Thoughts and Opinions On Today's Important Issues

Friday, October 20, 2006

MFOIA Reply To The City


Wow, a lot of you wanted to read the Bridge Co.'s Dan Stamper letter yestrday. I assume you liked the direct talk and the strong language. So I followed his example a bit (It's still Canada, eh)

Oh I know it is not as exciting as an arena BLOG or a border one and I know you'd rather read about Bambi (watch for more Superior Park shockers on Monday) but this is important too. It is a continuation of my challenge about how this City is run and to get the facts.

Here is my next letter dealing with fee waiver and public health and safety issues on my Municipal Freedom of Information application.

I know it is long and boring but I believe you will find it of great interest. Who cares about this specific issue (other than me). What is of interest is the way the City works.

===================================================================

Thank you for your letters dated September 22, 2006 and October 11, 2006.

To be quite direct, I have no idea where we are in the process. I thought I was to respond to your first letter re the fee waiver. Then I received a letter from you respecting “mediation” dated October 11, 2006. I did not think we had started that part of the process yet since I had not dealt with fees.

In any event, let me deal with the fees, waiver and financial hardship first:

Order ORDER MO-2071 states that

“The purpose of a fee estimate is to give the requester sufficient information to make an informed decision on whether or not to pay the fee and pursue access. The fee estimate can assist a requester to decide whether to narrow the scope of a request in order to reduce the fees. A fee estimate also protects an institution from expending undue time and resources on processing a request that may ultimately be abandoned. In all cases, the institution must include a detailed breakdown of the fee, and a detailed statement as to how the fee was calculated.

This office may review an institution’s fee estimate and determine whether it complies with the fee provisions in the Act and Regulation 823, as set out above.”

Frankly, what you have provided to me as a so-called response to my application makes it impossible for me to make an informed decision about anything. I have attempted to reduce the scope but you provided me with no answer responsive to my requests.

I find it quite strange that in a previous MFOIA that I made and for which I sought a fee waiver you did not ask for the detailed information that you have asked for in this case. In the first case, the amount in dispute was only $360.00 while in this case, the amount is $101,089.00. If you will recall in Order MO-1839 the Ajudicator agreed that the fee should be waived based on the fact in part that “I further agree with the arguments put forward by the appellant in favour of his position that it would be fair and equitable to grant a fee waiver in light of the manner in which the City has processed his request.” The same applies this time around, only worse.

This case is much stronger since you have not even had the courtesy to answer my questions so that I might make an informed response. In fact, you have not stated which documents you would refuse to produce so that I could potentially make the payment and receive absolutely nothing!

On its face, a fee of $101,089.00 would cause financial hardship to an individual. There is no absolute requirement to provide “income, expenses, assets and liabilities.” The Order you referred to starts off by saying “generally” not absolutely. The basis of this Order is Order P-1393 and in that case the “The Ministry responded to the appellant's request for a fee waiver, by asking her to provide additional information regarding her financial circumstances.”

For your information, my financial circumstance is that I am in receipt at this time of Canada Pension Plan income and the combined family income for Income Tax purposes for my wife and me for 2005 is a small fraction of the amount requested. Obviously, this request would cause financial hardship to me

May I draw your attention to the case you referred to with my comments therein:

MO-1895

In a letter dated February 3, 2004, the Municipality provided a fee estimate in the amount of $11,100 to process the appellant’s request, estimating that there are approximately 45,000 pages of responsive [Their cost per page is 24 cents, your cost is $1.75]

“In preparing this response, I have consulted with the Municipality’s chief administrative officer, treasurer, treasury staff, public work’s manager, members of the buildings department, members of the administrative staff, the municipal records clerk and various other municipal staff members. The estimates set out herein are based upon the results of these consultations. [You did not state whom you consulted or provide how you reviewed their responses]

I have also retrieved and reviewed a representative sample of some of the records that would be responsive to your request. [You did not do this]

In this respect, we retrieved and copied the agenda packages for 2000, 2001 and 2002, which is one of the many items that you have requested. We made a total of 6,559 copies and, at $0.20 per page, the cost for this copying was $1,319. As set out below, we are prepared to provide these specific documents to you without cost

Search: 140 hours @ $30 per hour = $4,200 [You require 1060 hours]
Preparation: 150 hours @ $30 per hour = $4,500
(approximately 10% of the records will have severances or will require full or partial severances, which is approximately 4,500 pages @ 2 minutes per page = 150 hours) [You claim every page requires severance]
Photocopying: 9,000 pages @ $0.20 per page = $1,800
(based on the assumption that approximately 20% of the records will require photocopying and that the remainder of the responsive records can be placed on computer discs) [I only would want the pages I feel are relevant copied]
Other Costs: It is estimated that it will take 5 hours of computer programming in order to retrieve responsive records @ $30.00 per hour = $600 [Nothing like this was done in my case]

The Municipality has provided the appellant with a fee estimate of $11,100. The calculation of that estimate was broken down in great detail by [the Clerk] in her comprehensive response letter...Given the demands placed on the current staff resources of the Municipality, it would be necessary for the Municipality to hire a new staff person in order to respond to the appellant’s request. [Great detail was not provided in my case and my question to reduce the scope was not answered]

Generally, to meet the "financial hardship" test, a requester should provide details regarding his or her financial situation, including information about income, expenses, assets and liabilities [see, for example, Order P-1393]. [See my comments above]

In regard to the manner in which the Municipality responded to the request, I note that there was some delay in the Municipality’s response to the appellant. The appellant made his revised request on July 2, 2003 to the Municipality and did not receive an interim decision until February 3, 2004. In cases like these where there has been some delay in responding to the request, the argument has been made that the records lose their importance, use and effectiveness. I agree and find that this factor significantly weighs in favour of waiver. [Your actions have stalled my requests for months]

Regarding whether the Municipality worked constructively with the appellant to narrow or clarify the request, the Municipality noted the following to the appellant…I note that both the Municipality and the appellant have made attempts within their abilities to narrow the request. As the appellant is no doubt aware, his request for records is both broad and varied. In my view, a factor supporting fee waiver which would weigh strongly in the appellant’s favour is whether the appellant made attempts and aided in any efforts to narrow or clarify his request. [The Municipality did not work with me at all]

I am satisfied that the appellant would suffer financial hardship if he were to pay the fee. While I agree with the Municipality’s arguments that the organization that the appellant is affiliated with could pool resources or contribute to the payment of the fee, in this case the amount of the fee is quite large and I find that it would be onerous even if the cost were spread amongst a number of individuals. [This comment would apply in my case!] “

Based on the case you referred to, the difference in what was done there and what was done in my case is like night and day.

Let me now deal with the issue of “public health and safety.”

The matter I am dealing with in respect to the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel is of great importance from a public health or safety aspect. I am asking about plans concerning the Tunnel and in particular about its operation, management, financing and improvements, changes and alterations.

The Tunnel is in the midst of a project for improvements that may cost $30 million or more by the time it I finished. In addition, the Tunnel ventilation building project, a separate transaction, will cost around $20 million I believe, well over the $13 million original budget. Both projects deal with public health and safety matters.

The news report states that there are public health and safety concerns to users of the Tunnel respecting the Tunnel ventilation building eg structural problems, aging ventilation system, repairing interior brick work, reinforcing the steel structure, removing PCBs, replacing the roof beams and corrosion of the steel structure throughout the building, which is adjacent to the downtown bus terminal, and concerns about the structural stability of the entire building.

The Mayor has said “virtually no work has ever been done on this building and it appears as if they are encountering new problems every day and every time they turn around.” Councillor Valentinis has said “there are certainly major red flags being raised."

Clearly this project concerns public health and safety.

As you know, there has been considerable concern also about exhaust and pollution from diesel trucks and cars on Huron Church Road in Windsor. In fact, there is a desire expressed by the Mayor and Council to tunnel a good section of the road to the new crossing. However, I am certain that few Windsor residents are aware that the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel owned by the City through the Windsor Tunnel Commission exhausts unscrubbed air from the Tunnel such that it may be a major polluter in downtown Windsor.

My request deals with this matter, amongst others, and what is being done if anything.

In addition, the Tunnel has been called a “unique” security risk and US Customs has said that the Tunnel does not meet its requirements. As you know, it is such a risk because “There’s this inherent security concern with the proximity of that tunnel to the downtowns of both Detroit and Windsor.”

My request deals with this matter, amongst others, and what is being done if anything.

The improvements are also designed to remove vehicles from City streets since there are huge queues if there are backups going into the US. I am aware of relatively inexpensive suggestions about how to fix the Tunnel problem at a cost substantially less than $30 Million. The public needs to know and understand how the City proposes to tackle this issue as well.

Clearly this project concerns public health and safety.

It is obvious that I will disseminate the information received if it is meaningful since I write a daily Blog on politics in Windsor. The readership includes media, government, business people and the general public.

Clearly the taxpayers and residents of Windsor have an interest in being made aware of pollution issues and what is being done, or not being done to deal with pollution downtown. The City can hardly talk about fighting pollution and then be a major polluter. This is very important especially since the City passed recently an Environmental Master Plan and the Tunnel ventilation exhaust may impact the downtown negatively.

As “owners” of the Tunnel citizens should be made aware of what is being done to minimize risk and liability at the Tunnel because of the security risk and the failure to meet Customs requirements. If action is not taken, the Tunnel could be closed down if Bill C-3 is passed. This is a City-owned asset and citizens need to be made aware of the issue and what must be done as soon as possible.

In the circumstances, I have fulfilled the requirements and it is fair and equitable to grant a fee waiver.

With respect to your October 11 letter, I have some comments to make:

Point #1—I have no idea what you are talking about: why would I not receive 100% of the responsive information. Why would there be severing on each page? That seems absurd.

Point #2—I have no intention of guessing where these WTC documents are. Your obligation is to provide them and to provide the information requested as to volume, dates etc. Lumping them in with other departments is designed to mislead and to hide them and to run up costs unnecessarily so that I will not seek them out. That is acting in bad faith in my submission for which the City should be censured. It is NOT my fault if your documents system is a shambles and you should not be requiring me to pay for your inability to file materials so that they are readily available.

Point#3---This comment is absurd. I can file applications by year and department and you would be required to produce the information. What this tells me is that a proper search has not been made and that the document volumes are phony, designed to make me give up on my request by charging an excessive sum of money. You have never provided me with the information I requested twice. Again, I would submit that the City has acted in bad faith and should be censured.

Point#4---the whole purpose of my comment is to reduce costs in advance. There is no need to receive a deposit first before such an easy question is answered. Clearly the City has no desire to try and scope down the request.

In the circumstances, I believe that you must provide me with the documents and at no cost.

What Will The Labour-endorsed Councillors Do Now


"What's in a name
That which we call DRTP
By any other word would be just as bad" (Apologies to Shakespeare)

I really think that I forgot one of their names; there have been so many. [No I mean the
ones that can be printed in a G-rated BLOG]. But DRTP has a new monicker.

It was just the plain, old DRTP at first. Then it became the Tradeway, then the Jobs Tunnel, then the Green Solution. It must be that none of them worked. So we got a new slogan. [I wonder if the same City Hall sloganeers that worked for Mike still work for Eddie since he has developed so many new slogans during his three year term as well.]

Now DRTP is the "new and improved" DRTP. Honest! That's what Mike said.

There was the old gray ex-Mayor on TV the other night pitching his new vision just like it was a box of soap. He complained that no one understood that the DRTP had changed, again.

He knows though that DRIC has rejected the "new and improved" DRTP already. So has Minister Cansfield when she was in town. Can he prove the "new and improved" DRTP works? If so where are his engineering studies or drawings that show connections that will be approved? Where are his cost estimates? Drawing a line on a map does not cost too much money pretending that is a solution. But another 3/4 page full colour ad does.

Whatever happened to the campaign to link DRTP to the Ambassador Bridge? Did DRTP lose on that one at every level of Government so now they are back pitching their old solution again?

Did you notice that Mike forgot to mention that the "old and tired" DRTP needed $150 million of taxpayer money on a $600 million project to have a hope of surviving financially. This "new and improved" DRTP would require a mega-project, mega-billion injection of taxpayer cash. All that to make private investors rich at our expense.

With truck emissions being cleaned up environmentally over the next decade and fuel being changed, no Government is that stupid to waste money on a DRTP tunnel or any tunnel for that matter notwithstanding what Eddie Francis and the incumbent Councillors may say.

I wonder if Mike and Eddie would ever stand together, shoulder to shoulder, advocating for a border solution. Now that would be something to see. Eddie and Mike together again. Borealis and the Mayor working to achieve a common objective. But then, nothing would surprise me on the border issue.

Clearly, the border is still the biggest election issue (the arena is fighting hard to take the #1 spot) Now several Councillors have a real dilemma that Mike and the Labour Council have put them. As the Star headline said "Labour council backs revamped DRTP proposal." Windsor Council is opposed to DRTP. What do Councillors Ron Jones, Caroline Postma, and Ken Lewenza do now? And we may as well include Percy Hatfield since he is supposedly a shoo-in for election.

Will they have the guts to say that they do NOT want Labour's endorsement now given what the Labour Council has done and given their public position on Council on DRTP?

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Back To Normal

Time to get back to normal after all of the arena excitement. My next MFOIA letter will be coming soon seeking waiver of the payment of $100,000+ that the City has requested for documents.

To Read This Blog, Safety Glasses Required

Better watch your eyebrows when reading this BLOG! You may not have any left by the time you are done. Dan Stamper of the Ambassador Bridge has a reputation of saying exactly what is on his mind. And he did.

The Star wrote a story about the Bridge Co. being upset about a report prepared by the City of Detroit Planning commission (Note the Mayor has his own group of planners too. That's how they work over there due to "separation of powers") I went out and got a copy of it and thought it might interest you. [Click on each page to enlarge it for easier reading]

I think the letter is a distinct change of attitude on the part of the Bridge Co. Much more public, much more aggressive and much more willing to hit back at critics. It's a "We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore" attitude probably brought on by their successes in Lansing and Ottawa in getting their position across.

From watching the hearings in Lansing and reading the transcript of the Ottawa hearings, I almost think that Dan had fun hitting back at people who have criticized the Bridge Co. for all of these years. I almost think this letter, and its intensity, is recognition that those who attack them better watch out now when they go public with their criticism.

Facts are such a terrible thing aren't they.

I must admit that I cannot see anyone daring to wrote such a strong letter in Canada. But imagine if someone started doing that here. That would be fun.


Wednesday, October 18, 2006

OMB INQUIRY PRESS CONFERENCE REMARKS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD INVESTIGATION
ON EAST END ARENA ACTIONS DEMANDED!

AS YOU KNOW FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, I HAVE ACTED IN WHAT I BELIEVE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF WINDSORITES. I WAS GENERAL COUNSEL OF STOPDRTP, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL GRASSROOTS CITIZENS GROUP IN WINDSOR FIGHTING THE BORDER MATTER. I FOUNDED OJIBWAY NOW! AND THEN I STARTED A BLOG ON WINDSOR POLITICS CALLED WINDSORCITYBLOG. (www.windsorcityon.blogspot.com)

IF YOU ARE A BLOG READER, YOU WILL HAVE NOTICED THAT I HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE DISILLUSIONED AND CRITICAL ABOUT THE WAY MAYOR EDDIE FRANCIS AND COUNCILLORS HAVE CONDUCTED BUSINESS IN WINDSOR. MY REMARKS NOW ARE NOT MEANT TO BE AN ELECTION SPEECH BUT WE HAVE SEEN A LACK OF OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT AND DEALS THAT ARE POORLY HANDLED. I QUESTION OUR FINANCES ESPECIALLY RELATING TO UNKNOWNS SUCH AS ENWIN AND THE WINDSOR TUNNEL.

THIS IS A COUNCIL THAT IN MY OPINION DID LITTLE UNTIL A MONTH BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND THEN---ACTION, ALL OF A SUDDEN, ON THE MAJOR ELECTION ISSUE, THE ARENA. I AM NOT GOING TO GO INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED RESPECTING THE ARENA NOW. ALL THAT I KNOW IS THAT TWO OF WINDSOR’S MOST SUCCESSFUL FAMILIES OFFERED TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO BUILD AN ARENA THAT WE HAVE WANTED TO HAVE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THE NEXT THING WE KNEW, IT IS BEING BUILT IN TECUMSEH. INSTEAD, A COMPANY THAT SEEMED TO APPEAR OUT OF THE BLUE HAS BEEN CHOSEN TO BUILD AN ARENA DESIGNED IN 1999 THAT MET THE NEEDS OF THE TOWN OF PORT HURON WHOSE POPULATION IS ABOUT 15% OF OURS.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A REAL IDEA WHAT WE ARE BUYING, WHERE IT WILL GO AND WHAT THE TOTAL COST WILL BE. BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR SHOVEL IN THE GROUND FIRST NO MATTER WHAT!

I AND OTHERS SPOKE AT COUNCIL ABOUT THE ARENA PROPOSAL. THOSE WHO RAISED CONCERNS WERE GENERALLY IGNORED BY COUNCIL’S CHEERLEADING FOR THE EAST END ARENA. THE MORE I WENT INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS MATTER THE ANGRIER I BECAME.

HOWEVER, I COULD NOT QUITE FIGURE OUT WHY I WAS SO MAD. THEN I READ THE MAYORS COMMENTS ON SATURDAY ABOUT THE MFP SETTLEMENT. HE SAID:
  • “WINDSOR HAS REACHED A FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE FORMER MFP, CLOSING THE BOOKS ON ONE OF THE MUNICIPALITY'S MOST SHAMEFUL CHAPTERS…

    "THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING EVERY COUNCIL ACROSS THIS PROVINCE AND COUNTRY REMEMBERS SO THEY ENFORCE THE PROPER POLICIES AND VIGILANCE TO ENSURE THIS SITUATION NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN...

    …HOPEFULLY THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS PEOPLE EVER FORGET ABOUT.

    IT REINFORCES HOW PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO BE VERY VIGILANT IN ENSURING PROPER SAFEGUARDS AND PROTOCOLS ARE THERE TO ENSURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS."
IT WAS A EUREKA MOMENT FOR ME. I KNEW THEN WHAT THE ISSUE WAS: IN MY OPINION, THE ARENA IS THIS MAYOR’S AND THIS COUNCIL’S MFP AND CANDEREL


I HAVE IDENTIFIED 5 AREAS OF CONCERN IN RELATION TO THE ARENA MATTER:

1) WHAT WAS THE ROLE OF CASINO WINDSOR

2) WAS THE ARENA PROCESS A SHAM
a) THE LONG DELAY
b) WAS THE CHOICE PRE-DETERMINED

3) WILL THE ARENA BE WINDSOR’S NEXT MFP IF THE ARENA DECISION VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S PURCHASING BY-LAW

4) ARE THERE SERIOUS FINANCIAL ISSUES

5) ARE THERE SERIOUS ETHICAL ISSUES
(a) WINDSOR SPITFIRE NEGOTIATIONS
(b) $4.5 MILLION PAYMENT
(c) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(d) HIDDEN AGENDAS AND A MUNICIPAL ACT JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION
(e) ACTING IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER AND NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS

THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE SOME MAY THINK THAT THERE ARE POTENTIAL “BOMBSHELLS” IN WHAT I HAVE FOUND. THERE IS ALSO THE MORE MUNDANE “DOES THIS MAKE SENSE” QUESTIONS. WHILE I DO NOT WANT TO BE FAVOURING ONE PART OF THE REPORT OVER ANOTHER, CLEARLY MATTERS SUCH AS POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, POSSIBLE $4.5M PAYMENT, POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE PURCHASING BY-LAW ARE UNUSUAL MATTERS THAT DEMAND INVESTIGATION.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I AS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN PURSUE ON MY OWN. I DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO DO A PROPER INVESTIGATION. MOREOVER, I CANNOT GET ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS OR EXAMINE PEOPLE UNDER OATH TO GET THE TRUE FACTS.

ONLY THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO ACT. ACCORDINGLY, I HAVE WRITTEN A LETTER AND REPORT, ALL 23 PAGES OF IT, TO THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS OUTLINING MY CONCERNS IN DETAIL. I AM SEEKING AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHOLE ARENA SITUATION BY THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE BEFORE THE CITY GETS TOO DEEPLY ENTANGLED SUCH THAT WE NEED TO LITIGATE AS IN MFP.

WE NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WE NEED TO KNOW IF WINDSOR CAN REALLY AFFORD THIS ARENA. WE ARE THE ONES WHO MAY BE STUCK PAYING FOR AN ARENA AND THEREBY NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH HIGHER PRIORITY MATTERS.

WE SUPPOSEDLY HAVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PROTECT US. PRICE WATERHOUSE DID A REPORT FOR US ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER MFP. AND YET, THESE PROCEDURES SEEM, IF I AM CORRECT, TO BE SO EASILY FLOUTED. THAT IS A MATTER OF THE GREATEST CONCERN.

IT’S FUNNY. OUR MAYOR PREACHES THAT HE WANTS CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN CANADA TO REMEMBER “HOW PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS HAVE TO BE VERY VIGILANT IN ENSURING PROPER SAFEGUARDS AND PROTOCOLS.”

HOW QUICKLY HE AND HIS COLLEAGUES HAVE FORGOTTEN.

...And I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore!


I saw some of Eddie's campaign signs around his headquarters over the weekend. It said on them "OUR FUTURE STARTS TODAY." Hmmmm I guess we are supposed to forget the last three years of inaction under this Mayor. Or as mayoral candidate David Wonham would say: "Empty words and broken promises!"

Frankly, I have had enough, as should be obvious from what I have written in this BLOGsite over the past year. The arena was the last straw!

I spent a very long time over the past several days researching and compiling as much information as I could respecting the arena and what I found troubled me greatly.

The issue to me is not where should the arena go or even if we should have one or who should build it. No, to me the issue is how my municipal government should be run and its relationship with the people who elected the Mayor and Council.

There are a number of steps that I can take to express my personal outrage. Here is one of them.

MEDIA ADVISORY
NOTICE OF Press Conference

Windsor, Ontario, October 16, 2006


DEMAND FOR ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD INVESTIGATION!

Ed Arditti will be holding a press conference to outline the reasons why he is demanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing refer the entire East End arena matter to the Ontario Municipal Board for investigation and action.

Arditti, a lawyer in Windsor, Ontario will submit a 23 page letter and Report to the Minister outlining in detail a number of troubling matters that he has uncovered. These events took place leading up, during and after the vote to approve the East End project. He states that an immediate investigation is required and that a decision needs to be made whether or not the project should be allowed to move forward. Possible financial prejudice to the citizens of Windsor and to the position of the City must be avoided.

The Letter and Report to the Minister is far-reaching, covering five separate areas of concern.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Biting The Hand That Feeds


What will happen to Windsor when the Empire strikes back?

Is there something in the water? Has it been a full moon for an extra long time? How can three of the smartest people in Windsor be so foolish with the survival of Windsor at risk? Don't they understand the consequences of their actions or do they think that the "free ride" will continue forever? Or is it something more?

No, I am not suggesting that the three are working together as conspirators for some hidden agenda. I am just asking how three such intelligent people can be making such bad decisions for Windsor.

Don't they remember the famous question asked at City Council when the DRIC team was being questioned:
  • "Why doesn't anyone listen to the City of Windsor?"
Eddie Francis has to be one of the smartest people I have ever met: how can he think that he can successfully sue the Federal or Provincial Government or even threaten them with litigation over the DRIC road. He knows about the power of the Province to upload roads easily and the constitutional power of the Federal government and what Bill C-3 proposes so why is he posturing.

Fulvio Valentinis is the man I have always spoken to about problems on City matters since he is the one person that all factions on Council and the Mayor respect most. How can he make such a serious charge respecting the arena about senior Provincial Cabinet Ministers, including those that come from Windsor:
  • "There is no question there is a much bigger agenda here. The part that is most disturbing is this could not have been done, would not have been done, without the co-operation of provincial cabinet ministers."
When I invited him during my speech at Council to either withdraw his remarks or to demand a Judicial Investigation under the Municipal Act, he did neither.

Gord Henderson is a most insightful and entertaining "political" columnist of the Windsor Star. How can his column headline read and how can he say
  • "The fix is in....If Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello could abandon Windsor on the arena file, what faith can we have that they won't hang this city out to dry on a far more important issue -- fixing the border?"

That just invites the fuming small fry to contribute their two cents worth as if anyone cares

  • "Coun. Dave Brister has accused Pupatello and Windsor-St. Clair MPP Dwight Duncan of "not stepping up to the plate" to defend Windsor's interests."

Gee, Councillor, a baseball analogy in a hockey matter! How appropriate.

Let's get real. The City is isolated. Alone. Our unemployment rate is one of the highest in Canada. Our housing starts at the lowest level in years. High-paying jobs are disappearing from our economy as the auto jobs are cut back and as people head to the greener pastures of Alberta. There is nothing on the horizon to replace them. We don't even have a CEO yet for our Economic Development Commission.

I have heard the stories, who knows if they are true or not, about calls being made to embarrass the Government in debates in Queen's Park. I checked Ontario Hansard for Question Period. The questioning was rather tame but I turned white when I saw these answers:

  • "Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me say this: I think it's very clear that our government has a track record on economic development that puts most Premiers in the history of Ontario to shame. There were months and months and months that went by under both the NDP and the Conservative government, where the Premier never went past London down the 401. Our Premier, on the other hand, has come to Windsor more times in our short time in office than any of the other Premiers combined. I am proud of the record that we have of our Premier coming to our city, and not just to visit, but to deliver for the people of Windsor."

    "Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Our record for the Windsor area is clear, whether it's investment to save the Nemak plant, the expansion of the Valiant plant or the $400-million expansion of the Windsor casino. Or perhaps it's the project associated with DaimlerChrysler that helps our paint shop, or it's a medical school, or it's the investment of $1.2 billion in the city of Windsor since we've become a government. Is that what this member opposite is complaining about?

    There's not a resident in my city who would agree with this member opposite, but rather would say that when it comes to the McGuinty government, we deliver for the city of Windsor, and that will not stop."

    "Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Let me say this to the people of Windsor: If they think for one moment that there has been an historic government in this province that has done more for Windsor, there simply has not. Since we have become a government, in these short three years alone we have seen the advent of a medical school for Essex county; we saw the expansion of Valiant Machine just last week; we are looking at saving the Nemak plant -- that was last year; we've looked at the DaimlerChrysler expansion, which holds our paint shop for Windsor. These are very important initiatives."

Don't our senior politicans and our distinguished columnist know how they are hurting Windsor? Can they be that insensitive? Are they so arrogant that they are prepared to jeopardize the City of Windsor over a hockey rink?

Sure, Windsor should fight hard to beat Tecumseh. Sure we should throw up every legal roadblock we can to keep the arena here. We should write, phone, lobby, demand, pressure and invite resdients to do so. But winning at any cost can cost quite dearly.

No these people are too smart. I hardly think that Eddie cares about the arena being the Jock that he is not. No it is something more....And as usual, Gord gives it away with his"fixing the border" remark.

He goes on to say:

  • "We have to assume, in the wake of their stunning abandonment of the city on the arena, the track and especially the $2.4 million in annual municipal slots revenue, that our Liberal cabinet ministers are prepared to ram a border infrastructure fix, no matter how unpalatable, down the city's throat."

    Michael Prue, the NDP critic and former mayor of East York who's been hammering Pupatello in the Ontario legislature this week over the deal between Tecumseh and Windsor Raceway, which obviously needed a top-level political blessing to move the slots out of Windsor, says we'd better prepare for the worst when the border's fate is decided.

    "If they're not on your side, you have to assume they're agin you. You should absolutely be very concerned about that border file," said Prue in an interview Wednesday. He said Pupatello and Duncan have demonstrated they either don't care how Windsor reacts or are so weak and inconsequential that they cannot safeguard the city's interests."

It's all about the border and the money. AND THE NEXT PROVINCIAL ELECTION!

What will happen at the Tunnel? Who will run the new bridge if it ever gets built? How to pressure the Bridge Co. to stop them moving forward as they are legally entitled to do? The warning is there from the City's senior politicians (who think they will be re-elected) and the lead Star columnist.

"Do what we want or else we will attack you and attack you hard and in public so that you will never get elected again!"

It's a game of chicken and trust me, Windsor will not win, no matter what!

The Future Started 3 Years Ago


Do you remember Eddie's old campaign slogan about the future starting today? But has it ever come to Windsor? If so, I must have been on vacation that day!

If you take a close look at the Mayor's election signage, you will note that it refers you to his website. Once there, you are treated to a smiling Mayor Eddie but absolutely no election platform. There is some outdated information about his October 14 kickoff and some ominous words "coming soon" and "site under construction".

Coming soon, to a ballot box near you. He is at least being honest! Everything is coming and little has been built.

One may think (and perhaps rightfully so) that the E-machine just hasn't gotten their act together. Is it possible that they were so confident of a no-contest win that they just didn't get around to arranging for the website? Or perhaps Mayor Eddie supporters don't see a need for a website to get his message out. That has already been done so well for him by others.

I expect though we will see a big campaign soon. Surprisingly, I heard today that his old fund-raisers are out there sending letters and twisting arms again. Some of the Super Bowl team participants are working for Eddie too. It is probably being viewed as a beta test for the provincial campaign where Eddie will be running for the PCs. Wouldn't it be a hoot if he was running against Joyce Zuk!

If the Mayor works any harder for Windsor snubbing or helping to hammer the Province and the Cabinet Ministers, then Motions to get the Province to help local charities get money for their crisis will fall on deaf ears.

We have a ton of cash in Windsor just lying around doing nothing so why are we embarrassing ourselves? Frankly, Councillor Postma's motion was a disgrace. Her motion was "asking the province to work with the city and charity groups to find "short-term financial relief" until a long-term plan is developed to replace the millions lost in bingo revenues." Wasn't she the one who said we already had the $50 million for the arena....Just ask Eddie, we will have torrents of money pouring in. Was she away on that script memorization day?

For Eddie and Caroline's sake and Windsor's, I hope Sandra does not stand up at Queens Park and tell everyone that.

What troubles me is that taunting phrase "coming soon". Surely this could be the mantra of all Eddie supporters. After all - news on the Superior Park fiasco will be "coming soon"; the decision regarding land for the new arena (and the costs) will be "coming soon". So will information about new tenants at Candarel (and perhaps one day "coming soon" information about what they actually are paying back to Windsor taxpayers). So will those plants with all of those jobs, "coming soon." The RFP for the new Urban Village, "coming soon." The letter to DRIC outlining the city's concerns with the proposed access route will be "coming soon" (after all - it was just September 5 when a litigious Mayor Eddie said that he would be writing a letter). Maybe Citistat will "come soon" so we can actually get some of those promised savings too.

"Coming soon..." sounds like a movie trailer. You know what a movie trailer is don't you: "trailers have become highly polished pieces of advertising, able to present even poor movies in an attractive light."

Monday, October 16, 2006

Even More On Bambi And Other Jewels


Seriously, how many of my readers gagged when you read the Mayor's comments about the end of the MFP file:
  • "This should be something every council across this province and country remembers so they enforce the proper policies and vigilance to ensure this situation never happens again..."

    "Taxpayers will save millions of dollars and hopefully this is not one of those situations people ever forget about.

    "It reinforces how public institutions have to be very vigilant in ensuring proper safeguards and protocols are there to ensure this never happens."
I wish the Mayor would quit telling us that we are saving money. He is "saving" me into bankruptcy. How can he be "proud" that we are spending so much extra money. The settlement according to Francis will "restore the city close to a financial position it would have normally been in had the equipment leasing and landfill agreements been conventional ones." Except the whole reason for doing the deal in the first place was to get a deal better than conventional financing. If we wanted conventional financing, we could have gone to a Bank! So we are paying out millions more than we expected.

And the joke of it is that one of the reasons we are paying out more is that someone was NOT "vigilant in ensuring proper safeguards and protocols are there to ensure this never happens." Someone messed up and released our damaging forensic accountant report thereby causing the report to lose its legal privilege.

  • "A senior official, employed by one of the appellants, provided a copy of the report to a lawyer who had acted for the appellants on the transaction that is the subject of their claim. The senior official mistakenly thought the lawyer was still a member of the appellants’ “legal team”....Had Gregg not given a copy of the KPMG report to Stewart, and had the appellants not sued Stewart without first retrieving the report, the appellants had an iron-clad claim of litigation privilege and they could have refused to produce it to their adversaries in the litigation."

The system failed again!

In my opinion, this City is in bad shape!

Rules, process and procedure, controls---who cares. They mean nothing. I get very, very scared when Eddie and Michael Duben, the City’s General Manager of Client Services, both lawyers and who worked with the same law firm, tell us that the Purchasing By-law can be "waived" in the arena matter. I am still waiting for Mr. Duben to reply to my email to tell me how the By-law can be waived since the Municipal Act says that it is mandatory to have one.

Let me give you a few other examples of Administration forgetting:

SUPERIOR PARK

On September 5, Council said that the matter was to be deferred for "up to 30 days" to allow for consultations amongst the various parties including the homeowners. Council had the oportunity to have it come back in 60-90 days too. They put their mind to it and said THIRTY DAYS! That time period expired a long ago.

What happens next: Administration schedules a meeting for October 17! What is the legal authority to do that? How can Administration just ignore Council?

Of course, a bright homeowner asked Administration on what basis this was allowed and said the meeting was improper. He asked for the City Solicitor's opinion but has never received it so far. I won't bore you with the exchange of emails but here are the excuses given why something can be done notwithstanding the clear direction of Council:

  1. It is often difficult to schedule and coordinate meetings that involve members of Council due to their already busy schedule [Tough luck I guess for them. But it was Council that wanted the 30 days and there was supposedly an urgency to get this deal completed, back in August as a matter of fact!]
  2. It is my understanding that it was the wish of the area residents for a meeting to be held in close vicinity to the topic being discussed [blame it on residents now....they wanted the meeting within the time limit not after]
  3. Coordination of the availability of the venue and schedules of interested parties was taken into consideration, along with the City's desire to give public notice [Right, just like the first meeting not held in a timely fashion in the area and in other events like the "Tecumseh" Council meeting and postponing the Mayor's conference because of a holiday weekend]
  4. The date and venue of this second PIC was conveyed to Council as a communication on October 10th. Council gave no contrary direction on the matter. With regard to your comment in your e-mail below, yes I am confirming that unless Council takes action to the contrary or directs a specific action, communications placed before them on the Order of Business are referred as noted, and yes, noted and filed does imply acceptance [I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT! Does that also mean that the 2 proponents for an arena whose proposals were "noted and filed" have been impliedly accepted so we now have THREE arenas in Windsor!]

One new matter I just confirmed this morning. In my opinion, there is a huge Conflict of Interest respecting this matter involving Administration. I will not mention the names of the two people involved since they may not have thought about it. However, since it impacts decision-making involving procedure, the Mayor, CAO and City Solicitor better get involved very quickly or else there will be more trouble at City Hall. If they want, they can call or write me about it BEFORE the meeting on the 17th!

And speaking of Superior Park, there is a big rumour going around that a different deal is in the works. The rumour suggests that a City Hall official met with a developer to do some kind of land swap so that if the School Board gets the park, it will be swapped for some other land owned by the developer and the developer could build as many as 65 homes on the Park. Stay tuned!

Sandwich Community Planning Study

Here we go again. Administration trying to shove it down the throats of citizens.

There is a Task Force set up and from what I hear they have done excellent work. They are to present the results of their hard work over a long period of time in a report to Council on October 30. Administration took on the effort to draft a report based on their work.

Naturally, if you are involved in the process, you'd like to be able to see the draft and be able to comment on it BEFORE it is presented. Seems only fair. On AUGUST 25, Administration wrote:

  • "your Chair has asked that we circulate for your comment/input, a draft Sandwich Community Planning Study before we submit it to City Council. In order to meet our deadline to submit items for the October 30, 2006 Council Meeting, you must be prepared to receive & review the draft study, and reply with any comments to us, all by email within the period of October 11-13.

    Please be aware that if the volume of comments received by Oct 13 exceeds our staff's ability to amend the draft CPS report by Oct.17, the report will be delayed for submission to the Nov 6 Council Mtg [i.e. the last one before the municipal election]. Also, this time frame means that any comments received from individual Task Force members will not be able to cross referenced by other Task Force members at a meeting, before they are considered for inclusion in the report."

So far so good EXCEPT for one thing....the draft Report was never sent out to all members!

I thought I would set out the entire email sent out on OCTOBER 13 because it is so ridiculous, highlighting some of the most outrageous comments and with comments added:

  • "I regret we were unable to follow up with you until now. Thanks to those of you [below] who flagged the outgoing August 25th email for a reply today. The reply is this:

    Due to fluctuating staffing capacities in our department, we regret we were not able to produce suitable draft copy of the Sandwich Community Planning Study until yesterday at 430PM. [Not acceptable] To make matters more complicated, this turned out to be a very large electronic file. When we tried to test-email it, we discovered it was too big for some servers to deliver, meaning that some of you may have been able to download it, but most will not. [Gee, ever think of splitting it up into several small files and e-mailing it out] We could not email it out this way ["unequally"] to only some Task Force members. I raised this with Hildegard and noted that our only option that will allow us to have this document on the October 30, 2006 Council Meeting Agenda, is to provide her with a CD copy that she can review this weekend. [How is this "equal"] [We couldn't burn multiple CD copies.] [Why not? Burn one, burn 100] Kevin is also looking at it, via City Hall's internal email server, being he was your first City contact at the inception of this project.

    We need to receive back any comments and advice from Hildegarde & Kevin by no later than 4PM October 16, 2006. [Wow, that ruins her weekend!] One day is all we will then have in order to incorporate received comments and submit the final report on Tuesday October 17th, which is the date decisons are made regarding what items Council will consider on October 30th. [Perhaps it should not go forward on the 30th if the deadline cannot be met] Even then, in order to achieve that Oct 17th goal, we cannot make any wholesale structural changes or add any major content to the report. [who cares what the Task Force members think. Administration has decided what will be said] Hildegard and Kevin are now on the lookout for factual errors or errors, or citations made in the report regarding who said what or did what. [No substantive commnets or disagreements allowed] I am pretty confident you will find that the final document reads consistently from start to finish. All of you will be on the Council Report notification list. That means that, if the Sandwich Community Planning Study is approved to go Council's October 30th meeting agenda, the City Clerk's Department will notify you of that fact on, or just after October 20th. Also, all of you will receive your own bound colour paper copy of the report as soon as it is finalized. [Cannot produce a draft report in a proper time but can produce a nice glossy one! Will it be autographed by Administration too]

    I believe we have recorded with integrity the enormous "community sweat equity" invested by the Task Force. [But you will never know until it appears on the agenda and if it does not reflect what the Community says, oh well] I can state here and now, without qualification or reservation, that the draft report delivered to Hildgarde & Kevin already exceeds the high standard set with our Little River Acres Community Planning Study. Beyond that, all I can say regarding the hoped-for Oct 11-13 review period, is that we have done our best, to deliver our best, using the best resources we have. "

Frankly, if I were Councillors Postma and Jones, I would demand someone's head for this. It will clearly not be able to be presented until after the election so all Task Force members have adequate time to comment and then hold a meeting to review what each person has said. There goes a nice vote-getting opportunity for them to solidify voter support in Sandwich!

I am sure there are more screw-ups but who can stomach any more of this.

Doesn't Administration even listen to Eddie or Council? Doesn't he micro-manage them? Where's CAO John Skorobohacz ensuring that Administration acts properly?

How soon they all forget! Or maybe, they just do not care!

Why Gord Is After Sandra (And Dwight)


Honestly, it is so funny! First Gord writes a column in the morning and then the NDP goes after Sandra at Queen's Park in the afternoon. [See the last Question Period transcript at the end]. Oh my goodness, such concern by the Opposition all of a sudden about "food and clothing for poor children."

Seriously, though, wasn't one of the knocks against Project Ice Track that kids might be exposed to, shudder, gambling if the arena was close to the race track and slots but now there is an outcry because poor kids cannot get fed because of no gambling money.

Have you ever seen our famous Star columnist stay on a topic for so long and go after a politician so hard the way that Gord is after Sandra Pupatello these days? Not even Mike Hurst received the wrath of Gord this long and hard continuously that I can remember. I am surprised that the feminist movement has not yet condemned Gord since hardly a word has been mentioned about her male cabinet colleague, Dwight Duncan. After all, Sandra is also Minister responsible for women's issues. Perhaps though, there was a hint in his Saturday column that Dwight is next.

You know of course that the attacks have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the arena or slots money or food for poor children as I shall explain. Gord pretended it did when he wrote at the end of one of his columns recently:

  • "The arenas aren't the issue. The real fight here is over the $2.4 million in slots revenue Tecumseh is trying to snatch from Windsor. And believe me, that fight is just beginning."

Come on...$75-100M at risk for an arena and the issue is $2.4M slot revenues. Puhhhllleeeze.

No it is a lot more than that. How can I prove it to you? Simple, here is what Gord wrote at the end of his column on Saturday, the spot where the real news is. Only politicos in town (and the Blogmeister) would have the stomach to read to the end of another anti-Sandra blast to find out what the real game is:

  • "And then, oddly, she reached out to Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis for backup. She urged Prue to "call the mayor...
  • Prue's questions were never answered. But there's a whiff of desperation, and perhaps the calling in of an IOU, in a cabinet minister seeking confirmation she's doing a good job from the mayor of a city that's just been left twisting in the wind by that same government.

    What Pupatello must surely know, and what Duncan should be learning if he weren't so busy making himself invisible on this issue, is that one unforgivable stunt can overshadow years of solid work.

    I understand a couple of good news announcements are coming next week, and man, does Windsor ever need them.

    But it's human nature that we never forget a shafting. It festers forever. Unless, of course, a way is found to either undo the misdeed or compensate Windsor handsomely for future losses."

Just a few points to mention in passing:

  1. Now that Gord has roughed up Sandra, then Dwight may get spanky-ed by Gord unless he knuckles under too
  2. Sandra was not asking Eddie for help or reaching out to him for heaven's sake. She is telling him that she knows who is behind the attacks on her and how that person did it and which NDP people locally helped out.
  3. There is good news coming next week (who leaked THAT to Gord I wonder), and if it does not, guess who will get the blame---the Mayor for trying to bully the Province! Snubs and bullying don't work when the other person has the dollars and the power.
  4. Do you really think the issue is breakfast programs for kids worth a few hundred thousand dollars. We're rolling in dough in Windsor! Why I expect that Councillor Postma will introduce a motion on Monday at Council to use some of the interest on the $50 million she claims we have for the arena to pay for that sum involved. It represents probably less than one month's interest on that fifty million to fund the whole breakfast program for the year. I bet that the Mayor will second the motion if Council allows him to do so.
  5. The Provincial Liberals control the agenda...can you imagine if they (and the Feds) pull the $300M BIF money because of Eddie's inaction and then Sandra and Dwight get it back and more and infrastructure work is started due to their efforts.
  6. If this attack is also designed to help Eddie get the Tunnel deal, for which he and his associates have been going out of town recently, then this is NOT a good way to make friends even with the diplomatic help of a good Liberal. That person won't be around much longer anyway.

Here is the key to all of this, the last line:

  • "Unless, of course, a way is found to either undo the misdeed or compensate Windsor handsomely for future losses."

There are 2 elements there

  1. Kill the Toldo/Rosati deal by not letting the Raceway go to Tecumseh and/or fund the East End arena ie the misdeed OR
  2. Do what I want re the future

Now what is the future for Windsor--the border. In other words, do what Eddie wants on the border or this attack will never end, up to and including the next Provincial election on October 4, 2007. And it applies to Dwight too. After all, Gord did give it away right at the start of the attack:

  • "The fix is in. If Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello could abandon Windsor on the arena file, what faith can we have that they won't hang this city out to dry on a far more important issue -- fixing the border?"


Can you believe it but there is more to this than the border too.

Eddie's Eminence Grise has been courting the PCs in Ontario on behalf of the Mayor I suspect. And given Gord’s attack, and the NDP questions at Queen’s Park, it looks like the deal has been done. Notice that the PCs have NOT slammed Windsor (and they can only hope we forget about John Tory’s anti-Casino diatribe), just the NDP. That Eminence is clever. Let the NDP do the dirty work and take the fall later.

Think I am kidding about this? Eddie's favourite local newspaper in an editorial said "Tory has embraced sensible platforms on other fronts and scored points on issues where the Liberals are lacking." Why even Gord has said

  • "Now I understand why John Tory emerged from nowhere in the polls to come within a hair's breadth of becoming mayor of Toronto and why the Dalton McGuinty Liberals have recurrent nightmares about him. The Progressive Conservative leader is a smoothie, a self- assured corporate charmer who can laugh at himself and admit mistakes while conducting damage control with a surgeon's deft touch... Tory wants Windsor to know he has nothing against the city or the casino expansion and that it's "absolutely not true" his party has written this area off in the next election.

And who could deliver that message better than Eddie the Mayor a year from now? As Tory said "But nothing lasts forever, not even the tenure of the current members (Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello)."

Why is there this PC courting---Eddie desperately wants to get out of Windsor after being re-elected Mayor but before his fiascos come home to roost. He would run as the successful Mayor but before some of his Plans crash! If he won in the NDP/Liberal stronghold, he would be guaranteed a senior Cabinet Position. The Liberals won't have him, there is no future with the NDP, running federally is out so the only alternative is the PCs in Ontario if Eddie wants a political career.

Why wouldn’t he run against Dwight in the east of Windsor since that is his home base in Ward 5? Now you will learn a lesson in electoral readjustment: the Town of Tecumseh will be located within Dwight’s riding in the next election. How many votes do you think Eddie will get from Tecumseh!

So Eddie thinks he is a no-lose situation with Sandra. If she helps him out on the border, he takes the credit. If she does not help him out and lets the DRIC get what it wants, Sandra (and Dwight?) get the hit!

You read it here first. The next provincial election campaign has begun. What a Plan, what genius, what scheming. Too bad it could not have been devoted for good: the good of Windsor!

That is what Gord's attacks are all about.


Ontario Hansard--WINDSOR ECONOMY

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Madam Minister, you have failed to stand up for Windsor, yet again, in its fight to keep its casino and the $3 million that that city uses in revenues. Windsor council takes and uses at least $200,000 of that money every year for food and clothing for poor children. They do that because your government has abysmally failed to increase welfare rates to at least the cost of living. They do that because you have reneged on your promise to end the clawback and they do that because you now refuse to be involved in the only program that actually delivers food to poor children in Windsor. If you won't stand up for Windsor and its council, what will you do to ensure that these children are actually fed?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): I very much appreciate this opportunity to once again say very loudly and clearly that this Ontario Liberal government has spent an inordinate amount of time working for the citizens of the city of Windsor, and we will continue to do that like no government before.

If you should choose to ask another question, I will start giving you the litany, not just of announcements, but actual construction. I welcome this member to come to my riding and count the number of cranes that are up and working in my city right now; the number of new lanes down highways because we have invested like never before in basic infrastructure in my city. No other Ontario government has come to shore up the work that is desperately needed in my city -- none -- except for this one under the leadership of Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Mr. Prue: I don't think I can give a better retort than did the Windsor Star in the article by Gord Henderson today, when he writes, "I wonder how our Liberal cabinet ministers, Dwight Duncan and Sandra Pupatello, can look themselves in the mirror after green-lighting this outrage perpetrated on their most defenceless constituents."

Minister, you were a former Minister of Community and Social Services. You must know there are 7,359 active cases in your city. You must know that a great many of those involve poor children in the thousands who don't have enough food and decent clothing. You failed to stand up for your most vulnerable citizens formerly as the Minister of Community and Social Services, and now you're failing to stand up for the Windsor economy as Minister of Economic Development.

Madam Minister, why can't you stand up for Windsor and its most vulnerable constituents: the children of your community, the kids who will lose their breakfast program because of your inaction?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Only the NDP would characterize that kind of action going on in my city right now as inaction. There has never been so much action between our government and the city of Windsor.

Perhaps this member opposite would like to call the mayor of the city of Windsor and ask him how he feels the provincial government has worked with the city of Windsor; about the idea that for the first time in many years the city residents have seen a property tax decrease because of our investments in that city.

Perhaps you would like to call the mayor of my city and ask what kind of support that we, the cabinet ministers and our member from Essex, have been to our city residents, for the first time in 12 years investing in children's services. The last time they had any action on funding, it was your government that cut money to those same agencies, followed by the last government once again cutting funding to those agencies. Instead, this government, for the city of Windsor alone, a $1.2-billion investment --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. New question.

No Tunnel For Windsor

Here's a story from Trucknews.com and the reason why no Government is going to spend billions on a tunnel in Windsor, no matter how much the Mayor and Council rant and rave for election purposes about "quality of life" and "We deserve the best."

Minister Cansfield told us this in her Chamber speech. Do you remember the Star reporting on her speech? I don't. Now I know why.


The last sentence in the article is what the billions for Windsor will be used for and something for which we should be pressuring the Government.

Ultra Low Sulfur Fuel to start flowing this week

OTTAWA, Ont. -- Canada’s transport trucks start running on ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel next week.

The cleaner-burning fuel – which by law will be the only truck diesel available in Canada – contains 97 per cent less sulfur and will drastically reduce the emissions of particulate matter which has been linked to respiratory illness. The new grade of truck diesel fuel will contain no more than 15 ppm sulfur, down from 500 ppm. Introduction of the new diesel fuel is the first step in the introduction of new smog-free truck engines which will start operating on the roads in 2007.

“With the combination of ultra-clean truck diesel fuel and cleaner truck engines, there will be a drastic reduction in truck emissions that cause smog,” says David Bradley, CEO, Canadian Trucking Alliance. “As the only freight mode whose fuel and engine emissions are currently regulated, trucking is at the head of the pack compared to other modes of transportation and other industries in Canada.”

“The trucking industry’s commitment to the environment does not stop with the new fuel and engine emission regulations,” adds Bradley. CTA has developed a 14-point plan to further reduce smog emissions and greenhouse gases, which it hopes will be reflected in the federal government’s new Clean Air Act that is expected to be introduced in Parliament later this week. Among the measures being promoted by the trucking alliance is the mandatory activation of speed limiters on all trucks, the removal of regulatory obstacles to the introduction of wide-base tires, anti-idling devices and aerodynamic fairings.

The environmental improvements will not come without costs though. According to petroleum producers the cost to manufacture the ultra low sulphur diesel fuel is at least 3 cents per litre more than conventional on-road diesel. And, the new fuel has a 1 to 2 per cent lower energy content. Similarly, the new 2007 engine will add at least $8,000 to the purchase price of new trucks and bump up the price of maintenance. As a result, CTA says the government should also consider implementing selective, time-limited incentives to accelerate the penetration of these green technologies into the truck market.