Representation at City Hall

“In Canada there is no Portuguese Act, no Italian, French, Ukrainian, Jewish or German Act.”  But there is, indeed, an Indian Act.”

That was part of the message delivered by NaWalka Geeshy Meegwun (aka Lyndon George) to the General Issues Committee of Hamilton City Council on June 19th.

One of the many negative outcomes resulting from that Act, passed in 1876, was the creation of Indian Residential Schools.  The Truth and Reconciliation Commission addressed the impacts of these schools with 94 Calls to Action. Establishing Indigenous representation on local municipal councils is the next logical step in addressing Reconciliation, George, representing Hamilton’s Circle of Beads group, stated.  Circle of Beads, an Indigenous consultation circle made up of 37 members now officially speaks for Hamilton’s Indigenous Community.

In the meeting, Circle of Beads’ speakers reminded the 16-member Council that many of them had committed to investigating the idea when campaigning in the 2022 municipal elections.

“It is time to walk your talk,” said George. 

At least one Councillor missed the point.  What if other special interest groups came asking for the same thing, he queried?

But Circle of Beads is not a special interest group.  They are speaking for First Nations people who have status as a sovereign nation confirmed in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Wasn’t this clear? 

Halifax

Hamilton isn’t the only municipality to be exploring Indigenous representation on Councils. 

Last fall Halifax took initial steps toward designating a Mi'kmaw seat on its municipal council. The members of Halifax's executive standing committee recommended that regional council ask the province for the power to consider the reform. 

According to CBC Radio, Councillor Waye Mason of Halifax South Downtown, a common theme emerged from Mi'kmaw groups during consultation on Halifax's new culture and heritage priorities plan.

"What we heard, over and over again, was 'we think there should be a Mi'kmaw seat in Halifax,'" Mason said during the meeting. (Mason is a declared candidate for mayor in this year’s election.)

In fact, in 1992, Nova Scotia amended legislation to provide a designated seat in their legislature for Mi'kmaw representation.  That seat has never been filled. Instead, Mi’kmaw leaders hold regular meetings with the government.  The most recent one in June was the tenth such meeting. This arrangement appears to be satisfactory, for the time being at least.

“It is important that as leaders in this province, we do our part to uphold the nation-to-nation relationship established centuries ago by our ancestors. It is vital to discuss important items to help us better understand the vision of where we want to go in the future and how we can do so together as treaty partners,“ Chief Sidney Peters, Co-Chair of the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs, stated in a press release following this year’s gathering. 

At Hamilton’s General Issues Committee, Audrey Davis, Executive Director of the Hamilton Regional Indian Centre, told committee that 85% of Indigenous people in Canada now live off reserve in towns, cities and rural areas. 

In Hamilton, census data indicates there are approximately 14,000 Indigenous residents although the number is probably higher.  Mi'kmaw residents of Halifax number about 6,000.   These population figures are small in comparison to other cities. Winnipeg counts 102,080 First Nation, Inuit and Metis (12.4% of its total population). Saskatoon at 34,890 (15%) Indigenous residents and Regina at 24,525 (13%) Indigenous residents are just two examples of denser Indigenous populaces.  

The City of Hamilton has made considerable progress in relations between City Hall and Indigenous residents. An Urban Indigenous Strategy and an Implementation Plan have been developed.  Signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Friendship Centre and the City has been delayed by excessive bureaucracy.   But Audrey Davis is optimistic as “the city has committed itself to build a relationship.” 

What’s next?

A seat at council does not put the Indigenous voice first.  It includes and provides “opportunities for change that will improve outcomes of the indigenous people who call Hamilton home,” stated Ms. Davis.

A Motion for the city to ask the province to have changes made to the Municipal Act to permit a member of the Indigenous community to be a voting member of City Council gained support.

Hamilton’s urban Indigenous community may not get provincial support for an Indigenous specific seat in the foreseeable future. In the interim, a temporary non-voting seat at the Council table would be “a step forward, but a small step,” stated Audrey Davis. Whether such a position will be elected or appointed is open to discussion.

At the meeting, Lyndon George spoke to “the-send-them-back-to-their-reserves” racism promoted by nameless Keyboard Warriors. You can expect that they will continue to oppose Indigenous representation. 

In spite of such opposition, it is clear that Indigenous knowledge and expertise on issues of land, water and air should be welcomed at local tables across the country.

-----------

This story was written in June 2024. In early July, Hamilton councillors voted not to explore the addition of a new seat designated for a representative of the urban Indigenous population. See Hamilton councillors vote down Indigenous seat proposal | CBC News

Councillors Take City to Court

Earlier this week Canadian Dimension published a story I wrote on city politics in Regina. It is not quite a man-bites-dog story but neither is it something that happens every day.   

Daniel LeBlanc, a Regina City Councillor is taking his own municipality to court.  Here is that story. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/regina-has-a-plan-to-end-homelessness-so-whats-stopping-it

Councillor Daniel Leblanc

There have been some developments since that article was published.   On Tuesday most of the Regina Council signed on to a notice of motion that the Councillors who initiated the lawsuit have violated the Regina code of Ethics by-law.MN22.7 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-city-council-mayor-manager-lawsuit-homelessness-1.6675651

To consider such a motion at yesterday’s (December 7th) Council meeting required unanimous support of Council.  That was received yesterday as the two Councillors who were involved in the suit did not vote because of what, I believe, would be a conflict of interest in Saskatchewan municipalities. https://regina.ctvnews.ca/regina-city-council-passes-motion-of-confidence-in-city-manager-niki-anderson-1.6185099 

In part the motion read: 

 “affirm and convey [council’s] continued confidence in City Manager Niki Anderson” and “express its disappointment over the negative impact on City Council’s operational integrity and oversight that the initiated court action has created.” 

Court proceedings are scheduled for next Tuesday ahead of Regina’s December 14th budget meeting.

Getting Worse?

There is ongoing dialogue on social media focussing on Hamilton Ontario City Council and the performance of its members.  Today, long time City Hall observer Ryan McGreal notes "they're actually getting worse. More indifferent to suffering, more reactionary, more cynical, more shameless.”

I've  retired and moved away so it is hard for me to judge however, for what it is worth,  I offer this piece from my blog written nearly ten years ago, - May  2011.

Respect for Citizens Needed at Council Meeting 

May 25, 2011

Over the last ten years I’ve attended a couple of dozen meetings of Standing Committees of Hamilton City Council.

Usually I’ve been there to watch; occasionally I’ve been presenting. From time to time I‘ve gone home happy as the issue that had prompted my attendance had been resolved appropriately, from my perspective anyway.

But almost always I’ve headed out into the real world following these meetings out of sorts because of the lack of respect that Hamilton Council consistently shows for the public.

This lack of respect takes many forms.

First, meetings frequently start late, usually because of lack of quorum. Once I was there for a 9:30 meeting that was about to be postponed. Seconds short of 10:00 a Mountain Councillor raced into Chambers arriving just under the wire so the meeting could get started. (Not having a quorum within thirty minutes of the scheduled start means no meeting.) Let’s face it those who are there to present or listen have other responsibilities that need their time.

Second, Councillors, some more than others, feel the need to get up and leave the room a lot. To be fair it isn’t easy sitting for the hours that the job requires and some, OK most, of the dialogue is tedious but these pols knew what the job entailed when they put their names forward.

Third, and this is what really turns my crank, is the propensity some councillors have for talking with the media in the middle of meetings. Way back when we were toddlers we all learned that it was rude to talk when others are talking. And someone - staff, a member of the public or another Councillor - is always talking at a Committee meeting. In my experience most municipalities’ procedural by-laws cover such matters and committee chairs have the power to enforce.

 In this context I found Andrew Dreschel’s column in today’s Hamilton Spectator interesting.

Dreschel reports that Peggy Chapman from Mayor Bratina’s office wants to start “regulating interactions in the Council Chambers.” That would include, apparently, not allowing reporters to talk with councillors during proceedings and restricting councillors from talking privately with reporters during meetings. The columnist seems to think that the Mayor’s initiative may be more about “exercising control than good form.”

But if Dreschel and others took a look around they’d likely find that Hamilton is out of step with other cities who think that at the heart of good form is respect for citizens.

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.

-----

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.

-----