By Ray Rivers

April 8, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

Please don’t think that because I criticized Ontario’s Premier for holding special access fundraising events – that I’m responsible for her changing her mind on this delicate matter.

A live in between the politicians and the business interests.

We know that Premier Wynne had been thinking about this for some time. But I am pleased to see she is finally reacting: cancelling all ministerial fundraising events, phasing out corporate and union donations, limiting individual donations, and putting rules around third party advertising during elections.

The Premier has promised to consult with the other provincial leaders on these election finance reforms, so the ink is far from dry on the changes. But the Conservatives, under their new leader Mr. Brown, seem supportive of her proposed changes, though they are reluctant to give up their own fundraising events. And the NDP can hardly say no, though they must be a little concerned about losing their union financial support.

And to complete the picture, the Province has also announced changes to the way municipal elections are to be run. New rules will enable municipalities to use ranked ballots and to ban corporate and union contributions to municipal electoral campaigns, as the City of Toronto had done years ago. This enthusiasm for improving local democracy does, however, begs a question. If these changes are such a good idea, why not just mandate them rather than leaving it up to municipal councils to voluntarily implement?

Is the public ready for ranked ballot elections and will they press their councils in the municipalities to implement them?

Incumbents in municipal councils are typically the default winners at election time. So don’t expect them to be in a hurry to revamp a system that keeps them in power. Without political parties, many voters see local elections as a crap shoot, since they typically aren’t aware of what each candidates actually stands for – so vote for the incumbent. A ranked ballot may not change that, nor change the frequency of incumbent re-elections. But those who do get elected will have broader public support as a first, second or third choice.

And, if ranked ballots will enhance local democracy, why not implement ranked ballots for Ontario’s provincial elections as well? And why isn’t the Premier joining fellow Liberal Justin Trudeau in his search for an electoral process to better serve Canadians? Harmonizing Ontario’s electoral process with Canada’s can only make voters more comfortable with the voting process, and perhaps encourage more voters to come out on election day.

Jean Chretien has a place in Canada’s history books for at least two reasons. First, he kept Canada out of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. And second, he revolutionized federal election finance rules. Those rules were so well-founded that his arch foe, Mr. Harper, largely continued them, in fact strengthening the prohibition on corporate and union contributions. And we know Chretien got it right because even the Globe and Mail, in a recent editorial, has called on the provinces to adopt the federal election financing rules as their own.

Of course Mr. Harper couldn’t leave well enough alone. The very notion that government would actually fund the operation of political parties is anathema to neo-conservatives. So no sooner had he obtained his majority, than he ripped the heart out of Chretien’s package by killing public financing as a partial alternative to financing with private donations. And then he once again increased contribution limits. It didn’t matter that political deductions cost the government more in lost revenue than it would have to pay for the public financing alternative.

How many donations are paid in cash that is stuffed in large brown envelopes?

Not only is public financing a more equitable and efficient way of allowing political parties to continue to serve Canadians, it is the only way to effectively put a stop to the political gravy train. That is right, big donors give money because they believe that buys them influence, and if you’re not a big donor…?

The system will always be tilted in favour of those with fat cheques going to the party war chest which best reflects their needs, unless we put a stop to it. And as to fairness – as one reader noted, political contributions receive higher income tax deductibility than do charitable donations.

Even before the recent Liberal sponsorship scandal, politics in Quebec was often associated with corruption. Whether perception or reality, the provincial government has reacted to that issue by limiting annual political party donations to $100 – a model for the rest of the country I believe.

Rivers will be away for a few weeks travelling in the Ukraine doing research for his next novel.  His first book, “The End of September” , is available on Amazin. Ray Rivers will return to his weekly column on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking.  Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province. Rivers is no longer active with any political party.

 Background links:

Corruption – Evils of Fundraising – End of Fundraising – Third Parties – Selling Access to Decision Makers –

Wynne Cancels Fundraisers – Political Financing in Canada – Quebec Contribtion Rules – Municipal Elections –

Ranked Ballots – How Ranked Works –

By Bob Wood

March 31, 2016

BURLINGTON, ON

This article isn’t for everyone – it gives you a look at the way city council and its citizens used to go at each other.  When writer Bob Wood completes the telling of this tale we will pass it along to you.

Citizens, developers and many municipalities have called for it to be dismantled. The Ontario government has given a big “No” to that notion.

Ted McMeekin, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, told CBC last week that “we need a body like the OMB because sometimes people break the rules.”

So, McMeekin’s Ministry is going to review the OMB with an eye to reform it by foiling those rule breakers. McMeekin is looking for ideas.

He’ll get no help from me. I ought to have an opinion but my views are a bit muddled.  That’s likely because I’ve become far too familiar with a long ago OMB hearing. That hearing dealt with an attempt by a developer to put a McDonald’s restaurant in Parkwood Plaza at the corner of Kenwood and Lakeshore in south east Burlington. There were three OMB hearings for that event.

Would the community fight the location of a fast food outlet today? The residents spent more than $350,000 in legal fees and those were 1980 dollars

At the end of the third hearing a resident’s group was successful in blocking this inappropriate use of a small plaza. Their success came thirty-six years ago this Friday (April 1, 1980).

Burlingtonians are patiently awaiting a decision on the Councillor Dennison appeal of a Burlington Committee of Adjustment decision to not allow a property severance he was seeking. The hearing took place more than nine months ago.

There is a second OMB appeal that has many in Burlington interested – that being the appeal the ADI Development Group took to what they called a refusal on the part of the city to make a decision on their development application to put up a 26 storey tower on the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road.

After giving the city a bit of a bum’s rush on their original application – Adi then asks the OMB officer hearing their appeal to postpone the actual hearing while they talk to the city about how an additional piece of property they recently purchased is going to fit into their development.

This stuff does get complex.

The seven year battle details some of the barriers residents faced in trying to cover the costs of an OMB appeal.

Some of the Cast of Characters

Jim Ryan – east end resident and frequent spokesperson for residents. Later elected as City Alderman for Ward 8.
The Committee Against The Establishment of a Restaurant in Parkwood Plaza (CAERPP) – residents’ group.
Herman Turkstra – well known lawyer and former Member of the City of Hamilton Board of Control.
Doug Brown – Solicitor for the City of Burlington.
Joan Allingham – Chair of Council’s Development. Perhaps better known now as Joan Little, columnist for the Hamilton Spectator.
Dalewest Construction – Owner of Parkwood Plaza.

For many years the City of Burlington’s Community Services Committee had convened a January meeting to consider funding requests. Typically, the requests came from recreational, sports or cultural groups.

Three sessions of the committee would be held in 1979 to look at 35 requests totalling $386,164.

The January’s meeting of that committee was to consider a request from a resident’s group. The Committee Against The Establishment of a Restaurant in Parkwood Plaza (CAERPP): they wanted help to foot a portion of their legal bills.

After an in camera meeting the Committee determined in a 3-2 vote that CAERPP should receive $7,500 for their legal costs.

This was a first – a request from a citizen’s group fighting a development proposal.

Mayor Roly Bird, who had been recently elected, defended the decision to fund the citizen’s group saying: “We have been given to understand that the city’s case will be greatly enhanced by their continued participation.”

Bird proposed a $7,500 grant as a compromise after an earlier motion for more money by Alderman Linda Pugsley had failed, receiving support of only one other member of the committee, Walter Mulkewich of Ward One.

Mayor Bird was known as a man of strong opinions. So there must have been many surprised citizens when six days later he had a different one.

Bird told Council that “a number of advisers” he had in the in the city told him they did not support paying the residents’ lawyer.
“I don’t feel the city’s case and the residents’ case will be that much jeopardized by the non-participation of their legal person.”

A strange statement indeed. Bird continued: “We have to ask is this the City’s fight.”

With that Council rejected the position of its Administration Committee.

Ward 8 City Alderman Bill O’Connell called Council’s position “pitiful.”

Other Council members claimed that if the City joined with CAERPP they could expose the city to legal action.

“The City could have been liable for many thousands of dollars for last revenues by Dalewest and McDonald’s,” Jim Grieve claimed.

Others, like Joan Allingham and Rob Forbes disagreed that such an opinion had been offered.

On becoming aware of the City’s rejection of financial support for his group, Jim Ryan had sharp words.

“The mayor indicated that the city is well qualified to handle the situation. Maybe we’ll just let them handle it.”

City Council chamber decor hasn’t changed all that much. The picture of the Queen has been replaced by the city crest. And there are a lot more council members at that table

Ryan went on: “I wish I had as much confidence in them. They blew it last time and they’ll blow it again. They don’t have the specialized expertise McDonald’s and Dalewest have.”

What now? Alderman O’Connell thought that the residents would end their fight.

The residents convened the night after Council’s decision. “It was a hell of a blow,” Ryan told the Spectator.

The committee had already accumulated $13,000 in legal bills and the meter was still running. What fundraising opportunities were still open to them? More garage sales, dances?

“That’s a hell of a lot of dancing and garage sales,” said Ryan to the idea of raising $8,000 more.

The group decided that a lottery could bring in money and be an indication of broader community support. CAERPP members began to sell tickets for a Valentine’s Day draw.  First prize would be $500.

The Committee knows they need lawyer Herman Turkstra, who they had engaged a year earlier.

While the City’s position was similar to the residents, the city’s lawyer can’t really represent the residents’ interests.

“We need our own solicitor. To be successful, the city needs our lawyer,” Ryan asserted. It wasn’t just Ryan who felt this way.

Alderman O’Connell talked to city solicitor Doug Brown and came away feeling the City has little hope. “If the residents pull out we might as well forget it.”

As lottery tickets were being sold speculation continued as to what the City should do.  The Burlington Post editorialized that if sufficient funds were not raised in the lottery the city had to make a choice.  Would they mount an effective opposition to McDonald’s/Dalewest and could it present the necessary arguments “without leaving itself open to future confrontation?”
he Post seemed to think that this was about property values. In their view, the city would put itself in a bad spot if it argued that putting a McDonald’s in the plaza would lower property values. The Post misunderstood the issue as did many citizens then and now. While residents are concerned about such things as property values, the OMB and municipal planning in general are not.

But the residents had no intention of giving up. Perhaps other Burlington observers thought as much.  “There was no intimation we’d drop out, even if we had to go without our solicitor,” said Ryan.

Advertisements for the continuation of the hearing ran in the Post on the same day that another story broke. Now the province was going to review the legality of CAERPP’s lottery. Lawyers for Dalewest Construction had written the Ontario Lottery Corporation (OLC) claiming that the lottery had contravened Ontario’s regulations.

Don Speight, assistant to the director of the OLC, said that a lottery must be for charitable purposes. It must go for relief of the poor, the advancement of education or religion or “any purpose that is of benefit to the community.”

While the OLC’s investigation was going on, lottery organizers were told not to spend any of the lottery’s proceeds. CAERPP had put down $14 for the licence in November although there were some questions about it at the time.

Doug Brown was the city solicitor during the seven year citizen’s battle to prevent a McDonalds from being located in the east end plaza.

“When they first came to me I was not prepared to issue a licence,” claimed City Clerk Don Briault.  But City Solicitor Doug Brown said it was legal.

Three thousand, two hundred and thirty-two (3,232) one dollar tickets had been sold to people who, Ryan said, bought the tickets to help with the legal bills. From Ryan’s perspective the draw was legal because the city had licensed it, Dalewest’s complaint could result in the money being handed over to a charity. People would be angry.
“They did not donate to a charity or a religious organization, they donated to cover our legal expenses,” said Ryan.

With the OLC studying the matter one might have expected silence from government officials. Not so.  A spokesman for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Relations told the Burlington Post that the lottery was probably illegal.

“Let’s face it. I’ve never heard of a lottery licence being issued to a group espousing a political viewpoint,” said Ed Ciemigap whose department was apparently exploring legal precedents.

Turkstra was incredulous that none of the parties involved in the determination of the lottery issue had contacted the residents.
“The Ministry seem to have the idea the (citizens) group is engaged in a political process. What they are doing is supporting the position of the City.”

Soon (March 21st) the Attorney General’s office told the Post that the chances of CAERPP being charged were fairly remote.

“Presumably Turkstra and his clients have nothing to worry about,” Julian Polika ventured.

And that is as far as Bob Wood, who grew up not far from the Parkwood Plaza. He hopes to have the whole story complete later in the spring.

Editor’s note: Bob Wood is working on the completion of this story. Things don’t change all that much in local politics – do they? Developers still do whatever they think they can do to get their projects completed.

And where is city council when it comes to supporting the citizens; there are a few in North Burlington that would like to see the city being proactive on their side over the dumping of land fill on the air park property.