…but first, a word from the Sewer.

This week’s newsletter will be a little shorter than normal. Life has been dramatically busy and I’ve been working on a much longer historical piece I hope to get out on Monday. It’s something I’m quite excited about, as it both connects to something really big that happened here recently and relates to a topic close to my heart. But it requires a lot of extra archival work that has taken longer than anticipated, so I need a couple of extra days to work on it.

There are some things I wanted to address and facts I thought would be fun to share before then. So enjoy a short update today and keep a look out for another fun look at Hamilton’s history on Monday.

Democracy and all that

I say this quite a bit, but our democracy isn’t doing super great right now.

On Sunday, another individual sought to assassinate former US President Donald Trump. Unlike the last attempt, which appears to have been committed by a lonely and unwell person who sought to create a spectacle regardless of who was attacked, this person had a hodgepodge of political ideals and a long history of violence. But the atmosphere is such that experts and leaders are saying things like “we are going to see more political violence surrounding this upcoming election” and “I’m most concerned about right now is the normalization of political violence in our political system.”

Then, on Tuesday, two pro-Russia extremists affiliated with a variety of Convoy-related movements harassed NDP leader Jagmeet Singh on Parliament Hill, in full view of security, to the point where Singh finally confronted them, calling one of the men a “coward”. Parliament is, once again, ramping up security, but some MPs are still saying that it is only a matter of time before “someone is going to be seriously injured.”

We all know why this is happening. People are being squeezed, they aren’t seeing results, they feel left out of the system, and (most importantly) certain political leaders are ramping up the rhetoric in a bid to ride a wave of rage into power.

Writing for the National Observer, David Moscrop says:

But, and this is important, he continues by saying: “All parties are guilty of it, but the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre have taken things up a notch…”

Those men screaming at Singh were using the same language Poilievre is using. His rhetoric has been called “polite Trumpism” by writers in the United States.

The Walrus invited a smattering of Canadian writers, commentators, and “usual suspects” from the left and right to write about what happens “If Pierre Poilievre Wins”, which came out yesterday. The lead-in to the pieces notes all his qualities:

His rhetoric is designed to rile people up. But the rage he is farming grows wild and without direction, poised to swallow all of us - and him - whenever it wants.

The heated rhetoric of the current moment is a lot of things: dangerous, an “existential threat to democracy”, stupid, exhausting, demoralizing, a turn-off, weird, hollow, etc. But it has contributed to creating an atmosphere that is, at a very basic level, dangerous for everyone who participates.

So I always take a step back and consider the way I write when things like this happen. I’m naturally self-reflective, but these incidents make me think. I can get passionate, I can get angry, I can direct frustration outward. So I always worry: have I made the political environment around me more toxic?

In these moments, it is important to remember how democracy works. I say this again and again, but the essence of democracy is dialogue, debate, and persuasion. I work to present perspectives from a decidedly left-of-centre perspective, analyze and challenge those things that come from other commentators or the media that I feel don’t reflect the full story, and work to persuade people of my position. I use facts, and I use feeling, because we’re humans and deserve a holistic approach to politics. Striking a balance between technocracy and populism, I guess.

But critique is not the same as the rage-bait that people like Poilievre are throwing out to the Canadian people. It is fair to critique people - especially the rich and powerful - when they pursue policies or make statements that run contrary to what you believe. That’s an essential part of democracy. We get to critique people and present other perspectives.

In a city that’s as close-knit as ours, it can be hard to present those differing perspectives, in large part because you might just bump into the person you’re critiquing on the street. But that shouldn’t stop us from having debates and impassioned conversations because those we disagree with are, at the end of the day, still people. They’re neighbours, they’re working toward their goals, they’re entitled to their opinions. They do not deserve hate or violence or harm done to them simply because they have a different perspective.

With all that in mind, an update:

Next stop on the conspiracy bus

Last Monday, I wrote a piece about an online conspiracy theory that has been disrupting the conversation about housing and homelessness in the city. Since then, there have been a few developments.

On Saturday, the Spec ran an in-depth front-page story from Teviah Moro about the claims. Moro’s reporting indicates that social service agencies and folks from the city also do not believe it is true. Moro also speaks with the originator of this iteration of the conspiracy, LiUNA’s International Vice President and Central and Eastern Canada Regional Manager, Joe Mancinelli. In the interview, Mancinelli said workers told him “disadvantaged folks of some kind” were being helped off a bus and that the issue of homelessness was impacting the “sales of the condos at 75 James”, a project which LiUNA has a significant investment.3 But the article speaks with people working on-the-ground with those experiencing homelessness and finds no evidence to support that claims about the mass importation of people into Hamilton.

Saturday’s paper also included an opinion piece from yours truly that reiterated many of the things I noted in last Monday’s edition, just framed in a way to draw parallels with Donald Trump’s ludicrous lies about Haitian refugees in Springfield, Ohio eating cats. You can read that here with a Spec subscription.

Mancinelli has not responded to Moro’s article in a substantive way, though LiUNA’s Director of Public Relations, Communications, Marketing and Strategic Partnerships, Victoria Mancinelli, has. An X/Twitter post from Victoria on Monday morning reads, in part:

Replies to that particular post are turned off.

In fairness to the Spec, Moro’s article does not refer to Mancinelli’s claim as a conspiracy. My article from the Spec and last Monday’s piece does.

The day before that post, Warren Kinsella, the noted Canadian commentator and consultant, reposted Moro’s article, which he called “a lie”. Kinsella indicated that he has spoken with people who say the rumour is true, but does not provide any evidence of this.

A statement of fact that may or may not be connected to that post is that Kinsella’s consulting firm, Daisy Consulting Group, is presently a consultant on behalf of LiUNA’s Ontario Provincial District Council. I do not know the level of connection between Kinsella and LiUNA overall, and the Canadian political/consulting/professional comms world is so small that it might have been inevitable there would be some overlap, but that’s still a reality that should be considered.

Victoria responds to his post, saying “Sure is. Thanks [at]kinsellawarren” before saying we need to do more to help people experiencing homelessness. “While the small but loud voices continue their campaign of nonsense online, we will continue working toward solutions,” she writes.

On Wednesday, former Mayor Larry Di Ianni submitted a letter to the editor to the Spec that re-upped the claim, saying: “During my term as mayor, I was made aware by staff that Toronto was giving one-way bus tickets to its needy residents. Destination: Hamilton and its social service programs,” before noting that Toronto Mayor David Miller did not know about this happening, his staff could not find evidence, and that it did not come up again. “Makes one wonder about the current situation,” he writes, saying “Rather than being defensive, city staff and local councillors should take the issue seriously.”

So, a couple of things here. First and foremost, despite the evidence indicating the story about “BUS LOADS OF HOMELESS PEOPLE BUSED INTO HAMILTON!” was little more than a rumour, no one has backtracked. Joe has been silent, while others have jumped to his defence with more anecdotal evidence.

What we seem to have here is a case of powerful men sharing a story and, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, either digging in or, at best, simply not apologizing. We have some very influential people - developers, media figures, former politicians - all saying things, without proof, and just expecting that everyone will believe them because they are influential.

Victoria’s statement goes further, presenting Joe’s Facebook rumour as an “alternative fact”, spinning the story to make it seem like Joe was merely “calling out the inaction” on the issue of homelessness. It wasn’t an inflammatory statement that placed the blame on an imagined “radical left majority on council”. It was Joe urging action because, as always, LiUNA and their allies are nothing but faultless agents of positive change in our community. No need to hold anyone accountable, no need to ask questions, no need to take responsibility when there’s, apparently, nothing to be held accountable for.

I think this is where this story begins puttering out. The folks over at LiUNA have said their piece. They have enough resources and spin doctors to turn an upsetting social media post from one of their most prominent leaders into a positive call for change. The city’s exiled former political elite have used it to get their names out there again. They will take any opportunity to swipe at their perceived enemies on council because it’s hard to give up on politics if you’re a political animal.

In my last piece, I alluded to the idea that this was just one volley in what will inevitably be a protracted match between right-wing forces and progressives in the lead-up to the next municipal election. There are folks who want to change things in this city because they stand to benefit from those changes.

We need only look to the provincial Progressive Conservatives under Doug Ford, whom LiUNA’s local leadership enthusiastically and unreservedly supports, to see what that looks like. We are awash in gambling ads and corner store beer and unhealthy sprawl and community-splitting highways and provincial overreach while hospital wait times, class sizes, and commute times are up across Ontario. Doug Ford is reshaping this province to suit the needs of wealthy elites and developers, making sure that the rich make as much profit as possible, everyone else be damned.

But, as I discussed in the piece before this one, they are absolutely entitled to their views. You may find Joe’s othering of people experiencing homelessness and calls to scrap basic protections like the Sanctuary City policy upsetting. You may think Jason Farr’s overheated rhetoric about “the citizens of this traditionally caring city…being taken advantage of big time” and council only working for the “radical lefties that knocked on doors for them” and how they’re reshaping Hamilton into “the San Fran of the North” is some Trumpian-level extremism. You may think Larry’s comments might do little more than muddy the waters more than they have already been muddied.

All of these folks can present their opinions and perspectives because, in a democracy, they are allowed to do just that.

And we are allowed to present a different perspective. Indeed, we are called upon to advocate for the city we want. We must work to persuade as many people as possible that a vision of a better Hamilton - a Hamilton that is caring, compassionate, and focused on long-term, community-based solutions to the problems we face - is the one we should pursue.

So, yes, I’m content to let this story fizzle because it was, is, and always will be a nonsense conspiracy peddled by people who want their vision of the city to prevail.

But make no mistake: we cannot let them get their way just because they have money and status and access to power. This is a democracy and we are allowed to…no, we must also ensure we are part of the conversation.

I want a city where housing is affordable, safe, and oriented toward our community. I don’t want to read another story about a senior or someone living with a disability renovicted so a speculative investor or massive corporation or unethical Real Estate Investment Trust can pad out their bottom line. I want housing that works for Hamiltonians, not housing that enriches developers.

I want a city where we stop bickering about where tents can go in parks and, instead, start working on lasting solutions so that no one feels like they have no other option but to live in an encampment. That means getting the federal government to invest in housing, the provincial government to invest in quality, affirming mental health and addictions care AND to stop meddling in municipal affairs, letting us build the walkable, dense, human-scaled communities we want.

I want a city where we don’t split people into tiny little categories but recognize that a Hamiltonian is a Hamiltonian no matter how long they’ve been here, no matter where they come from, and no matter who their family is. The services we provide are not to be gatekept by those who think calling themselves a “taxpayer” makes them better than everyone else. They are to strengthen our community and ensure that, if any one of us falls, there’s a safety net to catch us.

If we believe Hamilton is a city that matters, we need to start acting like it. And that means saying, with one loud, clear voice: there is another way and I’m here to pursue that.

Let them have their conspiracies and tales of doom and “zombified” downtowns. We’ll keep our stories of hope and resilience and community.

And we’ll see them on the campaign trail.

The members intervene

Back in early July, I put together a piece on Hamilton-area MPPs, using Hansard records to look at how many times they spoke in the legislature and how many times they voted to try and address some of the more annoying online chatter about our local representatives “not doing anything”.

On Monday, the CBC did something very similar for Canada’s federal MPs to mark the return of Parliament after the summer break. Their work is really insightful (you can read it here) and it helpfully came along with a dataset people could play with on their own.

I took a look at the data and isolated the Hamilton area’s 5 MPs: Chad Collins, Matthew Green, Lisa Hepfner, Dan Muys, and Filomena Tassi. The data by itself doesn’t say much, until you look at it in the context of averages and the performance of their colleagues.

The CBC reported on the number of times an MP “intervened” in the House (spoke on record) and how many times they voted. Stripping out both those MPs who were Speaker or Deputy Speaker and those MPs who were elected in by-elections, for the 321 MPs who have served since this session of Parliament began in 2021, the average number of interventions was 293 and the average number of motions voted on was 814. So how did Hamilton’s MPs stack up?

First thing’s first: there’s a big difference in the number of “interventions”. Collins has spoken the least, falling well below the average with just 87 interventions. That puts him in the bottom 25% of MPs. Muys is there as well, with just 104 interventions. Contrast that with Tassi (who, as a member of cabinet, is more likely to be called on to answer questions and has the responsibility of reporting for her ministry) and Green, both of whom are pretty close to average there.

The votes tell another story.

In this case, Green is the lowest ranking of the group, and is in the bottom 30 MPs in terms of number of votes cast. He’s still above party leaders Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Elizabeth May, Yves-François Blanchet, and former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.

All of Hamilton’s other MPs are above average, with Tassi just 4 votes away from being the MP who votes the most in the house.

So we have an interesting contrast here. Collins and Hepfner, who are Liberal backbenchers from vulnerable ridings, vote consistently, but rarely speak in the House. Muys, a Tory in a safe Tory seat, also doesn’t speak a lot and votes consistently. Green may not cast a lot of votes in the House, but is speaking a lot more than his colleagues, aside from Minister Tassi.

Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet told the CBC that many of the votes he has missed are because he has been performing duties related to his leadership, namely going out and meeting Quebecers where they are. That makes sense, and gives us an idea of the difference in workloads for MPs from different parties.

The Bloc, NDP, and Greens all outperform when it comes to average number of interventions (374, 500, and 978 respectively) but are less reliable when voting in the House (795, 775, and 741 respectively). An NDP MP might have to attend many more events, do more research for committee, and meet with more constituents than a Liberal or Conservative. And the two Green MPs in the House both spend ample time rising to speak to motions, ask questions, or share the concerns of their constituents because they have to fight harder to have their voices heard. Mike Morrice, the Green MP for Kitchener Centre has spoken more times in the House than the bottom ranking 10 Conservatives combined.

So what this seems to show us is MPs from smaller parties seem to have to work harder, but can’t participate in some of functional aspects of Parliament as well as their larger party colleagues.

Cool facts for cool people

• Doug Ford accidentally said there would be an election this year. But, to his credit, he caught himself and said that was a slip-up. Sure, Doug. Still, odds are that there will be a vote in 2025, so get ready for that. Yay…

• And the 2026 Hamilton municipal election campaign has begun! Ward 1 councillor Maureen Wilson has officially indicated she will be seeking a third term in 2026. That makes Wilson the first incumbent councillor to announce a reelection bid and the first serious candidate city-wide to make their plans for 2026 known. As we approach the midway point between elections, expect more people to start firming up plans, as if we didn’t have enough elections to worry about…