Oops! All Trustees!

Meme edited by author

This week in The Incline:

• The other, other candidates for local office

• The factsheet

• The methodology

  • The Basics

  • The Specifics

  • The Campaign Details

• The analysis

  • The HWDSB Races

  • The HWCDSB Races

  • The French-language acclamations

The other, other candidates for local office

This weekend, the first Advance Polls open in the 2026 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election.

That won’t be the first opportunity some have had to vote; many Hamiltonians have already been afforded a chance to cast ballots and the community polls held in large apartment buildings across the city last weekend or at the special “ballot on demand” poll that’s open at Lime Ridge Mall.

Credit where it’s due, the City of Hamilton has dramatically expanded the opportunities folks have to cast ballots in this election. While the number of election day polling stations has been reduced, there are more weekends of advance voting than ever before, more “ballot-on-demand” opportunities than most are used to, and some notable changes that should make the actual voting process much simpler for many people.

The new “vote anywhere” model of organizing polling stations is the most interesting of the changes, as it (kinda) uncouples voters from geography. Instead of being funneled into a very specific poll on election day, you can now cast a ballot at any polling station in your ward.

Live in Stinson but find yourself at Bernie Morelli Rec Centre taking in a swim? You can vote right there. Just dry off first.

Strathcona resident but you’re at the Rifle Range Fortinos grabbing something for dinner? Go ahead and vote at St. Mary’s.

Hang your hat out in Jerseyville but you’re in the Meadowlands, battling the crowds in the Costco parking lot? Take a deep breath, meditate for a second, and then head on over to Ancaster Meadow Elementary to do your civic duty. And then maybe try the Brantford Costco; I’ve heard it’s a little less chaotic.

You get my point.

While the city’s mayoral and council candidates have been campaigning hard for your votes (in some cases, for years already), voters still have a lot of unanswered questions about the other, other folks for whom they are expected to cast ballots in the days up to and including October 26.

Across Hamilton, there are 22 trustee seats across four publicly-funded school boards that are elected at the same time as councillors and the mayor. That’s 11 English Public trustees, 9 English Catholic trustees, and one trustee each for the French Public and French Catholic school boards.

The two largest boards - the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) and the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (HWCDSB) - were created in 1997 when the government of Mike Harris amalgamated smaller boards across the province in the name of efficiency. In Hamilton, that meant merging the urban and suburban boards into one board and subsequently slashing the number of trustees. Public electors in Hamilton and the surrounding area went from electing 28 trustees to just 11. Catholics went from 21 to just 9. Those new numbers are ones that cannot legally increase without the province’s approval. So, even though the city’s population has increased by over 100,000 since then, we can’t add any more trustees to serve a growing population.

The French-language boards that serve Hamilton were created at the same time, but originally as “French Language Public Board No. 58” and “French Language Separate Board No. 64”. Prior to that, French language education was a responsibility of the other boards, but was spun off and, at the same time, downsized, to create just 12 French boards across Ontario. Now, Hamilton has one dedicated French Catholic trustee for the “Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir” (aka the “My Future Catholic School Board”) and a French Public trustee shared with Halton and Brant for the “Conseil scolaire Viamonde” (aka the “Worldwide School Board”).

In the time since 1997, Hamilton has been served by 47 different English Public trustees and 26 English Catholic trustees (fun fact on the latter: there has been at least 1 “Agostino” or “Valvasori” on the Catholic board since it was created - during the 2010-2014 term, there were 2 of each!).

Every election, there are a handful of acclamations, a few interesting races, and a whole lot of meh from the electorate.

While trustees do not have the power to set curricula or meaningfully impact what is taught, they do manage the day-to-day of public education, oversee the school buildings themselves, and set budgets that impact everyone.

Whether you pay property tax or rent, some of that money is going into our public schools. You pay into the system, which is why you get a say in its governance, even if you don’t have any children attending school.

The HWDSB has an operating budget of $740.9 million for the coming year, with another $127.6 million in capital spending for three new schools, additions on two, five much-needed accessibility projects, and general board-wide school renewal. The HWCDSB’s operating budget is at $437.8 million with another $67.1 million dedicated to their own capital projects. All together, that’s $1.37 billion in education money managed by a handful of people most Hamiltonians couldn’t pick out of a very small crowd.

So, given that you, humble Hamiltonian elector, will be asked to select your local trustee when you cast your municipal ballot this month, it’s probably worth getting to know the people offering themselves up as candidates.

The #HamOnt 2026 School Trustee Candidates factsheet

In 2022, I created a Google Sheets list of all the people running for school trustee seats across Hamilton to help people find a little bit more information on the candidates before they voted.

I really felt like it helped people compare and contrast the candidates running in their wards. Many people reached out to say they appreciated having a list of people to compare and some candidates sent notes of appreciation for my efforts to try and shed light on races that weren’t getting any substantive coverage in local media.

But, as with everything I do, it came along with a certain amount of controversy. Some trustee candidates reached out to say I had unfairly excluded them. Some became upset that I highlighted aspects of their online presence or political views that they did not want discussed. It was a mixed bag on the “trustee response” side.

While I didn’t think I would have the time or energy to do it again, I found myself getting questions from people all over about their trustee candidates in the lead-up to this election. I couldn’t let an opportunity for more civic engagement go to waste, so I spent a couple of days putting together another sheet.

Here, for your general information, is the #HamOnt 2026 School Trustee Candidates factsheet:

The methodology

The purpose behind the factsheet is to provide some basic information to familiarize voters with the candidates in their wards. The information isn’t intended to be exhaustive, but give people some idea as to whomever is running so they can take a look at the available campaign materials on their own or know what’s what before engaging with the candidates whenever they have an opportunity.

Let’s go through what’s on the sheet:

The Basics

The basic information is…well…pretty basic.

School board, ward, name, and email are all drawn from the City of Hamilton’s candidate list. And a candidate’s main campaign website/page comes from a basic internet search.

I’ve labelled each candidate based on whether they’re an incumbent (currently holding that seat), a challenger (trying to win that seat from the incumbent), or if they’re running in an “open race”, meaning the incumbent trustee decided to not run for any reason.

I have labelled two candidates as “changing” their seats. The HWCDSB’s Tyler Iorio, who was appointed to fill long-time trustee Pat Daly Jr.’s Ward 7 seat when he resigned last year has moved over to Wards 9 & 11. He’s been acclaimed to that seat, so that means he wins by default. The same goes for Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir trustee Nathalie Dufour Seguin, who is currently serving as one of the City of Toronto’s trustees, but has moved to Hamilton and been acclaimed.

On that point, there’s an interesting thing happening with the HWCDSB race in Ward 6 that deserves an explanation. Incumbent Ellen Agostino is running against two candidates: Anthony Mari, who also ran in 2022, and Joanne Belanger.

Belanger has 7 years of trustee experience with the Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board, including serving as the Quinte West trustee for that board up until very recently. That’s because, a short while ago, Belanger moved to Hamilton. Upon moving, she was legally required to vacate her seat (you can’t be a trustee for a board into which you do not pay taxes), so she is no longer in office. Therefore, Belanger isn’t “changing” her seat, since she’s no longer an elected official.

Belanger’s situation is different than Dufour Seguin’s. The latter hasn’t moved outside the boundaries of the MonAvenir board, meaning she still pays taxes to that particular system. Because of this, she didn’t need to resign, so she’s simply moving seats.

Complicated!

The Specifics

The “Length in office” category was calculated by me based on any available information regarding how long someone has been an elected trustee. I don’t count student trustee terms (as those are appointed by the board) or any other elected offices held (though no trustee candidate running has held any other office above positions in a student union).

So far the longest serving public trustee is Ward 6 & 9’s Kathy Archer at 15 years. Ward 10’s Mary Nardini is the longest serving Catholic trustee at 23 years. Dufour Seguin has served around 16 years, bouncing d'une région à l'autre.

The political experience column is drawn from readily-available news stories, social media posts, historical records, and the Elections Canada donor database.

In this category, I’ve included the past elections in which a candidate has run, the other political activities in which they’ve engaged, any major positions held (again, mostly student union spots). There’s only one candidate - Wards 5 & 10 HWDSB candidate Logan Shields - whose experience column is iffy, as I can’t confirm the information I have about their political activities (namely whether they’re the contact for the Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Ontario Green Party riding association).

Of the 27 people running for HWDSB spots, 18 have some political experience, be it serving as a student trustee, donating to federal parties, actively campaigning for candidates at other levels, or running for any other elected office at any time. Same goes for 15 of the 19 HWCDSB candidates.

A candidate’s profession is based on what they’ve indicated they do, what the media has said they do, or what’s present in their LinkedIn profiles. Finding professions for candidates can be a challenge, especially at the school board level, as people usually highlight their family status or school experience, as opposed to what they do for their day job. I think it is important to highlight the profession of candidates, as trustees aren’t paid enough to quit said day jobs and usually have to hold down both their regular gigs and the role of trustee.

The Campaign Details

Then there’s the ghost category. This one might be a little controversial, but hear me out.

If someone registers to run for public office, they’re tacitly agreeing to put at least some of themselves into the public spotlight. It isn’t unreasonable for voters to ask “what do you do?”, “what are your qualifications?”, and “why do you want this job?” when considering a candidate for office.

If a candidate registers and then does almost nothing to tell people about what their platform is, what their motivations are, and why they might want to be on a board that manages millions of dollars of public money, some red flags shoot up. It shouldn’t be a struggle for a voter to open a search engine, type in the name of a candidate, and find at least some information on that candidate. A school board candidate can’t be expected to make direct contact with each voter in their ward (which can sometimes span massive areas), so having even a modest online presence is key to being a viable candidate. Like, a basic webpage or, at the very least, a social media presence, is the absolute bare minimum for being considered a contender.

If it was a genuine struggle to find anything about a candidate, I labeled them a “ghost”. Incumbents or people who have previously served in elected office are not given “ghost” tags, nor are those who have at least some presence online.

Right now, there are 5 Public and 4 Catholic ghost candidates. I am happy to change those designations as more information comes to light.

The platform points column showcases a candidate’s main priorities and the values on which they are running. In many cases, I’ve abridged platforms for space without changing the spirit of the point itself. If there is no apparent platform available online, I simply put “no available platform at this time” in the column.

For HWDSB candidates, 9 have no discernable platform, including two of the incumbents seeking re-election. A full 11 HWCDSB trustee candidates do not have a platform, including three incumbents.

Again, happy to fill in information as it comes to light.

Since it’s become a big thing, I’ve added a category highlighting if a candidate used generative AI in their campaign materials. There’s very little certainty when it comes to determining if someone used AI, so I went off the typical hallmarks of AI imagery and if language on a website or in promotional material had apparent slop markers.

I have three labels for that column: likely, unlikely, and indeterminate.

“Likely” is if it really looks like AI was used or it’s fairly obvious AI wrote pieces of a website or promotional material. Some candidates openly used AI-generated posters and graphics. Others, like Ward 2 HWDSB candidate Anthony Chepil, had websites that just screamed AI (Chepil’s site is peppered throughout with American spelling, platform points that draw from American school board issues, and refers to wards as “districts”). “Unlikely” is if I really couldn’t see any AI influence. “Indeterminate” is if some things looked like AI, but it was impossible to tell if the material was AI-designed or styled to look that way.

And the final category is “notes/facts”. These are piece of information about the candidate or campaign that might help voters make a decision, might add context to their candidacy, or might give some more insight into anything that wasn’t made clear in the other columns.

This is where I put tidbits, factoids, and other miscellaneous information that might be of interest to voters. This is stuff like any endorsements they might have given during this round of elections, any newsworthy items about them, or anything else that helps voters develop a more robust picture of the candidates in the race.

There’s a blank category for “endorsements”, meaning those who have endorsed trustee candidates explicitly. I haven’t yet seen any endorsements from the Labour Council, any of the teachers’ unions, or any of the other various groups around town that sometimes back trustee candidates. Groups that made a huge stink during the last election aren’t on the scene anymore (The New Blue Party-affiliated “StopWoke.ca” is the notable example - their website is even down at this point. After they couldn’t even muster 50,000 votes in the last provincial election, I think their already-meagre influence has entirely faded).

Another group that’s been weirdly silent are the ultra-right wing Christian nationalists over at the Campaign Life Coalition. While the group is usually militant about highlighting the anti-choice candidates running for trustee (and the morally unsupportable for reasons of deviant homosexuality like yours truly back in 2014), they haven’t bothered to put together a candidate sheet for this election.

But, once again, as things pop up, I’ll fill in the sheet to make sure everyone has as much information as possible before casting a ballot.

The analysis

When I was putting together the trustee factsheet, I tried to present things as plainly as possible. Yeah, I have my politics, but I did what I could to present the platforms of and information about each of the candidates in a balanced way.

But I know folks come here for both facts AND opinion. And we all know how bad I am at keeping my opinions to myself.

The HWDSB Races

These are the races in which I have the most invested, as I am, myself, a public school elector and (I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this) past candidate for the HWDSB.

I’ll start off by saying I’m glad that Ward 4 trustee Abby Zaitley and new Ward 13 trustee Chris Slye have already won their races. Acclamations aren’t the best for democracy, but I think both candidates will be a positive addition to the public board. Zaitley won a decisive victory in the 2025 by-election, becoming the first non-Ray Mulholland trustee for the area in decades, and has proven to be a smart and attentive representative in the east end. And Slye has solid progressive cred, giving the Valley Town a good, forward-thinking, responsible voice on the board after Paul Tut decided to not run for another term.

Elsewhere across the city, there are some very impressive non-incumbent candidates. These comments are not intended to be endorsements, but simple observations about the campaigns thus-far and the people who I would strongly consider were I able to vote in these wards:

• Cameron Prosic (Ward 1) was extremely impressive during the 2022 campaign. Prosic’s performance at the Ward 1 neighbourhood association debate which I helped organize was great. It’s clear from the campaign this time that Prosic’s got a great grasp of the issues and the dedication to offer himself up as a candidate again.

• Megan Shanahan (Ward 3) has been running a positive, grassroots campaign on a very achievable and realistic platform. Shanahan has been using Instagram to connect with voters, is focused on systemic-level issues, and has a keen eye for mental health issues that are important in today’s schools.

• Kory Preston (Ward 3) is also a strong contender with ample government experience and a very professional campaign. Another good grasp of the issues and a willingness to talk about how technology can be used to keep people in the loop about school board issues.

• Seth Floyd (Ward 7) is a dedicated community activist with a passion for engagement and the responsible use of technology. A very interesting campaign that centres connection to the natural world and providing students with more opportunities to get outdoors.

• Marlon Picken (Ward 7) has been a friend for a long while. Another dedicated community activist, he always throws himself into progressive causes and is a very hard campaign worker.

• Duante Hillen (Wards 8 & 14) is a very impressive young leader in the community. Hillen has taken on big challenges and is always ready to stand up for people who need it the most. His student trustee days have proven he’s already got what it takes to serve in public office. No matter what happens in this election, Hillen is on the path to being a dynamic and reliable leader in our community.

• Ben O’Reilly (Wards 8 & 14) isn’t just a friend of The Incline; he’s got one of the most detailed and focused platforms out there. He’s got a deep, personal connection to public education on the west mountain and his impressive campaign in 2022 has laid the groundwork for an equally impressive campaign this time around. Innovative ideas, workable solutions, and the kind of attentiveness that is needed at the board table. The electors of Wards 8 & 14 would be well served with O’Reilly as their trustee.

As we got closer to the end of the nomination period, there was some concern that right-wing culture warriors would brigade the election and run candidates across the city. That ended up not happening for entirely unknown reasons.

There are a few notable right-of-centre candidates running, though almost none have dipped into culture war territory.

The right-wing activist Blake Hambly is running in Ward 1. Much was made of his involvement with McMaster’s campus “Turning Point” group and his working on the senate campaign of pro-Trump Arizona Republican Kelli Ward when he faced off against Alex Johnstone for the Wards 11 & 12 trustee position back in 2018. While he’s been open online about his support for Rob Cooper’s mayoral candidacy this time around, his school board platform is fairly straightforward, if not a little sparse.

Local author and publisher Bill King is running in Ward 7. His platform includes points about “focusing on core competencies”, merit-based promotions, prioritizing the family, and bringing Hamilton Police Service officers back into schools. King, an extremely prolific Facebook user, generated a little controversy when he reposted a picture of Ward 2 councillor Cameron Kroetsch and Ward 2 trustee Sabreina Dahab standing with a canvassing crew in Durand Park, captioning it “I’m finally convinced that Hamilton parks are unsafe. 😔”. To King’s credit, he removed the post when challenged by community leaders like Graham Crawford, but still. Considering King endorsed and was campaigning for another Ward 2 candidate before registering to run himself, that’s not a great look. Nor does King’s post inspire confidence, considering the number of Code of Conduct issues elected officials across Hamilton have been stepping into as of late.

The most overt of the culture warriors running, though, is Bryan Johnson in Wards 8 & 14. His campaign Facebook page’s profile photo is Johnson shaking hands with Pierre Poilievre, which is one of the most tame aspects of his candidacy.

Johnson has posted that “School is for Sports, Sciences, language and arts…not social engineering”, is campaigning on using progressive discipline, removing “biased” and “age-inappropriate” books from schools, bringing the HPS back into classrooms, and has lamented trustees being too “woke”. One of his campaign posts rages about how “Christian teachers are being persecuted” for taking down Pride flags in classrooms. Considering hate crimes and incidents against queer Hamiltonians continue to be an issue, it is upsetting to see a candidate for trustee try to use our community to score political points.

The HWCDSB Races

There are very few actual races on the Catholic side. Of the board’s 9 trustees, four have already been acclaimed, meaning voters in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 15 have already got their 2026-2030 trustees.

Returning to the board after 12 years away is Ralph Agostino, who served on the board from 1994 to 2014 until he ran in that year’s Ward 3 councillor election, coming in a distant second behind eventual winner, Matthew Green. Since then, Agostino has run for HWCDSB trustee twice and was a candidate in the Ward 8 by-election, where he earned just 36 votes and placed 15th. But now he’s back, acclaimed to a term as the Wards 3 & 4 HWCDSB trustee after incumbent trustee Josie Angelini opted to not run for a second term.

The remaining Catholic trustee races will be interesting to watch. The aforementioned Ward 6 race will be fascinating, as will the race to fill the Ward 7 seat after decades of dominance by Pat Daly Jr., who is now serving as Executive Director of the Ontario Catholic School Trustees Association.

The race in Ward 8 & 14 will similarly be interesting to watch. My high school principal, John Valvasori, was one of a crew of “reform” trustee candidates who swept the board in 2010. After Daly’s retirement, Valvasori became the board chair. But now, Jessica Bonilla-Damptey, the spouse of Ward 14 council candidate Kojo Damptey, is running, giving Valvasori his first high-profile challenger in a very long time.

In Ward 10, Andrea Di Nicola is again running against long-time trustee Mary Nardini. It was a close race last time in a ward with a significant Catholic population and a very competitive council race, so voter turnout might be up there, meaning it could be anybody’s race.

Wards 12 & 13 is a little more chaotic. Two-term incumbent Phil Homerski is up against three relatively unknown challengers, including Mac student Christopher Xenos, who has earned a reputation in the McMaster Student Union as something of a rebel. Xenos did the unthinkable as a first-year student, and ran for the presidency of the MSU (a decided faux pas back in my day), only to place last with 192 votes. The other challengers have no online presence, but they could be connected to their school/parish communities and may be focusing their campaigning there.

The French-language acclamations

Both French-language trustees have been acclaimed and both will be new to their roles in the Hamilton-area. As I’ve noted before, the French boards in Hamilton are expanding somewhat, with at least one new school being planned in Ainslie Wood. Both trustees will have to manage this growing enrollment and work collaboratively with their English-language counterparts to ensure students across Hamilton are well-served.

Even though they’ve been acclaimed, they won’t have time to…well…you know…niaiser avec la puck.

It is incredibly important to not skip over the trustee section of your ballot. You pay into the system and you deserve a say as to how it is managed.

Many candidates for trustee run because they want to help their local school community. Many run because they want to generate a larger public profile for a campaign at a different level later on. And many run because they have a particular grievance and want a platform from which they can complain.

In this election, the voters of Hamilton are being offered a very diverse slate of candidates with differing levels of experience, different areas of focus, and lots of different ideas on how to guide each of our boards over the next four years.

You’re being given a chance to have a say and help pick the direction of some of our most important public institutions.

Don’t give up that say. Your vote matters.

Learn about your candidates, ask questions, talk to friends, and get out and vote.

Happy voting, Hamilton!

The Sledgehammer

Photo by Ian Talmacs on Unsplash - Edited by author

This week in The Incline:

• The action in '62

• The Vanderburghs

• Making a populist

• The dark horse

• Mr. Vanderburgh's spotlight

• With a whimper

Thursday, November 22, 1962.

The clouds hung low over Hamilton. The end of fall had been brisk, but not overly cold, though the lack of sunlight had kept temperatures in the single digits for the past few days. Despite the chill, there was excitement in the air.

Hamiltonians had been watching as their beloved Tiger Cats clawed their way through opposing teams during that year’s CFL season. That coming Saturday, they would face off against the Alouettes to determine which team would make it to the 50th Grey Cup and play the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

It wasn’t all football fever, though. The city was still fixated on the story of the baby who had been found abandoned in a laundromat on King Street East. The Morality Division of the Hamilton Police had no leads in their search for the mother of little baby “Mary Jones”, so named by the nurses at St. Joes where she was being cared for until one or more parents could be located.

And, on top of it all, that year’s municipal election was actually generating interest. The iron grip of Lloyd Jackson - then Hamilton’s longest-serving mayor with 13 years in the chair - had begun to weaken. His grand visions of urban renewal had seen the city levelled by battalions of cranes and bulldozers and wrecking balls. Economic growth had stalled. And city council bickered endlessly over the specifics of Jackson’s plans for new highways, civic auditoriums, and wide-eyed plans for the wholesale demolition of communities in the North End and along Park Street for even more urban renewal. Indeed, when asked by the Spec about his chief priorities for a 10th term, Jackson responded: “Urban renewal is possibly one of the most important and distinctive things we’ve got to do.”

Smelling weakness, two ambitious young members of the Board of Control had announced their intentions to seek the office of mayor months earlier. Controller Jack MacDonald, who ran against Jackson in 1956, was the pick of the city’s Progressive Conservative establishment. But the one-to-watch was the daring 43-year-old Vic Copps, who had made a name for himself during his time on city council by taking stances on everything from Canada-wide unemployment to who he thought should own the Ti-Cats. Copps had managed to win over the city’s Liberal Party elites, who had soured on Jackson’s reign thanks to the sitting mayor’s obstinate attitude toward the changing times.

The expectation was that, on the morning of November 22, 1962, the three men would walk into the then-still new City Hall at 71 Main West and file their papers, providing Hamiltonians with a dignified, spirited, and lively contest.

But then, minutes before the 11:00 AM deadline for registrations, another man burst into the building, threw down his nomination papers, and, as the Spec noted, “hurried from City Hall before he could be interviewed.”

The man who had blazed in as the “dark horse” candidate was well-known for his family name and his colourful personality.

He was many things. Brash. Loud. Flamboyant. Controversial. Complicated. He would have fit into today’s politics with ease.

In many ways, Bill Vanderburgh was the model of the right-wing populists we see today.

I suppose one could say he was just ahead of his time.¹

Old stock and bad drivers

William Andrew Vanderburgh Jr. was born in Hamilton in 1925 to a family long-established in southern Ontario.

His grandfather, Clarke Vanderburgh, settled on what is today’s Highway 3 in Cayuga all the way back in the late 1800’s. A descendent of United Empire Loyalists who moved to the area in the 1700’s, Clarke was from a proud, industrious line. It’s no wonder, then, that he built a home with his own two hands as a teenager and farmed his plot land for over 75 years. By the time he passed away in 1950, the 93-year-old Clarke had lived a full and vibrant life, leaving behind scores of friends in Haldimand and Hamilton, as well as seven children and 22 grandchildren.

One of those children was Dr. William Andrew Vanderburgh Sr.

Dr. Vanderburgh graduated from Queen’s in 1914 and brought his medical degree to Hamilton after being offered an internship at the General Hospital. The next year, he went into private practice.

Though “private” may not be the most appropriate word to describe Dr. Vanderburgh. It did not take long for the good doctor to make a name for himself, and not always in the best way.

In June of 1920, Dr. Vanderburgh became a promoter for a movie that was causing a stir in town. Called “Enlighten Thy Daughter”, the silent film was a 70 minute morality play, complete with warnings against premarital sex, gambling, drinking, dancing, and abortion. “This production is a real service to humanity,” Dr. Vanderburgh was quoted as saying in promotional materials for the film, which played back-to-back for 10 hours a day, seven days a week at the Temple Theatre at the corner of King East and Catharine South.

A few months later, Dr. Vanderburgh made local headlines for a very different reason. Hauled before a judge on charges of falsifying his income tax statements, Dr. Vanderburgh was fined $1,500 (the equivalent of $22,000 today) for three years worth of back taxes. But, the second he was done in court, the city’s tax assessor showed up to physically escort him to his office to explain discrepancies in his municipal assessment as well.

The next week, Dr. Vanderburgh was called to the aid of a young man who had been run over by a truck at Cannon and Ferguson. Just three days later, he was back in court, this time to pay a $10 fine ($145 today) for dangerous driving.

It is unclear if these experiences led to a deep-seated anger at the government or if they were just the first public displays of an opposition to authority, but for the next 36 years of his life, Dr. Vanderburgh would go toe-to-toe with local officials on every possible matter.²

In mid-February, 1924, Hamilton Police were called to a run-down apartment at the corner of John South and Jackson East (the site of a local Tim Horton’s, the parking lot of which is the source of some local humour).

There, they found the body of a newborn. Needing confirmation as to what happened, they searched for a nearby doctor who could take time out of their afternoon to assist. Naturally, they found Dr. Vanderburgh. He, in turn, quickly determined that the child had been stillborn.

The shocking story gripped the city for a month but, in the end, it all came down to shame, grief, and misunderstanding.

The Hamilton Police had, within hours, settled on Eric Lawrason, the apartment’s tenant and a local tax assessor, as their main suspect. Unable to hold him without firm evidence, they charged Lawrason with “vagrancy”. He was eventually charged with “attempting to conceal the birth of a child” and held on $2,000 bail (around $38,000 today).

Dr. Vanderburgh, for his part, nearly derailed the entire case. The initial jury convened by the city’s coroner to decide the appropriate charges for Lawrason determined that he had failed to call a doctor promptly and likely tried to conceal the birth of the child. But they also saved space in their verdict to call out Dr. Vanderburgh, whom they said acted in an “improper and reprehensible” way by declaring the child had been stillborn and calling the undertaker without notifying the coroner. Dr. Vanderburgh apparently rose and “expressed disapproval of the jury’s reference to him,” before storming out of the courtroom.

With the charges set, Lawrason was brought before a county judge for his criminal trial. When put on the stand, Dr. Vanderburgh began making wild statements, claiming the Lawrason said the child was smothered and that he would have “burned the body” if he didn’t think it would get him in trouble. When asked why he didn’t note these things to officers on the scene or at the coroner’s inquiry, Dr. Vanderburgh had no answer. He then claimed he filled out the original death certificate “as a memo” instead of one to be formally filed, and then admitted to not having done a detailed enough investigation to determine if the child was, indeed, stillborn.

In the end, Dr. Vanderburgh’s statements didn’t matter. The defence counsel called a surprise witness: the mother of the stillborn infant. She testified that she had gone to Lawrason, a long-time friend, for help. Out of kindness, Lawrason had sheltered the mother while they figured out what to do. Lawrason was acquitted and the whole sad story was put to rest.

Except, of course, for Dr. Vanderburgh’s part in it. Angered at the attacks on his character, Dr. Vanderburgh appealed directly to Ontario’s Attorney General, William Folger Nickle, claiming that the jury was biased, the Crown’s case was damaging, and that he deserved to “commended [rather] than censured for his part in the case.” It is unclear if Nickle heard Dr. Vanderburgh’s appeal, but, given that he was not on trial and that he never filed a defamation suit of any kind, it’s unlikely Dr. Vanderburgh’s outburst was anything more than an attempt at image recovery.³

Despite the negative press, Dr. Vanderburgh’s practice was booming. In the years after the trial, he evidently sought to diversify his holdings and began to collect real estate in Hamilton.

His holdings were immense. A frontage near Kenilworth. A home in Woodlawn. A property at Dundurn and Aberdeen. Homes on King Street East. Dr. Vanderburgh was investing widely and indiscriminately. His investments were so prolific that the Spec felt the need to provide colour commentary when describing one of his purchases, writing in the “Real Estate” section: “Dr. W. A Vanderburgh, whose name often appears in this column…”

The following year, his family grew as well when Dr. Vanderburgh and his wife, Gladys, welcomed William Jr. into the world.

Even though his family and land holdings were growing, Dr. Vanderburgh remained as controversial as ever. Over the next few years, Dr. Vanderburgh would be in court nearly as much as he would be in his practice. Lawsuits over unpaid rent, lawsuits over bad stock deals, failure to pay income taxes, and so, so, so many legal issues over Dr. Vanderburgh’s conduct behind the wheel.

In 1940, Dr. Vanderburgh blamed the Premier of Ontario after he was pulled over by police who could not see his licence plate, claiming it was the Premier’s fault plates were hard to read in the dark. In 1942, he was sued by a local man after a costly accident at the intersection of Main and Erie. Another accident in 1947 resulted in injuries to a couple from Dundas who he struck while backing out of his own driveway.

By the end of the 40’s, the whole family was getting in on the dangerous driving trend; when his eldest son, James, was brought into court for a charge of “careless driving”, Dr. Vanderburgh served as his unofficial counsel, though the pair were unable to avoid the $25 fine ($350 today). In 1950, William Jr. also joined the “auto menace” club when he struck a 9-year-old boy at Barton and Wentworth while driving a truck. Notably, the 25-year-old didn’t call his father for help but, instead, went to a local legend, Dr. Harry Paikin, for assistance.

Then, in 1956, Dr. Vanderburgh had a sudden accident in his home. The fall caused injuries that the 68-year-old doctor could not overcome.

Even in his will, Dr. Vanderburgh demonstrated antipathy towards the state; the late doctor stipulated that some of the money from his estate go to buy a new ambulance - not for the city’s hospitals, but for the St. John’s Ambulance Society, a private charity.

As his later trajectory would prove, William Jr. also developed a noted distrust of government and a complicated relationship with the legal system. Whether he got these traits from his father is a matter of debate. But, as the eldest Vanderburgh son remaining in Hamilton, the family’s mantle fell to him. And his actions would keep the family name in the papers for years to come.⁴

Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge

After his traffic incident in 1950, William Vanderburgh Jr. stayed out of the news until 1956, when he appeared at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing to oppose Hamilton’s plan to build a new City Hall on Main Street West. Hamiltonians got a first taste of the kind of politics Vanderburgh would pursue when he told the Board there were “many people now wishing to plan our lives without our consent.”

A vague, ill-defined group trying to control the lives of residents. The forcing of an ideal onto a population that did not want it. Central planning of the city.

Vanderburgh’s populism was taking shape.

After his father’s death, Vanderburgh followed in his footsteps. Not by attending medical school, but by buying up properties across the city. And, as quickly as he could purchase new investment properties, so too did he earn a reputation as a less-than attentive landlord.

In 1959, the City’s fire inspector noticed that an apartment building he owned at Main East and Tisdale North didn’t have any fire escapes. The inspector attempted to notify Vanderburgh that he needed to ensure his buildings were up to code, but he began a tactic that would carry on for months: dodge. Vanderburgh would flee from the inspector, hiding, pretending to not see him, and ignoring him at every instance. Having enough of the awkward game of hide-and-serve, the fire inspector bumped the issue up to the courts, and Vanderburgh was issued a fine for failing to provide a proper fire escape.

A local police officer was dispatched to his building to serve Vanderburgh with the notice he was being fined. What followed was a farcical, low-speed chase.

According to the officer’s reports, Vanderburgh “spotted the officer, ran across the street, got into a truck, and drove away”. The officer caught the truck at a stop light and tried to open the door, but Vanderburgh locked the door, waited until the light turned green, and sped off with the officer’s hand still on the door handle.

Vanderburgh then failed to appear in court or respond to the fine, necessitating the judge sentence Vanderburgh in absentia and warning the ducking landlord that, if he didn’t pay the fine and add appropriate safety measures to his building, he would be sentenced to 10 days in jail.

Months rolled by and Vanderburgh had still not made the mandated changes. The police had finally caught up to him, though, so in late October, he was forcibly brought to court where a judge told him that the city would install the fire escape on its own and charge him for the trouble. At this, Vanderburgh flew into a rage, threatening the fire department, claiming endless financial hardship, and, most dramatically, saying he would move to the Soviet Union if the city installed a fire escape on his property. “I can’t live under this misery any longer!” he shouted.

The fire escape was installed. Vanderburgh remained in Canada.

In 1960, Vanderburgh became more politically active. During a spirited citizen’s meeting on the prospect of the City of Hamilton nationalizing the HSR (which had been operated privately to that point), Vanderburgh took the floor to grill city officials on the cost to taxpayers.

For all his concern about costs to taxpayers and his imploring a judge to consider his financial hardship, he seemed to have enough money to invest in art. When the Hamilton Jewish Community Centre opened an exhibition of Israeli art, Vanderburgh announced to the Spec that he would, that night, purchase a piece and gift it to the “people of Hamilton”. Presenting attendees with ballots, Vanderburgh said he wanted the people to pick which piece was purchased and offer suggestions as to where it would be hung. Vanderburgh’s goal was to have it either displayed in City Hall or at the Art Gallery of Hamilton (AGH) so that it could, in his words, become the “nucleus of a permanent collection of Israeli art in Hamilton.”

Vanderburgh paid $400 (around $3,800 today) for a landscape of the city of Safed, near the Golan Heights, and immediately offered it to the mayor.

Mayor Jackson bluntly informed Vanderburgh that the painting was not suitable for City Hall, as the goal was to display local art and scenes in the new civic building. Jackson informed Vanderburgh that, if he wanted to “gift” the painting to the people of Hamilton, he should donate it to the AGH. The subject of the painting was never raised again.

On Tuesday, March 13, 1962, city council met for one of their regular meetings. Among the discussion items was a by-law that would have enabled the TH&B Railway, which still owned the Hunter Street Station, to expand a parking lot near today’s Hamilton GO Centre. In order to do this, council would have needed to close an old street allowance, lease it to the TH&B for $600 a year, and keep the rest of the street open for regular traffic.

It’s unclear how he figured it out, but Vanderburgh realized that would be his chance to shake up local politics.

Under the old rules governing council’s meetings, regular residents were not permitted an opportunity to speak unless it was in relation to a road closure. So when the TH&B parking lot by-law came to the floor with the “road closure” section attached, Vanderburgh pounced. Using his rights under the city’s rules, he rose to speak as though he were a member of city council.

Baffled council members watched as Vanderburgh laid out a grand plan for the city’s transportation future. The age of the railroad was over, he declared, and it was time to embrace the car. It was time the city buy the TH&B tracks stretching from Highway 20 (today’s Centennial Parkway) in the east to the city’s border with Dundas at Main Street West. The tracks would be ripped out and, in their place, a 15.5 kilometre long freeway would be built through the heart of the city. It would plow through Ainslie Wood, Kirkendall, Durand, and Corktown. It would run along the side of the escarpment and Gage Park. It would cut Rosedale off from the rest of the city. It would jump over the Red Hill Valley and slice through the Glendale Golf and Country Club to end in Stoney Creek. It would, by Vanderburgh’s estimation, solve all of Hamilton’s traffic woes forever.

Vanderburgh’s Downtown Freeway Plan from 1962 (overlaid on a map of Hamilton from 1960), involving a new highway in place of the TH&B tracks, which still remain today

When he was finished, council members looked around, confused. They thanked Vanderburgh, who informed council that he “owned property in the area” and, therefore, had an interest in the economic health of downtown. He returned to his seat and, as the Spec reported, “Council did not discuss Mr. Vanderburgh’s proposal.”

It would be the opening salvo in Vanderburgh’s burgeoning political career.⁵

The dark horse

Vanderburgh’s appearance at City Hall on nomination day in 1962 was unexpected. The Spec writers covering the event were perplexed, writing: “Mr. Vanderburgh’s entry came as a complete surprise to city hall observers. The consensus had been that only three would contest the chief executive’s position.”

Though he rushed from the building after filing his papers (as though he were running from a fire inspector), he stopped to talk to the Spec later on nomination day. He laid out his platform and his campaigning philosophy.

He would run on his freeway idea, as well as creating a new industrial district on the mountain and building a stadium “of Olympic standards” with private financing. Oh, and, of course, no tax increases whatsoever.

Vanderburgh informed his interviewer that he had come close to seeking office in 1960 but decided once-and-for-all to run for mayor in 1962 because of the “stagnation” in the office. “I do not feel anybody young enough with deep financial experience has come forward with long-term proposals for cleaning up the problems in this city,” he declared, while noting that, despite his “ethnic” name, he was old stock, through and through.

As if to temper expectations, he was blunt with the Spec: “He does not plan to do much campaigning and added his chances of election ‘are slim’,” they wrote.

He quickly reversed that position and began campaigning in earnest, spending significantly on his run. In full-page advertisements in the Spec, Vanderburgh made his appeal to the “Homeowners of Hamilton”, decrying the city’s debt, the burden on taxpayers, and his desire to improve services while keeping taxes low. “As every homeowner is aware, taxes are to the point where we can no longer tolerate an increase,” he had printed beside a smiling photo of himself. He even created a front group - The Citizens for Vanderburgh Committee - that took responsibility for all his advertising.

Despite his big money campaign, there were still questions about his motivations. During his pre-election sit down with the Spec, Vanderburgh was grilled on who was backing his campaign, what his personal motivations for seeking the office might be, and any possible conflicts of interest he might have going into the role.

He glossed over those issues. Instead, he rattled off some lines that would be commonplace today.

His qualifications? “My financial background gives me a unique experience which I think is needed at city council.”

Mayor Jackson’s re-election effort? “He is too old. And if he is elected Hamilton will stand still for two years.”

Would he run again in the next election if he’s beaten in 1962? “I do not intend to be beaten.”

He promised to end strikes, turn the train station into a “traffic control centre”, privatize urban renewal efforts, expand highways, and bend local boards and agencies to his will by restoring “confidence in the mayor and his leadership”.

Pure, uncut right-wing populism.

And it went over like a lead balloon.

As the results rolled in on the evening of December 5, 1962, it was clear that the taxpayers of Hamilton didn’t need Vanderburgh to save them. They had finally, after so many years, dumped Jackson in favour of the flash and spectacle of Vic Copps, but hadn’t so much as given Vanderburgh a second thought.

When all was said and done, Copps came out ahead with 47.3%, winning every part of the city except Ward 1 (which he lost to Jackson - a Ward 1 resident - by just 42 votes). Vanderburgh placed dead last, scraping together just 3,386 votes for 4.2% of the total vote.

He was sombre when he arrived at City Hall, telling reporters it seemed he was “far from what the people wanted.” As the returns kept rolling in, Vanderburgh slouched onto the steps in the foyer of City Hall, watching reality set in. When it became clear he had not even earned as many votes across Hamilton as Copps had won in each ward, he turned to reporters and offered this assessment: “…I found you have to run a circus to get close to the people. I believe they want pleasantries…they don’t concern themselves with fact and what things will cost.”

As a final insult, as he was finishing his statement to reporters, he was drowned out by “yells and yippies” as Vic Copps made his way into the building, flanked by a veritable sea of supporters. As the reporters turned to the conquering hero, Vanderburgh was left alone, on the steps of City Hall, pondering his next move.⁶  

Vanderburgh on election night, 1962 - From the Hamilton Spectator archives

All the world’s a stage

Sometime after dinner on Friday, October 25, 1963, the phone rang at the DiCicco household. Theresa, the family’s oldest daughter, answered. A man without a trace of an accent asked her to put her father on the line. Nicola, or “Nick” as he preferred, took the receiver from his daughter. The conversation was brief, quiet, and unremarkable. “I’ll meet you at the corner of Chestnut and Cannon,” he told the man on the other end of the line.

Nick hung up and told his wife, Felicetta, that a colleague had fallen ill and was in the General Hospital. He would stop by and check on his work friend before heading to an Italian social club at Barton and Sherman where he played cards every Friday. At 7:00 PM, he pulled on a coat and walked out the door. Theresa watched from the front window as he walked towards Chestnut and Cannon.

Two hours later, Hamilton Police officer Gordon Hockridge was doing the rounds, making one of his usual stops at a popular hookup spot in a parking lot off Mt. Albion Road (today, roughly where the Indigenous garden called “The Bear Meeting Place” is along the Red Hill Trails to the west of the parkway). Hockridge drove into the parking lot and waited for a moment. Satisfied that there was no funny business occurring there, he turned his car back towards the road. Only then did his headlights illuminate something unsettling. He stopped the car. It took him a moment to realize what he was looking at.

There, battered almost beyond recognition, was the body of Nick DiCicco, beaten 22 times with a tire iron.

The investigation turned up nothing. There was no evidence anywhere in the parking lot or the surrounding area. DiCicco still had valuables and a wallet containing $27 on him. His friends at the Italian social club say he never made it for their usual card game. And a check at the General Hospital found no colleague of DiCicco’s was admitted. “Luck,” as the Spec noted in their coverage, “had been with the killer or killers last night.”

The Hamilton Police were only 10 days into their investigation when another call came in.

Two fishermen casting lines from the eastern side of the Desjardins Canal on a sunny Sunday afternoon weren’t getting any bites. They decided to try the western side instead. They climbed the banks of the Burlington Heights, scurried across the train bridge, and slid down to the western side. There, one of the anglers noticed what he thought was a department store mannequin arm floating in the canal. But when he got closer, he noticed the arm had wrinkles. And was connected to a body.

Hamilton Police pulled the body from the canal and began their investigation. A single gunshot wound to the head, no missing effects, wallet and valuables still on the body, including $150 in cash.

That made identification easier. The man was Walter Moson, an unemployed steelworker originally from Poland, who had been dead for 24 hours before he was found.

When the Hamilton Police sought the public’s help in the Moson case, they also reminded residents that the DiCicco case was still open. This had the effect of tying the two mysterious deaths together in the public’s imagination. Making matters even worse, the police let slip that one of the theories they were pursuing in the Moson case was that his body was dumped “gangland-style”.

Hamiltonians panicked. Interpol was called in. The Spec ran a piece with the headline: “Odds Seem To Favour Killer In Hamilton.”

The fact that the two men had absolutely nothing in common did not seem to matter.

DiCicco was a well-liked, outgoing family man who put in his time at work and socialized with members of his community. Reports after the fact referenced his beautiful singing voice and his wide social network.

Moson was called a “recluse” and “mysterious” by the few people who knew him. Unemployed, consistently ill, and increasingly isolated, Moson had no friends, no family, and almost no connections to the community. His landlord barely even noticed he was gone from his apartment at Barton and Lincoln until he was questioned by the police.

A bludgeoning death where the body was found in an east end parking lot and a death from a gunshot wound where the body was found floating in a west end canal. The only connection seemed to be that both victims were men, lived 2 kilometres from one another, and were found within 10 days of each other.

But that was enough for Vanderburgh.

After a $1,000 reward ($10,000 today) was put up for information about the DiCicco murder, Vanderburgh came forward with a stunning announcement. He would put up an additional $8,000 to bring the reward total up to $9,000 (over $93,000 today) for information in both the DiCicco and Moson cases.

“They look like paid killings,” Vanderburgh told the press, “A lot of lips are sealed in connection with the deaths…This could happen to any of us.”

The Crown was quick to reply, noting that no rewards would be offered in the Moson case given that it was still unclear if he died from self-inflicted injuries. Still, Vanderburgh delivered thousands of dollars in bearer bonds to the city treasurer with that understanding that, if the case was not solved in two months, the bonds would be returned to Vanderburgh.

The case of Nick DiCicco has never been solved. Just days after Vanderburgh’s pronouncement, a ballistics report from the province showed that Moson’s death was a suicide.

Vanderburgh got his money back. Which was for the best, considering he would soon be racking up lawyer’s fees of his own.⁷

Three days after Vanderburgh inserted himself into the DiCicco and Moson cases, he was at an apartment building he owned on Hughson Street South. What happened next was nothing short of bizarre.

As a court later heard, Vanderburgh propped a ladder against the side of the building and climbed up to the bathroom window of one of his tenants, an 18-year-old woman. He kicked in the window and slid into the unit while the tenant, who was in the bathroom at the time and wearing only a shirt and underwear, desperately tried to get out. Vanderburgh pushed her against the wall, entered her living area, and began tearing the place apart, raving incoherently about missing keys and back pay. Then, for good measure, he cut off utilities to the unit.

Vanderburgh’s initial charges of “breaking and entering with intent” were downgraded to “common assault and trespassing” before trial. It was at that trial that Vanderburgh informed the court that his tenant was three weeks late on rent and that he needed to climb through her bathroom window because “he had not been able to contact her in any other way.”

The case was as chaotic as the incident. Vanderburgh interrupted, disrupted, and derailed the proceedings with regularity. He raved about the court being used to “blackmail” him. He made wild accusations, saying that, if the tenant was allowed to stay in the unit, he was sure the charges against him would be dropped. At one point, the judge snapped at Vanderburgh, “keep quiet or I’ll send you to Barton Street Jail!”

In the end, Vanderburgh was found guilty of assault but cleared on the charge of trespassing. He was ordered to pay a $25 fine (about $250 today).

After his trial, he kept quiet through the summer of 1964.

He popped up again in October to threaten another run for the mayoralty, claiming that Vic Copps had overseen “gross mismanagement” of the city’s budget and that the $2,000,000 refurbishment of the city’s pumping system at Lakeland Beach had been done as part of a kickback scheme, saying: “That’s a lot of money to spend on a building that is just covering for some machinery. It’s either a political payoff of just stupidity.” Vanderburgh claimed to be “on good terms” with Prime Minister Lester Pearson and Premier John Robarts.

Once again, Vanderburgh appeared at City Hall just moments before the close of nominations on November 19, 1964. Except, this time, he made a big show of nearly submitting papers before turning to reporters and announcing that he wouldn’t run for mayor because “I feel there will be a federal election in the spring and my own aspirations lie there.”

Vic Copps was acclaimed for his second term. And Vanderburgh slipped from the headlines for the next 23 months, not appearing once during the federal election which, contra to his prediction, came in November of 1965.⁸

On September 29, 1966, the city had just finished pouring a new sidewalk on Grant Avenue, one block west of Wentworth (notably, the Vanderburgh family home where William grew up sat at the corner of Main East and Grant Ave). The details are murky, but sometime on that quiet Thursday afternoon, Vanderburgh approached the drying concrete with a sledgehammer and began smashing away, eventually causing $300 in damages. The reason for his attack on public property was simple: he didn’t think the city needed to waste money replacing the sidewalk. The Hamilton Police disagreed and he was once again in court in late October to answer for his crime.

While such negative press would be enough to keep any conventional person out of the public spotlight for a while, Vanderburgh dove in with enthusiasm and registered to run for mayor in that year’s election.

Sharing the ballot with Copps, Board of Control member Brian Morison, and ghost candidate John Kelly (who did not campaign, appear before the media, or many any comments whatsoever for the entire election), Vanderburgh brushed off his old routine and lapped up every moment he had on the public stage.

Some of Vanderburgh’s greatest hits were mixed with some new lines. Sure, he wanted no new taxes and abundant services, but he also accused Copps of running “a bubble gum campaign”, said his main goal was to create a “Metro Hamilton” region, pump water in from Lake Erie to service the mountain, and focus on a freeway up the Escarpment, instead of his original east-west plan. His advertisements claimed that “your debt is estimated to be $115,000,000.00” in 1966 and decried grants given to local schools.

But his largest ad was a jumbled mess of sentiments. He claimed to be the “Conservative” candidate and that he would be “a Scotch” mayor. Quotation marks danced indiscriminately around fonts of varying sizes and styles, all above a mathematical equation that read: “Knowledge + Integrity + Maturity = Honesty”.

Vanderburgh ad from the Spec - December 3, 1966

But the public had grown weary of Vanderburgh’s performance. The Spec’s television reporter, Jack Miller, provided a less than glowing review of his debate performance, noting “Does WIlliam Vanderburgh propose to do anything at all if he gets in as mayor?…candidate Vanderburgh managed to work in lots of complaining about the records of the other two [Copps and Morison], without being challenged on most of his charges or without having to say how he would handle things.”

Election day was humiliating. Vanderburgh placed dead last, earning under half the votes of the ghost candidate John Kelly, taking just 938 ballots or 1.2% of the vote.

The Spec was brutal in their post-election assessment: “William Vanderburgh, who talked a great deal, got only half as many votes as John Kelly, who said absolutely nothing in the campaign…Mr. Vanderburgh’s call for a metro government and concern about mounting debt wasn’t taken seriously by the electorate. He got almost no support and failed to attract even the ‘anti’ votes which normally go to the fringe candidates.”⁹

Curtains

Vanderburgh’s fringe status was beginning to calcify. This fact was aided by his outburst during a public lecture by President of the Privy Council and former Finance Minister Walter Gordon in January of 1967. Vanderburgh attempted to debate Gordon while he was speaking, demanding he provide proof that the Liberal government had passed legislation that led to an “increase in Canadian capital.” Vanderburgh shouted over Gordon whenever he tried to answer, saying he would “go to the United States and get a better paying job” instead of staying in Canada.

Vanderburgh irritated the crowd and frustrated Gordon, who finally joked to the audience: “He’s either a professor or one of your local politicians.” The crowd laughed, partially at Gordon’s quip and partially at Vanderburgh.

Then, in November, Vanderburgh was back in court, this time on charges of not paying an engineering firm for inspections they did on an apartment he was trying to buy in Stoney Creek. After being ordered to pay the money owed, he told the court threateningly that “My people came into this country and set up this court. I hope the time doesn’t come when we have to set up another.”

Four months later, Vanderburgh was rushed to the General Hospital after he collapsed. By the time the ambulance arrived, he was already gone.

William Vanderburgh was dead at age 43.¹⁰

Vanderburgh was a complicated man. His ancestors were humble, but his father appeared to relish in the spotlight and shun authority. These traits appear to have rubbed off on Vanderburgh, who became convinced that he, with his generational wealth, bravado, and investment portfolio, had what it took to “save” Hamilton from itself. He was man with multiple criminal convictions and poor financial dealings who acted in a brash, pompous, and self-assured way while spouting scattered populist talking points. In essence, he was the prototype of the right-wing populists of today.

That begs the question: if Vanderburgh were alive today and spent years flaunting his real estate wealth, seeking out the spotlight, and acting outrageously for attention, how well would he do if he were on the ballot?

He’s not so different from the populists we see today.

He did what he wanted, from ignoring the fire department’s requests that he ensure a minimum standard of safety in his apartment buildings, to entering a tenant’s bathroom through the window without consent, to smashing up a sidewalk to make a point.

He sought publicity and smashed through the community without much consideration for others, buying paintings to decorate city hall, taking over city council meetings to discuss outlandish plans for mega-highways through the core, and inserting himself into unsolved murders to make a point about crime.

He ran for office, campaigning on a blend of fiscal conservatism and populist outrage that missed the mark by about 60 years. And, when voters rejected him, he claimed all people wanted was “a circus”.

Sounds like so many of the right-wing populists of 2026.

Above all else, William Vanderburgh was like the sledgehammer he used to destroy a sidewalk on Grant Avenue in 1966.

He was a blunt instrument that always tried to smash his way through impediments. Impediments to his wealth, to his success, to his aspirations. But, like any sledgehammer, he wasn’t big on building anything new, just tearing down what already was.

And we should all be grateful that he wasn’t put in the hands of someone who could do real damage.

Back On The Radar

Graphic by author

This week in The Incline:

• The field is set

• The issues

  • Doug Ford

  • The infrastructure deficit

  • Economic instability

  • Affordability

  • Housing and homelessness

  • Transit and transportation

  • Environmental concerns

  • Data centres and technology

  • Perceptions of crime

  • Hate and extremism

  • Community building

  • The purpose of the office

The field is set

Back on August 24, with little fanfare, Hamilton’s City Clerk, in conjunction with the City’s Elections Department, officially certified the candidates nominated to stand in Hamilton’s 136th municipal election since our fair home’s incorporation in 1846. Or, if you’re particular about these things, the 8th election since amalgamation.

On or before October 26, 2026, we eligible electors will have the opportunity to pick between 13 mayoral candidates, 76 council candidates, and 48 school trustee candidates. Well…between 2 and 11 council candidates, depending on your ward. And some trustees have already been acclaimed…but you get my point.

Democracy has the potential to happen!

Whether or not Hamiltonians will flock to the polls remains to be seen, but we aren’t off to a great start, engagement-wise. Energy is down across the city, the anger in the city is directionless, and some of the more exciting things that could have galvanized the electorate failed to materialize.

And, if the dismal Hamilton East-Stoney Creek by-election has shown us anything, it’s that Hamiltonians aren’t super enthusiastic about this whole “democracy” thing.

Around 29% of eligible voters bothered to cast a ballot in the September 3 by-election, allowing Doug Ford’s hand-picked man, Jeff Beattie, to sneak into office, even after the parade of scandals that seemed to, for one brief, beautiful, glorious moment, signal the end to the grand provincial nightmare that has been the Era of Ford. Even after polls showed former Hamilton Mountain MPP Monique Taylor was the favourite to win and after Liberal candidate Heino Doessing claimed that the American crypto betting parlour Polymarket favoured him in the race, they couldn’t prevail over the most compelling option in the race: staying home.

Beattie will now head to Queen’s Park to be a reliable vote in favour of Doug Ford’s agenda after being selected by just 11.4% of the eligible electors in the riding of Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

What a deeply, deeply broken system we have.

On the municipal scene, there is no indication that turnout will be much higher than what we saw in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

The drama that could have encouraged people to get out and vote simply hasn’t been there. Despite years of rumours and speculation, some of the big name candidates and recognizable players didn’t step up. Chad Collins’s mayoral ambitions were scuttled thanks to a crowded field and no room to carve out a niche. Other possible mayoral contenders like Ward 14 Councillor Mike Spadafora and the aforementioned Monique Taylor opted to run for other seats (Spadafora for re-election and Taylor in the provincial by-election).

Potential council candidates, like the provocative young Tory operative Hayden Lawrence, did not register to run in Ward 4 as expected. Some of the early candidates, like a Ward 2 candidate infamous for running the now-banned social media account “Intervention Intersection” dropped out after failing to answer basic questions from the media about his “possibly” having approximately 36 criminal convictions for things like “harassment, uttering threats, assault with a weapon and theft of communications.”¹ Said candidate withdrew from the race and returned to social media (on a new account), where he has denied being the same person, accused the Spec reporter on the story of “working for the left”, threatened a lawsuit for the paper’s reporting, and referred to the Spec as the “Hamilton Speculator”, which it should be noted was also the name of the McMaster Silhouette’s parody section.

When I was writing for the Sil (and infrequently contributing to the Speculator), we tried to make current events funny for the aforementioned section. We may have even taken a crack at this sad story, but I doubt even the greatest satirist in the world could spin this pitiful saga into something amusing.

On the city’s beleaguered school boards, there wasn’t a last-minute push by social conservatives to flood trustee races as some had worried might happen. While we don’t have a roving band of PPC/New Blue culture warriors thirsting for battle against the paper dragons that haunt their dreams, there are still some notable candidates on the right. More on those later, maybe.

In fact, Hamilton’s school boards might feature some of this year’s most interesting races. On the public side, 5 of the board’s 11 incumbents are not running again (or, in the case of Dawn Danko, seeking a seat on council - the only trustee to attempt the jump this time around). While there were two acclamations, many of the races - specifically the ones in Wards 1, 3, 7, and 8 & 14 - will be ones to watch given the diversity of candidates in each of those contests. It’ll be very important for the candidates in those races to get out there, introduce themselves to a typically disengaged electorate, and make a case as to why they should represent public electors in each of those wards.

Catholic electors, on the other hand, will only be able to cast ballots for five trustees. The trustees representing Catholic school supporters in the entire lower city, Waterdown, and Stoney Creek mountain have been automatically elected by acclamation.

Hamilton’s Francophones will be entirely left out of the excitement, as both public and Catholic trustees in those boards won without opponents. That said, given the expansion of French-language schools in the area, these trustees will have a big job ahead of them in the next term of office.

But, generally, there weren’t a lot of surprises this nomination period. Former councillors Jason Farr and Terry Whitehead are mounting comeback bids as expected, the conservative block is organized and fielding a host of candidates who will help a potential mayor Rob Cooper implement Doug Ford’s agenda at the local level, and all but three incumbent councillors want their jobs back (one got promoted, one wants to be promoted, and one is doing the sensible thing and escaping with their sanity while they still can). All expected, really.

Even the biggest surprises have been pretty tame. Mayor Horwath’s decision to seek a second term was something she had announced, even if some overeager local newsletter writers thought she wasn’t going to run. The Hamilton East-Stoney Creek provincial by-election taking Ward 10 Councillor Jeff Beattie out of the municipal race flipped that contest a little, but only 11 candidates signed up to replace him - far fewer than the 26 candidates who contested the Ward 8 by-election last year. That number - 11 - is quite common for open seats in Hamilton; last time around, 11 candidates ran in Wards 4 and 5, and Ward 12’s open seat was one shy, coming in at 10 candidates.

Overall, there’s a general meh attitude on the part of the electorate. A distinct and palpable apathy with under two months to go. Things might pick up, but that depends on how each candidate addresses the issues facing our community.

The issues

Back in March (or 15,000 years ago), I started a “series” called “On The Radar” which sought to highlight one issue per edition that I thought would impact the 2026 election.

The first edition was about the imagined “left-wing spectre” in the city about which former politicians and outsized local personalities like Jason Farr and Sam Merulla were issuing warnings. The language they used was reminiscent of the rhetoric used on Fox News and coming from the current American administration that dehumanized, demonized, and delegitimized the political left.

It’s all old stuff. Newt Gingrich synthesized these ideas in his great “saying the quiet part out loud” essay from 1990 called “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control”. It encouraged Republican politicians to use words like “bizarre”, “failure”, “incompetent”, “radical”, “self-serving”, “sick”, and “traitors” to define anyone to their left. You know, the stuff that has basically set the stage for the absolute dumpster fire of politics today.

I saw their social media back-and-forth about the “hard left” coming to take down the city as an issue that needed to be addressed. My intention was to keep going with that series, but then I took a break from newslettering, “rebooted” things with a different focus, etc. etc. etc. I know I’ve used this Rabbie Burns line before but “the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley!” I like to think my firth-bound Fifer ancestors would be pleased by such instances of Scots-signaling.

Anyway, that series didn’t pan out, but now with just a few weeks until we head to the polls, I do think it is important to highlight the 12 issues I see as some of the biggest in our community. There’s some order to them, but each are important in their own right and are connected to one another in sometimes unforeseen ways.

Here, then, are the 12 issues that should be addressed by candidates in the 2026 election and will inevitably be top-of-mind for the next council and the next school boards from 2026 to 2030. They are:

• Doug Ford

• The infrastructure deficit

• Economic instability

• Affordability

• Housing and homelessness

• Transit and transportation

• Environmental concerns

• Data centres and technology

• Perceptions of crime

• Hate and extremism

• Community building

• The purpose of the office

Doug Ford

Since 2018, Ontario’s Premier has been the proverbial elephant in every council chamber across the province. The unwritten contract between municipalities and the province, developed over decades of careful negotiation, was undone in a matter of minutes when, just weeks after his government took office, Ford announced he was going to cut the size of Toronto’s city council and cancel the planned election of regional chairs across the province simply because he could.

Over the past eight years, the province has acted like a cold, vengeful parent, subjecting municipalities to wild experiments, arbitrary decisions, and poorly thought-out legislation, operating as though municipalities are incapacitated family members incapable of making their own decisions. Doug Ford’s government took away the right of municipalities to decide their own electoral systems and denied local voters any chance at real electoral reform, meddled in local urban planning decisions around things as simple as bike lanes (which the Court of Appeal recently said he is well within his rights to do), and fundamentally restructured local government by introducing “strong mayor powers” despite overwhelming opposition from residents and civic leaders.

The provincial government’s transportation objectives exist seemingly in spite of municipalities, pushing through unpopular projects like the Highway 413 even as local councils oppose the unnecessary highway. Their perspectives on governance ignore local autonomy and regional decision making, as Conservation Authorities (important specialized boards that are joint municipal/provincial responsibilities) are arbitrarily amalgamated and local school trustees are sidelined by appointed “supervisors” for vaguely-defined problems like “infighting” and “inefficiency”, without providing any evidence backing up their claims. Though “evidence” has never really been the Premier’s strong suit - a fact made particularly evident last year when he banned municipal speed enforcement cameras despite the mountains of evidence in support of their effectiveness.

Like it or not, every member of council and every school trustee will be sharing their office with Ontario’s micromanaging Premier. The decisions they make may be quickly undone by the province, things they don’t want may be forced on them from above, and the entire structure of their organization can be changed on a whim at any point during their term of office.

Every municipal leader will have to decide how to address this issue. They can take the “full opposition” approach and come out swinging against the province. They can take the “careful manager” approach and seek to mitigate the worst impacts of provincial impositions. Or they can take the “local cheerleader” approach, hoping that, by backing the easily flattered Premier, their jurisdiction may receive favourable treatment.

Or, more realistically, they’ll pick some combination of all of those - the “Olivia Chow approach”, if you will. Toronto’s endlessly savvy mayor has scored major wins by blending equal parts flattery and incredible political maneuvering with a dash of righteous progressive opposition (not unlike how NYC’s Zohran Mamdani is approaching the current American administration). Where other leaders might throw up their hands in defeat, Chow looks for opportunities to make deals and keep her constituents safe.

Councillors and trustees will have to determine how to deal with the province while recognizing that, constitutionally-speaking, they are the…uhh…submissive partner in the relationship. Municipalities and boards exist at the province’s pleasure, meaning there is only so far a local leader can push.

But ask your local candidates how they plan to deal with provincial overreach and a Premier who rarely shows local voters and their institutions the respect they deserve.

The infrastructure deficit

Last year, council heard a presentation from one of the program analysists in the city’s corporate asset management division. During that presentation, it was announced that Hamilton’s infrastructure deficit is somewhere between $3.2 billion and $7.4 billion. That means it will cost somewhere between those numbers (the generally accepted one is $5.2 billion) to repair and replace Hamilton’s existing infrastructure over the next 10 years. We’re talking roads, parks, pipes, housing…all municipal assets. So if every Hamiltonian of all ages could chip in around $9,200, we’d be able to clear that in no time!

More potholes on your street than houses? Thank the infrastructure deficit. Pipes bursting in winter? Infrastructure deficit. Arena falling apart, park repairs taking forever, CityHousing wait list growing longer and longer and longer? In 👏 fra 👏 struc 👏 ture 👏 def 👏 i 👏 cit 👏.

That deficit exists for a few reasons.

It’s thanks, in part, to previous councils not raising the tax revenue needed fix what needed to be fixed. Past councils cared more about their re-election bids than planning for the future, which has put us in this bind. From 2010 to 2022, tax increases did not exceed 3%. Actually, during the 2010-2014 term of office, they didn’t exceed 1.5%. The old tax rate pushed us to this situation, pushing the bill off into the future. Well, surprise surprise, the future has arrived, and it wants its money, thank you very much.

It’s thanks, in part, to the province not ensuring the municipality has the money to perform all the tasks it has been assigned by the province itself. Provincial downloading means that local governments now provide more services than ever before with fewer resources than ever before. The feds aren’t blameless in this either; the federal disinvestment from housing eventually meant that municipalities were doing alone what they used to do with two much larger and more financially-stable partners. *stares off into the distance, oddly intrigued by his own phrasing* Whoops, sorry. Back to the point.

It’s thanks, in part, to decades of a municipal focus on the fast money that came from low-density, suburban-style development that sees municipal taxpayers subsidize developers who walk away with the profit and none of the liability. The housing these developers built is now unattainable for most Hamiltonians, but we’re still picking up the bill for providing services across 360 square kilometres of urban space.

It’s thanks, in part, to the collapse of the global supply chain during the Pandemic and the resulting period of inflation, the global economic uncertainty thanks to erratic American and Russian military policy, and the centralization of responsibilities for providing infrastructure in a few small companies driven by profit rather than civic duty - each of which has helped raise the cost of goods and services to an obscene level.

But, put bluntly, stuff still needs to get fixed. We can’t go back in time and tell previous councils to do better, ensure Mike Harris never gets into office, tell urban planners from the 1960’s that they’ll destroy this city with their car obsession, and tell medical officials in Wuhan to get a handle on the “mysterious pneumonia” they observed in December of 2019.

What we can do is plan better for the future. Hamilton needs to get a handle on sprawl, demand a better deal from both the province and federal government, prioritize infrastructure investments that are lasting, cost-effective, and can generate investment.

Candidates for local office need to have plans to address this. And, if part of their platform includes lowering or freezing taxes, ask how they’ll address the infrastructure deficit. Ask them how it would make sense to, for example, voluntarily take lower pay at work when your roof needs to be fixed, your porch is collapsing, and coyotes have basically taken control of your backyard due to a broken fence.

Economic instability

When the British newspaper The Guardian was reporting on the impact of the renewed trade war on Canada, one of the images they used was a Shutterstock photo of coils of steel waiting in a storage lot at Dofasco. Hamilton may become the posterchild for the impacts of economic instability, given how the city’s employment picture looks.

The single largest employment category in Hamilton is “sales and service”, with just over ¼ of employed Hamiltonians working in that field. The next largest is “trades, transportation, and equipment operation” at 17%, followed by “business and finance” at 16%, and “education, law, and social, community, and government services” at 12%. So much for the right-wing talking point about how the only growth sector in the city is the “poverty industry”.

The unnecessary trade war will impact countless Hamiltonians. Uncertainty means that large manufacturers will see falling profits and, in an effort to shore up their bottom line, may resort to plant closures and layoffs. The rising cost of goods will mean fewer people able to afford them and, thus, less need for folks working in sales and service. If there are fewer people working, it will be harder for people to buy new homes or renovate the ones they own, impacting the other cluster of people who work in the trades. An economic downturn will hit the white collar workers in business and finance, and we may see layoffs there too. Given the return to “classical liberal” economics on the part of increasingly right-wing governments in Canada, there won’t be a state-led effort to shore up the economy through expanding universities, colleges, and other public entities that could stimulate spending and keep people employed. Indeed, it seems more likely that hiring freezes and civil service downsizing will continue as tax-obsessed politicians fixate on short-term spending over long-term economic stability.

Many candidates will proclaim their commitment to “creating jobs”. Ask them how they plan on doing that. Will they focus on attracting large corporations? How far might they be willing to go to keep those corporations happy? What about the rights of workers to organize? Is the emphasis going to be on creating stable, unionized jobs? Will they prioritize local business? How do they see the municipality helping stimulate the economy in the event of a downturn? Will there be an emphasis on keeping property taxes low, or will the municipality invest in the city to keep people employed?

Affordability

When I ran for Wards 1 & 2 school board trustee in 2014, one of the only candidate forums I was asked to participate in was held at the downtown YWCA. It was put on by some of the downtown neighbourhood associations and gave everyone up and down the ballot a chance to speak directly to voters. The trustee statements were first and, despite being a Ward 1 resident, I stuck around to hear the Ward 2 council candidates do their debate.

Sometimes, candidates throw out humourous lines to keep the audience engaged. Self-deprecating humour especially can help break down the barriers between political figures and the public. But the biggest laugh of the night didn’t come from a planned quip. No, the crowd laughed the hardest when candidate John Vail - a recognizable Conservative activist in the lower city - said that high property taxes were driving people into poverty. Given that Ward 2 is majority renter and has a high concentration of people living in actual poverty, the line was laughably tone-deaf and wildly off base.

And, yet, that sentiment persists. Campaigns have already begun talking about the need to reduce property taxes to help with affordability. Now, after the ill-timed release of the city’s budget forecast with its projection of an 8.2 percent tax increase in 2027, that chatter will only grow louder.

Despite this focus, there’s little recognition of the idea that taxes help pay for services that people would otherwise need to pay for by themselves. There’s no discussion about the idea that, if each person as an individual needed to seek these services out from the private market, the costs would be considerably higher and the service decidedly unequal. The political right has absolutely defined the conversation on this, so we’re all expected to just follow their lead, whether it’s good for us or not.

None of that means concerns about affordability are going away. People are struggling to pay rent, make mortgage payments, afford groceries, fill up their cars with gas, make bill payments, etc. etc. etc. If the cost of city services also increases at the same time, people will be receptive to any argument about finding savings.

Many candidates will be running around Hamilton, demanding a “back to basics” approach. That’s, frankly, extremely revealing of their lack of experience. The municipality isn’t struggling to provide the basics like working pipes, paved roads, and maintained parks because they’re dabbling in “wild social experiments” as the political right claims. They’re struggling because of the aforementioned infrastructure deficit.

But regular people are struggling too. So balancing the need to provide services with a careful recognition that people are being squeezed by employers who aren’t paying people enough to survive, large corporations that seek a healthier bottom line for shareholders, and everyone else trying to make a quick buck at the expense of everyone else will be key.

So ask your local candidates how they plan to continue to provide the services we expect while navigating the rising cost of living for everyday people.

Housing and homelessness

Ahh, the eternal problem. The cost of housing has increased beyond what almost every Hamiltonian can reasonably afford and all we’ve gotten in the form of solutions have been a dose of xenophobia in the form of a restriction on the number of international students and a pledge by the provincial government to build as many boxes made of ticky tacky as they can on as much farmland as we have available. It’s a good time. We’re all doing great. Fun fun fun fun fun.

And, on the homelessness front, we’re still in rough shape. Mayoral candidate Rob Cooper has already been taken to task by the Spec for his misleading statement that homelessness has “quadrupled” in four years (it wasn’t a 300% increase as he claimed, but is closer to a 31% increase - yet, he put it out there and, in this age of alternative facts, it’ll become the reality for the legion of Facebook commenters for whom Cooper is, apparently, about to become Hamilton’s Trumpian saviour). But even if Cooper is trying to fearmonger and saddle Horwath with the blame for social disorder that preoccupy many in the city, it doesn’t change the fact that homelessness has increased and there hasn’t been much headway on reducing chronic homelessness.

The city cannot act alone in this respect. Housing and homelessness have been handed to municipalities without the tools necessary to actually address them. It’s all part of the right-wing strategy of undermining public services to justify their privatization in the future.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t options. Again, civic leaders can put pressure on the province and federal government to come to the table. They can leverage public lands and work collaboratively with non-profit housing providers to get housing built. They can encourage the growth and development of housing co-ops, co-housing, and other forms of living that take people more out of the market and give them power over their own homes.

Ask your local candidates how they plan to address this issue, but don’t assume they can fix everything all on their own. Then again, if they’ve proposed a registry of “homeless supporters” or voted against affordable housing projects on parking lots or have made no real suggestions on how to address this issue, maybe ask them about that too…

Transit and transportation

Hamilton has a car problem.

Driving in this city is an absolute nightmare. Cycling is an extreme sport. Simply standing at a bus shelter or crossing at an intersection carries with it an unnecessarily high risk of injury.

A combination of road design, the sheer number of cars, and the driving culture in this city - a blend of anger, aggressive behaviour, and obliviousness - has turned every street into a warzone. Residents actively avoid certain intersections or stretches of road out of fear for their safety, no matter what method of transportation they choose.

Last year, there were 916 non-fatal injuries on Hamilton’s city streets - 2.5 a day. Eleven people were killed in collisions in 2025. On August 22 - one day after the close of nominations - another cyclist was killed in Hamilton, this time on Upper Centennial Parkway

While instances of people being harmed or killed on city streets are dropping, the numbers remain upsettingly high.

All too many candidates are pushing the belief that the only way to deal with congestion is to expand roadways and make it easier for people to drive. That’s not only illogical, but reckless. The only way to make driving better from a municipal perspective is to do everything we can to get more cars off the road.

That means planning in such a way that allows people a chance to use active transportation for simple, everyday tasks. It shouldn’t be necessary to drive the kids to school, drive to a grocery store, drive to a hair appointment, drive to get dog food, drive to a restaurant for dinner, drive to go see friends, drive drive drive drive drive. It shouldn’t just be possible, but preferable, to walk to a corner grocery store, walk a few blocks to a cafe, or walk to a local gym. The key here is better planning; a combination of easing outdated restrictions on development and mandating certain things in communities. Combined with ambitious traffic engineering, a firm commitment to active transportation, and a recognition that the entire city deserves to live within walking distance of amenities, and we can help reduce the traffic hell that we live in today.

But we also need to invest in rapid, reliable, affordable public transit. Yes, transit should be free, but it should first prove that it is worthy of being a truly public amenity. Why would anyone be okay with fully subsidizing a transit system where the busses barely run at all, let alone on time? With any luck, the new HSR Next plan offers some system stability and puts us on track to a more connected future.

And then, of course, we have the zombie in our midst. The great undead mass that skulks in the background, gobbling up buildings and drawing the ire of everyone’s angriest uncle. The signs announcing its arrival taunt us and the scars it has already dragged across the landscape remind us that, even if it never comes, it will still always be with us. This zombie is, of course, the mythical, brain eating, dark magic-summoned Hamilton LRT.

Almost all enthusiasm for the LRT project is gone. Its most staunch defenders are now limited to people for whom concept of “economic development” is titillating. Indeed, the prevailing sentiments around the project in town are either “100% against” or “100% ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.

Years of delays dampened the spirits of those moderately interested in LRT and the council decision in April of 2024 to endorse private operation of the project (instead of having it run by the HSR) turned many remaining “progressive supporters” to “progressive apathetics”.

Case in point: I was once ultra supportive of the project, helping to launch a campaign through the McMaster Student Union trying to get Mac students on board with the LRT. But the constant delays, lack of any meaningful movement, and horror stories emanating from similar projects has me worried. I’m worried that the slow death (and even slower resurrection) of this project has killed any hope of meaningful rapid transit in Hamilton and consigned us to lower-tier city status for a generation. I’m not an opponent of the project by any stretch of the imagination. More just…I don’t know…is there a German word for a combined feeling of shame, sadness, anger, frustration, and disappointment? Schamtraurigkeitwutfrustrationenttäuschung or something?

So council candidates will need to explain how they plan to support safe streets, reliable transit, and better, human-focused planning. They’ll need to explain how they can manage the impacts of LRT construction on a skittish business population and they’ll need to figure out how to keep Hamiltonians moving - through endless construction projects, as the city sprawls, and into the future.

Environmental concerns

This has been a very, very bad year for our local environment. Much of the lower city and east mountain have been dealing with “black soot” events, McMaster’s “What’s The Grime” study found toxic chemicals consistent with coal combustion in entirely different soot collected in the east end, the diesel fumes from CN’s Stuart Street yard have been getting worse and worse, and Hamilton recorded its worst air quality day in over a decade after wildfire smoke settled over the city in July, turning the sky an apocalyptic yellow.

Anecdotally, anyone near the waterfront this summer would have regularly seen thick, black coal smoke rising up from the stacks at Stelco and Dofasco, drifting lazily over the city on still, warm days. The “scrubbers” in place to mitigate some of the worst impacts of that smoke do not seem to be working well, if at all. And an entirely indifferent provincial government means that these giant multinationals (Stelco is owned by a Cleveland-based company, while Dofasco is owned by the Luxembourgish ArcelorMittal) can do what they want, when they want, with impunity.

Environmental concerns often take a back seat to economic ones. And in a moment when economic uncertainty is top-of-mind, many leaders will inevitably fall back on the tried-and-true methods that prioritize profit over planet. But this is a short-sighted approach, and one that conveniently ignores the transformative potential of a green shift while deferring to the large corporations who have little short-term incentive to change their existing practices.

The city’s conservative block has had the Climate Change Initiatives office at City Hall in their crosshairs for years. They’ve screamed about the city buying electric cars and planting things in medians and building paths and bike lanes. They’ll almost certainly come for those things in the next term of office if they can expand their caucus and have a friendly mayor to back them up.

So ask council candidates if they want to invest in clean technology now to help alleviate problems in the future. Ask them if they see green technology and investments to reduce our impact on the climate as worthwhile. And ask what they plan to do if they don’t want to invest in that. Do they see the private market as stepping up? Or do they want other levels of government to take the lead?

And, ultimately, the question they need to answer for is how much are they willing to sacrifice for economic growth? The health of residents of whole sections of the city? The long term viability of our community? How big of a bill are they willing to hand the future?

Data centres and technology

The outcry over council rejecting the proposed interim control by-law (ICBL) on data centres showed that there is a small, but extremely vocal group in the community for whom this is a major concern.

Sidenote: though maybe it should be more of a concern, considering (as noted in the Garbage Day newsletter) one of the researchers behind Anthropic (the company that runs Claude) resigned this week because, in part, “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.” FUN!

Polling from across the country this summer indicates many are worried about the impact of AI on their lives and communities. A Leger poll from July showed that 81 percent of respondents had concerns about the energy use of data centres and 79 percent worried about the environmental impacts of the projects. That said, respondents were split on whether they would support data centres in their provinces; 44 percent were supportive and 42 percent were opposed. An Angus Reid poll drills down a little more, finding that 68 percent of respondents were opposed to AI data centres near their homes. Respondents in Ontario were even more against them, with 71 percent saying they would oppose a “large AI data centre within a few blocks” of where they live. A Nanos poll commissioned by the Globe and Mail a few weeks back showed that just under 22 percent of Ontarians believe AI data centres would be a net negative for their community, opposed to just over 16 percent saying they would be a positive (interestingly, the strongest opposition comes from women and respondents aged 18 to 34). Across the United States, backlash to the projects is growing so intense that even Republican governors are switching their tune; Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently said AI data centre companies “dug their own grave” and deserve the public opposition they get.

These are polarizing projects. And, as I have noted before, Hamilton’s vote on the data centre ICBL was more symbolic than anything; it would have signaled that council understood the concerns of the public and wanted to slow development so that we could get out ducks in a row for the future.

This issue has inspired some council candidates to put their names forward. One has even registered with an email address that reads, in part, “hamiltonagainstai”. But, just as I noted in the Doug Ford section, the province has incredible power here. A municipal government can pass something against AI and the province can simply override it with its own legislation. That isn’t to say council shouldn’t try to do something, just that candidates running because of the AI issue need to temper their expectations if they find themselves sworn into office on November 15.

And that isn’t even counting the federal government, which just released new data centre guidelines. This is a complicated new file and everyone has a role to play. But some players are more powerful than others here.

Managing technology isn’t in the purview of municipalities. Land use planning, utilities provision, local employment policies and, to a certain extent, energy management, are (which is where the most recent discussion about using Hamilton Community Enterprises - Hamilton’s municipal utility - to slow down AI data centres). Balancing the very real concerns about AI and the driving forces behind it - tech bros who are becoming increasingly right-wing and skeptical about democracy (and now eager to destroy humanity, apparently), corporate entities eager to maximize profits, etc. - means using the tools we have available to ensure the best possible outcome for residents.

Yes, ask local council candidates about AI and their perspective on the ICBL, but also jot down similar questions to ask your MPP and MP. Instead, ask council candidates about land use management and how AI fits into economic development goals and how municipalities - as the largest shareholders of public utilities - will use their power to manage things like power use when it comes to AI.

Perceptions of crime

This one. This one annoys me beyond comprehension. This one…

It is illogical. It is irrational. It represents a disconnect between reality and emotion that just pisses me off. I know, I know, I’m supposed to be calm and explain things clearly and all that, but I just don’t understand this one. I’m so damn tired of writing about it.

Hamiltonians believe that crime is increasing by leaps and bounds. But it isn’t.

In 2024, the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) charged 2,037 individuals with 7,209 criminal code violations ranging from first degree murder to shoplifting. In 2025, the HPS charged 1,994 individuals with 7,929 criminal code violations.

Yeah, the number of charges went up, but the people involved went down and the key indicators were down too. Murder was down. Property crimes were down. Car thefts were down. The increase was driven by drug charges, charges related to sexual assaults and harm against children, and hate. Still upsetting stuff, but it’s important to have context here.

But still, candidates are parading around the city promising to “get tough on crime”.

Let’s set aside the fact that an individual councillor cannot direct the HPS to do anything. Council itself can’t direct the HPS to do anything. Not even the Hamilton Police Services Board can force the HPS to do anything. The Criminal Code cannot be changed by municipalities. Council and the mayor cannot make drugs more illegal than they already are. Unless council has been sitting on precog technology for a few decades and, only through the election of a conservative super majority will they be released and forced to see future crimes, there isn’t much council can do.

So if we set all that aside, we’re down to the bare bones of the matter: how will any person elected to council for the 2026-2030 term of office “reduce” crime? How will any member of council or any mayor “make our streets safer” through their actions? How will they stop violent crime? How will they get guns off the street or stop people from using drugs or prevent predatory adults from harming children?

Beyond that, the next council will absolutely need to deal with how Hamiltonians perceive crime. There’s a growing disconnect in our society that’s keeping people away from their neighbours, isolated from difference, and walled off from their community.

The second someone steps downtown and sees a person experiencing a mental health crisis - a crisis caused and ignored by the provincial government which has the constitutional responsibility to address healthcare - they immediately associate that interaction with crime. It isn’t a crime to be mentally ill. It isn’t a crime to act strangely. It isn’t a crime to exist in an urban space without spending money or following social norms or not have a home. But the perception still remains.

Addressing that will take a massive effort, and one that will require a fundamental shift in our society. City council cannot address that on their own. But through better urban planning, more funding for events that bring people together, a reorientation of our transportation patterns away from the private automobile, and a renewed focus on community building, we can do our part to remind people that discomfort ≠ crime.

Hate and extremism

One of the few categories of crime that is increasing by leaps and bounds is hate. The HPS hate crime report that was released about a month after I published “The Hate At Home” indicated that hate crimes and incidents were up 12% to 332.

Reporters from across Canada have documented the growth of white nationalist, racist, homophobic, neo-Nazi, and other extremist groups that have, for some reason, found fertile ground here. On August 29, Hamiltonians gathered in the forecourt of City Hall to demonstrate against a white nationalist conference that was supposed to take place in our city. None of this is going away, even if the odd ducks behind that conference decided to take their business to Burlington.

It isn’t just the flashy weirdos with tacky nationalist branding; local Facebook groups are filled with anti-trans and homophobic comments, often directed at political candidates with whom the poster disagrees. The pure bile that was posted in response to my summer Spec piece on why we still need Pride month is an excellent example of the raw hate that permeates through so much of our community. As is the weapons-grade misogyny directed towards Mayor Horwath or the middle school-level bullying that is the purposeful homophobic misspelling of Cameron Kroetsch’s name.

So Hamilton is a hotbed of hate and extremism. But many of the things that can be employed to address perceptions of crime - better planning, community building, bringing people together - can help address hate, but so can providing people with economic opportunities and a sense of purpose.

At the same time, some very wealthy people are funneling money into extremist groups with abandon. Some want to hasten the downfall of society so they can swoop in and reestablish feudalism (not a joke - some want to create a new feudalist society with them at the top and you at the bottom) while others merely want to increase their wealth and power, which is easier when you pit people against one another. So these groups have money. And they have organizing capacity.

So addressing the impact of groups like this is beyond anything a city council or, indeed, any level of government can do alone. It will require us to challenge the power of the billionaires, get active in our communities, and build community on our own to truly eliminate this threat.

Community building

Speaking of community building…

One of the most important things a city council can do is be a facilitator. They can approve urban designs that encourage human-scaled spaces, they can offer grants for community groups seeking to bring people together, they can ensure that the stage is set, the pieces are all there, and then they can step back. Community isn’t something that can be forced, but municipalities can make space to better facilitate connection.

And we desperately need that right now. Community is fraying with intensity in this city. Look to any neighbourhood Facebook group to see just how profoundly years of pandemic isolation fried the brains of all too many. There are corners of the local internet where users believe the end is nigh and the city is all but a post-apocalyptic hellscape, rife with disorder, destruction, and chaos. These online spaces are poor substitutes for real connection and often work to drive people further apart instead of bringing them together.

So, so many people in our city have a deep craving to engage in in-person social events. They want to bowl and watch movies and participate in book clubs and play pickleball and go running and have barbeques and be part of something meaningful.

A city councillor can’t make community. But the actions taken by council can facilitate the natural growth of strong, resilient, vibrant communities. Diverse communities. Healthy communities. Communities that people want to stay in.

Focusing on building up the missing middle can bring the housing we need and bring people closer to the amenities and services they want. Encouraging mid-block and corner commercial can provide natural stopping-in places for communities. Prioritizing walkable communities and active transportation takes people out of the isolation of the personal automobile and brings them into contact with the vibrant diversity of urban life. Pocket parks and community centres, pedestrianized streets and community schools, legalized third spaces and decriminalized “cracking a beer in the park with your friends on a Saturday”.

So ask your local candidates how they plan to help facilitate community building. Their responses will undoubtedly be telling. In some instances, they may give away that they know surprisingly little about what councillors can do. In other instances, they may show you that they don’t understand the real power of the office.

The purpose of the office

On August 19, the Ontario Land Tribunal ruled that Hamilton’s 2025 rejection of an application to develop two large rural plots just outside the urban boundary was unacceptable and that the city needed to expand the urban boundary by 1,600 hectares (roughly the area of the lower city from the 403 east to Sanford Avenue). While the city then quickly rejected a proposed plan for the area, the OLT’s decision makes clear that the city itself has limited authority in making decisions about the land in its own jurisdiction.

I first got the notification about the decision while out on a run. I stopped, stared at my phone for a while, and said, out loud, “so local government really doesn’t matter then.” The geese around me had nothing to contribute, aside from their menacing glares.

Municipal government in Canada is bizarre and complicated. And I’m saying that despite having a PhD in the political geography of municipal institutions in Canada.

Municipalities exist at the pleasure of provincial governments. They do as they are told, have to fit within a narrow framework established without their input, and are expected to carry the responsibilities provinces no longer want to deal with. They truly are the workhorses of government in Canada. Despite this, there isn’t really any purpose to them anymore.

Want bike lanes? Province can just rip them out. Want housing? Need input from other levels of government. What about environmental protections? Same thing. How about stopping AI data centres? Maybe, but the province might just come out with new guidelines that override everything you do.

Municipal voters go to the ballot box and elect representatives, labouring under the assumption that said representatives would have even an iota of power. But their power is temporary, subject to approval, and not nearly as sweeping as people expect.

Same goes for school boards. Trustees have almost no power whatsoever. The entire office was almost wiped off the map a few months ago. And many would have responded with an enthusiastic meh. It is an office designed to provide ratepayers (a word I absolutely despise - you’re a human and a resident, not merely someone who is defined by how much money they contribute to something) with a voice in how public money is spent on public schools. But they do not get to set curricula, do not get to hire and fire teachers directly, and have no power over bargaining with teachers unions.

And that’s why I default to my long-standing position. That is, namely, that a member of a municipal council or board is two things: a legislator and an advocate.

They have a responsibility to legislate - to introduce motions, to debate motions, to hear reports, to accept or reject reports, to gather expert and community perspectives, and then to vote on said motions. That is one of their stated responsibilities as “directors” of the “corporation” of the City of Hamilton (words put in quotes because I find the idea of referring to a municipality as a “corporation” as ideologically off-putting). Same goes for trustees. They hear staff reports, introduce motions, etc. etc. etc.

But they also have a responsibility to advocate - to speak up for their constituents, to provide the resident point of view when staff offer opinions, to provide the perspective of Hamiltonians or school board supporters when dealing with elected officials from other municipalities and other levels of government. Some of the power of the office comes from the office itself. A regular citizen has a voice, but an elected official has both the status of the office and a mandate from the people who cast ballots in the election they won to speak from a certain position.

Different candidates will have different opinions on how to approach the office. You, yourself, might also have a different perspective on how an elected official should act once sworn in. So ask your local candidates how they see the office and what they think they can or should do once elected.

There are just 45 days until we go to the polls and elect the council and school boards for the 2026-2030 term. A lot can happen in six weeks. But these issues are some that should be addressed by candidates as we creep closer and closer to election day.

One more week

Photo by Donald Wu on Unsplash - Edited by author

This week in The Incline:

• History with Chris

• She's running

• All the fun down ballot

Sane judgement and integrity

One hundred years ago, on August 14, 1926, Hamiltonians opened their evening edition of The Spectator to catch up on the goings on in their booming metropolis of 115,000 people. The 26-pages of the evening paper were chock full of information and scandal and trivialities.

The trial of Hamilton’s most infamous resident (up until that point), Rocco Perri, was underway, and a judge had just set bail for the gangster and his associates at the unheard of sum of $20,000 each - nearly $370,000 in today’s dollars. Parks Board member T.B. McQuesten issued statements updating residents on the city’s road paving project and his desire to ensure smoother streets leading up to the growing community atop the Mountain. In crime news, a Main Street East man was issued $8 in fines for letting his dogs run loose in Bartonville after being called in by Hamilton’s city dogcatcher, “William Tyler, the enemy of loose and unlicensed dogs.” Tyler was something of a local celebrity of some controversy; the year prior, Tyler made news when he, himself, was charged with keeping a dog without a licence while serving as dogcatcher. Scandal!

There were stories of the new rector of St. John’s Anglican in Ancaster making his way to Hamilton and of the upcoming Women’s Conservative meeting to discuss the findings of a recent customs commission. There were pieces about the sale of land on Peter Street and a drunken assault in a home at Barton and Mary. There were updates about Dr. Shearer’s car trip up north and a local salad recipe that was in hot demand - a slice of canned pineapple, with cream cheese in the centre, topped with chopped nuts, served on a piece of lettuce and covered in a mayonnaise and whipped cream dressing. Yum.

Readers that day also got a glimpse into the civic conversation, as relayed by the paper’s higher ups. The Spec’s main editorial that day focused on the thorny subject of the ‘city manager idea’ (Hamilton only got a city manager in 1980 after council voted to abolish the elected four-member Board of Control and replace it with one appointed manager). The role of city manager was created in the United States around the turn-of-the-century and had quickly become the hot new topic in ‘urban reform’ circles. Hamilton’s mayor at the time, Freeman Ferrier Treleaven, was uninterested in the idea, as it would have diluted his power and that of the city’s relatively new Board of Control, which he had served on before becoming mayor.

The editors of the Spec opined that, while the city manager idea was one that Hamiltonians would one day have to “seriously consider”, it wasn’t the right time just then.

What the public demanded, they wrote, was “sane judgement and integrity in its civic representatives.” Sure, the editors admitted that sometimes Hamiltonians believed “the judgement of the council [was] far from sound,” but, for the most part, voters were “generally satisfied that the members [of council were] earnest, well-meaning men, seeking to do what is in the best interests of the city.”¹

Today, with just one week to go until the close of nominations for the 2026 municipal election, we are faced with a growing list of candidates for all offices. The drip drip drip of registrations threatens to become a full-blown torrent in the last few days of this nomination period.

And the question we must once again ask ourselves is simple: are these earnest, well-meaning people, seeking to do what’s in the best interests of the city?

Get ready, get set

The big news today is that Mayor Andrea Horwath officially filed papers to run for re-election at City Hall.

Back in June when I wrote about some of the online news influencers that populate the social media landscape here in Hamilton, I opened with a bit of alternate history where Andrea Horwath and Chad Collins both announce their mayoral bids on the same day. That bit was to highlight the erroneous reporting by one of those creator accounts that both Horwath and Collins had already registered.

In that piece, I wrote: “Quietly…the embattled 58th Mayor of Hamilton, Andrea Horwath, slipped downstairs from her second floor office and, in a modest room with election staff, filed her re-election paperwork. No backdrop of supporters like in 2022, no weeks long media circus, no flashy announcement.”

While I was doing my best attempt at Turtledovian fiction, it appears that’s exactly what happened. Horwath filed her paperwork alone and, in lieu of a press conference with throngs of supporters, issued a simple media release, which said “We haven’t solved every problem, but we’ve faced them head on, and we’ve made real progress.”²

A week ago, I was fully convinced Horwath would be sitting this election out. A Wednesday editorial from the Spec’s Scott Radley raised further questions, asking if slipping poll numbers or possible opponents or a rumoured job elsewhere was keeping her off the ballot. The only quote he could get was from one of her communications people, saying “she intends to seek re-election.”³  

I read that with suspicion. “Intends” can mean anything.

On Thursday night, speculation began to run rampant. Joey Coleman started an “Andrea Horwath Registration Watch” on Bluesky, pointing out that the mayor and some members of council will be in Ottawa for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference from Saturday until Wednesday, giving Horwath just three business days to get nomination papers in.

But now it’s official. Andrea Horwath is running for re-election, entering the race as Hamilton’s 9th mayoral candidate…or 10th, depending on when she got her papers in to the elections department; someone named Kevin Walker also registered today, though to noticeably less fanfare.

So what does that mean?

Honestly, I have absolutely no idea.

When I wrote about the reasons she might not run for a second term, I was thinking through the electoral calculus. Specifically, I was asking where might the money come from, where might the voters be, and what issues might come up to either help or hinder her campaign?

On the money front, she’s way behind, just by virtue of starting so late. Registering today means she has just 73 days to fundraise while her main opponents have had months of runway to do the same. Her biggest backers from 2022 don’t have as much money this time and, if they do, it’ll likely go to the candidate they see as most friendly to developers.

Voter-wise, I still don’t see where her support will come from in this election. In 2022, she won with 41.7% of the vote, squeaking out a victory over Keanin Loomis by just 1.2 percentage points. The only credible poll we’ve seen is nine months old, but has her 5 points behind Loomis. An internal poll from the Loomis campaign from earlier this summer showed an even bigger gap, with Loomis ahead at 38%, Horwath at 24%, Rob Cooper at 22%, and Scarlett Gillespie at 9%. The poll has a lot of issues - it was commissioned, so it isn’t exactly impartial, and 35% of the 921 respondents said they didn’t know who they were going to vote for - but it sends a signal, no matter how faint.⁴ Loomis built a base in 2022, Cooper has his conservative credentials and contacts, and Gillespie has been inspiring disgruntled progressives who may have reluctantly held their noses and voted for Horwath but, after the past four years, are unlikely to do so again.

And that’s where the issues come in. “We haven’t solved every problem, but we’ve faced them head on, and we’ve made real progress”? That’s strategically vague. It doesn’t give any indication as to what issues she’ll be campaigning on. But that same 2025 poll asked voters what their main issues are going into the election, so we have some idea what people will want to hear about.

The plurality - 34% - said “crime”, though again, crime continues to be low in Hamilton and there isn’t an “epidemic” of violent crime. That’s a narrative being pushed by conservative media outlets and candidates in an attempt to paint their opponents as being “soft” and unqualified to hold office. Still, we all know that the perception of crime as being an issue remains high, and little has been done to address that.

The next highest number was 15% who said “taxes” was their main issue. Horwath owns that, especially after the introduction of strong mayor powers and the transference of budget power to her office. The arguments about us picking up the bill for previous council’s financial mismanagement needed to be made starting four years ago. You can’t play catch up on that.

Homelessness and affordable housing were next at 12% and 11% respectively. The City of Hamilton’s own Housing and Homelessness Dashboard paints a pretty bleak picture there. The average market rent in Hamilton in 2025 was $1,439 a month. Based on the CMHC’s Affordability Calculator and plugging in some basic numbers (estimating $1,000 in non-housing expenses per month), the average rent in Hamilton is still considered “unaffordable” for nearly 75% of Hamiltonians. And over 2,100 Hamiltonian remain homeless as of June, 2026, including over 900 individuals who have been without homes for 6 months.

And all that comes before the as-yet-undetermined impact of Horwath’s influence over the data centre interim control by-law, which has angered some progressives to the point of near apoplexy. With Cooper’s opposition to the by-law and Loomis’s strategic neutrality on the issue, Gillespie has been earning support from people for whom AI is a major issue. While the mayor may try to play the jurisdiction card, I don’t think that’s going to fly for a lot of folks; the vote on the interim control by-law was both practical and symbolic, as it showed a willingness to take a stand against an unproven and unreliable technology that’s being used to further divide people and remove the remaining dignity and autonomy we have in the world.

All this is to say: Horwath’s campaign has a daunting task before them. But it’s a crowded race. Maybe Cooper and Loomis will fight each other over the suburbs and Horwath will sneak up the middle. Maybe Collins will see the crowded race and decide he has a shot after all. Maybe we’ll be swearing in Mayor Nathalie Xian Yi Yan in November. Who knows!?

Across the ballot

The main race generating any interest now is the open Ward 10 seat. There are eight candidates in the running, with many more undoubtedly preparing their paperwork.

Among the most notable so far are Cal DiFalco of “The Hamiltonian” blog fame, 2018 Ontario PC candidate in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Akash Grewal, and 2014 Ontario Liberal candidate in the same riding Ivan Luksic. It’s hard to say who the front-runner might be, so there’s always room for a political heavyweight like former MPP Paul Miller, former Councillor Maria Pearson, former Mayor Larry Di Ianni, or former MP Chad Collins to swoop in and run.

Big names coming out of the woodwork and putting themselves forward is a fairly common occurrence in local politics, especially in Hamilton. Terry Whitehead’s surprise last-minute bid for Ward 8 councillor in last year’s by-election led to him coming in second. Former MP Scott Duvall was also in that race, and lost a close last-minute match with Esther Pauls for Ward 7 councillor in 2022. And who can forget ol’ Johnny Munro’s bid for mayor of Hamilton in 2000 after having been out of office for 16 years.

But it isn’t just a Hamilton thing, of course; Mike Layton is mulling a return to Toronto City Council, just one term after retiring.

My initial worry about some school board acclamations was evidently overblown. In just over a week, trustee candidates have emerged like so many summer cicadas. The Ward 1 race (over which I had previously indicated a level of protectiveness) kicked off when Ward 2 candidate Shawn McMullin switched seats, moving over to the west end from downtown. McMullin and Frank Crowder (running in Ward 3) are both involved in the union at National Steel Car, though there isn’t much available online about their interest in school board issues. Keen to see what each of them brings to the table.

Not long after, Jonathan Noble signed up to run in Ward 1. There isn’t much info available there, either, but, based on some preliminary research, it seems as though Noble is the father of Ward 15 trustee Graeme Noble and spouse of 2025 Flamborough-Glanbrook ONDP candidate Lilly Noble - a passionate advocate in the Stop Sprawl HamOnt movement.⁵

New candidates popped up in Wards 5 & 10, Ward 13, and in the Catholic board’s Wards 6, 7, and 12 & 13. All that means there are now nine contested seats among the 22 school board spots and 12 possible acclamations.

Some notable names are missing, though. Public Board Chair Maria Felix Miller and Vice-Chair Paul Tut are absent, as is Ward 8 and 14 trustee Becky Buck. On the Catholic side, Wards 3 & 4 trustee Josie Angelini and Wards 9 & 10’s Louis Agro aren’t on the ballot yet. And we haven’t heard one way or the other if any of them intend to retire or offer themselves up for re-election.

There was a time when a trustee’s decision to step down would have, at the very least, been a blurb in the Spec. The two Spec articles on trustees from the last week don’t mention any of those trustees at all, with one talking only to former Catholic board chair Pat Daly and the other interviewing a Mac prof without mentioning a single trustee by name. So now the public is left to speculate while rumours and second-hand information fly around wildly.

Chris pauses to ask himself if he’s guilty of that too…and then gets sad.

As we head into the last week of nominations, I’ll be looking out for a couple of things:

• Will any more high-profile mayoral candidates step up? It seems unlikely, but anything is possible.

• Will the council races fill out a little more? Six races are straight two-way fights, which can be complicated for incumbents. In 2022, as noted earlier, Esther Pauls nearly lost to Scott Duvall in a head-to-head. And, famously, Alex Wilson absolutely destroyed the electoral machine of Arlene VanderBeek thanks to a stellar debate performance, an incredible campaign team, and sheer persistence.

• Will anyone step up to take on Matt Francis in Ward 5? While the local rumour mill was churning a while back about possible contenders and drama, little seems to have come of it, leaving the right-wing councillor standing alone for the time being.

• Will Terry Whitehead return to challenge Dawn Danko and Jacob Tenbrinke for the Ward 8 council seat? What of the host of other candidates in the recent by-election?

• Will the school board races see any movement? Or are we headed for a slew of acclamations - which may further justify the Ford government’s desire to do away with the role altogether?

Stay tuned. Things are heating up with just one more week to go.

Up in the air

Photo by Ben Klewais on Unsplash - edited by author

This week, in The Incline...

• Nomination day approacheth

• By-by-by election drama

• Case of the missing mayoral candidate

• The state of the races across the city

62.5% of the working day

When the doors to City Hall open tomorrow at 8:30 AM, the final countdown will begin. From that moment on, there will be 10.625 business days left for aspiring candidates to file nomination papers to run in the 2026 Hamilton municipal election.

Why 10.625, you ask? Well, there’s a weird quirk in the Municipal Elections Act that says the final day of the nomination period is actually the official “Nomination Day”. On Nomination Day, election paperwork will only be accepted by the municipality from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. So despite Hamilton City Hall being open Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM for regular business, nomination papers will only be accepted for 62.5% of the working day on Friday, August 21 thanks to provincial law.

Ontario!

As of the morning of Thursday, August 6, there are 8 candidates for mayor, 55 for council, and 26 for trustee across the four boards that offer publicly-funded education in Hamilton.

But a lot is still up in the air. The eerie quiet of the nomination period means that many voters have more questions than there are candidates.

We are in a situation best summed up by the iconic quote from Donald Rumsfeld who, while bumbling through a press conference about the complete lack of any proof indicating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction a year before the United States invaded, told reporters:

“…as we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns…the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

So let’s go through our knowns, unknowns, and unknown unknowns. And hopefully not unknowingly fall into semantic satiation (the thing that happens when you repeat a word so many times it temporarily loses all meaning) in the process. Bet you didn’t know that’s what it was called. Kind of like an unknown unknown, eh?

Eastbound and down

One major “known” disruption to this fall’s municipal election comes in the form of an ill-timed provincial by-election. Or beautifully-timed, if your name is “Doug”. Or maybe “Marit”.

***

On July 17, Ontario’s Minister of Sport and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MPP, Neil Lumsden, announced he was stepping down from politics as of two days ago. While there had been rumours of Lumsden’s desire to leave the legislature for a few months, few in the community (myself included) expected he would quit before the municipal elections this October.

Indeed, the running expectation was that he would wait until after the October 26 municipal vote and then announce his resignation to time his provincial by-election with the two others (in York-Simcoe to replace the retiring Caroline Mulroney and in Scarborough Southwest to replace Doly Begum, who opportunistically made her way to federal Parliament a while back) that need to be held before December 31, 2026.

But, instead, Lumsden stepped down very early, announcing in mid-July that his last day in the legislature would be August 4.

In retrospect, that’s understandable. Mainly because it makes the electoral calculus for Premier Doug Ford way better. Now, he can hold by-elections during the municipal election (the writs of election were issued yesterday and set voting day as September 3) and have a full legislature when it reconvenes the day after the municipal elections in October. Holding provincial by-elections at the same time as municipal elections means there will be ample confusion and disinterest from the public, allowing the Progressive Conservatives to more effectively pull out their die-hard supporters and make life miserable for local campaigners in the rebellious municipalities of Toronto, Hamilton, and York Region. Plus, the confusion this creates makes it easier for him to distract from his growing list of scandals and gives his candidates a fighting chance to win their races, even if the Premier’s mounting unpopularity would otherwise make things difficult.

Sure, some polls have the Ontario Liberals leading Ford’s PC’s by 5%, but the Ontario Liberals are in complete shambles and won’t have a leader until November 20. By calling the by-elections early, Ford cuts off an easy electoral opportunity for any of the four Liberal leadership candidates who do not have a seat in the legislature. Beyond that, the entire Liberal apparatus will be torn between municipal campaigns and leadership campaigns, making it harder to focus on the by-elections.

Ford once again proves that his success is thanks to a 50/50 mix of dumb luck and strategic manipulation of timelines (for more examples, please see the entirety of the Ford Family’s political history).

***

While the timing undoubtedly works well for Ford, the person this might be the best for is Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles.

Stiles has been looking for a big win since she ascended to the party’s leadership three years ago. With these by-elections, she finally has a shot to show she can take down Ford. Out of the three by-elections that will be held on September 3, two are looking good for the party; Scarborough Southwest is absolutely winnable for the ONDP, especially after the fracas that was the Ontario Liberal nomination race in the riding (that ultimately ended rebellious Beaches-East York MP Nate Erskine-Smith’s provincial leadership ambitions and, ultimately, his federal political career as well), and there’s a long NDP history in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

If the ONDP is able to hold onto Scarborough Southwest and pick up Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, Stiles will be riding high. Winning both seats means Stiles will style herself (I’m here all week, folks) as the person best able to take on Doug Ford. Considering slumping poll numbers for the Premier, we might find ourselves in a situation where the PCs cede Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Ford to the NDP, the knives will come out for Ford when the legislature resumes, he’ll be forced to step down, be replaced as PC leader, and the new Premier will call a provincial election some time in 2028. If Stiles can build on the momentum she generates from these by-elections and get in front of more Ontarians over the next 18 months, she might be able to ride a wave of discontent to victory.

But much of that depends on Hamilton East-Stoney Creek.

***

Of all the three provincial by-elections, the HESC one will be the most intense, if for no other reason than it is already a star-studded affair.

The Ontario Liberals were the first out of the gate, announcing their 2025 candidate, Heino Doessing, would again stand for the party. Politically-savvy Hamiltonians will know Doessing as a dutiful Liberal partisan and recognizable face in the community. His 2025 campaign grew the Liberal vote by an impressive 10.5 points on Jason Farr’s lacklustre performance from 2022. Much of that growth came at the expense of a deeply weakened ONDP in the east end.

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives tapped former school trustee and current Ward 10 councillor Jeff Beattie to be their candidate. It may be hard to remember, but Beattie was once a great hope for environmentalists and progressives in the city. He took on the establishment pro-development Ward 10 Councillor Maria Pearson, running in 2022 on a platform of supporting affordable and non-profit housing, expanding traffic calming, offering transit options in the ward, and promoting responsible development. Beattie quickly disappointed anyone who hoped he would represent a break from the ‘politics of old’ by aligning himself with council’s conservative block and reliably voting with the right-wing every chance he got. His nomination was a slight surprise, considering his council re-election campaign was full steam ahead, but a keen political player knows to strike when the iron is hot.

The Greens have once again nominated Pascale Marchand, a rising star in the Green movement both locally and across the province; Marchand was able to grow the Green Party’s share of the vote in HESC last year and has been rapidly building a Green movement in the east end, which is part of the reason why the party held their provincial convention in Hamilton this year. Marchand currently works in the Ward 4 office and, full disclosure, I’ve gotten to know her well over the past few years in our roles as city hall staffers. I share a kind of kinship with Marchand, given that our roles inside 71 Main West sometimes butt up against our other perspectives and ventures in the community - my inability to keep my opinions to myself and ever-fading political aspirations and Marchand’s passionate advocacy and far more tangible electoral efforts. Case in point: in an interview with the Spec, Marchand was questioned about Ward 4 Councillor Tammy Hwang’s vote against the interim control by-law for data centres, given Marchand’s and the Green Party’s stance in opposition to them. Marchand was characteristically upfront, saying: “I don’t know if I would have voted the same way…and [Hwang] knows that.”¹

sigh. I get that.

But it was the Ontario NDP that came out with the bombshell. On July 29, the party announced that 14-year veteran legislator, Monique Taylor, would carry the party’s banner in the by-election. Taylor served as MPP for Hamilton Mountain until 2025 when she didn’t re-offer provincially and, instead, ran as the NDP’s federal candidate in the April election. The dueling forces of Carneydemonium and Jagmeet Singh’s unpopularity derailed what should have been a strong campaign and Taylor ended up with the lowest vote total for the party on Hamilton Mountain in 25 years.

Taylor is a powerhouse of a candidate and represents the ONDP’s best chance to have an impact in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek. While she’s very associated with the Mountain, the Tories would be wise to not fixate too much on her residency; Taylor was born and raised in the east end and, prior to the 2007 provincial NDP nomination drama in HESC, was the riding association president (her then-partner was one of the four candidates seeking the party’s nomination, requiring her to step down to avoid a conflict of interest). Taylor’s Mountain affiliation came when she managed former Councillor Scott Duvall’s election campaign in Ward 7 and went on to serve as his executive assistant.²  

Oh, and Lumsden lived in the west end while serving as Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MPP, so glass houses and all that.

***

This by-election will have a major impact on the municipal campaign.

First and foremost, it’ll be a major distraction for everyone involved. People from Kenilworth to Winona will be getting canvassed, called, and cajoled by trustee, councillor, mayoral, and MPP candidates. They’ll be heading to the polls on September 3 to elect an MPP and then again, 53 days later, to vote for a new municipal council and school board. That will impact the election in Wards 4, 5, and 10 in a pretty profound way.

In Ward 4, Hwang just lost one of her best assets to the provincial campaign, meaning an already tough race against Jason Farr just became even tougher. In Ward 10, Beattie’s short-notice exit means a whole host of new candidates will begin signing up and launching campaigns with just 80 days to fundraise, build a campaign team, door knock, prepare for debates, and make enough of a presence in the community to be considered a moderately serious contender. And while things are very quiet in Ward 5 at the moment, there will almost assuredly be an impact on Councillor Matt Francis’s race and long-term political ambitions.

Every campaign will now be dealing with the fact that voters are going to be tired of the constant badgering from provincial campaigns, making them less likely to engage, less likely to donate, less likely to volunteer, and, unfortunately, less likely to cast municipal ballots on October 26. That’s going to disrupt the local race immensely and take the wind out of the sails of some candidates who might have relied on sheer persistence and their partisan connections to get them over the finish line.

All that said, I feel like we should have expected all this, given that one of the Ford government’s lasting legacies has been the wholesale destruction of municipal institutions in this province.

Terms of en-mayor-ment

Beyond the impact of the provincial by-election, I think there’s one more major municipal electoral disruption we may need to consider. This one is a bit more of an “unknown”, only because the information we need to assess it is lacking. But here’s what I think:

It’s growing increasingly evident that Andrea Horwath will not be seeking a second term as mayor.

***

Horwath has repeatedly said she’s running for re-election. Last July, she said she would “absolutely” be running and, a year later, she told the Spec again that she intended to seek re-election. But she hasn’t spoken publicly about the election in months and has made no effort to mount a campaign.

There could be a few reasons for this.

First, we have to think about the money. One hundred million years ago, back when this newsletter was still the Sewer Socialists (I couldn’t hold on for like…a couple more months and then bask in the newfound attention on sewer socialism generated by Zohran Mamdani?), I did a deep dive into where campaign donation money came from in the 2022 municipal election.

Of all the mayoral candidates who submitted financial returns, Horwath raised the most from folks affiliated with the real estate, development, and construction industries. She was also able to pull in nearly 40% of her donations from people living outside of Hamilton. Horwath had just come off a provincial election campaign, still had labour contacts across Ontario, and capitalized on the fact that the Bratina campaign was dead-in-the-water, allowing her to play both the progressive and establishment cards.

That won’t work this time. She’s had four years as chief magistrate and they have…not gone well. She really only stepped up and into the role around year three and has been saddled with an incredible amount of baggage of her own making. Her time as mayor has been marked by controversy after misstep after alienating decision.

Add to that the fact that there’s less developer money to go around these days. The whole industry is in a self-inflicted slump and developers will likely be very strategic about who gets what little they are willing to distribute. Their logical choice is Rob Cooper, who has already scored the endorsement of the well-connected family that runs the union/developer LiUNA. He’ll get the big bucks, leaving Horwath with few other places to turn.

The second reason a Horwath re-election campaign is unlikely is that she must realize the writing is on the wall. Last October, polls had her noticeably behind Keanin Loomis, and, since then, the situation has only become worse. The other mayoral campaigns must be licking their lips at the prospect of her entering the race, given the material they’ve been given to work with.

The Barton-Tiffany Outdoor Shelter “fiasco”? Caused by a mayoral directive. Rising property taxes? Caused by the mayor’s-directed budget. The failure of the interim control by-law on data centres? Impacted by the mayor calling the last minute pro-AI meeting (granted, Cooper also opposed the by-law, but his campaign can spin that).

Even if those points are easily spin-able, that work hasn’t been done. The Barton-Tiffany project has provided meaningful housing to many and has, based on anecdotal comments from people in the community and online, reduced the “nuisance” crimes in the area that bothered residents the most. The budget needed major tax increases so the city could finally get around to projects that previous councils put off - projects that are getting done and will eventually improve the lives of residents across the city. And the data centre thing…well, that one is harder to spin. But almost everything can be given necessary context and framed in a way that highlights the positives. That work simply hasn’t been done by the mayor and her team. At every step, she’s handed control over the conversation to her opponents and failed to capitalize on any of the positives. She’s poured her energy into producing social media content only to be ruthlessly attacked by trolls who alternate between sexist comments and blaming her for every problem under the sun.

Contrast Horwath’s strategy with that of Toronto’s Olivia Chow. Chow has been everywhere, forging deals with the province and the feds, getting shovels in the ground on major projects, and doing so without alienating the progressive base that helped her get to where she is right now. Her approval ratings are about 50/50, but the most recent polls put Chow well ahead of right-wing opponents Bradford Bradford and Chris Alexander. Chow is a savvy enough political figure to create an opportunity where others would simply see a problem, adapting to the new political reality with ease.

Horwath, unfortunately, is playing catch-up, only now starting to change her political strategy and update her tactics. And, even with her new tactics, she’s still doing politics like it’s 2008. Staged photos at community potlucks? lol.

Once again, we can contrast Horwath and Chow. The right-wing astroturf group “Integrity TO” tried to attack Chow because she “sure loves to dance”, posting a video that transposed a blurry dancing Olivia over scenes of garbage and hypodermic needles in downtown Toronto. Chow’s office responded by leaning in, posting a video that opens with the quote “all she does is dance”, followed by a full minute of scrolling policy accomplishments over more clips of her dancing. Chow knows you have to relentlessly lean into the joy to counter the politics of division and you have to do so using modern tactics. Horwath’s team is too slow to get their messaging out, doesn’t take control of the narrative, and uses outdated tactics that do nothing to inspire the people she needs to win over the most.

And that, of course, brings us to the third point: who would be classified as an Andrea Horwath supporter right now?

She’s got her ride-or-die folks who will always be with her: old-school union and social justice activists, the contacts she’s built from her days as a councillor and MPP, and the people in the community who see her as a trusted, reliable, recognizable pair of steady hands on the wheel.

But it’s not the broad-based coalition she needs to win.

Progressives soured on Horwath early on, particularly when she showed a propensity to side with the conservative block on council regarding important votes. Her frequent conflicts with the few progressive councillors around the horseshoe and inability to advance any meaningful progressive policies pretty much solidified opposition to Horwath from the left. Now, progressives are lining up behind Scarlett Gillespie’s insurgent campaign and, in some cases, to Loomis’s broadly pragmatic one. That may begin to change though; his recent comments about “reversing” the Lake Avenue affordable housing development will absolutely push more fence-sitting voters to Gillespie - IMHO, it was a major misstep trading city-wide progressive support for a small sliver of NIMBY suburban support, which was always going to lean toward Cooper. Horwath might have been able to pitch herself as the electable progressive earlier this year, but the data centre meeting and vote was the final nail in that coffin.

As for liberals and moderates, they are firmly in Loomis’s camp. Centre-right-leaning voters will be split between Loomis and Cooper, depending on whether they put the emphasis on “centre” or on “right”. And conservatives will all be on Team Cooper, backing both the mayoral campaign and the number of Conservative Party-affiliated council candidates all running across the city.

There’s almost nothing left for Horwath. Very little money, very few supporters, a very long list of points in the “con” category. She has almost nowhere to go and she’s nearly out of the runway needed to mount any kind of halfway decent re-election bid.

I’ve been wrong before. Maybe Horwath has something cooking that we can’t yet smell. Maybe I’ll post this and she’ll register today. Maybe I should learn to keep my opinions to myself!

But I think it is far more likely that, shortly before the close of nominations, she’ll announce her retirement, and ride off into the sunset.

What that means for the other candidates in the race is absolutely an “unknown”.

Each of the three main contenders - Gillespie, Loomis, and Cooper - may see Horwath’s exit as an opportunity. Gillespie’s campaign can position itself as the true progressive option and go after the working folks who backed Horwath way back in the day. Loomis’s campaign will try to nab some of those progressives too, and he’ll be able to make the case that he’s the best positioned to stop Cooper and his ultra right-wing agenda.

As for the Ward 8 councillor, he’ll be able to claim he’s the last one in the race with the experience needed to jump into the job.

***

With or without Horwath in the race, all signs point to Cooper having the momentum. And the city needs to start preparing itself for the possibility that Mayor Rob Cooper will be sworn into office on November 15, 2026.

There’s a video that’s circulating widely on social media. It’s poorly edited, hard to hear, and does little to showcase anything even resembling charisma on the part of the candidate. But the message will undoubtedly resonate with disaffected property-owners and suburban residents who have, for years, been told that the city is woefully mismanaged.

In the video, Cooper, doing a half-passable Doug Ford impression, says “I ask people all the time ‘did your life get better’? I’m still lookin’ for that person who’s life got better.” I presume he meant to say something like “are you better off now than you were four years ago”, but whatever. He then lays out the grievances: an increase in homelessness, an increase in violent crime, a decline in the quality of our roads, a city that doesn’t provide financial statements (moving stuff), and a stalled housing market.

The progressive instinct is to “debunk” or challenge his claims with facts and logic like some kind of hyper-local John Oliver, especially regarding Cooper’s outlandish claims about crime. The instinct is to say that there were 29 cases of murder and attempted murder in Hamilton in 2021 before Horwath took office and were only 9 such cases last year. That there were nearly 3,000 fewer criminal code violations in the same time. That Hamilton is actually safer than the rest of Canada when it comes to violent crime and that much of Hamilton’s violent crime is targeted due to disputes between drug dealers and gangs with very little of that violence spilling over into the wider community.

But we don’t live in a world where that’s relevant. Facts don’t matter. It’s all about the vibes, folks. And Cooper is tapping into discontent with the enthusiasm of a habitant out at his cabane à sucre in mid Février.

J’m’en câlice, huhhhh!

Life is getting difficult for a lot of people. The cost of living is skyrocketing and wages aren’t keeping up. People are angry at everything because the system seems to be plodding along as though nothing is the matter. The powerlessness, the discontent, and the struggle is real. There is palpable anger at the institutions that are supposed to serve us because they are failing to respond with the necessary speed to alleviate the suffering of the general public. People who are seen as staunch defenders of the institutions and the status-quo - namely centrists and the moderately pro-business/pro-development/pro-stay-the-course crowd - may face a backlash for their positions.

I know it isn’t entirely the same, but take a look south of the border. In primary election after primary election, moderates are being swept aside as the MAGA wing of the Republicans and the progressive wing of the Democrats score win after win. People want something different and the candidates offering dramatic change - either a wicked embrace of the politics of division or a full-throated call to fundamentally change the system - are the ones coming out on top.

Cooper is giving voice to the grievances out there. He’s acknowledging that people perceive that crime is bad and is pledging to make them feel better about it. The fact that reality doesn’t jive with their feelings doesn’t matter. Neither does the fact that the response to this non-issue will be to spend more taxpayer money on the police (who do not prevent crime but, instead, respond to crimes that have already been committed which, as we’ve pointed out, isn’t happening as much) necessitating cuts to services elsewhere or further tax increases.

He’s telling people that their complaints about property taxes are valid, even if he’s spent a lifetime trying to get people elected to the parliament and the provincial legislature who have implemented policies that have starved the city and necessitated tax increases. He’s telling people that, yes, homelessness is an issue, but has no realistic plan on how to address it. He’s telling people that the roads are horrible while providing no plan on how to fix them without either slashing services elsewhere or raising property taxes.

But none of that matters! He’s saying what people want to hear.

If Horwath really is out of the race, then the field is mostly set. Major contenders know they need a lot of time to mount a mayoral bid, and, with just 80 days left, anyone short of a major celebrity wouldn’t have the time to make it work. So all I’m saying is, if the mayor decides not to run and anyone other than the Toronto Tempo’s Kia Nurse or Max Kerman of Arkells doesn’t walk into City Hall with $200 and a nomination package, the top three contenders for the role will be Gillespie on the progressive side, Cooper as the voice of the right and the disaffected, and Loomis in the middle.

Gillespie is tapping into the progressive frustration with the system, speaking to the high cost of living, the unaffordability of housing, and the seeming disconnect between our civic institutions and the concerns of the people those institutions are meant to represent, all with the lived experience that lends authenticity to her message. With a little more exposure to the public, a strong canvassing and get-out-the-vote strategy, and a compelling debate performance, she could be the progressive counterweight to Cooper’s right-wing populism.

The problem is, turnout in municipal contests is low and all the research indicates it’s homeowners who decide races. And if Cooper keeps bringing his message of ‘did your life get better’ to those folks - predominantly those in the suburbs, who tend to vote at higher rates than people in the city - he might be occupying the mayor’s chair in a few month’s time.

And then, with the support of just 5 other members of council (thanks to “strong mayor powers” allowing a mayor to govern with the backing of just 1/3 of council), he could implement whatever agenda he wants. For four long, long years.

Trust and counsel council

The mayoral election will obviously take up most of the attention in the city, but there will be 37 other races happening “down-ballot”.

Not that anyone would really know because, again, this election has featured some of the least enthusiasm I’ve ever seen from all possible corners. Almost no big announcements, few major shakeups, and excitement levels near 0. So, in this category, we have knowns, unknowns, and big ol’ shrugs from the general population

***

Of the current crop of 15 councillors, 12 are offering themselves up for re-election. Some, like Ward 2’s Cameron Kroetsch are running for re-election for the first time. Others, like Ward 6’s Tom Jackson, are running for the error - system lag - computing time excessive - do you wish to stop program? time.

I won’t talk too much about the council races, given my proximity to things, but I will say that some races are shaping up to be very interesting indeed.

Ward 9’s Brad Clark is one of the most recognizable Conservatives in the city, having served as a PC cabinet minister and run as a Conservative Party candidate in the past. But, this election, he’s facing a right-wing challenge in the form of Jonathan Stathakos, about whom I’ve written before. Stathakos is connected to the Muys/Kuruc Network and was part of MPP Donna Skelly’s re-election campaign team, giving him access to voters that traditionally backed Clark. But Stathakos isn’t the only one nipping at Clark’s heels; former justice of the peace and 2025 Ontario Liberal candidate in Hamilton Centre, Eileen Walker, is also registered. Walker’s website is more than a little heavy on AI, but she still seems the biggest centrist contender. Though, as I noted before, given how angry people in the community are, they may opt for Stathakos’s more radical positions than the comparatively moderate ones of Clark and Walker.

At present, Ward 8’s open seat is a straight two-way fight between the Muys/Kuruc Network-affiliated Jacob Tenbrinke and outgoing Ward 7 trustee Dawn Danko. Danko has the edge here, given that her husband - Liberal MP John-Paul Danko - was the councillor for the ward up until what seems like minutes ago. But the right-wing will definitely be aiming to hold the seat won and briefly occupied by Rob Cooper.

Ward 12 will be an interesting fight, considering former police board member and PC candidate in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas Fred Bennink has been running for the seat since even before nominations opened in May. After Councillor Craig Cassar sided with the anti-interim control by-law group on council, he earned a fair amount of flack from progressives, who may no longer show the same enthusiasm for his campaign they once did. Without their money and support, the race against Bennink may have just gotten a lot closer.

And I don’t know what’s happening in the valley town, but the election in Dundas has been way too subdued. The only candidates are right-wing populist Loren Lieberman (who is running on a “no new taxes, no new jobs at city hall, no running for other offices” pledge) and centre/centre-right candidate Rick Kunc. Incumbent councillor Alex Wilson made their intention to not seek another term known way back in May, but no other credible candidates have stepped up, despite having months to organize a campaign.

The only thing that might be even somewhat interesting is what happens in lower Stoney Creek over the next few weeks. Current Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis is running unopposed at present, which is extremely strange. And, over in Ward 10, more candidates are popping up day by day, but few with the name recognition to really make an impact. So keep your eyes on things over there as we get closer to the close of nominations on August 21.

***

Things are even weirder over on the trustee side. Of the 11 trustee seats on the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 5 candidates are currently running unopposed and 4 are in straight two-way battles. There are still no public trustee candidates for Ward 1 and Ward 13.

Side note: I check the “List of Candidates” page on the City’s website 2-to-20 times a day and always quickly click over to the “Ward 1 - English Public” tab. I feel weirdly protective of it for some reason. Maybe it’s because I ran for Wards 1 and 2 trustee back in 2014. Maybe it’s because that experience pushed me to get my PhD, specializing in local government. Maybe it’s because I’ve studied and published on school boards in the time since my disastrous bid for public office. I’m not entirely sure. I mean, not a single person in the community has suggested I put my name forward, but I still have a kind of…connection to that race. A spiritual bond, if you will. Anyway, if anyone knows of someone keen on running for Ward 1 HWDSB trustee, reach out and let me know. Happy to provide my thoughts and advice to anyone who steps up.

There are only two contested races over on the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board side, with the other seven seats barreling toward acclamation (there are more Agostino’s in the election than contested Catholic trustee seats right now, meaning this might be the best round of elections for the city’s most prolific political dynasty - if you don’t count the Copps family). And both of the French-language trustees for Hamilton may now be acclaimed after incumbent French Public trustee Pierre Gregory withdrew from the election without explanation.

All this means that, at present, for 22 trustee seats across Hamilton, we are looking at six two-way contests, 12 acclamations, and 2 automatic vacancies. And here I was worried that the Ford government would abolish the office and “undermine democracy”. A lack of interest in the races is doing that perfectly fine all on its own, thank you very much!

***

As of tomorrow at 8:30 AM, there will be 10.625 business days for aspiring candidates to get their papers in order and join the race. A lot can happen in politics in 10.625 days. And while the pile of known unknowns and unknown unknowns grows, one this is for sure: when Hamiltonians go to the polls on October 26, 2026, they’ll be asked to decide how this city is governed for the next four years, and that decision will be a big one.

What the future holds is another “unknown”. But in this age of discontent and anger and powerlessness, we do still hold the power to select the most competent, capable, and compelling people to guide us through whatever comes next. There are a great many people who fit that bill already in the running. And, if there isn’t one that suits your fancy or meets your needs, now might be your chance to step up and be that person.

Because one thing is certainly in the “known known” category - this is still a democracy and we all still have a role to play. As a candidate, as a campaign worker, as a voter. We all know it. And we know what we need to do to get the government we deserve.

A breeze in the doldrums

Photo by Florian van Schreven on Unsplash - Edited by author

This week in The Incline

• Running with Chris

• Avast, me mateys!

• Lessons from 2012

• Six weeks of data crunching

• Compare and contrast

…but first, Chris is running ran

Back in June, I ran the 2026 Pride and Remembrance Run in Toronto during Pride weekend. It’s a sort of tradition of mine, trying to stay healthy and give back to the community during the annual celebration of queer resilience and joy that is Pride. For the past two years, I’ve put out calls for donations in The Incline, asking readers to give what they can to support my run instead of sending me “tips” through ko-fi.com.

This year, you all helped me exceed my goal by a lot. Thanks to the generosity of family, friends, and you, dear readers, we raised $1,107.90 for the charities supported by the Pride and Remembrance Run. Your contributions were so incredibly inspiring for me, and were on my mind for the 28 minutes it took me to complete the race (not a super time, but a respectable one for me).

As promised, I’m posting the photos of me during the race. There weren’t as many as there have been in previous years (even though I tried to be as photogenic as possible), but they do feature me wearing the “Proud. Queer. Hamiltonian.” hat that I made for the race.

I’d like to work on getting those patches made up for a future fundraiser, so keep your eyes open for that. There are so many incredible community organizations working to support queer folks in Hamilton that need support, so I’d love to figure out a way to help them while also providing supporters with a little merch.

Thank you again for all the love and support. I guess you could say I’m running I ran because I knew you all had my back. And that means the world to me.

Photos of Chris from the 2026 Pride and Remembrance Run

Okay, on with this edition of The Incline.

Notes on sailing

Summer is slipping by. The stifling heat of early July has given way to a cooler, almost fall-like atmosphere. Bursts of angry summer rain continue to upend countless barbeques and hikes and camping trips. But there’s a feeling of the infinite in this moment; time passes, but it feels static. Heat fades into cool which returns to heat, rain soaks and the sun dries and it doesn’t really matter if one day is too hot or one day is too wet or one day is too smoky because there’s an endless summer before us. There’s always tomorrow. There’s always another chance. In some ways, it’s like we’re stick in the doldrums - that belt of calm and stillness along the Equator that was once the adversary of many a sailor but that provides a respite from the relentless onslaught of time.

There have been a few gusts of wind, so to speak. Particularly when it comes to local politics, periodic bursts of activity snap us out of our summer lull and into the real world where time flies and opportunities disappear.

Some days, it seems as though nothing is moving, the afternoon sun beating angrily down on the fragile tall ship of our democracy, imperceptible movements slowly driving its crew mad. Other days, it’s as though a great hurricane has hit us out of nowhere, tossing our vessel hither and yon, disrupting our journey and forcing us to head to our navigational equipment to figure out a way back.

The biggest gust to hit us recently was last week’s vote on the data centre Interim Control By-Law (ICBL). The decision has rocked the community and threatens to disrupt our previously sleepy municipal election.

Personally, this one hit me hard. Given my…delicate position, there were some extremely tense moments with family and friends after this vote. I had a lot of feelings. Everyone had a lot of feelings. Then, and now, I’ve had to be cautious as to how I’ve addressed things, but, as I have mentioned repeatedly these past few years, I tend to process my feelings by writing. It’s how I make sense of things, push myself to research, and work to understand all sides of some very complex issues.

So, naturally, I looked for guidance in history.

Gambling on data

There have been some pretty impressive grassroots citizen movements in Hamilton’s recent history. The one that sticks in my mind is the anti-casino movement from 2012. What they were able to do - and how council responded to their activism - is in stark contrast to what played out last week during the ICBL vote.

***

Way back in the utopia that was ‘12 (rent was low, music was good, I had hair…), the governing Ontario Liberals proposed a massive “restructuring” of the province’s gaming sector, which included closing some small slot machine sections at racetracks and, in their place, opening multiple new casinos in large cities. Ontarians, souring on the leadership of then-Premier Dalton McGunity, were not on board; a poll from mid-March of 2012 showed that only 24 percent of Ontarians supported opening more casinos. A letter writer to the Spec joked that the languishing pre-condo-ified Royal Connaught could play host to a casino. It was a tongue-in-cheek proposal put forward despite the writer “Not knowing any of the logistics and admittedly not having put a lot of thought into it,” concluding their letter with the deeply sarcastic quip: “Just askin’.”

Mayor Bob Bratina took that suggestion and ran with it. By early April, it was reported that Bratina had “put out feelers” to host what he billed as a “world-class casino” in Hamilton. Members of council were taken aback, telling the Spec that Bratina had distributed those feelers of his own accord and without their knowledge. The paper’s editorial board quickly came out with a piece imploring the mayor to include residents in the conversation. “We must keep in mind,” they wrote, “that while a casino will draw gamblers and produce revenue, it is not a city-building initiative…this is an issue that requires study, discussion and a great deal of community input.”

In July, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (good ol’ OLG) announced 29 “gaming zones” in the province and confirmed Hamilton was on the list for a possible casino. Councillor Sam Merulla, sensing an opportunity, pitched a municipal “referendum” on a casino during the 2014 municipal election.

While Merulla tried to open the discussion to the entire city, the powers-that-be had sought to keep the negotiations quiet. City staff confirmed that “secret” talks had been occurring behind closed doors about a local casino (secret in that even staff did not know who was participating or what was actually said). It was unclear who participated in the talks, but, shortly after the revelation about the secret talks, it was announced that The Mercanti Family of Carmen’s (and now HUPEG) fame had expressed interest in building and operating a downtown casino. It seemed that the ball was rolling faster and faster and faster, barreling straight into a core that was, at the time, just beginning to feel a touch of life after decades of neglect.

Battle lines were drawn. Councillors were divided between firm opposition and being “open-minded” to a downtown casino. Community members stepped up and organized, knowing they only had a few chances to convey to council members how damaging a large casino would be in downtown Hamilton.

Pressure began to mount, especially as the clock ticked closer and closer to the day of the vote on Merulla’s proposed referendum. Given that municipalities are creatures of the province, Hamilton would have needed the approval of the OLG to “delay” talks until after a referendum could be held in 2014. They rejected the proposal outright, leading Merulla to team up with Ward 1 Councillor Brian McHattie on a motion that would force a council vote on terminating talks with the OLG, effectively killing the idea of a downtown casino.

Councillors began informally polling their constituents. Local heavyweights like former Mayor Larry Di Ianni and former Councillor Don Drury came out in favour while Andrea Horwath lined up against (or, more accurately, very pro-referendum). The letters to the editor pages were filled with casino missives while town halls featured passionate debates from Flamborough to the core to Winona.

***

A massive Spec poll dropped in late October, 2012, conveniently around the midway point between the 2010 and 2014 elections. A modest but clear majority of 56 percent of respondents were against a casino. It was evident that momentum was on the anti-casino side.

Another win came when the OLG caved to a request from council to have more time for deliberation. And deliberate they did. A special “gaming subcommittee” was established, though much of its work was derailed by clashes between Bratina and Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead.

Conversations about the casino were everywhere as pro and anti forces lobbied and wrote letters and kept the pressure on council. Neighbourhood associations and community groups started taking sides. It seemed like everyone in the city had an opinion about the casino; even Hamilton’s Chief Medical Officer of Health stepped in to the debate, saying that, if council voted in favour of a casino, there should be safeguards put in place to protect people struggling with gambling and alcohol addictions.

Anti-casino protesters filled council chambers in mid-December to make their position known to the gaming subcommittee. Their demonstration made the front page of the Spec featuring some familiar friendly faces.

Hamilton Spectator, December 14, 2012

The city planned casino “forums” for January of 2013 to hear from residents. At a forum in Flamborough, some residents brought their horses as a way of reminding councillors that the OLG stated they would close the slot machine section of Flamboro Downs racetrack if a new casino opened in Hamilton, which would severely harm the racing industry in the area. The main forum at City Hall attracted over 500 residents, with another 23,000 listening in virtually. The “no” side had the physical advantage, outnumbering the proponents by vast numbers, bringing drums and signs and even more horses.

***

Amidst all that, the Mercanti’s unveiled their downtown casino proposal. At a nightclub in Hess Village, the Mercanti’s and their business partners in the proposed venture - the Mancinelli’s from LiUNA and the Hard Rock Café - announced “RockHammer”, a consortium dedicated to building, not just a casino, but an “entertainment complex” somewhere in the core. What they pitched was beyond a complex, bordering on an entertainment leviathan. Over 1,200 slot machines, a rooftop nightclub, a 280-room hotel, a comedy club, a Canadian rock ‘n’ roll hall of fame, and some kind of homage to the city’s many waterfalls. And, of course, a “gambling addiction program offered in partnership with Mission Services.” The $200 million proposal was touted by proponents as transformative, with the potential to become “one of the largest private-sector employers in Hamilton.”

The announcement wasn’t all glitz and rock; speaking with the Spec, Mercanti family patriarch Peter poo-pooed the anti-casino crowd, saying “Who are these people? What is their background? What have they done?…They get almost all the same weight as the people who really count. It shocks me.”

Oof.

The RockHammer proposal wasn’t the only one floating around. Among the cavalcade of pitches that bounced around the city, one of the most interesting came from a local entrepreneur who pitched a “casino boat” and banquet centre at Pier 8, using a decommissioned restaurant ship from Toronto to host a permanently-moored gambling boat at the waterfront.

As the proposals swirled and council deliberated, local artists and venues stepped up to voice their opposition. A bombshell open letter signed by, among others, Young Rival, Terra Lightfoot, The Dirty Nil, Monster Truck, Alexisonfire, and the Arkells said that, not only did they oppose the casino, but would refuse to play at it if it opened.

Every day, it seemed like more and more Hamiltonians were against the casino. All that was needed was council’s decision.

After months of debate, council finally came to the table with a motion. It amended Merulla and McHattie’s original motion of total opposition, instead reaffirming Hamilton’s support for the Flamboro Downs slots. The catch was that, if Flamboro no longer met the criteria established by the province, Hamilton would be open to a casino elsewhere.

The compromise made almost everyone happy. The pro side believed the door was still open while the anti side knew that Flamboro Downs was unlikely to go anywhere and, even if it did, there would still be another public debate on the future of a Hamilton casino. There were still a handful of grumpy columnists and letter writers who decried the compromise as a backward, anti-business, anti-investment move that squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. But it seemed almost everyone saw the casino for what it really was: a gamble.

The motion passed unanimously.¹

Today, we have no downtown casino and Flamboro Downs operates a racetrack and slot machines, providing revenue for the city and a place for those who truly want to gamble to go. But we only got to this point after nearly a year of vigourous and spirited debate across Hamilton allowed enough time to study the issue, hear from every side, and make a measured, responsible decision.

Just like always happens in Hamilton.

smash cut to…

Six weeks of data crunching

A total of 41 days. That’s all there were between the contentious Committee of Adjustment (CoA) meeting on the proposed Steelport Data Centre and the council meeting where a draft ICBL was rejected.

The timelines, players, and circumstances can be hard to untangle, but they’re important to understand.

***

Hamilton’s CoA met on June 4 to hear an application from Slate Asset Management regarding 386 Wilcox Street, home to Stelco’s main Hamilton Works. The property is a complicated mess of lines that follow industrial rail connections, the swaths of infill that created Piers 16 and 17, and Industrial Drive. One of its western neighbours is the Chernobyl-style sarcophagus that has capped Randle Reef, the toxic mass that poisoned the harbour for a century.

The rough outline of 386 Wilcox Street

In total, 386 Wilcox is around 286 hectares of industrial land (I know it’s hard to visualize, but that’s like 9.5 Gage Parks, 54.4 Lime Ridge Malls, or 608.5 Gore Parks). Slate’s application to the CoA was to sever just over 76 hectares of the property fronting Ottawa and Industrial in the bottom right (southeast) corner of the property.

The application was originally scheduled to come to the CoA on May 19, but, due to public interest in the application, it was pushed to their June 4 meeting. The community, having gotten wind of the application and Slate’s desire to use the severed property to house a data centre, flooded the CoA with correspondence. The nearly 1,690 comments submitted may have broken a record for most comments on a single application in the city’s history.

On paper, the application should have been approved. Opposition to data centres aside, there was little wrong with the raw planning rationale backing up the application. But the CoA could see which way the winds were blowing and unanimously rejected Slate’s application. In their decision, they said the application conflicted with Hamilton’s Official Plan, is not keeping with other developments in the area, and is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the lands.

The CoA is an interesting body. It derives its powers from the Planning Act and operates as a “quasi-judicial” body, meaning that it weighs applications against a municipality’s official plan and zoning by-laws and makes decisions. It doesn’t make laws, it just interprets existing ones. That’s why the CoA is made up of citizen appointees and not members of council. That doesn’t mean CoA members aren’t political, of course. Past political candidates, the civically-engaged with a keen eye for rules and regulations, and individuals encouraged by elected officials to bring their expertise to the table are often appointed to bodies like the CoA. They aren’t elected by the people, though, so for them to reject the proposal meant that they acutely understood the anger in the community.

***

Three weeks after the CoA rejected Slate’s application for severance, City Council met to discuss a proposed Interim Control By-Law (ICBL) regarding data centres. Also part of the Planning Act, an ICBL serves as a “pause” on developments of a certain kind while a municipality conducts studies and adjusts policies to ensure the orderly development of lands in their jurisdiction. It basically means that things are put on hold until staff and councillors can get up-to-speed on the matter.

The motion on the ICBL was first brought to council’s Planning Committee, where it passed unanimously. The following week, it was put before the full council, where it passed 15-to-1 with Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark opposed. All that vote did was direct staff to put together the wording of the ICBL and report back to council on July 15.

At the June 24 meeting of council where the ICBL was sent to staff, there were some rumblings about the signal it would send. Questions and comments bounced around regarding whether Hamilton would appear anti-business and the city’s acting general manager of planning and ec. dev. said the debate may have caused “some reputational damage” for Hamilton.

But, everyone broke for Pride/Canada Day/early July fun, and staff went off to draft the ICBL, getting things ready to bring back to council for July 15. The only real blip between June 24 and July 15 was that Slate appealed (expectedly) the CoA’s decision on June 30.

Then came Friday, July 10.

***

As first reported by Joey Coleman, Mayor Horwath announced, seemingly out-of-the-blue that a “special” council meeting had been called for the following Tuesday, June 14. The purpose of the meeting was to hear from pro-data centre speakers in advance of the Wednesday, July 15 meeting to vote on the ICBL.

To say the reaction in the community was “stunned” would be an understatement. The online anger was unrestrained. Conversations I had in person were incredulous. I, myself, thought there must have been some mistake and that the meeting would hear from both pro and con speakers.

Half of council did not attend the Tuesday meeting. Some genuinely had other commitments, some boycotted it due to the nature of the meeting. The speakers presented a handful of facts and answered some questions, but it seemed like the presentation muddied the waters, rather than clarifying anything of substance. A host of new words and phrases like “hyperscale”, “closed-loop cooling”, and “direct-to-chip” were entered into the record. One of the speakers said that “one computer” can constitute a data centre. Spectators heckled, councillors tried to get clarity on procedure, tension grew. As if to add to the tension, Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas MP John-Paul Danko hosted an AI townhall the same night where he stated he wasn’t pro- or anti-AI, just “pro-business, pro-economic development, and pro jobs for the future.”²

And that set the stage for Wednesday.

After lunch, council entered closed session. They stayed in that closed session for hours. When they returned, the only piece of information shared was that a proposed data centre at the old Spec building on Frid Street - part of the McMaster Innovation Park - would be automatically exempted from the ICBL because Ontario’s Planning Act exempts universities from zoning controls.

There wasn’t much more after that. In under an hour, a few councillors provided their perspectives and gave their explanations. There was some talk about losing opportunities, but most of the conversation centred around what council didn’t have control over and what other levels of government needed to do. Hanging heavy in the air were the unspoken concerns raised in closed session that hinted strongly at anticipated legal action if the ICBL passed. A jurisdictional washing of the hands while furtive glances were thrown at the city’s legal team, if you will.

After that, they voted.

The ICBL was defeated 10-to-6.

Compare and contrast

I’ll give council this: municipalities really don’t have a lot of direct powers.

Municipal government in Canada is extremely limited in what it can do. Constitutionally, municipalities don’t have a leg to stand on. They exist at the whim and pleasure of the provinces, acting as local service delivery units for all those responsibilities granted the provinces way back in 1867. The world has changed a lot since then. But thing are very, very, very slow to change in Canada. So we’re stuck with what we have for the time being.

What we have now is a tangled web of provincial legislation, legal precedent, and local policies that form the basis of municipal government.

Sometimes, the province will involve themselves more vigourously in the actions of local bodies, as has been the longstanding policy of Doug Ford, Lord Island Protector and “Mayor” of the definitely not cursed Ontario.

Sometimes, the courts will make a ruling regarding one municipality’s actions that forces other municipalities to act a certain way, as was the case when Justice Michael Valente ruled that Waterloo Region couldn’t clear an encampment in Kitchener, creating the conditions whereby Hamilton created the 2023 Encampment Protocol.

Sometimes, a municipality’s own rules prevent it from acting quickly or responding to a unique challenge, as has been the case with the data centre issue, given that Hamilton’s zoning by-laws aren’t equipped to deal with a rapidly-evolving technology.

How a council addresses those factors matters. And it is growing increasingly clear that residents are not satisfied with the response from their elected officials.

***

Councillors will inevitably have a multitude of opinions on their responsibilities as they interpret them. These will be based on their understanding of the job, their own philosophies, and the skills and perspectives they bring with them when they are elected.

I, as we all well know, haven’t been elected to jack squat. I’m just a 30-something nerd with a PhD in municipal government that is currently hanging slightly askew on my wall (note to self, straighten degree frame). But I’ve been bumming around local government enough over the past few years to have seen how the civic sausage is made and develop my own ideas on how councillors should approach the job.

My belief is that a member of a municipal council is both a legislator and an advocate for their constituents. They legislate as a voting member of the “corporation”, meaning they have the power to introduce motions, debate them, and vote on them. But they also have a duty to be advocates - to take a stand and speak up for their constituents on matters of importance in the municipality. Council members are elected by voters not just to be a passive board member; they are elected to be the voice of a community on matters of civic importance to that community.

Can a member of council direct the police to “tackle violent crime”? No. But they can advocate on the issue of crime while simultaneously legislating on policies that will help bring crime down, whatever they believe those to be.

Can a member of council unilaterally fix a dangerous intersection? No. But they can advocate for safer streets and legislate with their fellow councillors on safety measures for that intersection.

Can a member of council “create jobs?” Of course not. But they can advocate for economic development and legislate on tangible policies that might impact employment in their community.

A councillor can take a stand and use the tools at their disposal to back up that stand. Even if it means the threat of a lawsuit or provincial intervention or some other possible hiccup, it’s the stand that matters.

And it isn’t like this is some novel idea. It’s happened before.

***

In 2016, the Hamilton Mountain branch of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) bought a handful of bus stop ads. The dull, black-and-white advertisements featured a photo of a man in a heavy winter coat and baseball cap entering a door marked “ladies showers”. The ads read “Competing Human Rights…Where is the Justice?” The spacing between the words was all off, capitalization was used haphazardly, and, to most people, the ads must have been all-but inscrutable.

The intent behind the ads was to peddle transphobic hate, building off the entirely imagined worry that a cis man would simply “identify” as a woman to enter a single-sex washroom or shower space to assault the people within. This is despite the fact that such events simply do not happen and that allowing people to use the spaces that align with their gender identity does not also magically eliminate protections against sexual assault and that its trans people who are way more likely to be the victims and not the perpetrators of harassment and violence in washrooms. Just more of the weird social conservative obsession with other people’s genitals.

The city removed the ads not long after they went up. The CHP sued and the city lost, with a judge saying the city didn’t follow its own policies when responding to the ads. Humiliatingly, the city dropped an appeal of the ruling in 2018 and ended up owing the Christian nationalist party $44,000.

But that was a learning experience for the city. They put new policies and guidelines in place to ensure that, if it came up again, they would be prepared.

And of course it came up again. Christian nationalists have enough money and time and anger to keep these things going until judgement day. In 2023, the CHP wanted to run another series of transphobic bus shelter ads, but was denied before the ads could go up. The party dragged the city to court again. But this time, the judge ruled that the city’s decision “showed a rational chain of analysis” and was justified. An appeal by the CHP was rejected because, again, the policies were there and the logic was sound.

The city took a stand, had policies to back it up, and won in court. They knew a lawsuit was possible because it had happened before. But that didn’t stop them from doing what they believed was right. It took a frustrating legal battle and a long process of developing policies, but it paid off in the end.

The city could have rolled over in 2016, saying that the policies in place didn’t allow them to stop the ads or that the threat of a lawsuit was enough to get them to back off. They could have balked at new policies, voting against them with the justification that things like transphobia and freedom of expression are outside their jurisdiction. But they didn’t. They responded to a situation using the tools they had and they won, signaling to Hamilton’s queer community that they would advocate for us, even when it was tough.

***

Almost one year passed between the idea of a Hamilton casino was floated and council’s final compromise decision in 2012. There were countless townhalls, debates, discussions, lobbying pitches, meetings with other levels of government, and hours of deliberation.

During that debate, the city had to return to the province multiple times to ask permission to pursue a policy or make a decision. The referendum proposal was an attempt to poll the public on whether Hamilton should continue to negotiate regarding a casino. The vote on the compromise motion was a signal that Hamilton wanted gaming at Flamboro Downs and that negotiations with the province would ultimately focus on that. Council was using the tools they had to be the advocates that we expected them to be.

Contrast that with the data centre debate.

There were about six weeks between the data centre issue appearing on the radar of many Hamiltonians and council’s rejection of the ICBL, one of the only policy tools they had to address the issue. During the debate, councillors were informed of the limitations placed on their power by the province, by possible legal action, and by their own policies. Members of council, in that moment, had a choice to defer to the institution or to advocate for their constituents, even if speaking up was doomed to fail.

And, let’s be honest, it was probably doomed to fail. The Slate project is almost assuredly going ahead, whether we want it to or not. There’s a boatload of loosely-allocated federal money just floating around that Slate is not going to pass up and the Carney government is going all-in on AI because of course they are (even if Hamilton Centre MP Aslam Rana recently came out against the proposed data centres in the city). The Ontario Land Tribunal (the appeals body for CoA decisions) will absolutely side with Slate, the property will be severed, and the project will move forward. And the McMaster project, preemptively carved out of the ICBL, is probably going to chug along at its own pace independent of whatever was decided by the city.

But the ICBL provided a few different things. It would have given city staff time to develop policies, given councillors time to hear from community members (not just from proponents in hastily-called meetings), allowed everyone time to get up-to-speed on this rapidly evolving file, and would have signaled to the community that, even if provincial policies and the courts and time make it inevitable that data centres will spring up in our communities, that at least council used what little was at its disposal to try and slow the process. Passing it would have shown the community that, even with its limited powers, a city council can still influence the conversation and advocate for residents.

And that, I think, is the biggest issue with the ICBL vote.

Yes, there’s palpable anger in the community. Yes, there are talks of people organizing to run against the councillors who voted down the ICBL. Yes, there’s continued activism and pressure from the anti-data centre crowd.

But the biggest issue is that so many people will now look at council and say “what’s the point?” Why bother voting if council preempts challenges to its power by rolling over? Why participate in local government if councillors themselves admit they have no power to change things? Why get involved if councillors keep pointing to other levels of government or obscure policies or recommendations from lawyers, saying “see, our hands are tied!”

In an age when so many people are tuning out, this decision threatens to discourage even more people from heading to the polls. No matter how many city ads say “your vote matters”, no matter how much enthusiasm may come from some campaigns, no matter how many other pressing issues need to be addressed, if people don’t see council responding in a meaningful way to things about which they have expressed genuine concern, then it’ll be that much harder to motivate them to cast a ballot.

The fallout from the ICBL vote remains to be seen. Maybe there will be a groundswell of opposition and the coordination of new campaigns against sitting councillors. Maybe the focus will shift to pressuring the province and feds to develop better policies regulating data centres.

But maybe, and most worryingly, the ICBL decision will just push Hamilton’s voters deeper into the doldrums. Maybe people will just tune out this election. Maybe they’ll ignore the big debates, thinking their local government won’t step up to help even if they could.

Maybe they’ll lose what little faith remains in our civic democracy.

Sock it to me

Photo by Natalie Kinnear on Unsplash - edited by author

This week in The Incline

• Hamilton's year without an election

• A subdued 2026 campaign

• The far-right comes for a sock puppet

• A chat with Scarlett Gillespie

Up until yesterday, the 2026 Hamilton municipal election seemed pretty sleepy (no word yet on how the whole data centre thing will impact the election). For most of the nomination period, the election has been low-energy, sparsely-reported, and featuring a strikingly small number of candidates.

Hell, even Hamilton’s “not so la-de-da” election of 1918 had more excitement and intrigue.

Fewer votes, more hogs

As Hamilton muddled through another year of a world war, the last thing on people’s minds was a municipal election. The civic battles in years past had pit labour against business, workers against bosses, the people against the establishment. But that enthusiasm had waned as the fight against the Kaiser brought all but the most committed of leftists under the Union Jack-festooned banner of imperial nationalism. Topping it off, Prime Minister Borden had called a federal election for December 17, 1917, which was widely viewed as a referendum on his handling of the war effort. His government was returned with a massive majority, but the enthusiasm of the electorate had been almost completely drained.

In early December, 1917, there was open talk in the city of a coordinated effort on the part of sitting members of council and their backroom boys with all of the major parties to ensure acclamations across-the-board. “…the contest on New Year’s day is certain to be as tame as the kitchen canary,” the Spec wrote, referencing the historic fixed municipal election day of January 1. After Borden’s landslide victory, that talk only intensified.

But nothing in politics is ever certain. And, in this case, the total acclamation of Hamilton’s elected bodies hinged on the political aspirations of one Thomas Morris. An outspoken fixture in Hamilton’s civic politics for years, Morris lost a mayoral bid the previous year against local businessman Charles Booker. That campaign was brutal, featuring a concerted effort on the part of the Spec and the city’s Conservative establishment to paint Morris as a self-important, credit-stealing, ignorant blowhard in stark contrast to the economizing, humble, and responsible Chas. Booker. Morris’ painful loss on January 1, 1917, led to speculation that he would seek a rematch with Booker in 1918. Deepening the intrigue was the fact that the city’s Independent Labour Party (ILP) had pinned their involvement on what Morris did; the ILP’s leadership said that, if Morris ran, they too would nominate candidates, not wanting to be left out of the show.

Local institutions came out against an election, including the Board of Trade, who instead urged the city to focus on the war effort. Their executive submitted a letter to City Council to this effect, urging Hamilton’s civic leaders to do what they could to force acclamations and avoid a campaign. Four days before nominations were set to open, the City Clerk read the Board of Trade’s letter into the official record, which council quietly accepted before moving onto more pressing business; council had, on its agenda that day, a thrilling report about how Hamilton could encourage its hog production to support the war effort.

As the days before nominations opened slipped by, prominent local officials, often thought of as mayors-in-waiting, either announced their intention to not run, or said they would make up their minds on the spot. Tension built. Rumours flew from Paradise Road in the west to Ottawa Street in the east.

Nomination day was held on Christmas Eve. The doors of the city’s returning offices stayed open all day and curious Hamiltonians would occasionally pop their heads in to see if there was any civic action before returning to their pre-Christmas preparations. There was a mild shock when two former members of the Board of Control were nominated for their old seats, bringing the total number of candidates to 6 for the board of 4. Sensing the overwhelming opposition in the city to the idea of an election, the two former members quickly announced they would speak with the clerk and withdraw their nominations.

On Boxing Day, the city clerk made the official announcement: for the first time in Hamilton’s history, there would be no municipal election. Every elected official, from the mayor to school trustees, were returned to office unopposed. Morris, the ILP, the two former controllers, and every other aspirant had bowed out, putting the good of the country above their own ambition. The inauguration of the new council and school board would happen as usual, assured the Spec, but it wouldn’t be “so ‘la-de-da’ as in other years”.²

***

It was the year without an election. And yet, despite the absence of a campaign, there was still drama and interest.

Why is it, then, that we have a contested municipal election this year that is so…bleh? And why is it that the biggest story to come out of the campaign so far has been a far-right fixation on an out-of-context clip of a mayoral candidate - a story that has been mostly ignored by local media and that is being used by extremists to attack queer people and further justify the annexation of our country?

The dog days of the nomination period

There are 36 days left in the nomination period for Hamilton’s 2026 Municipal Election. 102 days until municipal election day. Just over three months for people to wake up and smell the democracy. But everyone is still snoozing in a smoky summer sunbeam, it seems.

By this point in the last election, there were over 40 references to the campaign in the Spec. Full coverage of the Loomis campaign launch. Discussion over Mayor Eisenberger’s decision to not seek a fourth term. What Andrea Horwath would do after losing the provincial election on June 2.

This cycle, there have been a handful of mentions, mostly in the form of informational explainers. Who is running where. What the rules are. What to expect when voting. There’s just no energy there, from the local media or from the commentators you’d expect.

As of the morning of Thursday, July 16, there are just 82 candidates for 38 offices across the city. That’s around half the number of candidates who ran in the 2022 election. If nominations closed today, there would be two council acclamations, 13 trustee acclamations, and three trustee seats left vacant for lack of candidates.

***

Most of the modest activity has been on the head-of-council front.

Keanin Loomis has been hosting a “listening tour” across the city, focusing on the suburban communities in which he performed well in 2022. In this election, he’ll be fighting Councillor Rob Cooper for support in those places, so it makes sense that he kicked things off out there. But the media hasn’t really paid attention to Loomis and it remains to be seen if there will be any coverage of his campaign launch on July 18.

Cooper, for his part, has already launched his campaign, though you’d be excused for not knowing it. Cooper’s campaign has been tightly controlling his access to the public, opting to mainly focus on likely voters and supportive media. That said, he was spotted at July 10’s Art Crawl on James North, handing out business cards imploring voters to back Cooper if they support “tackling violent crime, capping taxes, fixing roads, confronting the housing crisis, creating jobs & economic growth”. The modest “platform” fits for the ideologue who has, as a pseudo-campaign slogan “Too much political ideology”.

The only reference to Cooper’s campaign launch in any local media appeared in the increasingly right-wing Bay Observer, which took time off from fixating on the “woke” epidemic in Hamilton to cover his mayoral kick off. The launch was apparently well-attended; according to the BO, 150 people filled a ballroom at the Carmen’s hotel in upper Stoney Creek to hear Cooper lay out his vision for a city where taxes are low, services are plentiful, and grievances are settled. The BO reported that, during the launch, Cooper was endorsed by the Mancinelli’s, the influential Progressive Conservative-affiliated local family who run the development focused-”union” LiUNA.

And Mayor Andrea Horwath will apparently be filing her paperwork any day now, though there seems to be almost no enthusiasm in the community about her bid for a second term. It’s entirely possible that Horwath’s mayoral career may mirror that of former Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek, who slipped to third in her re-election bid last year. But I’ve been wrong before. Many times. Horwath’s own political career is a reminder that, in politics, anything is possible.

Enough misinformation to fill a sock

Before yesterday’s clusterbumble of a vote on the proposed interim control by-law regarding data centres, there was one big municipal news story floating around.

Again, as was the case with Cooper’s launch, you’d be excused for not knowing much about it. Local media has been almost entirely silent about this story, which blends online misinformation, rabid transphobia, and the MAGA-inspired push to have the United States of America annex Canada.

Why it hasn’t been more widely reported on is beyond me. Unsatisfied with that, I decided to dive into the story and speak with the candidate at the centre of it all.

***

One of the first people to declare their intention to run for mayor was local activist and advocate Scarlett Gillespie.

Recognizable to many Hamiltonians as the Executive Director of the Sex Workers Action Program (SWAP), Gillespie (also known as Jelena Vermilion) spoke up for sex workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic, joined the calls to hold the Hamilton Police Service accountable after the violence at Hamilton Pride 2019, and was targeted on social media by then-Councillor John-Paul Danko who called Gillespie and another YWCA Women of Distinction Award winner “ungrateful, self-righteous, toddlers with a microphone” - which earned the now-MP one of his many, many, many code of conduct violations.³

When Gillespie announced a mayoral bid at the end of last July, she wrote that Hamilton “deserves a Mayor who cares and who actually shows up.” And show up she did; on May 1, Gillespie was one of the first people to sign up to run.

***

On June 13, Gillespie was a special guest at an event held at west Hamilton’s historic Staircase Theatre. The event was part of the Uncloseted Comedy Festival, which bills itself as “celebrating queer joy through comedy”. The events have been going on for some time and their posters are a regular fixture throughout town.

Gillespie posted video of the event to Instagram and TikTok around a week later. In the video, Gillespie chats with Uncloseted producer and local comedian, Rae Lockdust, about her run for mayor. The event was, of course, part of the larger comedy festival, so Lockdust provided Gillespie with a sock puppet to try and add a splash of humour to what could otherwise be a very serious conversation about municipal issues.

The conversation oscillates between comedy and campaign speech. It’s equal parts funny and informative and, if I may be so bold as to editorialize, a great example of the kind of joy we should be bringing back to politics. Yes, we have to talk about big, serious issues, but there’s no reason we can’t also have a little fun in the process.

Gillespie posted the video on June 19 and carried on campaigning.

And then the far-right clipping farms found it.

***

Clipping farms are the latest iteration of “content farms” that have polluted the internet landscape for years. Instead of generating their own content, these clipping farms scrape content from other sources - news outlets, large creators, independent posters, everyday people, etc. - and sometimes make selective edits to better fit the narrative their viewers expect. They then post their doctored clips to advance a particular political agenda, make money off ad revenue, or both.

It’s cheap, lazy, and designed to make money off outrage using the platforms people are stuck on. And, more often than not, these clips are in the service of an extremely right wing agenda. In some cases, right-wing activists will pay people in the Global South pennies to spend all day pumping out clip after clip after clip.

The Garbage Day newsletter has been highlighting the epidemic of clipping for a while, and I highly recommend checking out their reporting on it.

One such clipping farm is “canadianmorningcoffee”, a TikTok account that has as its bio “Canadian Political page based off my mood each day so expect Left, Right Center and some laughs.” Almost every clip attacks Prime Minister Mark Carney or showcases Pierre Poilievre “epically shutting down arrogant reporters”. Not so much “left right centre”. Mostly just right. Really, really right.

On June 28, “canadianmorningcoffee” took a break from attacking Carney to focus on Hamilton. The account posted a clip from Gillespie’s video that they had apparently edited on their own. They cut out Lockdust, zoomed in on Gillespie, and overlaid the text: “Candidate running for Mayor of Hamilton, Ontario requires a sock puppet,” interspersing their editorial comment with a handful of emojis.

They simply made up the idea that Gillespie “requires” a sock puppet (whatever that means). There’s no reference to that in the full video, Gillespie doesn’t mention that in the edited clip they posted, and a 15 second Google search will produce dozens of videos of Gillespie delegating to council, speaking at meetings, and leading protests sans puppet.

By 8:00 PM that evening, the clip had migrated from TikTok to X/Twitter. Far-right clipping account “JayGenXer” - an account claiming to be based in Ontario that mainly promotes the need for the United States to invade and occupy Canada, bemoans the evils of race mixing and immigration, and sprinkles everything with heaps of transphobia - posted “canadianmorningcoffee’s” doctored clip with basically the same text: “Mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie who's running for Mayor of the city of Hamilton, Ontario in Canada requires a sock puppet. Yes… A.. SOCK 🧦… PUPPET 🤦🏻‍♂️”

***

The doctored clip quickly broke containment. At nearly 4:00 in the morning the next day, it was picked up by an account started by Chaya Raichik, a former real estate agent, COVID-19 conspiracy theorist, and January 6 rioter. Raichik is mainly known for starting the far-right clipping farm “Libs of TikTok”.

Raichik is openly and passionately anti-queer and was one of the main proponents of the “groomer” panic a couple of years ago. Her social media posts have been linked to dozens of bomb threats to hospitals, attacks on drag shows, and threats toward teachers. The Southern Poverty Law Center has an “extremist file” on Raichik, noting that she has used Libs of TikTok “in an anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation campaign that mobilizes right-wing extremist groups in violent attacks against LGBTQ+ people, spaces and events, as well as against doctors, hospitals, librarians, libraries, teachers and schools.” Raichik’s posts are explicitly designed to stoke hatred against queer people. The Human Rights Campaign has openly called Raichik’s Libs of TikTok a “hate speech account”.

She’s turned her hate into a profitable business (Libs of TikTok sells merch, generates ad and subscription revenue, and Raichik has become a sought-after paid speaker in far-right circles) and has leveraged her power to influence legislation and get appointed to public boards in the United States.

Libs of TikTok reposted “JayGenXer’s” repost about Gillespie, but leaned hard into the transphobia. Their post inaccurately says that Gillespie “uses a sock puppet [in her] speeches” and concludes with the line “Canada is a circus”.

From there, all hell broke loose. Conservative activist Jeff Ballingall’s “Canada Proud” astroturf group promoted it. Garden variety right wing influencers like Sonduren Fanarredha scooped it up. The far right social media ecosystem churned out mountains and mountains of vitriolic transphobia. They blended their hate with calls for the United States to invade Canada and “restore sanity”. Posters claimed Canadians are incapable of governing ourselves. That we’re a lesser people who need to be brought into line. That only the current American president can save us.

Far right activists reposted and reposted and reposted the clip, adding their own commentary, based entirely on the out-and-out lie that Gillespie “requires a sock puppet”.

There were some modest attempts to correct the record. After the Libs of TikTok post, Quebec-based fact checking site VérifRadar debunked the claim that Gillespie “requires” the puppet, as did the French fact checker AFP.

That didn’t stop it from entering the mainstream. On July 2, Fox News host Jesse Watters featured the clip on his segment “DEI Thursdays”, using it to mock Canada, peddle more transphobia, and make fun of Gillespie with the out-of-context clip. After the clip hit the mainstream, its popularity began to fade, and the far-right clipping farms and influencers who spread it moved on to their next marginalized target.

The only reference to the event in The Spec came in a July 9 “roundup” interview on what the mayoral candidates have been doing. In the article, the Spec erroneously notes that Gillespie “has used a sock puppet in some interviews making the rounds on social media.”⁴ The wording here matters; it was one appearance at a comedy show that was taken out-of-context and spread across far-right social media accounts, not “some interviews”.

***

Aside from that one sentence in the Spec, there has been no reference to this saga in any local media. A mayoral candidate has been targeted by the far-right, subjected to horrifying transphobia, and mischaracterized across social and conventional media. A clip of someone currently registered to run for office here is being used to, among other things, encourage the invasion of our country.

But, still, there’s been almost no domestic reaction to the events, aside from (and this might be surprising) Ben Mulroney of all people, who spoke with Gillespie about this and her campaign on his syndicated talk show.

I reached out to Gillespie to ask about the clip, the campaign, and how the hate out there might dissuade people from participating in politics. I really appreciated her thoughtful answers and for the time she took to provide her perspectives. Enjoy my chat with mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie.

A conversation with Hamilton mayoral candidate Scarlett Gillespie

Scarlett Gillespie and the author (Chris Erl) at Art Crawl on July 10, 2026 - Photo provided by the Gillespie Campaign

Chris Erl: You were one of the first people to announce a mayoral bid one year ago and were one of the first people to register on May 1. How has the campaign been so far?

Scarlett Gillespie: The campaign has been intense, humbling, and energizing. I announced early because I knew I was serious about this race and because I wanted to model what it looks like for someone from a non-traditional background to step forward into municipal leadership. Many ordinary Hamiltonians do not see themselves reflected in municipal politics. They feel and assume City Hall is for insiders, career politicians, business elites, or people with institutional access. Part of my campaign is about challenging that idea. I also felt it was important to register on May 1 in honour of International Workers' Day (May Day) given its significance of commemorating historical working-class resistance to advance workers' rights, safer conditions, and economic justice.

The campaign has also been incredibly moving. People have shared stories with me about housing, disability, poverty, public safety, small businesses, aging, addiction, and feeling ignored by the systems that are supposed to serve them. Those conversations have reminded me why I am running.

CE: You’re an outspoken activist and advocate in Hamilton who will often stand up and speak out in challenging settings (eg: during the YWCA’s Women of Distinction Awards) or on challenging topics (eg: serving as Executive Director of SWAP). Has the mayoral campaign been different? What are some of the unique challenges in running for elected office that might set it apart from some of your past experiences?

SG: Yes and no. I am used to speaking in difficult rooms and addressing issues that make people uncomfortable. As Executive Director of SWAP Hamilton, I have had to advocate on issues that carry a lot of stigma, including sex work, policing, access to housing, poverty, public health, and violence. I have also spoken publicly in moments where people were not always prepared to hear what I had to say.

What is different about running for office is that everything becomes filtered through electability, optics, and opposition. People are not only responding to what you say; they are responding to what they think someone like you represents. For me, as a trans woman, a former sex worker, a person living with disabilities, and someone living in public housing, I am aware that my very presence in the race challenges some people's ideas of who is "allowed" to lead. That is also why I think it is incredibly important.

CE: What are the biggest issues you’re hearing from people? Are there issues not being covered widely in the media that are coming up in your conversations with voters?

SG: Housing is the biggest issue by far, but it connects to everything else. People are worried about rent, homelessness, public housing, property taxes, infrastructure, and whether they can afford to stay in Hamilton. I also hear a lot about public safety, especially downtown. Residents are concerned about visible addiction, mental health crises, encampments, and disorder, but many also understand that enforcement alone will not solve those problems. People want practical, humane, effective solutions. Other issues that come up often are roads, snow clearing, accessibility, taxes, City Hall transparency, the condition of public housing, and the feeling that residents pay more while receiving less.

One issue I do not think gets enough attention is how many working-class, disabled, elderly, and low-income people are simply exhausted from trying to navigate broken systems. It is not just poverty. It is administrative cruelty. It is being sent from office to office, process to process, form to form, while your actual living conditions deteriorate, your landlord applies for Above Guideline Increases of rent, and our courts are backlogged while people suffer needlessly without protection. I also think the media does not cover bad-faith retaliation and reprisal by landlords towards tenants who advocate for improved living conditions enough. Take my personal example, with CityHousing Hamilton.

CE: Over the past few weeks, you’ve gone viral for an out-of-context clip that is being spread over social media by the far-right. Could you explain what happened at the comedy show on June 19?

SG: Just one small clarification: the Uncloseted Comedy Show clip was from June 13, while I posted the clip June 19th and it went viral shortly thereafter. The clip being circulated removes the context that it was part of a queer comedy event produced by Rae Lockdust where puppets were used (one also by Rae) to bring levity to audience-submitted questions. It was not something I have used before, nor do I use a sock puppet in regular public speaking or campaign events, as per two independent fact checks by Ophélie Dénommée-Marchand [VérifRadar] and Gwen Roley [AFP]. Anyone who has seen me delegate at City Hall, speak at public events, appear in interviews, or advocate in the community knows that is political hogwash.

What was frustrating was not only that I was targeted, but that a queer comedy event centred on joy and community was turned into a vehicle for mockery and transphobic harassment. However, I was able to capitalize and convert the attention to scale my social media exponentially in a short time. The spectacle ultimately garnered me an interview on the Ben Mulroney Show, where the son of Canada's former Progressive Conservative's Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tacitly endorsed me.

CE: What do you think it is about this clip in particular that has driven the far-right to try and make this “go viral”?

SG: I think the clip gave people who already wanted to discredit me an easy visual to weaponize as fodder. It allowed them to avoid engaging with my actual platform or the issues I am raising.

It is much easier to mock a trans woman with a puppet than it is to talk seriously about housing, public accountability, disability, poverty, or why people in Hamilton feel abandoned by their institutions. The far-right often relies on decontextualized images because they are not trying to understand people; they are trying to create a caricature. In this case, the goal was not really to discuss my campaign. It was to turn me into a symbol that could be ridiculed. However, I benefited from their poor attempts to mock me as they inadvertently amplified my message and gave me a larger platform.

CE: How have you responded to the far-right obsession over this clip?

SG: I have tried to respond with clarity and humour, but also with boundaries. I am not interested in spending my campaign chasing or attempting to correct every bad-faith interpretation of who I am, nor answer every bad faith, redundant question in a Facebook comment thread.

I have been bullied, harassed, and misunderstood for much of my life as a trans and queer person. I am not new to cruelty. What I am focused on is making sure the people who do care about Hamilton can find the real campaign underneath the noise. If anything, the clip has introduced more people to my platform. Many people came because of the controversy and stayed because they realized I am talking about issues they care about. You destroy your enemy when you make them your friend.

CE: What have you heard from the community since this clip went viral? Is this something that regular people are talking about or does it seem to be confined to the internet and some select right-wing news outlets.

SG: Most regular people I speak with are not fixated on the clip. They may have seen it, or heard about it, but when I am talking to people at doors, community events like Artcrawl earlier tonight, or online, they usually want to talk about housing, safety, taxes, accessibility, public services, and whether City Hall is listening.

The obsession seems much louder online and in certain right-wing media spaces than it is in actual community conversations. On the ground, people are much more thoughtful than social media gives them credit for. I have also received a lot of support from people who recognize what was happening. Many people saw the clip being used to mock a marginalized person and understood that it was not really about a puppet. It was about who certain people believe is allowed to be taken seriously in public spaces and in roles of leadership.

CE: So many people are tuning out of politics because of the amount of hate and vitriol out there. How do you approach this kind of hate? What would you say to anyone, especially someone with a marginalized identity, who might be hesitant to get involved because of the hate out there?

SG: I understand why people are afraid to get involved. The hate is real. The harassment is real. The emotional cost is real. I would never minimize that. Women entering politics is rife with disrespect and gender-based scrutiny and bias.

And I also strongly believe that public life cannot belong only to people who are already protected by power and money. If marginalized people are pushed out of politics because the environment is too cruel, then the people most affected and impacted by policy are excluded from shaping it. My message is not that everyone has to run for office. My message is that your voice matters. You can speak at a meeting, volunteer, organize with your neighbours and coworkers, support a campaign, intervene when someone is being bullied or harassed, write or delegate in-person to council, attend a debate, or simply refuse to believe that politics is not for you. The cruelty is meant to segregate us and make people disappear. I am choosing not to disappear and inversely use my hyper-visibility as a trans woman and public figure in a way that subverts the usual fusillade of stigma and vitriol targeting people like me to role model behaviour that assures people that... If she can do it - so can I.

CE: Anything else you’d like to share?

SG: I am running because I believe Hamilton needs leadership rooted in lived experience, public accountability, and true care for the people who are struggling most. We are the government, yet we aren't actually steering the ship. I represent that change.

My campaign is not about being perfect or polished. It is about being honest. I know what it is like to live in public housing. I know what it is like to experience homelessness. I know what it is like to navigate disability, stigma, and systems that were not built for people like me.

I also know how to organize, how to advocate, how to build partnerships, how to challenge institutions, and how to keep showing up even when it is difficult. Hamilton deserves a Mayor who listens, who understands working-class struggle, and who is willing to tell the truth about where our systems are failing.

That is why I am running. I am uniquely positioned to not only improve Hamilton, but to bring to the forefront real working-class economic justice.

…but first, a word from The Incline.

A few weeks ago, I had another piece run in the Spec. This one was personal to me, as I had seen a fair amount of online chatter at the beginning of the month about how “Pride Month” wasn’t necessary anymore. So I wrote about why Hamilton especially needs a Pride Month and why we need to stand together to oppose hate.

Those of us in the queer community in Hamilton have endured a lot over the past few years. I wrote in the piece that “the spectre of June 15, 2019, still haunts us.” The violence at Hamilton Pride 2019 has never been adequately addressed and, now, as the main piece for the newsletter this week will examine, hate is even more prevalent in our community.

The online response to the piece backed me up. When Councillor Maureen Wilson (for whom I do work at City Hall) reposted the piece on Facebook, she received a torrent of vitriol. The commenters provided a laundry list of complaints: we’re too obnoxious about it, we spread disease, we are minimizing the struggles of other groups, we are disgusting, we should all be institutionalized. I did not know that Maureen had reposted the article or the hate it had earned until, later that day, I was asked how I was holding up by a friend at a party. That certainly tanked my mood.

But, as I also wrote in the piece, “Hamilton’s queer community is endlessly resilient.” We persevere because we must. We build community, we support one another, and we help out in whatever way we can, how ever we are able.

I can think of a million little ways this manifests in everyday life, but the one that really gets me is the incredible response to my humble (read: persistent) calls for donations to support my efforts at this year’s Pride and Remembrance Run in Toronto. Thanks to the incredible generosity of so many of you and of people in my life, I’ve been able to raise over $1,000 for the charities supported by the run.

To honour what this community has done and to echo the sentiments I expressed in my Spec piece, I decided to get creative. After many long hours at the Hamilton Public Library (my thanks to the endlessly patient staff who helped me along), I was able to successfully embroider a patch that I will wear in the Pride and Remembrance Run. It’s a little rough around the edges, but it will inspire me to do my best for the community I love.

Proud. Queer. Hamiltonian. Photo (and patch design) by author.

My ultimate goal will be to source a more professional option as merch or to distribute as part of a fundraiser of some kind. I’ll work on a couple other options and keep everyone posted.

But thank you again for all the support. Folks can still donate if they are able and every donation over $25 entitles you to a tax receipt. If you’re interested, you can click the button below:

My mind has been on hate quite a bit lately. Sure, there was the response to my article, but I’ve also been thinking a lot about how hate is becoming more and more prevalent in the community. After an event that took place on Sunday, June 14, I decided to take a closer look at hate in Hamilton. Hate in the past, hate today, and how we can stop hate tomorrow.

The result is the following piece. It is heavy - certainly heavier than I wanted something to be at the end of Pride Month. But we have to tackle these difficult topics because ignoring them is simply not an option.

We have got to confront hate here. Because here is our home. And we all belong here.

The Hate At Home

_{Image from: Shadd, Adrienne L. The Journey from Tollgate to Parkway : African Canadians in Hamilton. Toronto: Natural Heritage Book, 2010 - edited by author}

Sometime around the holidays in 1990, a technician at a Lime Ridge Mall photolab noticed something in the pictures being developed at their shop. At first, the scenes were difficult to make out, given that the photos seemed to have been taken at night and the figures in them wore dark clothing. But, as each photo developed, the technician’s stomach began to churn. Something wasn’t right. They put in a call to the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) who sent officers around to see for themselves.

The technician believed the photos were depicting satanic rituals. That’s unsurprising, given this was the time of the Satanic Panic, a moral panic that gripped North America with fantastical tales of ritual abuse and nighttime offerings to the underworld. But, when the HPS arrived, they found something far more common and upsetting.

The photos depicted hate crimes.

An investigation was opened and, by March of 1991, the police had enough evidence for a judge to grant them a search warrant. A raid on an apartment on Mohawk Road West yielded shocking more images, as well as boxes and boxes of other horrifying items. The HPS quickly arrested a 17-year-old whom they believed was the primary figure in the photos.

But they couldn’t find the tenant who actually rented the apartment. The police placed the building under surveillance. Weeks passed without the tenant’s return. In early April, they were tipped off that he had skipped town and was hiding in St. Thomas, the small town sandwiched between London and Lake Erie where he was born and had previously worked.

Nearly a month after the initial raid, the HPS captured the fugitive photographer. With that, the police had the odd pair behind the pictures - a wayward youth and a 53-year old who, as a former teacher, should have known better.

***

The two had met on a downtown street in September of 1990. In an earlier life, Paul Moyer would have been spending September getting a classroom ready and easing into a lesson plan. But, for the past seven years, Moyer had been unemployed and depressed, having been fired from his teaching job due to a shoplifting charge. In the time since, he roamed the streets of Hamilton, desperate for friendship and attention. His politics and experience mentoring youth led him to seek out the company of troubled young skinheads who were, at the time, having a moment.

The year 1990 brought with it a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across Hamilton. Synagogues were defaced with neo-Nazi symbols, white supremacists plastered posters along Concession Street, and Holocaust denial literature was circulating openly in the community. As hate hung heavy in the late summer air, Moyer was eager to be part of the mob, not wanting to be left behind as he felt he had been for a good portion of his adult life. When he spotted a young skinhead downtown in September, he struck up a conversation and invited him to grab lunch.

Over burgers and fries, Moyer told the young man that he wanted to take pictures he would use for greeting cards for neo-Nazis. It is unclear why, but he badly wanted the young skinhead to be his model. And that he knew the perfect setting for his hate-fueled photoshoot.

A few weeks later, under the cover of darkness, the pair made their way into the quiet Jewish cemetery nestled behind the Royal Canadian Legion on Limeridge Road. There, over the course of a few hours, they took photo after photo among the headstones. The indignities were extensive.

They took photos exposing themselves. Posing with Nazi memorabilia. Urinating on graves. Leaving a dead, swastika-adorned bird on a tombstone.

Thinking nothing of it, Moyer dropped the film off to be developed at Lime Ridge Mall, some 500 metres away from the scene of the crime, leaving his contact information with his rolls of film just in case. Only when he learned of the raid on his apartment did he realize his mistake.

It was the photo of the bird that led the photolab technician to assume they were seeing photos of a Satanic ritual. While the police originally pursued an animal cruelty charge in addition to charges of committing indignities to human remains, that particular one didn’t stick. In the end, the pair were put on trial for a handful of indignity charges each.

***

Flexing their muscle, local neo-Nazi and skinhead groups began a legal defence fundraiser for their pals. Jewish organizations said the fundraising campaign sought donations from hate groups across Southern Ontario.

The trial of the 17-year-old did not last long. He admitted his guilt, said that he didn’t actually urinate on any grave as some of the pictures made it seem (claiming they only used coloured water), and was adamant that Moyer had directed the entire thing. Importantly, he also agreed to testify against the ex-teacher. For his part in the crime, the youth was sentenced to 18 months’ probation in November of 1991.

Moyer’s trial - one by judge alone without a jury - was more complicated. His defence first tried to claim that, by alerting the police, the photolab violated Moyer’s Charter rights. The judge quickly dismissed that claim, but did remove much of what was seized from Moyer’s apartment - boxes of neo-Nazi propaganda, recruitment materials, and white supremacist literature - from evidence after finding the police did not disclose how they obtained the information about Moyer’s apartment for the search warrant. Only later did they reveal that there had been a months-long undercover operation working to infiltrate local skinhead and neo-Nazi groups. A “reliable street source” had tipped them off that Moyer was behind the desecration. When the HPS sought the warrant, they only told the Justice of the Peace about the informant and not about the photos from the photolab. The mix-up nearly derailed the trial but, after determining a small number of the photolab pictures were admissible, the judge allowed the trial to proceed.

The youth took the stand. He told the court he had broken free from the skinhead life and was ready to start fresh. Before he could put it behind him, though, he needed to recount his actions before and during their October photoshoot. The planning. The posing. The desecration. “We weren’t going there to make happy pictures,” he told the court, “The point was to get across as much disrespect to Jews as possible.”

When it was Moyer’s turn to tell his story, he went all in for sympathy. He told the court he was a dedicated and passionate educator for 25 years. He said that he began to burn out. That he made a mistake that led to him losing his job. That, while unemployed, he lived on 74 cents a day. That he lied to his parents and pretended to work for years after being fired. That he cried when he walked by schools. That he was nothing more than a “lonely old person”. That Hamilton’s skinheads provided him with companionship.

Extenuating circumstances aside, the facts were still before the court, documented in detail by the man on trial. The judge found Moyer guilty of three counts of committing an indignity to human remains.

The Crown asked for nine months in jail.

He was given a suspended sentence - three years probation, 160 hours of community service, and psychiatric counselling. The judge in the case said he didn’t believe Moyer would commit another crime. Some members of the Jewish community were deeply upset with the ruling. The cemetery’s chair told The Spec that he was worried about copycat events, saying some skinheads would “take it they can do anything they wish and they’ll only get a slap on the wrist.”

One year later, Moyer and his new defence counsel appealed, claiming the conviction was improper. Acknowledging that the photos might have been “offensive to some people,” Moyer’s lawyer made the case that the disrespect was directed at symbols, not human remains. In a stunning decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed and overturned Moyer’s conviction.

Community outcry pushed the Crown to appeal that decision, which made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. On September 1, 1994, the justices of the Supreme Court restored Moyer’s conviction, writing in their usual riveting style that, “where monuments mark the presence of human remains, offering indignities to the monuments constitutes offering indignities to the human remains that are marked by the monuments.” The rabbi of Temple Anshe Sholom celebrated the decision, telling the Spec “this was a hate crime and any Canadian of goodwill would recognize that it is bad for us all.”

Moyer faded from view after the restoration of his conviction in 1994. There’s little information about him available online, but, by all indications, he died in Elgin County in 2023. His obituary briefly mentions his love of teaching. It would seem that, like his young accomplice, Moyer may have extracted himself from the world of the far-right.

The neo-Nazis and white supremacists he consorted with in the 1980’s and 1990’s, on the other hand, have never really gone away.¹

Now, just like in the summer of 1990, white supremacists, open fascists, and racist groups are making themselves known across Hamilton with increasing force and boldness.

Most of the hate that spreads in Hamilton right now does so online. The guardrails are off social media and accounts that call for ethnic cleansing are allowed to remain up for months, years, or even indefinitely, depending on the platform on which they post. Especially on X/Twitter, but increasingly on Meta platforms as well, openly racist content is being pushed to the forefront and has become nearly unavoidable.

But some white supremacists - usually younger, almost always male - have been taking their message to the streets in real life. Articles and exposés have provided insight into these “active clubs” (described by the CBC as a “male-focused groups that promote white supremacist ideals,” engaging in activities that “range from public protests to vandalism campaigns to social media posts”).

An extensive series in The Spec that landed in 2023 documented the resurgence of far-right activism that started generating attention just as the world was leaving the worst of the COVID-19 Pandemic behind. In the time since, Hamiltonians have become accustomed to seeing the stickers and posters for groups like Nationalist-13, Second Sons, Diagolon, and the Dominion Society on lampposts and bus shelters and benches across Hamilton.

***

The collection of groups is hard to untangle.

Nationalist-13 (or NS13) is the homegrown option. NS13 is a Hamilton-based men’s only neo-Nazi group that has become emboldened since it first appeared on the scene in 2021. They focus on physical fitness and demonstrations, seeking to rattle the city’s establishment with shocking slogans and activities before retreating from public view, often for months at a time. They claim a membership over 1,000, but no more than a handful of supporters appear at any of their events at any given time, always dressed entirely in black with masks covering their faces.

The Second Sons are similar, though are more of the Western Canadian-oriented white nationalist variety and with stronger connections to the Convoyists. Their founder, Jeremy MacKenzie, is a veteran who also founded Diagolon, the white nationalist group dedicated to forming a “diagonal” white ethnostate from BC/Alberta to Florida. The military connection explains why the group focuses heavily on “military drills” and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network has called the Second Sons “Diagolon’s Blackshirts”.

The newest entry is the Dominion Society, an organization attempting to be the more “respectable” face of white nationalism. Founded by activists originally involved with the People’s Party, the Dominion Society fashions itself as a political pressure group and has, by all indications, registered as a non-profit.

The Dominion Society has many pet projects, including the rehabilitation of the image of Sir John A. MacDonald, but its primary goal is to bring the idea of ethnic cleansing (which they call “remigration”) into the mainstream. Their explicit aim is to bully the Conservative Party of Canada into adopting ethnic cleansing as an official party policy.

Unlike the other two groups, the Dominion Society seems to allow women to join; a small number of women featured prominently in the videos the Dominion Society took during their Victoria Day stunt in Gore Park focused, again, on a statue of MacDonald.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network notes that the groups often have overlapping membership. Leaders in one group will appear on podcasts or livestreams from other groups and there is considerable fluidity between the organizations, particularly because of how they’re structured. Diagolon is the internet-focused group that often draws people in, NS13 and Second Sons are the “muscle”, and the Dominion Society is the “respectable” political wing. But they’re all a part of the same extremist ecosystem.²

***

They are growing bolder by the day. They appear on local overpasses or in public spaces, waving their flags, calling for white people to unite or for all non-white Canadians to be deported. Their hand-painted banners call for ethnic cleansing and white supremacy and action on child sexual abuse. They fixate on the latter point in an effort to, as McMaster prof Ameil Joseph notes, mainstream their hateful rhetoric by aligning themselves with a widely supported stance. That’s part of the reason why white nationalists included themselves in the protests against AI data centres at City Hall this month. Though, on the child sexual abuse front, they seem to be using that to advance a more sinister belief; judging by their social media posts, local white nationalists are working overtime to spread the lie that queer people are all sexual abusers (which aligns with rhetoric coming out of the UK’s far-right, which has spent an inordinate amount of energy this Pride month trying to turn the public against queer parents).

Images from the CBC show fascists training at a local gym and in Gage Park. They have appeared in front of Jackson Square, in Gore Park, at City Hall. They are trying, desperately, to get under the skin of Hamiltonians. To make themselves known. To recruit more members. To remind anyone and everyone who isn’t part of the small, arbitrarily-defined “race” they have defined that they are not welcome in this city.

They appear in public, marching and chanting and being confrontational because they are trying to normalize extremism. Make it seem like calling for ethnic cleansing isn’t a bad thing. Like committing violence against your political opponents is a legitimate form of engagement. Like hate is okay. That’s exactly what Tony McAleer, an anti-hate activist who was, for years, a neo-Nazi, told the CBC when they asked him about Second Son marches happening with increasing frequency in Sudbury this year.

Their latest action happened just a few days ago. You may not have heard about it; the event did not make the local news. In fact, it was hard to get any facts about it at all. Neo-Nazi accounts on X/Twitter circulated clips from the confrontation, but the only legitimate reference to it came on June 22, when the Hamilton Anti-Racism Resource Centre, the Hamilton and District Labour Council, and Ward 4 Councillor Tammy Hwang released a joint statement about the latest effort by Hamilton’s white nationalists to bring their racism into the mainstream.

On June 14, around a dozen activists affiliated with NS13 stood out front Solidarity Place Worker Education Centre in the east end. The white nationalists were there to confront local members of the “Worker’s Alliance”, a small Quebec-based far-left organization dedicated to the theory of working class revolution against capitalism. The group, known for its provocative posters calling for class war (as well as their hardline rejection of cooperation with social democrats, mainstream socialists, and their distrust of electoral politics), had rented the centre for one of their meetings.

The NS13 crowd saw the meeting as an opportunity to confront “communists”.

From the clips they have spread on social media, it looks as though there weren’t enough members from either side to field two teams for a baseball scrimmage. Despite this, the neo-Nazis claimed they vastly outnumbered members of the Worker’s Alliance (it looked to be around 8-to-10 for the neo-Nazis).

The brief confrontation was a lot of sound and fury; the people affiliated with the Worker’s Alliance watched as the racists shouted that Hamilton “belonged to white Canada”. The neo-Nazi accounts affiliated with NS13 clipped video they took of the event together in a way that makes it seem as though they were the victors. The posts about the event on X/Twitter appear between ones highlighting the “criminality” of non-white people, the moral degeneracy of queer folks, and picturesque photos of Nazi flags in the sunset. The accounts glorifying the event remain up, as do the posts.

Hamilton has struggled with hate for a long, long time.

Like with many working class communities - particularly those that have experienced profound economic upheaval - hate groups have found fertile ground here, weaponizing the economic instability and powerlessness felt by many in the area.

Scholars have tried to work out why this is the case for decades. In the late 1950’s, pioneering political sociologist Seymour Lipset posited that communities where people have lower levels of formal education, have low participation in larger community groups, and endure economic insecurity may be ideal places where authoritarian and extreme political movements can organize. The “concrete and immediate” nature of working class life - as in the idea that people who are struggling every day just to get by have little time for vague abstractions and high-minded rhetoric - Lipset speculated, means that many will seek to support and reinforce the world around them as a means of ensuring some stability.³ If a community is majority white, deeply patriarchal and unaccepting of deviations from gender roles, and centred around a dominant religion, then it stands to reason that some people may seek to bolster that narrow definition of community so that they can ensure stability in one aspect of their lives while, economically, they may not have that opportunity.

Other scholars have built on these ideas over the years. Carvacho et al. (2013) found that uncertainty tended to increase endorsement of right-wing ideas “especially among the disadvantaged” while Jost (2017) observed that, even when right-wing ideas worked against working-class people, they supported them because of the belief that the “institutions, authorities, and arrangements on which they depend are good, fair, desirable, and legitimate.” Scholars in Canada have further tried to understand the “climate of hate” here, citing things like historical normalization of bigotry that has only recently been challenged, increasingly extreme rhetoric from political leaders that “gives permission” to more extreme movements to take it further, and a general antipathy on the part of law enforcement to approach far-right groups with the same verve as they do groups on the left as reasons why hate is pervasive here.⁴

***

Hate groups and incidents are peppered throughout Hamilton’s history.

When organized labour first got involved in Hamilton’s municipal politics at the turn of the 20th Century, they brought with them the prevailing views of the time on race. Notably, Hamilton’s early labour-affiliated municipal politicians held openly racist views toward East Asian and Black Canadians. One of labour’s most flamboyant municipal leaders in those early days was local barber Harry Halford. An ardent British imperialist and firebrand, Halford was on-and-off council and the Board of Control for the better part of a decade before running for mayor in 1919. During and after his time in municipal politics, Halford used his star power to rail against non-British Europeans (once stopping a permit approval motion at council to ask about the ethnicity of the applicant) and attempting to get the local Independent Labour Party to join a pressure campaign regarding a Black man accused of having premarital relations with young white woman, saying that, if the crime went unpunished “no man’s daughter [would be safe] any longer on the city streets.” But he saved his most passionate vitriol for Chinese-Canadians, using a cavalcade of slurs and racist misconceptions on the floor of council and leading a campaign against Chinese laundries, which he called “Chinese dumps”. His blustery populism wasn’t enough to earn him the mayor’s chair in 1919 and he faded from active politics before dying in Toronto in 1946.⁵

As the years went on, some in organized labour shed their prejudice and began to actively work for equality. When a Black veteran was denied entry to a dance on the grounds of Dundurn Castle in 1948, union leader and city council member Peter Dunlop led a labour picket of later dances. The action worked and the people in charge of the dances reversed their segregationist policies.

Dunlop used the event to try to push for an official anti-discrimination policy, which would have ensured any event on municipal grounds would never allow “refusal of admission on the grounds of race, colour, or creed.” But, since Dunlop was an avowed Communist, his council colleagues turned on him. Members of council claimed that “coloured people came to [the West] for help, not the Communists,” that such a policy would “make a mountain out of a mole-hill”, and that the municipality couldn’t force equality because “tolerance will only come with evolution and education.” A more moderate member of council offered a compromise which would have set aside “certain days for white and coloured” attendees. The compromise, and the original motion, were rejected. Only the CCF and Communist members of council voted in favour. Letters to the Editor in the Spec praised council for rejecting ‘Communist propaganda’ and not falling for Dunlop’s claim that there was “racial discrimination in the City of Hamilton [which Dunlop] was unable to prove.”⁶

***

Among the most notable hate groups that called Hamilton home, it was an American organization that first really fired the city up. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, The Ku Klux Klan used Hamilton as their local headquarters. Their numbers were such that Hamilton served as the central hub for all Klan activity in Southern Ontario. Cross burnings atop the Escarpment were common occurrences, as were parades of Klan members through the city (particularly in areas where Catholic Southern Europeans had settled). The involvement of many members of the British Protestant Orange Order lodge in town prompted the organization to formally distance itself from the Klan’s activities. The city was even host to the formal headquarters of the Canadian women’s Klan organization (a photo from which serves as the cover art for this edition).

For around a decade, there wasn’t much push back from local institutions. When handed an application by the local Klan to use Stewart Park (today part of the metal recycling facilities near the Windermere Basin) for a convention and rally in late September of 1929, the city’s Parks Board made no effort to deny the permit. Nor was a similar permit denied in 1930. The Hamilton Police cleared all obstructions and allowed the group to hold a rally at the top of the Jolly Cut in 1931.

As the Nazis rose in Europe, the appeal of the Klan dimmed in Hamilton and, by 1935, they were mostly gone. As the Spec noted in ‘35, “At one time Hamilton was the centre of a Ku Klux Klan outfit, who use to very bravely burn crosses in secluded spots. After the initial thrills, people got bored,” they noted with chirpy sarcasm.

But the Klan, like many racist organizations, fixated on Hamilton’s working class and marginalized. A few years into the Depression, the Klan earned positive press after announcing a fundraising drive to collect food and clothing for the unemployed. A snapshot of their leadership shows how the organization was able to ingratiate itself with those down-on-their-luck; a local Klan organizer with the almost unbelievable name of “Upton Rainbow” was sentenced to one week of hard labour after being deemed a vagrant by a local judge.⁷

***

Overt hate groups and actions tend to surge when times are tough. Hamilton noted an uptick in neo-Nazi activity in the 1960s and early 1990s when the economy soured and the bonds between existing social groups began to fray. Moyer’s anti-Semitic photoshoot happened during a burst of white supremacist and neo-Nazi activity in Hamilton as the early 90’s recession hit the city hard. As the police were closing in on Moyer and his young accomplice in 1991, local human rights organizations were sounding the alarm about a “growing national network” of which Hamilton’s racists were an integral part.⁸

The post 9/11 spike in hate events forced the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) to create a dedicated hate crimes unit for the first time in their history.

The unit was created on September 19, 2001, just four days after three local men, drunk on cheap liquor and hate, itching for revenge, burned the Hindu Samaj Temple to the ground. Their actions made Hamilton look ignorant, ill-prepared, and backward; their hate-fueled act of arson made international news, not simply because it was a Hindu temple burned to the ground after attacks by a terrorist organization claiming to be Muslim, but because it was the only destruction of a religious building in retaliation after 9/11 in the western world. The trio would not be charged until 2013, and, even then, there would be little justice. They pled guilty and received no jail time and reduced sentences, not unlike the punishment Moyer earned for his hate crime a decade earlier.

Three years later, a groundbreaking Spec investigation uncovered how close the whole case was to falling apart, thanks to an abusive, coke-and-alcohol-fueled relationship between an HPS staff sergeant and the confidential informant who identified the culprits. In their 2016 report, the Spec said that the burning of the Hindu Samaj Temple was “a vile case that put Hamilton on the map for the wrong reasons.”⁹

***

In the years since 9/11, hate crimes in Hamilton have trended up. There have been peaks and valleys, but, since the end of the COVID-19 Pandemic, they have been climbing at previously unimagined rates.

The way that hate crimes have been reported, classified, and conveyed to the public has changed, but the chart below provides a fairly accurate picture of hate crimes in Hamilton since the year 2000, based on data from the HPS, anti-hate groups, and what has been reported in the Spec.

A chart of reported hate crimes in Hamilton from 2000 to 2024 - by author.

Hate crimes tend to climb when times are tough, instability is the norm, and global events influence the local conversation. The graph and figures tend to confirm this fact.

Hate crimes fell after 9/11, but increased noticeably during and immediately after the Great Recession (2008-2010), earning Hamilton the unwanted label “hate crime capital of Canada”. Hate events levelled off in the late 2010’s, but jumped again after the 2016 United States Presidential election, once again earning the city Canada-wide hate crime attention.¹⁰

It seemed like things were trending in the right direction in 2018 and 2019 (the violence at Hamilton Pride 2019 aside). And there was even more hope when, in the early days of the Pandemic, instances of hate dropped considerably. But then in 2021, they started a climb that has continued to this day.

From 2006 (when hate crimes and instances were at their lowest) to 2024, there has been a 731% increase in hate crimes and incidents in Hamilton.

731%. One hate crime for every 1,913 residents. One hate crime every 1.23 days of the year. 37 and 1/8ths hate crimes for every one Ti-Cats Grey Cup wins.

We do not yet have the hate crime figures for 2025, but they should be released by the HPS some time in July of this year. There is little expectation that they will go down, though. Indeed, we may crack 300 reported hate events for the first time in recorded memory.

When the HPS began providing detailed information regarding who was the intended target of a hate crime, the figures became even more shocking. Since 2019, there has been a 57% increase in hate crimes targeting someone’s religion, a 313% increase against someone’s race (with Black Hamiltonians the most targeted), and a mind blowing 500% increase in hate crimes and incidents toward queer and gender diverse Hamiltonians.

It is hard to hear sentiments like “hate has no home in Hamilton” when the reality for historically marginalized people is very different. It is hard to accept that fuzzy sentiment when hate crimes are rising with unparalleled speed and when white nationalists engage in military drills and improve their physical fitness and stage confrontational events in public places.

It’s hard to accept when the conditions that enable and embolden the far-right are not being addressed. People are isolated. Isolated by the way we have planned this city. Isolated by the instability forced upon them by a broken economic system. Isolated by the virtual platforms we have been forced to turn to for human connection. Isolated by insecurities in their lives. Isolated from themselves.

Isolated, scared, and uncertain, people turn to the far-right with its easy solutions and people to blame. They see community and a purpose and stability when, before, they had none. They see themselves being part of a righteous crusade, not just some frightened, lonely young man.

They put on their black hoods, stand on streetcorners, and give their Roman salutes. Civic leaders condemn the actions, but take few steps to address the root cause of why people join these movements to begin with. That inaction leads to more boldness, more open hate, and more hate crimes committed against those “othered” by the mob.

The instinct, when seeing the lack of action and the hate crime chart trending in the wrong direction is to pick up and leave. Why stay someplace when that place is filled with so much hate? Why not pack everything up and, as Kath Weston observed in the 1990’s, “get thee to a big city”?

But fleeing to greener pastures is not an option for some. It is not a desire for others.

***

As I noted at the onset, I have been thinking a lot about I personally navigate hate in this city (and had been doing so long before the online backlash to my Spec article). Indeed, much of my adult life has been spent thinking about my place in this city and how I can best protect myself and the people around me from the hate I know is present here.

Moyer’s hate crime in 1990? Happened three months after I was born and a few blocks from where my parents and I lived at the time. Dundurn Park where dances were segregated? In my old neighbourhood and a place I still run through on occasion. Solidarity Place where neo-Nazis held their demonstration? A place where I’ve sat through a great many meetings.

But this is my hometown and a place I have no desire to leave. Three generations of my family have called this place home. We’ve lived here, loved here, thrived here, suffered here, and died here. Here matters.

So in thinking about hate in Hamilton, I’ve also been thinking a lot about the principle of do’ikayt. Translated from Yiddish, it roughly means “hereness”. It was a core philosophy of the Jewish Labour Bund, the political and social organization that fought for the rights and dignity of Jewish workers in Eastern Europe in the early 20th Century. The Bund stood in firm opposition to the Zionist movement and used the idea of do’ikayt in contrast to the Zionist ideal of dortkayt or “thereness”. They would stand and fight here, not aspire to bring the struggle there.

The Bund’s idea was that Jewish people should be free to live, work, and thrive as equals in the places they lived. The goal, they believed, should be equality alongside working people of all backgrounds, not self-imposed exile. The Bundists who advanced this idea were still proud of their unique heritage, their distinct culture, and their language (in many ways, the Bund was a key player in keeping Yiddish alive through tough times), but knew that the struggle for the rights of working people meant standing with others as equals. The artist and writer Molly Crabapple has boiled the essence of do’ikayt down to “here, where we live, is our country”, which is consequently the name of the book she wrote on the history of the Bund.

Last year, Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor made the case for “a modern-day universalization of that concept [do’ikayt].” Writing in The Guardian, the pair defined this as “a commitment to the right to the ‘hereness’ of this particular ailing planet, to these frail bodies, to the right to live in dignity wherever on the planet we are, even when the inevitable shocks forces us to move.”¹¹

That, I would argue, is how we should approach hate here.

Hate exists in Hamilton. It has always been with us. But, over the past few years, it has been growing and thriving.

Hate needs to be addressed, primarily by providing people opportunities to connect with their neighbours and reducing the economic strain on working people. Local leaders can tone down the rhetoric by not conflating the social disorder we see around us with Hamilton’s status as a “sanctuary city”, not dehumanizing their political opponents as “barbarians at the gates”, and not nickel-and-diming local cultural institutions and groups that want to provide residents with places and events that bring people together. We need to build stronger, more diverse, more accessible neighbourhoods, provide resources to groups that bridge cultural divides, and offer this city’s youth something meaningful to which they can aspire.

But we must always remember that here, where we live, is our city. All of us, together.

We all deserve to live in this city with equality, dignity, and hope. And this means that, while we address hate, we must also build up our own communities. As we tear down the foundations that support hate, so too must we build up the foundations underpinning our own unique communities. Queer Hamiltonians, Hamiltonians of Colour, members of different faith groups and cultural communities and people from across the spectrum of gender diversity - all of us are part of this city. Celebrating each other and the amazing things we all bring to this city is a profound way to support hereness in Hamilton. We all have a place, and that place is here.

Hamilton is home. But the hate at home is making this place worse. It is our job to tackle the hate that festers here. To pull prospective recruits back from the edge, to provide a better path, to isolate and hold accountable the malicious diehards. And it is our job to be ourselves, unapologetically, right here.

If the slogan “hate has no home in Hamilton” is to be anything more than a slogan, we have to work at it. When we come together as a community - an inclusive, caring, open community - we can do anything. So that’s our job. Now let’s get to work.

…but first, a word from The Incline.

I want to thank all my friends and readers who contributed to my fundraiser for this year’s Pride and Remembrance Run in Toronto. So far, I have raised 99% of my goal, which is absolutely amazing! The Run supports some wonderful queer support programs in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area that do extremely important work. Pride is a lot of things: a protest, a party, a vigil, a learning experience, a chance to connect with friends and allies. A core part of Pride for me is building community and reminding each other that we are here for one another, through the good times and the bad. So thank you for your support and your generosity.

I suppose if I hit $750 in donations, I may have to do something special…

If you would still like to donate, you can do so at the link below. The Pride and Remembrance Run is a registered Canadian charity, so any donation over $20 earns you a tax receipt!

The Fourth Estate

Photo by Melpo Tsiliaki on Unsplash - edited by author

It should have been another sleepy Tuesday in late May. But, when word leaked that two major political events were going to fall on the same day, the scene at City Hall transformed into one of frantic excitement. Staff began buzzing, reporters raced to the scene, and residents across Hamilton were glued to their devices, refreshing their social media feeds for updates.

Quietly, as if to cut her opponent off at the pass, the embattled 58th Mayor of Hamilton, Andrea Horwath, slipped downstairs from her second floor office and, in a modest room with election staff, filed her re-election paperwork. No backdrop of supporters like in 2022, no weeks long media circus, no flashy announcement. When she emerged to the gathered reporters, she put on a smile and said she was here to work for Hamilton. She didn’t need the pageantry and the show of some grand unveiling. This time, it’s 2026 and the Steeltown Scrapper has a job to do. It was deliberate and calculating, putting her approach to the job in stark contrast to that of the man who was poised to, within hours, join the race alongside her.

The reporters packed up and raced east. The second event would start any moment now. Winding their way through the city, they clacked out the first part of their stories and readied themselves for their next interviews.

They all arrived at the same time, descending on the corner of King and Jones in Stoney Creek in a flurry of cameras and microphones and notepads. As expected, this event looked to be far more choreographed. Smiling supporters decked out in matching red shirts, all holding signs with the candidate’s last name and slogan, huddled behind a lectern. A trio of councillors milled about awkwardly, periodically checking their phones with blank expressions on their faces. Some of the more astute amongst the assembled reporters noted the symbolism of their presence and the location of the press conference, some 300 metres from the parking lot that was, thanks to Horwath’s mayoral veto, soon to become a new housing development.

A few minutes behind schedule, the candidate appeared, flashing his trademark boyish smile and waving to the crowd. He stopped to shake the hands of some of the more recognizable faces in the crowd and, like his former boss, tried his hand taking a selfie with some young supporters in the lineup. He stepped to the waiting mics and made his speech. It was as everyone expected; Hamilton had lost its way, the mayor was not up to the task, and the voters of this fine city deserved the seasoned leadership that only he could provide. He had the credentials, after all: 26 years on council and four on Parliament Hill. That would be the core of his campaign. Chad Collins would get the job done.

When some of the reporters returned to City Hall that day, they spotted Horwath meeting with a group of students who had some to 71 Main West as part of a civics class trip. She was caught off guard so, when a reporter lobbed a question about Collins’ announcement at the mayor, she fired back, saying she had done more for Hamilton in four short years than Collins did in 26. His was a campaign that would be coordinated by backroom boys and the political elites, she said, while she would bring her message to the people. Her staff quickly intervened to move the chief magistrate along, but not before she could take another jab at her main opponent, reminding the press that, while he was busy defending Justin Trudeau and losing, she was standing up for Hamilton and winning. The media had their soundbite, and the tone of the election was set.

It was an exciting burst of activity and a striking portent to a long and brutal five months.

…or it would have been, had any of that actually happened.

***

Like many aging millennials, I rely too heavily on Instagram as a platform. I try to avoid the cringe habit of posting on main (apparently a once-a-year wrap up is enough for the primary feed) and, instead, use it to connect with friends, send memes and clips from old TV shows, and view all the two week-old runoff from TikTok.

The platform is not perfect. Indeed, in many ways, it is actively bad and growing worse by the minute. Case in point: at the beginning of this month, news broke that a “flaw” in parent company Meta’s AI support assistant allowed hackers to gain access to any Instagram account they wanted just by asking it nicely. Tisk tisk tisk bad computer.

But social media sites like Instagram have become enmeshed in our everyday lives. Just a couple of weeks back, StatsCan released figures from their “Insights on Canadian Society” series that showed 54% of Canadians get their news from social media platform. That’s two percent more than TV, 16% more than radio, and a whopping 33% more than print media. For those under 35 (wow, it couldn’t just be “35-and-under”? Thanks for making me feel old, StatsCan), a staggering 78% get their news from social media.

This is despite the fact that, since 2023, Meta has effectively banned legitimate Canadian news on its platforms in response to Bill C-18 - the “Online News Act” - which they felt would hold them responsible for news posted to their site. So while over half of Canadians are getting news from social media, the largest major news outlets in the country cannot post their stories to those platforms.

Kind of makes one wonder where people are actually getting their news from then…

Enter small digital news creators.

These plucky little producers are often little more than an Instagram page with compelling graphics, snappy headlines, and an ever-present prompt to “check link in bio” for more.

There are a few local accounts that follow this model - the social news aggregator - as well as a bunch of digital content creators who work much harder to make themselves appear like formal news outlets. And one social news aggregator has been appearing on my feed a lot, lately.

***

Over the past month, I have been subjected to regular ads for something called the “Hamilton Digest”. They’re visually simple, yet eye-catching, thanks in part to their strategic use of the Hamilton Ti-Cats colours and because of their ambiguous messaging that leaves you curious.

Screenshot of a Hamilton Digest Instagram advertisement - screenshot from author.

After being served a Hamilton Digest ad for the billionth time a few weeks ago, I decided to take a look at their profile page. Billing themselves as “Hamilton’s heartbeat 💛”, they purport to offer “news, food, events & stories from The Hammer”. Their Instagram page is the advertising side to their real operation, which is a newsletter housed on Beehiiv (like The Incline is).

Each of their posts is expertly branded, featuring consistent fonts, banners, and a healthy heaping of emojis. And their headlines are designed to draw you in.

“🛣️ Hamilton did it again,” reads one, with the subhead “😬 But not in a good way” (that was about Barton Street being named “Canada’s worst road” by the entirely unbiased Canadian Automobile Association). Another headline informs readers “🔫 Gun still missing…⚠️ Downtown concerns continue”. A March banner announces “🚒 Massive fire in Stoney Creek,” and “🔥 Six homes destroyed”.

But the one that (obviously) caught my eye was posted on May 26. It features a photo of Mayor Horwath with the headline “🗳️ Hamilton’s election race grows” and the subhead “🔥 Six candidates now running”.

This was interesting to me for a few reasons, not the least of which was, on May 26, there were still only five registered candidates for mayor. The caption itself contained more interesting information. “Former MP Chad Collins has entered the race,” it announced, also noting that “Mayor Andrea Horwath has officially filed her nomination, and six candidates are now running.”

The May 26 post from Hamilton Digest about the 2026 Municipal Election - screenshot from author.

Big, if true.

After seeing this, I quickly searched for a link to Collins’ announcement. I was surprised by the idea that Collins would have a major announcement about his political future and that it wouldn’t be covered by any mainstream outlet or reporter. Sure, at this point, his candidacy would be a long shot. His pathway to the mayor’s chair was already extremely narrow even before the Liaison Strategies poll from October of last year showing him 35 points behind frontrunner Keanin Loomis AND before Rob Cooper’s surprise mayoral candidacy cut off his chance to stake out the centre-right-to-right-wing spot on the spectrum of mayoral contenders. But he was in local politics for over a quarter century and was elected to Parliament. People with that kind of cred - and who have been subject to the kind of breathless and consistent mayoral speculation as he has - get at least some kind of coverage for their political announcements.

But there was absolutely nothing about it anywhere online. The post also bounced around in a few group chats I’m in, but no one seemed to know what the source of the information was or why this online news source was reporting it as though it were a fact.

The actual reference to the election was buried in a post on the Hamilton Digest’s newsletter that wrapped up news stories from May 19 to 25. After two hockey stories, a piece on the YWCA’s Oakwood development (which, itself, seems to combine the CBC, Spec, and CHCH articles on the project), and a story about the May 18 hit-and-run in Stoney Creek, we come to “🗓️ Election Update: Six Candidates Now in the Mayoral Race”. The listed sources are the City of Hamilton’s website and the Wikipedia page on the election.

I thought that it was possible that I had just missed the news and that I would get confirmation by day’s end. But the day came to a close and the City of Hamilton’s candidate listing page failed to note Horwath’s entry into the race. In the weeks since, only one new person - perennial candidate Nathalie Xian Yi Yan - joined the mayoral race. No word from Horwath, no word from Collins.

And then, on June 9, another municipal election post from the Hamilton Digest announced again that “Chad Collins officially entered the race”. Another post, another claim that Collins is in it to win it. But, still, no official announcement. By now, a cursory Google search shows one story about Collins running for mayor - from the Hamilton Digest itself.

So what’s going on here? Why is a relatively new Instagram page billing itself as a source for “news, food, events & stories from The Hammer” that advertises widely on the platform pushing a misleading news story? And where does the Hamilton Digest fit in with the growing constellation of small digital news sites marketing themselves toward Hamiltonians in this moment when news from real, legitimate sources is growing harder and harder to find?

By all indications, the Hamilton Digest is a project of local digital marketing specialist Michael Horvath. Online, Horvath is listed as the CEO of Digital Envy, a local digital marketing agency. Earlier this year, he branched out into the world of artificial intelligence and launched AI Envy, which, according to Horvath’s LinkedIn, adds AI automation to “proven lead generation foundations”. I’m not up on business lingo, so all I have in my head is dialogue from Glengarry Glen Ross. The leads are weak! Always be closing! Alec Baldwin saying slurs! David Mamet being horrible!

In November of 2025, Horvath announced the launch of Hamilton Digest, pitching it on his Instagram as “Hamilton’s best newsletter.”

shots fired, I guess.

Hamilton Digest began posting on Instagram on November 13, 2025 and, four days later, published the first edition of their newsletter on Beehiiv. In the time since, the newsletter and posting schedule has been remarkably consistent, with over 360 posts in the approximately 30 weeks they’ve been at this. Alternating between news roundups, event listings, sports stories, and restaurant promos, the newsletter seems to have no political slant whatsoever and does a good job of aggregating already popular news stories for maximum appeal.

All this is to say: I don’t believe their Collins/Horwath posts were made maliciously. But given that the founder of the newsletter has a business centred on using AI and that the preponderance of information available online about both Collins and Horwath being interested in a mayoral run may have influenced an AI-based application, it is absolutely possible that the information in those Hamilton Digest posts may be an AI hallucination (meaning an AI response that includes false information as fact).

I ran the section of the Hamilton Digest that discusses Horwath submitting her nomination and Collins joining the race through AI detection programs just for a little confirmation. Unfortunately, these are not perfect programs and can easily be tricked or simply fail. So it makes sense that the section in question got scores of between 0% and 100% AI-generated between 5 programs.

There are other explanations. Collins has been a rumoured mayoral candidate for years and, last Halloween, he told the Spec’s Scott Radley that he would make his decision early in the new year. Now, with nearly half of 2026 done and the midway point in the nomination period fast approaching on July 6, we haven’t heard a peep from the former MP. The last time he was mentioned in the city’s paper of record was on February 25 when Radley wrote about Loomis’ announcement and that was only to reference how far back in the polls he was last year.

But the point is that he has been mentioned as a possible candidate, meaning it would be theoretically easy for someone to misinterpret all the rumour as confirmation. Same thing with the point about Horwath already registering; she made her announcement, said she was in, and the only thing left to do is fill out the paperwork.

The Hamilton Digest references to Collins as a mayoral candidate and Horwath as having already registered could be an AI hallucination or just a simple misunderstanding. But I don’t see it as being some kind of malicious attempt to mislead people or disrupt the campaign.

Still, it isn’t great that this is where we’re at. It shouldn’t be a challenge to determine the accuracy of the information being presented to you. In that same “Insights on Canadian Society” survey released by StatsCan that found 54% of Canadians get their news from social media, a solid 47% reported “they were finding it harder to distinguish between true and false news or information compared to three years prior.”¹ When people are confused, they tune out, and when they tune out, it becomes easier and easier to manipulate the democratic process. Fewer people vote, there’s less scrutiny of powerful actors, and it is easier to mobilize a small group of committed extremists.

People are eager to learn more. These small digital creators and online current affairs blogs wouldn’t exist if people weren’t interested. And, as of late, it sure seems like a lot of them are floating around in our local media ecosystem.

***

Hamilton’s media ecosystem is modest - certainly more modest than befits a large urban centre of around 570,000 people.

At the top of the order are Hamilton’s two largest news-forward organizations: the Hamilton Spectator and the CBC.

The Spec got its start on July 15, 1846 as the Hamilton Spectator and Journal of Commerce. The modest four-page publication’s first column piece was an “Ode to Queen Victoria”, a plodding and strange poem that equates the then-monarch with Catharine the Great, Elizabeth I, and Cleopatra. The remainder of the front page was dedicated to stories about life in India, legislative debates about the efficiency of the colonial post office, tidbits from Europe, a piece about a large ship docking in Boston, and a wrap up of the proceedings of the British House of Commons. Riveting stuff. In fact, in the first edition, there was very little local news at all. More space was dedicated to a piece on maize than to what Hamilton’s elected officials were doing in the colonial legislature. That said, there were a few third page ads about new local dry goods stores, veterinary services, and an appeal to the local cultured set to come to the “second and last appearance of the celebrated unrivalled ventriloquist Signor G. Valentini,” at the Theatre Royal.²

The front page of the first edition of the Hamilton Spectator - from the Spec archives.

Originally right-leaning in its sympathies (allied with the Tory Family Compact…it was the Hamilton Spectator and Journal of Commerce after all), the Spec was purchased in 1877 by the arch Tory himself, William Southam, who would use the paper to start a publishing empire, gobbling up small local papers and large metro dailies until his death in 1932.

The Spec was joined by a number of competitors throughout the years. When it was founded, it was in direct competition with the Hamilton Reform Banner, a paper advocating for the “Reform” faction in Upper Canada (roughly the equivalent of today’s Liberals and the political centre-left more broadly). In the late 1850’s, the Hamilton Times burst onto the scene, by all indications a replacement/continuation of the Banner.

In 1889, our city got the Hamilton Herald, a paper determined to be an affordable alternative to the city’s big evening dailies, charging only 1 cent in contrast to the Spec and Times charging two. First published on August 1, 1889, the Spec ran a small blurb about their new competitor, employing their snarkiest and most dismissive language to highlight the occasion: “The Hamilton Herald is the name of a journal which made its appearance in this city yesterday, under the management of Mr. John M. Harris…For a cheap paper, it is a very good one…Here’s hoping you may never regret it, Johnny.”³

The light-hearted ribbing quickly turned into outright distain. By the mayoral election of 1910 - in which the Herald was backing the candidacy of the Liberal George Harmon Lees and the Spec was supporting the Conservative John Allan - the Spec had declared war on their opponent, deriding the Herald as “the disturber newspaper organ”, “wrathy”, a “dictator”, and a paper without conscience: “There is no level to which it will not descend, no trick to which it will not resort to accomplish its purpose,” the Spec’s editors seethed.⁴

In 1920, the Times was suddenly bought out and a surprise announcement appeared in the Spec. Instead of publishing the usual multiple editions of the paper (which was the style at the time), the Times would focus on one morning edition of the paper each weekday. “Well, Well! The Times Change and The Times Changes” read an add in their competitor’s paper, which included the strange request that interested parties fill in an included “charter subscription” and mail it to the Times’ new owners - the Ontario Newspapers Corporation Ltd. - at the corner of Hughson and King William. Promising an “independent”, “broad-visioned” and “up-to-the minute” paper, the new Times would be a morning paper for discerning readers.⁵ They managed to run a handful of ads soliciting charter subscribers before quickly announcing that The Times was folding for good. The money, they said, just wasn’t there. Within a year, the paper’s editor would join Southam and some of the paper’s modest archive would be transferred to the Spec.⁶

The Great Depression would do in the Herald 16 years later. On March 31, 1936, the Herald ran its last edition and turned out the lights. After it became the only game in town, the Spec was more gracious in its assessment of their one-time rival: “With the discontinuance of publication of the Hamilton Herald, the community loses an old, familiar friend, and an honoured institution which has given great service to the city and the Dominion,” the editors wrote, before acknowledging their acrimonious past and saying that, despite their differences, “there has never been a time when feelings between the two local papers have been other than those of mutual regard and respect.”⁷

After World War II, an upstart operation called the Hamilton News tried to enter the market. But a decade of unopposed domination of the local media landscape allowed the Spec to grow into an unassailable behemoth. When local union officials urged their members to turn to the News for alternative commentary, the Spec brushed off their challenge and the rumours of a growing “newspaper war”. In April of ‘48, the Spec issued a one-line retort, saying that “one kind of ‘paper war’ we would welcome is on Hamilton’s public grounds and streets,” meaning they cared more about Hamilton’s war on litter than some imagined scrap between two newspapers.⁸

In 1954, the News was bought by a local brewing magnate, Andrew Peller. A Hungarian immigrant, Peller had commercial interests across the city and branched out into publishing with his new venture “Pelmar Enterprises”, which he founded after he sold his Peller Brewing Co. the previous year. Pelmar aimed to take on the Southam group but, in two short years, the News would close up shop. Today, the site of Peller Brewing Co. is the Collective Arts brewery on Burlington Street and the family name is more recognizable for the business he launched in 1961: Peller Estates wines.

After 1956, the Spec stood alone as Hamilton’s primary news source. Its ownership bounced around throughout the years, finally settling with Toronto Star publisher Torstar in 1999 where it remains today.

***

In 2012, the CBC launched its digital service in Hamilton. Though the 2012 iteration isn’t the first time the CBC had a footprint in the city; the same year Peller bought out the News, local media pioneer Ken Sobel (who got his start in local radio with the now-defunct CHML) launched CHCH TV as a CBC affiliate, which it remained until 1961.

And so, for the past 14 years, Hamiltonians have had the Spec and the CBC providing news-forward coverage for the region. CHCH still has a local newscast and some of the area’s remaining radio stations provide local news, but their focus is on general entertainment, rather than conveying current affairs.

But there are other media players in the city. McMaster’s campus newspaper, The Silhouette, for example, has been an institution since 1930 and has covered major news stories in the area in the past. The Sil trained some of Canada’s best and brightest, though was always a thorn in the side of student politicians, campus administration, and the community at large. In recent years, the paper has suffered due to repeated cuts, shrinking its literal size, circulation, and publication schedule.

Local independent journalist Joey Coleman’s The Public Record serves as a timely account of civic affairs that are often overlooked or ignored by larger publications. With an emphasis on small committees, council attendance, and local planning issues, Coleman’s reporting is invaluable to those seeking a more specialized look at local goings on.

Coleman and I actually have a long history together; my first encounter with the city’s preeminent independent journalist occurred when I was, myself, an editor at The Silhouette in 2010. Coleman burst into the dingy basement office the paper had on campus to chastise me for my hyperbolic comparison of an award issued by the student union to the Victoria Cross, the British and Commonwealth decoration issued to those who demonstrated “valour in the presence of the enemy”. I had just learned about instances where the VC had been issued in a history course I was taking on the World Wars and made the clunky comparison in a moment of haste on the evening of our publication. Coleman took me to task for this, simultaneously teaching me about the importance of the VC and indicating to me that he was a person never afraid to speak his mind. Each of our encounters in the time since has included a health amount of good-natured ribbing, as of late focused on the rivalry between my attending the prestigious McGill University and his affiliation with that plucky little school called the University of Toronto.

***

There are other, more partisan publications in the area. The right-wing online blog the Bay Observer is a notable player, and one about which I wrote extensively a year ago.

The similarly right-wing Hamilton Independent is a blog run by a loose network of people in the Hamilton and Niagara area (they have a “sister publication” called the Niagara Independent). All of the regularly-involved parties have direct connections to the provincial Progressive Conservatives and the federal Conservatives (many contributors are former staffers and, in one case, a former cabinet minister), the right-wing Fraser Institute think tank, and conservative Christian organizations across North America. The only one of their contributors who is local is Kevin Geenen, a one-time Ontario Progressive Conservative nomination contestant in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek and the fifth-place finisher in the Ward 5 council race in 2022. Despite the paper-thin covering of local news it republishes, it is primarily an outlet for right-wing talking points. Their opinion pieces have called the Toronto Star a “leftist” newspaper, praised the US Supreme Court’s recent ruling that declared anti-gay conversion therapy “free speech”, claimed the actions of the Carney government are akin to “what happens in Communist countries”, and openly lauded the current American president for “outsmart[ing]…[and] bamboozl[ing]” those “elitist” mainstream reporters from the media and its “liberal bias”.

***

Less rigid in its ideological orientation is “The Hamiltonian Inc.”, a blog hosted on the classic platform Blogger that bills itself as “Hamilton’s Tastemaker in Local Politics and Community”. The Hamiltonian is run by Cal and Teresa DiFalco, a deeply engaged local couple whose commentary on civic affairs has been a staple of the Spec letters and commentary section for around two decades. The DiFalco’s are former provincial civil servants who became involved in local politics around 2006.

The Hamiltonian began publishing in 2009, reading more like a traditional blog complete with first-person observations and perspectives. It quickly became a site-to-watch in the early days of local online commentary. In 2010, The Hamiltonian, along with the now-defunct urbanist site Raise The Hammer, landed in hot water when they republished a lengthy letter from fringe mayoral candidate (and blogger) Mahesh Butani accusing then-Spec current affairs columnist Andrew Dreschel of racism.⁹

That blip didn’t derail the DiFalco’s. In 2013, Teresa was named Stoney Creek Citizen of the Year, which she followed with a bid for Ward 10 councillor in 2014. Running on a standard platform of fiscal responsibility, more assistance for seniors, promoting small business, supporting term limits, and opposing LRT, DiFalco placed a respectable second against incumbent councillor Maria Pearson, chipping away at a significant lead that would, by 2022, result in Pearson’s loss to current councillor Jeff Beattie.¹⁰

After the 2014 election, The Hamiltonian transformed into something more closely resembling a local news outlet. While some of its archive is now gone, their articles from 2015 to 2018 are a mix of commentary from local food journalists, some interviews with local politicians, posts about city press releases, and a healthy amount of focus on LRT. Then, rather abruptly, The Hamiltonian stopped publishing right before the 2018 municipal election. Cal DiFalco began writing about civic affairs again in 2024, submitting a piece to the Spec calling on the City of Hamilton to adopt zero-based budgeting. The Hamiltonian relaunched in February of 2025 and has, in the time since, secured interviews with civic politicians across Hamilton, as well as launching a series profiling registered candidates in the upcoming municipal election.

***

Other players mill about the local media ecosystem, though focusing on some combination of lifestyle, news, sports, clickbait, and paid promotions. These are outlets like “inthehammer”, a branch of “INsauga”, a digital media enterprise out of Mississauga. Founded in 2012, the company promotes itself as “one of the largest digital-only media companies” in the country that helps readers “connect to their city, engage with their community, and…find out everything from local food to shopping, and lifestyle content to real estate.” It operates a cluster of regional branches in Peel, Halton, Durham, and Niagara regions, as well as in Toronto and Hamilton. Like many of these organizations, their regular “stories” are sandwiched between sponsored posts.

While the INsauga family focuses on their website, other similar operations have remained firmly on Meta platforms, utilizing Instagram and Facebook to target their audiences.

“Northly Hamilton” is a Facebook-focused venture of the Northly Group, which specializes in what it calls “viral, youth-driven marketing for Gen Y & Z brands.” This buzzy, tech-bro-coded operation is primarily focused on using its pages to promote brands that seek out their services. The Northly Hamilton Facebook page will feature eye-catching video of house fires, clips from the Ti-Cats home opener, and a promo for a new wing restaurant all squished together.

While Northly is a little more tabloid-esque and sharp, Urbanicity is a more established and polished promotional network that operates in a similar way. Urbanicity is part lifestyle blog, part real estate agency, featuring many of the same “stories” as Northly (clips of local actress Caissie Levy winning at the Tony Awards were prominent on both Northly and Urbanicity’s Facebook pages) but trading the wing restaurant promos for links to houses currently for sale.

Rounding out the “lifestyle” pages is the “The Hammer” or “OnlyInHamilton.ca”, which, when it was launched as a Facebook page in 2015, was originally called “What’s Up on Concession Street?” or, alternatively, the “Concession Street News”. “The Hammer” (I’ll just call it that for simplicity’s sake) is run by local businessman Phil Bradshaw, who started it as a newsletter intended to be a “positive spin” and “good news” outlet during the lengthy road reconstruction in the historic mountain commercial district eleven years ago.¹¹ Bradshaw is a two-time municipal candidate, running in both the 2016 Ward 7 by-election and the 2025 Ward 8 by-election. Interestingly, in both instances, he placed 13th.

The web portion of The Hammer now features a business directory, event calendar, and blog. The social media side of things is an collection of photos from Bradshaw’s camera roll of his tours through the city and screenshots of news stories or weather updates. There is some political commentary sprinkled throughout and the occasional photo of a political leaflet or poster, but The Hammer appears to mainly be a homegrown version of the aforementioned lifestyle aggregators.

***

So let’s circle back to where we started. Hamilton’s media ecosystem is complicated right now. We have the major players - The Spec and the CBC - at the top, providing verifiable news from trusted, legitimate sources (even if you sometimes disagree with their perspectives and their editorial content). But they can’t promote their content on social media sites like Facebook and Instagram due to Meta’s news blackout in protest of Bill C-18. And while CHCH and local radio stations do have newscasts, we know that the majority of Canadians get their news from social media, including a supermajority of the youngest Canadians.

Independent news aggregators/lifestyle blogs/marketing operations can operate on social media more easily than the big players because their strategic diversification has meant they don’t get slapped with a news label and added to the ban list by Meta. That means that the majority of people in the community are getting their news from these sources.

But INsauga’s focus is on buzzy content and lifestyle news for suburbanites around Toronto, Northly Hamilton is all about viral content to promote brands, and Urbanicity is primarily a real estate operation. Small, local players like The Hammer exist to showcase local businesses and occasionally comment on current affairs, but don’t provide detailed news reporting. The Bay Observer and Hamilton Independent are right-wing operations that blend some focus on the news with conservative commentary. And the Hamilton Digest, while dipping its toes into many of the above categories, repeatedly published information about our upcoming municipal election that is, by all accounts, inaccurate.

That, unfortunately, is where we’re at with the state of local media. Social media is where people get their news, but general reporting from trusted sources is absent while the majority of local operations that still have a presence on Facebook and Instagram are either predominantly trying to sell you a product, sell you conservative views, or might just mislead you in the process of trying to sell you any of the above.

There was never a perfect time in Hamilton for the media. Even in that brief golden period around World War I when Hamilton had three papers or in the late 1920’s when we had two papers and two local radio stations, or in the 1950’s when we had The Spec, the News, and a CBC-backed CHCH, things weren’t perfect. Some papers were bigger than others. They ran partisan editorials and advertised heavily and featured blistering attacks on politicians and candidates and their supporters.

Today’s landscape is just a little more complicated. The rise of AI means that more news stories are getting harder to trust. The pivot away from formal newsrooms and toward viral marketing content creators means current affairs aren’t analyzed with substantive depth and controversial topics are ignored, lest they throw off an upcoming brand promotion deal. Pages and organizations that claim to be a source for news spend time informing you and advertising to you in the same indistinguishable breath. It is becoming harder to determine what’s true and what’s not, what’s an ad and what’s news, what’s right-wing propaganda and what’s objective reporting.

***

So, no, as of June 11, 2026, Mayor Andrea Horwath has not filed her nomination papers to run for reelection and former MP Chad Collins has not announced he is joining the mayoral race. I’m not telling you that as a journalist because, for the millionth time, I’m not a journalist. I’m saying that as someone who used the skills they picked up while studying for their PhD to research the claims using trusted sources to fact-check and confirm what I had read.

But it shouldn’t take a PhD to understand the local news. It shouldn’t take years of schooling to decipher the truth from sources purporting to inform you. It shouldn’t be hard to get the facts about what’s happening in our city and in our democracy.

These small virtual content creators have a responsibility - just as the more established journalists and mainstream media sources do - to provide the facts, disclose their paid partnerships and revenue streams, and be up front with the people who rely on them for information. Facts matter, even when your main goal is advertising or paid promotion.

The media is called “the fourth estate” because they were once considered to be a crucial pillar of society, an essential element of our society alongside the common people and the nobility and the clergy. But it is getting harder to tell who is part of the media and who is simply trying to sell something using the news as a cover. That’s deeply harmful to democracy.

We deserve honesty, real media choice, and, above all else, the truth.

-30-

…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

Photo by Lukas Kaufmann on Unsplash - Edited by author

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.

The Rat King

Image by author

I’ve had a few different jobs over the past twenty years. Cashier, bookseller, university lecturer. I even had a stint as a census taker and escaped with my liver intact! Was it because it was only a census of local businesses or because I probably wouldn’t go well with a chianti? Who knows!?

Of all the things I’ve done, working as an editor at the McMaster campus paper, The Silhouette, was probably one of my favourites. And, up until recently, it was also one of the most complicated.

***

Undergrad was a chaotic four years in my life. Like it was for so many others, it was a time of self-discovery, growth, and maturation for me. I took to heart the recommendation from welcome week orientation leaders, professors, and general community members to sample widely from everything campus had to offer. In my first year on campus, I attended concerts, free lectures, socials, game nights, and rallies. I tried different food, took a wide array of courses, and spent time studying in every corner of campus.

Ultimately, I narrowed my academic interests to political science and history and decided the one club I would become very involved with would be the McMaster Campus NDP. By second year, my degree trajectory had been set and I was the president (and, eventually, sole member) of the Campus New Democrats. After taking a political theory class, I decided to try and get involved more in student government on campus in a misguided attempt to live out the Enlightenment ideals of reason, debate, and direct democracy that I had picked up in class. Part of my strategy to make a name for myself as a political figure on campus involved writing op-eds for The Sil, drawing off the tips I had received from political activists off-campus.

This was, of course, a silly idea. Campus politics doesn’t operate the same way off-campus politics does, so few voters are likely to support you based on the op-eds you submit to the campus paper. While I floundered around in campus politics, the one group of people who did sit up and take notice of my op-eds were the paper’s editors themselves. At the end of second year, I was encouraged to apply for a position, so I naturally put myself into contention for the post of Opinions Editor.

Imagine my surprise when I was instead offered the role of News Editor. I took the role and accepted the one condition from the editorial team: I had to step down as president of the Campus NDP.

***

And so my third year of undergrad started as a paid editor at the McMaster campus newspaper, joining a storied institution for which figures like Eugene Levy, Dave Thomas, and MP John Bryden wrote for during their time on campus. The Sil was an award-winning paper, renowned across Canada as one of the last campus broadsheets, keeping a finger on the pulse of campus life and civic affairs.

Granted, The Sil wasn’t without controversy. The paper was always a refuge for scoundrels and troublemakers, eager to push the boundaries of acceptability and make a name for themselves. A notable example comes from the 1991 edition of The Sil’s April Fools Day gag paper, The Hamilton Speculator, which made references to then-Alderman Dominic Agostino’s rather voluptuous lips. Agostino’s complaints, as well as broader accusations of sexism and poor taste, led the McMaster Student’s Union to cut funding to the paper.¹

For my part, I was determined to make the paper a serious outlet that bridged the divide between campus and the wider community. One of my first big pitches was to have the paper cover the 2010 Municipal Election, profiling each mayoral candidate and looking at the race for Ward 1 councillor. Working with the graphics department, we had caricatures drawn of Bob Bratina, Larry Di Ianni, Fred Eisenberger, and the oh-so-campus-coded Michael Baldasaro and ran them with the articles each of our editors had written after interviewing the frontrunners. We pushed the city on why polling locations on and around campus had been cut back, attended campaign launches, and, on election night, had a team at city hall to report on the results. Together with an amazing editorial team, we produced some incredible election content. I felt like I was making a difference, even if I had to keep my opinions a little closer to my chest.

But I was also determined to provide better coverage of the McMaster Students Union. The undergraduate body was a multi-million dollar organization that had incredible sway on campus, yet few in the student population really knew what it did. So, as third year dragged on, I would connect with elected leaders, read through reports, and sit in on meetings of the union’s governing body, the Student Representative Assembly (SRA).

After a while, the old itch returned. I was watching government, but had no say. I could see the problems, but couldn’t directly fix them. I had ideas, but my only outlet was writing about them.

I became close with some of the elected student leaders who less-than-subtly encouraged me to join their ranks. By mid-March of 2011, the urge to run was simply too strong. I sat down with my editor and poured my heart out. I rather naïvely believed I could run for office and remain a news editor until the end of the academic year (mid-April at that point). But, after expressing a desire to run for office, I was informed I could no longer remain in my position and was rather quickly replaced as editor (albeit by an eminently qualified volunteer journalist who ended up doing an incredible job).

So, for my fourth year on campus, I was an elected representative on the SRA. While once I sat at the back of the room, reporting on student union issues, now I was one of the members around the table. I thought it was finally my chance to make a change. Oh boy was I wrong.

Within weeks, the SRA became polarized between a faction that wanted to take a more activist approach and a faction that wanted to remain close with campus administration. Thanks to my habitually sharing my opinions, I was branded a communist radical and was quickly ostracized by other members. My old colleagues at The Sil began writing scathing op-eds about how dysfunctional the student union had become, simultaneously breaking my heart and making me question my choices. When I ran for the presidency of the student union, things deteriorated even more. The fractious activist coalition with which I had been associated splintered, The Sil took a deeply critical look at my platform, and the stress of it all resulted in my developing the second worst case of strep throat I’ve ever had in my life.

After I lost the election for student union president, I felt entirely defeated. I had cut my journalism career short, so I couldn’t apply to journalism schools. I had shared too many opinions, so I couldn’t get a job in campus administration like so many of my colleagues. I had not toed the line well enough to pivot into active politics. I had no job offers, no fallbacks, no clear pathways. I was too opinionated, too inexperienced, too public, too complicated, too chaotic. So, naturally, I went to grad school.

By the time I turned 22, my life resembled the legendary rat king: a rodentian mass bound together by blood and goo and excrement, knotted at the tail, each part trying desperately to go its own way, doing nothing but making the situation worse with every frantic step.

That is the same feeling I have right now, all these years later.

After a few years bouncing back and forth between Hamilton and Montreal during my PhD, I made the decision to return full-time in 2020 to weather the pandemic in my hometown. I immediately threw myself into local politics, becoming the campaign CFO for the incredibly talented Roberto Henriquez during his 2021 campaign for MP in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas. I served on candidate search committees, joined electoral district associations, and organized fundraisers for the amazing MPP Sandy Shaw. And, during the 2022 Municipal Election, I published my “School Board Trustee Candidate Tracker” sheet to raise awareness about the oft-forgotten down-ballot office.

At the same time, I was conducting research and publishing papers. I had already been identified as a “local politics expert” by folks in the media, but things really took off after my work during the last municipal election. Reporters would regularly ring me up when they wanted the perspective of a researcher and politics watcher. I had the gossip, I had the research, and I had the soundbites to blend it all together.

I started this newsletter in 2023 after the symbolic death of Twitter. My modest readership grew with each edition and it became a space for me to share my research, my views, and my rather eclectic style of humour. My focus quickly turned to council and the antics of our elected leaders, much as it did when I was an editor at The Sil so many moons ago.

But then I got a job offer I couldn’t refuse. I went from a critic of City Hall to someone working on the political side of the operation who still, with growing intensity, critiqued City Hall. The more I saw, the more frustrated I became, and the more that came out in my writing.

And then the saga of last summer occurred.

***

After my personal information was shared with community activists and without my consent by (as best I can tell) a colleague at City Hall, the disparate strands of my life became increasingly knotted together. I wasn’t just a researcher; I was a hack academic with an agenda. I wasn’t just a local nerd who wanted to share his perspectives; I was a wannabe journalist with an axe to grind. I wasn’t just a communications advisor; I was a nefarious political actor seeking to advance my radical agenda.

Even after the investigation into my activities - an investigation that cost taxpayers untold sums and wasted hundreds of human hours that could have otherwise been employed in the service of this city - concluded with a full exoneration, the knotted tail did not loosen. Indeed, it has only seemed to tighten.

In many ways, the investigation had one of its intended effects; while I wasn’t fired, I became fearful of posting almost anything online lest I find myself subject to further retribution. While the complaint against me wasn’t a public Code of Conduct investigation (I’m a political staffer and, therefore, subject to confidential HR procedures, not the same ones applied to elected officials), it follows the same pattern that we’ve seen in the city since 2022. That’s because, in an attempt to make the system more accessible, the city ended up making it painfully easy to abuse.

After council decided to remove the $100 fee associated with submitting a Code of Conduct complaint, the number of such complaints jumped by 500 percent from 2021 to 2025. As of late February, the city’s Integrity Commissioner told the Spec that he received seven complaints in just the first two weeks of 2026 alone. The overwhelming majority of these complaints are dismissed outright, but the onslaught is having a chilling effect on local governance.²

Let’s be extremely clear here: the Code of Conduct complaint process is being weaponized. It is being used as a cudgel by political opponents of all stripes against sitting members of council. What was intended to be a way to improve transparency has become a drain on resources and a political distraction. It costs taxpayers, it wastes time, and it, at best, results in an embarrassing apology tour for members of council that their political opponents use to throw them off their game.

That was the intent when the complaint was lodged against me. And, frankly, it has thrown me off my game.

And the complexity of my situation became incredibly clear after yesterday’s General Issues Committee (GIC) meeting at City Hall.

***

Following yesterday’s GIC meeting, North End resident Kelly Oucharek announced her bid for the office of Ward 2 councillor in this October’s civic election. Oucharek has been an outspoken activist, particularly around the issue of homelessness, encampments, drug use, and the various tiny shelter projects that have been proposed or set up in the city. She has rapidly built a profile in the community complete with very passionate supporters and equally passionate detractors, which explains the extremely positive reaction to her announcement in the North End Facebook group and the extremely negative reaction to her announcement in the r/Hamilton subreddit.

On a personal level, Oucharek was critical of me during the Code of Conduct investigation last year. Along with her political ally, announced Ward 3 council candidate Andrew Selman, Oucharek posted repeatedly about my situation. She wondered aloud (on both Bluesky and Twitter) about whether I wrote a piece critiquing Selman’s posts about my softball league “on [my] own time or as a city staffer” and quickly followed it up with the claim that I was “leading a group” of staffers seeking to unionize. She followed this with a post alerting local journalist Joey Coleman to the matter.

In my posts detailing the issue in August and October of 2025, I stated clearly that I work for a wage not a salary, that I have never and will never write my own newsletter content “on City of Hamilton time”, that my employer has never directed or commissioned any newsletter content, and that I was not moonlighting as a union organizer (I’m afraid I simply don’t have the time but, again, I am deeply supportive of every employee exercising their Charter rights to join a union). I believe my comments clearly highlight how the reality of the situation differs from some of the ways Oucharek presented my activities on social media.

Oucharek’s posts about the issue remain up to this day. In the time since the investigation concluded and I was found to have not violated any city policies, neither Oucharek nor Selman have retracted any statements or acknowledged the outcome in any way.

As a citizen - a living, informed, opinionated, educated, voting citizen - I have many personal opinions about Oucharek’s candidacy. This is for the simple fact that, based on the facts I have available, we do not share the same worldview.

On the issues about which she has been most vocal, we just plain don’t align. I personally disagree with her stance on and characterization of the safe supply of drugs based on my research and the conversations I have had with healthcare practitioners and activists in the field. I am uncomfortable with her posts which include videos and photos of vulnerable people experiencing homelessness or using drugs as I personally don’t believe it is appropriate to document such things and post them widely given the vulnerable situation of many of the people involved (specifically the high proportion of people in similar situations in Hamilton who are living with mental illnesses, are minors, are fleeing unsafe situations, etc.) And I’m uneasy with her comment telling someone who chose to stay masked after the WHO declared the COVID-19 Pandemic over to “ditch the mask”, as I personally believe it is an individual’s right to protect their health using evidence-based medicine.

More abstractly, I personally have issues with her public notes of encouragement to Adam Zivo, the reporter seen as controversial by groups like PressProgress for his brand of activist journalism and who has become an increasingly (self-professed) dedicated opponent of issues relating to the transgender community. Notably, I have a personal issue with this note of support Oucharek left on one of Zivo’s posts about “gender radicalism” (it is important to note that Oucharek did not positively or negatively address Zivo’s main point on the post, instead bringing it back to his reporting on drug policy - it is unclear if her comment “keep it up! needs to be said” was in reference to Zivo’s original point or his reporting on drug policy). And I am personally unsettled by the main point of controversy that has come up following her announcement, namely her reposting of a tweet during Pride Month in 2024 that ends with the lines: “There probably is some errant genetics at play for why some people are gay. That’s okay. But LGBTQ+…is total Perversion of Normality”.

To her credit, in a response to a community member on Facebook, Oucharek wrote that she “does not support or endorse content that is harmful or discriminatory towards anyone.” I appreciate the clarification, though I should note that both posts remain up as of writing.

A side note, but I think it needs to be stated very clearly right here and right now: trans rights are human rights and that isn’t up for debate. I will not personally engage in any debates about the humanity of my friends in the trans community or in any debates about my humanity as a gay man. Full stop, end of story. This is simply an informational side note about my perspective that I think needs to be stated, not a comment on any real or perceived perspectives from any candidate mentioned anywhere in this piece.

It should come as no surprise that I personally have different political beliefs than Oucharek. I have different political beliefs than Selman and Vito Sgro and Jason Farr and Matt Francis and Rob Cooper and Hayden Lawrence and Fred Bennink and Chad Collins and a great many other political figures in Hamilton. They are free to share their perspectives, run for office, and advance the causes in which they believe just as it is my personal right to hold different views and, in my own personal time, work to advance the causes in which I believe.

In a healthy and functioning democracy, people - no matter where they work or what their background is - this is not a bad thing. People should be given the space to express their political opinions and advance the things in which they believe. People deserve to ask questions about one’s beliefs, interrogate their reasoning, and have rational, evidence-based debates.

But I simply can’t do that right now because I’m all tangled up.

***

The rat king that is my life is becoming an issue.

I have a deep and gnawing desire to do “investigative” style work like when I dug into the conspiracy theory that people experiencing homelessness were being “bussed” into Hamilton or my dogged pursuit of the clandestine figures behind “Concerned Hamiltonians” (side note, but an “anonymous” survey from an as-yet-unnamed shadowy source has popped up in town “polling” Ward 2 residents on “the current direction of Ward 2” and the qualities that “matter most to you in a Ward 2 councillor” - all I could think of when I saw that was “try President’s Choice’s new sauce ‘Memories of Concerned Hamiltonians’, now with 50% less flavour!”).

But doing that kind of work in the current political climate and given my current position has become almost impossible. I have to word things with such delicacy, I end up scrapping most editions before I can publish them. Even just the couple paragraphs above that directly relate to Oucharek’s had to be rewritten a handful of times to ensure they clearly pointed out that:

1. All opinions expressed are my own personal opinions, none of which are in violation of the City of Hamilton’s employee Code of Conduct which I have studied with great intensity;

2. Each point that could be challenged has accompanying references and is presented as close to as it was originally;

3. No point incorporates any level of humour or commentary that might, in some way, skew the meaning of the comments; and

4. In the most neutral way possible, my own perspectives differ on some issues she has raised in the community but do not, in any capacity, represent anyone or any other organization’s views other than my own individual, personal, autonome opinions as a free citizen in a democracy.

Writing like that results in a bland, repetitive word salad that no one would spend any significant time reading. But I have to translate my work into pseudo-legalese just to stay above board.

And that’s because I like my job. I like working at City Hall. I like helping to make sense of the extremely complicated decisions and policies that come from our local government. I like being able to put my education to use in service of my community.

But I also like having somewhere to live. I like buying groceries. I like feeding my cats (they made me say that…I know they’ll turn on me the second the kibble runs out).

I don’t want to be a distraction to anyone in the community. And I don’t want to throw the life that I have and the lives of the people I love and care about and admire into jeopardy. The more I comment on these matters given the position I’m in, the more likely that becomes.

So it’s time to start untangling the rat king.

***

First thing’s first: I wish Oucharek and Selman and all the other candidates running the best of luck in the upcoming municipal election campaign. If the voters of Hamilton see fit to send both of these community activists and any of the other folks with similar views to council, then that is the outcome I will acknowledge and accept as a citizen in a democracy.

But, given the fact that the work I do on this newsletter and the work I do in the community have already been tied together thanks to last year’s investigation, I can no longer comment on their actions or the actions of any candidate in the way I had previously done.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not believe Oucharek or Selman or any other announced or prospective candidate with whom I have an ideological or policy or personal difference has or will use the complaint system to stifle debate or attack their opponents. As is always the case, political figures and campaigns have their supporters, some of whom take action independently in ways they deem appropriate to support the cause or people they back. Similarly, there are people who simply love procedure and may take issue with any perceived conflicts I may have. With that said, given the weaponization of the complaints system, my precarious work situation, and the nature of the commentary I provide, it is simply impossible to distinguish between all the pieces of my life.

This means there will be some changes to the newsletter for the next while.

I will still publish The Incline, albeit on a less-than-firm schedule. I will post when I am able, which may be a challenge given the requirements of my work (I should note that I work three distinct part-time positions, each at different places, to make ends meet, as well as do unpaid academic and independent research when I can).

My main focus, at least during the municipal election campaign, will be on one of my favourite topics: local history. Writing about the history of Halloween in Hamilton, the relocation of The Alpha Neighbourhood, and the lives of Brothers Michael Baldasaro and Walter Tucker brought me such incredible joy and reminded me of a paper review I once got that (and I’m paraphrasing here) may have been trained as a geographer, but have the soul of a historian. Our city has such a rich, vibrant, incredible past that is all-too-often forgotten. I love diving deep and presenting our shared past in my own unique way.

I may also take some space to discuss provincial matters. My perspectives on the government of Doug Ford are very well known and I will not stop raising my voice about the damage I believe he and the Progressive Conservative Party are doing to this province.

But, ultimately, I will avoid discussing the municipal election campaign and civic affairs for the foreseeable future.

I know this may come as a disappointment to some. And, for that, I apologize. I know the city’s media landscape is not as deep or inquisitive as many would like. I have personally heard from so many people that they appreciate my analysis, my focus on issues that mainstream outlets ignore, and my takes on the issues that impact our city. I am truly sorry I will not be able to do that going forward. I hope you understand and seek out answers to the questions you have wherever you can.

And, most importantly, I hope you get involved in the upcoming municipal election in the way that makes the most sense to you, whether that’s as a candidate, a campaign volunteer, an organizer, a letter writer, or just a voter. This is your city. You have a say. And your perspective matters.

***

I don’t know if I’ll ever be in a position to “pick a lane” when it comes to how I participate in our democracy. I love writing, but I also love electoral politics. I love campaigns, but I also love working “on the inside”. I love research, but I also love promoting policy.

I might figure out how to make all that work together one day. But today is not that day.

Today, I’m learning how to live with the rat king that is my life. I’m trying to distinguish between the parts, untangle it where I can, and, most of all, do everything I can to not get bitten.

The Worst of Times

Photo by Thomas McPherson on Unsplash - edited by author.

Writing this newsletter is getting harder.

As the seconds tick closer to the October 26, 2026 municipal election, it is becoming more and more clear that, unlike in times past, this campaign will not be the good-spirited (albeit serious) contest to select the next cohort of civic leaders. Instead, it is shaping up to be an ugly, brutal, sad little brawl with no certain outcomes. Rather than a campaign marked by sunny ways or the winds of change, we are in the position of hunkering down as a whirlwind of misery crashes into us.

Our democracy is very, very, very sick right now. Not quite at “Weimar Germany circa 1932” levels of sick, but sick enough that there isn’t much time left to make changes before it’s too late.

***

Part of the reason for that is because of global forces. We are now firmly immersed in a period of global chaos that will not end with the US Midterms on November 3 of this year. It won’t even end in 2028, assuming the United States holds its scheduled presidential and congressional elections at that time. This is the new reality: one defined by complete and utter chaos, and where the only sure thing is instability.

Nothing makes sense anymore. Some days, it seems like there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. The French far-right failed to meet expectations in their municipal elections this week, with leftist and moderate candidates taking control of important city halls. And Italy’s bafflingly popular fascist Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, lost a key referendum which would have allowed her more power to overhaul the country’s judicial system. The rejection of Meloni’s far-right agenda was driven by youth, who overwhelmingly opposed the changes. On the flip side, some of her strongest support came from those Italians eligible to vote while living right here in Canada. Seems like sound of Bella ciao echoing throughout Europe can’t be heard across the Atlantic.

Other days, it’s like there’s no light at all. An MP in Finland was, just yesterday, convicted of inciting hatred after saying that gay people had a “developmental disorder”. Given financial support by American evangelicals, she’s now launched a campaign to soften human rights legislation and make it easier to discriminate against queer people in her country, which is currently ruled by a coalition government of traditional conservatives and far-right populists. A snap election in Denmark (called by their Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, after she got a polling bump following her standing up to US aggression over Greenland and incorporated anti-immigrant sentiment into her Social Democratic Party’s platform) saw the far-right surge in support unexpectedly. While ecosocialists and progressives performed well, a collection of extreme right parties did even better. And, as the not-quite-a-war in Iran escalates, we find ourselves on the road to a global energy crisis the likes of which hasn’t been seen in a generation.

While Mark Carney’s deeply cold and calculating government is following a tried-and-true playbook of doing what it can to stave off complete economic collapse by slashing the federal budget, the mixed messaging about Canada’s role in global conflict isn’t reassuring anyone. Carney’s government has been cagey about direct military involvement in the Middle East, but has been boosting defence spending with glee, meeting the 2%-of-GDP “benchmark” necessitated by our NATO membership for the first time since the Cold War. The feds are on track to fire 28,000 civil servants by 2029, but at least the military has a load of cash to maybe do some war!

Closer to home, Ontario’s provincial government has fully embraced the Chaos Doctrine as a way to cover for its near-endless string of misdeeds and failures. In my academic life (which is slipping deeper into memory with each passing day), I had long resisted equating Doug Ford with the current American president. After four trillion eight years of him, I now see that, while they differ in the policy arena, they are nearly identical in temperament and political style. Ford’s decisions have the same MAGA-infused air of flippant smugness to them. And, just as the state apparatus of the lumbering republic to our south is now oriented toward enriching the president and his friends, Ontario’s provincial political machinery is now employed in full service of the policy agenda Ford would have set had the people of Toronto done what he told them to and made him mayor in 2014. Convention centres and waterfront spas and jet-riddled downtown airports and total control over schools and small city councils and cronies galore! Nouveau Tammany Hall, just without the cool facial hair and clever nicknames. Who will be the “Slippery Dick” Connolly of Queen’s Park!?

***

Here in Hamilton, we find ourselves in our “find out” moment. The steady poisoning of our civic discourse, aided in part by a local media and commentator class that oscillates unpredictably between callous indifference and cryptopartisan belligerence and in part by a civic machinery that has not done a very good job of educating the people about what the municipality can do and is doing, has created a tailing pond of toxicity in which a gaggle of new and returning political actors, buoyed partially by the chaos of the current moment and partially by the personal floatation devices that are their own egos, are now floating.

Of the “declared” candidates for mayor and city council (say nothing of school boards, as they’ll likely be dissolved in the coming weeks - another Doug Fordian blow to our democracy), the preponderance of non-incumbents stepping up to run in Hamilton are conspiracy theorists and/or right-wing activists of varying intensity. These are political actors who are either convinced that Hamilton’s decline began 1,228 days ago when the current term of council was sworn in or are playing the part of the “concerned citizen” in the hopes that the slurry of bitumen, silt, and rage in the tailing pond of Hamilton’s civic discourse will swell and rise to such a level where they will be swept into office. A rising tide eats through the fiberglass hulls of most boats, and all that.

Few unapologetic non-incumbent progressives have signaled an open intention to run for any position, though we did just get an announcement from Scarlett Gillespie, the incredibly passionate activist and organizer, who recently confirmed her candidacy for mayor. And while more will inevitably step up as we get closer and closer to the close of nominations on August 21, 2026, it isn’t hard to see why forward-thinking people in the community aren’t champing at the bit to run this race (another incredibly passionate forward-thinking Hamiltonian, Lohifa Pogoson Acker, just announced she won’t be running for council in Ward 8, even though the seat may be open with incumbent councillor Rob Cooper preparing a mayoral run - unfortunately clearing a path for Terry Whitehead’s return to office if current trustee Dawn Danko doesn’t make a bid for it). Anyone even a millimetre left of centre (or, frankly, left of the spot on the extreme right that right-wing activists have tried to position as “centre”) will be sharing the track with candidates operating in a political reality that is very different than anything we’ve experienced before.

These are people who are living in an imaginary world where Hamilton city council, which is split awkwardly between ideological right, centre, and left factions, is somehow controlled by the minority bloc in the form of those to the left of centre. This is a bloc that numbers 3-to-5 members (out of 16, remember) at varying intervals and depending on where the angriest people on the internet draw their lines. This belief - that Hamilton is controlled by radical “woke” activists - has spawned a cottage industry built around performative outrage at every action taken by this current council. Those whose outrage is most consistent and most vitriolic have become local “thought leaders”, transmuting banal events into parts of a nefarious plot by malicious forces determined to “take your city away”. That’s the only way to describe how the same talking points, complete with the same throw-away jabs, the same clunky phrasing, and the same misspelling (purposeful or not) of certain councillor’s names, appears with regularity on Facebook, X/Twitter, in the comments section of the Spec and Bay Observer, and occasionally on the r/Hamilton subreddit. Well…the only way to describe that phenomenon without speculating that it’s maybe a very, very small group of well-funded activists in control of multiple accounts making it seem like there’s more opposition to the current council than there really is.

Even some of the “traditional” civic conservatives who we could previously count on to talk about little more than taxes have dipped a cautious toe or two into the brisk and corrosive waters of conspiracy. Whether they like it or not, many of them count among their supporters people whose critiques of the current council are little more than an inebriated stumble on the line between talk-radio-style right-wing populism and a bald-faced, exuberant, open ideology of misogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, transphobia, and whatever other kind of ugly hate you could imagine. And, as more progressives retreat from active politics, the larger the influence of these malcontents will grow, meaning it will become more and more acceptable to not only bring them into the fold, but change your message to better suit their beliefs. What MAGA (and, before it, the Tea Party) did to the Republican Party, so too shall the angriest and most aggrieved will do to our civic conversation.

***

I do not share these observations lightly, nor am I sharing them out of a desire to tip the scales in favour of one candidate or side.

Despite some of the more salacious rumours swirling out there in the community, I am not affiliated with any campaign (the only thing worse than being talked about is being talked about inaccurately). I’m in an awkward situation where I work at city hall, but also work on the outside. I comment on matters pertaining to civic affairs, but also have to communicate about civic affairs. I have a pile of degrees and damn near two decades of experience in politics, but, since the events of last summer and lingering assumptions about my political allegiances, have been treated as a persona non grata by local media and some in the upper echelons of local power. While some of my detractors may sneer that I wield undue influence, let me assure them that I have been ostensibly blackballed. My penchant for speaking my mind doesn’t just annoy those with whom I disagree, but also concerns those who see my work as more a liability than an asset.

No, I share these observations because I tried to write a piece on a conspiracy theory being spread by a proclaimed candidate for city council in Ward 3 and, instead, got sucked into local Facebook drama. And that, in turn, reminded me of why we’re in such a bad place.

***

In 2017, while speaking to my students in my capacity as a Teaching Assistant, the class got onto the topic of social media. I had been immersed in research on the impacts of Facebook and Twitter on the rise of the far-right around the world. Facebook in particular had already been caught trying to “control” the emotions of users and it was already becoming evident (though had not yet been proven) that it was boosting far-right misinformation as a way to keep users engaged. That was the same year that Facebook helped to facilitate the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, doing absolutely nothing to stop the calls to violence proliferating on the platform in the authoritarian country.

In the midst of the conversation, I said, partially out of frustration, that “Facebook is killing democracy”. The line got a laugh and some agreement from my students, most of whom had stopped using the platform; it had begun then, but the migration of youth from the platform continues at a steady pace. Facebook’s demographics currently skew older and more savvy users have abandoned for fresher and more collaborative platforms like TikTok.

It wasn’t until I got my course evaluations that I saw just how much of an impact that comment had. A student took the time to write that what I said was a profound observation that led them down the path to being more critical of the impact of social media on our democracy. That meant a lot to me as a TA.

At the same time, the problem hasn’t gone away.

The Russian state continues to use Facebook to eat away at the foundations of liberal democracy and, just this week, Meta was found to have enabled harm against children, leading to a fine of $375,000,000 for the company.

Of course, in Hamilton, the impact of Facebook hasn’t been to as dramatic. In fact, I’d say the biggest impact Facebook has had on our local democracy is that it has made it far cruder, more easily warped by the political right, and undoubtedly sillier.

***

That’s how the piece was supposed to start.

It was originally going to be about how a fringe “candidate” for council in Ward 3 (who has said in comments he isn’t running to win but, instead, to be a disruptive force - an internet troll committed to the bit IRL) spread the increasingly tired far-right conspiracy that Indigenous people are coming to take your homes.

It’s been a belief on the extreme right for some time that any attempt to engage in meaningful reconciliation is somehow dangerous, especially when Indigenous land title is acknowledged. A ruling in BC from last August sparked right-wing fears when a judge found that an Indigenous group there never surrendered their territory and maintain title to it, despite it currently being owned by private landholders. But, as Indigenous experts and lawyers have noted, the ruling simply reinforces the idea that the Canadian government has a constitutional obligation to First Nations groups and to recognize Indigenous title. As two lawyers put in Policy Options, the ruling “does not mean that private-property owners who were not named in the court case are likely to lose title to their land and homes…It’s simply a reminder to governments to fulfil their constitutional obligations.”¹

But when your entire political movement is based on feelin’ angry, why let facts get in the way!?

The Canadian far-right jumped at the chance to rile up the base and terrify the ill-informed by claiming that land acknowledgements are somehow laying the groundwork for the complete abolition of private property rights and the mass deportation of settler Canadians. It’s so preposterous, it’s laughable, but that hasn’t ever stopped them before.

This belief circulated in fringe, hyper-online circles for a bit. A notable local example comes from Catherine Kronas, the right-wing populist New Blue Party-affiliated activist who ran for school board trustee in Waterdown during the last municipal election. Kronas has been leading a charge against land acknowledgements (albeit under the cover of land acknowledgements constituting “compelled speech” in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) for a while, focusing her efforts on the Hamilton-Wentworth Public School Board’s use of them at meetings.

The conspiracy theory broke containment and entered the mainstream when far-right Conservative Party MP Aaron Gunn was mocked by Indigenous leaders for peddling the theory. Gunn brought it up in a social media post, calling on the federal government to stop making land acknowledgements if it “truly believes in the private property rights of Canadians” and that land acknowledgements reinforce “the radical and dangerous legal concept that most Canadians live on ‘stolen land’.”²

A right wing extremist spreading a conspiracy theory isn’t necessarily newsworthy, but it got plenty of attention when the chiefs of four BC First Nations communities issued a press release telling Gunn to “chillax”.

As amusing as that response was, the belief still lingers in fringe circles. And the silliness of the conspiracy theory meant, of course, that it would spill over into Hamilton’s civic politics.

***

When searching Google for something completely different³ , I came across posts from an individual who has declared their candidacy for Ward 3 councillor.

Ward 3 may be (with the exception of any open races) the most hotly contested race in the city. In incumbent councillor, Nrinder Nann, has declared her intention to seek a third term and a host of other candidates, some more mainstream than others, have also preemptively thrown their hats in the ring. Thanks to Ward 3’s status in the city - a ward with a wide range of incomes, land uses, cultural and social groups, problems and promises - it has taken on the status of “battleground”. In large part, this is because the spillover effects from the COVID-19 Pandemic and the systematic defunding of social services has resulted in a situation where Ward 3 deals with a disproportionate amount of the “social disorder” many mischaracterize as “crime” and the effects of decades of property devaluation that has allowed predatory and absent landlords to profit off the community without contributing to the community. Ward 3 is packed with heritage homes and once-promising storefronts carved into shoebox units rented to people on the margins by numbered companies based out of Markham and Oakville run by people who let their assets crumble while extracting as much from them as the market will allow.

I won’t be naming any of the candidates for a few reasons. But, in the case of this particular candidate, I’m avoiding naming them for the simple reason that they unsettle me. They, like some other people who have said they would like to run for office in the city, maintain extreme views and have not shied away from using offensive and, oftentimes, homophobic language to get their points across. And, until they’re officially registered, I’d like to keep some distance between myself and the nonsense that they might try.

The candidate is a Facebook superuser, posting habitually in Hamilton-area groups. While they are active in some local neighbourhood-specific groups, they are most active in the local-area groups that are firmly on the political margins. These are groups where transphobia, COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and open support for the MAGA fantasy of Canadian annexation aren’t just commonplace, but foundational. They often have “free speech”, “unrestricted”, or “neighbourhood watch” in their name or description, though their commitment to freedom of speech seems to extend only to using the “r-word” to mock their fellow Hamiltonians and their dedication to being a “neighbourhood watch” service involves little more than posting Ring Camera footage of people experiencing homelessness or in crisis. Mostly, though, the groups are where habitual users can post rants about “that Mayor Horvath” (whomever that is), AI-generated memes about “woke libs”, and pixelated graphics about how the Liberal Party is actually fascist.

It’s in these groups where the prospective candidate has been expounding upon their “campaign platform”, which includes opposition to the LRT (obviously), support for Real Estate Investment Trusts (the large-scale financialized landlords that pay no tax due to their corporate structure), and a plan to force drug users and people experiencing homelessness into indentured servitude (that sounds constitutional), all cut through with massive amounts of Islamophobia.

And it was in one of those groups where they shared this post:

The “candidate” just cuts right to the chase and shares an out-and-out conspiracy theory, claiming the NDP (a party without status in the House of Commons) is working to take away “YOUR PROPERTY” through land acknowledgements.

Exhausting.

So, yeah, my original plan was to write about conspiracies and how they might influence the municipal election. But, needing to scour Facebook for examples and learn more about this “candidate”, I got stuck in an angry little eddy of hyperlocal social media drama that just reminded me how ill our democracy really is in this moment.

***

The prospective candidate, along with 9,400 other people, is a member of the “Welcome to the North End” Facebook group. The candidate uses it frequently and, not long ago, one of their lengthy missives was screenshotted and posted in the group by a user who had questions about the claims. The candidate responded, but didn’t address any of the questions, instead just copy-and-pasting the headlines of articles from local journalist Joey Coleman.

The North End group is…complicated. There are easily-identified powerusers in the group who post multiple times a day about a cacophony of issues and others who reliably comment on certain stories. A group user, for example, repeatedly re-posts content from Vito Sgro’s not-quite-a-mayoral-candidate page to the point where they are annoying other group members (one recently commented “Why do you keep sharing his posts?” and I swear you could hear their eyes rolling from through the screen). Another anonymous user with a damn-near inscrutable name regularly shares stream-of-consciousness complaints about anything and everything that happens in the city, though their posts are rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories (including jumping onto the dumb little non-scandal that was the receipt of a Ward 2 Community Grant by the Steel City Inclusive Softball Association last year - nothing makes queer Hamiltonians feel welcome than 👏 every 👏 single 👏 little 👏 thing 👏 we do being scrutinized with more intensity than the actions of any other group in town).

Some of the group’s other power users have been up in arms about the state of Eastwood Arena, the crumbling 67 year-old rink at Burlington and Mary. Thanks to decades of underinvestment in our civic infrastructure, the building is, at this point, barely usable. Side note, but last summer, I ran by the building and noticed gaps in the wall so large, I could see through to the rink inside.

Based on the state of the building, the city has made the decision to close Eastwood Arena between April and September to monitor the how the building holds up, make repairs where necessary, and ensure it isn’t overused in the summer so that it can be re-opened when the hockey season starts.

The timing of this pause on programming is not ideal. This closure will last through to the most active part of the 2026 municipal election campaign, which is not great news for Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch.

Opposition to Kroetsch appears to be extremely loud and extremely dedicated in pockets of the North End, which is a community struggling in the midst of a protracted identity crisis. The community by the bay is steeped in history, but is changing rapidly. It is home to many long-time working class residents and an increasing number of arts-focused and professional, younger households. It is a community with traditional Italian and Portuguese roots and a rapidly growing queer and newcomer population. It is home to industry and community services, a navy base and a fast-evolving waterfront, a place where the horn blasts from incoming ships in the Harbour echo through the neighbourhood as loud as the music from summer festivals held at Bayfront Park does. It is home to a vital link to the region in the form of West Harbour, while simultaneously feeling isolated and penned in by the rail lines and fast-moving streets along its borders. That’s part of the reason why Kroetsch, if I may be so bold, represents a Hamilton that many North Enders don’t recognize and represents what Hamilton should be to a great many more.

In a letter released to the community, Kroetsch said that the temporary closure of the arena - which is not a recreation centre and does not have drop-in skates or activities like many other municipal spaces in the city do - will impact some of the summer leagues that use the space, but that there’s no plan to permanently close the arena at Eastwood without a replacement plan in place. Indeed, the City of Hamilton’s Recreation Master Plan accounts for this and says Eastwood will be replaced by a new facility either on-site or nearby, instead of simply being closed without an alternative being provided.

Had someone not seen the councillor’s letter and only come across a Change.org petition entitled “EASTWOOD IS A UNIQUE AND VALUED ASSET. IT NEEDS TO STAY OPEN!”, they may have a different impression of the situation.

The petition calls for an immediate “halt to the permanent closure of Eastwood Arena”, a commitment for a funding plan to ensure the facility remains open, and “Ensure equitable access to recreation by protecting the only arena serving the lower city’s North End”. It makes its case by dipping into the tried-and-tested age-old strategy in Hamilton’s politics that I like to call “She Already Done Had Herses”; people in one neighbourhood will see anything happening in another neighbourhood and assume that a) their neighbourhood is always overlooked and that b) other neighbourhoods always get a disproportionate level of money, resources, and attention from the city. In this case, it’s a case of “The North End vs. Stoney Creek”.

“The Mayor set a precedent as she intervened to save the Stoney Creek Arena. We demand the same commitment to equity, transparency, and preservation of vital community assets in our neighbourhood,” reads the “letter” attached to the petition.

The petition, which had around 2,150 signatures at last glance, is an interesting collection of grievances. It claims that the North End “relies on Eastwood Arena for affordable recreation”, but there are no municipal programs on-site; the only groups that use the space in the summer are the Hammer City Roller Derby, the Hamilton Ball Hockey Association, and the Hamilton Lacrosse Association, and each of those will be re-accommodated at another municipal arena. It makes a series of claims about the benefits of community centres before issuing the demand that “Mayor Horwath and City Council…Immediately halt the permanent closure of Eastwood Arena.” But that isn’t happening; Eastwood is being closed in the summer to ensure it can be ready for the fall and winter season, not being closed permanently right now. AGAIN, the City of Hamilton’s Recreation Master Plan does suggest closing the current Eastwood Arena and replacing it either with a modernized facility or as part of a larger community centre, but what’s happening now is a temporary closure for safety reasons.

The petition has been circulated widely in the “Welcome to the North End” Facebook group. There’s a steady undercurrent of anti-Kroetsch commentary in the group, so the petition was like catnip for the powerusers who associate the current councillor (and sometimes the mayor) with all the city’s woes. The group’s users regularly associate any problem in the community with the councillor (helping to explain the proliferation of quasi-mayoral-campaign-style videos from Vito Sgro in the group that blame Mayor Horwath and council for problems that predate their time in office by decades).

For some of the loudest voices in Hamilton, November 15, 2022 - the day this current council was sworn in - represents a turning point. The world before was like a Norman Rockwell painting. The world after transformed Hamilton into a more run-down and undesirable place than some of the less-appealing neighbourhoods of Pripyat. History is shallow and it is only those before our eyes who must be held responsible for our misery!

I digress, but only slightly. Another poster (who almost exclusively uses the group to attack Councillor Kroetsch from one of what is, by their own admission, many different accounts) dropped a link to Kroetsch’s letter to the community about the Eastwood closure that sparked a more…spirited discussion.

***

The original poster went wide, blaming Kroetsch for the deterioration of local heritage buildings like the Tivoli and the buildings along Gore Park, speculating that the councillor has blocked “over half his constituents”, and making veiled accusations of corruption regarding Kroetsch and the receipt of heritage designation for the former Bank of Montreal building at Gore Park. While the space is, today, home to the nightclub “Mansion”, it was previously the “gay” bar Embassy (“gay” is in quotes because it wasn’t owned by anyone in the queer community, employed problematic security staff, and never made any effort to build connections between queer Hamiltonians).

Now, it would be beyond a stretch to suggest 18,540 residents of Ward 2 have been blocked by the councillor and, as I tried to communicate in the “Welcome to the North End” group, the process of giving the 112 year-old Bank of Montreal building heritage designation began in 2014 when Jason Farr was the councillor. But the original poster seems more driven by a visceral hatred of the councillor (they’ve made another five anti-Kroetsch posts since Monday of this week) than by a desire to advance truth and logic.

You will note that I said I tried to post in the group.

I have a barebones account I use for work. I deleted my original account in 2022 after the toxicity in the Strathcona neighbourhood Facebook group (where I lived at the time) became so vile, I began to feel physically ill even scrolling through it. So, had I been authorized to post, it would have been my first foray onto the hellsite in four years. But my comment was, for better or for worse, not approved. Huge violation of decorum and decency to offer facts about the heritage designation process, it would seem.

On the other hand, comments from many people, both in the North End community and outside it, were allowed. Comments from the original poster and their multiple different accounts got through.

Comments from a former Parks, Cemeteries, and Special Projects Manager for the City of Hamilton and “Special Advisor to the Board” during Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s tenure (who moonlights as a minor social media celebrity in town) were approved. It’s important to note that, like the original poster, this individual seems almost singularly focused on Kroetsch, so never passes up an opportunity to attack the councillor (and, bafflingly, add tags in each of their comments for groups and individuals seemingly at random; they will tag comments with links to the Hamilton Police Service, the Hess Village BIA, the mayor, different media outlets and, once, to TD Place, the sports field in Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park).

And, of course, a comment from former councillor (and likely 2026 council candidate) Jason Farr was approved, allowing the area’s representative from 2010 to 2022 a chance to take on, in his words, “Councillor CK the Deflector King” and rally the community to lace up and keep the rink open instead of “more finger pointing and meetings with staff.”

I dunno, maybe attending one of those “meetings with staff” back in 2010 would have been a good idea so that they could have told you that “community gumption” isn’t a substitute for the plaster and concrete and materials the building needed to survive but that the city deferred buying because multiple terms of council preferred to keep taxes artificially low for totally normal and not-at-all political reasons, but what do I know?

The group’s admin eventually closed commenting on the post and, for a brief period, all of Kroetsch’s comments disappeared. While some of his comments have since returned, the post remains locked. The original poster took issue with that and posted in the group again asking for an explanation. The admin of “Welcome to the North End” informed the poster that “several people reported your comments” and that “the people who reported are probably [Kroetsch’s] supporters”.

What likely occurred was that some of the people reading the thread reported the original poster’s comments about wanting to “head down to City Hall” to “talk” to Kroetsch about his claims. A reasonable person could assume that, given the level of pure, unadulterated vitriol aimed at Kroetsch by the original poster who entered the conversation advancing out-and-out conspiracy theories about the councillor’s involvement with the heritage designation of a former “gay” bar (also interesting that the conspiracy theory would go there), that the suggestion that he “just wanted to talk in person” was concerning.

A group’s admin can, ultimately, choose what they want to appear in the group. Sometimes, people balk at even the modest amount of regulation that occurs to keep all users safe. That’s why, in 2023, a group of rebels broke off to create a “Welcome to the North End (Hamilton, Ontario) -free speech edition-” where nobody can tell them that purposely misspelling Kroetsch’s name is both childish and, because of what is spelled, borderline homophobic! WOOO FREE SPEECH TAKE THAT WOKE LIBS WITH YOUR PRONOUNS ~~~air horn sounds~~~

Regulation in even mainstream Facebook groups is very modest. That’s why, while my egregious comment explaining how heritage designation works was not approved, comments from another of the group’s more active users and more prominent figures in the community pop up regularly.

That’s why a poster in the group can do endless promotion for Vito Sgro. That’s why anonymous and semi-anonymous accounts can spread conspiracy theories or spend all their time on social media attacking the current councillor for a host of real or imagined issues in the community. That’s why the former councillor - who, again, may be on the ballot this October - can comment and blame his successor for a problem that was decades in the making.

A group admin can cut off conversation whenever they want. They can delete posts that go against their world view, approve posts that validate their preexisting biases, and can shape the feed of a group in such a way that the perception of an issue is distorted. The preponderance of like-minded people in the group facilitates this in tandem with the actions of the admin. A group that’s intended to be the “virtual town square” for a community can come under the control of someone who allows, consciously or unconsciously, their worldview to dominate the conversation.

And so we find ourselves with a community Facebook group with near-daily posts that attack the current councillor from users who share misleading or misinformed opinions or from users with an explicit anti-Kroetsch agenda. As the bonds that tie community together fray, as people are forced to work longer hours for less pay and spend less time connecting with their neighbours, as we spend more and more time stuck in traffic in our dumb little cars on ever-widening highways and less time walking through our communities, we are left with little more than the refuge of online spaces for connection. But when you log on and see nothing but comment after comment of bile-soaked vitriol, you begin to realize that, in many ways, there isn’t much community left online. There’s just bitterness and partisan chicanery and massive corporations looking to make a buck.

***

So, yes, spending just a couple of hours on Facebook trying to do research for a piece put me in a very foul mood.

But it wasn’t just the silly drama that got to me. It’s some of what was said and where some of the posts led me that got me really bothered.

The poster who originally went after Councillor Kroetsch raised the idea that he “let” some of Hamilton’s built heritage collapse. But, the reality is, provincial law severely limits what municipalities can do and, since private property rights are paramount in this province, it is up to private landholders to be responsible citizens. When they aren’t the whole community suffers, but the councillor gets the blame, not the corporation or landlord that let the heritage building disintegrate in the first place.

Other prospective candidates across the city have similar areas of focus, finding derelict and/or abandoned buildings and using them as examples of council’s negligence. They rail against councillors who “let” these things happen but stop short of offering any solution. They certainly don’t want the socialist solution of expropriating the properties in question, but all they are able to offer are shaky campaign-style videos shouting about how council failed without saying one word about the predatory landlords and speculative real estate investors who caused the problem originally.

Sitting members of council have campaigned hard against things like the landlord licencing program intended to make conditions safer in student homes or against the vacant unit tax intended to fill as many units of housing as possible while simultaneously calling for more housing. They’ve been laser-focused on the Barton-Tiffany Outdoor Shelter, shouting to the rafters about the costs without acknowledging that 80 people who would otherwise be living on the streets have been housed because of it. Every misstep is exploited for campaign talking points, every evidence-based solution is dismissed as a tax-grab, the solution to every problem goes no farther than shouting about it.

Or there’s the absolutely incredible example of Sgro, who posted a few weeks ago about the upcoming Main Street two-way conversion. The restoration of two-way traffic on Main Street - something communities have been begging for - has become a new cause célèbre for Hamilton’s political right who are working overtime to turn public opinion against the multi-million dollar project (which includes money for repairs). Sgro posted a video to his totally-not-a-campaign Facebook page where the totally-not-a-candidate stands in front of Main Street rattling off figures for nine seconds before the video cuts to footage of a pothole-riddled Main. Sgro, in a voice-over, says the only reason council wants to convert Main is for safety, but they’ve already introduced safety measures and, besides, he’s lived in the area so he knows that the conversion will create gridlock. Sure, Sgro provides zero evidence for his claim besides “I live here” but, even more incredibly, he is barely audible in the first portion of the video because of the noise coming from the cars speeding down the four-lane highway that is Main Street today.

That’s what’s been bothering me.

Community members who share conspiracies and half-truths as justification for hating elected officials with whom they have real or imagined disagreements. Prospective candidates who whip up anger and provide no real solutions. Sitting members of council who scream about taxes while demanding the best services for their community, who fight like hell against programs intended to help the community and then blame their colleagues when the community suffers, and who pander to the extremes instead of actually leading. Political powerplayers and backroom boys who cynically exploit the legitimate fears and concerns of residents instead of studying the facts and working to educate their neighbours, recognizing there is more to be gained by doing the ol’ “those clowns at city hall” shtick than there is in doing the hard work of city building.

How, then, are we expected to have a rational, reasoned, decent debate over the future of our community during our municipal election when we live in a community that is so divided? Where some members - often the loudest and, right now, the most willing to step up and run - operate in a different reality?

The 2026 municipal election might be best assigned the subscript: A Tale of Two Cities. In one, there is a vision of Hamilton as a city still full of promise. Where we can work together to achieve incredible things. Where our best days are still ahead of us.

In the other, there is a vision of Hamilton as a city in decline and where anger is the only acceptable response. Anger at the current council for things outside their control. Angry at imaginary activists who they blame for the social disorder we see around us. Angry at time and the economy and everything new and confusing.

And, in some moments, it seems like the second vision is the one that might win out. The cresting wave of anger will be too much and will crash over us, washing the current host of leaders out to sea and bringing in a new (or returning) collection of council members.

In those moments - when it seems like the darkest, angriest, most pessimistic vision of Hamilton might win - I get to thinking that these really are the worst of times.

But there’s still that glimmer of hope. The vision of Hamilton as a city unstoppable is still there. That the best of times might still be possible.

But it’s only a glimmer. And, some days, I feel like I can’t see it at all.

On The Radar, Part 1

Graphic by author

In the lead-up to Hamilton’s 2026 municipal election, there will be a few things that will pop up that warrant analysis. Some policies, discussions, and comments deserve a closer look, particularly when they’re aimed at or advanced by candidates for office.

In today’s edition - the first in a series - we’ll look at the accusations that some candidates are on the “extreme left” and why such labels might be politically useful for certain groups around Hamilton.

The left-wing spectre

So a plumber from Manchester, Ontario’s premier, and a pair of former Hamilton city councillors walk into a bar…

***

On February 26, there was a by-election for an open seat in the UK House of Commons in the Manchester-area constituency called “Gorton and Denton” (most constituency names in the UK are whimsical and almost aggressively British…may as well have been “Crumbledown-Badgershire-Royal Doulton With The Hand Painted Periwinkles-Upon-Thames”).

The by-election was called after the previous MP from the Labour Party resigned due to “poor health”. That mystery illness just so happened to come on following a leak of upsetting messages he had posted in a WhatsApp group chat with other Manchester-area Labour politicians. The group was apparently a space where they could all “blow off steam”, but was used by the now-former MP to gripe about constituents and make racist and anti-Semitic jokes about public figures and leaders in his own party.

The MP's resignation came at a terrible time for the UK’s establishment parties. The governing Labour Party under Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer is wildly unpopular, having squandered every opportunity to make meaningful change in that country after years of post-Brexit chaos. The opposition Conservative Party has been rocked by internal turmoil thanks to the ideological rigidity of their new leader, which has led to a handful of defections to other parties.

The response from the establishment parties to the changing political landscape has been to rush to the right, particularly as the right-wing populist Reform UK party has taken the lead in the polls. Reform has claimed this is a sign of their popularity (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and all that) while the left-wing vote has coalesced around the Green Party. The leader of the Greens, the openly gay, Jewish, vegan London Assembly member (basically a London councillor) Zack Polanski, has taken the party in an eco-socialist direction, blending concerns about the cost-of-living with a deeply hopeful and inspiring policy on prosperity through environmentalism.

The Gorton and Denton became a reflection of the UK’s shifting political landscape. The Labour and Conservative vote utterly collapsed and the race became a battle between the Green Party on the left and Reform UK on the populist right. In the end, the Greens captured the seat with over 40 percent of the vote, drawing nearly all their new support from disaffected former Labour voters.

Part of the reasons the Greens won is because they ran an unapologetically optimistic campaign. Their candidate, 34 year old plumber Hannah Spencer, presented a bright and hopeful vision of the future, providing people with something to believe in after years of divisive, dirty, dark politics peddled by entrenched political staffers. In her victory speech, Spencer once again leaned on optimism:

The by-election result seems to have really hurt Starmer, who has been facing some increasingly loud calls to resign. Considering the magnitude of the loss, the threat to his job has only increased; while Gorton and Denton was a relatively “new" constituency (having been created from pieces of other seats in 2024), parts of the area had been represented by Labour MPs since the 1930’s, meaning the symbolic loss of this previously safe seat can't be ignored. After the loss, Starmer had two options: either reflect on his decision to move the Labour Party to the right, consider the calls from his base and some of his own MPs to recalibrate, and pursue a more hopeful and principled set of policies or throw a temper tantrum and blame the Greens.

Naturally, Starmer lashed out. He quickly labelled the Green Party an “extreme left” group that relies on “divisive, sectarian politics” and would legalize “all drugs, including heroin and crack cocaine to give to adults”.² Who is advising Starmer? The Mayor of Vancouver?

Nigel Farage, the Brexit champion who leads Reform UK, echoed Starmer’s critiques. Reform had hopes that their openly anti-immigrant campaign (their candidate in Gorton and Denton pledged to stop all immigration to the UK) would appeal to a disenfranchised white working class, which makes up a significant portion of the constituency’s electorate. Farage raged against the victors, saying the Greens were part of a “resurgent hard left” that was violent, anti-Semitic, and a threat to the UK.²

The same day the by-election was held in Gorton and Denton, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was speaking to the media.

Ford continues to face the fallout from his populist decision to ban automated speed enforcement cameras across the province. Research shows they slow traffic and save lives, though the province’s official line is that they were nothing more than a “cash grab” for municipalities. But, Canada’s constitution is lopsided and provinces have the power to do whatever they want with municipalities, so Ford’s decree has become the law of the land.

The City of Toronto has been trying to figure out how to pivot. They relied, in part, on speed cameras to help change the behaviour of motorists in areas where other road improvements have not yet been implemented. As John Lorinc pointed out in Spacing, the speed camera that set this whole thing in motion (after it was vandalized over half a dozen times in a few short years) was located on Parkside Drive - a “dog’s breakfast” of a strip that has inconsistent sidewalks, barriers to fast-moving traffic, and an uneven terrain that makes the area unsafe for everyone. The speed camera wasn’t just put up for funsies; it was installed after a speeding driver killed two seniors in 2021. While the hope is that the offending section of road can be redesigned, a speed enforcement camera was a stop-gap way to change the behaviour of motorists and generate the revenue necessary to actually make the changes people wanted.³

After Ford’s decree, the City of Toronto got to work figuring out other ways to change the behaviour of road users to make their city’s streets safe. The final report on their plan came out a short while ago. Toronto’s traffic folks were blunt in their assessment: it would take around 13 years and $52 million to implement effective traffic calming in just the 775 kilometres of school zones around the city. Instead of proven programs that slowed traffic and generated revenue, the city would need to spend money and install lots of new infrastructure. A speedbump costs around $4,000 to install and, given the number they would need, it would cost ten of millions to get the job done.

Upon hearing this, the Premier flew into a rage. The next time he had a bank of cameras in front of him, Ford railed against the plan, threatening (once again) to use his provincial powers to take over Toronto: “Hand that over to me,” he shouted, “I’ll show you how to do a roundabout in months! I’ll show you how to do a speedbump!”⁴

The Premier is, of course, not a traffic engineer. He’s not a civil engineer or a construction expert or an urban planner or a safety specialist or a person with any level of identifiable knowledge on the intricacies of how civic infrastructure actually works. His only qualifications are four years as a member of Toronto City Council, during which time his contributions to road safety were limited to calling for the firing of the city’s Chief Medical Officer of Health when he suggested reducing speed limits on residential streets.⁵ But, again, the constitution gives him supreme power over municipalities, so what he says goes. Thanks, Sir John A.

Ford saved some of his ire for a different foe. True to form, our illustrious Premier doesn’t see the complexities of city building as an issue of time, money, and expertise. He sees it, and everything, through the populist lens; there’s an entrenched elite out there doing everything they can to stall “common sense” projects. We can absolutely just slap a speedbump down on a street in an afternoon for $50 a a case of beer for your buds who show up to help, but the elites want us to conduct all these whimpy “studies” and have fruity “consultation” and wokely make sure we aren’t cutting through any DEI “power lines” that might “electrocute” us with their pronouns.

The problem, according to Ontario’s Premier, is the “radical left” on Toronto city council.⁴

***

One day before the Gorton and Denton by-election and Ford’s speedbump meltdown, we got news that the 2026 municipal election here in Hamilton is heating up.

On Wednesday, February 25, Keanin Loomis announced he would again be seeking the office of Mayor of Hamilton. I attended his announcement at The Westdale Theatre having been invited as a ✧˖°. commentator of note .°˖✧ in Hamilton and took some photos to post on social media (though my post about it on the r/Hamilton subreddit was unceremoniously taken down - BOOOOO to the mods for karma blocking me).

Loomis's announcement was covered widely in local media, with The Spec’s Scott Radley writing that his candidacy comes at the right time considering Mayor Horwath’s rough go during the budget process and that Loomis “may even open the campaign as the favourite."⁶

Former Ward 4 Councillor Sam “The Wally Infiltrator” Merulla had another perspective.

In a break from his usual Facebook posts about his workout routine and updates on his blood pressure, Merulla posted “Keenan [sic] Loomis, a native USA citizen, is demonstrating dubious decision-making skills by pursuing the mayoral position in Hamilton. #hamont”.

He followed this with an image (hard to tell if it’s Photoshopped or AI-generated) of Loomis standing in front of an American flag, wearing a Team USA jersey, with a gold medal around his neck.

I know Merulla was trying to paint Loomis as “not a real Hamiltonian” but like…he knows that gold medals go to the winners, right?

• Side note: I was genuinely curious about the origin of the mayors of Hamilton since the city’s founding in 1846. We have readily-available biographical information on 45 of the 57 people who have served as Hamilton’s mayor in that time. Only six were born in Hamilton while 39 were both anywhere from Grimsby to Tuscany. Some of the city’s most recognizable mayors were all “outsiders” - George Tuckett (who built the Scottish Rite) and Sam Lawrence were both born in England, Lloyd Jackson was born outside Sarnia, and Vic Copps was born in Northern Ontario. All of the six who were born in Hamilton were elected after the year 1900: four between 1900 and 2000 and two since amalgamation in 2001. Two Americans served as mayor of Hamilton - John Fisher in 1850 and William Kerr in 1853. Fisher would even go on to serve in the US House of Representatives as a Republican in the post-Civil War era after he was mayor of Hamilton.

While Merulla went with the jingoist anti-American approach, former Ward 2 Councillor Jason Farr chimed in with a slightly different line.

Commenting on Merulla’s post, Farr expressed concern "as a born and raised Steel City kid”, saying that Loomis had “been spending months running around with [former Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Chair] Terry Cooke and his other Hard Left supporters” instead of advocating for steel manufacturers. The lengthy comment is extremely difficult to follow, but it seems Farr is upset that Loomis, who serves as the CEO of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (the industry advocacy group for steel manufacturers), has decided to run for mayor instead of stay in this position. That line is a fairly standard critique. It doesn’t matter what someone’s political affiliation or aspirations are - anyone other than a retired politician or broadcaster in Hamilton can and will be accused of “abandoning” their job to seek public office by their cynical political opponents. That tired line isn’t what’s important here.

What’s important is the language Farr used at the beginning of his comment.

It’s the same language establishment figures in the UK have used to describe an environmentalist plumber who won a by-election. It’s the same language the Premier uses to attack Toronto city councillors and staff who have a better understanding of the complexities of city building than he does. It’s the same language bandied about by the thought leaders in the comments section of local blogs like the Bay Observer and the few who bother to post comments on thespec.com.

“Hard Left”.

That’s objectively weird, right?

Characterizing Cooke and Loomis as “hard left” indicates either a) a complete lack of understanding of the basics of politics, or b) a deliberate attempt to portray a political opponent in a strategically unflattering way.

But politics in Hamilton isn’t exactly known for its subtly, nor are Hamilton’s civic leaders (past, present, and future) all renowned for their cogent grasp of political theory. So I guess it’s time for little Poli Sci 101 here.

Farr’s confusing comment implies either or both Loomis and Cooke have “hard left” political sympathies.

When it comes to the latter, the label “hard left” would be baffling for anyone who has any local political historical knowledge. During his nearly two decades in municipal politics here in Hamilton, Cooke (who I should note is a friend of the newsletter) was described in local media as a “red Tory” (sometimes just a plain ol’ “Tory”), “radical bourgeois”, a “small-l liberal”, a “bright, moderate centrist”, and a “conservative, but not uncaring”.⁷ Just for context, the definition of “red Tory” is one who believes in centre-right, pro-business policies while acknowledging the state has a place in the provision of some services but should be a little less involved in people’s private lives.

And, as for the once-and-current mayoral contender, “hard left” is likely the last thing anyone thinks of when they think of the former CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. It is possible that the former councillor was associating Loomis’s past support for the city’s SoBi bikeshare system, the Basic Income Pilot Project, and the LRT as evidence of “hard left” sympathies, but each of those have been supported by such eclectic allies as populist Liberal MP JP Danko (SoBi), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce (Basic Income), and Conservative donor Joe Mancinelli (LRT).⁸

So all of this begs the question: what does “hard left” even mean?

***

Okay, let’s do a rapid fire primer on political ideologies.

France, 1789. The country is slowly collapsing due to a widespread financial and social crisis gripping the reign of the ineffectual King Louis XVI. A National Assembly is called. Monarchists - “the party of order”, meaning supporters of the king, the established order, and the system as it was - sat to the right of the chair. Revolutionaries - “the party of movement”, meaning those who wanted change, equality, democracy, and freedom - sat to the left.

That’s where we get the root of “right-wing” and “left-wing”. This, and frankly most conceptualizations of political ideology, can be simplistic at times, but they help us with classification and self-identification.

Generally, we today use a “political spectrum” to place people and movements based on their ideology. Along the X-axis (horizontal), we have perspectives on economic matters. In the Western context, this usually means more supportive of individualism, capitalism, and non-interventionism by the state on the right and more supportive of communalism, variations of socialism, and state participation on the left. Along the Y-axis (vertical), we have perspectives on social matters. The top half is more “authoritarian”, meaning more state involvement in the basic affairs of people and the collective enforcement of morality, beliefs, etc. The bottom half is more “libertarian”, meaning a belief that people should be free to do as they please within the bounds of society and that the state should avoid over-managing personal freedoms.

We represent this with a fairly basic graph. Here’s a version I’ve mocked up with the “ranges” of some Canadian political parties for reference. The “ranges” indicate the general areas on the spectrum where supporters of each party will fall. There are often contests within parties to set policy and direct the ideology of the movement, meaning a party doesn’t occupy a simple “point”, but is spread across a general range.

There’s a lot of overlap between parties and many political parties have supporters that may fall on different sides of certain issues. In the Conservative Party, for example, you may have traditionalists who want the state to enforce their preferred morality working along side libertarians who want the state out of their business. Their caucus tends to reflect this; Niagara West MP Dean Allison was a strong opponent of marijuana legalization and voted against Bill C-45, which legalized weed across Canada, but his riding neighbour, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MP Ned Kuruc, owned a chain of weed stores before being elected.

Not everything is as clean and neat as we’d expect. There are more left-leaning Liberals (few-and-far between among the elites in Hamilton-area Liberal circles) and there are some pro-business, centre-right Greens (Elizabeth May did work for Brian Mulroney, remember). Only groups like the Communists and the Christian Heritage Party are really firm in their respective corners, with one advocating for worker’s revolution and the other promoting the principles of ultraconservative Christian Nationalism.

Among parties on the left, you might see a level of social conservatism with some members. The NDP has long struggled with a loud, well-funded, but small group of labour traditionalists who support the party’s economic policy, but maintain socially conservative views when it comes to queer people, racialized minorities, and/or drug policy, for example. And the Bloc Québécois is a nominally social democratic party, favouring larger state involvement in the economy, but contains some nationalist elements that may be opposed to immigration or the presence of certain cultural and religious groups in the larger “Québécois” nation.

Parties drift based on their leaders, their members, and the context of the times, but that visual representation is roughly where Canada’s major parties are right now.

So if that’s a very basic political spectrum, then where do we find Ford’s “radical left” and Farr’s “hard left”?

Interestingly, in political science, these are two different terms with very different meanings.

“Radical left” has its roots in the radical tradition of the Enlightenment. At that time, “radical” in politics simply meant you believed in a variation of “liberalism” which, at the time, was considered radical and revolutionary. The contemporary “radical left” draws on that, but is quite different, with Gomez, et. al. (2016) defining current radical left movements as rejecting “the socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism and its values and practices…[advocating] a transformative and systemic change, rejecting neo-liberal market-oriented policies.”⁹ Contemporary radical left parties in Europe especially have their origins in Communist parties of varying intensities.

“Hard left”, on the other hand, is a very British pejorative term referring to the most ideologically rigid and exclusionary members of left wing parties. Thompson (2016) defines the British hard left (albeit from a biased position; Thompson identifies with the British “soft left”) as “stubborn”, guided by “activists”, narrow in its views, inflexible, and hell-bent-and-determined to exclude more people than it brings in.¹⁰

So then, based on our earlier spectrum, we get this visual representation:

The radical left is a broader placement on the political spectrum, encompassing those who want a complete change in the economic system. That takes in some in the major parties on the left, as well as all of those affiliated with Canada’s various communist parties. The hard left is a subsection of people within the parties on the left, constituting a group that is more ideologically intense and militant than their colleagues.

Except…you can see the issue with the characterization of anyone as “hard left”, right?

People with principles can quickly be dismissed as being “rigid”. Those who want a party to maintain a coherent ideological grounding can be called “inflexible”. Anyone unwilling to acquiesce to a dominant group’s demands can be labelled “stubborn”.

That’s why “hard left” is considered a “pejorative” term. It’s used as an insult by political opponents to characterize a movement or candidate or politician as extreme, out-of-touch, and divisive.

So when Farr says that Loomis has been “running around with” local political figures and their “other Hard Left supporters”, he’s trying to position the mayoral candidate as an ideological extremist and in inflexible radical. This characterization makes a lot more sense when you pair it with how the city’s right-wing establishment has been promoting their prime mayoral candidate, Ward 8 councillor Rob Cooper. Local blog The Bay Observer defined Cooper - a Conservative Party-affiliated activist who has spent his short few months in office railing against taxes and talking about a non-existent crime wave - as a “centrist”.

In this light, we can see what the strategy for the city’s political right will be in this election. And, to best explain it, we have to use another fun political graph.

***

In the 1990’s, Joe Overton, a researcher with the fiscally conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the US, developed a theory about the acceptability of public policy. One of George W. Bush’s speech writers, Joshua Treviño, refined the theory by adding “steps” to it and popularized the theory that became known as the “Overton Window”.

The Overton Window posits that ideas have six degrees of acceptance: the unthinkable, the radical, the acceptable, the sensible, the popular, and what eventually becomes policy. Through campaigns and other coordinated efforts to shift opinion, the “window” of what is considered viable can be shifted, turning something that was once radical into something that is popular enough to become policy, and vice versa.

So if we assume that the belief is that Loomis’s views are in the range of what many voters in Hamilton would accept (investment in local business, support for infrastructure projects, a desire to balance affordability with a growing infrastructure deficit, etc.) and Cooper’s views might be more outside the mainstream for some voters (pro-police budget and tough-on-crime, voting against budget increases for the Hamilton Public Library, calling for the cancelling of the vacant unit tax in the midst of a housing crisis, etc.), then the goal will be to shift the window of acceptability by framing Loomis as a “hard left” radical and Cooper as a reasonable “centrist”.

That would certainly help to explain why a former city councillor and candidate with the nominally centrist Ontario Liberal Party would characterize the “red Tory” former regional chair and the current mayoral candidate who worked as an advocate for local businesses and the steel industry as “hard left”. It would also explain why the local right-wing establishment has gone to such great lengths to describe a right-wing councillor who has been public about his affiliations with right-wing political parties as a “centrist”.

***

A larger question, then, is how do we actually categorize local candidates on a political spectrum? The conventional spectrum doesn’t really take into account specific local issues, focusing instead on larger economic and social matters that municipalities have very little control over.

That’s why a Vancouver-based podcaster and a political scientist developed a municipal variation of the political spectrum. It changes things slightly, creating an X-axis that averages a candidate’s (or, in the Vancouver case, a party’s) values on economic and social issues and a Y-axis that positions their ideas on a spectrum from most “urbanist” (meaning pro-density, multi-modal transportation, investment in large-scale urban projects) to most “conservationist” (meaning opposed to density, more focused on cars, more opposed to investments).

It’s extremely difficult to place mayoral candidates on this spectrum. The main focus of mayoral campaigns is usually to be as inoffensive to as many people as possible, resulting in a fascinating cluster around the middle. Most campaigns talk broadly about “communication”, “transparency”, and “accountability”, which are nice words, but really don’t mean anything beyond “I won’t be some ward-heeling, cigar-puffing, envelope-accepting despot”.

In the last election, there were only subtle differences between Horwath and Loomis’s platforms. Horwath tended to talk more about keeping taxes low while Loomis focused on attracting investment. Horwath campaigned on improving the Red Hill Valley Expressway and implementing traffic calming while Loomis proposed free transit for students and seniors and implementing Vision Zero recommendations. Horwath wanted development charges to support communities, Loomis wanted a firm urban boundary and no more sprawl. While Horwath avoided some of the more explicit calls from urbanists and progressives, Loomis embraced them while blending them with his focus on economic development, creating an interesting scenario where Horwath seemed like the more conservationist candidate while Loomis appeared to be more urbanist, even though Horwath won most urban polls and Loomis did well in the suburbs and rural parts of Hamilton.

As for Cooper…I don’t know what to say. As I’ve noted before, his by-election platform clocked in at 99 words. There was a call for more transit, though it was a desire to have more GO Transit options in the city, which would fall to the province. Other than that, he said he wanted to tackle violent crime, cap tax increases to the municipally-irrelevant ceiling of the “inflation rate”, eliminate other taxes, and vaguely “expand housing options”. Given his votes on council and his comments in local media, he’s absolutely and definitively on the fiscal and social right, and his focus is more conservationist than urbanist.

Based on all that, this is the very rough spectrum we’re working with going into this October’s municipal election. And this is based on past information, so take it with a whole heaping helping of salt.

The reality of what we face will not stop candidates, political actors, and others in the community from raising the spectre of an “extreme left” takeover. It’s politically convenient for some to label their opponents as “hard left” or “radical left” and then define what that means in their own words.

For some, it means anyone who would vote in favour of a tax increase beyond what they deem acceptable. For others, it means anyone who shows a modicum of compassion toward people experiencing homelessness. For many, it means considering the perspectives of people who have been, at one time or another, marginalized and kept from participating fully in the civic conversation.

But, more often than not, it is a phrase without meaning, used without context, assigned to those who think differently.

Now, to be fairrr, I’ve used the term “hard right” when referring to things in the past. I’ve called Toronto City Councillor Bradford Bradford “hard right”, and have used the term to refer to bots on X/Twitter and variations of populism. “Hard right” doesn’t have the same definitional background as “hard left”, but can be seen the same way - right-wingers who are ideologically rigid and fervent in their beliefs. But, being the nerd that I am, do my due diligence before assigning that label to anyone. Bradford himself has, on the conservative current affairs blog The Hub talked about his focus on violent crime, opposition to bike lanes, fight against tax increases while simultaneously supporting the police budget, and his desire to open more of Toronto City Hall up to the private market. By all accounts, Bradford is a right-winger; in that same article, he called himself a “right-leaning councillor”.

Farr’s comment, on the other hand, comes without evidence. He labels two people in the community as “hard left” because it’s politically convenient. Despite their records, their positions, and their own stated beliefs, he assigns them the moniker that best suits him and his political allies.

***

We will see more and more of this as the campaign heats up. Everyone even a hair left of where the city’s right-wing establishments wants to move the local Overton Window to will be labelled a “radical”, an “extremist”, a “leftist activist”, or worse.

Candidates who maintain compassionate positions on people experiencing homelessness, who call for more investment in public transit, who want other levels of government to come to the table with meaningful housing investments, who want to city to act on climate change, who won’t commit to the unrealistic and illogical pledge to cap property tax increases to the federal inflation rate, who call for the city to play a more active role in creating opportunities for people - these are the candidates who will be labelled as “hard left” and worse in the coming months. In contrast, candidates with shallow platforms promising low taxes and more services, committing to cutting staff at city hall while supporting the steady privatization of services, demanding an end to fees designed to support infrastructure while handing a blank cheque to the Hamilton Police Service will be framed as “fiscally responsible” and “centrists”.

So is there a “hard left” wave about to crash over Hamilton? Hardly. A handful of semi-retired politicians will try to convince their Facebook followers that everyone who doesn’t think like them is a woke Communist determined to destroy the city. Candidates who want to make this city better, work to improve the lives of their neighbours, and bring evidence and facts back to municipal government will be labelled “extremists”, “radicals”, and “dangerous”. The same machines that run on dirty tricks will do what they can to steamroll through the city, clearing a path for the candidates of their choosing. They’ll call people names, doctor images of them to post on social media, get down and dirty and nasty. We’ve seen it all before.

That kind of politics got us where we are now. But there’s a better way forward. It’s a way clearly and passionately articulated by a humble working class plumber from Manchester who took on well-funded opponents and won. As the new Green MP for Gorton and Denton, Hannah Spencer, said:

“I don’t think its extreme or radical to think working hard should get you a nice life…We have shown we don’t have to accept being turned against each other. We can demand better. Together. We have shown we don’t have to fight dirty to fight for change.”¹

Better really is possible. We just have to work for it.

…but first, a word from The Incline.

Note to self: insert semi-regular apology about my posting schedule here but don’t leave this in because this is a very serious newsletter and you’re a very serious newsletter writer so definitely remember to delete this. And if you leave this in as a bit, chances are, it’ll fall flat.

I haven’t been very consistent with my publishing schedule as of late. Since 2026 began four thousand years ago, I’ve posted once on a Monday, twice on Thursdays, and one time each on a Friday and Saturday. And now it’s Tuesday! Absolute chaos.

Some of that is thanks to when things happen in the community. Some of it has to do with how much research I need to do for a piece to get it ready. And some of it has to do with the trillion little projects I have on the go at any one minute.

All that is to say, I apologize if the somewhat erratic posting schedule of this newsletter isn’t to your liking. I am doing what I can to keep this newsletter going. Despite some ups and many, many downs, I’ve managed to make it through 119 of these editions, albeit on a somewhat less-than-consistent schedule.

The note here today is to say that expect more inconsistency over the next while. This is a municipal election year and I’m doing what I can do help inform the community in the lead-up to October 26. But it’s also…you know…a municipal election year and I’m not one for sitting on the sidelines. I help out where I can, provide advice when it’s asked for, and, in some instances, participate in academic research on the candidates and campaigns. While I’m not working directly for any one candidate at any level in any capacity at the moment, I’m keeping myself open to helping when and where I can. That could mean that this newsletter might not come out as frequently as we get into campaign season come summer.

But this note is also to say that this edition is coming out today for a reason.

From what I understand, there will be at least one big municipal election announcement coming shortly. Political watchers across Hamilton would be wise to keep their eyes on things over the next while. I don’t want any edition of my newsletter competing with any announcements, so you’re getting a Tuesday edition instead of the usual…umm…whenever edition.

So thanks, as always, for reading. And for sticking with me as long as you have. I appreciate all the insights, the comments, and the support. My work on this newsletter helps to remind me just how wonderful this city of ours can be, especially when people come together with a common purpose.

And, with that, enjoy today’s edition.

In Decline

Photo by Todd Quackenbush on Unsplash - Edited by Author

Anyone who flippantly says they don’t pay attention to Canadian politics because it’s “too boring” is simply not paying enough attention. What’s transpired over the past week itself would be enough to round out a full 12-episode season of a show about Canadian politics, though some of the events are more suited to comedy while others are distinctly in the category of tragedy.

Federally, things have been going exceptionally well for Progressive Conservative Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney. This is, in large part, because of how terribly things are going for Reform Party Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre.

Poilievre faced a leadership review at his party’s convention back at the end of January. The delegates decided to stick with him, with 87 percent of those assembled voting to retain him as party leader until their next convention. While he may be super appealing to the party base, a recent Angus Reid poll shows 62 percent of Canadians think he’s doing a poor/very poor job of being the Conservative leader. That makes sense, considering that, for the past year, Canadians have been watching as Poilievre stumbles at every possible hurdle. Just this month, he’s fallen flat on his face more times than not.

Over the past few weeks, Poilievre has been struggling to even mount an effective defence against one of his own MPs. The increasingly MAGA-aligned Bowmanville-Oshawa North MP Jamil Jivani (a close personal friend of American Vice President JD Vance) scooted off to the States for some weird unsanctioned diplomatic mission and said the whole “elbows up” response to the existential threats to our sovereignty coming from the American administration were a “hissy fit”.

The comments made during Jivani’s trip to Mordor required Poilievre to issue a stinging rebuke against his own MP. Poilievre knows he needs to project strength to fend off the weak, albeit consistently circling wolves, but he also needed to show an ambitious underling he still has some fight in him. Jivani undoubtedly has his eyes on the Conservative Party’s leadership (a Jivani-led party would be both terrifying thanks to his extreme right-wing views and laughable because of how easy it would be for a savvy opponent to brand him a Quisling), so Poilievre couldn’t just sit back and let him carry on with his shadow campaign.

Adding to his woes, Edmonton Riverbend’s Conservative MP, Matt Jeneroux, announced on February 18 that he was crossing the floor to the Liberals. Jeneroux was one of the early Conservative MPs rumoured to be considering a switch after the last election. But, after his name was leaked, he announced he would be resigning instead. This most recent announcement seems to have cancelled out his previous one, meaning he’s going to stick around to back Carney’s agenda for the foreseeable future. His “jk lol nevermind (^_^;)” moment happened after, as he said during his press conference with the Prime Minister, he had serious chats with his family over the holidays and after Carney’s world-order-defining Davos speech. "For me it felt disingenuous and quite simply wrong to be sitting on the sidelines anymore.” he said.¹ Probably has nothing to do with the fact that the Liberals are actually competitive federally in Alberta for the first time since the 1911 federal election.

With Jeneroux on the government benches, the Liberals are just three seats shy of a majority. Helpfully, there are three by-elections on the horizon. Two of those are likely Liberal wins, while the third (the Montreal-area riding of Terrebonne where the 2025 election results were annulled by the Supreme Court because of a 1 vote difference between the winner and runner-up) could go either to the Liberals or the Bloc. And there’s the possibility that Alexandre Boulerice, the NDP MP for the Montreal riding of Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie will resign to run in the Quebec provincial election this fall, which opens up another chance for the Liberals to increase their seat count (Boulerice is the only NDPer elected east of the Red River and politicos have speculated that he held onto his seat because of his personal popularity, not because he was affiliated with the party).

So, all-in-all, it has been a good few weeks for Carney.

In Ontario, on the other hand, Premier Doug Ford has had a…scattered few weeks. Ford, famous for his insistence that youth don’t need no fancy book learning, earned a little bit of scorn after his government announced sweeping changes to the way post-secondary institutions are funded. Then, after hearing from concerned students across the province, Ford doubled down and made comments about students needing to not take “basket-weaving courses” (a line reliably thrown out by your most out-of-touch drunk uncle during Thanksgiving dinner after he doesn’t get any response to his comments about how many genders there are now - he just wants validation and another bottle of Ex, galdernit!). The Premier’s sad standup routine angered everyone from already pissed off students to Indigenous craftspeople.

But Ford is nothing if not a master of “flooding the zone”. A little fight with Ontario’s future can’t get ol’ Uncle Doug down! Especially when there are a trillion little distractions he can toss out to keep us asking “what will he do next?!” A totally good a normal way to run a government.

One of those distractions was a genuine surprise. Or, at least, it would have been to a sadist who slipped into a coma in 2023 and only just now emerged, ready to get back to what really gets them going: consuming as much news as possible.

During a press conference with Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, Ford publicly said he wouldn’t meddle in municipal democracy (*the collective groan from school board trustees can be heard as far away as Saskatchewan*) this time around. "I'm not getting involved in the municipal election. All I can tell you: I've had a phenomenal relationship with [Chow]," he told reporters.² Chow has gone to great lengths to not provoke the Mayor Premier of Ontario and has, in some instances, even gone out of her way to placate him. This has given her more latitude to advance her own agenda and puts her in a good position to win re-election in October.

• Side note: a Mainstreet poll came out today about the Toronto mayoral race. Chow leads John Tory 43% to 34% with hard-right councillor Bradford Bradford in at 17% and far-right populist candidate Anthony Furey at 6%. Even though Mainstreet’s poll has Chow leading, they note that “a majority of Toronto voters indicate they preferred the direction of the City under Tory”. Mainstreet frames this as a problem for Chow, not realizing that, for all the money at his disposal, Tory can’t make it 2015 again. Cool that people said they liked it better when Tory was mayor, but that world is dead and gone. Unless something dramatic changes, Chow’s in a great spot.

Chow’s strategy to keep Ford occupied while actually getting things done gives her a chance to run as both a progressive and a pragmatic leader - someone who is doing everything she can to keep Toronto on track despite a cratering housing market and looming economic uncertainty. While her opponents, like Bradford and Furey, will do everything they can to make the October election about Toronto’s decline and the rise of “dangerous” social disorder, Chow’s record gives her a chance to run as a positive, responsible, city-building candidate.

In other places, municipal candidates won’t have to do much work to frame the election as a choice between stability and decline.

smash cut to…

A couple of stories came out recently that have the potential to impact Hamilton’s upcoming civic election. More specifically, they lend credence to the cries from the city’s right-wing contingent that Hamilton is in decline and that decline began the second our current mayor and council took office.

This isn’t hyperbolic; a striking example comes from the first response on Bluesky to local journalist Joey Coleman’s story about the floated closure of the Central Branch of the Hamilton Public Library, in which an anonymous user blamed Ward 2 Councillor Cameron Kroetsch “and friends” for the concept of public drug use.

I suppose I have to update my idea of history. I didn’t realize all laws were suspended, government policy changed, and public drug use kicked off on November 15, 2022. But if an anonymous reply guy account with 7 followers says that this is the first council in Hamilton’s history to serve only drug users and ruin the city with “ideology”, then I guess it’s true!

***

The first story that’s worth considering comes from The Spec. On February 9, the city’s paper of record put a call out to their readers asking for tips on “Hamilton’s worst pothole”. Anyone who has used or been in a motor vehicle on the city’s roads knows that would be a fierce competition, particularly after the brutal winter we have just endured.

The results of that survey were published 10 days later. That’s the story we’ll focus on here. The article goes over a sampling of the results from the paper’s survey, noting that “roughly 20 people” responded to their call for tips.

Oof.

We don’t have updated circulation reports for The Spec, but that does not seem great. Sure, the paper’s online content is heavily paywalled and the original call for tips did not appear in the print edition, but 20 is a low number of respondents for complaints about potholes in Hamilton, considering people in this city tend to talk about potholes more than the weather, the housing market, and insert sports team here.

***

A bit of a longer side note here, but I’d argue the response to the Spec speaks to the health of our civic democracy in the city. Only 20 people are willing to help identify a problem so it can be brought to light, but there are over 40 comments combined on the article calling for tips and the article featuring the results. The majority of those comments complain, once again, about the current council and mayor, sometimes for even pursuing the solutions they want them to pursue.

Roads need to be fixed, they shout, but the plan to fix Barton Street is a “political stunt”. We need to hire more people to fill potholes, but it won’t help because potholes are purposely filled incorrectly so “city workers will always have a job.” We have to improve the quality of our roads but “spending millions…converting Main St to two way” isn’t good because we should be spending “the money on repaving our existing roads” even though part of the money dedicated to the conversion will be for repaving. The city is spending hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining a sprawling, out-of-date, overengineered, unproductive, dangerous, and illogical network of over 6,500 kilometres of roadway, but our civic leaders “do not like people who drive cars,” they smugly clack into the ether as the mild-melting blue light of their computer screens tricks them into believing it’s a substitute for real, meaningful, in-person connection.

In the second episode of season six of Parks and Recreation, Amy Poehler’s character, Councillor Leslie Knope, is trying to improve her standing in the community amidst a recall campaign by some of her well-funded opponents. She decides to, in a nod to Rob Ford’s style of hands-on politics, do everything she can to help her constituents with a program called “No Problem Too Small”. One of her more outspoken neighbours, Gretel, comes into her office with a complaint: “There are slugs everywhere on the sidewalk in front of my house. I want them gone, but not killed. I love animals. But get rid of them. They're gross. But make sure they're happy…but not too happy.” So Knope goes out, finds a humane and safe slug repellant, and does what Gretel asks. Upon seeing this, Gretel is outraged, and yells “I didn’t want all the slugs gone! I wanted most of them gone!”

I try to remember that episode every time I make the mistake of scrolling too far down on a story and glancing at the Spec’s comments section because it’s cheaper than flying to Türkiye, getting a hair transplant, coming home, and then tearing it all out with my bare hands in frustration. For some, complaining endlessly and finding fault with every single thing a municipality does is their way of participating in democracy. Having civic watchdogs is great, but there’s a big difference between being Lassie and Cujo.

Anyway, back to potholes.

***

The state of Hamilton’s roads is a source of constant frustration and aspiring civic politicians seem to be taking note. Ward 12 candidate resident Fred Bennink’s campaign concerned citizen page has, as his first platform point concern, “1. Build Roads That Work”. It isn’t a stretch to imagine a host of right-wing candidates for council across Hamilton promising to be better roadbuilders.

And Vito Sgro’s pre-campaign period mayoral candidate “news personality” Facebook page includes a recent video of a “tour” he went on of some of Hamilton’s potholes of note. “Our taxes have increased by a whopping 30% this term, but are our roads getting better? From massive potholes to sudden sinkholes, our city's infrastructure is crumbling,” he writes. What’s the plan, Vito? How are you going to deal with aging infrastructure and all the problems caused by decades of deferring essential roadwork by councils packed to the gills with members who voted for artificially low tax rates to help their re-election efforts? Are there any real ideas or are we just resting on the clunky hashtag “#DemandABetterHamilton”?

The city’s infrastructure is in dire need of improvement and the political gamesmanship around deferring much-needed maintenance will only make the situation worse as time goes on. Clearly and effectively communicating the cost of maintaining the road network we have is absolutely essential to keeping Hamiltonians informed about the needs associated with their infrastructure. But addressing this issue will take a leader with long-term vision and short-term savvy.

Shortly after coming into office, Mayor Chow in Toronto launched a “pothole blitz”. The blitz was both a very public reminder of what a municipal government can do and an acknowledgement that it takes hard work to fix the problems we face. These blitzes are now yearly events in which the mayor herself participates, putting on a hi-vis vest, a hard hat, and helping to maintain the city’s infrastructure. Just this week, she announced another blitz to address the huge potholes caused by this year’s painfully harsh winter.

That’s the short-term savvy.

But we need long-term vision too. We aren’t getting that from some of the candidates in the field and councillors around the horseshoe right now. We’re getting complaints about tax increases paired with complaints about poor services. The same people who are painting a picture of a city in decline are the same advocating the loudest for deferred maintenance and lower taxes - the same kind of unbalanced thinking oozing from the Spec’s comments section.

The second story comes from the CBC. In a piece with some excellent on-the-ground reporting from Samantha Beattie, CBC Hamilton outlined the concerns and issues held by tenants of First Place, a CityHousing Hamilton senior’s building constituting the entire block between Main, King, Wellington, and West Ave in the far southwest corner of the Landsdale neighbourhood.

Some of the residents have self-organized a program - Senior Watch - that checks in on their fellow tenants who might be isolated or have specific needs. But, in early January, the program was put on hold due to increasing concerns from residents about the state of their building. The volunteers who check in on their neighbours have complained about “needles, pipes, blood, vomit, spilled food and drinks, garbage…the remnants of fires” and excrement, an encounter with the latter of which being the reason the program coordinator put Senior Watch on hold.³

City staff jumped into action and worked with the volunteers to restart the program. But they noted that they only have two full-time and one part-time cleaners on staff and they’re fighting an uphill battle when it comes to limiting access to the building to just tenants. Beattie and a resident even found “a side entrance that appeared to have recently been broken into” while touring the building, leading to an on-the-spot call to First Place’s security.³

Providing safe, accessible, and affordable housing is getting harder and harder for municipalities. Far too much of the burden falls on municipalities, which do not have the funding streams available to adequately maintain the housing stock they have and build new, modern units for people. The province is starving the public housing sector in a blatant, ideological attempt to shift responsibility to non-profits and the private sector. And while it’s all well and good to bring that up, it doesn’t change the day-to-day experiences of people living in existing social housing units. We can have these debates until the end of time, but, when residents of one of the city’s landmark towers are calling it “Last Place” and are desperately seeking alternative housing, it’s clear we need real action, and soon.

***

That ties into the third story. This one was first published by local independent journalist Joey Coleman. Last week, the Hamilton Public Library’s (HPL) Chief Librarian Paul Takala openly speculated that the Central branch - the HPL’s flagship and one of the cornerstones of the core - might need to be “temporarily closed” to, as Coleman reported, “disrupt the pattern of drug use…before someone is accidentally poisoned by unintentional exposure.”⁴

Takala provided stats, including the fact that there’s been a 60 percent drop in the number of children’s materials checked out of the Central branch. Coleman’s reporting also included a laundry list of other incidents that have been connected to drug use in the core, including Hamilton Police Service (HPS) notices of “drug dealers” being arrested in and around Central and Jackson Square, the closure of the downtown Federal Court due to fears of “random violence”, and the library’s decision to close on Sundays due to understaffing and safety concerns.

The CBC picked up the reporting and, just yesterday, published an update. Central will not be closed in any capacity, but the HPL is exploring other options to better manage the space, such as requiring people to show their library card to access the space. The HPL’s librarians - truly some of this community’s most dedicated and passionate civic employees who deserve as much support, praise, and compensation as we can provide - are doing what they can with the resources they have, but they can’t do it alone.

***

Complaints about open drug use, particularly in the core, are commonplace now. In the thread on the r/Hamilton subreddit about the aforementioned CBC article, users overwhelmingly express relief that the Central branch won’t be closed, but have still shared some of their stories about uncomfortable experiences in public places. Public drug use is jarring for many and, in the case of those who have struggled with substances in the past, may be deeply triggering. When combined with untreated or poorly treated mental health issues and the host of other factors some users contend with, it can create situations that are, at the very least, unpredictable and unsettling for everyone.

The flippant responses from the more online of our community’s somewhat…militant commenters that people simply “get over it” doesn’t take into account the fact that people know very little about drug use aside from what has been fed to us by moralizing agencies and law enforcement. Couple that with the fact that drugs are changing rapidly and that, since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the whole system of social service provision and treatment have been thrown into chaos, and you get the situation we are in now. Mocking those residents who express concern about drug use also doesn’t do anything to help those who are impacted by the less-public-facing side of open drug use: the toxic drug crisis.

Just yesterday, the Spec reported on the ongoing work of McMaster and Hamilton Health Sciences researchers who have been monitoring the number of deaths in the community of people experiencing homelessness. Hamilton lost 32 people between June 2024 and May 2025 - 148 since they began collecting data in 2022. 11 of the deaths in the recent study period were from overdoses, leading the researchers to note that such losses make it “difficult not to reflect on the provincially mandated closure” of Hamilton’s consumption treatment services (CTS) site.⁵

Opioid toxicity deaths in Ontario began spiking during the COVID-19 Pandemic. While they began to decline as we left the worst of the Pandemic behind, they have begun to trend upward again as the clumsy provincial shift away from CTS sites to their abstinence-only services has been slow, uncoordinated, and challenged by medical professionals who actually know what they’re doing. Without safe, supervised places to use and scattered addictions supports, people using drugs where they can and where it’s warm. That means the Central library or the stairwells of First Place or the food court at Jackson Square.

That clearly gives people the impression that downtown isn’t safe. I’ve written about this before, but, despite falling crime numbers, people say they feel unsafe because of, in the words of the HPS, “concerns about social disorder, open drug use, and property crime”. If people feel unsafe, then they don’t venture downtown, don’t patronize shops, don’t go to shows, don’t check books out of the library, don’t consider moving into the lower city. They retreat to their fortresses with their Ring cameras and their fast cars and avoid their neighbours. We lose a sense of community and the revenue that comes with people engaging in commerce. Things hollow out, there’s less of a desire to invest in social services, and the situation gets worse. It becomes a never-ending cycle.

And that’s where the perception of “a city in decline” comes from.

***

We know that candidates in the upcoming election will weaponize the perception of decline. They’ll point to every article from the Spec or the CBC or every post from Joey Coleman that highlights something negative happening in the city as evidence that the clock on Hamilton’s decline started on November 15, 2022.

That may be a cynical political move by predominantly right-wing candidates, but it may be effective in the absence of a concerted effort to share meaningful ideas on how to fix the problems we face. So candidates and community members have to get on countering the narratives with real policies, real perspectives, and real plans of action.

With regard to our roads, it’s about combining something like Chow’s short-term savvy with that long-term vision I mentioned earlier. That means reimagining what a city’s infrastructure network needs to look like and how roads can be built to minimize damage over the long term. While the commenters on the Spec and some members of council may bemoan the presence of bike lanes in Hamilton, the fact is that they help keep long-term infrastructure costs down. Safe, connected, accessible cycling infrastructure helps take cars off the road and a cyclist would need to make 17,000 trips to have the same impact as just one car trip does on the road. Removing some of the overengineered roadways in the industrial district that were designed for far more traffic than they see now can help, as can devoting more space to transit-only lanes, which carry more people more efficiently than general purpose lanes do.

On housing, candidates for council need to position themselves as relentless advocates who will push other levels of government, unlock all available non-profit funding, and work tirelessly to ensure money goes where it’s needed. New, innovative developments like some of the projects from Indwell like their “community bonds” initiative can bring the community together to provide housing for all. And everyday residents can remind their friends, coworkers, and neighbours that the city can’t provide housing all by itself. Pressure needs to be put on government MPs and MPPs to step up and do what’s right. Just because it’s a municipal election year doesn’t mean they’re off the hook for doing their jobs.

And, on drug use, candidates again have to act as advocates and educators, reminding the community that the problems we face are fixed by provincial action. The province needs to pursue evidence-based policies, listen to healthcare providers, and work to break the cycle of addiction in a way that supports everyone. The two points tie into one another; providing people with safe, affordable housing can be one of the best things for ensuring an individual takes sobriety seriously - another point noted in yesterday’s Spec article on the mortality rate for those experiencing homelessness.⁵

***

It isn’t impossible to counter the messaging that Hamilton is in decline. In fact, it’s pretty easy. Smart, honest, policy-based campaigns that lean into optimism and hope can quickly quash the chatter about our city’s imagined fall from grace.

Hamilton isn’t in decline. We’re facing issues like every other municipality. The Pandemic, the global economy, and the ideological priorities of other levels of government have made things harder. But those problems didn’t start when this term of council was sworn in on November 15, 2022. And they certainly won’t be fixed if we replace every member of council this October.

If we work together, we can address these issues we face - not by endlessly complaining about imagined decline, but by rolling up our sleeves, buckling down, and keeping our eyes on a better tomorrow.

The Game Changes

Photo by Mike Meyers on Unsplash - Edited by author

It’s almost hard to conceptualize how much Canadian politics changed in the just 72 hours. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that what started with an announcement mid-afternoon on February 2, 2026 has the potential to fundamentally shift the political order all around us.

While I write almost exclusively about politics and history here in Hamilton, what happened this week will inevitably be felt here. It may take a while for the reverberations to make it down to this end of Lake Ontario, but they’re coming nonetheless.

***

On Monday afternoon, Canadian media lit up with reports that Bill Blair, the Liberal MP for Scarborough Southwest, would be resigning, effective immediately. His resignation came after Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed Blair to the position of “High Commissioner” to the United Kingdom (since we’re part of the British Commonwealth and we share a monarch, the High Commissioner is our version of an ambassador).

Blair had served as MP for the lakefront riding since 2015. He was approached by Justin Trudeau’s rejuvenated Liberals to run in that year’s federal election as a “star” candidate. A “son of Scarborough”, Blair had been a household name in the city for a decade as the Chief of the Toronto Police Service (TPS). People across Canada knew him as the man who oversaw the single largest mass arrest of Canadians ever during the 2010 G20 protests and one of the men who went toe-to-toe with the Ford Family during Rob’s crack cocaine saga. A decidedly varied record, but one that was positive enough to not preclude a future in politics (his successor as Chief, Mark Saunders, had a decidedly less positive tenure heading up the TPS, but still tried his hand at politics with far less success).

He became a “lame duck” chief just before the 2014 municipal elections when the Toronto Police Services Board, balking at his host of proposed policing reforms, informed the public very early on that they would not renew his contract and give him a third term as chief during negotiations the following year. This set the stage for his entry into politics and, on the day of his retirement, he announced he would be seeking the Liberal Party of Canada’s nomination to run in Scarborough Southwest against one-term NDP MP Dan Harris. With the NDP in decline after the death of Jack Layton, combined with Blair and Trudeau’s star power, he beat Harris, 52.5% to 24%. Blair bounced between ministries, won re-election with higher and higher percentages of the popular vote in each subsequent election, and stayed out of the brief, messy Liberal Party civil war that resulted in Carney’s capturing power last year. Even though the new PM opted to not appoint Blair to cabinet after last year’s election, rumours abounded that he was destined for a plum diplomatic position as a reward for his service.¹

The dust had barely settled on the announcement of Blair’s appointment when the Liberals revealed that they already had a candidate to replace him in the upcoming by-election. It was later reported by the Star that the whole thing had been coordinated well ahead of time.

The Liberal candidate would be another high-profile name in the community and someone who was already serving in the provincial legislature. The issue is that they weren’t a Liberal.

The candidate announced was Doly Begum, the deputy leader of the Ontario NDP and the MPP for Scarborough Southwest. The Star later reported that NDP leader Marit Stiles got a call from Begum at 9:00 AM on February 3, saying that, two and a half hours later, she would be named as the federal Liberal candidate in the riding. By mid-afternoon on Wednesday, New Democrats across Canada were seething. "When Canadians see politicians betray the values and policies that they claim to believe in, I think it damages our democracy and it breeds cynicism in our politics,” interim NDP leader Don Davies said, before noting “I'll leave it to Ms. Begum to explain to the people of Scarborough Southwest why she's abandoning the progressive policies she claimed to believe in to run for a party that is clearly governing like a conservative party." The outrage was felt across the modest NDP caucus as Begum’s blindside sank in.²

***

Before most even had a chance to recalibrate, there was another announcement. Perpetually rebellious Beaches-East York Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith announced he would be seeking the Ontario Liberal nomination for the provincial by-election in Scarborough Southwest created by Begum’s departure for parliament. Beaches-East York borders Scarborough Southwest, making the jump natural for Erskine-Smith. But that announcement also confirmed what many in Ontario had been speculating on for months: that Erskine-Smith would almost certainly be running for the leadership of the ever-rudderless Ontario Liberal Party.³

All of that was more bad news for Ontario NDP leader Marit Stiles. The most recent poll of Ontarians has the ONDP at just 18% support with Doug Ford’s Tories at 43% and the leaderless Liberals at 30%. Of all the people who could break the polling logjam provincially, Erskine-Smith best fits the bill. He’s young, outspoken, and has enough progressive cred to lure soft New Democrats to the Ontario Liberal tent. But he’s also a free thinker with plenty of media exposure, meaning he’s one of the few people in Ontario who could seriously threaten Doug Ford’s stranglehold on this province’s politics. If Erskine-Smith wins the leadership and has a seat in the legislature, it isn’t impossible to imagine a world where, over the next two years, the Ontario Liberals ease into first place and the final countdown clock on Doug Ford’s reign begins.

So in the space of one day, Marit Stiles lost her deputy leader to the Liberals, faces the strong likelihood that her caucus will shrink by one member, and has to contend with the fact that her pathways to the Premier’s office have nearly dissolved.

***

Then, as the Ontario NDP was dealing with all that, came a slew of articles on Wednesday taking direct aim at federal NDP leadership contestant Avi Lewis. Based on fundraising data and general enthusiasm, it would appear that Lewis is the far-and-away frontrunner for the NDP’s leadership. In the morning edition of the Star, longtime party insider Anne McGrath (who is backing another candidate in the race - MP Heather McPherson), did her best to take some of the wind out of Lewis’s sails. Talking about how McPherson is courting the supporters of another contender, union leader Rob Ashton, McGrath implied that the “anti-Avi” forces are coalescing to ensure he doesn’t win the race. The party uses a ranked ballot for voting, so there are multiple rounds of counting as the lowest-ranked candidates drop off and their support is redistributed to the remaining candidates. McGrath told the Star: “A lot will depend on what happens after the first ballot…If Avi can’t win on the first ballot, it might be hard for him to win.”⁴

Making maters worse, Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi came out swinging on Wednesday, saying that he wasn’t going to be voting in the federal NDP leadership race and that he wants all federal leadership candidates to not screw up his chances of winning the next provincial election out there. The unspoken part of Nenshi’s comments were that an Avi Lewis leadership would likely mean a formal divorce between the federal and provincial wings of the NDP in Alberta. Lewis has been a dedicated champion of a shift away from fossil fuels which the bigwigs in the Alberta NDP believe will ruin their electoral chances. The Alberta NDP has already begun cutting ties with the federal party (allowing members to just be affiliated with the provincial wing) and, given that province’s tendency to push back against anything even remotely federal in nature, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the provincial wing going off on their own entirely if their desired candidate doesn’t win.

"We don't have the luxury in Alberta to get caught up in ideological battles…within our own party,” Nenshi told the CBC.⁵

Nenshi’s always been very good at setting the agenda and making his ideological positions look like the absence of an ideological position. His remarks to the CBC imply he wants the party to stay above the fray and focus on doing what’s right for the voters. But, ultimately, he’s an active combatant in that ideological war, unsubtly saying he would prefer a McPherson or Ashton-led NDP over one where Avi Lewis is the leader. Combine Nenshi’s comments with those from McGrath and other party insiders, and it becomes clear that there’s a move afoot to undermine the Lewis campaign with whatever they’ve got.

***

So where does that leave us?

Oh boy that’s a tough question to answer. But, based on my assessment, there are a couple of major issues.

Issue “1A” is that it’s do-or-die time for the Ontario NDP. A story in the Star cites a “senior New Democrat” who said Begum’s defection “was not a surprise” and cited Stiles’s extremely low approval rating at last Septembers ONDP convention - earning just 68% approval from party members - as one of the reasons. “Right now the momentum is flowing to the Liberals now, federally and provincially, so this is a problem, you know, for Marit and her leadership team,” the insider source told the Star.²

Stiles either needs to change course immediately or take the L and step aside. If the federal Liberals - who are governing like old-school Robert Stanfield-esque Progressive Conservatives (though their recent cuts to Environment and Climate Change Canada make it seem like they’re not averse to governing like modern-day Conservatives) - can entice the deputy leader of the Ontario NDP to their camp, there’s something seriously wrong.

Issue “1B” is that, making matters worse, Begum’s departure has cleared a path for Erskine-Smith to ride into Queen’s Park and take what little spotlight Stiles has left. With Ontarians growing weary of Doug Ford as we slog toward the 10 year anniversary of his accidental ascension, having a fresh and compelling new leader at the helm of the Ontario Liberals is the absolute last thing Stiles needs. Erskine-Smith has the potential to repeat the Trudeau leap, catapulting his party into government and relegating the NDP to third-party status once again.

Issue “2” is that the campaign against Lewis works in the favour of the Liberals at all levels. By undercutting his support through stoking fears of separatism, political calamity, and economic chaos, NDP insiders and skittish provincial politicians are putting their thumb on the scale in the hopes that McPherson can eek out a victory. If that happens, the insiders keep their positions, western leaders stand a chance of keeping official opposition status, and, ultimately, the enthusiasm that’s been bubbling under the surface of the NDP leadership campaign for Lewis can be neutralized. That helps the Liberals keep the NDP at bay federally and ensures there isn’t a host of energetic and optimistic provincial-level New Democrat candidates, volunteers, and voters in Ontario (where Lewis has been absolutely cleaning up donation-wise) when the next provincial election comes.

Issue “3” is that, on the ground here in Hamilton, this all has the potential to, in essence, keep things the same or make things even worse for New Democrats.

Provincially, the NDP is down to two ridings. A revitalized Ontario Liberal Party might be able to win some ridings with compelling candidates. An Erskine-Smith-led OLP may very well push the NDP back to the beachhead that is Hamilton Centre, in essence sending the party back to where it was back in 1999.

Federally, if the NDP fails to generate any momentum after the leadership race because of infighting or a solidification of the power of party insiders, the chances they take back Hamilton Centre drop dramatically, keeping the party off the map in the city and enabling the Conservatives more opportunities to eat into the working class with their relentless strategy of convincing working people to support anti-working class policies.

***

I’ve already made it clear that I’m backing Avi Lewis in the federal NDP leadership race. But, after the past 72 hours in Canadian politics, I’m also coming around to the idea that we need an Ontario NDP leadership race as well. That could be a chance for the reset the party needs. There are three years worth of runway until the next election (four, if Doug decides to drag this term out to an excruciating, albeit legally allowed, five years), which means there are plenty of opportunities to turn the plane around.

With Avi at the helm federally and a compelling new Ontario NDP leader taking the fight to the Ford government for the next few years, we might be able to beat back the tide of right-wing extremism and start to rebuild a progressive political base in this city, in this province, and in this country.

This week in Canadian politics has made it evident that the game is changing. A savvy player, one with a real shot at winning, knows that, when the game changes, so too must the strategy. To keep playing the same old game - by sticking with leaders who aren’t making a dent or by reverting to the same old infighting we are so known for or by pulling out all the stops to ensure the party’s consultant class remains comfortable - is to admit you’re not in it to win it. That, by itself, should be disqualifying.

The Great Budget Rebellion of ‘26

Photo by BAILEY MAHON on Unsplash - Edited by author

The 2026 municipal budgeting process has not been going well.

Part of the reason could be that the new budgeting requirements that the province imposed on the municipalities it granted “strong mayor powers” (of which Hamilton is one) are deeply confusing at the best of times.

A bit of humourously self-deprecating commentary from Ward 6 Councillor Tom Jackson on January 23 was a great encapsulation of how muddled the process is thanks to the Ford government’s changes. Seeking clarification from the city clerk, Jackson said: “You know, I do my darnedest to listen carefully to instructions from staff…could you please, for this simpleton from Ward 6, can you clarify please…I thought today was the last day to submit potential amendments [to the budget] for staff to work on…I say this very respectfully, I’m very confused.” Jackson, as those with even a passing knowledge of our local politics will know, has served on council for 38 years. If a man with more legislative experience under his belt than I’ve had years on this planet is confused about the process, something’s not right.

Jackson was seeking clarity about timelines. For this year’s budget process, the timeline has looked something like this:

• Tuesday, October 7, 2025: Mayor Andrea Horwath issued her “Budget Directive”. These “directives” are part of the new budget process imposed by the province which puts the mayor in charge of “setting the agenda” for the budget. In her directive, she asked staff to “hold the line” and cap residential property tax increases at 4.25%.

• Friday, December 12, 2025: City staff released the preliminary draft of the proposed tax-supported budget.

  • _{Municipal 101 side note - municipal budgets are divided into rate-supported (meaning big things you pay for separately - really just municipal water services) and tax-supported (meaning everything else funded by property taxes paid directly by homeowners and indirectly through landlords by tenants).}

• Tuesday, January 20, 2026: The Mayor released the final draft of the proposed tax-supported budget. Councillors did not receive notice that the draft was being released. In response to questions from local journalist Joey Coleman, Mayor Horwath said she did not meet with councillors when putting together the budget and could not indicate what feedback from the public was included in her final draft.

• Friday, January 23, 2026: Council first met to discuss the proposed tax-supported budget.

Let’s pause there, as things really kicked off that Friday. And, right off the bat, there was tension.

At around 11:00 AM on January 23rd, the budget discussions began in council chambers. There were a couple of agenda items on the budget, but the most important were 7.2 and 7.3. The former was a memo from the mayor summarizing what is, in essence, her budget and the latter was an overview of the budget itself.

Now, I say her budget because, thanks to strong mayor powers, all the real budget power rests with the mayor. The mayor directs the budget, the mayor sets the agenda for the budget, and the mayor, in the end, owns the budget.

The second speaker to those budget motions on the agenda that day was Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis, who opened with a question about when amendments could be proposed. This was because, in his words “last night I get a call…or yesterday [Thursday, January 22], I get a call from the chair of [the Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) - meaning Ward 9 Councillor Brad Clark] informing me that Wild Waterworks is going to be presented today to be removed from this budget…this isn’t a collaborative approach.”

Francis told council that the HCA chair told him about a line in the budget that suggested, as a way to ensure cost savings, the popular beachfront waterpark in Francis’s ward would be closed. This claim was also circulated on social media by a right-wing Ward 3 council candidate around the same time Francis noted getting the call from Clark. The post from the candidate, made around 7:00 PM on January 22, received around 1000 views on X/Twitter. The possible closure of Wild Waterworks had not been discussed in the media prior to this, despite the candidate claiming they “heard reports” about the waterpark’s closure. At this point, it remains unclear where the candidate “heard reports” from prior to Francis publicly noting it at council. Some council candidates are doing their homework early by combing through the budget, but I’ve looked through all those documents and haven’t found reference to that mistakenly-added cut.

Francis raising this point kicked off a momentary panic amongst those in the community who valued the aging waterpark. But staff quickly clarified that reports of Wild Waterworks’ death had been greatly exaggerated. An administrative error resulted in the park’s inclusion on a list of proposed cuts and staff informed council that “the proposed Wild Waterworks cut was not shared with the mayor because it was not meant to be adopted.”¹

That was only the beginning of the problems.

***

Immediately after his self-deprecating comment mentioned earlier, Ward 6’s Jackson sought clarity on another matter. “Given the mayor’s directive the past two years,” he said, “my issues is, I really can’t get into fulsome debate and, ultimately, a recorded vote, so, is ‘receiving’ today in essence acquiescing to the mayor’s proposed 2026 budget and the tax budget overview presentation? Because if, in some way, I’m acquiescing, I just need to have a recorded vote to be recorded as opposed to even ‘receiving’.”

That’s a complicated couple of sentences, but it boils down to this: Jackson was asking if voting to “receive” the mayor’s memo and the budget overview - basically councillors formally and symbolically saying “yup, we got the report, thanks for that” - would be, in some way, a signal of his tacit approval of the budget. If that was the case, then he was prepared to vote against even acknowledging receipt of the mayor’s correspondence.

Basically, a very public and very formal “buzz off” to the mayor.

Ward 14’s Mike Spadafora chimed in next with another intriguing question.

“Simple question for a simple mind,” he began, picking up where Jackson left off with the self-deprecating quips. “I just want clarity and to be 100% sure, when we talk about a two-thirds majority, what is that number, [City] Clerk Trennum? Is it based on the 16? I want to know exactly what the number is for the two-thirds to veto the budget.”

Let’s pause for another “Municipal 101” side note. Another fun quirk of Ontario’s new and totally well-thought-out “strong mayor powers” is that mayors now have the authority to “veto” council decisions. That means that the mayor can reverse a council decision if the mayor believes that decision would “interfere with a provincial priority”. Provincial priorities are, as follows:

1. Building 1.5 million new homes by December 31, 2031, and

2. Constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support housing, including transit, roads, utilities, and servicing.

That’s it. Those are the province’s outlined priorities. And, because those priorities are purposefully broad and vague, it means mayors have lots of latitude when it comes to vetoing things they aren’t keen on.

But mayoral veto powers are also extended to the whole of the budget process. That means that, if council votes in favour of amendments to the mayor’s budget, the mayor can cancel those amendments for any reason. Yes, the mayor will need to provide, according to the province, “written documentation of the veto and rationale to each member of council and the municipal clerk on the day of the veto”, but they still get to do it.

Council can propose changes to a budget, vote in favour of those changes, and the mayor can undo those changes with the stroke of a pen. Simple as that.

The one saving grace for council is that they have the power to “override” the mayor’s veto. Basically uncancelling what the mayor cancelled. But a council override requires a two-thirds majority of council. It can be hard to get two-thirds of council members to agree on anything, so the idea is that a veto is a very, very, very, challenging thing for a council to do.

What Spadafora was asking the city clerk was: how many of us need to vote the same way to override a veto?

The answer for Hamilton City Council is 11.

Asking that question at the beginning of the budget discussion is a bold move. It’s kind of like stepping up to the altar and, before saying the vows, turning to the officiant and asking “so how long do divorce proceedings usually take?”

One could infer from Spadafora’s question that he’s testing the waters to see how far council can push the mayor, laying the groundwork for an out-and-out rebellion of councillors against the last budget presented by Mayor Andrea Horwath before she, and many of the people around the council horseshoe, face the voters in October.

***

The mayoral election hangs heavy in the air now. Many of the decisions and actions of council will be viewed through the lens of mayoral ambition or a desire on the part of council members to quietly place their support behind candidates and/or distinguish themselves from those running.

That was certainly the case when new Ward 8 Councillor Rob Cooper took the floor after Spadafora during what was supposed to be a pre-budget presentation question-and-answer period about the actual process of the budget meetings.

“The way I see it, I got two budgets in front of me,” Cooper said. “I got one that came out at [a] 5.5 [percent tax increase] and one that came out at [a] 4.25 [percent tax increase]…my expectation of the budgeting process, we’d have one document, but we don’t.”

He continued: “When I ask questions about what the latest budget items were, I was even told that some of the questions couldn’t be addressed unless we went in camera,” he said, implying that some of his questions were such that, to answer them, council would need to lower the cone of silence and keep the questions and answers from the public.

It then fell to the budget chair, Councillor Maureen Wilson, and the city’s General Manager of Finance, Mike Zegarac, to clear up what Cooper had unleashed in the room. Wilson started, letting Cooper know that, no, there were not two budgets, but that there was a preliminary draft released in December at the request of council and a final draft released on January 20 as required by law.²  

After Cooper pressed his belief that there were “two different budgets” and that he had “never seen a budget process like this before”, Wilson once again needed to remind Cooper that council asked for a preliminary draft so they could mull it over during the winter break (after Cooper had been sworn into office, meaning he, too, had the ability to consider the budget over the holidays) before sitting down to debate the final draft in January. “Respectfully, if members of council are not happy with that which is being provided to them, then you are an author of your own unhappiness,” Wilson told the chamber.

Zegarac, for his part, needed to tag in to remind council that the only things they needed to go in camera for were private and personnel matters, as well as contractual matters, meaning that it was highly unlikely any of Cooper’s questions would need to be shielded from the public.

This is Cooper’s first time at the table for a budget conversation, which explains why he said he had “never seen a budget process like this before”. Then again, Cooper has been a long-time Progressive Conservative Party operative, working diligently to elect the party that imposed these changes. Authors of their own unhappiness, indeed.

But what Cooper was laying down is worth considering, if only to once again understand the strategy council’s right wing will employ during this year’s municipal election. “There are two budgets” speaks to the idea that City Hall is dysfunctional and mismanaged, meaning right wingers are needed to “take Hamilton back” and restore “common sense” to our local government. “Some of my questions can’t be answered in public” makes it seem like the right wing bloc on council is a fearless opposition, standing up for taxpayers and being threatened with “cancellation” if they stick their noses where they don’t belong.

Even if Cooper doesn’t run for mayor and passes the right wing baton to another contender, it still signals that on which the right wing campaign will focus. It’s a healthy blend of “sticking up for taxpayers” and “only I can fix it” - a kind of watered-down-MAGA-meets-hyperlocal-Poilievre kind of message. It’ll be interesting to see where they go with that.

Wilson and Councillor Nrinder Nann helped to get things back on track by reminding their colleagues that it was probably a good idea to actually hear the presentation on the budget before debating the specifics. After a quick break, council mostly stuck to their agenda that day with very few hiccups along the way, with one notable exception.

After Mike Zegarac’s budget presentation, Ward 5’s Matt Francis took issue with the omission of “local community arenas” under the heading “priority areas”. In response to Francis’s question, Zegarac provided an answer about all community spaces being priorities before Francis once again brings up the issue of Wild Waterworks. “I want to thank the [Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA)] chair for taking this seriously. Councillor Clark, he’s been a collaborative leader and communicator as a leader should be and I appreciate how he handles his role as the chair of the HCA,” he says (unsubtly taking a dig at the mayor), before providing some Coles notes on Wild Waterworks.

But then he gets to the meat of his argument (having lost the wedge that Wild Waterworks could have been). “The proposal to take the ice out of Stoney Creek arena…this is really an ineffective attempt at saving taxpayer’s dollars. Taxes go up and services go down. I hear that everywhere I go. Taking ice time away from kids at 6:00 PM on weekends and just saying we can shift it to another arena is just a perfect example of that…”

The speech goes on for some time. He talks about how hard it is to move ice times around, how kids tend to be in school during weekdays and can’t use the ice, how busy the arena is, how silly it was for the city to “waste money” on the Barton Tiffany Outdoor Shelter, how the arena is in good shape. “Is this really how we’re running our city? We talk about respect? How about respect for taxpayers around here?” he asks no one in particular.

The gist of his very long speech is that:

1. The cost is only $161,000, so keeping it in the budget is “insignificant”;

2. The mayor didn’t call him to talk about this proposed cut, which isn’t what real leaders do;

3. He’ll be bringing forward a motion on February 6 to “save” the Stoney Creek Arena, and;

4. He’ll be bringing forward motions to defer repairs to the “arena”, which he said “represent significant cost savings for taxpayers far in excess of the savings of removing the ice.”

Francis gave notice that he’ll bring forward his motion to keep the ice at Stoney Creek Arena on February 6, 2026.

I note the date because it’s just one day shy of 365 days since another hyper-specific Francis motion came to a budget meeting.

See, way back on February 7, 2025, Francis brought a motion to council to trim $25,000 from the city’s budget by cutting the “Poet in Place” program.

The “Whereas” statements on that 07-02-25 motion are interesting.

“WHEREAS, council has declared an affordability crisis…WHEREAS, the threat of looming U.S. tariffs will create an economic recession in Canada…WHEREAS, fiscal responsibility is a priority for the municipality…WHEREAS, [the Poet in Place program costs] could be redirected to provide tax relief to residents by applying the savings directly to the tax levy…” It’s loaded and targeted and oh so populist.

The motion would have seen the $25,000 allocated to the program (a $10,000 honourarium for the poet and $15,000 to install artwork/fund programming) be moved to the city’s capital reserve fund “for the purpose of funding infrastructure projects such as roads, sidewalks, and parks.” That motion failed on an 8-8 tie after Francis was unsuccessful in luring Ward 15 Councillor Ted McMeekin to the right wing side for that vote.

For those keeping track, that’s:

• $161,000 for ice at a Stoney Creek Arena = GOOD

• $25,000 for Hamilton-wide public art = BAD

Now, to be fair to Francis, he did say he was going to pair his motion with proposals for “significant cost savings for taxpayers far in excess of the savings of removing the ice” by suggesting a deferral of maintenance on the arena. And, yes, that will represent some savings for taxpayers.

This year. Kinda. If you don’t think about it too hard.

Deferring maintenance isn’t a way to find savings. All it does is push necessary expenditures down the road so that something that costs $250,000 (a made-up number for illustrative purposes) to fix this year might be closer to $300,000 in even just a year’s time. Factoring in inflation, changing supply chains, and the fact that not fixing a small problem now means it might become a BIG problem later, the final bill for taxpayers might be way more than if they just kept those expenses in the budget this year.

In essence, Francis is proposing saving the taxpayers of 2026 some money by charging the taxpayers of 2027, 2028, 2029 or whenever way more. Standing up for taxpayers today by hurting them tomorrow.

Interesting logic from the team that crows on endlessly about “raiding reserve funds” to keep taxes low. Especially because using the city’s savings account to prevent massive tax increases has only become necessary because a) previous councils regularly used deferring costs as a way to keep taxes artificially low, and b) the right wing has unrepentantly poisoned the well of public discourse against any and all investment in public services, creating a situation where even suggesting we raise taxes to adequately fund anything results in threats of a “taxpayer revolt” at the ballot box.

It’s the right-wing populists’ world and we’re just living in it.

But, in the end, Francis won’t even need to bring forward his motion to “save” Stoney Creek Arena. Five days after that meeting and after a couple of major defeats at council (more on those in a minute), Mayor Horwath issued a statement saying she was directing “staff to ensure the ice plant at the Stoney Creek Arena remains included in the proposed 2026 budget,” while squarely placing the blame for the proposal at the feet of staff (also more on that in a minute).

***

When the question period after Zegarac’s budget presentation concluded, councillors took the floor to deliver their assessment of the budget process so far.

“This year, the mayor didn’t reach out to each one of us after her budget cuts were made, after she made the assessments when staff were done. I don’t recall the phone ringing for me, saying ‘hey, let’s have a conversation about the impacts in Ward 2,” Councillor Cameron Kroetsch said, taking the mayor to task for what he saw as her poor communication, her calling public budget meetings without notice, and her imposition of cuts without consulting community members or councillors.

Councillor Clark also took issue with the lack of communication, saying that members of council would receive calls complaining about service cuts imposed by the mayor that those same members of council had no input on. Ward 14’s Mike Spadafora railed against what he saw as a term-long “spending spree”, focusing intently on how many staff had been hired at city hall.

“I know I run the risk of being highlighted in a social media post if I continue the narrative of possibly speaking out against the process,” Ward 10’s Jeff Beattie said (it’s unclear if he meant Joey Coleman’s reporting on the budget process or if there’s some other online forum where his votes and statements are disseminated), before highlighting some of the cuts with which he took issue.

Ward 11’s Mark Tadeson said he would do work to find better savings that protected what taxpayers care about. Ward 15’s Ted McMeekin made a plea for intergovernmental cooperation so the burden isn’t just on the backs of local ratepayers. Ward 8’s Cooper made the rather bold claim that, “I’d be shocked if the [tax increases for the] next four years were under 8 percent”.

There were critiques from right, left, and centre. While the core reasoning for their concerns may have been different, each councillor circled back to the idea that the budget was created by the mayor with little-to-no input from the community and our elected council.

The mayor, joining the meeting by video conference, responded, saying that “collaboration is with more than just one person. It takes two, takes three, takes four, takes five, and so my door has always been open.” She noted that, while she often invites councillors to participate in financial decisions, in her recollection, few actually take her up on her offer.

And then councillors voted on the reports.

The rebuke was stunning. In an 11-to-5 vote, councillors rejected the motion to “receive” Mayor Horwath’s budget directive memo. Then, moments later, in a 10-to-6 vote, they also rejected receipt of Zegarac’s budget presentation.

Technically, those votes mean nothing. They are symbolic of their collective frustration at the budget process and an indication that they will fight, and fight hard, against much of the mayor’s budget.

A few hours later, Mayor Horwath released a statement on social media that did not acknowledge the defeat, but noted that she looked “forward to the discussions around the amendments that Councillors will bring forward.”

Adding to the Mayor’s budget headache was the extremely savvy move by the Hamilton Public Library (HPL) to make a major service announcement the very same day. Hitting the Spec’s website a day early and the front page of the paper the on the day budget deliberations started was a story about how the Central Library - the flagship of the HPL in the heart of the city - would be closing on Sundays. This temporary service change was due to the lack of funding the HPL has to help the city’s vulnerable population who seek shelter in the library for lack of anywhere else to go on weekends. The HPL’s chief librarian told the Spec: “We can’t really put other library members or residents and staff in a situation where we’re not adequately supporting them.”³

That move, by itself, should be a reminder to never underestimate librarians. Librarians have been thrust into the role of catch-all public servants, required to be tech support, literacy teachers, stewards of public spaces, accessibility experts, social workers, teachers, technicians, historians, research assistants…the list is nearly endless. But, after that delightfully strategic move, we will have to add “political masterminds” to the list.

And that’s because, on Tuesday, January 27 - the first meeting back after the “snow event” weekend - one of the presentations to councillors was on the library budget.

The HPL went into budget discussions asking for a 5.25 percent increase to its budget to meet the needs in the community. They were told by the mayor to cap that increase at 4.25 percent - $375,000 less than what they need for the services they provide.

Council’s conversation around the library budget was less clean than their rebuke of the mayor, but still signaled another point of contention. While Cameron Kroetsch spoke to the need to fund libraries adequately to meet the need in the community, Rob Cooper took a more conventional right wing approach, critiquing the fact that there were some missing audited budget documents (from the city, not the HPL) and that, in the absence of those, they just “seem to know [they] need more money.”

But, even amongst council’s right wing block, there seemed to be some recognition that underfunding the HPL would be a tough sell this year. “I’m saddened by the Sunday [closure] announcement, I’m very saddened by that and let’s hope we can turn that around…I’m very open minded to the 5.25 [percent request]. I know where my priorities are in this corporation and in my community,” Ward 6’s Tom Jackson said.

It was no wonder, then, that Ward 3 Councillor Nrinder Nann told the meeting that a motion would be coming forward “calling for a city-wide approach and partnership”, suggesting that the HPL might get all it wanted. Nann was one of the few councillors who voted in favour of “receiving” the mayor’s memorandum, meaning that a vote in favour of increasing the HPL’s budget to 5.25 percent might have the support of between 11 to 15 members of council - a “veto proof” majority.

Another blow to the mayor’s budget.

***

By January 28, it was clear that council was in outright rebellion against Mayor Horwath. And she did not help matters one bit.

The discussion that day was supposed to be on the “Healthy and Safe Communities” portion of the budget. But, before the initial items could come forward, Horwath took the floor to provide a clarification about the Stoney Creek Arena issue.

“The direction was unequivocal when it came to any kind of changes to ice time or hours of use of hockey and ice skating arena facilities,” she said, before noting “What I did - what I always do - is, instead of chopping people’s heads off or embarrassing staff, I did the professional thing, which is ask them to have a look at what happened and give me some advice as to how to fix it.”

Basically, the mayor said that she never really wanted cuts to arenas and so she went back and asked staff to “fix” that proposed cut.

But then, she adds a line that undercuts both her previous statement and the entire budget process. Indeed, if any one line has the potential to become Horwath’s version of John Turner’s 1984 self-destruct button of a line, “Well, I’ve told you and told the Canadian people, Mr. Mulroney, that I had no option,” or Jack Layton’s biting 2011 dig at Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, “You know, most Canadians, if they don’t show up for work, they don’t get a promotion,” it may be this one.

“Again, I thought it was important to let folks know that I found out at the same time as everybody else…”

That was, in essence, the mayor saying that she found out about the cuts to Stoney Creek Arena after she released her budget.

Francis jumped at that. “I do find it curious that the mayor doesn’t know what’s in the mayor’s budget,” he said. The mayor jumped in with a point of order almost immediately.

“I’ve stated clearly that I learned about the situation at the same time as everyone else…but for a member to then suggest that’s not the truth is actually a point of order…I’m offended by it and I want it withdrawn,” she said while Francis audibly repeated “no”.

“It’s not a point of order, with the greatest respect,” said Brad Clark, noting that Francis didn’t question the “truthfulness” of what the mayor said but was, instead, “surprised that the mayor had not read her own budget.”

Chair Wilson rules that it isn’t a point of order, so the mayor pivots to speaking to a point of privilege.

Time for one more “Municipal 101” side note!

• A point of order is intended to request a ruling on a breach of meeting procedure.

• A point of privilege is intended to quickly raise concern over improper, unparliamentary, or otherwise uncivil behaviour.

Minor side note, but an important one.

The mayor tries to push back, but keeps returning to her original statement, evidently missing that Francis didn’t say she was being less-than-truthful, rather that it was shocking that she didn’t know what was in her own budget.

Cameron Kroetsch chimed in providing some different wording. “I think what I heard, and what I’ve heard from residents when they’ve reached out to me about this, is the question ‘Didn’t the mayor look at the budget before it was released publicly?’ That is the question I’m hearing,” he noted before outlining the expectation in the community, namely that the mayor tasked staff with designing a budget which she would then go over in detail before releasing it so that any possible miscommunications or issues - like closing Wild Waterworks or defunding the Stoney Creek Arena or requiring the HPL to make dramatic service cuts - would be cleared up ahead of time.

Wilson again ended the discussion shortly after and the intended presentation began.

By Friday morning, Hamiltonians awoke to a front-page Scott Radley editorial with the headline “Mayor blaming staff for arena issue makes both look bad.”

Radley, in three rhetorical questions, summarizes that short debate at council. “Isn’t this her budget? If the rink somehow got on the list without her authorization, how did it stay there? Didn’t she proofread the whole thing a few times before it was released?” the paper-of-record’s taxpayer-focused columnist mused.⁴

***

Council will continue to meet and work this week before Friday’s big General Issues Committee meeting where they will first have an opportunity to debate amendments to the mayor’s budget. The agenda isn’t complete yet, but they have, so far, 31 pieces of written correspondence, the majority of which are pleas to not “defund” the Stoney Creek Arena. As per the mayor’s note last week, that particular proposed cost savings is off the agenda.

But that doesn’t matter at this point. The issues are too great to be fixed by saving ice time at one arena.

During their initial meeting, councillors complained about a lack of collaboration and communication. Councillors from all ideological backgrounds and all corners of the city had similar critiques. They were surprised by aspects of the budget when, in reality, they should have had a hand in finding savings and identifying where investment was needed the most.

Councillors raised the idea that, last year, the mayor was opposed to a hard ceiling on tax increases while, this year, the conversation was guided by an arbitrary number. Some councillors said the “out-of-thin-air” 4.25 percent tax increase cap means a lower quality of service for residents even though taxes are still going up (best exemplified by the proposed HPL cuts). Others said that 4.25 percent was still too high and that deeper cuts were needed (though not when it came to community resources in their wards, of course).

But, worst of all was the comment by the mayor last week that she “found out at the same time as everybody else…” about some of the cuts. She later clarified to the Spec that “she ‘absolutely’ looked at the budget prior to it being released to the public”, but that isn’t the point anymore.⁵

The erroneous reports of the end of Wild Waterworks, the quick turnaround on the Stoney Creek Arena cuts, the underfunding of the HPL…each of those points signals one thing very clearly.

Mayor Andrea Horwath has lost control.

This October, Horwath will be in a fight for her political life. With council in out-and-out rebellion against her leadership with just three months to go until registrations open for the municipal election, that fight just got a lot harder.

If council successfully reworks her budget into their budget, then she’ll be walking into this campaign without any allies, without any notable wins, and with very serious lingering questions about her leadership abilities.

Council may have just handed the mayoral election to somebody else.

Heating up in the deep freeze

Photo by Fridi Antrack on Unsplash - Edited by author

The 2026 municipal election here in Hamilton will happen on Monday, October 26th, 2026.

There’s something about the symmetry of that date that makes my brain happy. Lots of “O’s”, all those “2’s”, and the soft repeat of the “26”? Niceeeeeee. It’s like poetry.

No armchair diagnoses, please.

Similarly, the idea of October weather makes my brain happy when placed in contrast to the misery that is our current frigid state. Sure, I’m a summer boy, but I’d take a crisp October day over this polar nonsense any day.

But October 26th is just the end of the campaign. There’s a lot to get through beforehand.

***

Candidates can officially begin registering on Friday, May 1, 2026 and have until 2:00 PM on Friday, August 21, 2026 to submit their paperwork. That Friday in May is the “official” start to the campaign, but candidates have to get ready well before then. Real, competitive campaigns recognize the need to get the machinery in place ahead of time. Campaigns need to ensure their candidate can canvass their community multiple times before the vote, attend as many events as possible, and do the hard work of informing voters about the basics of local government if they even have a shot at winning. All that means a viable campaign (which make up about 15-to-25% of campaigns) needs to get organized long before the doors to City Hall open on that first Friday in May. Exceptions can be made for candidates with unparalleled name recognition (see: the current mayor), but, for most council candidates, it’s a marathon, not a sprint.

With previous municipal elections, we could easily tell when the campaign unofficially started. The 2010 campaign started on June 30, 2008 with Spec columnist Andrew Dreschel’s piece “Eisenberger’s night of the long knives”, chronicling the former mayor’s inability to lead council at the midpoint of his first term. After that, prospective candidates realized just how vulnerable Eisenberger was and began positioning themselves as contenders.¹ The mayoral race sometimes sets the pace for the entire campaign, allowing eager council candidates the unspoken “permission” to kick things off, albeit quietly.

For the 2014 election, it was another Dreschel column that kicked things off. On the front page of the August 26, 2013 edition of the Spec, Dreschel informed the community that Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie had begun forming his own version of an “exploratory committee” to gauge support for a mayoral campaign.² McHattie indicating an interest in the mayor’s chair meant that the council campaign in Ward 1 could unofficially begin, as could other contests around the city. Matthew Green made his announcement that October and the pace of council candidate announcements snowballed from there.³

In recent years, the campaigns have started with more of a whimper. The 2018 campaign wasn’t a barnburner by any stretch of the imagination, even with new council wards and some high-profile departures of those council members seeking higher office.

The top candidates in 2022 didn’t make any definitive announcements until well into that year. Even though Keanin Loomis was the subject of some “speculation” in February of 2021, he waited until January of 2022 to make anything official.⁴ Mayor Horwath waited until late July - just weeks before the cutoff for nominations - to register, long after many of her supporters had begun to back or, at the very least, consider voting for Loomis, whose campaign had a solid 8 month head start on the former NDP leader’s bid.

This time, she wasn’t leaving anything to chance and came out with her intention to seek a second term way back in July of 2025. Granted, she only did so because Joey Coleman prompted her on the matter, but she could have equivocated if she was on the fence in any way.

***

Sure, a handful of right-wing populist personalities in the community made their council ambitions known back in June of 2025 and a smattering of fringe candidates have made “announcements”, but there hasn’t really been a groundswell of support for anyone in any direction.

All that’s not for a lack of trying, though. The city’s developer-backed right-wing political machine has been doing their damnedest to make this a “change” election. They’ve been working hard to synchronize their messaging, whip up as much anger as they can muster, and blame every problem in Hamilton - the state of the roads, the slowing pace of development, the fact that homelessness exists, the coming recession, your own general sense of midwinter ennui - on this current term of council. If it’s good, thank the political right. If it’s bad, blame The Ladies and The Gays (Plus Craig)™. It’s a simple strategy.

Like all right-wing populists, they’re hellbent and determined to unleash their dragons, conveniently ignoring the fact that they have absolutely no ability to train them once they’re loose.

Ultimately, though, they’re in a pretty good spot, campaign-wise. They have the money, they have the determination, and they have the connections necessary to run strong campaigns without the need to do the same legwork as candidates with centre/centre-left/progressive/urbanist/generally-not-rage-based values.

It helps that the local paper of record, the Spec, has one dedicated municipal columnist who clearly and regularly articulates their messaging to a wider audience.

***

Scott Radley’s commentary, which is often published right on the front page of the paper, directly supports the message of Hamilton’s right-wing populists, feeding into the narrative that this October’s election will be nothing short of a “taxpayers revolt”.

“Hundreds of new employees have been added to the municipal payroll,” he wrote in another front-page editorial this past Thursday. “Huge amounts have been added to the operating budget. Plenty more has been tacked on to the capital budget, too. Which has all led to what will be a 21.5 per cent hike in property taxes in one term.” Oh, the humanity!

More than just echoing the populist playbook on taxes, Radley hints that someone is lurking out there, ready to take on Horwath and the “tax and spend” council of 2022-2026.

“If some candidate running against [Horwath] says he or she can return to the days before this term of council when increases generally fell into the two per cent and a bit range - and can show a credible path to that result - will that person find favour with the electorate? That’s to be determined. Though here’s betting someone will give it a shot.”⁵

Sure seems like the columnist knows something’s brewing.

***

Just two weeks ago, Radley published another piece - this one on A4 of the Friday, January 9 edition of the Spec and a companion piece to Radley’s podcast, “Placeline Hamilton” - on new Ward 8 councillor Rob Cooper’s first few months on the job. In the article, Cooper openly muses about running for mayor because, as the councillor says, he wants control over the budget process. “There’s only one person who’s really going to decide what the budget is…that’s the mayor,” Cooper told Radley.⁶

Cooper, an ideologically-driven conservative with extensive connections to the local press, later told the CBC that, if his experience with the tax budget mirrors the experience he had with the water budget (namely being mostly left out while the mayor directs the conversation and city staff prepare the numbers), “it’s not going to work for me.” He then walks right up to the line, saying “If you want to make seismic change in a community like Hamilton, there's only one way to do it - through being the mayor.”⁷

The comments are as notable as how the CBC changed their graphic after the story was published; when the article came out at 4:00 AM, Cooper’s photo was beside Loomis’s above the story. By mid-afternoon, Loomis’s photo had been dropped, leaving just Horwath and Cooper as the mayoral contenders with photos on the story.

***

For his part, Loomis told the CBC that he would “have more to say about [the election] in the coming weeks.” 

But Cooper appears to have preempted things and is quickly stealing what little spotlight there is in the city. That makes sense, considering Loomis spent the better part of the past four years as the assumed front-runner to take on Horwath while Cooper was, up until a few months ago, a little-known backroom Conservative Party operative who narrowly made it onto council with just 19.4% support from voters in Ward 8. He has to do a little more work to get his name out there than Loomis, who has kept a high and positive profile since his campaign in 2022.

A possible ace up Cooper’s sleeve is the fact that he has a long history with this city’s Conservative/Progressive Conservative establishment. McMaster University political scientist Peter Graefe told the Spec following Cooper’s win that he “likely had an advantage due to his long history with the Tories and benefited from the party’s databases - in addition to his networking skill as a former riding association president.”⁸ That kind of connection can come in handy, especially as the city’s ever-shrinking electorate drifts more and more to the right.

With Radley writing endlessly about “bonkers” tax increases, a coalition of right-wing populists running for council seats across the city repeating lines about the need to “reign in spending”, connections to Hamilton’s three PC MPPs and two Conservative MPs, and access to a vast network of well-funded, deeply-entrenched, and highly-organized right-wing operatives in Hamilton, Cooper might just make a meal of the mayoral election.

Other factors might work in his favour as well. Progressives continue to sour on Horwath’s administration and Loomis is dragging out any announcement about his intentions (which leaves him little runway to make a strong bid and makes it harder for anyone else not in the Horwath or Cooper camps to start organizing if he doesn’t run). Populists, as the theory goes, thrive in a void.

***

Complicating things for the city’s right-wing machine is the fact that, in that same CBC article from Saira Peesker in which Cooper strongly suggested he wants to be mayor, the majority of sitting council members said they are going to run for re-election. Nearly all of the centre-right/right-wing populist bloc on council have declared their intentions to stand again, save for Tom Jackson in Ward 6 and Ted McMeekin in Ward 15. Neither of those two said definitively that they won’t be running, with Jackson unavailable for comment before the story (it would be a genuine surprise if the 11-term incumbent didn’t run again) and McMeekin saying he’ll spend the summer thinking things over with his family and team (it would be a genuine surprise if the one-term councillor who has spent five decades in politics and has made an indelible mark on Hamilton did run again).

Incumbents have an incredible advantage when it comes to municipal elections. Across Ontario, over 80% of incumbents were successful in their re-election bids during the 2022 municipal elections, up from 76.5% in 2018. In Hamilton, the average number of incumbents who lose their seat in any given election (based on data from 1960 to 2022) is approximately 2 and, in many of those cases, it’s the mayor who loses re-election. From Lloyd Jackson to Andrea Horwath, Hamilton has had 11 mayors (including Vince Agro’s year as acting mayor after Vic Copps’s heart attack). Of them, seven have been defeated in their re-election bids.

In five of Hamilton’s elections from 1960 to 2022, no incumbents were defeated and, in seven of them, three or more incumbents lost their seats (with 2022 being one of those elections). That means that Hamilton runs about average in Ontario for incumbent success rates, which are still extremely high. Once a candidate wins their first election, it can be very difficult to replace them unless they go willingly.

Around six council members are reliably opposed to the right-wing populist playbook and a few more (like Ward 9’s Brad Clark) represent a more mainstream, “classical” conservatism. There are no guarantees in municipal politics, but the right would have a hell of a time defeating even a couple of those council members, assuming all follow through with their bids for re-election. And, the more work the right puts into winning those council races, the fewer resources there are for Cooper and his mayoral bid. Alternatively, the city’s right-wing establishment could simply focus on Cooper’s campaign for mayor and try to hold the plurality they have on council, optimistic that they can, when the time is right, entice the requisite number of council members to their side for budget votes to prevent the need for an unsavoury mayoral veto.

All this is to say that the city’s right-wing establishment has a few options available for them. That, of course, ignores the inevitable infighting that happens when a group of politically-engaged Hamiltonians get together and assumes that another right-leaning candidate like Chad Collins or Vito Sgro or Peter Dyakowski doesn’t enter the race. But given Collins’s poor polling, Sgro’s past electoral results, and Dyakowski’s lack of seriousness about the race (his chilling call to take “your city back” aside), it sure seems like Cooper will be the conservative choice for mayor.

***

There are still a great many “unknowns” as the election heats up. Will Doug Ford throw another grenade into municipal affairs just before the election? Will his government abolish the office of school trustee, leaving 22 local elected officials in search of other opportunities? Are there other high profile mayoral candidates out there just waiting for the perfect time to announce their entry into the race?

Then there’s the great mystery of who might run for council and (if the seats still exist come election time) trustee. If Cooper makes a mayoral move, does that mean Terry Whitehead will be back for another kick at the can? Will the troika of right-wing populists who mused about council runs against perceived progressives last year be joined by other fellow travellers? What about the city’s non-establishment, pro-Palestine left? How about the conspiracy theorists and culture warriors who made bids for trustee and council and the mayor’s chair last time? Who will take up the mantle and become this generation’s Brother Baldasaro!?

There are 98 days until nominations open for the 2026 municipal election. In that time, the sun will begin to poke out more and more, the snow will melt away, and the world will, once again, come alive.

The municipal campaign might seem like it’s hibernating, but it’s beginning to rouse from its slumber. The deep freeze may be keeping it subdued, but it’ll come alive before you know it. Best be ready when it does.

A sea of change

Photo by visualsoflukas on Unsplash - edited by author

Depending on who you asked, David Lewis was either a brilliant new force in Canadian politics or little more than an “angry…shrewd, even cunning political animal.”¹

By 1944, Lewis had lived a thoroughly exciting life. Born to a passionately political family in a poor Jewish shtetl in today’s Belarus, his family fled the Russian Civil War after his father’s Bundist politics (the Jewish Labour Bund being a secular, social democratic, autonomist political party in pre-revolutionary Russia) brought him into conflict with the Bolsheviks. They came to Canada, trading the last name “Losz” for the Anglicized “Lewis”, and ended up where many Jewish emigres from the region did - Montreal. There, the young David excelled in school, was accepted into McGill, and began his own political activism. From there, Lewis earned a Rhodes scholarship and moved to Oxford where he linked up with Labour Party organizers, got into fistfights with fascists, and ruffled the stiff, uptight feathers of the British elite who balked at his radicalism and oratorical skill. Despite an offer to be parachuted into a safe Labour seat with a guarantee to be elected to the British House of Commons in the UK’s 1935 general election (Canadians were, at the time, only British subjects and had the right to run for parliament here or in the “home country”), as well as a partnership at a prestigious London law firm, Lewis opted to return home to Canada. A more appealing challenge had been offered by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), J.S. Woodsworth, who implored him to bring his skills back to help the fledgling party.

Upon his return to Canada, Lewis took a job with an Ottawa-area law firm, balancing his legal practice with his work for the CCF. That proved to be too much and, in 1938, he left the firm to become the CCF’s full-time National Secretary.

An incredible political tactician, Lewis worked to soften some of the party’s rougher edges and make it more appealing to a broad array of Canadians. This brought him into conflict with those of a more radical bent, many of whom would leave to join the Communists and pledge to oppose Lewis in all his efforts.

At the same time, he worked with one of his friends from McGill, the political theorist Frank Scott, on Make This Your Canada, a comprehensive book outlining the CCF’s economic and political theories. By 1940, it was Lewis’s turn to jump into electoral politics in his own right. He was appointed the party’s candidate in York West, a thin strip of a riding encompassing what are today the western suburbs of Toronto. In that year’s federal election, he earned just 13% of the vote.

Three years later, he was named the party’s star candidate in the Montreal-area by-election for the riding of Cartier. A riding with a large working class, Jewish population, the CCF believed this could be the party’s chance to win its first seat in Quebec. The Conservatives opted to skip this by-election, knowing that the scene would be uncharacteristically messy. The Liberals, who were defending the seat, nominated a local war hero and lawyer. The nationalist Bloc Populaire nominated a candidate who sought to capitalize on the Quebecois anger over conscription, as well as a growing sense of Francophone pride in the province.

But the biggest threat came from the Communists, who nominated Fred Rose. Rose was an activist who, like Lewis, immigrated from what would eventually become the Soviet Union as a child. The Lewis and Rose families lived in the same poor Montreal neighbourhood and both their political sons were so close in age that Rose was just one year above Lewis at Baron Byng High School (which would later become a scene in many of the books written by another one of its notable alums, Mordechai Richler). But the paths of Lewis and Rose diverged after their high school days; the latter landed himself in jail for his campaigns against Montreal’s capitalists and the hard right Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis while the former was cloistered within the walls of McGill and Oxford.

The campaign was brutal. The Communists called Lewis a “fascist” and a political opportunist. The Liberals not-so-subtly informed voters they would rather have a Communist in the House than a CCFer. The Bloc locked down the Francophone vote, fanning the flames of nationalism at a time when that ideology had set half the world ablaze. In the end, Rose won by just 150 votes over the Bloc, becoming the first and only Communist elected to the House of Commons. Lewis placed a distant fourth.

Demoralized, Lewis knew he would need to recalibrate and find a place more sympathetic to his brand of social democracy. A place where labour candidates had found success and held positions of power. A place where the growing union movement was beginning to transform the working landscape.

He found just such a place, 600 kilometres to the southwest.

***

In July of 1944, Lewis made a surprise announcement. Instead of running in Toronto or Montreal, he would make a bid for the vulnerable seat of Hamilton West.

The riding was, for nearly all of its history, a Conservative stronghold. From 1908 to 1940, the Hamilton West Tory machine had the seat on lockdown. But, in 1940, the party’s candidate, former alderman John Marsh, was defeated by his Liberal opponent, Colin Gibson of the city’s legendary Gibson family. Prime Minister King, recognizing how much of coup Gibson’s victory was, promptly named him Minister of National Revenue.

Lewis figured that, in a battle between the Liberals and Conservatives, there was a chance the CCF could sneak up the middle and pull off a surprise victory. Encompassing everything in city limits west of Wellington Street, the riding had pockets that may have provided natural voters for each party; wealthy enclaves for the Tories, upwardly mobile middle class families for King’s Liberals, and close-knit working class communities for the CCF.

On Monday, July 17, 1944, the Hamilton West CCF Association held their nomination meeting at the Royal Connaught. In the running were Lewis, perennial candidate William Jack, and faithful party member Frank Malloy. Lewis won the nomination easily. He told the gathered members that the race in Hamilton West “will be a contest between the forces of progress and the common people, represented by the CCF, and the forces of reaction and monopoly, represented by the old parties.”² For the election, Lewis listed the East Avenue home of his Hamilton East colleague’s financial agent as his address.

From the moment he announced his candidacy, local forces organized to oppose him. The Spec, then owned by the deeply conservative Southam Company, took the lead, burying what few articles they wrote on him deep in the less-viewed pages of the paper and snidely commenting on, of all things, the size of his rallies. Of a pre-election meeting in 1945, the paper glibly remarked that it was “a small one attended by about 50 persons.”³

The election shaped up to be a spirited battle. Gibson and Lewis were joined on the hustings by Progressive Conservative candidate Chester New, who was then the head of McMaster’s history department, and Dr. Sam Sniderman of the Communists (political observers were quick to note that Lewis, once again, had a Jewish opponent running to his left, though Sniderman was a deeply engaged member of the community who had just returned from serving as a Captain in the army. Sniderman - unrelated to the Sam Sniderman of “Sam the Record Man” fame - would die suddenly three years later after a short illness).

When it came time for candidate profiles in the Spec, Gibson and New received lengthy write-ups, noting their many accomplishments, their admirable families, their contributions to the community, and, interestingly, their athletic prowess. Gibson’s award-winning marksmanship and New’s success in aquatics, curling, and general collegiate sports were highlighted. In contrast, Lewis earned two perfunctory paragraphs, noting his time at McGill and Oxford, his full-time work for the CCF, and his failed bid for office in Cartier. Despite not being religious, his profile was ended with the line: “He is of the Hebrew faith.”⁴

Lewis, when the local media deemed it appropriate to even mention him, was treated as an outsider. His policies were maligned and his organization was disparaged. It is no wonder, then, that on election day, he placed third with 23.6% of the vote. In their election recap, the Spec echoed the sentiments of the riding’s winner, Gibson, running stories about the local results under the bolded headline: Interprets Federal Vote as Rejection of Socialism. Lewis was blunt with the Spec, telling the paper that the CCF campaign in Hamilton suffered because of how the political elites locally and nationally attacked the party and gave “the people what, in our opinion, is a wrong understanding and distorted view of CCF policies and intentions.”⁵

He returned to Hamilton for the city’s “burning year”, 1946. At a rally in support of striking Stelco workers at Woodlands Park on August 27, Lewis told a crowd of 6,000 that the federal government’s use of the RCMP during the strike may inspire a Canada-wide general strike, that Stelco management was in violation of federal laws, and that Controller Nora Francis Henderson’s account of mayhem in the city was dangerously hyperbolic. Using phrasing that was decidedly of-its-time, Lewis said of Henderson: “There is nothing worse than a hysterical woman in politics, but there is nothing as impossible as when a Tory woman in politics becomes hysterical!”⁶ Lewis’s phrasing was poor and, by today’s standards, could be interpreted as sexist, but his contention was that Henderson was mischaracterizing striking workers when she said they were a disorderly mob that made Hamilton unsafe for all.

The next year, federal riding boundaries were redrawn. The unwieldy riding of Wentworth, which once encompassed all of today’s City of Hamilton aside from the lower city between Paradise Road in the west and Ottawa Street in the east, was split in two. Much of rural Wentworth was appended to Brant County, leaving a much smaller, more urban riding of Wentworth in its wake. This riding included the working-class east end between Ottawa Street and the Red Hill Valley, the growing working-to-middle class suburbs on the mountain, and the towns of Dundas and Stoney Creek.

It was in this riding that Lewis next tried his hand at electoral politics. He deftly defeated his fellow CCF candidate from 1945, Hamilton East’s Roy Aidow, for the nomination. Lewis - described by the Spec after his nomination as “short, dark David Lewis” - was bullish in his nomination speech, promising to win the riding of Wentworth and help the CCF form government at the federal level. Alderman Bill Warrender, one of the most right-wing members in Hamilton city council’s history, wrote to the Spec to attack Lewis’s candidacy, noting again that “Mr. David Lewis doesn’t even live in the city,” and that “it is obvious, therefore, to anyone that the National Socialist machine is at work and that the ‘big guns’ find that Hamilton is a soft spot for the spreading of their propaganda,” purposefully mischaracterizing the CCF as the same fascist menace that had been defeated only a few years prior.⁷ As malicious as Warrender’s letter was, there was a kernel of truth to it; Lewis was still based in Ottawa and used the home of CCF MPP Joe Easton as his address for the campaign.

During a pre-election meeting in 1949, Lewis told a crowd of party supporters that “the CCF will sweep Hamilton” in the election and that, in the riding of Wentworth, “the contest is clearly, and only, between the Conservatives and the CCF,” mentioning rumours that the Liberals had considered not running a candidate out of fear that the vote would split in favour of Lewis. Lewis’s comments were optimistic at best; the CCF had slipped in the polls from a high of 21% in October of 1948 to just 16% by the time he gave his speech. Typical of the Southam-owned Spec, the article was buried on page 8 between an article about the US Army Band playing at Gage Park and concerns over “striking seaman” at the docks (meaning labour strife, just to clarify).⁸

The placement of the Spec’s column was apt, then, when they ran a candidate profile of him a few days before the election. “The gap between the background of David Lewis,” they wrote, “and that of the majority of the people in the Wentworth constituency…is as wide as the seas.” This time, the paper really leaned into it, informing readers that the family “changed their name to Lewis” and that the candidate “had spoken no English until he was twelve years old”. All the more “remarkable”, the paper opined, that he had made it to McGill and Oxford, then. “Mr. Lewis, age 38, is an intellectual of the first order [and] a political careerist,” they wrote, before saying that his victory would “be a tough assignment for any candidate under the best of circumstances, but the difficulties of an outsider with limited contacts and scant acquaintanceship with the voters of a constituency are formidable.” Indeed, Lewis’s Communist opponent received a more positive review from the Spec, though that may have been due to his being Stanley Ryerson, the great-grandson of Egerton Ryerson himself.⁹

Lewis improved on his result from 1945, but still failed to capture the seat, earning 27% of the vote. It would be 13 more years before he was elected to parliament.

After Tommy Douglas stepped down as leader of the brand new NDP, Lewis took his place and, amidst a Liberal minority government, was able to extract important concessions from Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, including the creation of Petro Canada. But, as is often the case for the NDP in minority parliaments, their work ended up making the government look good at their own expense, and the party limped into the 1974 election facing down a wave of Trudeaumania.

The Spec, once Lewis’s most ardent opponent, took a more nuanced view of his campaign in ‘74. The paper’s editorial team rehashed what their predecessors had said of Lewis, but quietly acknowledged where they were wrong. Instead, they considered what Lewis had done for Canada during his time in politics, concluding that “even those who disagree most violently with his party’s platform will have to agree that in their present leader, the New Democrats have a superb political organizer, an articulate spokesman and a man who does what he feels right no matter how enormous the odds.”¹⁰  

On election night, Lewis lost his seat, as did 15 of his caucus members. Not a single New Democrat was elected to represent Hamilton in that election. Lewis stepped down and spent his last years writing and teaching in Ottawa.

When David Lewis ran for office in Hamilton, the local political machinery labelled him an outsider, an opportunist, and a radical. They hinted at (and, sometimes, outright pointed to) his background in negative ways. They mislabeled his politics, mocked his pursuits, and did their best to ostracize him.

What hits closest to home for me, though, is how he was branded “an intellectual of the first order [and] a political careerist.” This, as the Spec implied, meant he had no business even being in a working class city. Lewis’s skills and talents and passion were weaponized against him, used to say, outright, that he didn’t belong.

In many ways, today’s political strategies haven’t changed much from 1949. Hamilton’s political elites and their wealthy friends fixate on who “belongs” in this city and the political conversations we have here. It’s an easy tool used by shallow actors, creating tiny little groups of acceptability. Step outside those groups, or raise your voice too loud, and you’re labeled an “outsider”. Former councillor Terry Whitehead said as much in 2022 when he told the Spec’s Scott Radley that anyone with left-leaning critiques of the previous council were “barbarians at the gates”.¹¹

The opinions of certain councillors can be dismissed because they’re too “woke” (read: gay and progressive). The motivations of some councillors are called into question because they’re too “loud” and “out-of-touch” (read: women who have the courage to speak up). The perspectives of some members of council and trustees and MPPs and MPs and candidates don’t matter because they have an “agenda” and are “activists” (read: they’re People of Colour or Jewish or Muslim or queer or disabled or too young or too old or New Democrats or Greens or left-leaning Liberals or they just didn’t kiss the rings of the people who hold the real power in this city - the developers and the publishers and the backroom political operatives and the old boys who linger in local coffee shops, hungry to relive their glory days - with enough reverence and awe).

I’ve always admired David Lewis for standing up to the entrenched political elites in Hamilton during some of our city’s most formative years. His work here, and across Canada, helped transform this country. He had missteps and made mistakes, but he was, as the Spec wrote in 1974, a leader who did what he felt was “right no matter how enormous the odds.” That’s a quality sorely lacking amongst some in positions of leadership today, much to our collective disadvantage.

Now, 81 years after David Lewis presented himself as a candidate to the voters of Hamilton West, another Lewis is on the ballot for your consideration.

I’ve been rather up front about my history with the New Democratic Party. After the last federal election, I published a lengthy personal history, chronicling my journey from bright-eyed young idealist in 2008 to demoralized and jaded rebel by 2021.

That post came long before the official kick-off of the leadership race right after Labour Day last year. Indeed, from the time I posted, it was two months before any candidate even declared their intention to run to replace Jagmeet Singh.

In that time, five serious candidates have emerged: President of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Rob Ashton, Campbell River city councillor Tanille Johnston, Edmonton Strathcona MP Heather McPherson, farmer and past school trustee Tony McQuail, and past NDP candidate and journalist Avi Lewis - David Lewis’s grandson.

Two others - Montreal-based fringe agitator Yves Engler and his wife, Bianca Mugyenyi - have attempted to run. Engler’s candidacy was rejected by the party because of his history of, as the CBC noted, “engaging in Rwandan genocide denialism, echoing Russian propaganda about the war in Ukraine and making comments ‘consistent with anti-Semitic attitudes’.”¹² Mugyenyi’s candidacy application is under review.

The CBC’s senior Parliamentary Correspondent, David Thurton, has assessed that Ashton, Lewis, and McPherson are presently in a three-way tie for first place and, in the absence of any real polling, it’s hard to disagree with that claim. Ashton is bringing heavy labour support, Lewis is out-fundraising his opponents, and McPherson is collecting plenty of endorsements from party insiders. But Thurton also remarks that “While the NDP leadership campaign has the makings of a compelling political news story, for those outside the party, it's hard to tell.”¹³

You’d think more Canadians would be paying attention, considering the alternatives. The Conservatives are happily continuing their process of MAGAfication, best exemplified recently by a local-area MP’s social media habits. Long-time Tory MP Dean Alison of Hamilton’s neighbouring riding of Niagara West took to X - a platform he uses obsessively and where his pinned tweet is still a screenshot of a note he wrote on his phone blaming “DEI extremists” for trying to destroy the “Western way of life” - to spread misinformation about Mark Carney banning X and “trying to take your rights away because [he doesn’t] think you deserve them.”

In contrast, the Liberals have offered almost no substantive opposition to this most recent dramatic escalation of American aggression, even as our sovereign neighbours prepare for a direct invasion and 31% of Canadians indicate they are sure the United States will soon try to invade our country. Long gone are the days of Defence Scheme No. 1 and, instead, Canadians wait quietly, searching “when should I start a militia” and “I’m not right wing but are guns okay and where do I find them” on the Internet, all while our government issues well-meaning statement after well-meaning statement.

Indeed, as the people of Greenland prepare for a full-scale American military attack - an attack that may drag Europe and the United States into an all-out war - the current government has been eerily silent, so much so that the Walrus published a piece yesterday entitled “Greenland Is on the Brink. Canada Is Nowhere in Sight.”

It sure seems like those elbows fell pretty quickly after the election.

***

Not for not, but if the response to the idea that urban residents feel less safe in cities despite falling crime stats is to try and make them feel more safe, then should it not also be the policy of the Canadian government to try and make Canadians feel more safe as we face this existential threat from a hostile foreign power? MP John-Paul Danko, who built a career as a municipal politician whipping the community into a lather about encampments and crime and public safety at the local level, has spent his time in the House of Commons continuing on with his “crime in cities is out of control disorder is everywhere society is falling apart” rhetoric while only mentioning the actual, real threat south of the border to score political points against opposition members.

On that point…Hansard is a great way to keep tabs on what our local MPs are doing up in Ottawa. One of the few times that Danko has actually mentioned the Americans was on December 10 of last year. During a debate in the House, Danko responded to comments from Michelle Rempel Garner, a Conservative MP from Calgary, who was calling for a tightening of Canada’s immigration system. In his response, Danko calls Rempel Garner “straight-up racist”, accuses her of using “MAGA-theory talking points”, and calls her “the member from Oklahoma”, referencing the fact that she spends much of her time in that state with her American horse therapist husband. Rempel Garner then says that Danko “will be voting in favour” of the amendments to the immigration system she proposed, which doesn’t make any sense, but I’m sure sounded like a sick burn to her. A Bloc member chastises both of them for bickering, leading Rempel Garner to fire back that she was just responding to “that incomprehensible tirade from a backbench Liberal member whom I just dunked on”, referencing Danko.

Unparalleled professionalism all around. Great work everyone. I feel our democracy getting stronger with every word.

I digress, but only slightly.

***

The fact that Canadians aren’t paying attention to the NDP leadership race is concerning. A leadership race is a time for a political party to define itself, fundraise to ensure the new leader can hit the ground running, and figure out how it can present itself to the electorate. The hope is that, as the Liberals and Tories carry on with their usual games, a sizable number of Canadians would want to participate in building a viable and principled progressive party that can inspire people and strengthen our fragile democracy.

That being said, it does look like the NDP leadership race might be heating up as we approach the January 28 deadline to sign up as a member and be eligible to vote for the next leader. Over the past few days, Lewis has picked up the backing of David Suzuki and MP Leah Gazan while MacPherson scored Charlie Angus’s endorsement. At the same time, the Ashton campaign is suffering after the passionately anti-AI candidate was found to have used AI to answer questions during his recent reddit “ask me anything” event.

Back to where I started with all this, I haven’t been particularly involved with the New Democrats over the past few years. That changed when Avi Lewis announced his leadership campaign. After reading through his ambitious platform, I was inspired to re-up my membership to support his candidacy. As the leadership campaign has progressed, I have been consistently impressed with his ideas, organizers, and passion.

That’s why I am happily casting my ballot for Avi Lewis for leader of Canada’s New Democrats.

I know a great many of you, dear readers, will have different perspectives. I have many readers who are Greens and Liberals, many who are New Democrats backing other candidates, and many who are not formally aligned politically. And that’s perfectly okay. In a healthy and vibrant democracy, we can and should be allowed to have spirited debates about our perspectives and share who we are supporting in any given election without fear of having our subsequent or previous thoughts and actions being permanently dismissed.

I’m supporting Lewis because he will fight for a truly mixed, diversified, and robust economy that doesn’t leave regular people behind. His ideas are bold - the exact kind of bold thinking we need in this moment to counter the unrestrained rage, fear, and anger coming from the political right. Lewis’s plan calls for building one million social, co-op, non-profit, and supportive homes, bolstering our public health care system, making meaningful progress on the climate crisis, and providing real public alternatives that challenge the power of corporate monopolies in Canada.

But I admire the passion and ideas from the other candidates as well. In fact, Tony McQuail’s passionate calls for the New Democrats and Greens to work closely together echo what I have been saying for many years. MacPherson has been a strong voice in parliament, Johnston is a fresh new voice, and Ashton brings an important connection to organized labour. Each candidate offers something unique that has the potential to turn the page in a positive direction for the NDP and for the country.

Every Canadian (in Ontario, anyone 13 and up) can join the NDP to vote for the party’s next leader. Even if you aren’t willing to become a member, I’d encourage you to follow along with the party’s leadership race and see if the values of any of the candidates in the race align with yours.

***

Before he came to Hamilton to run for office, David Lewis published Make This Your Canada. In it, he wrote that, in the post-war period, Canadians were offered a unique opportunity. “Democracy must expand and become again creative. It must move forward, unafraid, to the next logical and progressive stage in the evolution of human organization…Unless we advance to the co-operative commonwealth, we may be forced back into the fascist darkness. We have our chance now in Canada. Let us arise and take it.”¹⁴

Avi’s campaign has that same spirit. And, in a moment when the fascist darkness is swirling around us, that kind of spirit is more important than ever.

Crime Story

Photo by Scott Rodgerson on Unsplash - Edited by author.

Crime is out of control.

Driven by an increase in social disorder, some crime stats show a shocking jump from previous years, and Hamiltonians are feeling unsafe in their own community. That feeling hasn’t been helped by the fact that, thanks to some tense interactions before the last election, the Hamilton Police began stocking up on new, more intense weaponry. Residents across the city have a deep sense of unease and distrust.

In response, the Hamilton Police budget has ballooned. An exasperated Chief of Police keeps repeating that the force simply can’t hire enough officers to make residents feel safe. Some truly upsetting crime trends, like sexual offenses involving children, have been climbing. And some large-scale police operations - dramatic, frightening, and involving illegal guns - have just added to a perception that the city is increasingly lawless.

With an election coming up, the mayor makes a dramatic call for a community-wide meeting on crime, hoping it will signal to Hamiltonians that their municipal government is working overtime to make them feel safe and secure in their community. With any luck, that conference and the boost to police funding will have a noticeable impact before the municipal election, where concerns about spending, municipal dysfunction, and public health may take a back seat to fears of a crime wave crashing over Hamilton.

But the mayor is confident that a soft-on-crime label won’t stick. Known across the city, for better or for worse, the mayor always knows how to turn an election around. It’s been done it plenty of times before and any feeling in the community about a crime wave - real or imagined - can’t stop the mayor’s mighty electoral machine, especially as possible opponents waffle on the prospect of entering the race.

Hamiltonians may have thoughts on crime, but it’s unclear that will impact the mayor’s chances.

The mayor, with the confidence that so many have come to expect, isn’t giving up without a fight.

He is Vic Copps, after all.

***

Amidst the jubilation of the Centennial year - 1967 - Hamiltonians flew into a panic over the city’s crime rate.

Statistics released that summer showed that crime had jumped in the city by 11.4%, mirroring a province-wide trend. Crimes associated with social disorder were leading the spike. The Hamilton Police reported increases of 333% for charges of prostitution, 167% for illegal gambling, and 123% for “general wounding”. There were 796 more petty thefts in 1966 than in 1965, 418 more break and enters, and the same number more assaults. Particularly upsetting was the 110% increase in charges laid relating to sexual assaults, with a notable spike in the number involving minors.

The Deputy Chief, Gerald Reed, told the Spec that “the increase in crime here is consistent with that across the North American continent.”¹ But it would not have been a stretch for any aspiring magistrate to pin the blame on Victor Copps, Hamilton’s dynamic mayor since 1962.

Police Chief Leonard Lawrence was quick to provide some context, though. The increase in crime, he told the Spec, had been attributed to new reporting methods and a boost in funding to the Vice Squad. Particularly as it related to the increases in charges relating to gambling and sex work, Lawrence said “because of aggressive work by our Vice Squad…we have made more arrests and have concentrated in these areas, therefore the number of occurrences show an increase.” But he also took the opportunity to call for more funding and more officers, bemoaning the fact that the force was “18 men below strength last year [1966].”²

Lawrence’s attempts at calming the population were likely thrown off by a daring raid carried out by the Hamilton Police, in conjunction with other local police forces and the RCMP, in early September of 1967. After a multi-agency probe uncovered militant cells of anti-communist Yugoslavian forces operating in the area, the Hamilton Police conducted a massive operation, seizing 22 illegal guns and over 2,700 rounds of ammo from seven homes. The weapons were tied to a local right-wing, monarchist Orthodox priest, whom the Mounties feared might try to harm Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, visiting Montreal that month to see his country’s pavilion at Expo ‘67.³  

The bad news for Mayor Copps kept coming when, in December of that year, the Spec reported that the budget for the Hamilton Police kept increasing, reaching the then-unheard of sum of $4,586,390. The City’s Police Commission (a forerunner to the Police Services Board) accepted the budget as presented with no amendments, happy to provide Chief Lawrence with enough funds to hire 12 more officers (6 shy of the number he wanted).⁴

Committed to getting ahead of the story before the 1968 municipal election, Copps called for a “top-level conference” on crime. That eventually became a serious sit-down with Lawrence and the Police Commission. Heading into the election year, the reporting on crime became more nuanced. Lawrence told the Spec that statistics could be misleading, pointing to a 100% increase in sexual assaults from January of 1967 to January of 1968; the staggering figure was because the number jumped from 0 to 1. And other things that might indicate a crime wave could easily be explained. A jump in the number of fraud cases was because the Hamilton Police broke up a counterfeiting ring and a spike in car thefts was found to have been thanks to “the growing number of persons leaving their cars unlocked or with the keys in the ignition…especially in bad weather.”⁵

By the middle of the year, the tide had turned. The previous year’s 11.4% increase in crime had been whittled down to a scant 3.3%, driven mainly by more charges being laid by the Vice Squad, and those pesky car thefts that so bothered Hamilton’s motorists.⁶

With Hamiltonians at peace, crime was barely an issue in the 1968 election, despite the city’s opposition threatening to run at the mayor from the right. Indeed, one of Copps’ most vocal opponents opted to avoid the 1968 election entirely. Former Mountain council member Brian Morison - who ran an aggressive right-wing campaign against Copps in 1966 that took aim at the mayor for his failed run for the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party in ‘64 and included a Spec ad claiming Hamilton’s mothers were “afraid to use our parks” because of violent crime - quietly slipped into broadcasting, becoming CHML’s “local political analyst” for the municipal campaign.⁷

Crime was only mentioned occasionally, with mountain residents calling for more police patrols in their new, suburban neighbourhoods, and Communist Party-backed Board of Control candidate Harry Hunter saying that the police should not have funding for “chemical and other forms of crown control” equipment, referencing the force’s purchase of tear gas two years prior.⁸ Few candidates for public office thought it pertinent to discuss “fighting crime” in their campaigns; indeed, many would have found the idea an unsophisticated and unbecoming tactic for a respectable civic leader.

And with that, the crime panic of ‘67 fizzled out with a whimper.

The parallels between 1967 and 2026 are striking, to say the least.

An increasing police budget, concerns over gun violence, charges relating to social disorder creating a perception of an unsafe city, an increase in crimes against the most vulnerable, and a politically-savvy mayor keen to get ahead of the story before an upcoming municipal election.

But, as Marx so astutely observed in The18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: “come on, Hamiltonians, learn your damn history already.”

Or something like that.

***

There have been other “crime waves” in Hamilton’s history. In the depths of the Great Depression, a rash of petty thefts, safe crackings, and a few high-profile murders dominated headlines through 1935. The city’s new chief promised to come down hard on crime and, by year’s end, boasted an 80% conviction rate (leaving out the inconvenient fact that all those charged with murder were acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence).⁹  

A nine-month spree by the “Alley Arsonist” in downtown Hamilton that caused over $1 million in damages stoked fears of another crime wave in 1993, particularly as the recession dragged the city deeper and deeper into its post-industrial slump.¹⁰  

And an early 2000’s crime wave was deemed to have been stopped after the Hamilton Police Service (HPS) declared “war on crack cocaine”, which they claimed help prevent everything from break-ins to sexual assaults. “The whole drug culture is the engine that drives crime in the community,” the then-Deputy Chief told the Spec.¹¹

But, in each of those instances where our city was said to have sunk into the pits of depravity, the feeling that crime was on the rise seemed to be driving the conversation. In 1935, the “crime wave” was thanks to a few gangs of organized criminals robbing banks. It took a 40-person taskforce to figure out that the “Alley Arsonist” that terrorized Hamilton in ‘93 was actually just a bunch of bored teenagers setting fire to garbage cans. And, despite their claims that their “war on drugs” made Hamilton safer in 2004, statistics indicate that crime had actually been on a downward trajectory since even before the dawn of the new millennium, regardless of the HPS’s early ought’s fixation on crack.¹²  

The current moment shares a lot with those imagined “crime waves” as well.

On December 30, 2025, a “new” poll from Liaison dropped. “New” is in quotation marks as this poll is just more data from the same big “2026 municipal election” poll done by Liaison Strategies and the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada that I wrote about on November 10. They sure are getting a lot of mileage out of this one poll they did over the 22nd and 23rd of October last year.

Like the other data released from the poll, this block of info includes some responses from a statistically-notable number of Hamiltonians (800, to be exact).

When asked the question: “In general, would you say that crime in Canada as a whole has increased, stayed the same, or decreased over the past year?”, an overwhelming majority of Hamiltonians - 74% - answered “increased”. Across all age categories, respondents from Hamilton were under the impression that crime was on a steady upswing throughout 2025. When asked about crime in Hamilton specifically, over 70% of respondents believed that murder, assaults, robberies, break-and-enters, and fraud have all increased as well. A marginally smaller number of respondents - 68% and 67% respectively - said that car thefts and hate crimes had increased as well.

No matter how you cut it, over 2/3 of Hamiltonians think that crime is up up up.

One tiny problem: it isn’t.

The Spec was able to get full crime data from the HPS for 2025 which showed a marked decrease in nearly every category of crime. Auto thefts are down 36%, homicide is down 30%, break-and-enters are down 29.5%, robberies are down 21%, and assaults are down by a modest 2%. The only category where trends are consistently and troublingly increasing is when it comes to hate crimes, which are up 5% since 2024 and a mind-numbing 286% since 2020.¹³ We likely won’t get a full hate crime breakdown until sometime in the summer, but the numbers for 2024 showed that members of the Black (79), queer (72), and Jewish (53) communities were the most targeted (here’s a piece I wrote on that last year) and are likely to remain the groups that face the most hate.

Police Chief Frank Bergen spelled this out very clearly during the Community Safety Summit last November, telling the assembled group: “We can statistically tell you that the crime severity index in the city is going in the right direction, but the perception of safety is not there.”

There are a few theories as to why there’s this disconnect.

David Valentin, who runs Liaison Strategies, told the Spec that he believes “the gap stems from the media people consume, whether it be the news or posts on social media,” saying that he, personally, has seen a lot of videos of crime on TikTok.¹³

Toronto-based sensationalist news outlet CP24 reported on this survey when it came out at the end of December. The network’s confused hosts laid out the findings for Toronto (which, again, showed 76% of people believe crime has been surging) and contrasted that with the reality that crime is on the decline in the big city. Without even a shred of irony, they mused about how strange that was, before continuing with their wall-to-wall coverage of stabbings, murders, and public drug use, punctuated by looping roll of Ring camera footage of trucks being stolen by masked gangs in Markham, Mississauga, and Brampton.

“We’re all trying to find the guy who did this.” - CP24

The Spec also interviewed Anthony Doob, a former criminology prof at U of T who noted that individual crimes can have “ripple effects”, leading people to believe that an area is unsafe if one or a few highly publicized crime occurred in that location.¹³

A team of researchers from Sweden noted something similar in a survey of older adults and their perceptions of crime. While they found that fear of crime isn’t the primary concern of older people (isolation and health are top-of-mind), there are some who are deeply fearful of crime. This is usually because they believe crime is rising, stay home or avoid social situations out of fear, become more fearful, isolate themselves further, believe crime is going up even more, etc. This creates what the researchers called a “fear of crime loop”. The only way to address this, they note, is to make people feel safe. “A greater sense of safety and trust might mitigate the perceived threat of crime,” they note.¹⁴

That can be tough because of another theory posited by Doob, namely that “People think crime is up because everyone is saying it is.”¹³

The idea that crime is “out of control” was among the central themes repeated ad nauseam by many of the leading candidates in the Ward 8 by-election held last year. Second-place candidate Terry Whitehead went so far as to rent a fake “Batmobile” to show how he would tackle what he called “the out-of-control crime in the City of Hamilton”. And the first of six skimpy platform points of the eventual winner, Rob Cooper, was “Tackle Violent Crime”.

This locks the community in that “fear of crime loop”. Politicians say crime is rising, people become fearful of crime, they tell pollsters they believe crime is on the rise, they vote for candidates who promise to get tough on crime, those politicians say crime is rising…and so on.

But, of course, there’s another theory. The Spec article grazed past it, noting the results of another survey done by researchers at Wilfrid Laurier University in conjunction with the HPS. The biggest concerns for respondents in that particular sample were, as the HPS noted in their press release on the survey, “social disorder, open drug use, and property crime.”

A commenter on the r/Hamilton subreddit summarized that in the context of the Liaison poll wonderfully when they wrote: “I think 99% of the time when people are talking about crime, what they actually mean is public disorder (i.e. visible homelessness, public intoxication on drugs, etc.).”

We don’t have the full list of questions asked by Liaison, only what they deemed it appropriate to share with the public. But when asking a question as broad as “In general, would you say that crime in Canada as a whole has increased, stayed about the same, or decreased over the past year?” it is almost a certainty that some people will conflate “crime” and “disorder”.

There’s that word again.

I brought it up when writing about the “scaffolding” raised in front of the York Boulevard Salvation Army centre, noting that Globe and Mail columnist Robyn Urback opined about the growing “disorder” in Canadian cities and how the only way to stop it is to line up behind big, strong dads like Bradford Bradford, the Toronto city councillor already campaigning against Olivia Chow for the city’s mayoralty in October.

And, as we lumber toward the October municipal election, we here in Hamilton have our fair share of aspiring candidates and political movers-and-shakers trying to make disorder the central theme of the campaign.

They point to encampments, social service providers, and people living with mental illnesses and addictions as proof that Hamilton has become a lawless wasteland where mothers are scared to take their children to parks, women can’t walk the streets alone at night, and families cower in fear at the prospect of entering the lower city. Endless references to the “Gage Park bike chop shop” and the “dangerous illegal guns” found in encampments float around social media as “proof” that we need our own big, strong dads to unseat the woke coven of The Ladies and The Gays (Plus Craig)™ and bring swift, brutal justice to the law-abiding taxpayers of Hamilton.

But scratch the surface, even just a little, and the whole thing falls apart. The “disorder” in Gage Park? Eight bikes, presumed stolen, and “components of a long-arm gun” that were not intact and inoperable.¹⁵

And the fixation on “dangerous” encampments? Just today, the Spec reported that, as of the last “point-in-time” enumeration of people experiencing homelessness, just 244 actively lived in encampments or other outdoor locations.¹⁶ To date, there have been no quantifiable metrics, no statistics, no identifiable and tangible and grounded connections between the presence of an encampment and/or people experiencing homelessness and a spike in crimes. No data, no figures, no comments from police, nothing. Just a load of feelings shared by people who see disorder, who have been told by cynical politicians that crime is surging, who are shown a near-endless loop of Ring cam footage of thefts on television, who are scared and isolated and growing more scared and more isolated day by day.

Put bluntly, we have politicians in this community - elected leaders and likely candidates - who are baselessly stoking fears about a non-existent crime wave and preying on feelings of insecurity, in large part by dehumanizing people living with mental illness and addiction, all to bolster their chances of electoral victory on October 26, 2026.

And, ultimately, it might work to their advantage.

The political right dominates the crime conversation, in part because they offer simple, familiar solutions. Crime is on the rise, they say, so we should hire more police, pass tougher laws, and open more jails. And anyone who even questions the police budget or suggests we look at strengthening social services instead of the force, must be hounded for their transgressions from now until the end of time.

In this case, there is no crime wave on which they can capitalize. So, instead, they point to the social disorder around us - disorder created and enabled by levels of society-destroying inequality, injustice, and poverty about which they have little to say (or, in some cases, actively support) - call it “crime”, and instill as much fear as possible to fit with their narrow agenda.

***

In the 291 days between now and the municipal election, those cynical actors on the political right will continue to shout about crime and disorder. They’ll work to make people as scared as possible, all so they can sell voters the idea that they, and they alone, can fix it.

Every little crime story - every report of a car theft, story about violence, feature on a drug bust - will become fodder for their campaigns. Every event, as small as it might be, will be isolated, warped, and fed through their rage machine. Every person on the margins will be labeled a threat, every critical voice will face the wrath of their organization (and, speaking from experience, they’ll do their damnedest to silence those voices).

But the facts don’t lie. The crime wave they are warning against isn’t even a ripple. The dangerous threats they fixate on are really just people in need. And the solutions they offer haven’t ever, won’t now, and never will make people feel safer.

Crime isn’t out of control. But the city’s right-wing political machine will work their hardest to convince you it is. I can only hope that, if, for the moment, we’re abandoning facts in favour of feelings, then the voters of Hamilton will feel it necessary to reject the kind of fearmongering politics being peddled by right-wing politicians and the big, strong, manly dads they will inevitably back in this October’s election.

And then maybe, just maybe, we can get back to talking about facts.

…but first, a note from The Incline.

Where has the time gone? No, seriously, where did it go? I feel like I blinked too hard in July and suddenly we’re a stone’s throw from 2026.

After the whole unpleasantness with the City wrapped up in late October, I had a rather ambitious goal to start publishing more. That goal was reprioritized thanks to a painfully busy semester of teaching and research. Have to pay the bills somehow! All that meant that I was only able to get two editions out over the past few months. Sure, I spent three weeks researching my last edition on the Salvation Army in Hamilton, but my newsletter output has dropped noticeably since August.

That means I’ve been missing some big developments that will impact Hamilton, our province, and the country as a whole as we drag ourselves - exhausted, disillusioned, but still clawing our way ever forward - into 2026.

***

On Tuesday, December 16, Hamilton Centre’s Liberal MP, Aslam Rana, was one of six MPs briefly held at the border of the West Bank by Israeli authorities before being denied entry to the occupied territory. Hard to say if this will ingratiate the fortuitous parliamentarian with the deeply passionate political community of folks in Hamilton Centre for whom the situation in Palestine is a top concern, but it did manage to get him some press that backbenchers are rarely afforded.

I had a new piece run in The Spec about Doug Ford’s ongoing assault on Ontario’s increasingly fragile democracy, namely the province’s outdated electoral districts, the plan to amalgamate our conservation authorities, and the looming decision on whether to abolish the office of school trustee. Here’s a gift link if you’d like to check that out.

Many Hamiltonians found themselves on the hunt for new third spaces after democracy* on Locke announced their closure just weeks after their employees successfully unionized for better working conditions. Their fight for, as was reported by the CBC, changes to “health and safety, scheduling and tipping” at the café was evidently too much for the owner, who decided to close the west Hamilton institution rather than negotiate fairly with workers who were exercising their constitutional right to join a union. Adding insult to injury, the owner closed up shop even earlier than previously announced, putting the café’s workers out of a job right before Christmas. Needless to say, the other businesses owned by the same individual - Donut Monster, Paisley Coffeehouse, and the Mulberry Coffeehouse - will not be getting my business until the ownership changes and/or each business is unionized. Hamiltonians stepped up, though, and raised over $23,000 (to date) for the employees who were laid off through a GoFundMe campaign (which is still active here).

And then, of course, there’s the fact that December has undoubtedly been Mayor Andrea Horwath’s mensis horribilis.

***

The high point for Her Worship came on Wednesday, December 10, when the province announced it would be granting Horwath’s request for a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) for the big ol’ vacant three hectare expanse that once was and shall again be Jamesville. The much-anticipated redevelopment of the site had been in planning purgatory for years after CN Rail launched an appeal to try and stop new homes from being built there. The rail company’s worry was that noise, vibration, and odors from their nearby shunting yards would lead residents to complain and possibly sue to stop CN’s operations, so their appeal was a preemptive strike designed to cover their bases. The MZO terminates that appeal and makes it far more likely that redevelopment will proceed imminently.

The public comments collected before the MZO was issued were released by the province and ended up being great for the mayor, with many directly praising Horwath for her advocacy on this file.

It was all downhill from there. The same day, council voted to “delay” the implementation of the much-needed stormwater fee that was set to go into effect next summer. A rebellion by suburban and conservative urban councillors pushed the fee start date to January 1, 2027 - meaning that A) the fee will now be much higher than anticipated when it is implemented, and B) a new council - which may be much, much, much more right-wing - might have a chance to terminate it before it even begins. A couple more “Sewergate” events is a small price to pay if it means “standing up for taxpayers”, right? That minor legislative loss was one more example of how the mayor is seeming less-and-less like a trustworthy legislative captain for the Good Ship Hamilton.

The very next day came the sad news that a child had been struck and killed by an HSR bus on Wilson Street, marking the fourth pedestrian fatality on Hamilton’s streets in the span of a month. Blaming the mayor for that tragedy would be exceptionally crass, even for the kinds of embittered malcontents who scurry around in the comments sections of The Spectator (comments were mercifully turned off for most of the stories about this tragedy) and on social media. Advocates have been calling for greater road safety for years, and the sheer number of fatalities on city streets as of late serves to undermine the collective confidence in our municipality's ability to keep all Hamiltonians safe whilst using active transportation, taking transit, and driving.

That very same day, local reporter Joey Coleman dropped a story that he had been teasing on Bluesky for a while. At the beginning of the month, a bitter dispute between Horwath and her ex-partner over the crumbling home owned by the mayor in the Landsdale neighbourhood became extremely public. Coleman’s reporting sparked interest from the city’s legacy media, who have picked up the baton and run with it.

The story is complicated, but the basics are this: the mayor had an engineer assess her property → the property was deemed unsafe → the city issued an emergency demolition permit → a judge invalidated that permit because the city’s building inspectors were denied access to the property by the tenant and could not verify the engineer’s report → the judge encouraged the city to “reach a mutually agreeable resolution to the dispute” → a new emergency order for immediate repairs was issued → the tenant (Horwath’s ex-partner) still refuses to leave → work got underway to ensure the home doesn’t collapse → the tenant continues to interfere with the work, leading to more court appearances and more media focus on this story.

This whole story feels very personal and sad, but the optics of it are really bad. There’s the fact that the first order was invalidated, which might give some the impression proper procedure wasn’t followed because this is the mayor’s property (even if that isn’t the case). There’s the fact that the mayor owns a dilapidated rental property while the city still endures a generation-defining housing crisis, leading some on social media to throw out the word “slumlord” as a descriptor (not the kind of thing someone who spent years leading a social democratic party would want being used to define them). And there’s the fact that Horwath has consistently declined to comment on this issue, meaning important context is missing and other, less flattering narratives, have come to fill the void.

Horwath isn’t called the “Steeltown Scrapper” for nothing, though. In the last Saturday Spec of the year, the mayor unofficially launched her re-election campaign with an op-ed oozing with optimism. “Hamilton is surging forward,” she writes, saying “There is a powerful momentum in our city, driven by the resilience, creativity and grit of our community.” She positions herself at the vanguard of the city’s progress, making note of advancements in business, construction, and the arts. She reminds Hamiltonians of the MZO, takes time to reflect on the number of new affordable housing projects in the city, her commitment to public safety, her advocacy in the face of US tariffs, her work with the port authority, investments in roads and seniors housing and city hall modernization.¹

It’s a strong piece that is meant to dissuade opponents and remind the city’s assorted political machines that Horwath is not accustomed to losing elections. And, frankly, she’s got the most runway right now. Rumour has it that local developers are securing donation pledges for a right-wing candidate who was, up until recently, a Liberal MP for the area, but there haven’t been any definitive announcements from that camp. There have been a few rumblings that Ward 14 councillor Mike Spadafora was considering a run, but I’d say that’s unlikely in 2026 (if the political map is favourable, it is possible in 2030). The silence from perceived front-runner Keanin Loomis is leaving many to speculate that he is unwilling to leave his role at the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction in light of how tariffs are impacting the industry and the fact that serving as mayor might offer someone of his talents less of a chance to make meaningful change than he could in his current role.

While December may have been Horwath’s mensis horribilis, 2026 might end up being her tempus vincere.

Veni vidi Oskee frickin’ vici, if you will.

***

So, yeah, there’s been a lot happening as of late. And, as much as I’d love to write about it all, life keeps getting in the way. Since this newsletter is a passion project that nets me about $20 a month in tips (which are always appreciated and can be made through my Ko-Fi.com page), it means that other work sometimes takes priority.

My goal in 2026 is to be slightly more consistent with publishing, but there are some big projects I have on my radar. I’d love to get at least two editions out every month (maybe moving to Mondays or Tuesdays for publishing instead of Thursdays or Fridays? TBD on that…), so I’m putting my goal schedule out into the universe.

As always, I’m so incredibly grateful to have you as a reader. A strong, healthy, vibrant democracy requires us all to share ideas, know more about our past, and dig into current events. Knowing we’re all in this together helps keep me going.

With that, please enjoy this reflection on someone our community lost very recently.

The Public Trust

Photo by Kimberly Farmer on Unsplash - Edited by author

In February of 1996, a piece of speculative fiction ran in the Hamilton Spectator. An aspirational piece, it imagined the city thirty years on, conjuring a hopeful image of a world now just hours away.

“In the year 2026, Hamilton is acknowledged as the best place to send your child to school in Ontario,” the piece begins. “Children go to vibrant schools in safe neighbourhoods, where the community strongly supports the education they are receiving. The whole child is nurtured.”

It outlines how this fantastical world of the future was created: mentorship programs connected underprivileged youth with nature and literacy programs, a municipal Children’s Council was established to focus on youth issues, a new educational coordinating committee was set up to link local businesses with public school graduates, elected school councils operated in every school community, McMaster University’s researchers study Hamilton’s schools extensively to provide insight on how to adapt teaching methods, and the Public and Catholic boards have been merged with the promise that religious instruction for all faiths could be offered to those who seek it.²

The piece was part of the paper’s “Looking Towards Hamilton’s Next 150 Years” series in honour of the city’s sesquicentennial (150 year anniversary). Rather than speculate on what education would be like in 2146, the author opted for a more realistic and achievable thought experiment. That made ample sense, considering they were already working on the front lines of education in Hamilton, and had been a fierce advocate to public schools for decades at that point.

Many of the speculated changes have not come to pass, unfortunately. But the enthusiasm of the author was reflective of her passion for education and her commitment to this community. It’s all the more sad, then, that the person who penned that optimistic piece - former public school trustee Judith Bishop - will not be able to see the Hamilton of 2026 she once encouraged us all to imagine.

So as we approach that optimistic year - a year in which the office of trustee might be abolished altogether - please enjoy a reflection on a person whose commitment to Hamilton could not be understated.

At the start of the 2010’s, there was an atmosphere of tension in the city. Demographics were changing, decades of sprawl-oriented development had changed the character of the city, and the provincial response to the Great Recession meant that, among other things, education funding just wasn’t what it used to be.

In early 2010, the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) announced they would be striking Pupil Accommodation Review Committees for the city’s 18 public high schools. These committees - known colloquially by their acronym “ARCs” - were being established in accordance with new provincial guidelines around how schools would be funded.

The funding regime for public schools in Ontario underwent a massive change during Mike Harris’ tumultuous seven years in power. Early in 1997, the PC government’s Common Sense Revolution was in full swing, with Harris using his legislative supermajority to entirely remake the province to align with his dream of a neoliberal utopia. On January 13, 1997, the province announced legislation that took all taxation power away from local school boards, merged them into new amalgamated “district school boards”, and gave themselves power to dole out education funds as they saw fit. That latter change resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being cut from public education and thousands of front-line education workers losing their jobs. There were large teacher’s strikes, but they failed to shake the unflappable Tories, whose goals for undermining public education were realized beyond their wildest dreams.³

After forming government in 2003, the Ontario Liberals made few changes to education funding, carrying on with Harris’ legacy and placing the burden of difficult decisions on the backs of school boards which still had no taxation power. A special fund created in 2004 to allow schools to access private funding for repairs barely scratched the surface, creating a timebomb for local school boards.⁴

In Hamilton, pressure had been building for some time. From 2002 to 2003, 14 schools were closed during a period in which the HWDSB was under provincial supervision. In 2002, the province replaced all 11 trustees with “corporate renewal consultant” Jim Murray due to the board’s passing a budget that included a $16 million deficit. At the time, then-MPP Dominic Agostino told The Spec that Murray’s job was to do the “dirty work” for the provincial government.⁵ Murray redrew school catchment areas, closed schools, and trimmed the board’s spending in line with provincial priorities.

Even with that reorganization, pressure was still mounting. The provincial funding formula just wasn’t working, but the government’s response was to force boards to close schools, rather than undo the damage of the Harris years.

In early 2010, ARCs were struck for area high schools. And the HWDSB was blunt when letting residents know about the intent of the ARCs - they were consultative bodies, not deliberative ones. “It’s ultimately the decision of the trustees, based on the work of the committee,” Dundas trustee and HWDSB chair Jessica Brennan told The Spec. Later in the process, the board’s new chair, Tim Simmons, told the local paper that “We have 113 schools and if you look in plain numbers, we have enough students for 80 to 85 schools.”⁶

The 2010 trustee election came and went, two new faces joined a board of seasoned veterans, and the ARC process chugged along. Shortly thereafter, the board decided to close the downtown Education Centre - a mid-century gem of a building that might have been the only decent thing to come from Hamilton’s disastrous experiments with urban renewal. The public was outraged and it seemed as though our elected trustees were actively ignoring the wishes of the community.

Then came the elementary school ARCs.

One of the elementary ARCs focused on what was called the “Dalewood” area. In reality, this meant west Hamilton’s Westdale and Ainslie Wood neighbourhoods. The two communities, which had already lost Binkley Elementary School in 1979 and Princess Elizabeth Elementary School in 1983, looked like they might lose another.⁷

The ARC came up with innovative solutions on how to keep the three remaining schools in the neighbourhood - Prince Philip, Dalewood, and George R. Allan - open in spite of decades of disinvestment. The committee did impressive work, including drafting plans to reclassify sections of buildings to align with provincial funding formulas and bringing to light the fact that Prince Philip in Ainslie Wood had received $120,000 in capital repair funding since 2000 while George R. Allan in Westdale had received $1.4 million - over 11 times as much.

In the end, the ARC recommended all three schools remain open, as their estimates found that closing one would only net $350,000 in savings. Beyond the monetary figures, parents worried that merging the school communities would lead to overcrowding and Ainslie Wood residents feared the loss of a community hub in the neighbourhood.

The ARC’s report was in contrast to the staff-proposed option, which recommended closing Prince Philip and sending its students to George R. Allan. This, the board claimed, would result in savings from not having to invest in capital repairs for Prince Philip.⁸

One last meeting was held on March 20, 2012 to discuss the fate of Prince Philip. It was standing room only in the condemned downtown Education Centre. A 1000-signature petition to keep Prince Philip open was submitted to trustees. A teacher told the board “Your vote to close Prince Philip school will obliterate one highly effective learning environment and negatively impact [George R. Allan].” The crowd begged trustees to keep their school open.⁹

On April 30, 2012, the trustees of the HWDSB met to decide what to do. In the end, a motion was brought to the floor to adopt the staff recommendation, closing Prince Philip and reducing the number of elementary schools in Westdale and Ainslie Wood to just two. It passed 6 to 5.

The motion was moved by Wards 1 and 2 trustee Judith Bishop.

***

This was the backdrop for my first, and to-date, only, run for public office.

I was an ambitious young politico, fresh off my student politics days and diving headlong into graduate school. But I wanted to put my education into practice, so I followed the news about the ARCs, met with concerned residents in the community, and, one year out from the 2014 municipal election, announced that I would be running for school board trustee. “We need an ‘activist’ school board, one that helps make change in Hamilton,” I wrote in a blog post announcing my candidacy. “A progressive, forward thinking school board can be part of the change in this city, not part of the problem.”

I never really thought of myself as running “against” Trustee Bishop. I had wanted to provide the people of Wards 1 and 2 with an alternative that could blend urban planning and school board issues while providing a fresh, new perspective.

Well, realistically, I had wanted to provide any alternative, as HWDSB voters in both wards had not cast a ballot for trustee since 2000 when Bishop beat a single opponent with 71% of the vote. For the next 14 years, Bishop had served without any person in the community stepping up to offer themselves as an alternative, returning to the board by acclamation three times.

A part of me was relived when, in mid-July of 2014, Bishop announced she would not seek re-election.¹⁰ Bishop had been a dedicated public servant and a champion for children in the community for decades. But, by the summer before the 2014 municipal election, myself and three other people in the community had registered to run for the school board (one would later drop out after moving out of the city and two more would register in the last few days before nominations closed).

While I believed the voters in Wards 1 and 2 deserved a choice, I did not necessarily think Bishop herself shouldered all the blame for what happened during the Dalewood ARC. She, like every trustee, was forced to do what they could with the limited powers afforded them. The province stripped trustees of their powers and assigned them the unpleasant task of fundamentally changing the structure of communities. That’s why I wanted to bring my understanding of urban planning to the table. That’s why I wanted to be an “activist” trustee. That’s why I wanted to offer my voice to the voters of Wards 1 and 2.

I wrote in my campaign announcement: “I know and respect some of the trustees on the board and will be running as a progressive candidate, not simply an anti-establishment candidate…It’s time for an honest, constructive conversation. That’s what elections are for.”

Trustee Bishop knew that better than most. Her service and dedication to the community stretched over decades, as she first took office before I was even born. And, while the drama of the Dalewood ARC served as one of the final chapters in her long career of public service, there was so much more to her story than those chaotic few years before the 2014 election.

***

Judith Bishop’s life was, above all else, dedicated to social justice and the welfare of children.

Bishop was born in Yorkshire in 1942. Her parents quickly sent her off to boarding school, which she followed with undergraduate studies at Nottingham University. After working with an exchange program during her student days, she connected with young Africans fighting for justice, travelling to Zimbabwe immediately following her studies. For two years, she worked on Oxfam-led daycare, nutrition, and literacy projects. In 1965, she met a young teacher, Alan, working at a local school and they soon married, sharing a passion for justice and education. From there, they moved to Cape Town where they both taught at the local university. But their focus on equality and their political views resulted in the couple being expelled from apartheid South Africa by the nationalist government. After their expulsion, Alan enrolled in Oxford and earned a PhD in English. In 1972, he landed a job as a professor at McMaster University and brought the family to Westdale, where they settled into a house on Barclay Avenue.¹¹

While Bishop stayed at home to raise the couple’s three children, she remained deeply involved in the struggle for justice around the globe. Bishop helped found a local chapter of Amnesty International shortly after the family landed in Hamilton. Serving as the group’s chairperson, she organized letter writing campaigns to free prisoners of conscience and worked to liberate those held unjustly around the world.¹²

Bishop’s advocacy had, by the 1980’s, expanded into the realm of school board politics in Hamilton. During the 1980 municipal election, Bishop served as the president of the Hamilton Home and School Council (HHSC), a parent-led organization that works as an advocacy group that, according to the HWDSB: “strives to give parents an understanding of schools and to be informed, constructive partners with educators.”

The HHSC was formed in 1933 after home and school groups had been established at give local schools. Nearly 50 years later, Bishop was in charge, and led the organization into the 1980 election, encouraging residents to become more aware of trustee elections. Their advocacy revolved around getting trustee candidates to commit to supporting a more “fair system of evaluating who goes and who stays when teacher cuts have to be made,” better informing parents about changes to class sizes, and opposing closures as vigourously as possible. “School closures are such a disruptive force in a community that they must be a last resort,” Bishop told the Spec days before the election.¹³

***

1985 was a year of labour unrest across Ontario. Hydro workers, Eaton’s employees, postal workers, Air Canada staff, steelworkers, and Beer Store employees all launched strikes or threats of labour action. Hamilton’s teachers were no exception.

Without a contract since the end of August of the previous year, Hamilton’s public high school teachers attempted to negotiate with the Hamilton Board of Education (the HWDSB’s predecessor). By April, it was clear the union’s concerns over staffing and their desire for participation in a dental plan were not going to be addressed.¹⁴

Then, on Page 5 of the May 7 edition of the Spec, an ad appeared. In bold type, the ad read “We believe our offer to secondary teachers is fair and reasonable”. It laid out what the Board of Education was willing to offer, provided stats on class sizes, and ended with the lines: “In view of the present economic climate in the Hamilton community, we believe our offer is reasonable. We shall continue to seek a fair and equitable agreement.”¹⁵

The ad enraged the teachers’ union, who called it “a distortion of the facts”. Board chair Ray Mulholland told the Spec “The public pays and is entitled to information”. The situation deteriorated and, by Monday, May 13, 1985, Hamilton’s secondary school teachers were on the picket lines - the first strike of high school teachers in the city’s history.¹⁶

Amidst the strike, Bishop and a group of Westdale parents devised an idea to start their own “school” in a local church basement, bringing in speakers on everything from botany to the justice system, and keeping Hamilton’s youth primed and ready for when the strike ended. But, by late August, the union and Board of Education had come to an agreement and the strike ended, allowing schools to open just in time for the new semester. Bishop was quoted as being “delighted” that the strike was over and said she would pass along the ideas for lectures to the principal of Westdale High “in the hope he may be able to follow through on some of them.”¹⁷

Even though the plans for an alternative school fizzled, Bishop had become a recognizable figure in the city’s education community. So it was only natural that, in late October of 1985, she announced she would be running for one of the two Ward 1 trustee seats (each ward had two elected public trustees at the time) on the Board of Education. Her platform was simple: appropriate programs for each child, more accessibility in the school system, better funding for education, and a policy of “open discussions” with community members and teachers. But Bishop was up against two incumbents - Bob McMurrich and Marjorie Baskin - making her first foray into electoral politics a challenge. On election night, she fell 840 votes short, but placed a very respectable third. No incumbent trustee failed to win re-election that night, even after the labour chaos of the previous summer.¹⁸

***

Her electoral defeat did not stop her enthusiasm for education. Bishop continued to serve on the Board of Education’s Special Education Advisory Committee, becoming a passionate advocate for students with special needs. And, in 1987, Bishop won a Woman of the Year award for work.¹⁹

It was only natural, then, that Bishop would announce another bid for a Ward 1 trustee seat in 1988. In one of the closest races in the city that year, Bishop beat four other challengers for the second trustee seat in the west end, spending $2,136 (around $5,000 in today’s currency) on her successful bid. Speaking with the Spec after the vote, she said she would visit every school in the ward to get a better feel for the issues they faced.²⁰

She hit the ground running, making good on her platform commitments to improve transparency and communication. One of Bishop’s first acts as trustee was to push the board to “consider ways of improving opportunities for communication between the board and the public”, as she worried wealthier, “well-organized and articulate” communities might have an unfair advantage in pressing their agenda. She launched a committee to study student nutrition, continued her advocacy for students with special needs, pushed the board to better inform taxpayers about their budgeting process, advocated for the Board of Education to start a recycling program, and pressed the board to expand their English as a Second Language program. And, when a trustee introduced a motion in 1991 that would have required Hamilton’s grade school students to sing “God Save the Queen” each morning, Bishop opposed it, saying that “Pride in Canada and its traditions doesn’t have to be expressed in an overt, nationalistic way.”²¹

Bishop’s advocacy did not go unnoticed in the west end, and voters returned her to the board by an overwhelming margin in 1991.

As the world marched into the 90’s, Bishop’s advocacy took on a more grounded, almost populist tone. While she took a stance against providing condoms in area high schools (saying “In the health curriculum we are teaching students that the most responsible attitude for young people - especially in these days of AIDS - is abstinence.”), she did back a proposal for a Public Health-run health centre at an area high school to provide students with resources to combat smoking, alcoholism, and STIs. When reports surfaced that many Hamilton-area high school grads had less-than-stellar literacy rates, Bishop took issue with the way the board reported such matters, calling for staff to just use “plain English that people outside speak.” And, in 1994, Bishop penned a lengthy article for the Spec about how the school trustee system could be reformed to meet the needs of a changing world. Her proposals included reducing bureaucracy, giving more autonomy to individual schools, and letting local boards set more policy. “Toronto should not be the source of all decisions,” she wrote.²²

Voters in the west end appeared to agree most enthusiastically when the returned her to a third term that year. Bishop won approximately 43% of the vote, topping the polls and earning over 1,400 more votes than her nearest competitor.²³

***

The next term would be a challenging one. Bishop became the chair of the board’s Program Committee and immediately began dealing with the changes to education that came from Harris’s new, ideologically extreme government. Bishop fought hard to maintain daycare spots and funding for Junior Kindergarten programs, but, by 1996, the board found themselves with a $5 million deficit. At the end of the 1996 school year, Bishop was among the trustees who voted in favour of laying off teachers to make up the budget shortfall. Hamilton’s trustees were, once again, being asked to do more with less.²⁴

Bishop was unbowed. In response to the province’s plans to shrink the number of school boards, Bishop joined the Ontario Education Alliance, a group dedicated to opposing the Harris government’s ideological reforms. “I really fear for the coming generation of children in this community,” she told a meeting of the group in Hamilton, noting that the province’s cuts had forced them to eliminate language programs, social workers, and essential training for students in need. And, when the province’s reforms did pass and school boards were fundamentally restructured, Bishop warned that the changes “could be weakening a voice for children”.²⁵

Bishop decided to seek election to the new HWDSB, created when the Hamilton Board of Education was merged with the neighbouring Wentworth board. The number of trustees was cut down to just 11 and Hamilton’s board decided to combine Wards 1 and 2 for electoral purposes. Each of Bishop’s fellow trustees in the wards stood down, leaving her as the only incumbent keen on trying her hand at the new board. Her platform was simple: “There are going to be many issues with the amalgamated school board…we’ll have to sort out what’s best for all children.” She won re-election with 78% of the vote, beating a retired Niagara school superintendent and becoming one of the first members of the new amalgamated board.²⁶  

There would be no honeymoon for the trustees of the new HWDSB.

***

Almost immediately, the Harris government saddled the HWDSB with the unenviable task of closing schools to meet the financial policies coming from Queen’s Park. Bishop linked up with councillors to fight the closures. In a meeting with the Spec editorial board, Bishop said, “20 years ago we closed a little school in Binkley and there are people still who are very, very angry about that school closure. Well, how much more angry are people going to be about a process in which there’s been no involvement, they’ve had no input?” The Spec backed the council/school board collaboration, praising local leaders for speaking “up effectively against the province’s big-stick approach and its impact on Hamilton,” noting that trustees and councillors were working on finding “creative ideas to keep schools open where enrolment may not warrant it, [recognizing] that schools aren’t simply buildings - but public institutions that are shared by the neighbourhood and ultimately the community.”²⁷

By 2000, things had reached a breaking point. Trustees were being critiqued for shrinking music programs, more school closures, and increasing class sizes. Then, in the fall, negotiations between the HWDSB and the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (ETFO) broke down, putting teachers in a strike position right around Halloween - and just weeks before the 2000 municipal election. In a surprise move, the management of the HWDSB immediately went for the nuclear option and locked teachers out on October 30.

For the entire term, Bishop had the dismal task of justifying the board’s actions. It was Bishop who needed to pen a letter to the Spec explaining the cuts to the music program. It was Bishop who needed to explain how underfunding for infrastructure meant schools might need to close. And, while the ETFO opted to not run a candidate against her as they did in other wards, they also withheld their endorsement, less-than-subtly snubbing Bishop and leaving much to the imagination when a spokesperson told the Spec: “We [the ETFO] don’t want trustees who don’t have a conscience and don’t know how to bargain fairly.” Despite the awkwardness around the absent ETFO endorsement, Bishop easily won re-election, earning 71% of the vote in the last electoral contest she would have in the City of Hamilton.²⁸

In 2001, Bishop earned the ultimate honour for a school trustee and was named Chair of the Board by her colleagues. She took that responsibility and ran with it, continuing with her advocacy for better funding for public schools. In early March of 2002, Bishop made waves when, at a luncheon meeting of the Canadian Club, she publicly challenged Progressive Conservative Education Minister Janet Ecker to better fund schools and consult with Ontarians further before making changes to the province’s grade school curriculum. The confrontation exposed the gap between local trustees and provincial authorities; as Bishop rose to challenge the Minister, Ecker sarcastically quipped to the assembled guests “I knew sooner or later this would happen.”²⁹

That feisty interaction would set the stage for the provincial takeover of the HWDSB that summer.

***

The trustees of the HWDSB couldn’t cut any deeper. The province had been starving the public school board for years and, without a promise of new funds, they had no where else to go.

With a deadline of August 2 to submit balanced budgets to the province, the Bishop-led HWDSB still had a $16 million deficit. And they weren’t interested in drastic cuts.

In response, the new Education Minister (Ecker was rewarded with the post of Finance Minister after backing Ernie Eves to replace Mike Harris in the PC leadership race that year), Kitchener-Waterloo MPP Elizabeth Witmer, announced an audit of the HWDSB. To Bishop, this was welcome news, believing it would show the province just how dire the funding situation had become. And, to make the auditor’s job easier, the trustees made the decision to preemptively cut around 50 jobs in an effort to reduce their operating deficit. That move led the Spec’s satire columnist (yes, the local paper once had a sense of humour) to write that the trustees of the HWDSB had all begun to suffer from a case of “spontaneous spinal infusion”.³⁰

The trustees of the HWDSB and the community anxiously awaited the auditor’s report, which was delayed multiple times without explanation. During the delays, boards across the province were being taken over by the Ministry and Hamilton’s trustees feared it would be their turn next.

Then, on Monday, August 19, 2002, the report came in and the worst fears of the trustees were realized. The provincially-appointed auditor recommended the board be taken over and that 16 schools be closed, including at least five during the upcoming school year. Bishop was livid, angrily telling the Spec (in a quote that made the front-page), “We’re not into politics, we’re into children’s services.” A photo of Bishop that ran alongside a story about the auditor’s report captures the chaos of the moment; a bespectacled Bishop, standing before an array of microphones, holds a cupped hand to her mouth, and is captured, mid-shout, as she “calls for quiet” so she can answer the questions of assembled reporters.

Photo and caption from the Hamilton Spectator, August 21, 2002.

The community sided with the trustees. For her tireless advocacy, Bishop earned a glowing profile in the Spec, praise from then-MPP David Christopherson, and overwhelmingly positive words of encouragement in letters to the editor.

But the province wasn’t backing down. Witmer gave the HWDSB’s trustees one week to pass a balanced budget. In a six-to-four vote, the trustees decided to not reconsider their original budget, with trustee Reg Woodworth dramatically saying “[The province] created the crisis and now let them live with the crisis.” The very next day, Hamilton’s public trustees were all-but dismissed and the province’s appointed supervisor, Jim Murray, was given extraordinary powers to close schools, cut programs, and balance the books by any means necessary.

In the ultimate insult, Murray’s first act was to remove Bishop from her trustee office and claim it as his own.³¹

***

Her powers stripped, Bishop continued to serve as an advocate for Hamilton’s youth. She pleaded with the province’s review panel established to update the school funding formula to make necessary changes so school boards could fund public education. She challenged Murray when he cut the supply teacher budget. When Murray’s new budget was adopted but the province refused to relinquish control to local elected officials, Bishop and her fellow trustees publicly called for their powers to be restored. In December of that year, Bishop penned another lengthy column in the Spec outlining the impact of school closures and stating that, even though their powers had been removed, “trustees continue to hold a moral responsibility to be the watchdog for Hamilton-Wentworth’s public education.”³²

Even sidelined, Bishop’s focus was on maintaining the public trust.

It was only after Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals formed government in late October of 2003 that provincial supervision of the HWDSB came to an end. With only weeks to go before the municipal elections, a “transitional management team” assumed responsibility for the board until new trustees could be sworn in on December 1, 2003. Bishop, having been acclaimed to office, was appointed to the “co-management” team intended to ease the community back into democratic control over schools. At a public meeting to discuss the restoration of local power, trustees were berated by community members who blamed amalgamation, partisan interests, shortsightedness, overspending, and politicians in general for all the board’s ills. In the wake of the supervision and public backlash, Bishop opted to not seek another term as chair, handing the reigns of power back over to long-time Ward 4 trustee Ray Mulholland.³³

After 2003, Bishop returned to her work of front-line advocacy. She worked on summits to improve public engagement with the board, wrote extensively on the need to tackle childhood poverty, and continued to advocate for improved education funding.³⁴ Before the 2006 election - in which she was once again unopposed - Bishop mused that the board’s composition might be reflective of the kinds of people who can afford to do the full-time-work-for-part-time-pay of trustees: “The only people at the moment who can put in a lot of time are those who’ve got husbands in secure jobs who don’t mind subsidizing their wives, or they’re retired, and that’s not very healthy for an organization dealing with young people.”³⁵  

Another tenure as board chair followed from 2006 to 2009, albeit one that was far less controversial than her previous stint at the helm. There were some minor sparks when the HWDSB’s trustees signed onto a call for one unified school system, leading Bishop’s Catholic counterpart, Pat Daly, to say Hamilton’s separate school trustees were “extremely disappointed” by the HWDSB’s “very hurtful” actions.

Speaking with the Spec in 2007 about the pressures of the job (30 to 40 emails a day, 12 hours of work, missed time with family), Bishop said that politics wasn’t appealing to many women because of how society has forced standards on them: “In the past we’ve been socialized that a good woman was one who didn’t make too much of a spectacle of herself…in a way, that’s what you’re doing when you get into this sort get into this sort of arena.”³⁶

She finally had enough. In stepping down as chair, Bishop said she wanted to avoid creating a dynasty and preventing succession planning. “It’s important that you don’t stay too long,” she told the Spec.³⁷ While some speculated she would not seek re-election in 2010, she did, and was acclaimed for the third and final time.

After her retirement from politics in 2014, Bishop remained active in the community. She wrote extensively, carried on with her advocacy, and was known to play a mean game of badminton. In November of this year, Bishop penned an op-ed in the Spec about how the current government’s Bill 33 - which may see trustees abolished entirely in Ontario - “reverses an Ontarian tradition of local involvement in education policy,” and that “Bill 33 must be stopped and public education needs to be properly funded.”³⁸

Five days after the publication of that piece, Bishop passed away suddenly at age 83.

***

In everything she did, Judith Bishop’s focus was always on social justice and the welfare of children. Her passion for this community and for local schools was so incredibly evident in all her work and the years of service she gave to Hamilton. Right up until the end, she continued to advocate for the things in which she believed with such passion.

Hamilton is a better community for having had Bishop’s voice at the table.

In her piece from 1996, Bishop hoped that, by next year, Hamilton would be a place where “children go to vibrant schools in safe neighbourhoods, where the community strongly supports the education they are receiving.”

With the way the Ford government is eying education, it’s hard to say if that dream will be fully realized. But, by her work, she did all she could in pursuit of that goal. And that’s a legacy worth remembering.