Time isn't holding up, time isn't after us

It happened again. Every year, twice a year. Stove clocks are changed by mashing a bunch of buttons in the hopes that you can get the time to line up close enough to the “exact” reading on your phone. Smoke alarms are checked, routines are shifted, and we all collectively believe that a whole hour, from 2:00 AM to 2:59 AM, just *poof* vanished.

The antiquated ritual that is Daylight Saving is a strange affair. Thunder Bay was reportedly the first city in North America to try it back in 1908. During the First World War, the government of Ontario brought it in as an emergency measure. It lapsed after the armistice, but some cities decided to bring it back on their own.

In 1931, a campaign was launched by the pro-Daylight Saving camp in Hamilton to persuade city council to put the question of permanent adoption to voters in that year’s municipal election. They were successful and, in addition to “money by-laws” on which all property owners had to vote, a question was put to every voter in the city: should Hamilton adopt Daylight Saving as a city.

Pro-labour groups opposed the measure, viewing it as an unnecessary imposition on the lives of working people and their families. Business groups seemed more supportive, viewing the change as something that could help them economize on utility bills. In the short two week campaign (yeah, that’s how long municipal elections were back then), both camps made their cases. The above ad ran in the Spec in late November, appealing to working people and the city’s mothers (who had only been able to vote for a few years at that point) to reject Daylight Saving and “sleep in the cool of the morning”.

Election day was Monday, December 7th 1931. The Conservative machine was able to secure another strong showing on council, using the city’s new ward boundaries (extended to include Westdale, Ainslie Wood, and the new communities on the mountain) to their advantage. A bumper crop of Tory aldermen and controllers sat on a council headed by labour-friendly Liberal John Peebles as mayor. The big story was the success of newspaper editor Nora Frances Henderson, whose council campaign in Ward 1 garnered considerable attention.

As for Daylight Saving, the polls showed a pretty clear divide. The city’s more prosperous Wards 1 to 4 generally supported Daylight Saving while working class Wards 5 to 8 opposed it.

In the end, Daylight Saving passed with 20,321 in favour and 16,927 opposed. 54.6% of Hamiltonian voters supported Daylight Saving in 1931. And I’ll never forgive them for that.

The vote set Hamilton’s clocks askew for eight years. Then, at the onset of World War Two, the switch became permanent across Ontario. And here we are, nearly a century later, and still fiddling around with our stove clocks.

Ward boundaries have changed, the great Tory machine has rusted, but Daylight Saving persists. Hopefully not for long, though.

#VoteNoToDaylightSaving2026

Concerning, Threatening, Serious: The Ward 3 CTS saga and the politics of anger.

Barton Street Blues

Back in June 2022, I was driving along Barton Street East, running some errands. Travelling eastbound, something caught my eye. I pulled over, jumped out of the car, and took a photo of what I saw. Affixed to a utility poll, a simple poster in black and white with three simple words: No More Nann.

These posters were interspersed with ones reading “Defund Nann” and “Fund Healthcare”. There was no readily-available indication as to who was behind the posters and, as they were stuck to public property, it was unlikely the posters came from a candidate in the municipal election or a registered group of any kind. Indeed, it seemed like these posters were the outward reflection of popular anger.

While municipal politics is kinda my thing, I will admit that I wasn’t super tapped into the political dynamics in Ward 3. I’m a proud west-end boy and could easily give you the current and historical drama in the local politics of Westdale, Ainslie Wood, Strathcona, Kirkendall, parts of downtown, and a sizable chunk of the mountain. But, past Wellington, things get a little more fuzzy for me. I know Nrinder Nann to be a dedicated city councillor, a passionate defender of progressive causes, and one of the bright lights on an otherwise frustrating 2018-2022 council. But the unique issues facing Ward 3 were a little less obvious to me.

As the weeks slipped by, more and more information started coming out about the posters, the issues, and a battle over social services that continues to this day.

On the hustings

Prior to seeing those signs, I had never heard the name Walter Furlan. Again, chalk that up to my unfamiliarity with Ward 3’s political dynamics. But, by August, those in the know were starting to talk about the similarities between the messaging on the signs and Furlan’s burgeoning council campaign. The folks over at the r/Hamilton subreddit drew those connections (which, it is important to note, are unsubstantiated), though there were also efforts to place the blame on The Tower, a defunct anarchist meeting space at Barton and Lottridge, which was plastered with those same “No More Nann” posters that are still up today.

Furlan’s campaign took a conservative, law-and-order approach (something he was not super happy about me saying to the CBC once I had done my research). But telling the media…

…is right in line with traditional right wing campaigns. Don’t deal with the root causes of a problem, just throw resources at making sure you never see the problem. I’m being slightly flippant, but the central theory is that right-leaning campaigns have a particular focus on supporting law enforcement as a way of improving community safety. Left-leaning campaigns tend to support community investment to tackle the same problems. One way addresses crime after it happens with a focus on punishment. The other tries to prevent crime before it occurs with a focus on diversion. We’re getting into theories on crime, but you get my point.

Furlan’s campaign burst out of the gate, plastering the lower city with signs from Wellington to Ottawa Street. By contrast, it was hard to see any of the incumbent councillor’s signs anywhere. Though, Nann cleared this up through a Twitter post:

The campaign was heated. The Cable 14/Spec/CBC debate was very fiery, with Nann and other candidates Laura Farr and Stan Kruchka both questioning Furlan on his aggressive campaign tactics and his harsh views toward those in need. Most surprisingly, accusations were made that Furlan and those in his Barton Street business owner circle had been taking people in medical distress and dropping them on the doorsteps of businesses and residents known to support Nann and a proposed Consumption Treatment Services (CTS) site in the ward. Again, it is important to note that these allegations have not been verified by myself or by any independent media in the city.

Despite the massive sign presence and the aggressiveness of the campaign, Nann won re-election in Ward 3 easily, taking 4,334 votes (50.3%) to Furlan’s 2,948 votes (34.2%). That was a massive increase on Nann’s vote total in 2018 and signified overwhelming community support for the councillor’s agenda. Nann lost only two polls: 302 and 305, both wrapping around Barton Street.

What to expect when you’ve been elected

Despite the councillor’s significant victory, a small but vocal group of community members have kept the campaign of opposition to select social services going.

In the lead-up to a council vote on endorsing the CTS site on Barton East near Barnesdale, a piece by Furlan was published in the Spec calling for “a moratorium, a circuit break and no-go zone for services for high acuity individuals in Ward 3.” In an early March piece in the Spec, two residents of Ward 3 critiqued the Hamilton Alliance for Tiny Shelters (HATS) plan, the CTS site, and the way the city’s Radial Separation By-law (keeping certain social services a set distance from each other) has been applied to their ward. A week later, another essay in the Spec lamented a perceived lack of public consultation on the CTS site.

The same day the last essay was published, Councillor Nann issued the following statement:

Evidently, former Mayor Bob Bratina and a group of Ward 3 residents, including Furlan, have launched a complaint to the city’s Integrity Commissioner over the CTS affair.

Those in opposition to the CTS site were offended by Nann’s remarks during the council meeting wherein the city approved the aforementioned service. Nann also reiterated the accusations that opponents have been dropping those in medical distress in front of businesses and homes of residents supportive of the CTS site. “This is completely inhumane and fully criminal in my eyes,” Nann said during the meeting.2

According to the Spec, Bratina and the CTS site opponents are against the location because of “its proximity to schools, an agency that serves youngsters with disabilities, a community centre, a daycare centre, businesses and homes.”

The reasoning behind the Integrity Commissioner complaint is complicated. Nann’s comments have been cited, but the main focus of the complaint is on the way the motions to support the CTS site were advanced. Furlan told the Spec that the initial Board of Health endorsement of the site on February 13th arose without notice. Though, as the agenda for that meeting notes, not only were there a number of presentations on the CTS site, but there were also motions on the agenda regarding the CTS site.

Bratina’s contention is that it is “pretty obvious there was something amiss” with the way the motions were put to council.

But here’s the thing: the way in which Councillor Nann and Mayor Horwath moved the motions regarding the CTS site are completely within what is procedurally correct. By-law 10-053 (A By-Law to Govern the Proceedings of Council and Committees of Council) says so. Bratina, Furlan, and the other opponents of the CTS site may not like the way the motions were put forward, but there is nothing procedurally wrong with them. And the council motion to endorse the site explicitly stated that the AIDS Network (who will be operating the CTS site) will conduct “robust community engagement”. But the Integrity Commissioner complaint wants the endorsement to be “paused” until…there can be more community engagement.

Bratina, having served on council in varying capacities for 10 years, should know that there wasn’t “something amiss” with the way the motions were presented to council. Furlan, having campaigned and lost in 2022 and presented at public meetings where support for the CTS site is more robust than opposition (and backed up by data - for a great example of that, check out Professor Jeremy Cohen’s rebuttle to Furlan in the Spec), should know that community engagement is coming and that the chances of stopping this site are slim. So this Integrity Commissioner complaint seems doomed to fail from the get go. The question that remains is: why is this happening?

Facts and feelings

The debates over the CTS site are complicated. Big issues facing Hamilton always are. But we need to start with the facts and work backward.

The most important fact is the simplest: CTS sites save lives. And, underlying this is the undebatable fact that people’s lives are worth saving. Those who use drugs are not worth any less than anyone else in our community. This is not the Victorian Era. Drug use is not the sign of a weak moral character. People use drugs for plenty of reasons. Regardless of those reasons, their lives are important. And a CTS site can make sure they survive any possible overdoses or incidents that arise as part of their drug use.

CTS sites help to reduce the chance of accidental overdose. They can connect people to services and support. They can help people who no longer want to use drugs. They can check drugs to make sure they are safe. And they help to stop the transmission of HIV.3 These are all worthwhile endeavours.

While not explicitly a CTS site, Vancouver’s Insite (a supervised injection site) has been studied with vigour since opening in 2003. A team of researchers considered overdose deaths in the area around Insite both before and after it opened. Following Insite’s opening, overdose deaths fell by 35%.4 Insite has helped to prevent additional HIV infections, extending the lifespan of users and freeing up resources that would have otherwise been directed toward treating additional HIV-positive patients.5 Importantly, Insite has provided a stigma-free environment for people that has connected users with resources on how to transition off substances and focus on their mental and physical well-being.6 And there were noticeable improvements to the urban environment around the site, with a 2004 peer-reviewed paper finding:

Sites with similar goals have improved the quality of life for users and made noticeable changes to the urban environment.

CTS sites and other social service agencies need to be placed within close proximity to those who need to access their services. The census tract around Barton and Barnsdale is undoubtedly one of high need. The average after-tax income in the area is 26% lower than the rest of Hamilton. The area has a lower labour market participation rate than the rest of Hamilton and 16.7% of residents, including over 22% of children, fall into StatsCan’s “low income” category, which is higher than the Hamilton-wide average.8

The AIDS Network has identified the area as one of high need. Anecdotal evidence indicates this as well. Jelena Vermilion, the executive director of the Sex Workers’ Action Program (SWAP), which is located on the other side of Barton from the proposed site, told the Spec about an instance where naloxone was provided to someone overdosing in front of SWAP’s office.9 

The AIDS Network’s presentation to the Board of Health outlines what it will do in the community. They will engage with people both inside and outside the site. They will walk through the community and help people experiencing homelessness and sleeping rough, looking to use drugs in public, and those in need of supports nearby. They will provide wrap-around services, offering addictions support, mental health services, and programs targeted to high-need populations. And they come with letters of support from across the community. From Hamilton Health Sciences. From the Good Shepherd. From the Library, the Hamilton Police Service, the Barton BIA, business owners, doctors, Indigenous-led organizations, and residents. From about as broad a cross-section of Hamiltonians as you can get.

One city of many communities

These are the facts. But opponents don’t seem to be asking for more facts. They are asking for more consultation. And, every time they are consulted, they say the same things: the proposed CTS site is too close to schools and daycare centres, too close to social service agencies, too close to businesses, too close to homes.

It is understandable that folks may be weary. In many instances, their main interactions with those who use drugs have been in public, during overdoses, or in situations where both user and observer felt unsafe.

But a CTS site helps to provide safety and security for every member of the community. And this site, despite their protestations, is right where it needs to be, near the people who need it the most.

The opponents of the plan take issue with Councillor Nann’s comments at council when she said that they had “not only been inciting fear, but also intimidating neighbours [who support the CTS site].”10

But the reality is that they are advancing a fear-based narrative right now. The city has endorsed a plan by a social service agency with broad-based support to provide a much-needed health and community care facility in a neighbourhood that needs it. Opponents, ignoring the facts, the studies, and the voices in support, have retreated within themselves and are driven by their fear of the unknown. They have run electoral campaigns, plastered the community with posters, spoken out in print and at meetings, and have now sought the help of the city’s former mayor to launch a baseless Integrity Commissioner complaint against the area’s councillor.

I won’t pretend to understand the motivations of all those in opposition to Councillor Nann, the CTS site, SWAP, social services, and all the other targets of animosity that seem to be lumped together in these conversations. I don’t know if they’re scared that drug use will increase, crime will impact them, their property values will decline, the composition of their community will change, or that they just aren’t being listened to in the way they think they should be.

But I understand the facts. And I understand that all the forces in favour of the plan have a more compelling case than those opposed. Because those in favour are offering hope and opportunity. Those opposed are offering nothing but fear and resentment.

The drug crisis is the result of many factors. Greedy pharmaceutical companies, a misdirected prohibition on many substances, a shame-based approach to drug-use, social and personal alienation and abuse, and the unjust nature of our economic system are all factors. Indeed, it is our complete devotion to an economic system that values profit over people, extracts without regard for communities, and moves capital on a whim that has created the conditions for this present fight over a CTS site. Too many leaders have sat and waited for the market to present a solution in the form of jobs and investment, assuming that will put people on the right track.

Council and social service providers won’t solve all our problems alone. But they can do a lot to make the lives of as many people in our community much, much better. This CTS site is just one step in a very positive direction.

We are one city of many communities. There are so many unique voices that deserve to be heard. But one small group does not get to dominate the conversation and derail progress because they have chosen to listen to their fears rather than the facts and their neighbours.

When I first saw those posters back in August of 2022, I had assumed opposition was wider than expected. Now, as the opponents make their last, desperate bid with a misplaced and misinformed Integrity Commissioner complaint, it is clear they’re more like the posters than I realized: loud, aggressively visible, and completely unrepresentative of the community in which they’re located.

How to Buy Buildings and Anger People

A quick update on 1083 Main East: the landlord has withdrawn eviction notices against two of the building’s tenants. This is great news, but there are still five outstanding eviction notices that need to be addressed.

As the issues with 1083 drag on, more information is coming to light. Like the fact that the plumber who recommended evicting tenants in order to make repairs wasn’t a registered skilled trades professional at all. And that the building is owned by Dylan Suitor, an Oakville-based real estate influencer and big proponent of the BRRRR real estate scam tactic that has helped create our present housing crisis (shady investors buy a property, renovate it, rent it out for way more than it was rented before, refinance the thing based on its new ‘value’ , and then repeat the process).

Good news is, the tenants of 1083 are being represented by legal superstar Roberto Henriquez, my friend and the stellar NDP candidate in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas back in 2021. The folks over at 1083 are in amazing hands!

Talkin’ about free speechin’

(Note: I’m presently like…four months late writing a paper on culture war topics in Ontario. I’m having a hell of a time getting past some intense writer’s block on this one, so much of this reflection comes from my research and frustration over that paper. Enjoy…if possible.)

The always-informative Polling Canada Twitter account posted the findings from a very interesting Abacus Data survey on March 12th. The survey asked Canadians about which parties they thought of as most capable of dealing with particular issues. 44% of Canadians said the Tories would be the best at tackling the cost of living (okay…). 34% said the Liberals could best manage healthcare. 34% said the NDP could best deal with the gap between the rich and the poor.

But the most interesting result came from the question “Which party do you think is best able to deal with freedom of speech?” An overwhelming 65% of respondents said it was the Conservative Party that could “best deal with” freedom of speech. The question is almost purposefully vague, allowing respondents to interpret it as they want, but the general notion accepted by nearly 2/3 respondents (the survey’s N or “number of respondents” is not provided) is that the Tories would best protect freedom of speech.

*the culture wars intensify*

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is as shrewd a political actor as there is in Canada. I mean, when you get your start in right wing politics at age 16 and serve as an MP since age 24, you are likely to pick up a few tricks.

Positioning yourself as a crusader for free speech is just one of those tried and tested tricks. During his leadership campaign, Poilievre announced he would create a “Free Speech Guardian” that would police campuses and be granted the power to reduce federal grants to universities that “fail to protect free speech and academic freedom”.

Oh, good. That’s what I need as an academic. Less money to do more work. Let me just call up the student loan people and tell them I’ll be paying the rest of my $50,000 student debt in “free speech credits”. “No, don’t worry student loan person, I gave my students readings from David Frum, Ann Coulter, and Sue-Ann Levy. That should knock $3,000 off my tab, right?”

The notion that university students are intolerant and oppositional to any ideas outside their own world view has been a fixation of the right since the 1990s.11 Conservative commentator David Brooks wrote in the New York Times (paywalled) that students who opposed campus speeches by people like Jordan Peterson were "mobbists" who neglect to consider the role a lack of personal responsibility plays in our social ills and would be better served by respecting the structures that exist, rather than trying to oppose the systems at all. Columnists, commentators, and writers the world over have expressed concern over what they perceive to be a hostility to freedom of speech on campuses and in public dialogue. The infamous “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” published in Harper’s Magazine and signed by figures like Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Michael Ignatieff, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem assailed the penchant for illiberalism on both the right and the left:

As an academic, let me just say that this stuff really bums me out.

Seeing folks who are established in their positions, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, published with regularity in the pages of prestigious newspapers and magazines moaning on about this is such a disappointment.

Newspapers, universities, broadcasters, businesses, and government bodies have responded poorly to controversies in the past, I will admit. Concerned with their image (read: income) and with avoiding a tweetstorm, they’ve acted hastily and sloppily. This is mostly due to the fact that the folks in charge of these organizations are woefully ill-equipped to deal with social interactions in the social media age.

But those among the ranks of the “cancelled” always seem to crop up with a new book or a new gig or a new Netflix stand up special, wherein they gripe and moan about their cancellation to millions of people. Ideologically-ambiguous commentator Bari Weiss decried the 2018 protests against Christina Hoff Sommers in Portland, and yet Sommers remains a resident scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Brooks’s article above laments the attempted cancellation of Jordan Peterson who, since his self-inflicted controversy began in 2016, has published more books and raised his profile more than he ever did during his entire 25 year pre-controversy academic career.

The crux of the issue is that there is a disconnect between the forms of protest the people in positions of power expect and the kinds of protest that are possible. When W.E.B DuBois and Lothrop Stoddard held the Great Race Debate in 1929, DuBois was using one form of opposition to counter white supremacy. Did the debate solve racism? Did Stoddard abandon his affinity for eugenics and racism? Did white America come to respect DuBois more because he debated Stoddard on a stage in front of a crowd?

Did one tactic alone ever solve a social issue or present an effective opposition to an abhorrent ideology?

When students on university campuses come together to protest a talk by a figure they oppose, they are not stifling free speech. A talk on a campus is not the only avenue that speaker has to express their opinions. Protesting a talk by Peterson does not take away his opportunities to spread his message and make money. It is a reflection of popular frustration at his message. And fixating on these protests ignores the essays, YouTube critiques, art projects, electoral campaigns, and popular movements that oppose these figures in other ways. Because there are a multitude of ways to express an opinion in a vibrant democracy. Protest (topless or otherwise) is a way of participating in the conversation.

Those among the ranks of the pearl-clutchers decry campus protests, which are more visible and dramatic than other forms of opposition, because they expect free speech to occur on their terms, in their institutions, in the way that makes sense to them. The system is good, the system is great, we will surrender our will as of this date.

And the right capitalizes on the indignation of those pearl-clutchers to present themselves as the defenders of free speech. Decrying tactics that fall outside the norm, the right pledges to “stop the woke mobs”, punish academics who don’t “value free speech”, and bring unwieldy universities into line. Beleaguered moderates throw their support behind these right-wingers, assuming they can deal with the radicals and restore dignity to the institutions they so admire. They believe that then, once the institutions have been rid of their radical elements, they can tackle the right-wingers on a dignified playing field.

When in power, though, the right works to remake universities. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has successfully done this, decrying how the “intolerant” left stifles free speech while he strips universities of their ability to advance any debate. He and other right-wingers, swept into power under the auspices of fighting the “woke mobs” who “shamefully” protest, so warp the institutions over which they have power that the moderates who were appalled by the tactics of the radicals find themselves without a forum at all. It’s like using a flamethrower to deal with an ant problem in your kitchen. Sure, the ants get toasted, but you don’t really have a house left at the end.

We face a world where democratic backsliding is the norm. It has happened in Hungary and Türkiye. It is happening in India and Israel. And it can happen here. The democratic institutions that we hold dear are under threat from autocrats determined to stifle debate, advance the agenda of the rich and powerful, and erode popular confidence in any independent structure that may challenge their power. Gutting universities over the mostly overblown threat of “intolerant” protest is an important step on the road to undermining democracy.

At this point, it is hard to say if Poilievre is just another garden-variety Canadian neoliberal populist (see my paper on Doug Ford for an example of this) or if he will go the same route as other right-wing leaders around the globe and actually start chipping away at democracy. His proposal for a Free Speech Guardian is a troubling indication of the latter, especially when that person will be tasked with attacking universities. But more troubling is that 65% of Canadians see him as the best positioned to protect free speech. With numbers like that, we are getting close to giving him and the Tories carte blanche to start remaking our institutions in their image. And then we’ll be Hungary, hamarabb, mint gondolnánk.

Cool facts for cool people

• 5.2% of registered voters cast a ballot in the Hamilton Centre provincial by-election advance polls last week. That’s down from around 11% turnout in advance polls during last year’s general election. Today is election day (March 16th), so if you haven’t managed to get out and vote yet, do that! Bring a friend in Hamilton Centre! Talk to your neighbours! If you don’t know where to vote, check this handy tool on the Elections Ontario website.

• The Hamilton Police Association is going to start lobbying the provincial government. The Police Association has brought on Leith Coghlin of EnPointe Development to lobby on undisclosed issues. The Association and Coughlin both declined to share their priorities with the CBC. While experts noted this could have something to do with the growing opposition to the HPS’s ballooning budget, the lack of transparency in this matter is concerning. The police are intended to be a body that enforces laws, so for them to start trying to lobby politicians who create laws signals the further politicization of policing in Hamilton.

Woof! Another long one this week. And, as usual, filled with spicy opinions. There are a lot of sources on this one, so please reach out if you need access to the paywalled articles.

See you next week, cool folks!