Development – a city's lifeline

No city in the world can grow without developing its available lands, whether to attract new residents or entice new businesses. It is true that in today's enlightened world we have many considerations that were not part of the planning stage of early development. In the past most city managers were pleased to entertain any planned levelling of trees and emptying of fields to make way for industrial or commercial construction. A subdivision of neat new homes standing in a row, meant more residents to fill the streets and spend their money.

Today we have come to understand that there is a price to pay for uncontrolled spread, no less than that of one's waistline. After all we are not solitary worker ants, we have a tendency to drag our family along for the ride. Now city managers need to provide schools for their education, parks and recreational facilities to keep them off the streets, and efficient public transport for those not able to jump into their own vehicles. The headaches tend to grow in size gradually, economics and affordability become serious considerations for all city managers. Now the shining new development has become a magnet for the frustrated graffiti artist and the new industrial site a run-down eyesore.

There isn't a city in the world that is not facing the consequences of uncontrolled urban sprawl. Redevelopment of land has provided a potential solution. Yet we are now well aware of what 'Brownfields' are, former industrial sites that have issues with lingering chemicals and other contaminates left behind long after the last employee has gone.

So a developer today must face a great deal more than simply “can it be built.” As city managers face many more considerations before approving new plans, the developer must accommodate many more issues. It is no longer simply appeasing city plans or the logistics of the development. Environmental and community concerns play an integral role in any decisions made by the developer. Special interest groups can become obstacles in the approval process requiring concessions or worse, stalling the procedures completely.

True there are developers who will cut corners to increase the profit margins. Environmental requirements can be ignored, site preparation conducted without concern or appropriate approvals, and much more. It is the special interest groups that bring public attention and help enforce the premise of good development, or better still, responsible development. No one expects that any new building will stand for a short time. Therefore its impact on the surrounding environment, cohesion within the community and overall purpose are important considerations. Yet what can be said when a developer accommodates all the expected requirements and even more, yet still faces opposition from only a select few.

Supplied Photo - view from the lake 

In St. Catharines, Ontario such a situation is unfolding at this time. A planned development in Port Dalhousie, 'The Beaches at Port', has come face to face with the select few who strongly object to the plan, and have made it clear that they intend to take their objection to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Port Dalhousie area of the greater City of St. Catharines is a picturesque and idyllic location. It is home to Lakeside Park and the shores of Lake Ontario, with a lovely public beach. A marina filled with private boats of all sizes adds to the postcard image. Lakeside Park is also the home of one of the very few operational outdoor carousels in North America. Overall this is truly a picturesque part of the City of St. Catharines. Yet St. Catharines as a whole has suffered badly through the economic downturn and its city managers face serious issues to find a solution.

Scenic views of Port Dalhousie.

The Beaches at Port is a planned development at the very west boundary of Lakeside Park. Its developer Norm Rockwell, highly experienced in Heritage issues, and a meticulous planner has presented a proposal to build a 16-unit residential condominium complex. Mr. Rockwell and his partners, Steven Massis and Perry Nitsopoulos have brought together a soil expert, archaeologists and shore plan engineer - nothing has been left to chance, nothing left to question.

A City of St. Catharines 'Notice of Decision to Approve Official Plan Amendment' issued on June 28^th 2012 states, “For over 30 years the City of St. Catharines has recognized and re-enforced the importance of protecting agricultural lands beyond the Urban Boundary from expansions beyond that boundary. Since the mid 2000's the Province has reinforced the principles surrounding more efficiently using existing infrastructure and not allowing growth to expand into the Greenbelt. The challenge has been and continues to be accommodating intensification in existing neighbourhoods in a sensitive manner. The purpose of the lower density designation applicable to these lands and surrounding neighbourhood is intended to preserve the identity of the neighbourhood. Staff believes that the proposed medium density development supports local and provincial plans and policies.”

Supplied Photo - view from Lakeside Park

In an interview with developer Norm Rockwell it was clear that his passion for heritage and preservation issues surfaced throughout the proposed development project. He spoke of the restoration of the historic Wiley/Hutchinson home, only the dilapidated garage will be removed. “The ravine between the Wiley Home and the proposed condominium will not be placed under control of the Body Corporate of the condominium complex, {which oversees all maintenance and future needs of the property}, so as to ensure the future preservation of the mature trees.”

Supplied Photo - Architectural rendering of the planned restoration of The Wiley/Hutchinson Home 

City Planner, Mr. Kevin Blozowski had confirmed that Norm Rockwell provided extensive reports and documentation on the proposed project, and had the full support and approval of the city. Rockwell himself had said, “the start date of the development was approximately December 2010. There were many various plans submitted before that date, but that is what I would call the starting date of working with the city staff.”

Mr. Blozowski of the City's Planning and Development Services said that if he was to describe the efforts made by Norm Rockwell regarding this project, he would say Rockwell was “an enlightened developer.” Blozowski said he found it somewhat difficult to understand the objections raised against this proposed development. Responding to claims of environmental protection area lost in the development, Rockwell said, “The loss of EPA lands is approximately 1000 square feet, however the new break-wall to be constructed is in excess of 1000 square feet and will be donated to the city as park lands.”

Still objections against the proposed development have been formally raised and have to be dealt with. City of St. Catharines Councillor Bruce Williamson was the only one to vote against the proposal put before the city, and when asked for comment he provided a prepared statement which Councillor Williamson also wrote for 'The Garden City's Current'. “While the building itself features nice architecture, placing the sheer vertical wall of this six story structure a few feet from the boundary of the park near the children's playground behind the carousel is not in the least complimentary to the area. Once gone, the feeling of openness and natural beauty that is this corner of Lakeside Beach will be missed.”

Perhaps it should be noted that the proposed development will not be replacing open space but two sadly dilapidated buildings currently used as rentals. Though it is not Councillor Williamson who is the leading voice in opposition to this development. Mr. Jeff Loucks, who had previously presented his objections to the Ontario Municipal Board in relation to another development in the Port Dalhousie area, has stated he will do so again in opposition to the Norm Rockwell proposed development.

Mr. Loucks had been contacted on several occasions in an attempt to hear what his objections are regarding this project. He has refused to respond. Attempts were made to contact Mr. Carlos Garcia, previously associated with PROUD and one of the opponents to another Port Dalhousie development, and the Port Dalhousie Conservancy (which replaced PROUD), all have remained unresponsive and silent.

Jeff Loucks had been put on record by Niagara this Week in an interview saying that his main reason for filing his appeal was the size of the proposed development. “The development will result in the loss of large swath of trees, and when it is built, park goers will lose a place to get away from the city.” (Mike Zettel NTW July 26 2012).

Norm Rockwell's proposed development site is the home to some six to eight trees at this time, and not all are in a healthy state. These trees are behind a chain link fence that stands as a protection surrounding the two dilapidated buildings that accommodate several rental apartments. It is not a public area and signs warn against trespassers. No park goers may get away from the city or anything else in this far corner of Lakeside Park.

The existing dilapidated rentals to be replaced by the proposed development.  

A chain link fence surrounds these buildings with a 'No Trespassing' sign, keeping all beach goers, including little children, away from the property line.

Mr. Kevin Blozowski was clear that it is hard to understand what real objections Jeff Loucks had in relation to the proposed development by Norm Rockwell. According to Mr. Blozowski, Planner for the City of St. Catharines, Mr. Loucks will not be presenting any expert reports, or experts for that matter, to present his case. A preliminary hearing set for November 2^nd 2012, with a justice of the Ontario Municipal Board will hear an application for dismissal by lawyers representing developer Norm Rockwell. Mr. Loucks in turn will have his opportunity to present his case to justify the need for the Ontario Municipal Board to conduct a full hearing on the matter early in 2013. Jeff Loucks has inferred that he plans to present his case to the OMB on his own, without any supporting expert assistance. PROUD, known as Port Dalhousie Conservancy has stated that they will not be supporting Mr. Loucks this time at an OMB hearing. Though the president of Port Dalhousie Conservancy, Mr. Hank Beekhuis had made public objections regarding Norm Rockwell's 'Beaches at Port' development.

In a democratic society no voice has a right to be silenced, whether it stands in support or in opposition. After all that is the true basis of democracy and the freedom we enjoy in Canada. Yet should common sense be disregarded in the name of democracy? A list of objections had been presented to City Planner Kevin Blozowski by the Port Dalhousie Conservancy, which are as follows...

The Port Dalhousie area of St. Catharines has charm and beauty, and Lakeside Park is a public space that all can enjoy. Its protection is provided by city by-laws under both environmental and heritage basis, and this protection is of great value for the future of this area. Still no city can grow without development and when the development keeps in mind and compliments the local community, it is hard to understand the basis for objection. In St. Catharines Pearson Park was decimated to accommodate a pool and library even against the wishes and objections of local residents. A great “swath” of trees were destroyed and the notion that “park goers lost a place to get away from the city,” is evident today not only due to the complex that was built but also the large asphalt car park. Yet Mr. Loucks made no objections regarding this development.

Cities all around the world deal with issues of preservation and conservation in relation to development of shorelines. Port Dalhousie, St. Catharines is not pretending to become a mini South Beach Florida. Parks in cities large and small face development upon their boundaries. One has to only think of New York's Central Park or London's Hyde Park. Norm Rockwell has proposed a development that is tasteful at the very edge of the west boundary of Lakeside Park. This development does not infringe on park users in any way as it replaces two sad and unsightly smaller dwellings guarded by a chain-link fence. No park goer wanting to get away from the city will lose their place. No child in the play area will find an obstruction. Area residents along both Lock Street and Dalhousie Street do not find any objections with either the proposed new building nor the restoration of the Wiley House.

The City's final words in their Notice of Decision are, “Measures have been taken to mitigate related to height, parking views, shadows, and cultural heritage aspects in a manner that provides a balance between heritage conservation and intensification. Considering the proposal as a site specific exemption to the low density designations of the existing Official Plan and GCP recognizes the merits of this proposal without setting a precedent for future similar requests.” Norm Rockwell has said, “I am heritage conscious and I have put together a team of experts to cover every angle of this project. We are ready for any outcome.”

An extensive list of studies had been submitted in support of this development which include:

Planning Report prepared by Urban and Environmental Management (UEM) Inc.

Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petro MacCallum Ltd.

Stable Top of Bank Assessment prepared by Petro MacCallum Ltd.

Coastal Hazard Report prepared by Shoreplan

Archaeological Assessment prepared by J.K. Jouppien Heritage Resource Consultant Inc.

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report prepared by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.

Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Philip H. Carter and Paul Oberst

Our freedom of speech and the right to object on grounds that affect our community's future are never to be considered as wasteful. Still those freedoms and rights when guided by ulterior motives can become weapons to obstruct and delay. City of St. Catharines Councillor Len Stack provided this statement in relation to the proposed development to Mayorgate: “After having spent a great deal of time discussing the proposal with the developer and thoroughly examining the plans and the architectural design, I was most impressed with every aspect of this residential condo plan. It includes heritage preservation and exquisite architectural design that will enhance the entire beach area. Another positive and interesting aspect of this project is that many of the surrounding neighbours came out to speak in favour of the project.”

Supplied Photo - view from Gary Road

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Shop Mayorgate

Mayorgate now has available a range of merchandise, T-shirts, Hoodies, Tote bags and Art prints. The featured design on the products are the 'Emancipated Monkeys' of Mayorgate.

Since Mayorgate's first article was published some two-and-a-half years ago we have challenged the boundaries of conventional media. At Mayorgate we do not share any political alliances nor do we present a biased angle to any article. We strongly believe that the more people question the status quo the healthier our society becomes.

The cheeky monkeys believe in speaking even when not spoken to, hearing all that is secretive or discreet and seeing all that is hidden, and they speak in many languages as Mayorgate is read in over a dozen countries.

So come and take the cheeky monkeys of Mayorgate home and take them for a walk, they may even start a conversation. 

GET THE T-SHIRT

WEAR A HOODY

CARRY A TOTE

HANG IT ON YOUR WALL

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

SUPPORT Only Canadian Entry in the Global Art Awards

As Canadians we share the pride of one of our own achieving recognition on the world stage. It has never mattered what the field may be, whether it was music with such world stars as Nickleback, Buble, Levine, Furtado or Bieber. Hollywood has seen the talent of Canadian actors in the likes of John Candy, Christopher Plummer, Donald Sutherland, Micheal J. Fox, Rian Gosling, Rachel McAdams, Ellen Page and so many more. Whether in the field of the arts, sport or even world politics, it was Canada's Lester B. Pearson who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless work during the Suez Crisis, we stand up and cheer for our Canadian achievement with pride.

Mayorgate's own Alexandra Davidoff, an artist all readers are familiar with has entered an international art competition, and she is the only Canadian entry. The Global Art Awards, (GAA) are conducted annually by the Global Art Agency of Amsterdam Holland. Alexandra Davidoff is the only Canadian artist competing for the Best Global Artist of the Year 2012 award.

Alexandra's caricatures provide a visual extension to each article, yet each stands on its own. She has avoided the cliche of extending physical features and has chosen instead to provide a visual commentary worthy of discussion and thought. But her talents extend far beyond these caricatures as you can see for yourself. Alexandra is a self-taught artist who began as we all do with stick people. Though most of us never surpass such artistic achievements by adding anything more to the sticks, Alexandra has spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours sharpening her natural talent.

The result of all the hours spent is her entry in the Global Art Awards titled Futuristic Fishnet. Alexandra's paintings hang on the front of our home and traffic often slows down to look and passers by stop to view the vivid expressions of life brought to blank canvas.

Support a Canadian artist with her attempt at gaining her first international award. Voting is open to all and it is the number of public votes each contestant gathers that determines their chance at progressing to stage two and the final stage of the competition. The simple process of how to vote is added here for you, now please support a Canadian artist whose talent deserves recognition. Help place the Canadian flag at the Global Art Awards and Alexandra Davidoff to become the first Canadian to be chosen as the Best Global Artist of the Year.

How to Vote:

Follow this LINK

Click LIKE in top right corner 

Scroll to find "Futuristic Fishnet" 

Click VOTE below the name of Alexandra Davidoff  

If you do not have a facebook, hard to believe these days, then go to a friend's and vote for a Canadian in the Global Art Awards, Alexandra's talent is deserving of your vote.

Official announcement on the Global Art Agency Facebook page

Alexandra Davidoff had received votes from many corners of the globe as well as her home country Canada. Alexandra's entry 'Futuristic Fishnet' brought the attention and votes from the United States of America, England, Spain, Israel, Netherlands, France, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and more totalling 148 votes and making Alexandra the clear winner of the public vote, the people's choice for the Best Global Artist 2012 Award.

Global Art Agency on December 1^st 2012 chose a local Dutch artist, Loes Van Delft, as the winner of the competition. Congratulations to all the artists who entered into the Global Arts Competition.

Alexandra now has presented her latest work on YouTube in the form of a book trailer for a children's book titled 'Harri & Luna'. Each frame of this animated piece was digitally hand painted by Alexandra to bring to life the characters of this children's adventure story.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Unity versus Sovereignty

Canadians are proud of their country, though it may be said, quietly so. Our history does not have the turmoil or struggle of other lands, and we are accepting of all who come to our shores for a better life. Tolerance has been a key to the growth and maturity of Canada, and it is that tolerance to once again allow an insult to all Canadians be publicly carried out. On September 17^th 2012 the freshly elected Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois took down the Canadian flag from the ceremonial chamber of the national assembly as members of her minority government were sworn in. Standing alone was the Quebec Fleur-de-lis.

This was not the first time that Canada's National Standard had been removed from the Quebec legislature. Regardless of Premier Marois' feelings or opinions the Quebec legislature and its provincial government is a part of a nation. Whether it is Madame Marois or any of her newly elected minority government, each carries a Canadian birth certificate and a Canadian passport. Each took an oath of office under the laws of Canada, and each is responsible to uphold the laws of Canada.

The PQ's desires for sovereignty did in the end bend to hypocrisy and swear allegiance to the Queen. In fact the entire PQ caucus had no choice but to swear an oath to the monarch. Hypocrisy at its finest. No one can take public office in Canada without the prerequisite of swearing an oath to the British Monarch, yet the insult to the nation as a whole was to be tolerated.

Brave men and women carry on their uniforms the Canadian flag, too many have come home with the Canadian symbol draped over them in honour of their sacrifice. In battle the standard of a nation is never allowed to fall and is carried with pride. Yet we here in Canada seem to find an acceptance of such an act as not being anything more than changing the drapes on a window.

Canada's Heritage Minister James Moore's spokesman Sebastien Gariepy had this to say in an email. “We do not believe that Quebecers wish to revisit the old constitutional battles of the past.” (News 25, September 19, 2012). Premier Marois has stressed on more than one occasion that her government will aim to achieve Quebec's separation from Canada, does the federal government believe this to be a lie then? Quebec Liberal MP Stephane Dion was not surprised that the Canadian flag was removed, yet at least Mr. Dion did publicly state that he believed federal politicians should stand up for our national symbol.

We teach our children tolerance in order to develop harmony in their lives, yet we do not teach them to surrender their pride or dignity. There has to be limitations beyond which tolerance is only seen as cowardice.

Canada's Confederation of 1867 brought together three British colonies to become four provinces of the new dominion. "The existing Province of Canada was divided into the new provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and two other colonies, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, also became provinces of the Dominion of Canada” (Wikipedia – Canadian Confederation). All the colonies that became involved in the Canadian Confederation were initially part of New France, and were once ruled by France. The British in 1763 through the Treaty of Paris gained control of New France, which ended the Seven Year War. True our historic connection to France is at our roots, our very birth, yet it was also British and together The Fathers of Confederation saw reason to join together and form a nation.

The sovereignty movement does not look at the retention of historic links, it is a movement that has one motivation, and that is the division of Canada. In the early 1960's former European colonies of Cameroon, Congo, Senegal, Algeria and Jamaica were being granted independence, and advocates of Quebec's independence found a similarity in their cause as those newly independent states. Yet Quebec was not a colony under the possession of British Canada. It was a partner in the union of Canada and a province within Canada.

A jolt in the arm of sovereignty advocates came in June 1967 from the French President Charles de Gaulle. The French president was visiting Canada for Expo 67 and the Canadian Centennial. His famous exclamation “Vive le Quebec libre!,” during a speech at Montreal's city hall brought loud applause from those committed to Quebec independence, though not so much from the Canadian federal government or Canadians as a whole.

In October 1968 the Parti Quebecois (PQ) was born with the merging of Ralliement national (RN), Mouvement souverainete-association (MSA) and Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale (RIN). It is through the PQ that the sovereignty movement has found its voice and strength, to the rest of Canada only turmoil.

Two referendums on the sovereignty issue, one in 1980 and another in 1995 had failed. Both the Meech Lake Accord, where an attempt to provide constitutional recognition of Quebec as a 'distinct society', and then the Charlottown Accord failed. The failure of both referendums and the Meech Lake and Charlottown Accords brought a greater zeal to the sovereignty movement.

Where do we go as Canadians on this issue? How logical can it be to have a nation within a nation? Today's issues of security cannot be ignored and the logistics of such a division are impossible to fathom. For those in Quebec who call for separation a realization must be accepted that all the costs will be their own. The rest of Canada will not, and under no circumstances cannot provide the financial assistance towards separation. How can the Quebec tax basically achieve such a goal?

Still the voices for separation have gained a victory at this time, or have they. The newly elected premier has only a minority government destined to face a road filled with frustration ahead. Premier Marois is quoted as saying “My government is a sovereignist one. We have the conviction that the future of Quebec is that of a sovereign country.” Premier Marois and the PQ hold 54 seats, the Liberals 50, the Coalition Avenir Quebec 19 and 2 for Quebec Solidairie. Coalition Avenir Quebec's platform was based on the belief that the division between federalists and sovereignists paralyses, and the Coalition will promote neither sovereignty nor Canadian unity. Both the PQ and the Opposition Liberal party will court the Coalition's 19 votes and the games begin.

It is Canada as a country that in the end has to bear the bruises. Now weeks after our flag was removed by the newly elected Marois anger has subsided and the act no longer news. What will come next?

Perhaps it is important that we acknowledge and accept our distinct individuality yet it is our commonality of being Canadian which should motivate us toward our future and that of our children and grandchildren.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

The more people question the status quo, the healthier our society remains.

Mayorgate from its inception has stood against the voluntary censorship imposed by conventional media. Media moguls still labour under the illusion that they are the king makers when the fact is that they swear allegiance to either the left, right or centre, and then tow the line. Mayorgate's articles are not always popular with those who are in the spotlight, yet each article stands on its own ready for any criticism or comment, in fact we welcome your comments and opinions.

As publisher I am making an appeal to our readers who can afford a contribution in these difficult times to please use the donate button (in the top right hand corner), with whatever amount you can. We do not receive federal nor provincial funding of any sort and ask our readers to help us grow.

A Toothless Watchdog

The Office of the Ombudsman, what really is it? It claims to be “Ontario's Watchdog,” but how is it really the watchdog. Many of us believe that if wrong-doing by government has been identified that such issues can be brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Yet how many know that the powers of the Ombudsman are limited to our elected representatives. In truth there is no oversight body at all in existence in Ontario that has any authority over the elected representatives of government. It is up to the individual citizen to find the money and hire a lawyer to bring the issue to the courts. As often the case, the politician has more money and a more expensive lawyer.

We are faced today with the example of Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford's limitless arrogance awaiting adjudication by Ontario's courts. Toronto's Integrity Commissioner found Mayor Ford in breach of the Municipal Act Conflict of Interest Legislation. Mayor Ford ignored the Integrity Commissioner and it has been up to a private individual to take action and bring Mayor Ford before the court. Ford's lawyer is quoted as saying, .... “You don't have to obey the law, an order, that is clearly unlawful.” (Natalie Alcoba, National Post)

Who decides that a law is improper or fair? Regardless, there is no sign of the Ombudsman nor any real action other than empty words by the Integrity Commissioner.

A budget of 10.75 million dollars for the 2011-2012 operating period and a staff with titles such as 'early resolution officer', the Office of the Ombudsman makes some impressive claims. In Ontario the Office of the Ombudsman was instituted in 1975, with powers and authorities set out in the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman is independent of government and political parties, and his job is to hold government accountable by reviewing and investigating public complaints about the administration of government services.

Sounds impressive, more so as the Ombudsman has the power to enter any government premises to gather evidence, and the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. “He may investigate and report his findings publicly if he finds that a decision, recommendation, act or omission of a body he oversees was contrary to law, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory, based on a mistake of law or fact, or simply wrong,” (Wikipedia, Ontario Ombudsman).

These powers are augmented by teams at the Ombudsman's office such as SORT and OMLET. Yet the reality is simple and somewhat alarming, that not one elected representative's egg has ever been cracked to date. SORT (Special Ombudsman Response Team) brags of training hundreds of investigators and ombudsman around the world since the inception of its annual training course titled “Sharpening Your Teeth.” Still all of this looks good in annual reports to justify the 10.75 million dollar budget, the reality paints a different picture one that is far less impressive.

Our Ombudsman has no authority at all to do anything with those elected into public office regardless how dishonest, arrogant or plainly corrupt they might be. He cannot question, compel or investigate in any way a cabinet minister regardless of how definite the evidence is that proves that minister's breaches. OMLET, SORT and all the “Sharpening” of Teeth is simply a fallacy.

Our Ombudsman and his team was provided with clear evidence of a cabinet minister who had instructed directors from his ministry to lie and alter reports that had been entered into official record. It was not a simple allegation without supporting evidence.

Minister Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment had requested Lisa Feldman Director of Investigation and Enforcement to alter what were instructions set out in a ministry report of February 16^th 2011. Minister Jim Bradley requested Director Bill Bardswick to alter and add to a report submitted in March 2010. Ministry of the Environment reports are official documents submitted under the protocol of the Environmental Bill of Rights. A copy is provided to the individual who had applied for an investigation under the EBR and a copy to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. The ECO then combines MOE reports into his annual report which he presents to the Ontario Legislature.

Official documents were being altered by an elected member of our Ontario Provincial Parliament. Clear evidence was provided to support these very serious allegations and the Office of the Ombudsman appointed an Early Resolution Officer, one Maggie DiDomizio to conduct the investigation. It is difficult to understand what is the role of an 'early resolution officer' at the Office of the Ombudsman. Who are these 'officers', what experience or knowledge do they have. According to the Ombudsman's Act they have some authority at their disposal. The title of such an individual infers that it is their job to find some form of resolution to a situation therefore avoiding an investigation? In this case no resolution was possible and only an investigation at a senior level was required. Maggie DiDomizio found herself out of her depth and that became alarmingly apparent with her actions.

True the Ombudsman has no power or authority over the Ontario government, its ministers or how it conducts its business of politics. Still one would think there is enough authority to question the directors and other employees of a ministry and comprehend the material provided. DiDomizio presented a report in relation to file #187333, and proved the real impotence of the Office of the Ombudsman. In fact DiDomizio simply became a mouthpiece for Director Feldman in presenting another lie and now altering a part of the original report submitted by the MOE. DiDomizio ignored written confirmation provided by the author of the original report of 2011 and totally ignored what was presented in relation to Director Bardswick. When questioned about the status of any investigation of that situation, DiDomizio simply refused to reply and claimed she was out of the office till September 17^th.

DiDomizio in her report states “She (the Director of Investigations and Enforcement) said that, while there is no MOE offence relating to the parking of the vehicles, the MOE made a suggestion that the vehicles be moved as their location could possibly be a concern for the City of St. Catharines.” The original MOE report of February 16^th 2011 states “As a preventative measure, the property owner has already been advised to move the damaged vehicles away from the property lines so as to lessen the potential for fluids to move offsite and to clean up any spills detected in a timely manner.”

The original report of February 16^th 2011 was signed by Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French. On behalf of Kevin French an email was sent on July 16^th 2012 by Jayne Harten, Issues Manager and Strategic Advisor Office of the ADM Operations Division. Jayne Harten states, “Ministry staff spoke to the property owner of Sun Collision, Mr. Sam Demita, during their visit on January 5 2011 and followed up with a written letter dated January 13 2011, requesting that the damaged vehicles be parked away from the fence line as a preventative measure. This request was outlined in the EBR decision summary which was sent to you in February 2011. A copy was also provided to Sun Collision.”

A copy of the original report of February 16^th 2011 and of the email by Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French were provided and at the disposal of DiDomizio. In addition to both of these documents DiDomizio had a copy of the letter from Director Feldman, in fact DiDomizio states “I note that the Director said in her June 13 2012 letter that the MOE would convey your concerns to the City...” Feldman had this to say in her June 13^th letter, “You have expressed concerns in your emails about damaged vehicles parked by the fence on the Sun Collision property, a concern that you also raised in correspondence to Minister Bradley in February of 2012. In response to those concerns, the Ministry determined that there is no evidence of an offence in regards to this matter, and as such no action will be taken by the Ministry with respect to that issue.”

Nowhere at any time did it state that the MOE suggested the vehicles be moved because it may be a concern to the City of St. Catharines as is now claimed in the report by DiDomizio. Both the report of February 2011 and the email from Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. French made it clear that Sam Demita of Sun Collision was told to move the damaged vehicles in three separate ways, and on three separate occasions. It would seem that the MOE meant what they said, going to such lengths. Yet Director Feldman lied to an investigator from the Ombudsman's office, why? DiDomizio had all this at her disposal and yet monkeyed Feldman's lie! Is DiDomizio so ignorant of the evidence or did she have another motivation, one less pleasant to discuss? DiDomizio compromised the Office of the Ombudsman and must be investigated now herself.

It was not enough that DiDomizio parroted new lies by the Director of Investigations and Enforcement she also lied herself as to the author of the original complaint brought before the Ombudsman. DiDomizio states that in relation to the complaint “You questioned how the property owner could refuse to comply with MOE's instructions without consequence and alleged that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report, which you claim is a breach of the Environmental Bill of Rights (the EBR).” An absolute lie by DiDomizio, either that or she has a serious problem in comprehending the English language. In my original letter to the Ombudsman it was made clear that the MOE had allowed a business owner to ignore its instructions potentially putting a neighbourhood at risk. At no point was it claimed “that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report.”

Clear evidence had been provided that MOE had attempted to alter details of reports that they had filed officially on record. What was the reason for DiDomizio to lie? She continued to prove her incompetence with this statement: “The Ombudsman does not oversee the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, or any other officers of the legislature.” First of all the Environmental Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and he presents his final annual report to the Legislative Assembly. According to Wikipedia, “Ontario's Ombudsman oversees and investigates public complaints about the government of Ontario, including more than 500 provincial government ministries, agencies, corporations, tribunals, boards and commissions.”

That aside, at no point in the original letter had any request been made for an investigation nor any form of oversight of the Environmental Commissioner. The letter did state to the Ombudsman on July 15^th 2012, “As your procedure is to speak to representatives of the ministry in question it is of utmost importance that you also speak to Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Mr. Miller has been made aware of all details of the ministry attempts to alter details of reports filed under the Environmental Bill of Rights.” How was it possible in any way to misunderstand this?

Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario states in a letter dated August 28^th 2012, “In your letters you state that you have forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” The ECO has no powers to commence “own-motion” investigations and this would of been the only opportunity to provide serious information relevant to the 'investigation' at hand.

Did DiDomizio intentionally pretend not to understand what was set out before her in English? If her role was to review the details, then how was it possible to ignore the ECO on the grounds she quoted? It was the ECO who received the original reports and had presented them to the Legislative Assembly. It was the ECO who could provide all the details as to the severity and implications of any attempt to alter reports placed on record. All of this seemed to escape the purview of DiDomizio's investigative abilities. Yet there was more to come.

DiDomizio states “we have previously reviewed concerns that you have raised in connection with the subject property and the MOE.” A statement that is now on official record and one that intentionally presents an image of the complainant as vexatious. All the evidence and material provided was ignored and the Office of the Ombudsman had become a parrot presenting a new lie by MOE.

We in Ontario have no protection in reality against those elected. Andre Marin (appointed Ombudsman 2005 – present) may brag about his awards such as the one from the Ontario's Bar Association, he may brag about the special investigative powers such as SORT and OMLET, but he has no real authority. In his 2009 annual report, Marin emphasized the importance of oversight and accountability, yet he has no power to ensure that where it really matters. The elected representatives of our government still do as they please with complete impunity of the law.

Ontario Ombudsman file number #187333 proves that even with an annual budget of 10.75 million dollars, a staff of 80 plus, the Ombudsman Act in hand and special teams of investigators such as SORT and OMLET, Ontario's Watchdog is simply a toothless hound.

On Friday the 14^th of September 2012 a second letter was received from Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. For the second time Mr. Lapp states “...you have also forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” Once again the ECO makes it clear that they were expecting to provide information in this extremely serious breach of legislation by the Ministry of Environment.

DiDomizio must be investigated as to her handling of this investigation. She lied in her report not only in relation to the original complaint presented to the Office of the Ombudsman but she also repeated a new lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE and therefore Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally ignored the details requesting that she contact the ECO and covered that up with a lie. Testimony by the ECO would prove the breach of legislation against Lisa Feldman, the Ministry of the Environment and Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally avoided this potentially damaging testimony and the question lingers as to why.

Has Minister Jim Bradley used a representative of the Office of the Ombudsman to further cover up his breach of legislation? Has Minister Jim Bradley used Maggie DiDomizio, Early Resolution Officer at the Office of the Ombudsman to place on record aspersions upon the credibility of the complainant labelling the complainant as vexatious? DiDomizio with her report on Ombudsman file #187333 dated August 27^th 2012 has slandered the complainant, she has perpetuated the lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE made at the request of Minister Jim Bradley and intentionally avoided crucial testimony that would of been provided by the ECO.

Andre Marin is responsible for the actions of all his staff. This investigation must be reopened and conducted by an impartial experienced investigator. Maggie DiDomizio has to face a full internal investigation and her report struck from record. A full public apology is required to be provided to the original complainant. The Ombudsman may not have any authority to investigate corruption within our government or its ministers but he can take action against Director's Feldman and Bardswick and the ministry. Clear evidence has been provided of lies and breach of legislation, additional evidence is willingly awaiting. It is time for Andre Marin to yank the chain on Ontario's Watchdog, put its dentures in and take a bite.

Send comments to demtruth@gmail.com 

RECALL, RECALL, RECALL – no not the movie

Should we the people have some form of accountability from those we elect to govern us, or do we have to wait till the next election as our only recourse? According to Sun Media columnist Brian MacLeod the answer is “All you need is an electorate who, from time to time, wakes up and pays attention.” MacLeod wrote a column titled 'Recalls rarely achieve intended goal' and it was published in The Standard August 23^rd 2012. Almost half of this column is spent on criticism of the US and their style of politics, even Arnold Schwarzenegger is mentioned. Then the question is raised, “Now, hands up all those who believe the US has better governance than Canada.”

As always we will jump up on our pedestals here and point fingers at the US style of governance in comparison to Canadian. Yet in the US a State Governor faced hand cuffs and jail whilst here in Canada an individual no longer in public office can admit to receiving brown paper envelopes stuffed with cash and walk away from any consequence. Maybe it's not the US style of governance that should be compared but the fact that accountability does exist there. How much of it exists in Canada?

MacLeod in his column says, “It's almost always about two things – politics and money.” Truer words have never been spoken, but who's money is the real question. Millions of tax payer dollars were spent on an enquiry that made an attempt to dig up the truth. The result was as expected and the head of the enquiry publicly stated that his hands were tied by the parameters set for the scope of the enquiry. Why was that so?

What avenues do we the people have in Canada when an elected public official is proven to have committed irregularities? Is the only recourse left to us in Canada to wait for a sinking popularity for the next election before we can “yank a politicians chain.” After all if that's all we have then the politician walks away with a healthy pension paid with our tax dollars and a huge grin on his face. Now that's true governance Canadian style, eh.

It is not the tough or unpopular decisions that we want to stop they are necessary at times and it is not possible to please all in the community. What we need is some kind of mechanism that holds politicians accountable and enforces consequences. Everyone knows how politicians change during the elections, the promises made and deals formulated in exchange for voter support. What happens after the election?

In Ontario we have the Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, well at least an individual holds that title and is paid with our tax dollars. The title makes one think that he as an independent body overseas issues regarding members of the provincial parliament. How wrong anyone can be.

Minister Jim Bradley currently holds the position as Minister of Environment in the McGuinty government. A 35 year veteran of politics touted for his incredible record of public service. This same Minister Jim Bradley protected a political pal from any consequence as that pal bent and butchered the law. Still that was not enough, Jim Bradley then gives his pal Mayor Brian McMullan of St. Catharines a contribution for his municipal re-election campaign. True there are times we forget that our elected representatives are also Canadian citizens and therefore have the same rights as we all do. In this situation Minister Jim Bradley clearly protected Mayor McMullan from investigation and any consequences for breaches of the Municipal Act and more, to have made a financial contribution to his re-election campaign was simply a sign of arrogance by Jim Bradley.

So now let's look elsewhere, anywhere that the public may take a grievance to. We now stand at the doors of the Ombudsman of Ontario. On the wall as one first exits the elevators it states “ONTARIO'S WATCH DOG.” Beg to differ on that boast, it is only a dog with dentures.

Back once again to Minister Jim Bradley, Ontario's hero of public service. As the Environment Minister Jim Bradley instructed two individual directors of the ministry to lie regarding official reports submitted by the ministry into record. The instructions to these directors had in fact been proven and documented. Our Environmental Bill of Rights shattered and official reports that were submitted to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, who in turn submitted them in his annual report to the legislature, now tampered and altered. All the material and hard evidence provided to the Office of the Ombudsman, as it is within the jurisdictional authority of the Ombudsman to investigate provincial issues. In all fairness there has been no response as yet from the Ombudsman though little faith is held for an outcome that will enforce any consequences on Minister Jim Bradley.

The same Ombudsman had been provided direct evidence of the most senior public health official in the Niagara Region to have intentionally lied regarding a potential public health issue. Mind you the Ombudsman would normally not have jurisdictional authority to investigate municipal issues but in the case of the Niagara Region the province had taken authority over the Niagara Health System and appointed a provincial supervisor at its head. Niagara suffered heavily through the C.difficile outbreak with over three dozen deaths before the McGuinty government took action and in effect took control of the NHS, making it for the time being a provincially controlled body. Our Ombudsman, stated that since Dr. Valerie Jaeger MD, PhD., was a public official from the regional municipality of Niagara the Ombudsman had no authority to investigate. Mind you Dr. Jaeger MD, PhD., is also a practising family physician in St. Catharines governed under the rules of the NHS.

Moving on to our municipal government, after all it was Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk who inspired Brian McLeod and his article. Who in fact oversees the municipalities? Does anyone in fact provide any protection to the people against mayors and city councillors? Mayor Matichuk had made a request of Municipal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne “to press for recall legislation in Ontario.” Brian MacLeod in his immense wisdom and knowledge had this to say, “Wynne would do well to smile and nod at the suggestion, then move on to more pressing issues.” Someone should tell MacLeod that this is all that ministers of the provincial Liberals do at all times without his advice.

In the city of St. Catharines its mayor decides that he can do as he pleases with the law and fixes a by-law fine after it was issued to an individual. One of his own city councillors for the Merritton Ward Jennie Stevens leaves an answering machine message to the individual who had the by-law infringement. The message states that Mayor Brian McMullan had taken care of the ticket and he did not have to pay for it. Under the Municipal Act no mayor has the legal authority to interfere with by-law fines once issued. This was breach of the Municipal Act and perjury of oath of office.

All the information including a copy of the message left by Councillor Jennie Stevens was sent to the Minister for Municipal Affairs, at that time it was Jim Bradley. St. Catharines is Minister Jim Bradley's riding and Mayor Brian McMullan is his personal friend. Minister Jim Bradley sheltered his pal from any consequence, and in his arrogance provided a cash contribution to Brian McMullan's re-election campaign.

This has not been the end of the transgressions of St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan. In an odd situation a Niagara Regional Councillor became the target of anonymous accusations. These accusations were sent to the local press, through the internet and reached senior staff at Niagara Region. The anonymous accusers even sent a false complaint to the Niagara Regional Police which is in breach of the Criminal Code. Regional Councillor Andrew Petrowski and his family had to survive this onslaught in public. Mayor Brian McMullan who sits on Regional Council called for Councillor Petrowski to resign on the basis of the anonymous accusations that had been proven to be false and malicious. Mayor Brian McMullan took things much further by making a public statement in the press admitting to have knowledge of the identity of the anonymous accusers. In fact Mayor McMullan admitted to complicity to a breach of the criminal code. Nothing was done, no questions asked of Mayor McMullan and the matter was left to die.

Arrogance by our elected representatives is not uncommon. Each holds his or her hat in their hands when an election times roll around and quickly forgetting everything once elected. True there are times for hard and tough decisions making it impossible to please everyone in the community. Yet in Ontario we have no protection at all against the intentional transgressions of those we elect. Do not bring up the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner nor the Auditor General. Each is a pseudo-government watchdog that barks when it suits them and drops its false teeth in a jar.

So what are we left with in the end. Are we to simply shut up and bare it till the next election? According to the brilliance of Brian MacLeod that is all. Another brilliant representative of Sun Media wisdom Jim Hendry had this to say in relation to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who faces the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. “Ford didn't and should have his knuckles rapped. But the Conflict of Interest Act doesn't provide for small punishment, and no mayor should be turfed for $3150 worth of arrogance.” (Point of view: Toronto mayor's stupidity could be his salvation. The Standard, August 30^th 2012, by Jim Hendry). According to Sun Media we now have a dollar value on the need for consequence by our elected representatives when caught breaking the law. Shall we transfer such an attitude when applying the Criminal Code? But then it did happen that way in St. Catharines with another mayor, Mayor Brian McMullan.

When is it simply enough?

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com