Women make up the majority of Canadians, but a minority of politicians.
Only 22.4% of the House of Commons are women, although they make up 52% of our population. That places Canada 46th out of 189 countries with national parliaments — not something we can boast about.
Those are national statistics, but they’re not much different at the local level across Canada, with a few exceptions.
About 24% of councillors across Canada are women, while only 15% are serving as mayors. The far north have the most women involved, followed by B.C., with Ontario being average with 25% female councillors and 17% female mayors.
In my home of Brantford, there are two women councillors out of 10, along with a male mayor. There only used to be one woman on council but another won a seat in 2006.
Marguerite Ceschi-Smith, who was the lone female on council for years, recently spoke to my journalism class about being a councillor and one of her favourite causes: encouraging more women to run for elected office.
Marguerite Ceschi-Smith
Ceschi-Smith helped run a campaign school for women back in October in Brantford, giving information, advice and tools to women who might consider a run for municipal office next October.
The FCM is actively promoting women running for government, through its toolkit and other resources. It also has published a report calling for women to reach the 30% mark by 2026 at the municipal level. It’s probably a realistic goal, considering it’s 16 years away. Still, on the surface, it seems like it should be reachable sooner.
There are barriers — but not roadblocks — to women running. Most women, even if they are successful career women, still carry the bulk of the responsibility for childcare and family care.
As Ceschi-Smith pointed out to my class, it’s a big decision to run. You need the support of your family, since you’re going to lose some family time. This is particularly tougher for younger women. You also lose some privacy, with residents calling all times of the day and night with beefs and problems.
And there’s still incidents of discrimination or plain rudeness to women in office, Ceschi-Smith said.
Despite those drawbacks, there are opportunities for women who are willing to step forward. They should be encouraged to grasp them.
More women would bring fresh ideas to the table, which has been dominated too long by middle-aged men. They would offer insights that men can’t. And they would likely put a different focus on where to spend tax dollars, perhaps more on services to help families and less on traditional things like fixing roads.
They say if women ruled the world there wouldn’t be any wars. I wonder what local government would be like if women had more power?
The Ontario government requires that major municipalities measure the cost effectiveness and efficiency of their pubic services every year and publicly release that information to taxpayers.
The Municipal Performance Measurement Program is almost 10 years old. Municipalities will have to file their next report after Jan. 1, 2010.
The province requires more than 50 measures, grouped under some 12 areas, including:
Local government
Fire
Police
Roads
Transit
Libraries
Drinking water
And garbage and recycling
Since these reports have been filed for a number of years, you can check if costs or spending is going up, down or sideways.
If you check the police statistics, it cost Brantford $269 per person to provide services in 2008, up almost $18. Yet the total crime rate per 1,000 persons fell to 94 incidents, compared to 104 the year before.
Other stats: treating drinking water cost $383 per megalitre (whatever that is); operating city parks $63 per person; running recreation facilities and programs totalled $100 per person; and running libraries $44 per person.
Then there’s all kinds of stats regarding garbage and recycling. Collecting and disposing of garbage cost $141 a tonne, while collecting recycling was more, at $147 per tonne. In all, 29.6% of residential waste was diverted for recycling, but that was down almost two per cent from 2007. That’s nothing to be proud of.
Brantford’s report, listed online under the finance department’s documents, contains notes explaining some of the numbers. But you can draw some of your own conclusions.
For example, some people might think it unfair that the library system only gets $44 per person, while arenas, pools and fitness programs get $100. In fact, it costs more to keep city parks pretty than to run the city’s two libraries.
And you would think that it would be troubling that the amount of residential waste recycled is stuck around 30% over a five-year period. Shouldn’t the percentage of recycled material be going up? What needs to be done to get over that 30% hump?
The province issues a report summarizing all these numbers, which is available online. Unfortunately, it doesn’t name the municipalities, so you can’t compare Brantford directly to a similar-sized city such as Cambridge. There are comparisons by group size based on population and northern and southern communities are separated, but you can’t do city by city comparisons. That would give people a better sense of how their city ranks.
Even still, there’s a lot of information that curious residents might find interesting. Informed residents should have a sense of where their money goes.
More than 6,000 residents in Brantford were on EI last month (a drop from the last few months, but still double from a year ago). The number on social assistance topped 2,000. And the local food bank will hand out a new high of 2,700 Christmas hampers next week.
Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre
On top of that, the city lost about 100 small- and medium-sized businesses over the last year. If you drive around the industrial parts of town, you’ll see dozens and dozens of For Sale signs in front of empty factories, warehouses and businesses.
Yet, city politicians seem to be on a spending and handing-out-money spree.
Here’s some numbers:
Brantford is spending about $15 million to expropriate a dilapidated two-block stretch of Colborne Street.
It will cost another $2 million to tear down the buildings. The city hopes a higher level of government will kick in half, but hasn’t got any promise yet.
The price tag to build four new ice rinks at the Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre was supposed to cost $39 million, with one third, or $13 million, coming from the city (Ottawa and Queen’s Park putting up the rest).
That project is $11 million over budget only months after it began, meaning it will cost at least $50 million in total. And don’t expect Ottawa or the province to come to the rescue.
Upgrading the Gretzky aquatics centre will cost another $9.6 million, with the city again paying one third. Luckily, that project isn’t over budget.
Then there’s Mohawk College, which wants the city to put in $2 million for its $10-million project to buy the historic Expositor newspaper building and turn it into classrooms.
And, last but not least, the city will probably be asked to chip in to build the planned $42-million recreation centre that Laurier Brantford and the YMCA wants to put on part of the expropriated Colborne Street property. That project failed to get a federal infrastructure grant.
Add that all up — check the math for yourself — and the city will be coughing up possibly $46 million. That’s assuming it will have to pay for the cost overruns but won’t have to give Laurier-YMCA anything.
And let’s not forget that this comes at a time when the council vows to stick to a zero per cent budget for 2010, since the politicians say they understand residents are hurting in this recession.
Some of these projects do have value — the Gretzky centre needs updating and is embarrassing to its namesake – and you can’t turn down infrastructure dollars.
Maybe I should apologize for being so dense, but how is the city going to pay for all this and keep its 0% promise at the same time? Either taxpayers will have to pay through the nose next year, or the city will borrow the money and make us pay for many years to come. That’s painful either way.
There is an alternative. Someone could stand up and say that we just can’t afford all this right now. Someone could stand up and say the numbers don’t add up.
Brantford councillor John Bradford crossed the line in his treatment of a city employee and he’s been punished. But has he been punished enough?
An investigation carried out by an independent integrity commissioner found that Bradford violated the city’s code of conduct for councillors by harassing the employee.
John Bradford
It’s a sordid story.
The investigation confirmed that Bradford acted in a hostile manner towards the woman, who was in a relationship with the ex-husband of the councillor’s daughter. He also disseminated private photos of the woman and talked about them around the halls of city hall.
The integrity commissioner recommended that Bradford lose three months’ pay — the stiffest possible penalty under the municipal code of conduct. And the majority of council voted to do that, meaning Bradford will lose about $5,700 in salary.
But the episode still stinks, and there are several troubling issues still unresolved.
First of all, it was troubling that council voted only 6-3 to impose the stiffest penalty. As another councillor pointed out, it should have been unanimous.
It was troubling that Marguerite Ceschi-Smith, a champion of women’s rights, voted against the penalty. She later explained that she voted that way because the penalty didn’t give the victim the right to accept an apology. But this was too serious of a misconduct to be papered over with an apology.
Councillors Mark Littell — who has announced plans to run for mayor — and Richard Carpenter also voted against docking Bradford’s pay. Shame on them.
Not only should the vote have been unanimous, council should have had the option to go further and strip Bradford of his job. There’s a flaw in the law if serious violations like this don’t result in “impeachment.”
So what’s left to do?
Bradford should resign. He crossed the line big time. Because of his actions, he has little credibility with city staff, whom he has to work with on a daily basis. He has also lost credibility with most fellow councillors, who he has to work with to make decisions. He’s also lost credibility with residents in his ward and in the city overall.
Even Ceschi-Smith has come around to this view. She either had a change a heart, or received calls from residents telling her to give her head a shake. She’s come out now calling for his resignation.
After initially not commenting on the case, Bradford has now apologized for his action. But it is too little, too late. He should go. He doesn’t deserve to keep his job. And voters shouldn’t have to wait until next October’s municipal election to have the chance to boot him out.
The other side of the story regarding Mohawk College’s Brantford plans has finally come out in the media.
Brantford Expositor city hall columnist Tim Philp talked about the harm to the community from Mohawk moving most of its hands-on, skilled trades programs out of the city, to Stoney Creek and Hamilton.
At the same time, Mohawk plans to move all human services programs, such as personal support worker, early childhood educator, and law and security to an as yet unbuilt, unfunded downtown campus. It is looking for the provincial and federal governments to put up $10 million to renovate the Expositor building and erect a second structure. It also wants some $2 million from city hall.
Philp says opening a downtown campus will have benefits, but the long-term economic bonus to the community is questionable. That’s partly because the careers Mohawk’s programs will train for will be low-paying, and there will be limited opportunities in the community for them. In other words, they’ll be trained to work outside the community. That will not lead to long-term economic prosperity for the city, Philp said.
The columnist challenged Mohawk to make a commitment to Brantford, and get out of its Hamilton-first focus.
“We desperately need a community college that offers skilled trades to serve our local interests and not one controlled by Hamilton that milks our community for money and then leaves when times get tough,” Philp wrote in the daily paper.
Pretty damning comments, but hopefully it makes a few people stop and think.
I don’t know whether to laugh or scream sometimes about NIMBYism.
That’s how I felt this week after reading about public opposition to building low-rise apartments a 10-minute walk from my northend Brantford house.
Residents oppose building affordable housing here.
A developer wants to put up two six-storey buildings with 150 units and two four-storey ones with another 78 on a property that used to house a fitness club, gymnastics club and a RONA. The taller building would feature apartments with market rent; the smaller ones would offer affordable housing.
Did I scare you, just then? Sorry. You’re not the only one. Area residents are spooked by the idea of affordable housing. About 25 people at a public meeting made that plain.
Perhaps resident Tony Locche put it best: “With all due respect to political correctness, affordable housing is a problem. My main concern is crime,” he was quoted in The Expositor.
Just in case you’re ignorant, it has been scientifically proven that affordable housing leads to crime. Numerous studies have shown that a family’s inability to pay market rent causes them and their children to break the law. Affordable housing is a major cause of break-ins, robberies, drug peddling and gang violence. Just ask the police, they’ll tell you. It’s a fact.
Other residents expressed fear that affordable housing would cause the value of their properties to plummet, putting them in the poorhouse — another documented fact linked to the scourge of cheaper rents.
Brantford’s director of housing tried to explain that affordable housing isn’t the same as social housing. Social housing provides rent-geared-to-income units for people living on social assistance, disability pensions and limited incomes. Social housing can offer cheaper rents than regular apartments because builders get grants from the government upfront, but their rents aren’t subsidized.
Still, residents weren’t having any of it. They still saw the mere suggestion of affordable housing as a slap in the face to honest, hard-working people everywhere. Affordable housing didn’t belong in their neighbourhood, they said. They already have a problem with teenagers hanging around and causing trouble.
Residents want the affordable apartments built somewhere else, not near their condos, which they paid $250,000 to $300,000 for. One condo resident suggested he should be compensated if the affordable units are built — based, of course, on the scientific evidence showing the drop in property value mentioned earlier.
Sadly, even city councillors got in the act, suggesting that because two dozen residents objected, the builder’s plan was clearly flawed and wrong for the neighbourhood. Send it back to the drawing board, they said. Instead of trying to make their constituents see reason, the councillors jumped on the NIMBY bandwagon. Shameful.
Is 19-year-old Kurtis Coombs a defender of democracy or just stubborn?
The teen is asking the Supreme Court to rule the result of September’s election for mayor in Paradise, N.L. was mishandled.
You may remember Coombs defeated the incumbent mayor in his home town by three votes. A recount, required automatically because of the closeness, showed a tie. Pulling their names out of a box gave the victory to rival Ralph Wiseman.
Coombs asked for a judge to recount the ballots, a process that confirmed the tie. Then, Paradise’s returning officer said the draw of names stood and Wiseman was sworn in as mayor.
Coombs now believes that there should have been a second draw after the second tie.
“The people are still supporting me and you can see from many polls around that people still want a re-election here,” Coombs told CBC News. “I’m looking for a re-election here. I’m looking to give democracy back to the people. That is my goal.”
He’s vowed that if he win’s the job he’ll resign to force a new election.
The more this story goes on, and the more money is spent on lawyers, the more I wonder if Coombs is in the right. And what about the residents of Paradise? Should they foot the bill to give Coombs his satisfaction?
A class of 23 university journalism students getting into the spirit of a mock municipal election.
When I first pitched the idea to half the class that showed up one day, it got only a few votes. When it was over, students sent me emails saying they had really enjoyed it, calling it a “fun exercise.”
An election fun?
Well, they can be. I had told the class earlier that covering an election as a reporter is fun, especially when the adrenaline starts flowing when working to deadline on election night. And especially if you’re following a nail-bitingly close race that goes back and forth. I don’t know if they believed me. Elections can also be fun for candidates and, dare I say it, voters.
The format for our little mock election, spread over two classes, was simple. Two students vied for mayor, eight fought over four council seats, four played the role of reporters and the rest were residents. It was set up like an all-candidates meeting. Candidates prepared short platforms, while the media and citizens posed two questions each. At the end, everyone got to vote, stuffing their ballots into a box I dug out of my garage.
There was a din of talk as the ballots were hand counted and numbers put on the white board beside each candidate’s name. The mayor’s job was decided by one vote. That probably should have resulted in an automatic recount, but I didn’t think of it and there was no one from the UN to remind me.
During the all-candidates meeting, there were plenty of good election platforms unveiled and many intelligent questions. Residents and the media wanted to know:
How would candidates clean up the downtown?
How would they help the unemployed?
How would they make the downtown safer?
What would they do to settle the native land claims dispute?
How would they protect the Grand River from pollution?
Would they spend more on child care?
Would they continue to fund Wilfrid Laurier University?
And where would they find the money to pay for their platforms?
Studies have shown that young people tend to be apathetic when it comes to elections. I saw figures that only 37% of voters in the 18-24 age group cast ballots in the 2004 federal election — well below the average. Overall, 54% of Canadians voted in the 2008 federal election.
Voter turnout in municipal elections tend to be even worse. In Brantford’s last election, in 2006, only 44.5% turned out. And probably few of those were in the age group of my students.
But judging from the platforms, questions and, most of all, enthusiasm I saw on election day, there’s reason to be optimistic about the future.
Elections in Ontario’s 400-plus municipalities are a year away, but candidates should begin thinking now about their personal stance on accepting campaign donations.
It’s not cheap running for political office.
In Brantford, a medium-sized municipality, the two frontrunners for mayor during the 2006 election spent $18,000 each. Councillors spent anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000 to get elected. One incumbent who only spent $100 didn’t get back in.
Candidates in large cities such as Toronto and Ottawa must spend a mint (or have to rob the mint), especially if they’re running for mayor.
But it’s not the cost that raises a moral question — it’s the source of all that cash.
If you look at the source these days, it more often than not comes from developers and builders. Their continued well-being and wealth relies on the openness of municipalities — and the political leaders who run them — to their multi-million dollar projects. Many developers, big homebuilders and related companies donate the maximum $750 to candidates. Often they “hedge their bets” by putting their money on more than one candidate, giving the same amount to the frontrunners for mayor.
But not all candidates like the position accepting donations puts them in. They don’t like the appearance that they may be “beholden” to their donors in some way down the road, or that they might “owe them a favour.”
Brantford’s Richard Carpenter, a veteran councillor, has a policy of not accepting donations.
“I don’t want anyone to think I’m beholden to them,” Carpenter told The Expositor several years ago. “With planning and development being so much of a municipal responsibility now more than ever, I believe councillors shouldn’t take money, especially from developers. How can you do that and remain objective?”
It’s a good question.
This moral dilemma has no easy answer. Some candidates might need the cash from developers. Others might find it easy to say no. Some don’t think the donations put them in an awkward spot; others do. Some insist they can remain objective and fair; others wonder if their colleagues can.
Luckily, there’s plenty of time for candidates to decide and then let voters know where they stand.
Will Colborne Street South be Mohawk College's new home?
Brantford is in “secret” talks with Mohawk College to move downtown.
That’s the term a city councillor, Mark Littell, used this past week at the social services committee.
As a former journalist, my news antennae started buzzing when I heard the word. Now that’s a headline, now there’s a story, I thought. Surprisingly, the reporter from Brantford’s daily paper didn’t react the same way, at least judging from the story that appeared next day. There was no reference to the secret talks in the piece about Mohawk closing its Elgin Street campus and shuffling some programs off to Stoney Creek and Hamilton, and moving others to the yet-unbuilt downtown campus.
Although not publicly announced by the college, for some strange reason — PR failure? — word about Mohawk’s relocation plans have quietly spread over the last month or so. Their plans aren’t a secret.
But as a taxpayer of Brantford I deserve to know if the city is in secret talks to give Mohawk money, buildings or land, or a combination of all three.
We’ve been down this road before. Waterloo’s Wilfrid Laurier University has built, from scratch, a fair-sized campus in Brantford over the last 10 years, largely on the public purse of local taxpayers. The last figure I saw was $6.4 million from Brantford to Laurier in either cash, grants, buildings or renovations to buildings that were turned over to the university.
I don’t want to wake up some morning to find that council voted the night before to give Mohawk $500,000 or $1 million or more for a new downtown campus. And the city, so eager to rid itself of ugly Colborne Street South, could easily do that, even though we’re in the middle of a recession, with 12% local unemployment, new tax assessment drying up and councillors crying that we’re poor.
Although municipalities have the right to talk about property issues behind closed doors, it would be an injustice to lock this one up. Let the public have a say, for a change, whether they want their tax dollars put into post-secondary education. What is a councillor like Littell — who plans to run for mayor, by the way — afraid of?
Maybe councillors are afraid they’ll get an earful from taxpayers who are paying too much tax already. Maybe they’ll hear that this is the wrong time and place to let Mohawk put its nose in the public trough. Or maybe the public just wants a chance to talk about it and debate it out in the open — not in secret.
Full disclosure: Mark Skeffington is an instructor at Laurier Brantford and used to work for the daily Brantford newspaper.
