…but first, a word from The Incline.

Emperor Kuzco voice “I’m back, baby!”

On April 16, I published “The Rat King”, a brief look at the mess that is my life. For the ∞ time in my life, I’ve gone off and chosen the most complicated path. This time, I find myself working at city hall, writing about city hall, researching city hall, and critiquing city hall at the same time. The gist of that piece can be boiled down to: it hard.

In that edition, I wrote that I would be altering how I approached The Incline so as to not run into trouble with the growing number of registered candidates putting themselves forward for consideration in this fall’s municipal election. Specifically, I said I was going to avoid commenting directly on civic affairs and focus mostly on local history.

In the weeks since, I have…not written a lot. D’oh.

***

After I published “The Rat King” a few weeks ago, a couple of folks have reached out to encourage me to keep writing. And I’ve come to realize that they are right. I should keep writing.

What I wrote in “The Rat King” still stands, though; local history will play an important role. There are lessons we can learn from our shared history. And, with what’s been going on in our municipal election up-to-now, it’s more clear than ever that everything that’s old is new again. There are parallels from our city’s often overlooked past that warrant our attention if for no other reason than they are absolutely fascinating.

Well-connected candidates are launching coordinated campaigns. A plethora of odd media “creators” have popped up to share sometimes inaccurate or sensationalized information. Blustery populists in the present conjure images of blustery populists of years past.

All this is to say: there’s some stuff going on in town that deserves a closer look. Now, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I’m not a journalist (though what even is a journalist? The Wikipedia article for “journalist” features a photo of Nardwuar The Human Serviette as an example, so…yeah). But I have done enough professional research to know how to put pieces of a puzzle together. And there are a couple of puzzles that have been spread out over the table of our civic democracy (really regretting that analogy right about now) that we should better understand before heading to the ballot box this fall. Indeed, much of what’s happened thus far in our municipal election is just too interesting to not examine a little more closely.

So look out for a bunch of new editions over the summer. And, in the spirit of the season, I’ll once again be asking anyone who would otherwise send me a few bucks through my KoFi digital tip jar to, instead, donate to support my participation in the 2026 Pride and Remembrance Run in Toronto at the end of June. Last year, folks donated over $650 to my run, helping to support crucial queer community organizations in the GTHA. Thank you again to all my readers and friends who showed so much love and support.

My goal is to raise the same amount this year. The Pride and Remembrance Run is a registered charity, so anyone who donates over $20 will get a tax receipt. All the money raised goes to essential community programs like the canvas arts action program which provides community education on queer issues to marginalized populations and Casey House, a specialty hospital caring for those living with HIV.

And, of course, as an incentive to donate, I’ll post all the embarrassing photos of me running after the race. If you are so inclined, you can donate at the secure link below:

***

While I’ve been on “hiatus”, our municipal election has kicked off to modest fanfare. There are now six registered candidates for mayor:

• 2022 contender and, if polls are to be believed, front-runner Keanin Loomis;

• Ward 8 councillor for the past 241 days, Rob Cooper;

• activist and community advocate Scarlett Gillespie;

• Sasha Austin, who blanketed social media with “community engagement” posts prior to her nomination;

• persistently litigious perennial candidate Nathalie Xian Yi Yan; and

• community favourite Ejaz Butt, who is doing what he can to take up the Baldasarian mantle of reliable, inoffensive protest candidate

Despite being one of the first to sign up (and being the candidate who has earned a disproportionately large amount of the media’s attention), Cooper’s campaign has been noticeably low-key in contrast to the professional and organized campaigns of Loomis and Gillsepie. And, while both Xian Yi Yan and Butt are easily-recognizable fixtures in Hamilton, less is known about Austin. Granted, there has been a slow roll out of campaign platform points from Austin, including an ominous commitment to “eliminate open drug use & high risk severe addicts”. Yikes.

I’m not just saying this because writing and political communications are my thing, but it is so incredibly important to be very, very careful with your phrasing when you’re a political candidate. One ambiguous sentence can derail an entire campaign, so candidates need to be exceptionally careful, especially when writing about sensitive issues like addictions. Because, to me, that reads as “eliminating” people living with addictions, which is…just…yikes.

***

One person who is the furthest thing from careful with their commentary is chronically online local landlord Peter Dyakowski.

Dyakowski continues to joke about seeking the office of mayor, going so far as to post a photo to Twitter/X of himself on a Hamilton Tiger-Cats-branded jetski à la Stockwell Day claiming a mayoral announcement is imminent.

But Dyakowski’s online behaviours are best described as “irony-soaked shitposting” - the term used to describe spamming social media sites with low-quality, cringy content designed to generate a reaction for reaction’s sake.

That could help explain his recent online flirtation with the far-right, which treats shitposting like a religious act. In the past few weeks, Dyakowski has posted sympathetically in support of a “remigration” activist who challenged the Hamilton Spectator for covering the removal of their racist posters. It’s worth noting here that “remigration” is, according to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, “a white supremacist policy concept that calls for the forced removal of immigrants, refugees, and their descendants”.¹ It’s a new term for ethnic cleansing that’s growing in popularity among segments of the racist right. Dyakowski’s post implores the Spectator to be “a forum for matters of public debate”, though, I’d personally argue that there isn’t any room in a decent society for a “debate” on the virtues of…you know…ethnic cleansing.

And then, of course, there was his recent full throated endorsement of the aims of the white nationalist march that began in Victoria Park and ended in Gore Park on Victoria Day (May 18). The march had the “goal” of advocating for the restoration of the statue of Sir John A. MacDonald in Gore Park, which has long been a dogwhistle for the white supremacist far-right, many of whom tie an adoration of MacDonald with open anti-Indigenous sentiment. Dyakowski tweeted in support of the aims of the marchers, saying “All of Hamilton's problems are downstream of the fact that our civic government was complicit in its [the statue’s] criminal removal.”

Yeah. “Canada’s Smartest Man” wrote that.

The march was an unapologetic display of sad, ugly, divisive politics, serving as a paper-thin mask for out-and-out white supremacy and racist hate. Instead of challenging it, he gave them a virtual “thumbs-up” and amplified their hatred to whomever among his 6,400 Twitter/X followers is not a bot. So like, a dozen or so followers.

While dedicated community groups like the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion (HCCI) have been standing up against the white supremacists organizing in the community, Dyakowski shines a positive spotlight on them. And, what’s more, he has already indirectly dismissed the work of anti-hate groups like the HCCI, recycling the right-wing talking point that social advocacy organizations are “one of our fastest-growing industries here in Hamilton”. That’s a line repeated on a loop by the clique of washed-up former politicos who crowd our social media feeds with unsolicited opinions from their “official” and sockpuppet accounts, desperate for the dizzying hit they once got when people in town flocked to them as though they were the prophetic Oracles of the Red Hill Valley.

Does he mean anything he posts? Hard to say. Every one of his posts is, as previously noted, drenched in the same kind of irony that has poisoned the online conversation and facilitated the rise of the contemporary far-right around the world. But it’s the kind of posting that should give Hamilton’s legacy media pause the next time they want to call him up just to chat about local issues.

***

Anyway, back to the election of Hamilton’s chief magistrate and friends.

By all indications, incumbent Mayor Andrea Horwath is still expected to seek re-election, though there’s been no movement on her part to submit the paperwork required to be on the ballot. And there’s still the outstanding question of former MP Chad Collins’ mayoral ambitions, though with a race crowded with frontrunners and his dismal showing in the only mayoral poll that’s been released, it’s hard to see that happening.

On the council side of things, 33 candidates have registered since May 1. Only 6 incumbent councillors have registered of the 12 who have openly declared their intention to seek re-election.

But a few interesting names have popped up. And that’s part of the reason I decided to put together a new edition.

So let’s take a look at a historical example of an organized municipal political effort in Hamilton and what parallels there might be for a present organized municipal political effort that’s been, thus far, flying under the radar.

Strange Bedfellows

It was 1933.

Four grueling years of the Great Depression had devastated Hamilton and there was little relief in sight.

The unemployment numbers told a dire story. Prior to the stock market crash of 1929, the city was on the upswing; Hamilton’s population had tripled since 1901 and industry boomed. In the uncertain few weeks after Black Tuesday on October 29, 1929, the federal government was cautiously optimistic, reporting that Hamilton’s largest industries still employed over 39,000 people. By the same time in 1933, the feds reported that those firms employed just over 23,000 people.² Unofficial unemployment numbers estimated between 10 and 50 percent of Hamiltonians were out-of-work or underemployed.

Hamilton’s municipal government did what it could to weather the storm. Municipal employees were forced to take wage cuts and the Board of Control - the powerful group of council members elected city-wide to deal with, among other things, financial issues - pursued a brutal program of what they called “economy” (what we would today call “austerity”). The Board’s plan involved halting municipal spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy through massive tax cuts. While Keynesian economics was growing in popularity in the United Kingdom and FDR had swept to power in 1932 with his promise of a “New Deal” for workers, Hamilton’s municipal government was firmly committed to the principles of classical liberalism. To them, the market giveth and the market taketh away.

That didn’t sit well with the minority caucus on Hamilton city council. In 1932, a record six members of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) had won seats on council, campaigning openly as party members. Their leader was the highest-ranking labour leader in the city, Board of Control member Sam Lawrence, who coordinated the activities of the modest caucus dedicated to the advancement of working people’s issues. With only six out of 21 seats, though, there was little they could do aside from be a persistent reminder of the impact of austerity on Hamilton’s working class.

But a political meeting held in Calgary a few months prior provided Hamilton’s ILP members of council an opportunity to make a splash. That meeting, which created the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), sparked a Canada-wide move to unite the disparate local ILP groups under one, united, working class banner. In the summer of 1933, with the December municipal election fast approaching, the Hamilton ILP decided to join forced with the CCF to run a united slate of working people’s candidates for the Board of Control, city council, and for the public school board.

(Note: For readers looking for a more in-depth piece on the ILP, CCF, and political labour at the municipal level in Hamilton from 1906 to 1934, check out my edition from February of 2025 entitled “What force on earth is weaker”.)

Those affiliated with organized labour had, for years, run under unifying banners. By the mid-30’s, residents were well aware of the political activities of the ILP, who were upfront about their partisan affiliations.

The city’s right-wing actors, on the other hand, went to great lengths to conceal their party connections. During the 1932 municipal election (local votes were held yearly until 1953), the city’s business-oriented candidates avoided direct partisan appeals, instead favouring the standard catchphrase that had come to characterize the philosophy of the political right, not only in Hamilton, but in civic contests across Canada: “economic, business-like administration”.

Aspiring Ward 3 aldermanic candidate William Fick promised “civic affairs on a strict business basis”. Ward 7 candidate Thomas Lewington campaigned on “efficient, economic business administration.” Ward 5’s Pierce “Pop” Somerville declared that, “as a heavy taxpayer in the Ward, I will contend for strict economy and a business-like administration.”³ The fact that Somerville was sympathetic to the conservative cause and both Fick and Lewington were ranking Conservative Party members was something not mentioned, either in their ads or the coverage of their candidacies.

But, breaking with decades of tradition, right-leaning candidates did make an effort to work collaboratively in the 1932 election. In what would have been a shock to Spectator readers who opened their Saturday edition a week before the election, an advertisement appeared at the bottom of the 21st page under the bold headline “MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS”. Eleven candidates for the Board of Control and council seats pledged to work together toward a program of “strict economy”, cross-departmental austerity, municipal downsizing, civic salary reductions, strict controls on relief, and strict objection to nationalizing the HSR (which was then a semi-private entity run, in part, by Ontario Hydro). “This is a joint advertisement, paid for by the candidates whose names appear above,” they wrote, before clarifying “running independently, who have grouped themselves together for the purposes of this advertisement,” (emphasis mine). The coalition became known for the unofficial name of their political program: The Policy for 1933 Group.⁴

When the 1933 vote rolled around, the old crew reunited for an even larger ad buy. Under the headline “A Guide for Electors”, a ¼ page ad on the front page of the second section of the Spec detailed what the political right had accomplished, including slashing the municipal budget, cutting the wages of civic employees, and a stand against public services that would have seen the HSR “foisted on the City.”

Pledging “to continue policies of economy and business administration”, the collection of three Board of Control candidates and candidates for council in every ward said they were “prepared to carry on for the year 1934,” but warned that they were “faced with organized opposition holding contrary and radical views.” That was something the coalition, since rebranded as the “Economy Slate”, would oppose with passionate intensity.⁵

Being an informal coalition of right-leaning candidates, they never presented themselves as the Economy Slate. Instead, that moniker was bestowed upon them by the sole woman on city council, political chameleon and former reporter Nora-Frances Henderson. In a cheeky ad of her own, Henderson told voters “I endorse the Economy Slate but was not invited to join,” giving the group a name while simultaneously calling out their snubbing.⁶ Whether that was due to latent misogyny, an unwillingness on the part of Slate members to ally with someone they viewed as a political opportunist, or both is a fact lost to history.

The “opposition” to which the Economy Slate referred to in their ad was, of course, the CCF. The representatives of labour refused to go down without a fight, issuing their own advertisement two days before the election under the provocative headline “Ambitions Make Strange Bedfellows”. Decrying the ad from the Economy Slate as little more than a “scandalous attack on outstanding sitting members of the City Council,” the CCF said that the Slate was “a certain group of self-appointed dictators operating from a local club.”⁷

While the “club” to which they referred was the exclusive Hamilton Club (still active in the city to this day), their reference to “strange bedfellows” was intentional. The Economy Slate was, in all but name, a coalition of Conservatives and right-wing Liberals determined to hold back the CCF and ensure the supremacy of the private market. All but one Economy Slate candidate in 1933 was an explicit partisan. All-in-all, nine Slate members were card-carrying Conservatives while two were partisan Liberals. None of the candidates mentioned that fact and, instead, presented themselves as a coalition of concerned, business-minded citizens just happy to guide Hamilton through the Great Depression.

***

It was a widely-known fact that the Conservative Party dominated civic politics in Hamilton at the time. Indeed, the following year, the Spec dropped the mask entirely. “The Tory machine in Hamilton…turned to the civic election with a will,” they proclaimed after the results were announced in 1934, letting voters know that, “Last year, Hamilton…retuned a Tory majority…this majority was increased yesterday from 12 to 14.”⁸ On the front page of the local section, the city’s paper of record openly admitted that the Economy Slate was, without a doubt, a Conservative Party operation onto which a few opportunistic Liberals gleamed to advance their careers. The year after that, they reaffirmed this position and again celebrated the Conservatives for winning the 1935 municipal election, proudly proclaiming “Hamilton is still Tory Hamilton,” and celebrating the complete collapse of the labour vote thanks to infighting and partisan meddling.⁹

Ellen Fairclough, the first woman to serve as a cabinet minister in Canada, got her start in Hamilton’s civic politics. Long after her retirement, she wrote a revealing memoir that laid out the facts with clarity. According to Fairclough, one of the leaders of the Policy for 1933 Group and the Economy Slate was Robert “Tony” Evans. In 1932, Evans was elected Ward 3 alderman, back when Ward 3 included the Durand and Kirkendall neighbourhoods, as well as the southern portions of Strathcona and some of the new builds that would become Westdale and Ainslie Wood. Fairclough’s memoir notes that Evans was the “Tory ‘boss’ in Hamilton West” who personally coordinated candidacies and campaigns that were, on paper, “independent”, but were really backed by the Conservative establishment. Fairclough wrote that, when Evans decided she would run for the Ward 3 seat (“Tony did not request; he demanded,” she wrote), he promised the full support of the Conservative Party: “he and several other men would give me whatever support they could,” she noted, even saying that he personally intervened to prevent another Conservative from seeking the seat at the same time.¹⁰

Rather than being a thing of the past, it would seem the Conservative Party establishment is, over 90 years later, still up to the same tricks.

As I noted in the intro, there are, as of writing, 33 registered candidates for city council seats in the upcoming October 2026 municipal election.

At present, at least four of those candidates can be tied to a Conservative Party network connected to MPs Dan Muys and Ned Kuruc.

Let’s start on the mountain. Ward 8 council candidate Jacob ten Brinke is, at present, the listed president of the Hamilton Mountain Conservative Party riding association. Deeply active in local Tory politics, ten Brinke’s council campaign Facebook page was, until recently, dedicated to his previous attempt to win the Conservative Party’s nomination for Hamilton Mountain and still features party attack ads focused on Justin Trudeau and outgoing MP Steven Guilbeault. The Elections Canada donor database shows an extensive history of donations from ten Brinke to the Conservatives, including to Muys’ riding association in 2021.

Over in Ward 9, candidate Jonathan Stathakos is running against incumbent councillor Brad Clark. Stathakos is a young Tory who already has extensive campaign experience, spending 2025 as one of Donna Skelly’s “boys” (her term) - a group of four Young Tories including Stathakos, who was Skelly’s deputy campaign manager - and as the manager of Ned Kuruc’s federal campaign. Stathakos’ campaign appears highly organized, professional, and competitive, coming out with a slick campaign website and the time-honoured conservative promises of more police, wider highways, lower taxes, and better roads.

The only registered candidate in Ward 11 is Damon Mombourquette. While there’s little information about Mombourquette online, what can be gleaned is that, last Remembrance Day, he represented Muys at a wreath-laying event in Waterdown, with the MP indicating he was part of his “team” (ostensibly meaning either parliamentary staff or riding association team…it’s unclear). Mombourquette’s public Facebook page also includes reposts of content from Muys and Kuruc, as well as listing Stathakos as a Facebook friend.

Three candidates have registered to run in Ward 15 while the community awaits incumbent councillor Ted McMeekin’s announcement about his intentions. One of those candidates is Colleen Stewart. By all indications, Stewart has been engaged in socially conservative politics in the area for a few years. Already pre-endorsed by the anti-choice and anti-gay Campaign Life Coalition, Stewart made waves in 2024 for a speech opposing the flying of Pride flags at Catholic schools in Hamilton. A member of a socially conservative lobby group published a blog after Stewart’s speech where she took issue with “lewd behaviour” at Pride events and what she deemed the goal of Pride was: “Pride’s message is whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it, you are entitled to do…will [our students] remember that we upheld our Catholic identity and mission, even when secular seas rose, and ideological storms raged against us?” There’s not too much else available online about Stewart, aside from some results from past road races and, notably, being one of the most reliable users “liking” content from Muys on Facebook.

Hang on, all this talk of road race results and the evils of homosexuality reminds me:

Anyway, that’s four candidates with easily traceable links to the Muys/Kuruc conservative network. “The Muys/Kuruc Network”, if you will.

Both MPs have municipal connections. Kuruc got his political start as a candidate for Ward 3 councillor in 2018, placing a distant third behind winner Nrinder Nann. And, in 2022, Muys was a campaign surrogate for Bob Bratina, publicly backing the former mayor and appearing at his campaign booths around the city, even long after Bratina had stepped back from the limelight. Famously, in 2025, Bratina turned his back on his shallow Liberal roots and endorsed Kuruc, who would go on to snatch Hamilton East-Stoney Creek for the Conservatives.¹¹

The Muys/Kuruc Network does not include all identifiable Tory partisans in the race. Notably, former Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas MPP candidate for Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives, Fred Bennink, is running for councillor in Ward 12, as is former Hamilton Mountain PC candidate and incumbent Ward 7 councillor Esther Pauls.

And, of course, we can’t forget veteran Conservative organizer Rob Cooper, whose quick stint on council has served as a springboard for a mayoral campaign. My understanding is that the relationship between provincial Tory partisans and their federal counterparts is frosty, at best, and that there’s no love lost between Cooper and some of the more established Conservatives around town.

On top of that, the Muys/Kuruc Network may not be done expanding. There’s still the outstanding question of former Hamilton Centre Conservative candidate and current Kuruc staffer Hayden Lawrence’s speculated candidacy in Ward 4. And, with incumbent Ward 13 councillor Alex Wilson declining to seek a second term, might the Network try their hand in the Valley Town?

What is certainly interesting is where these Network-affiliates are running. Stathakos running against Brad Clark - a former Conservative Party candidate for MP and PC cabinet minister, as well as one of the most recognizable conservatives in Hamilton - is fascinating. Same goes for Mombourquette’s candidacy in Ward 11, where incumbent councillor Mark Tadeson will presumably be seeking re-election. Clark and Tadeson are not seen as progressive icons and can be, in many cases, reliable votes with council’s right-leaning block. While Stewart running against McMeekin - a deep red Liberal who has already been declared “unsupportable” by the extreme right-wing Campaign Life Coalition- in Ward 15 certainly makes sense, the Network challenging Clark and Tadeson raises more than a few questions.

***

Thirteen years after the election of ‘33, Sam Lawrence was the mayor of Hamilton. He had few labour allies on council and each year’s civic elections were an out-and-out battle waged by the Conservative Party against the city’s social democratic mayor. The election of 1946 was heated, to say the least. Partisan Conservative Donald Clarke challenged Lawrence for the mayor’s chair and spent the campaign attacking him for his membership in the CCF. At a debate in Westdale just days before the vote, Clarke and Lawrence faced off, and Clarke again raised Lawrence’s affiliation.

“I feel that the basic issue at stake is whether we are to have a party-free administration or one dominated by a political party,” Clarke told the crowd.

Lawrence - never known for his sweeping oratory or rousing speeches - fired back with uncharacteristic verve. “We don’t disguise ourselves,” he said, referring to his CCF slate. “You have people calling themselves independents - disguising themselves - but when elected to office they react to their own political ideologies,” he concluded.¹² Lawrence was right to be mad, particularly when a well-known local Conservative could masquerade as an independent while, simultaneously, attacking Lawrence for being a member of the CCF. He knew that, if one was involved in Conservative Party politics, they would undoubtedly take conservative positions once elected to city council. This, he felt, was important for voters to know.

Highlighting the connections that exist is a way to help voters better understand the networks that influence civic politics here. Throwing things out into the open is important, as it provides people crucial context before they cast their ballots.

Of course, none of the candidates I highlighted, nor the figures behind the Muys/Kuruc Network, are doing anything wrong. While you may not agree with their aims, running like-minded and connected candidates for offices across Hamilton isn’t bad. It happens all the time and takes many different forms.

Indeed, the Muys/Kuruc Network will not be the only partisan-affiliated group to try and coordinate campaigns behind the scenes during this year’s municipal election. Partisans and ideological allies and community groups will all do what they can do get sympathetic candidates elected in October. That’s part of living in a democracy.

Despite Ontarians clinging firmly to the convenient lie that “there is no Liberal or Conservative way to pave a road” and that civic affairs must be non-partisan - a contention that is baffling to citizens in nearly every other democratic country and jurisdiction in the world, including many in Canada - people will come to the council horseshoe and trustee boardrooms with political ideologies. They’ll view the world in a particular way and set out to advance the policies they believe will make the world a better place.

While the Muys/Kuruc Network won’t be the only group running, they are one of the most organized and have, up to this point, been the most on-the-ball with getting their allies registered and ready to run. And, if their affiliations are any indication, we have some idea as to the ideological approach they’d have to running the city if elected.

***

Knowing about the networks and the connections present is crucial for voters who want to make an informed choice at the ballot box this October. Candidates may not band together to fund joint newspaper ads anymore, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still coordination behind-the-scenes. As Lawrence contended in 1946, having endured years of attacks from the political right that was happy to remind voters of his affiliations, but eager to conceal their own, it is deeply important that voters know where the candidates for civic office stand.

“We prepare a program and present it to the electorate; we don’t disguise ourselves,”¹² he told the west end crowd that balmy December night in 1946.

Knowing where candidates stand - and with whom they stand - is all part of being an informed voter. And voters in Hamilton certainly deserve to be as well informed as possible before October 26, 2026.

1  _{Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (2026). “What is ‘Remigration’” (Link)}

2  _{General Statistics Branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce. “The November Employment Situation”, Government of Canada. (1929 Link); (1933 Link).}

3  _{Campaign ads. Hamilton Spectator, December 3, 1932, pgs. 10-11 (Spec archive link).}

4  _{“Municipal Elections” Hamilton Spectator, November 26, 1932 (Spec archive link).}

5  _{“A Guide for Electors” Hamilton Spectator, December 1, 1933 (Spec archive link).}

6  _{“My Economy Slate” Hamilton Spectator, December 1, 1933 (Spec archive link).}

7  _{“CCF-ILP Reply: Ambitions Make Strange Bedfellows” Hamilton Spectator, December 2, 1933 (Spec archive link).}

8  _{“Conservatives Hold Council Majority” Hamilton Spectator, December 4, 1934 (Spec archive link).}

9  _{“Conservatives Majority in New City Council” Hamilton Spectator, December 3, 1935 (Spec archive link).}

10  _{Ellen Louks Fairclough. Saturday’s Child: Memoirs of Canada’s First Female Cabinet Minister. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. pp. 58-59.}

11  _{Spectator links (Paywalled): October 11, 2019 (Link); August 19, 2022 (Link); August 14, 2025 (Link).}

12  _{“Clarke Condemns Partisanship in Municipal Politics,” Hamilton Spectator, December 5, 1946 (Spec archive link).}