If you’ve ever lived in or visited Toronto, even for a short time, you’ve heard the heartbreaking ‘I was an engineer in my country’ stories. It may sound cliche or like some kind of urban legend, but we’ve all heard them. I’m talking doctors, pharmacists, engineers; people much smarter than me who deserve better from their newly chosen country.

In London, I know a janitor who worked in Poland as a professional for a large municipality; she lectured at the local university and was a respected member of her community. She fled communism in the late 1980’s to come to Canada; she’s been emptying garbage at our local university ever since. She’s the first to point out that she’s found success in Canada and she loves this country just as much (quite possibly more) than you and I. Her son recently graduated from university and she’s beyond proud of what he has achieved – but as she beams with pride talking about her son I also detect a sense of sadness of ‘what could have been’ for her.

I’m hoping we can all agree, regardless of our political affiliations (or lack thereof), that it isn’t good enough for people to immigrate to Canada in search of a better lives ‘for their kids.’ They deserve to use their skills and talents to build our community and better their lives. It is an utter waste, a tragedy really, letting newcomers’ skills wither on the vine. This isn’t about newcomers failing to work hard or play by the rules. They’re working really damn hard but they’ve been failed by the rules.

So let’s all move past scoring points by using narratives about ‘foreigners’ or ‘the politics of division’ and focus on the real goal: how do we help a very real segment of fellow Canadians apply their skills and talents, and achieve their fullest potential? I’ll be the first to admit that the solution is more complex than a tax credit - be it $400 or $10,000. But if we answer this policy question correctly we’ll have highly skilled folks working in their profession - innovating, helping companies and non-profits achieve their goals, and filling the skills shortages that are just around the corner. We’ll also have a larger tax base; investments in skills development - be them in new Canadians or folks who have been here their whole lives - are repaid many times over through the taxes derived from higher incomes.

I know all political parties want to address this problem. So let’s all tone down the rhetoric and start talking about solutions.

The Liberals have suggested a tax credit - here’s their plan. The Progressive Conservatives have worked on this issue too - Mr. Hudak introduced this bill, which has a ‘Newcomers Employment Opportunities Tax Credit’ as part of the legislation; rather than going with this ‘foreigner’ narrative I’m hoping they’ll promote the virtues of their own proposed legislation and focus campaign messaging on why they got it right then and the Liberals have got it wrong now. I’m unsure if the NDP has a plan, but I’m quite confident that they do (or will) given their political philosophy. I’m happy to add links from the NDP if proposals exist out there that I’m not aware of. There’s only so much legislative research I’m willing to do on a Saturday night.

This issue is just too damn important to make newcomers pawns in some political game. Let’s all remind ourselves of that and recommit ourselves to doing something about this very real public policy issue.

I had the pleasure of attending the Mayor’s Economic Council on behalf of Emerging Leaders last Thursday. I’ve been asked by lots of folks for my opinion on the whole thing - so thought I’d share here and also hopefully engage ya’ll in the process. You can only cram so many people into the Lamplighter for coffee and pastries, so we were all asked by the Mayor to reach out to our groups (that’s where you come in!) to widen the base of opinion. This is part of my effort to do so.

Before we get into your part I’ll offer some commentary. First, change is always an opportunity to question assumptions, push boundaries and generally say things that would have been taboo only a few months ago. That’s healthy for a city or an organization - and it gives license to all of us, not just the mayor, to be part of it all. After a change election our elected politicians are taking a second look at our economic development strategy and that isn’t a bad thing. So try not to be troubled or excited by specific ideas at this stage (401 development outside urban growth boundary, stop funding UWO/Fanshawe), instead take the big picture view and see this as an opportunity to express what is best for your business, organization, your family and neighbourhood and for London as a whole.

Second, in any change process there are usually 10 per cent with you no matter what, 10 per cent against you no matter what (and who will never be with you, no matter what), and a huge chunk in the middle that will swing to either poll based on how the change process shakes out. The decision I made at the outset is to be an active member of the middle group. To keep myself to this promise I wrote down four goals the night before the meeting: “Be an active and positive contributor. Push back where necessary but don’t be stubborn. Keep an open mind and stay positive. Work to make this work.” I think I achieved those goals and hope you will too.

OK, now on to your part. We were asked to answer three questions during the morning session - I’ll give you the same set of questions. You can e-mail your responses to mec@london.ca. If you don’t feel comfortable sending responses through official channels, you can send them my way: scott.courtice@gmail.com and I’ll make sure your opinions are heard.

Oh, if you’re not a ‘stay within the process’ kind of person please feel free to add ‘other’ comments…but only if you make a good effort to answer the questions asked by the Economic Council and keep those four goals I shared above in mind. ;)

1. What can the City of London do to be more welcoming and attractive to business?

2. What do you see as the ‘low hanging fruit (easy stuff)’ in the area of business expansion and job creation?

3. How can the City of London improve how it does business with business?

4. ‘Other’

That’s all friends. Next meeting is March 10th, so please comment away.

Council will be debating at their Committee of the Whole meeting today whether or not to stick with a 20 year plan to finance much needed improvements to our water and sewer infrastructure, or to give Londoners a ‘taxcation’ in 2011 from water and waste water/treatment rates.

The rationale for freezing rates goes like this: the economy is terrible, people’s budgets are maxed out and we all could use more money in our pockets. I get this rationale and believe governments should be looking extra hard at the books this year and doing their best to pass on savings to the taxpayer. But I think governments should also be wise about where they find those savings - cut frills, find efficiencies and ask for some sacrifices, but also protect priorities that require investment. 

Water and waste water/treatment infrastructure are probably two of the last places I’d go looking to find savings. I can live with my sidewalk and street being a little bumpy and can put up with other temporary service cut-backs, but I really, really don’t like putting our water infrastructure at risk to save a few bucks in 2011.

I think this should be put into perspective - freezing rates probably won’t lead to another sinkhole or Walkerton tragedy, but it also won’t result in mind blowing savings for taxpayers either. In the end it’ll result is some savings this year, but will cost everybody a bit more down the road. 

Here’s the dollars and cents of it: if rates are frozen the average homeowner would save $25 (~$2.50 a month) on the water bill and $41 on waste water treatment (~$3 a month) in 2011. So we’re talking about $66 here - or $5.50 a month. Every little bit helps, but this isn’t a silver bullet for the family budget.

I guess what offends me most is the principle of the matter. We’re dealing with higher than inflation water and wastewater rates because previous generations didn’t pay the piper - they deferred maintenance, let our infrastructure crumble and ultimately pushed costs into the future. Making matters worse, the costs are also higher now than if they’d been dealt with before (it costs a lot more to fix a sinkhole than keeping up a regular schedule of maintenance and replacement.) 

The last Council made the unpopular decision to deal with this once and for all by establishing a 20-year financial and capital plan. It has meant higher rates in the short term, but ultimately gets water rates to inflation by 2013 and wastewater to inflation by 2015. Freezing rates in 2011 throws this plan off kilter. I hope this Council chooses the unpopular yet responsible path by staying the course - we’ve got 4 more years of higher than inflation increases for water and 2 more years for waste water, and then we’re finally in a sustainable position. No more rolling the dice with our water infrastructure, and no more passing costs into the future. High rates aren’t very popular - but in the context of our water infrastructure, they are responsible.

Bottom line for me: you can play politics with lots of things, but water should not be one of them!

Civic administration has prepared a great report here that lays out the debate. In true administrator fashion they’ve prepared several scenarios for Council to consider. Also in good public servant form they’ve provided an option ‘d’ that is a nice compromise between the ‘rate freeze’ camp and the ‘status quo’ camp. If I was a betting man, I’d wager they’ll end up choosing that option. It allows face saving all around, gets us to inflationary rates only two years later than planned (2017 for water and 2015 for waste water), but will result in higher rates until that point. I still would vote for status quo, but could swallow this option if the status quo option is defeated.

I’m on vacation until January 3rd - I’m going to try and get back into a blogging routine, and I’ve got a long list of things to write about!

Heading to Council tonight - hope to see some of you there.