September 27, 2006 Report

Hamilton City Council Meeting September 27, 2006. (Excerpts)

Ceremonial presentations near the beginning of the meeting

Conservation award for anti-pesticide advocacy

Mayor DiIanni: “I'd like to invite Lisa Knap to the podium … It's my pleasure to announce that Lisa's received the Conservation Award of Excellence which is granted by the Halton Conservation Authority and this award recognizes efforts carried out during the past year and is given out annually to recognize individuals and organizations who are helping to protect the natural environment in all municipalites in the Halton watershed. Lisa and her husband Graham have been working diligently be sending letters and newsletters to encourage people in their neighbourhood to stop using lawn pesticides….” Asks councillor McHattie to say a few words.

McHattie: “…I just wanted to say that Lisa and her husband are really leading folks right across Hamilton. As you know, I've taken a particular interest in the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns and that sort of thing, and we're trying to reduce that in the west end of the city. And Lisa's actually doing some of the things, exactly the things we're hoping our citizens will do. We're working on an education program – councillors Jackson, Mitchell and Bruckler – on our pesticide committee. And that education program is going a long way to reducing pesticides, we think, and Lisa's doing exactly the kind of thing that we like to see up in ward eight – councillor Whitehead's area. And providing leadership from the mountain on down. So thanks very much, Lisa, on behalf of the committee.”

DiIanni presents plaque “with heartfelt congratulations for all the work you did.”

Whitehead: “…I read the article and I was very proud that there was a resident in ward 8 who was taking action in their own hands and understanding the problems with pesticides and the ill effects that pesticides cause, and was educating her neighbours. … actually contacted your office to see if we could have Lisa come here and have the presentation because it's all part of that awareness program. So I just want to say: Lisa, well done.”

Lisa Knap : “I want to thank everyone, first of all, for recognizing and having us here tonight. We realize that there others in their neighbourhood doing the same thing, and we'd like to thank them too, because there really is a grassroots effort happening in this regard. Also wanted to thank Mohawk College. We've spoken to them and they're now going green in terms of property management, which is really leading the way in that area.

Very briefly, I just wanted to share some of the points with you that we do share with our neighbours … The basic point that we try to get across is the concern that the most highly objective organizations like the Juravinski Cancer Centre, the Cancer Society and family doctors are saying that we shouldn't do this. So to us it doesn't make sense that you pick and choose which doctor's advice you follow. We use sunscreen because they tell us that will help prevent skin cancer. Why would their advice in this case, that you reduce your exposure, be any less valid? Either you believe doctors or you don't, and it doesn't really make sense to pick and choose. So that's the one point we try to get across.

We also have people tell us that they weren't worried because the federal government is regulating these substances. So again, the Pest Management Review Agency is doing a huge re-assessment right now and the first several that they looked at either failed or had their use severely restricted. So although it's good that were weeding these out – if you'll pardon the bad pun – obviously the testing isn't perfect and I think there's some concern in that regard.

Finally we do acknowledge that there are the rights, basically, of two groups colliding here – people who want to take care of their property the way that they see fit; and people who want to limit their exposure according to doctor's orders. And there's no doubt that maintaining your property is important, but in terms of pesticide exposure, it's just like second hand smoke. You don't really have a choice to get away from it, other than to stay inside, non-stop all summer, or to go to one of the municipalities that has a bylaw. You do have options to maintaining your property in a neat and presentable way. We're doing it on our property and it definitiely does work. So there are options in that regard. So when rights collide, I think we try to ask people who have the most options.

So I know councillors are working on a bylaw, and I'm very grateful for them looking at this issue…” [11:03]

Board of Health Report 06-008 September18, 2006 (Item 6.2 on agenda)

Transcript of discussion re Legionnaire's disease (added Item #11 in report)

Mayor DiIanni : Councillor Bratina, do you have a question?

Bob Bratina : Mr. Mayor, could I ask of you to the City Manager. There was an in camera report at the Board of Health meeting, which we all know, has unfolded with regards to the Legionella matter. And so what I would like to ask the City Manager is can we get a report on the process, some sort of public report, or inquiry from an outside agency, hopefully the province, on the events of June, July and August with regards to the Legionella?

Glen Peace [City Manager]: I'll start by turning things over to the Medical Officer of Health Dr. [Elizabeth] Richardson. What I had pledged to do quite frankly is we'll continue the investigation. As Council is aware, it's still ongoing and at the conclusion of that we have committed as the public health division to meet and do a complete review on what has transpired with the anticipation that we'll report back to council on those findings. In the interim it's my understanding that there's a number of inquiries, if you will, from the province and I don't want to speak for Dr. Hodge but heard him indicate that we would welcome any investigation that the province would bring forward and think it would certainly restore all the public confidence. That would be my comment and turn it over to Dr. Richardson if she wants to add anything to it.

Dr. Richardson , [Medical Officer of Health]: In terms of the issue of the inquiry, we have been in correspondence and discussion with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care Public Health Division throughout the time we noticed the increase in cases and began the investigation and they have been in lockstep with us throughout and reviewing it.

Bratina : There's a temptation to make grand statements about what's gone on and I really think we need some good information on that process and so I look forward to receiving that. Thank you.

Tom Jackson : In the same vein, can I just see if it's direction that I can provide or if it requires a motion. If you would allow me just a couple comments. The Board of Health, and our meeting as a Board of Health this term as you know has been something new in terms of regularity of us meeting. Last term, I'll speak for myself, being delinquent in terms of recognizing beyond our duties, meetings as a Board of Health last term of council, so through the insistence and persistence of the Medical Officer of Health we've been meeting more regularly. But to my dismay over the past year, I'll say for example that where I feel the Board of Health and council, and by way of extension, the broader community, we've been either embarrassed and/or reactive to public health issues. And I just quickly remind the community, members of council, the Medical Officer of Health, if you recall, there was the lady up in Binbrook, with her delicious chocolate chip cookies that was going to be discontinued based on interpretation of legislation. That made a headline and then we reacted. It was in Councillor Whitehead 's area this summer the rats issue, where there was reluctance to get involved, and through Councillor Whitehead 's excellent efforts, public health got involved. Where we were embarrassed we acted. There was the heat alert issue this summer, where one of the hottest, humidest summers on record in decades. Once again we found out in a circumvented type of manner that the heat alert had been cancelled, if you will, at a mid staffing level and we were somewhat embarrassed and had to react to it and now the legionnaires. And so if I could provide direction, or if my colleagues prefer, to the city manager and the Medical Officer of Health, I just need to better understand the role of the Medical Officer of Health, public health, vis a vis its relationship with the Board of Health ‘cause I just want to avoid and prevent these type of situations evolving in the future. Let's face it, at the end of the day, those of us around this table are the ones who are going to ultimately get the emails and the phone calls and the letters when we're caught off guard. And as we have set up a regularity with the Medical Officer of Health and the public health dept., I just need to better understand when she does and the dept. does report to Board of Health. Let's maybe provide a little more if there's opportunity, community sensitivity, political sensitivities to some of the matters that may go awry if we don't get ahead of them and be more proactive. And so Mr. Mayor I'm in your hands, if that's direction to City Manager, if the City Manager wishes to respond - DiIanni : I – I – . Jackson : I just want to get those feelings on the table and I appreciate that. Thank you.

DiIanni : And I want to make some comments along those lines as well and maybe hear mine as well Glen, and then you can chime in if you wish, but we do have a couple other speakers.

Dave Braden : I'd like to know for my sake, if there is a health issue, that our Medical Officer of Health is aware of and that information is shared with CMT, and then that information is shared with yourself [DiIanni] or simply one member of council, I want to know what is supposed to happen. The problem, I think, is that one member knows, and especially if it's uncomfortable knowledge, there is a tendency to not pass it on. But this never works. I want to know if our Medical Officer of Health, on an issue like this, has the responsibility, or she has the discretion to decide if she informs any member of council or she doesn't. I presume in this case it came through the city manager. I want to understand what the process is supposed to be.

Peace : Perhaps I can respond to the first part while I'll let Elizabeth [Richardson] respond to what her roles/responsibilities are. I take full responsibility. I was notified by, in Elizabeth's absence, by the Associate Medical Officer of Health, and I, by choice, contacted the mayor. I had very little to tell him, I think we're all aware of that, and again I sent out an email today saying that I had erred in – and I didn't actually recognize that until last night when I started to review the time frame so I realized that they didn't match up with what I indicated to you that I spoke to you prior to leaving on my vacation versus prior to leaving on my business trip. So that decision was not Elizabeth's. She wasn't here. Nor was the Associate Medical Officer of Health who was acting. He contacted me and in my discretion I notified the mayor of a spike and indicated an investigation was ongoing. Now I'll turn it over to Elizabeth if she wants to discuss what her role/responsibility is in communicating with council.

Richardson: “ … reports directly to the Board of Health on all public health issues and all public health programs and services and the staff within the public health that are performing public health duties report directly to the Medical Officer of Health. In terms of communication with the Board of Health, that relationship then is between the Medical Officer of Health and the Board of Health. In terms of when do we communicate, in general we manage all of the investigations that are undertaken by our department on an ongoing basis. I would communicate with Glen [ Peace ] to let him know what we were at and what we were doing. In terms of passing information on to council, in general that happens in Board of Health meetings, but where there are issues in the interim, we don't have an established practice of exactly what we would do. As Councillor Jackson has said we have now just begun meeting as a Board of Health and we've begun to set out so there is additional information that comes to the Board of Health in relation to our programs and services. So that we get a joint better understanding of what the programs and services are and what the direction of the Board of Health is around the programs and services. So what is common practice in many other health units is that the Medical Officer of Health may keep the board chair up to date on what is happening in the interim between board meetings. But as I said here we don't have a practice established as yet. Often what we would do in the past, if there was something of note where something was going to be in the media, or there was something of note for a particular councillor, then that communication would go out either to the whole in the first place or to the councillor in the second.

15:35

Braden : Since we don't have a policy, do we have a practice that on certain issues you would speak to the head of our Board of Health, or is this too new to have a practice yet, or a policy?

Richardson : I've been here some 10 years now and the different configurations that we've had at council at committees and subcommittees it's been my experience that often it would be the chair of that subcommittee who would be kept up date on things in the interim. However since we've changed over to the Board of Health format we have not had any set policy that's been put out.

Braden : A question to yourself [the mayor]. Criticism is easy with hindsight. Now that you have, looking back, received that information, do you see it as your role then to immediately share it with council? And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. How do you see as in the chair being in terms of providing us with similar kinds of information that you have so that this situation does not arise again?

DiIanni : I was going to make some comments later, but if you'll permit – since you asked the question, let me make the comments now. This has been a very tough issue, there's no question about that. I've had some pretty difficult conversations with people over the last little while, not the least of which was with the son of the lady who died. I had a conversation with him just a couple days ago where he asked those pointed questions as well. You know, if he had only known, maybe mother might have survived, even though he conceded that in fact she had been ill, she had some underlying causes and those were pretty severe as well, but this was probably what pushed her over. And even if an alert had gone out it might not have helped. But that's a pretty tough conversation to have with someone whose family member has passed away who's grieving, who's mother had passed away. And of course I've reviewed in my own mind, you know, should I've – might I've done things differently. I think, as Glen has pointed out, I do remember when we had the editorial board meeting, I recalled being briefed in August and Glen said July, and now fine, it was August and the information was very sketchy, as you know, we usually have these cases every year up to 3, we seem to have a spike and staff is investigating. So hindsight being what it is maybe I should have said okay, are we informing council of this. Not sure what you would have done with that information if we informed you of that – there's a spike and staff is investigating, but maybe that's what we need to build into the process. And the way things have evolved of course, and certainly, I've heard some of your comments some of which were not kind or fair, quite frankly. I do want to put some things in place that will go forward on the communication side, that would inform not only members of the council, members of the public, because I think that's the issue. I think the public has lost some faith in our medical – not Medical Officer of Health – but in our public health system, and we need to be told I can tell you one of the things said publicly at the editorial board which was new to me, was that there are 66 investigations going on right now on – is it 66? – Richardson : It would be 66 investigations to date this year rather than ongoing.

DiIanni : Thank you. But 66 to date, that's the issues that have happened that we've heard nothing about. Should we have heard about those? Those are the questions I think we need to ask ourselves so that we can be informed, and so the public can have some assurance that we're going to tell them for when in fact they need to know some information that would be helpful to preserve their public health. And we need to talk about that. I did say and I meant it, that we have some experts in public health, I think are second to none. I spoken to the Ontario Medical Officer of Health, I've attended meetings with health professionals, and I think we've got the best. In fact they're some communities that don't have Medical Officer of Health. We've got 3 of them and they're doing a great job. But on the communications side, we need to put some processes in place that will assist us, assist them, in doing the right thing. And I'd also point out that I wasn't at the meeting when the Board of Health met because we were having a mayoralty debate, you'll recall Councillor Braden , and then I went to a Lister Block meeting. You came back here, was part of that meeting. I went to the Lister Block meeting. I didn't know – didn't come up at the editorial meeting – that in fact you had requested some kind of communication plan around this issue. I didn't even know that until days later because it didn't come up at the editorial board meeting. And if that had come up maybe the headline wouldn't have been - this is the story that nobody wants you to know about – ‘cause clearly I think the Board of Health had said at that point put something together that will inform the public. Right? That didn't come up. That was a mis-communication to the editorial board and they based their opinion on not providing, and therefore the public, accurate information on that. So, have we got some work to do? Absolutely. Have I searched my conscience to say ‘should I have done something different by informing you?' And if I'd done that what would you have done with it? Would you have gone out and informed the public? Would it have made a difference? Those are all very pertinent questions that need to be asked, and obviously as I searched my conscience, I certainly accept whatever responsibility I need to accept, but I also point out that I think I did what most of you would have done, satisfied that staff was handling the situation, and knowing that if there was something that needed to be done beyond them informing us and the public it would have been done. Now, in the absence of those protocols to assure us and restore some faith in the community, I think we got some work to do, and I've already had some preliminary discussions with Glen, and I want to have some discussions with Dr. Richardson as well. We did talk about the communications issue after we had the editorial board meeting, but we got some work to do. Not that we not providing the adequate services and the … services, but we need to convince the public that in fact if these things come up again, there's a plan in place to do the kind of information that needs to be done. So that would be my comments.

22:53

Braden : I appreciate this. Just so you know, I'm going easy on you just in case - right? So you understand. I think the idea is that when this gets spelled out somebody gets fingered, and if you got fingered, well join the club, we've all had our share. But I think the idea is this. I think one member of council was told. I think others were not told. I don't think it was legitimate to go in camera. I made that very clear. I don't think we had the legal basis to go in camera the way we did. I lost. I think what we need to come out of here is not covering our rear end – (at this time someone speaks off mic ) DiIanni : Sorry, sorry. Okay. Let him speak and there are others – (more talking off mic) councillor, [addressing the person speaking off mic] you are on the agenda so hang on. Let him speak. Braden : I don't believe we had the right to go in camera and we can't talk about what we said in camera but you will recall what the discussion was. That's all I need to say about the legitimacy of going in camera. I think what we need now is, we need a commitment if there is anything such as this. Council needs to be informed or Committee of the Whole needs to be informed ‘cause you sir don't deserve to have all this responsibility on your shoulders. That's not fair to you. But it's not just restoring public confidence, it's also restoring the council's confidence in getting information. So this is a wider spread thing … the public, so we need to do that ‘cause no one here wins, and it would be better if all of council bore this responsibility than one particular member. I say that sincerely.

McHattie : I have a tangible question about the ability of the city to regulate the air-conditioning towers that are suspected as a source of the bacteria. Is that something we're looking at from the municipal bylaw perspective. I know we're looking at a lot of things, early stages. I wonder if I can get a quick comment, then let's look at it, get more details over time.

25:11

Peace : Certainly I've heard this suggestion from several fronts and I've spoken to the general manager. And I'll take that as direction somewhat formal now, but we're clearly are going to review and be happy to report back on the practicality of including this in our bylaw whether it's property standards or whatever, whether it's achievable to get the results we're looking for as an organization. So I'll take that as direction Councillor, if you are satisfied with that and we'll report back to you.

McHattie : That's fine. I think we want to try and make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again, and that's one aspect. The other aspect is to look at our process. Councillor Jackson spoke to that. You did Mr. Mayor – others. We are new as a Board of Health in terms of that format and the reporting relationship is … not as clear as it should be. I think it would be beneficial to have that report such as the legionnaire's disease, to come to the Board of Health, if for no other reason the need to make the point in a valid way, what we would have done with that information. I think the benefit of bringing it to the Board of Health is that we've got a number of heads that can think about it, different perspectives from different backgrounds, so the members of the Board of Health, City Council. So I think that would be a benefit in general terms. I'm not sure what the result would have been, but I think that's probably the benefit of that. And I just want to say that if somebody asked me do I have confidence as a member of the Board of Health, or as a city councillor in our public health department, our Medical Officer of Health, our two associates, and staff, and I certainly do. So I want to state that upfront and look forward to us figuring out why this happened and making sure it doesn't happen again.

26:57

Sam Merulla : This evening I heard that there was 66 ongoing investigations – DiIanni : That have occurred to date – 66. Dr. Hodge , do you want to clarify that?

Dr. [Matthew] Hodge [Associate Medical Officer of Health]: Public health services investigates reportable diseases. There are (55 or 65?) reportable diseases. In Ontario we receive hundreds of those reports, some of those being more common like influenza and some less common like legionella. We do about 100 investigations a year, this one started in August about 2/3 of the way through the year, so we're on track, 66 investigations that are ongoing or completed. Of those that have been completed, you've already read in the media recently, we're also now investigating e coli at a local school [Hillfield Strathallen].

Merulla : And out of all those investigations, how many deaths have occurred? Dr. Hodge : People die of all sorts of things. We rarely investigate deaths … that's the work of the coroner. So if we receive a report of a reportable disease, and depending on the disease, we start an investigation. And so for things like influenza some of those reports will arrive after the death of somebody from influenza. Other conditions like sexually transmitted infections, death would be exceedingly rare. So deaths are not a focus so they're not a trigger for our investigation work Merulla : But in this case we had a death. Dr. Hodge : We did. I can speak to that if you wish Mr.Mayor. Merulla : Please. Hodge: All of you have received a time line for our investigation [referring to a hand out] and I also have a large format … I can put it up so everybody can see it. DiIanni : Put it up, sure.

Dr. Hodge : This material was distributed to members of council on Monday and just distributed again prior to the meeting. We expect to have 0-3 cases a year. Each of those cases would receive an investigation that follows a protocol for legionella. That would be looking to see if this person lived in an institution, so if we had an institutional outbreak we would be particularly concerned. We'd also be asking about possible exposure to mists from spas, whirlpools, hot tubs, because we know that legionella is transmitted through these inhalable mists. Case #1 appears to have become sick while traveling to British Columbia on a cruise when we received a report on that case on the 6 th of July. That was referred to the provincial Medical Officer of Health for communication to the provincial counterpart in British Columbia. Case #2 and 3 on July 24 and August 1 st was consistent with the usual pattern of this illness in our community. Cases 4 and 5 were reported on Sunday August 6 th to the public health staff on call. And I would draw your attention to the diamond (shape on chart) for case 10. That is the onset of symptoms from the person who died from legionella. We would love to have prevented that death. At the time she became sick, we were unaware that there was anything going on in our community that was different from the usual 0-3 cases per year. We came to work on the 8 th of August, after a long weekend, we communicated with the provincial lab, other MO'sH, because we now had cases 4 and 5, much more than we expected. We returned to keeping our investigation on the initial set of cases. And I'll move forward to the rest of the figures. I'm happy to answer any questions should they arise.(voice off mic) DiIanni : Let him finish the timeline first. Hodge: Symptom onset is when someone becomes sick. The reporting date is affected by 2 types of delay: the delay when they first are sick and a test is taken, and a 2 nd delay is when a test is taken and we receive a report. We receive the report from the laboratory system. So you will notice for example if you look at the diamond [shape] for case 2, there's a roughly a 2 week delay until you see the triangle [shape]; the diamond the person is sick, the triangle we know about it. Case10, the diamond, the person is sick, approximately 2 ½ weeks later we receive a report. I think it's important to understand there's a critical medical system in our community: great hospitals, great doctors that provide care to sick people. Often with the reports we receive are too late for us to intervene to have prevented that illness. We already had a notice; that's why we got the report. And moreover, that person's care has occurred in a clinical setting. Legionella in a hospital setting kills 39% of those who become sick. In our community it's 1 person out of 11. That's certainly a sobering event for all of us, but I want to try to communicate to you the limits of our science and our tools as a public health organization from which you are the governing body. And it simply comes down to we only have information, typically too little and too late.

32:54

Merulla : Going back to 2005,how many cases did you have of legionnaires in 2005? Hodge: I would have to confirm that number with you but I believe it was one. There was an information technology upgrade that came from the province and the number of our records are still being reconciled. Richardson: On average, the number of cases is anywhere from 0-3 per year.

Merulla : Okay. We have 1 case in 2005, the average is anywhere from 0-3. We have 11 in 1 year. 1 death. The crisis occurs in July 2006. I as a councillor am told on September 18 th and the rest of the public health board is told September 18 th . After the crisis is over. We're informed that the crisis is over. We have maintenance people, private people in this city, frontline staff, landlords and janitors in private and public buildings, people cleaning their air conditioning units ongoing, (then? when?) we have this legionnaire's disease. And we have a city council, the governing body of the city, totally out of the loop. If that's not the tail wagging the dog, I don't know what the hell is. I'll be honest with you – it's a disgrace. I had no idea. I sat in here on September 18 th . I heard deaths. I heard legionnaires. I'm thinking: what's going on here. We huddled as a council, a number of us got together. We thought this was like a bad nightmare. And we were told, yah, but you got nothing to worry about, it's over now. It's over now. What do you mean – it's over now. When did it happen? Oh July, August. Don't worry about it. We took care of it. We're cleaning up the towers today. We're actually cleaning out the towers today. [At this time, Glen Peace moves to whisper something to Mayor DiIanni. Merulla loudly makes the following remark about this.] Mr. Peace is going to tell you that we probably shouldn't be speaking about this, it should be in camera. And that's exactly the problem we have in this city -- is that the City manager telling the mayor when we should be in private – [interrupted by DiIanni and Peace . Merulla and Peace, yelling, talking at the same time) Merulla : What is going on here? Peace : I never said that at all. What I did say, [loudly] what I did say councillor, is none of those professional medical staff ever said don't worry about it. [Then both Peace and Merulla speak loudly at the same time – unable to decipher for transcribing.]

Merulla : … how does the city manager intervene in any debate at this city council? [DiIanni's voice is heard in the background.] When we have a personnel meeting and we go in camera for that ‘cause I'll tell you Mr. Mayor, I will tell you that the city manager should not have been made aware of that legionnaires before this council or you. DiIanni : And I'm - Merulla (continues loudly): We should have been made aware of it and not him. And that is a disgrace Mr.Mayor. That should be held accountable. Nothing more, nothing less. What is said here should go public. We should be finding out after the fact that we have a crisis in this city, and I-STAND-BY-THOSE-WORDS . Thank you Mr. Mayor.

DiIanni : Councillor the only thing that the city manager said [ Merulla interrupts loudly, but off mic.] No, let me tell you, let me tell you, and please, ah, please try to be reasonable as well as passionate. Alright? Let me tell you that, that we need to be accurate with the statements we make. Merulla : I want you to bring forward what I said that was inaccurate. DiIanni : Well, ah – Merulla : Maybe we should bring the city manager to your chair. Because what did I say that was inaccurate? Correct me. Through you Mr. Mayor, to the City Manager [Dianni is trying to intervene] What did I say that was inaccurate? DiIanni : Let's get an answer to that. Peace : What you said that was inaccurate is that you said the medical professionals said ‘don't worry about it.' That comment was never made. [ Merulla interrupts, Peace asks to finish, Merulla says “go ahead.”] That we've taken this matter very seriously. There was no July meeting – rather this broke out after July, there was no August, and the report is in September. And no one was flippant about this. No one ever said don't worry about it at all. That never came up. That's simply not true. And that's inaccurate.

Merulla : Well then, my colleagues around this table will beg to differ because I recall specifically, people being told around this table that the towers are being cleaned, that there isn't an issue now, the issue was then, this is now. Now if somebody that was present at that meeting wants to differ with me, God bless him, but I recall what was being … ‘the crisis is over, not to worry, the cool weather's here, there's no issue.' Now I will hand the ball off to the rest of those people who were present at that meeting – DiIanni : We'll hear what they have to say.

Councillor Morelli : I can't speak really to what you were told, or when or how, but I think we all need to keep our cool. Clearly from a factual point of view was on Monday when we were all first told, quite frankly, what we were told ‘n when we were told, ‘n how we were told it. It clearly equates certainly in myself, I know others, obviously with the … involving the deaths, that from our perspective, something that I think that Councillor McHattie was referring to, we would want to go public on this immediately. And quite frankly, I think that it makes more sense, given what transpired in the last two weeks, a week, a week, and so um, I think that's the key point. The fact is we were given some information and quite frankly we felt strongly that it should be released immediately. We – there was a comment made about going in camera. No one lost and no one lost or won. We went in – it was just why we were – we questioned it and quite frankly it was explained to us that there was some questions here in the balance that quite frankly that there was no immediate danger so we accepted that. We – there was no vote- we – it made some sense so in the absence of there was no one that lost. I think that - the fact of the matter – let me hit it right on the head. It's not about what you were told and when and whether you were told that I was told what you were told. I had a different reaction. I can only say this. What I was told on Monday, and I was told this, no matter how sophisticated the medical description and … the medical profession as a councillor representing this city I want that information released. And we spoke to it. We said look we'd like a communication, let's get this done, follow normal procedure. We followed normal procedure. Let's be reasonable. We've heard the medical people present their views. We understood that there was no danger. But we had the normal time between committee and council to come up with a communication plan. The desire was let's inform the public. Quite frankly, listening to the good doctor tonight, it again indicates the fact that we need to spend maybe more time educating people and communicating with people and quite frankly I think again, you point that the fact that we, you're saying we need to review and we need to establish some policy to …. So I think that's really what this thing …. We got some information clearly I don't want to point the finger at anybody we know – luckily it's not a threat now but I think moving forward it means we have to develop a whole bunch of policies the bottom line is is that when we get issues like this, and again, I understand the medical profession, in fact I, I, I question well there's a lot of people that know about this, the technicians, the businesses, the medical professions didn't seem to float out from that sector onto the floor. Nevertheless from my perspective, as another participant in the ??? mosaic, I think that I want to see our community have it. How we present it to them just needs to be factual and and done in a fashion that just speaks to what the issue is just as they have tonight. ??? encounters this disease or sickness are predisposed already because of some previous ill and I understood that the other day so I think really the mistake if there was one and I believe there has been was that we need to communicate this immediately and if it means having some dialogue, some policy, the bottom line is let's not let it happen again. Let's fix it. We need to fix it. I think the last week has proven something needs to be fixed. And quite frankly, part of that is to make sure that we clearly communicate between one another and no matter how bad the story it means is if its within the acceptable response of the medical community in terms of their MO, we have to provide the input we think the community might demand from their perspective, our perspective as to what's going on with something like this and I think that we then just have to sit down and develop that communication strategy. So that's – you know I can understand the emotionalism but I think we need to keep our cool, we need to move forward with a sense of consistency and making sure this doesn't happen again. Thank you.

Councillor Whitehead : I was quite concerned about the motive for the date, the time, for this particular presentation and the reason I raise that is I felt, you know, when you look at this and analyze it, the only reason why this was brought to this council at the time it was is because test results were coming back and were being reported to individuals who came in contact with legionnaires. And that – it would be public. So it was like, it was like, the only reason why this council was informed what it was because they had no further choices, because this ??? become public regardless. I don't know if that's the right way to be informing this particular council. The other think I need to understand is we get heat alerts, we get smog alerts, we get West Nile alerts. You know, when we had the presentation on around this council, I was thinking to myself – sounds pretty reasonable what staff had to say in a sense what took place. I couldn't understand for the life of me, if it sounds reasonable around this table, what they were communicating to us, why we couldn't communicate that to the general public. It almost suggests that the general public are not – can't comprehend information was being released to this particular council and I think that is irrrehensible to think that the general public presented the way it presented this council is any different than anyone around this table. So that concerns me that that – they could give us the information and it was – it made perfect sense ?????information that they weren't prepared to communicate at that time publicly and that concerns me. It concerns me that the only reason that we knew, told when we were told, because they basically had no choice.

44:23

DiIanni : Someone maybe answer the question for me, ‘cause this is, and I've not had a chance to ask it, and I understand the issue that there was a communication strategy that was wrongful tonight. But when the information was heard in camera, we often can go out of camera and make that public. Why was that not done on that night? Thank you. Dr. Hodge : Thank you Mr.Mayor - Merulla : Actually through that process our legal department told us we would have multi-million dollar lawsuits if this were to go public. We then huddled. I said I was going to blow the top off this tonight, before it was leaked. Councillor Whitehead sought out legal advice which we obtained and we were going to blow the top off this place with this issue tonight. Unfortunately it was in private. Thank you Mr. Mayor. DiIanni : I'm not sure that answers the question but I'll accept that. Councillor Samson. Merulla : It was the liability issue. Our legal staff told us for hundreds of millions of dollars we were going to get sued, people won't come downtown, some people questioned well, not now. At the end of the day we were told that we would be liable. DiIanni : I understand that but the public information – Merulla (talking over DiIanni) You understand that ??? we accepted legal advice for 24 hours. We obtained our legal opinion and we were gonna blow the top off the place tonight. DiIanni : Public information should always trump legal advice. I'm surprised it didn't – Merulla : And you should have mentioned that in July. Exactly. Thank you Mr.Mayor. DiIanni : I didn't know about it in July. Thank you councillor. Merulla : According to the newspaper you did. DiIanni : You haven't heard anything that's been said tonight. Go ahead Councillor Samson.

46:00

Art Samson : I don't want to wade in on the debate, but I say we ( Merulla speaks off mic.) – we put a lot of money into West Nile and what we get are regular updates which we get. Seems every time there's a case of West Nile, we get a blurb on it, and that blurb goes to the paper. I can't see why this particular disease can't be in the same category. If there's a spike in it, we let people know that there's a spike in it. I think it should be a regular procedure and I just can't believe that – there was a Board of Health before it was, before it was the council and there must have been some type of reporting mechanism for that Board of Health during those times. I would suggest that just we put West Nile, legionnaire's disease, the same, if there's something else out there, maybe that should be put on the list as well. I don't know that. That's a public health thing. Thank you.

DiIanni : Councillor Jackson , I understand you have a motion.

Jackson : Thanks Mr. Mayor. I'm going to put it in a formal motion, in consultation with the Clerk. Moved by myself, 2 nd by Ward 7 Councillor Bill Kelly that (motion):

The city manager and the Medical Officer of Health report back to the next Board of Health meeting with a policy outlining a proactive, preventative and clearly outlined approach to the reporting relationship of the Medical Officer of Health to the Board of Health regarding future matters of concern to our community.

I think Mr. Mayor from that – some would say include communications – but to me if the reporting relationship between the Medical Officer of Health and the Board of Health is a proactive, preventative and clearly outlined one that we all understand communication will naturally follow in the future. So I would move it, 2 nd by Councillor Kelly. Thank you.

DiIanni : Thank you. We'll accept that, but before we introduce it I need to waive the rules ‘cause it's not part of the report. Collins / Jackson , all in favour of waiving the rules. We know the report and it's item #11 in the report. And so, all in favour of item #11. (hear Carried) That's good, which is your motion. Councillor Pearson, may I have a motion on the report as amended. Councillor Pearson : Moved by myself, 2 nd by Councillor David Mitchell, that the 8 th report of the Board of Health be adopted and the information section received, not as amended Mr.Mayor. DiIanni : All in favour? (hear Carried). That's carried.

48:30

PED item 20 – New standard subdivision form

Pearson: Just on #20 [ City of Hamilton New Standard Form Subdivision Agreement (City Wide)

(PED06356) (Item 7.1 ) ], Mr Mayor, I just want to bring to the audience's attention. This is with regards to the city of Hamilton new standard form subdivision agreement. This has been a long time coming and has been worked on … for over a year by our staff and with Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association. It is a combination of our new standards form of subdivision agreements, simplifying processes for builders and residents who want to come forward to build homes in our community. I commend staff for a tremendous amount of work that has been done and the aid of Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association who worked together with staff on this.” [1:10:45]

PED item 28 - Urban boundary expansion

Bratina: [1:25:03] [on item 28 of PED report Stoney Creek Urban Boundary Expansion (SCUBE) (Item 12.2) ]. “Mr Mayor I'm going to oppose this on the basic principle that when I got into this line of work that I'm against urban boundary expansions and agricultural land rezoning. And I'm encouraged by the report we got from Guy Paparella which was the statement of settlement from the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the aerotropolis lands. And if I can just take a moment, because I want to speak to why I'm against urban boundary expansions and the way we are processing them. The wording, the province was angry at us with the wording of the original Official Plan amendment, where they felt that we hadn't done the proper buildup to in fact create an urban boundary expansion. The new wording in the statement of settlement leaves no doubt that the studies must be completed, the city must consult with the province to approve the land budget – the infamous 3000 acres – how much land do we need to meet the future projections and only then can the OP be considered” interrupted by DiIanni speaking to another councillor “He's out of order, but let's let him continue.” Bratina: “Can I finish?” DiIanni: “Yes, but I just want to say, councillor, be brief because” interrupted by Bratina: “All I've got is two sentences. The province has decided that we didn't do the right thing and has reworded that with regard to urban boundary expansions. So I say that in hopes that we'll have a further discussion on that statement of settlement and that I wish to repeat my long held position that the problems that we have downtown, with diminished property values and deterioration and so on, is in part due to urban boundary expansions. And that's why I oppose this one. Thank you.”

DiIanni: “Thank you and maybe I'll make some comments on the aerotropolis because it was a huge victory for the city position, quite frankly. But councillor Mitchell, on this issue.”

Mitchell: “I want to thank Art Zuidema, our lawyer, and our planning staff for the work that's gone into this. I've had many meetings down in Stoney Creek over these SCUBE lands and the OMB hearing was in Stoney Creek City Hall, and I did attend that. And our staff and the provincial staff agree. And this has been a long time coming to get here. And there's shortage of parkland down there, there's real shortage of schools down there, there's shortage of infrastructure as far as grocery stores and so on. And the people know that when this comes the next 18 months brings many many more meetings down there … those secondary plans, letting all the public have their say on what this infrastructure should be and go, which is greatly needed down there. So I'm looking forward to that. There was some people, Mr Mayor, as you know, seventeen land and homeowners west of Glover's Road that are still in the Greenbelt, not in the urban boundary area, and that is now going to be allowed to go forward to an OMB process. And our city staff will be probably seconded, but some of the information they will be able to use, and I will work with them for their success as well. So the whole process can go forward and help that area with some of the shortages that have been there. And the last clarification I think we need to make, Mr Mayor, because some of this comes from lack of knowledge of the public, that the infamous blob in Winona behind Winona Road – this, does not affect that, at all. So I want to make that quite clear to everybody, that it's a separate issue that's going off to a consolidated hearing. So I'm pleased that this has finally come forward, so that now those meetings can take place, and we can start to get those schools built and some of those things, park areas and so on, that are greatly needed down there. So I'm strongly in support of this and thanks to staff for getting it.'

DiIanni: “I wasn't at the planning meeting, but can you clarify, staff, is the whole OMB process around SCUBE finished, or is this just the position that we are presenting there? What is this about?” Coveyduck: “What this is is that we'll be moving forward with the objectors for these pieces of land with a compromise position that we're all quite comfortable with. So we're fully expecting that the Ontario Municipal Board will approve this without a full hearing.” DiIanni: “So in fact, when was” interrupted by Coveyduck: “But until that happens, we'll have to wait for that.” DiIanni: “Right. We don't have an urban boundary expansion?” Coveyduck: “That's correct.” DiIanni: “So that's, we're not voting on an urban boundary expansion. We're voting on a compromise position. Alright. Thank you. On 28? All in favour? That's carried. Both councillor Bratina and Braden recorded as opposed.” [1:29:44]

Corporate Administration Committee report

11. Motion – Fee Waiver Request – Glanbrook Rangers (City Wide) (GRA06005(i)) (Item 9)

That the fee waiver in the amount of $4,642. be approved for the Glanbrook Rangers Junior Hockey Club to utilize the Glanbrook Arena Mezzanine on a weekly basis for the period of January to March and September to December, 2006 for a total of 30 occasions, 5 hours per night, and to hold occasional “Blue Line Nights” during their scheduled hockey games.

Jackson: “Mr Mayor on item number 11, excellent group, excellent organization and provided championships in our community. I just wanted to be recorded as opposed. It's a privately owned club. I've got two or three other examples of clubs that will fall into similar situation of a sports category. We're here waiving $4600 of taxpayers money. I know they traditionally had it. I just feel that they're a privately owned club and this shouldn't be allowed. I just ask that I be recorded as opposed. Thanks Mr. Mayor.”

Hamilton Artists Inc – grant of $750,000

Jackson: “Mr Mayor, I just wanted to be recorded as opposed. This is the proposal by Hamilton Artists Inc. They want three quarters of a million dollars from the Future Fund. If you recall this group was before our city council earlier this year in 06 for I think if I recall a $50,000 grant to help for the repair of a roof. We denied it – just felt that it wasn't appropriate during a budget deliberation. They went to the Future Fund, asked for $1.5 million. The Future Fund recommended against the $1.5 million back in the summertime. Staff went away. They came back, the Hamilton Artists group came back with a revised plan of a new budget of $1.245 million of which they're asking us to cover three quarters of a millon of that. There's some conditions attached that my colleagues will see there. Mr Mayor I just feel that we're late right now with these kind of serious dollars, with this term of council in the next couple of months, where we're all, where most of us are campaigning and other candidates are as well. Mr Mayor, I think if anything this should be referred to the new council – who ever's here next year. Plus Mr Mayor, there were other very worthwhile projects. There could have been libraries, waterfalls, rec centres, arenas, park developments – whatever the case might be, Mr Mayor. There could have been other worthwhile projects that were on the docket for consideration by the Future Fund. They needed $14 million with all the requests they had before them the past few months. They only had $3 million. This group was denied the first time. They've come back asking for half of it. Committee of the Whole by majority has recommended it. I still think it's wrong and I ask to be recorded as opposed.”

DiIanni: “Thank you. I have councillor McHattie next, but maybe can you incorporate in your points the direction I thought we were going when we had the meeting just before the committee, which was to fund a needs assessment that – that's what I thought. That's the meeting I know I left a little early, but we had a meeting with the group. We were going to fund a needs assessment that would make the case for moving forward with a fuller grant. What happened to that? I guess, did I leave a little too early?”

McHattie: “I guess you may have left a bit early, yes, Mr Mayor, but you know – I recall that discussion early on in the meeting but I think we looked at the case for this as an incubator for the arts – sort of bookending both ends of James Street with the Tivoli project on the other end – and I think we were satisfied at the committee level – councillor Whitehead and myself – that the project had merit. And having reviewed the proposal and that sort of thing, that it should go ahead based on what we were explained. And we made sure that we put in place the concept that if the project is not successful, and the building is in trouble at some point, it comes back to the city – you know, as first right of refusal – and we of course can sell it to gain our funding back should that be the case. And all the funding – the funding that we're looking at, this $750,000 – is subject to the rest of the money from Canadian Heritage, Trillium, that sort of thing, coming forward also. So I'm trying to recall the early part of the discussion. It's a bit vague in my mind, quite frankly, but that's the direction we decided to move forward on.” DiIanni: “Alright, I'll speak to it. Councillor Mitchell?”

Mitchell: “Being recorded opposed like councillor Jackson. Thank you.”

DiIanni [asking Bratina to take the chair] “…Yeah, we did have that meeting. I did have to leave a little early, but my recollection very strongly – in fact there was a recommendation being made by the artists group that they were going to engage in a needs assessment to see whether the building would make sense, whether the incubator would make sense in the location that they had selected. … with the funding for that needs assessment and then based on whether that needs assessment was positive or not, we would flow the rest of the money. Now that, as I say, I did leave early, and so the conversation may have gone in different directions. But my position is that the arts are important. They certainly are important to James Street. They are important to all of the city, quite frankly, but they certainly are important to James Street. We have a convergence of arts entitites along James Street and that is great. There is a history to this proposal and I think councillor Jackson has spoken very eloquently about it throughout – where it wasn't supported. I think we need to find a way of supporting it, but I think the way of supporting it is if the case has merit as proven by some fuller business case through a needs assessment report coming forward. So that is my position. I don't want to stand in the way if the committee has made that recommendation, but I think it sort of deviates from what I understood was the road we were walking on. Anyway, those are my comments.”

Bratina: “I'd like you to take the chair back … My understanding is as is outlined in the motion here, so I'd be prepared to just carry on with what is before us.”

Kelly: “…I've been very supportive of the arts, and I've wanted to find ways – you've already articulated Mr Mayor – to make this happen. The concern of the Future Fund was the fact that this organization had come before the Board on a number of occasions and the policy there is you get the one grant and that was it. And they didn't see any merit in this. But over and above that, I guess – and we hear the word process around this table so many times when we start talking about how things are going to be done and where money's going to be allocated. We struck the Future Fund, we struck the panel, we made our adjudications and I remember speaking I thought at the time a bit passionately about the fact that we needed to include the $14 million in the deliberations of the Future Fund. Council in its wisdom decided not to do that. So the Future Fund made their evaluations on a number of very very good proposals based on the fact that we had a much smaller pot of money. And said no to some very worthwhile, and reduced the funding for some other very worthwhile projects as a result of that council decision. And it kind of bothers me – as much as I want to support this and I think is viable and something we absolutely need – this kinds of smacks like the old end run. Well they said no, but we'll go and get these guys to do it. Again I ask my mom cause dad said no, to try to get this done. We still don't have a feasibility study on this. I'm still not absolutely positively sure that this is the way to fund this. I had asked at the time that we move forward on this project but find another source of funding. And we're going to go back and have another Future Fund meeting in a couple of days, and I know members of that committee are going to be a little non-plussed about the fact – we'll wait a minute. You said we didn't have the money; and you said that we weren't allowed to allocate that money, and then you turn around a couple of weeks later at city council and allocate the money that you said that we couldn't have. I think basically, I'll support this because I think this is worthwhile, but I don't like the way this has gone through. I don't like the process. I think that council better get their act together and say look it these are the rules and we're going to abide by them and not do this on an ad-hoc basis. Cause that doesn't send a very good message to community either.”

Bruckler [1:40:57]: “For clarity…you've raised the question of the ten thousand. Was this the same group going back to the last budget session where they'd asked for some funding to carry out a review, or was that a different group?” Explained that was Arts Hamilton, a different group. “I think at the meeting as well we had asked Mr Rinaldo if there was sufficient funds within the Future Fund and I think he'd indicated there was. Now is this from interest for the Future Fund or what coffer of the Future Fund are we looking in?” Rinaldo: “If you factor in the interest that the second component of the Future Fund – the allocation component, $37 million – if you factor the anticipated interest to the year end, it will have enough funds in there without compromising the $100 million that council had initially set aside.”

Collins: “I agree with others that this project certainly had merit and we had a number of them that we turned down at the committee because we only had a limited amount or pool of resources to deal with. And I think the amount was just over $3 million. So I too as councillor Kelly mentioned was a little disappointed at the second chance that the group had, and their appeal to council. And certainly we permitted them to come forward as a delegation, but I think in light of all of the other groups that had come forward, it was sort of special treatment, or preferential treatment given to that group over some of the others. So from my perspective it was one of affordability and I was one of those people at the committee who would have encouraged this group to come forward next year if in fact that committee again is reconvened by the new council. And they could have had another opportunity in 2007 if in fact the committee existed with the additional funds that would have been provided. So from my perspective it's one of not having the funds set aside this year to fund it – understanding what Mr Rinaldo said, that was not the scenario that the Future Fund committee was dealing with several months ago, and up until a couple of weeks ago. So from my perspective I can't support it for those reasons, and I'd like to be recorded as opposed.”

Pearson: “I just wish to comment with regards to …. At the meeting I know councillor McHattie gave a tremendous amount of information along with the ...from the group, and I was under the impression and still believe that there are safeguards that have been put in place to protect this funding being given, the $750,000. And I know at the time we questioned Mr Rinaldo about the conditions that are laid out here, and one of them being that the city is protected if something should happen – that they are entitled in some format – and staff was going to investigate how to do that – so that if something happens, the city becomes owner of the property. So we don't lose that way. We questioned whether there could be monies paid back and that went back and forth as far as information. But there's a number of criteria in here that has to be met, and that's why I support it.”

McHattie: “Mr Mayor, I just call the question on this please.”

Di Ianni: “So all in favour of number one [off mic request for a standing recorded vote] A standing recorded vote. All in favour of number one? [off mic the clerk announces those in favour: Bratina, Kelly, McHattie, McCarthy, Morelli, Merulla, Pearson, Samson, Whitehead.] Against? [clerk again off-mic: Mayor DiIanni, Braden, Bruckler, Collins, Jackson, Mitchell] It's carried….”[1:44:55] [Vote was 9-6]

Low income tenant tax rebate

Excerpt from Hamilton City Council Meeting September 27, 2006.

Added Agenda item 7.4 under Motions

Moved by Councillor McHattie. Seconded by Councillor Whitehead

Brian McHattie (reads his motion): Whereas the city of Hamilton is tied for the highest urban poverty rate in the province of Ontario with the vast majority of low income residents living in rental housing, including 14,200 households in Hamilton paying more than 50% of their total income towards rent, placing them at extreme risk of homelessness; and whereas, tenants are property taxpayers and should be afforded the same consideration and receive the same level of municipal service that all residential taxpayers value; and whereas tenant households as a group earn half of the average yearly income of homeowners ($29,000 versus $57,000 in Hamilton) and yet contribute a far greater percentage of their total income towards municipal services through property taxes resulting in significant financial hardship and higher levels of poverty in the community;

Therefore be it resolved: a) that city council strive to achieve greater parity between the tax rates for multi-residential buildings and residential homes to address the inequity faced by low-income tenants; b) that staff be directed to detail and report back for the 2007 budget deliberations on the establishment of a low income tenant tax rebate program modelled upon the successful seniors' tax rebate program (using income criteria based on Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut-offs for families of varying sizes, and that also ensures social assistance recipients will be eligible to receive the rebate; and c) that the proposed low income tenant tax rebate program remain in place until such time as the multi-residential tax rate has fallen to a ratio with residential of 1.1:1.

This is an issue that we've talked about before in general terms, given the high rate of the multi residential tax rate of the city of Hamilton. We have contributed to making this the best place to raise a child through our poverty initiative. We feel that there is some worthwhile endeavour to look at the rate. We do that every budget year. Let's do it again. And more specifically, let's look at the possibility of a low income parent tax rebate program, because the seniors' program has been very successful.

And I've had an opportunity to chat with Joe Rinaldo on this and he certainly has a sense of where we're going and some ideas on how to put together the details for council on this during the process. So I think it's another initiative we can look at. It would be a very creative ‘made in Hamilton' solution as many of them are that we develop here with the various things that we do that are a little bit different from the rest of the province. So let's take the lead on this one for low income tenants. Thanks.

Tom Jackson : If Joe Rinaldo has an idea of where this is going I sure would like him to share it with me after council meeting tonight. This is a noble cause. Let's be absolutely clear, this is simply a review, that the department is going to do some research, some consultation, and a full report back on all implications, because I've got some widows, some widowers and I've got some working families who have a very, very, very modest little bungalow and they're hanging on. They are not going to be included in this category because it's for multi residential units and buildings. And so we need to know the full implications of this, so I'm looking to make sure of that to the mover of the motion and Mr. Rinaldo. This is not a fait accompli and you're coming back and saying here folks, here's how you can do it and it's going to happen. I want to make sure that this is going to have a full airing and debate in the new year. Thank you.

Mayor DiIanni: Well, I think it will. Mr. Rinaldo doesn't need to answer that. Obviously it will. It's simply looking at it. And it is noble and we need to look at it. How doable it'll be will depend on the other factors, ‘cause if you lower here, you have to raise there. But it needs to be looked at because there are some people who are suffering, especially at that end.

Phil Bruckler: You're right and we've, at budget time, we've had numerous discussions around the multi res and the impacts of a lot of people of the multi res. This is certainly an admirable motion put forward but I could not support section ‘c' because I think it presupposes the outcome of that review. Certainly ‘a' and ‘b' are I think in keeping with the intent of the motion but I could not support ‘c'.

DiIanni: Okay … Councillor McHattie, what do you want to do about ‘c'?

McHattie: I don't think this is all that critical. I think what I did in the ? I changed the motion which I don't think – made it into this, which that the proposed program “'may' remain in place until such time”, so that would –

DiIanni: (suggesting the change) Should the proposal be enacted that it remain in place until such time and so on (see motion, part ‘c'). McHattie: Yah – put ‘may' an operative – DiIanni: Okay? Allright Councillor, that make you feel better. Bruckler repeats his concerns re presupposing the outcome. DiIanni: All in favour then? (hear Carried) DiIanni: as amended. Thank you.

End of item 7.4