Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 15 September 2024

It is surprisingly difficult to get information from Newmarket Public Library about its own operations. Just basic stuff such as the type of material being borrowed. 

And this from an organisation whose Delphic new slogan promises: “Anything and Everywhere”.

For years I’ve believed the Library is simply too small and no longer fit for purpose. This was the firm view of the Library’s previous Chief Executive, Todd Kyle, who is now running Brampton’s eight libraries.

In our area Georgina and East Gwillimbury have three libraries each and Aurora and Whitchurch-Stouffville have a single library like Newmarket but with much smaller populations.

The current library board is not pressing for a new library – or, indeed, an additional branch – and one of its members, Councillor Victor Woodhouse, ridicules the very idea.

And although some members of the Town Council in the past have either championed a new library or have been sympathetic, these days are long gone. The Council decided early in its current term that a new library was not a “strategic priority”.

Who uses the Library?

But the one question that won’t go away is this: who uses the library? Is the building in Park Avenue essentially a neighbourhood library for Ward 5 and the Downtown or are its members and users spread across Newmarket?

When the Library Chief Executive, Tracy Munusami, presented her “Report to the Community 2023” to the Town Council on 8 April this year, Ward 7 councillor Christina Bisanz asked her if she tracked where people visiting the library and have library cards actually live. This might give:

“some indication of where there’s an opportunity to raise even more awareness of not only the physical library itself but the different services you provide.”

The Chief Executive said she looked at the ward split for library cards in 2022:

 “And there were some wards that did have more library card users than others and so we’ve used that data to try to target where our outreaches are in the community.”

She told councillors she hadn’t done a follow-up since then but she could find out.

I’m waiting.

Perhaps the Library Board when it meets this Wednesday (18 September 2024) can ask for this basic information and share it with the Mayor and Council and public.

Statistics

For over a decade, a full range of statistics was routinely reported to the Library Board which allowed for meaningful comparisons to be made year over year. This is no longer the case. The 2023 statistics, for example, don’t even give the total number of Newmarket Library card holders.

I asked the Town for sight of the full range of statistics for 2023 – beyond those selectively highlighted in the “Report to the Community 2023”. I was told these were not available:

“Unfortunately, the requested statistics cannot be provided. Statistics such as renewed members and number of cardholders must be pulled in real-time, and no 2023 data is available. Due to changes in the software used for booking programming we cannot provide detailed breakdowns of program and program attendance only aggregates. Circulation statistics cannot be provided in detail in the same categories as there was a cataloguing error resulting in missing data when broken down into categories.”

Back in April, the Mayor John Taylor told Tracy Munusami there was a lot of interest in Library data and he wanted her to share “some of the good news story”.

Telling us the number of Library members by Newmarket Ward would be a good start.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 11 July 2024

I laughed out loud when I read that yesterday Conrad Black, aka Lord Black of Crossharbour, had been expelled from the House of Lords for non-attendance. 

I’ve been blogging on-and-off for years about the convicted fraudster Conrad Black, well before he threatened to sue me for defamation. 

Unaware

Black told the CBC he was unaware that his membership of the Lords had been terminated. He said it didn't really matter to him but he was surprised he wasn't notified first.

For years Black hasn't been remotely interested in what was happening in the UK Parliament - nor in keeping up with the evolving rules governing its membership.

Yesterday morning peers were told that Lord Black had ceased to be a member 

"pursuant to Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, by virtue of non-attendance in the last Session"

Planning to return

After he was released from prison in Florida he told the BBC in 2019 that he planned to return to the Lords but it didn’t happen.

It may have been something to do with his opaque tax status. I don’t know.

I have long been interested in his tax affairs. After the Ashcroft scandal in early 2010 the UK Parliament passed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which obliged all members of the UK Parliament to pay UK tax.

Unlike members of the House of Commons who, as a matter of practical politics, have to live in the UK, peers can live absolutely anywhere. Even, dare I say, in Canada.

Tax status

Years ago I pressed the House of Lords authorities to ask all peers if they paid UK tax. They refused to do so. In the genteel and trusting world of the House of Lords that was a step too far.

But they did say they would remind all peers of their obligation under the 2010 Act to pay UK tax.

Conrad Black wouldn't have liked that.

My Freedom of Information requests to HMRC and the CRA about Lord Black’s tax status predictably ran into the sands of taxpayer confidentiality and got nowhere. I found it impossible to establish if all members of the UK Parliament complied with the requirement to pay UK tax.

"Fully qualified"

In 2021 I asked Black if he satisfied the requirements for membership of the UK Parliament or if he was there under false pretences he told me:

 “Of course I am fully qualified to hold the status I do.”

Black, the convicted fraudster, is inviting us to take that on trust. (I don't.)

Black will, of course, keep his honorific title though I doubt he will use it here in Canada. 

But I suspect he will still be Lord Black when he books a restaurant table in London.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 03 July 2024

Tomorrow’s UK General Election (4 July 2024) will see Britain’s ruling Conservative Party obliterated after 14 years in power. 

The Opposition Labour Party will win a huge majority though pollsters disagree on its scale. But we all know the tectonic plates are shifting and the political landscape will be very different on 5 July when the votes are counted.

Implosion

The election prediction website, Electoral Calculus, gives the Conservatives 61 seats in the new House of Commons trailing the Liberal Democrats who are on 71. So Rishi Sunak – assuming he holds his traditionally ultra-safe seat of Richmond and Northallerton - may not even be the Leader of the Opposition.

How on earth did it come to this?

Today’s New York Times tells its readers 

“The Conservative party has dramatically reshaped Britain since 2010, orchestrating its exit from the European union, slashing spending on public services and cutting welfare spending. Time and again, British voters have returned the party to power. But Britons say their country is worse off now than when the Conservatives took office.”

Very true.

But there's more to it than that. The rot is everywhere.

D Day

We witnessed Rishi Sunak's terrible misjudgement, leaving the D Day Commemorations early - so that he could get back to the UK for a political interview.

And in the middle of the election campaign we learn some very important people in Sunak's immediate circle had bet on the most likely election date.

The police are now involved.

Britain has seen a merry-go-round of five Prime Ministers in less than a decade. One of whom, Boris Johnson, was found to have deliberately lied to MPs. In our Parliamentary system in Canada, as in the UK, this is the ultimate hanging offence. 

The Canadian Parallel

In Canada’s Federal Election in 1993 the newly installed Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, lost her riding in Vancouver Centre and saw her Progressive Conservative Party wiped out, reduced to two seats. The Bloc Québécois became the Official Opposition.

In his 2005 book “The Secret Mulroney Tapes” Peter Newman says the election was a plebiscite on Brian Mulroney whose 3,202 days as Canada’s Prime Minister ended on 24 June 1993, roiled by scandal and disaffection.

“The historic Party, which in its various guises had founded the country and fielded twelve Prime Ministers who had governed Canada for more than half a century, was eliminated from contention.”

Throwing in the towel

In Britain, the Conservatives make no pretence that they can win tomorrow’s election. It is all about limiting the damage that a Labour “super majority” would inflict on the country. They say a bad result could cement Labour in power for a generation. People simply don’t believe that sort of nonsense. 

For long enough the Conservatives had no other parties competing against them for votes on the right.

The so-called progressive vote was too often split between Labour and the Lib Dems allowing the Conservatives to slip through the middle – like Doug Ford’s Ontario PCs - often with well under 50% of the vote.

Reform UK

Tomorrow’s election signals the arrival of Nigel Farage’s insurgent Reform UK Party which will take a huge bite out of the Conservative vote although it is uncertain how this will translate into seats because of the vagaries of first-past-the-post.

Farage has been bearding the lion in its den, taking his populist message to the readers of the Daily Mail, telling them it’s time to ditch the Conservatives. (see below)

His message seems to be resonating in true blue Skipton and Ripon – Conservative for as long as I can remember and only a few miles from where I used to live. Unbelieveably, there is a 66% chance of Reform UK winning there.

The kaleidescope is turning. We wait to see where the pieces fall.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Details

Written by Gordon Prentice

Published: 17 June 2024

 Background: On 1 November 2022 the developer Michael Rice offered some of his newly purchased land in the Protected Greenbelt at Miller’s Sideroad and Bathurst in King Township to Southlake as the site of a new acute hospital. Rice bought the 2.78 sq km tract for $80M on 15 September 2022 from Bob Schickedanz, the former President of the Ontario Home Builders Association, gambling that he would be permitted – at some stage - to open it up for development. 

Michael Rice’s offer was made three days before the Government announced the removal of land from the Protected Greenbelt.

His presentation to the meeting on 1 November 2022 included the graphic (right) showing the Rice lands coloured yellow.

The Southlake logo straddles his land and the land immediately to the south owned by John Dunlap. He was the land agent who facilitated the Rice purchase.

Dunlap, then a member of Southlake’s Board, was a wealthy landowner in his own right with properties in Canada and the United States. 

Through his numbered company 2201506 Ontario - Dunlap owned 108 acres of land to the south, abutting the Rice lands. 

Conflict of Interest

Dunlap declared a conflict of interest at the Southlake Board meeting on 22 September 2022 and resigned from the Board.

The closed session minutes of the Board meeting say the conflict:

“related to the future site selection of the new build of a new hospital”.

The Board Meeting summary - which is available to the public on Southlake’s website - makes no mention of Dunlap’s conflict of interest or resignation from the Board. 

On 7 June 2024, Southlake stated it had no records of Dunlap offering to donate land so, if we take that at face value, the conflict of interest must relate to the Rice lands where Dunlap acted as the land agent and facilitator of the sale.

Dunlap was by trade a land agent but he wouldn’t have declared a conflict of interest to the Southlake Board for any old land sale he was involved in. This one was different.

Dunlap declared an interest because he knew by 22 September 2022 - seven days after Rice had purchased the Bathurst lands - that Rice was minded to offer land for a new hospital. If he didn’t know of Rice’s intentions then why declare a conflict of interest?

One Known Opportunity 

The first meeting of the Land Acquisition Sub Committee (LASC) on 5 December 2022 was told by its Chair, Southlake’s Vice President of Capital, Facilities and Business Development, John Marshman, that there was only "one known opportunity” - the Rice lands.  (see graphic right: 8 Known Opportunities)

Southlake’s then Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, attended Board meetings and would have been aware of Dunlap’s declaration of a conflict of interest on 22 September 2022 and that it related to the Rice lands. She must have told Marshman. How could she not? 

Marshman in the dark

Yet Southlake insists that John Marshman:

“learned about the Rice Group land during a meeting between Southlake, King Township and Rice Group on November 1, 2022.”

We are asked to believe that Marshman walked into the consequential meeting at King Municipal Centre on 1 November 2022 unaware that an offer of land was about to be made by Michael Rice and that he, Marshman, had no knowledge of Dunlap’s declaration of a conflict of interest on 22 September 2022 regarding the Rice lands. 

This is not credible. The resignation of a Board member – and their reasons - would have been a talking point among Southlake’s top-tier management.

Pellegrini and Dunlap’s offer of land

On 20 July 2020 Dunlap told King Mayor, Steve Pellegrini, that he was prepared to donate land to Southlake for a new hospital. He attached location maps. (Right)

“If you feel the idea has merit I will continue to work with Southlake on a donation process.”

In a handwritten postscript to his letter, Dunlap wrote:

“I thought this may be helpful for your meeting with Arden Krystal from Southlake.”

Pellegrini enthusiastically welcomed the prospect of a new hospital on the lands owned by Dunlap at Bathurst and Davis Drive West – most recently at the King Council meeting on 13 May 2024. 

Did Dunlap offer land to Southlake?

Despite this, Southlake insists it has no records of Dunlap ever offering to donate land for a new hospital.

I find it impossible to believe the top people at Southlake were unaware that Dunlap – a Board member – was minded to gift land for a new hospital. 

Even if Dunlap had made the offer to the Southlake Foundation – the hospital’s charitable arm – it is inconceivable this information would not have been passed to Southlake’s then Chief Executive, Arden Krystal, who sat on the Foundation Board. She had been the public face of Southlake’s search for a second site. She is on record saying she hoped for a benefactor.

When Arden Krystal met possible donors she didn’t take notes or jot things down. That wasn’t her way of doing things. Instead of an aide-memoire she committed everything to memory.

Memory Man

She shared this remarkable trait with Southlake’s Vice President of Capital, Facilities and Business Development, John Marshman, who had been in contact with the Rice Group about a possible new hospital site since January 2022.

Southlake has no records of the meeting on 1 November 2022 other than the invitations. However we know that the developer Michael Rice delivered a presentation which included a schematic showing, with the Southlake logo, the rough location of the proposed new hospital.

The Southlake logo straddled the Rice lands (shaded yellow) and those to the south owned by Dunlap. Before the meeting, Erin Lindsay, the Rice Group’s Vice President of Administration, sent the presentation to King’s Chief Administrative Officer Daniel Kostopolous asking if he was OK with it. He was. 

Hospital Location encroaches onto Dunlap lands

None of the meeting’s participants - including Arden Krystal and John Marshman – objected to the schematic as being inaccurate.

It clearly showed the Rice lands shaded in yellow and with the proposed hospital location significantly encroaching onto the neighbouring lands owned by Dunlap. 

Marshman committed everything from the one and a half hour meeting to memory. He states unequivocally: 

"I did not use any records from a meeting between Southlake, King Township, the Rice Group on November 1, 2022 in the December 5, 2022 presentation provided to Southlake’s Land Acquisition Sub Committee. To be clear, I unequivocally attest that I did not use any records provided during the 1 November 2022 meeting in the December 5, 2022 presentation to Southlake’s Land Acquisition Sub Committee.”

On 7 November 2022 Michael Rice wrote to John Marshman saying:

“We are ready to review concepts.”

And on 16 November 2022 Marshman met Michael Rice and Erin Lindsay (the Rice Group’s Vice President of Administration) at the Rice HQ in Markham.

Marshman’s schematic

Almost three weeks later, on 5 December 2022, Marshman’s presentation to the first meeting of Southlake’s newly formed Land Acquisition Sub Committee (LASC) also included a schematic showing the rough location of the proposed hospital. It mimicked the Rice presentation slide but in his version the Rice lands were not colour coded or identified in any way. And, again, the proposed site clearly straddled the Rice/Dunlap lands.

Unless they had been told otherwise, members of the LASC would have assumed the proposed hospital site was on Rice lands. If Dunlap had never offered his own land to Southlake then why include his lands in the schematic?

If Marshman made a mistake about the proposed location of the hospital he should simply say so. He made a giant error and got it wrong. 

No records

Southlake maintains it has no records for a number of important meetings where the location of the proposed hospital was being considered. They either don’t exist or, if they do, they are saved from disclosure (a) to protect the economic interests of Ontario or (b) to protect the interests of third parties (that is, entities separate from Southlake but who contract with it.)

We are are told, for example, there are no records of the meeting on 24 January 2023 involving Mayor Pellegrini, Krystal and Marshman which was a “follow-up” to the critically important one on 1 November 2022. We have the invitation list but nothing more. 

In the same way, we are told there are no records of the 16 January 2023 meeting (other than the invitation list) which was specifically convened to discuss the “Bathurst Davis Drive Opportunity”. The meeting involving architects, planners and facilities experts was chaired by John Marshman and considered the location of the proposed acute hospital; how and where a new Long Term Care facility would fit in and if a Ministerial Zoning Order would be required. 

John Marshman would know that public bodies – including hospitals – have a legal obligation to keep records. 

But if, for whatever reason, they choose not to keep records they should tell us what they know.

Having no records is not the same as having no knowledge.

For a start we should be told if the Land Acquisition Sub Committee was given inaccurate information on where the new Southlake was planned to be located together with an explanation on how and why that happened.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.