There’s a horror movie trope about a community that’s perfect on the surface but hiding something terrible and disturbing underneath. Movies like The Stepford Wives and Get Out are warnings that the more people tell you something is great, the more likely there’s something rotten underneath.
I sometimes feel that Guelph is like that.
Richard Vivian’s article on GuelphToday.com this week – “’Token’ input not enough for advisory committees, they want more” – brings together a variety of thoughts about what’s going on behind the scenes at public advisory committees. There’s a schism between those dedicated citizens, and the city staff members they deal with, and it’s starting to show in the public forum.
The most apparent of these scuffles was the recent decision about the Cultural Heritage Master Plan, and the divergent interests of the committee and staff with the finished document that prompted council to request mediation. At the time, many wondered if this was the exception, but these things only rarely occur in the singular.
Indeed, I’ve heard from members of a couple of different committees that they felt unheard, and that their concerns were dismissed or ignored while taking part.
More than that, the issues have been there in black and white for anyone to see. Posted minutes from the May 2019 meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee includes the line, “council should be made aware of the dysfunction of DAC.”
“Dysfunction” is a particular word because it implies that something fundamental in the system isn’t working. It’s not like friction, because friction is brought to the table by the personalities and the emotions of the specific people involved, and dysfunction seems more like a more universal problem based in the system.
So we must ask ourselves, what is the point of these public advisory committees? Are they meant to receive and comment on staff work, or are they there to direct staff on issues they may not be aware of in the greater community?
Ideally, the answer is both, but it was clear from Richard’s article that many people feel that serving on a committee is mostly about the former and not so much about the latter.
Let’s be clear, people that feel driven to take part in these committees are passionate about the issues they deal with. They’re coming to these boards with ideas and concerns of their own, and they are eager to engage with staff more directly as a way to create real improvement.
This is where all the West Wing fantasies about community engagement come to end because they’re walking into a committee that’s probably in the middle of other matters, while the issues they want to deal with fall further and further down the to do list. Considering that committees only meet about once a month, how long until people start feeling frustrated with the process?
I also know that some people have pie-in-the-sky ideas about the powers of municipal government, and maybe staff throws cold water on those hopes because there’s no time, no budget, or no feasible way to make a project come true. Cities also have to balance the demands of upper levels of government who sometimes insist that work be completed on their schedule, and thus damning all local considerations.
Perhaps the problem is that there’s not a lot of room in our formal political structures to talk openly about issues without the constrictions of working off a task list.
I’ve tried to sell the idea for years that there should be a monthly council meeting that’s an open forum. Whether its concerns about traffic policy or using the Guelph Junction Railway for a sightseeing train, council should make time to hear from citizens on whatever they like on that extra Monday every month.
But this might never come to pass because it would belie the appearance of Guelph as a cool place with cool people doing cool things. It’s a PR campaign that sells Guelph as a place to entertain and enjoy, but not necessarily as a place to live because anyone that’s lived in the same house as other human beings knows that living with other people is often messy.
There’s a reason why they say you don’t want to watch the sausage get made, and that’s because it’s gross. If the intention is to grow and change though, we need to get used to the grossness because change is rarely easy, or accepted universally.
Before signing off, I would like to address last week’s column.
First, a correction. The “Johnston” of Johnston Hall was named after William Johnston, the founder and first principal of the Ontario Agricultural College, and not Edward Johnson, opera singer. Sorry about that.
Second, many of you commented on the original post or personally wrote to me about how Margaret Greene Park is named after the woman that donated the land that bears her name, and how she lived in a farmhouse off Paisley Road near the Hanlon. Now I know, and now you know, and that remains the core point of the entire endeavour.
Let’s get a committee together to we can update the city’s website appropriately!
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
MONTREAL – NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says he will not be taking advice from Pierre Poilievre after the Conservative leader challenged him to bring down government.
“I say directly to Pierre Poilievre: I’m not going to listen to you,” said Singh on Wednesday, accusing Poilievre of wanting to take away dental-care coverage from Canadians, among other things.
“I’m not going to listen to your advice. You want to destroy people’s lives, I want to build up a brighter future.”
Earlier in the day, Poilievre challenged Singh to commit to voting non-confidence in the government, saying his party will force a vote in the House of Commons “at the earliest possibly opportunity.”
“I’m asking Jagmeet Singh and the NDP to commit unequivocally before Monday’s byelections: will they vote non-confidence to bring down the costly coalition and trigger a carbon tax election, or will Jagmeet Singh sell out Canadians again?” Poilievre said.
“It’s put up or shut up time for the NDP.”
While Singh rejected the idea he would ever listen to Poilievre, he did not say how the NDP would vote on a non-confidence motion.
“I’ve said on any vote, we’re going to look at the vote and we’ll make our decision. I’m not going to say our decision ahead of time,” he said.
Singh’s top adviser said on Tuesday the NDP leader is not particularly eager to trigger an election, even as the Conservatives challenge him to do just that.
Anne McGrath, Singh’s principal secretary, says there will be more volatility in Parliament and the odds of an early election have risen.
“I don’t think he is anxious to launch one, or chomping at the bit to have one, but it can happen,” she said in an interview.
New Democrat MPs are in a second day of meetings in Montreal as they nail down a plan for how to navigate the minority Parliament this fall.
The caucus retreat comes one week after Singh announced the party has left the supply-and-confidence agreement with the governing Liberals.
It’s also taking place in the very city where New Democrats are hoping to pick up a seat on Monday, when voters go to the polls in Montreal’s LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. A second byelection is being held that day in the Winnipeg riding of Elmwood—Transcona, where the NDP is hoping to hold onto a seat the Conservatives are also vying for.
While New Democrats are seeking to distance themselves from the Liberals, they don’t appear ready to trigger a general election.
Singh signalled on Tuesday that he will have more to say Wednesday about the party’s strategy for the upcoming sitting.
He is hoping to convince Canadians that his party can defeat the federal Conservatives, who have been riding high in the polls over the last year.
Singh has attacked Poilievre as someone who would bring back Harper-style cuts to programs that Canadians rely on, including the national dental-care program that was part of the supply-and-confidence agreement.
The Canadian Press has asked Poilievre’s office whether the Conservative leader intends to keep the program in place, if he forms government after the next election.
With the return of Parliament just days away, the NDP is also keeping in mind how other parties will look to capitalize on the new makeup of the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois has already indicated that it’s written up a list of demands for the Liberals in exchange for support on votes.
The next federal election must take place by October 2025 at the latest.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante is defending her decision to turn off comments on her social media accounts — with an announcement on social media.
She posted screenshots to X this morning of vulgar names she’s been called on the platform, and says comments on her posts for months have been dominated by insults, to the point that she decided to block them.
Montreal’s Opposition leader and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have criticized Plante for limiting freedom of expression by restricting comments on her X and Instagram accounts.
They say elected officials who use social media should be willing to hear from constituents on those platforms.
However, Plante says some people may believe there is a fundamental right to call someone offensive names and to normalize violence online, but she disagrees.
Her statement on X is closed to comments.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 11, 2024.
