With regards to the Homes for the Aged, this Council has taken almost their entire term deciding whether or not two of these homes will continue to operate under the City. One of the arguments for closing the homes is that we exceed the provincial standards by three times, in Senior Healthcare.

As our Senior population increases, it becomes more crucial to have affordable, high quality healthcare. With regards to the City having three times the number of average beds/capita for Senior Homes, it's something we should be proud of, rather than consider a waste of resources and money.

Other municipalities should look upon us as leaders in Senior healthcare. Just because the Province only requires the City to operate one Home for the aged, it doesn't mean that should be acceptable. Keep in mind, the Province also thinks we only deserve 5% of slot machine revenues, from our own Charity Casino.

BACKGROUND ON THE HOMES

Currently, the City of Thunder Bay operates three Homes for the Aged; one is “A-listed”, two are “D-listed”. The City is required by provincial legislation to provide only one Home for the Aged. Also, the legislation requires, any Home for the Aged in operation, must achieve an “A-list” status, by the year 2006.

The previous council had the foresight to take decisive action, by securing a 44 million dollar loan, to build two “A-listed” homes, replacing the “D-listed” ones.

WHAT DID THIS CITY COUNCIL DO?

Since this was never an election issue, one would assume the construction of these homes would continue into the next city council’s term.

However, on April 19th, 2004, this City Council passed a resolution, directing Administration not to proceed with construction of these two “A-listed” homes. The question is why?

We were and still are paying interest on the 44 million dollars we borrowed, since the money was never returned.

In other words, this Council cost us millions by being indecisive. In my opinion, the money should have been used to respect the last Council's decision and build the two new homes. At worst, they should have returned the borrowed money, so the taxpayer would not be saddled with interest charges.

Due to Council’s further inaction in pushing for any information, it took well over a year for Administration to present a Corporate Report, regarding these homes.

In the report, Administration recommends the City only operate one Home for the Aged, instead of three. It gives doom-and-gloom prophesies from rising property taxes to less funding from the provincial government.

As I understand it, the provincial funds 90% of operating costs for the Homes. Not a bad deal.

The report also emphasizes, Thunder Bay has three times the number of beds/capita, than the average municipality in Ontario.

They even compare private versus public sector operations, claiming the private operation would run more efficiently cost-wise, while still maintaining the Provincial standard of care.

What they fail to mention is that residents would have to pay over $2000/month, out of their own pocket, to stay at these private facilities.

IS THE CITY IN THE HEALTHCARE BUSINESS?

Certain members of council are all for discontinuing operating these homes. Their argument, "the City is not in the Health Care business". If that was true, why does the City pay over 5 million/year for Emergency Medical Services?

Why does the City pay over a million/year for HAGI services?

Why does the City pay over 3 million/year for the Health Unit?

Why does the City spend $250,000/year on a doctor recruitment program?

Why does the City borrow $25 million for the new hospital, which is still reflected on your annual tax bill?

When you total up all these health care related projects, it almost amounts to $10 million dollars/year on health care. Add in the annual taxes collected for the new hospital and we're approaching $14 million per year, not including the Homes for the Aged.

The fact is with or without the Senior Homes, the City is in the Health Care Business. And we're in it big time!

Administration claims it will cost taxpayers too much to have three city operated “A-listed” Homes for the Aged. Yet, they have no problem spending over $100 million dollars on a water system, when we could’ve upgraded and maintained the Dual-Source water system for a fifth of the cost.

Just think about who lives in these homes. These were people who fought in World War II to preserve our democratic way of life. These were people who came to this city in search of something new. They were our builders, our parents, our teachers, our role models and our caretakers. These were the people that invested their time and money in our city’s growth.

By giving these people quality health care, without the financial burden, we are giving back what we took from them.

On November 28, 2005, City Council will decide whether or not to continue to operate three Homes for the Aged. If you are concerned about the City losing two of it’s senior homes to privatization, I advise you to attend this meeting at City Hall and voice your opinion.

THE PRIVATIZATION OF WATER DELIVERY

Like the two Homes for the Aged considered for closure, this Council is considering having the City discontinue water delivery services to isolated areas within the city.

In these isolated areas, the city operated water delivery service assures they won’t run out of water, since they don’t have water piped directly into their homes.

Currently, these residents pay $16/delivery. If you were to compare this price with what it cost residents that have regular water service, it would be 4 times as much.

The City’s plan was to gradually raise these rates, until it surpassed $100 and then give the responsibility over to the private sector. If the private sector was to take over this service, who would regulate it, so that these residents don’t pay even more?

Administration recommended discontinuing this service, saving the city $100,000/year. Will they actually save this money, or allocate it to some other service within the City’s infrastructure.

On behalf of concerned residents using this system, Ms. Janis Macchi did a presentation to City Council bringing up many of these points. Now City Council has exercised their indecisiveness once again, by voting to decide the fate of the water delivery system, at a later date. I find it really strange, City Council would consider canceling an essential service such as water delivery; yet, continue to support paying over a million dollars/year subsidizing the Community Auditorium and Canada Games Complex.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK FOR DEMOCRACY!

Last February/March a number of citizens made deputations to Council recommending the City return to a Manual-Count election process. The reasons for this was:

1) To have more reliability and honesty.

2) To have more objective people involved in the electoral process.

3) To keep operating costs down.

4) To have over 50% of the operating cost be paid to people, so they would spend money back in our local economy.

5) To maintain the integrity of the Municipal Act (the June/July 2005 edition of publication goes into great detail how the Electronic-Count election system violates this).

Given this council’s track record for making wise decisions, they voted 10 to 1 in favour of keeping the more expensive, less reliable, controversial Electronic-Count system.

Upon hearing this, I emailed everyone on City Council who voted for the Electronic-Count system. Only Rebecca Johnson responded to my email.

She stated the following: “I voted for the electronic tabulators, as I truly don’t think we can go backwards. Most communities are either using electronic tabulators or are moving towards using them. The provincial government is seriously considering changing for the future”.

Obviously, she has a different meaning of moving forward, than I have. Moving forward with democracy is not having an electoral system that is almost twice as expensive to run; or having voters question, whether or not their vote actually counted. As for the rational, most communities are using this type of election system, here’s a question to ponder: “If everyone around you jumped in pit of fire, would you”?

Given the unreliability and higher cost, it’s scary to think higher levels of government are considering this type of system.

At a recent ward meeting, I asked Councillor Giertuga, why he voted to keep the Electronic-Count system. He said he didn't believe there was any conspiracy or wrong doing, which is why he voted the way he did.

I then brought up the point that the Manual-Count system was more than $200 thousand less to operate than the Electronic-Count system. He then said if he had any reason to believe this, he would've supported the Manual-Count system.

In my opinion, I and many others have proven the Manual-Count system is $200 thousand less than the Electronic-Count method. We based our claim on financial statements from City Hall.

John Hannam, the City Clerk maintains the Manual-Count system would have a higher cost. he ignored his own financial statements and used speculation to determine this. It's scary to think any Councillor would use anyone's speculation over fact, to make a decision on any issue.

Although the City has decided to stay with the Electronic-Count election, they will be conducting Manual-Audits on a number of polls. I emailed John Hannam, the City Clerk inquiring on how this process would unfold. He stated, they would be using a random number generator to pick 4 polls that will be audited manually. A private firm (Ernst & Young) will be reviewing and approving the audit procedures and be present during the audit procedures.

No consideration has been given to allowing objective observers to witness how the polls are picked, or even their involvement in the process to verify the validity of the machines. If a computer is used to pick a random poll, how do we know that it wasn’t programmed to pick a certain poll?

Why are not public scrutineers allowed in to verify the audit? And finally, there are 55 polls and 27 vote tabulators to make sure they collected every vote as opposed to counting polls.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON WATER STREET AND EYE IN THE SKY!