Receive and File

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton over several years caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens were outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.  

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.”

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----

Rupert Hotel December 1989*

Gordon was sorry

but it was tough keeping warm

and he’d had some to drink 

so setting fire to those papers on the floor in the middle 

of his second-floor room made some kind of sense.

At the Rupert Hotel, a three-storey brick walk up 

in a licensed city rooming house 

off Queen Street East 

at Parliament

those with few options and few dollars could exist, 

in a way. 

Gordon’s warming fire soon leapt out of control 

flames and choking smoke filling the corridors 

as the fire gained full possession of the hallways.

The license pinned to the wall wasn’t worth the paper 

it was printed on as far as the protection it afforded 

the 31 tenants at the Rupert

on this wintry December night. 

A sprinkler system might have halted the fire’s progress.

Perhaps tenants could have taken action 

if the alarm system had been operable 

or fire extinguishers stored in the basement were reachable.

It was 17 long minutes before someone called 911.

When firefighters arrived 

the whole building was enveloped. 

Flames leapt out of the top floor windows.

Firefighters using ladders forced their way 

into the searing heat of the second floor.  

Later a witness called it 

“A Vision out of Hell.”

As the fire raged people screamed, crying out for friends.

It took six hours and eighteen crews to subdue the blaze.

Thankfully, some tenants were saved and many escaped. 

For days crews chopped through ice and debris to locate bodies. 

They found nine men. 

A woman had returned to the building to help a friend 

Donna Marie Cann died, as had the others, 

of heavy smoke inhalation.

Soon an inquest was held.

Recommendations were made    

new rules created 

regulations established

housing planned.

After a while all was forgotten.

Rules and regulations lapsed, 

were ignored or opposed 

and the programs ended.

In the city today austerity policies 

compel people to rent rooms 

in perilous and dangerous buildings. 

Many flee the downtown to illegal suburban homes 

where life is cheaper.

*According to the Fire Marshal, there were fires at 69 illegal rooming houses in the Toronto area between 2013 and 2017.

Remember the Rupert Hotel Fire

There is an event in Toronto this week which remembers the Rupert Hotel fire that took ten lives just before Christmas in 1989.

Here are some details of the event.

Over the years I’ve written some pieces on the fire.  for those who don't know the history of this fire check this link 
https://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/blog?post=Rupert+Hotel+Fire+1989+-+What+has+Changed%3F&id=491

I’m afraid that we have really learned much from this terrible tragedy.  Some thoughts:

Rupert Hotel December 1989*

Gordon was sorry

but it was tough keeping warm

and he’d had some to drink 

so setting fire to those papers on the floor in the middle 

of his second-floor room made some kind of sense.

At the Rupert Hotel, a three-storey brick walk up 

in a licensed city rooming house 

off Queen Street East 

at Parliament

those with few options and few dollars could exist, 

in a way. 

Gordon’s warming fire soon leapt out of control 

flames and choking smoke filling the corridors 

as the fire gained full possession of the hallways.

The license pinned to the wall wasn’t worth the paper 

it was printed on as far as the protection it afforded 

the 31 tenants at the Rupert

on this wintry December night. 

A sprinkler system might have halted the fire’s progress.

Perhaps tenants could have taken action 

if the alarm system had been operable 

or fire extinguishers stored in the basement were reachable.

It was 17 long minutes before someone called 911.

When firefighters arrived 

the whole building was enveloped. 

Flames leapt out of the top floor windows.

Firefighters using ladders forced their way 

into the searing heat of the second floor.  

Later a witness called it 

“A Vision out of Hell.”

As the fire raged people screamed, crying out for friends.

It took six hours and eighteen crews to subdue the blaze.

Thankfully, some tenants were saved and many escaped. 

For days crews chopped through ice and debris to locate bodies. 

They found nine men. 

A woman had returned to the building to help a friend 

Donna Marie Cann died, as had the others, 

of heavy smoke inhalation.

Soon an inquest was held.

Recommendations were made    

new rules created 

regulations established

housing planned.

After a while all was forgotten.

Rules and regulations lapsed, 

were ignored or opposed 

and the programs ended.

In the city today austerity policies 

compel people to rent rooms 

in perilous and dangerous buildings. 

Many flee the downtown to illegal suburban homes 

where life is cheaper.

*According to the Fire Marshal, there were fires at 69 illegal rooming houses in the Toronto area between 2013 and 2017.

A leak of  raw sewage into Cootes Paradise in Hamilton has, not surprisingly, caused quite an uproar in the Ambitious City. Citizens are outraged that City Council decided to keep the spill a secret.  Council has the right to keep certain legal matters confidential.  Was it appropriate in this case?  Probably not.  But it is hard to judge when you don't have all the facts that were shared in camera.

Anyway, I've been writing on municipal politics and decided to share a chapter that deals with in camera meetings and Council transparency in the fictional town of Clarovista.   Here it is.   

---------

Receive and File

By Councillor Kenneth Williams

I find land use planning stuff kind of complicated. The reports are like those
instructions for putting together the kid’s Christmas presents in that, while the salient points were repeated so as even the thickest reader can understand them, they always seem sort of back to front to this dim-witted decision maker.

Case in point is tonight’s Planning Report 14-2727-17.

It is dealing with what our staff call redundant park space.

Apparently, we have too much park space in Clarovista.

And we have a policy that if none of our public sector partners want such property, we can sell it off at market value price to whoever wants it. But how does one put a monetary value on parkland? I, for one, have no idea.

This particular “redundant” space is a small parcel of land located along the shoreline of Lake Vista. The property measures about 7.5 acres. I’ve heard it referred to as a passive park.  Such a park allows for the preservation of natural habitat and permits only a low level of development.  The park is well used by families, birders, picnickers and seniors. There are picnic benches and in the summer a Music in the Park program - Vista Voices - draws small but enthusiastic artists and audiences.  J.P Gormley owns an adjacent property. His plans for a hotel/marina/convention centre at that site aren’t going anywhere – or so it seems.

Mayor Martin has been aggressive in pursuing the sale of unneeded municipal assets.  But he hasn’t championed a park sale.  Not until tonight.

There is great public interest in this issue.  The Council Chambers are full and there is an overflow crowd in the Atrium.

The staff report supports a rezoning that would enable a sale but has many, many conditions attached to it - fourteen to be exact.   The report features several appendices, maps with different shadings, asterisks here and there and a suggestion for a holding zone.

In my view, the person who would purchase this property with all these conditions is the kind of guy who would invest in a Trump Tower in Bathurst Inlet. I mean no one is going to buy it.

The report is under discussion.

It seems my colleagues are interested in calling the vote and as it stands now the sale of the parkland will not happen.

For his part, Mayor Martin is not smiling tonight.  He asks to go in camera.

The public is never happy to see Councillors go behind closed doors.  However, the Municipal Act lays out clear situations where in camera meetings are allowed.

In this case, as our discussion relates “to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board” an in camera session is permitted.

Before we head into closed session in an adjacent committee room, we clear all other items from the evening’s agenda.

Most of the public remains seated.

We have a long discussion in camera – about 45 minutes.

When we return to the Council Chambers a significant portion of the public has remained.

Clerk Melissa Belmonte reports:

“As you are aware a closed meeting was held. The only item considered was a matter respecting the acquisition of property. There is nothing further to report.” 

Mayor Martin takes charge.

“As far as the staff report, do I have a motion,” asks the Mayor?

“Receive and file,” shouts Councillor Wright.

“All in favour?”

“Carried.”

“Motion to adjourn?”

“So moved.”

And, so, abruptly the proceedings are finished.  It is 11:15 p.m.  We should all go home.
But many citizens linger outside the Council Chambers chatting.

“What just happened Councillor,” I’m asked as I leave the Council Chambers?  “What was decided?”

“I’m sorry but I can’t tell you what went on in the in-camera session,” I respond meekly.

Councillors can’t talk about matters discussed in camera that remain confidential.  This, of course, is somewhat at odds with the duty of Council to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality.

 “OK, but what does receive and file mean?  Has the park been sold or what?”

It is a reasonable question.  But what is the appropriate answer?

“Hmm.  It means Council received the information contained in the staff report and didn’t act on it tonight and may or may not act on it in the future.  I’m not sure if that is helpful.”

Developer J.P Gormley

As one of the citizens begins to formulate another question J.P Gormley, his senior planner, associate planner and other subordinates pass the group on the way out of the building.

They look pleased.

-----

A Positive Step Towards Reconciliation in British Columbia

This past June Romeo Saganash’s Bill (Bill C-262) was killed in the Senate by Conservative opposition.

At the time Saganash said he was “devastated.”

Former MP Romeo Saganash

He will undoubtedly be encouraged that Bill 41 was recently introduced in the British Columbia Legislature. This bill has the same intent as Saganash’s one.

Specifically, Bill 41 requires the B.C. government to take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

It will also ensure that an action plan be prepared and implemented to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.

In the Explanatory Note to the bill it is noted that “the minister must report annually on the progress that has been made towards implementing the necessary measures and achieving the goals in the action plan.”

The Bill also provides for agreements to be entered into with Indigenous governing bodies.  That includes agreements relating to the exercise of a statutory power of decision.

Toronto Star Columnist Tanya Talaga does a good job of showing how important this legislation is for B.C and the country as a whole at https://torontostar.pressreader.com/toronto-star/20191029

The full text of the Bill can be found at https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/4th-session/bills/first-reading/gov41-1

The Bill should pass, Ms. Talaga notes, as it was introduced by the government and the Green Party, which holds the balance of power, supported the idea in the 2017 election.

Calls to Action

Saganash, who, following two terms with the NDP did not run running for re-election in this fall’s election.  Saganash was one of the original architects of the Declaration.  He spent 23 years helping to draft it before it was adopted in 2007 by the UN General Assembly.

While Conservative Party Senators and MPs expressed fears of economic and legal consequences if Canada were to align its laws with UNDRIP, the Liberals apparently promised during the recent election campaign to legislate UNDRIP if re-elected in the fall.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a global human rights instrument which sets out minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples around the world.

In its  2015 report, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called upon the federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the UNDRIP as the framework for reconciliation.

That’s written in Call to Action #43.  Call to Action #44 asks for the Government of Canada to develop a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures to achieve the goals of the Declaration.

Grandpa Tells us about Politics

It is one of those hot, lazy August days at the cottage.  Grandpa has his nose in a book of Canadianisms* - words and expressions from the past.  Later that day over a cocktail, his memory enhanced, Grandpa takes it upon himself to explain an important time in Canadian history - the summer of 2002.

-------------------------

Kids today spend too much time playing video games and not enough time learning about their country’s past. Well kids the summer of 2002 was a crazy time in Canadian politics.  So, I’m going to tell you about it.

I am older than footprints and I thought the day I saw buzzards saying grace before meals was the day that I’d call the Liberals fiscally responsible.  But in 1993 this guy Paul Martin comes along and not only balances the books but has money left over.

Our Prime Minister back then was a fella from Shawinigan Quebec named Jean Chretien.  He’d been around since hell was a grass fire and he believed that Martin was about as slippery as a walrus on an ice flow.  Early in the summer he sacks him.

This leaves the country all up in the air – like a dog between two trees.  Throughout June and July, the public is hung up by the tongue of the garrulous media who, in their wisdom, tell us that the country now needs Chretien about as much as a kangaroo needs a purse.

One thing everyone had to admit about Jean Chretien was that he was quick on his skates.  He realizes that this chances of succeeding at the February leadership review were slim and none and slim was visiting Alberta.

Overnight Chretien concocts a plan that could sneak sunrise past a rooster – or
Paul Martin anyway.  He will retire, but he’ll do it in his own time – more than 18 months down the road.  Well now, that made the cheese more binding. (1)

Now Martin comes out the next day looking like he’d spent the night on a clothesline. (2)   This millionaire son of a politician clearly doesn’t know whether to swallow his watch or wind his food.

Martin declares the PM a great leader.  That was just too much candy for the penny (3)  - if anyone had asked me.

There is no need to connect the dots on this one.  Martin had a problem – a leadership race that’s going to go on longer than the time served by several Prime Ministers.

He has one thing going for him though.  His rivals aren’t so reckless that they will get off the ladder before they reach the ground.  Besides too much competition for the top spot might see them kicking stones down the road.(4)

Anyway you look at it; Martin’s big victory party was a long way off.  His supporters were well advised to put the big pot in the little pot and boil the dishrag. (5)  The little guy from Shawinigan wasn’t done yet. 

                  Notes 

1. An interesting turn of events.

2. A Quebec expression indicating a hard night had been had.

3. A metaphor from the penny candy store era

4. An Ottawa Valley expression that counsels good behaviour when work is scarce.

5. A sarcastic expression from the Depression.  There will be no party tonight.

------------------

*Dunnville author Bill Casselman’s book Canadian Sayings, 1000 Folk Sayings used by Canadians (McArthur and Company – Toronto 2002) has inspired Grandpa and this writer.

Panel Discussion Rescheduled

Today I received this note from the note from OPSEU Local 240 Political Action Committee regarding their event “Unpacking the People's Party of Canada and Resisting the Far Right” scheduled for September 29th.  It seems that excessive security fees are inhibiting free speech in Hamilton Ontario.

--------------

The Local 240 Political Action Committee sincerely regrets having to cancel our panel discussion for this Sunday, September 29, and to re-schedule it for Tuesday, October 8.

Today Mohawk College indicated that we would have to pay $4,000 in extra security costs due to our event taking place at the same time as the Maxime Bernier and Dave Rubin event.

We have expressed our concern to Mohawk that, while safety at events is important, it is also the case that charging excessive security fees effectively stifles free speech on College and University campuses.

We would like to thank all of our community partners and event participants for being flexible and available for a re-scheduled event.  We hope that the October 8 panel and discussion will provide important analysis and fuel for effective community organizing.  We also hope that anyone planning to attend the panel this Sunday will come to the re-scheduled event.


As an Alternative to the Panel Discussion

As for what to do this Sunday evening in place of the panel discussion, we would suggest peacefully attending the protest that is taking place at Mohawk from 5:30pm to 7:00 pm.

As faculty we value freedom of speech, and protesting is an important way to express this right.

Take care, be safe, and solidarity with all those working to resist the far right...