” You know perfectly well that was the number that was in the press and where it came from,so does anyone reading it unless they’ve been living under a rock.”

    #109 “Now maybe you could answer the question that is the point I have so clearly made,do you think the failed antics of these muckrakers has been good or bad for the citizens even though none of their failed accusations have anything to do with the running of the city.”

    Your comments,
    blah blah blah blah

    A funny thing happened on the way to the Rob Ford lynching.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mitch-wolfe/rob-ford-media_b_3428523.html

  • Chris Keam

    @gman:

    from my comment #56, repeated in the vain hope you might actually directly answer a simple question.

    “Is there a specific number in the linked article you disagree with? Or an article or link that backs up the Ford’s claim of having saved a billion dollars?”

    It’s your credibility at stake here. If you wish us to believe you aren’t gullible, simply provide us with a reasonable explanation for how you came to say:

    “As I understand it since Ford has been in he has saved the city one billion dollars in wasteful spending ”

    Do you believe he achieved this goal or not? If not, then feel free to explain the above quote.

  • spartikus

    From Gman’s link above, noted without comment:

    [The Ford’s maintained] Kennedy-like grace under pressure.”

    The Huffpo commenter “phil m99” gives a fine response here.

  • gman

    CK#116
    So you’ve gone from investigative reporter to Perry Mason to comedian or should I say clown.
    Are you denying the that was his statement?I gave you a link to the budget Chris,just think what a hero you would be if you exposed it for what you think it is….wow…ticker tape parade no less.
    Now you’ve skated my question for over a hundred posts Chris,hiding behind a great demand for a proof that Ford was lying in his statement as if I have something to do with it.He said it ,I posted it,and if you have a problem with it feel free to prove him wrong.No skin off my ass.Now if you don’t want to address my point then I think I’m done with your childish banter.

  • gman

    spartikus#117
    I thought that was hilarious too,I thought the whole thing was hilarious especially because it was in the Huff PO.

  • Chris Keam

    “a great demand for a proof that Ford was lying in his statement as if I have something to do with it.He said it ,I posted it”

    Umm no. Here’s what you said:

    “As I understand it since Ford has been in he has saved the city one billion dollars in wasteful spending and efficiencies….”

    Really, just an object lesson in the risks of parroting someone else’s talking points as though they were true. Now you’re stuck in a place where your only two options are to claim belief in a ridiculous claim, or posit that you repeated it without believing it.

    All you really achieved is to have the rest of us trying to figure out if you are easily fooled or willing to repeat a lie. Not a great place in which to try to present yourself as a credible individual whose comments should be given any real thought beyond how fast one can scroll past.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    And if anyone knows how to present themselves as ” a credible individual whose comments should be given any real thought beyond how fast one can scroll past” it’s Chris Keam.

  • Chris Keam

    LOL, shouldn’t you be tallying up paved over school playing fields?

    Jun 6, 2013 at 12:17 pm Post #30 F.H.Leghorn said:

    “In Vancouver most schools have converted playing field space to parking.”

    Do let us know when you are going to provide some proof for this claim.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin109276.html

  • gman

    So Chris you still have nothing……no answer…
    Ya…that’s what I figured.Thats a moral question anyway Chris that I don’t imagine means much to you.But I will congratulate you on obscuring the conversation away from any discussion about what was a very important meeting…..but that’s what you do.You’re a good little propagandist Chris but I think you blew your cover a long time ago.