And another thing about small business…
What does Thunder Bay lose when a very small business closes?
We lose jobs, certainly. We may also lose a gathering place, a local customer for other businesses, a first job for a young person, or one of the places that gives a neighbourhood its character.
During COVID, I watched small businesses find ways to help one another survive. Restaurants created online grocery stores filled with products from their local suppliers. Businesses shared information, promoted one another, and created new ways to reach customers.
They were trying to survive, but they were also trying to ensure that the businesses around them would still be there when things returned to normal.
That is community wealth. It is not only profit or tax revenue. It is the wages, relationships, experience, and cooperation that remain in Thunder Bay and help make us more resilient when the next challenge arrives.
The City cannot guarantee that every business will succeed. It can make better decisions about the conditions in which they operate.
That means giving reasonable notice when construction will affect them, providing reliable transit and accessible sidewalks, helping bring vacant commercial spaces back into use, and encouraging mixed-use developments with smaller storefronts that new businesses can realistically afford.
It also means examining City purchasing. Large contracts may appear efficient, but they can shut smaller businesses out. Where possible, we should structure purchasing so qualified local businesses have a fair opportunity to compete—and consider how much of the wider economic benefit remains in Thunder Bay.
That is the small-business lens I would bring to Council: looking beyond the immediate price and considering the effect a decision will have on workers, neighbourhoods, local suppliers, and the wider community.
What small business adds something irreplaceable to your neighbourhood?
Tell me about it—or tag them so others can find them.
Read full update
And another thing about small business…
What does Thunder Bay lose when a very small business closes?
We lose jobs, certainly. We may also lose a gathering place, a local customer for other businesses, a first job for a young person, or one of the places that gives a neighbourhood its character.
During COVID, I watched small businesses find ways to help one another survive. Restaurants created online grocery stores filled with products from their local suppliers. Businesses shared information, promoted one another, and created new ways to reach customers.
They were trying to survive, but they were also trying to ensure that the businesses around them would still be there when things returned to normal.
That is community wealth. It is not only profit or tax revenue. It is the wages, relationships, experience, and cooperation that remain in Thunder Bay and help make us more resilient when the next challenge arrives.
The City cannot guarantee that every business will succeed. It can make better decisions about the conditions in which they operate.
That means giving reasonable notice when construction will affect them, providing reliable transit and accessible sidewalks, helping bring vacant commercial spaces back into use, and encouraging mixed-use developments with smaller storefronts that new businesses can realistically afford.
It also means examining City purchasing. Large contracts may appear efficient, but they can shut smaller businesses out. Where possible, we should structure purchasing so qualified local businesses have a fair opportunity to compete—and consider how much of the wider economic benefit remains in Thunder Bay.
That is the small-business lens I would bring to Council: looking beyond the immediate price and considering the effect a decision will have on workers, neighbourhoods, local suppliers, and the wider community.
What small business adds something irreplaceable to your neighbourhood?
Tell me about it—or tag them so others can find them.
We have programs. Where are the results?
People are frightened. They are frustrated. They are angry.
In the latest Thunder Bay Police Service survey, only 51% of residents said they felt safe. People have every right to ask what is being done—and whether it is working.
The loudest answer from many candidates has been ‘more police’.
Yes, we need effective and properly resourced policing. But more police, by itself, is not a plan. We cannot arrest our way out of homelessness, addiction, mental-health crises, poverty, youth violence, and all the other issues feeding crime and disorder.
Thunder Bay already has many programs working on these problems. Many may be doing excellent work. A collection of programs, however, is not the same as a coordinated plan. The public should be able to easily see how they connect, where the gaps are, and whether their combined effort is making people safer.
A meeting is not a result. A program delivered is not necessarily a problem solved. A referral is not a success if the person never receives help or quickly falls back through the same gap or even a different gap.
Thunder Bay already has a Community Safety and Well-Being structure that brings organizations together. We need to make it produce a clear, coordinated, and public plan:
• Set shared community safety goals.
• Share information and track outcomes across services.
• Reduce duplicated work and direct resources where they are needed most.
• Report what is working, what is not, and what needs to change.
Council should not simply approve another program, pilot, or funding increase and move on. It should ask who is responsible, what result is expected, how it connects with everything else, and whether it actually worked.
That is what I will bring to Council: direct questions, follow-through, and a focus on results people can see and feel.
Thunder Bay may already have many of the right people and programs. It is time to get them pulling in the same direction.
Better Decisions. Stronger City.
Read full update
We have programs. Where are the results?
People are frightened. They are frustrated. They are angry.
In the latest Thunder Bay Police Service survey, only 51% of residents said they felt safe. People have every right to ask what is being done—and whether it is working.
The loudest answer from many candidates has been ‘more police’.
Yes, we need effective and properly resourced policing. But more police, by itself, is not a plan. We cannot arrest our way out of homelessness, addiction, mental-health crises, poverty, youth violence, and all the other issues feeding crime and disorder.
Thunder Bay already has many programs working on these problems. Many may be doing excellent work. A collection of programs, however, is not the same as a coordinated plan. The public should be able to easily see how they connect, where the gaps are, and whether their combined effort is making people safer.
A meeting is not a result. A program delivered is not necessarily a problem solved. A referral is not a success if the person never receives help or quickly falls back through the same gap or even a different gap.
Thunder Bay already has a Community Safety and Well-Being structure that brings organizations together. We need to make it produce a clear, coordinated, and public plan:
• Set shared community safety goals.
• Share information and track outcomes across services.
• Reduce duplicated work and direct resources where they are needed most.
• Report what is working, what is not, and what needs to change.
Council should not simply approve another program, pilot, or funding increase and move on. It should ask who is responsible, what result is expected, how it connects with everything else, and whether it actually worked.
That is what I will bring to Council: direct questions, follow-through, and a focus on results people can see and feel.
Thunder Bay may already have many of the right people and programs. It is time to get them pulling in the same direction.
Better Decisions. Stronger City.
When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
Many people I’ve spoken with are not angry that the City spends money. They are frustrated by its priorities—and by projects paid for with public money that still feel out of reach for many residents.
For example, the turf facility may be a worthwhile project. It can support recreation and sports, attract visitors, and generate economic activity. But if taxpayers help build and maintain it, and many residents cannot afford to use it, we should be honest about who benefits and who is being left behind.
Not every public facility can be free. Fees may be needed to cover some operating costs. But affordability, accessibility, transportation, and public access should be considered when a project is designed—not after the building opens.
Before supporting major spending, I will ask:
What problem are we solving?
Who will benefit?
What are potential access barriers?
Could another option benefit more people?
What are we choosing not to fund?
What will it cost to operate, maintain, repair, and eventually replace?
Provincial or federal funding can be valuable, but a grant deadline should not set our priorities. Before chasing available money, Council should ask whether the project would still be important without the grant, what local contribution is required, what other work may be delayed, and what costs the City will inherit afterward.
“Spend now or lose the funding” is not, by itself, a good enough reason to commit taxpayers to decades of expenses.
Every new project should be added to the City’s Asset Management Plan when it is approved. Its expected construction, operating, maintenance, replacement, and disposal costs—and its public benefits—should be reviewed and updated throughout its life.
I cannot promise the outcome of every Council vote. I can promise to ask who benefits, who pays, who is left behind, and whether the commitment will make life better for the people who live here.
Read full update
When public money builds something, the general public should be able to benefit from it.
Many people I’ve spoken with are not angry that the City spends money. They are frustrated by its priorities—and by projects paid for with public money that still feel out of reach for many residents.
For example, the turf facility may be a worthwhile project. It can support recreation and sports, attract visitors, and generate economic activity. But if taxpayers help build and maintain it, and many residents cannot afford to use it, we should be honest about who benefits and who is being left behind.
Not every public facility can be free. Fees may be needed to cover some operating costs. But affordability, accessibility, transportation, and public access should be considered when a project is designed—not after the building opens.
Before supporting major spending, I will ask:
What problem are we solving?
Who will benefit?
What are potential access barriers?
Could another option benefit more people?
What are we choosing not to fund?
What will it cost to operate, maintain, repair, and eventually replace?
Provincial or federal funding can be valuable, but a grant deadline should not set our priorities. Before chasing available money, Council should ask whether the project would still be important without the grant, what local contribution is required, what other work may be delayed, and what costs the City will inherit afterward.
“Spend now or lose the funding” is not, by itself, a good enough reason to commit taxpayers to decades of expenses.
Every new project should be added to the City’s Asset Management Plan when it is approved. Its expected construction, operating, maintenance, replacement, and disposal costs—and its public benefits—should be reviewed and updated throughout its life.
I cannot promise the outcome of every Council vote. I can promise to ask who benefits, who pays, who is left behind, and whether the commitment will make life better for the people who live here.