Municipal Government ~ Why Bother?
"Please sir, may I have another bowl of porridge, sir?"
When I consider our town council I see a group of people with their hearts in the right place – apparently. In reality they are emasculated and powerless to provide an adequate level of self determination for our town. Regretfully this was also true to some degree with the previous council, but not as much.
Why isn’t the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of one’s property defended as provided by the Yukon Human Rights Act?
Since the issue of placer mining in people’s back yards on the dome came up months ago, Town Council has made promises, held special meetings, passed resolutions, wrote letters to various governing bodies and made a great public display of doing something when in fact nothing has been done to mitigate the problem. The placer miner in question is carrying on happily despite an ongoing contravention of city bylaws. Meanwhile, home owners adjacent to the mine are met with a “Gone Fishing” sign pinned to the door at City Hall.
Why is this? It is because we allow other orders of government to tell us what to do.
Again, this issue isn’t about placer mining – our holy grail – it’s about power and Dawson City’s inability to acquire it and to use it.
Another example; During my watch as Mayor our MLA Steve Nordick arrived on our City Hall doorstep and declared that a new hospital will be built on top of the children’s playground in Minto Park. He said the location was etched in stone and no community consultation will be considered regarding the location.
Why doesn’t our public have the right to decide for themselves where new infrastructure will be located? Most people want an enhanced health care facility but not necessarily at the expense of self determination and thoughtful consideration of the big picture as it relates to the whole town and our overall needs.
The point is that it’s all about power. YTG are simply asserting themselves with the standard paternalistic stance similar to “Father Knows Best”.
It was the same deal regarding the paving of Front Street. It’s not about about whether to pave it or not but rather who decides what goes on in our town.
Is it the people that live here as expressed by their elected council or is it some other governing body? Again, our MLA Steve Nordick, smirkingly stated that no permission from Dawson was required in order to proceed because a special order in council sidestepped the meddlesome requirement for a municipal development permit and the scrutiny such an application would trigger.
Some say that municipalities are simply a statutory creature with little or no real power. So why continue with the charade? Dissolve council and re-install a government appointed Trustee. After all, the way it stands now Town Council act like a proxy for the YTG Trustee anyway.
Well, John, good question. But look at how local government itself has changed in the past dozen years.
In 1998 – notably a time when a person with experience in First Nations community building was the Minister responsible – new municipal legislation was enacted to empower people to become active in local government – the public votes division.
It was used once in Dawson (remember?), in Whitehorse there was one unsuccessful attempt in 1998, one successful one in 2006, and last year the City put a stop to it by challenging the public votes division’s application to OCP matters. The Yukon court confirmed the validity of the provision in the Act, but the B.C. Court of Appeal, not familiar with the background, wiped it out.
Throughout all of this YTG remained silent. When the NDP attempted to amend the Act to reinstate the citizens’ powers, the Yukon Party (including Dawson’s MLA) voted against it. The AYC is opposed to it. Local government, as represented by AYC, is supporting YTG’s action to take power away from citizens. And then people are surprised when government ignores the people?
Andre,
Regretfully the referendum in Dawson you are asking me to remember was abused, not used. I can’t speak to the vote in Whitehorse.
It’s critical that there be a shift from the “top-down” style of government to the grassroots claiming their rightful role in making decisions within a democracy. The provision for a referendum is a step in the right direction and should be entrenched in every region of the country.
Unfortunately, the section in question within our Municipal Act is weak and lacking in many ways.
For example, the petitioner should have some protection against spiraling legal fees in their bid to defend an outcome that might be challenged.
Further, there should be some burden of proof that the petitioners fully understand all sides of the issue and aren’t signing a document that’s being circulated around the pub during “happy hour”.
There are many other “fixes” that should be considered.
This is such a critical section of the act, yet the sloppy way in which it is written has allowed ambiguity and lack of clarity to weaken, rather than strengthen a citizen’s right to provide direction to their government.
John, you are talking about a “burden of proof” that should rest with petitioners. What would the balance applicable to council be? What is the purpose of an election? I do not ask that question within the narrow framework of Canada’s Constitution, I am asking it in the context of democratic philosophy.
If you have an opportunity to get your hands on it, read Norm Easton’s presentation of December 6, 2000, to Whitehorse City Council on the subject of public consultation. He made it after the failure of the petition to stop the Argus development (Wal-Mart).
We bow to the election of legislators as if the process were the Golden Calf of Democracy. Far too many of the elected see themselves as having gained wisdom and knowledge by the process. And when it comes to weighing the views of citizens at large against the views of the elected, the elected (far too many) invariably attach greater wisdom to their own views for the sole reason that they have been elected.
Andre Comte-Sponville, Sorbonne philosopher and author of “A Small Treaties of the Great Virtues” wrote in a debate with Luc Ferry on democratic politics, that “Politics is not a confrontation of knowledge and ignorance, rarely of lies and truth: it is a confrontation of powers, interests, values, and choices.
And if the democratic philosophy is to be worth a pinch of salt, then surely the legitimacy of the citizens’ vote must be accepted as equal, be that a vote to decide who shall make the decision (election) or a vote to make the decision (referendum).
If we cannot accept that, then indeed there ought to be a burden of proof on those who seek to cast a vote in an election to prove that they fully understand the political positions of all candidates and aren’t simply casting a ballot in reaction to campaign propaganda.
I understand. My position seems to beg the question, “Shouldn’t those seeking public office prove their ability to govern with wisdom and knowledge, etc.?” It seems like a fair enough exchange if we are going to ask voters to do the same.
In the case of the waste water treatment referendum we placed our trust in those with knowledge and training in engineering and the technicalities surrounding the sewage lagoon and its location. In sharp contrast, petitions were being circulated asking lay people to make an informed decision regarding the complexities surrounding this project.
Very few petitioners or subsequent voters on the question had the expertise to fairly evaluate the viability of this project. Many voted using a very different and insufficient criteria.
Therefore, a “democratic” result was arrived at that dishonoured and nullified a viable project, according to the opinion of those with expertise in the field.
The outcome was a manifestation of ignorance and gross manipulation in order to satisfy another political agenda with no regard for the common good.
In my view this exercise was an abuse of an otherwise important provision within the Act.
Well John, there are likely to be a few people living in the Southern U.S., the Gulf of Mexico specifically, who whould deem this to be a particularly poor time to refer to technical expertise as a trump card when making decisions on where it is appropriate and where not to install stuff.
Just a few weeks ago when the NDP introduced a motion to restore the intent of the public votes division the Minister said that the government and AYC will be looking at the Municipal Act and discuss what to do about it. A couple of years ago when YTG did its public consultation citizens strongly opposed any changes to that part of the Act, so now the Minister is going to sort it out with AYC, let the experts come up with a solution, I guess.
You are in a good position to get involved in an open debate about where to go with the Yukon’s Municipal Act, specifically the public votes division. I have done a bit of research on it, it is the subject of the book I am working on at the moment (doing first revisions following my editor’s chainsaw job). I talked to a lot of people involved in making use of the public votes sections, from both council and citizen perspective, and the gulf between the two is nothing short of dramatic (there is drama in politics, as you well know).
John, I can assure you that the people who were involved in the four attempts to use the public votes provisions of the Act, the first initiative on the Argus Development project in Whitehorse that failed to get enough signatures in time, the second one also in Whitehorse on the greenspaces protection initiative, the third one in Dawson, and then the last one again in Whitehorse on McLean Lake. I talked at great length to all the people involved in these initiatives and I can tell you that it was not an experience they will soon forget. It bore very little resemblance to sitting in the bar and betting on Team Canada during the Olympics.
I can assure you that an ad hoc conference in Dawson, with people directly involved to tell their story, would put a whole new light on what it means to be a citizen in a democracy, a whole new light on just the cost citizens have to pay, and I don’t mean just money, when they decide to become involved in the democratic governance of their community, when they decide to make actual use of their “freedom” of expression, their “freedom” of thought, and their “freedom” of assembly.
I am serious John, really. You have no idea what the people who honestly believed that the public votes process went through, believing as they did that the process was there to allow citizens to become involved, as citizens, in the democratic governance of their community.
None of them were respected by their municipal council as partners in governance; to the contrary, they were treated and bad-mouthed as the enemy. I am willing to bet (in a bar if necessary) that you would find a lot of common ground with these people after listening to their stories, particularly if you can bring yourself to remember what it was like when Dawson Council was put under mandatory supervision and subsequently (and unceremoniously) dumped. Remember those days?
Here is an excerpt from Veale’s decision a couple of years back on the case that ended up in the Court of Appeal:
“There was unfortunately a considerable amount of confrontation between the City and Ms. Darragh at the outset of her petition about whether the subject of the park designation was within the jurisdiction of City Council. That, however, may be the by-product of a robust democracy. On the other hand, a citizen who is required to retain legal counsel in order to proceed with a petition that the City describes in a news release as “Found Invalid” may feel that the City has crossed the line between protecting taxpayers from the expense of a referendum and attempting to frustrate the right of a citizen to participate in municipal democracy. If the City is of the opinion that a referendum bylaw is invalid, it should proceed immediately to court rather than wage a war by press release to attempt to frustrate the statutory right of its citizens.”
Make you think, don’t it?
Veale understood how the public votes stuff is supposed to work. If you want to have a look at his decision, you’ll find it here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/yk/yksc/doc/2008/2008yksc80/2008yksc80.html
The B.C. Court of Appeal barely considered what the Yukon’s Legislative Assembly had done, it ignored what was said in the Leg when the legislation was introduced and adopted in 1998. (What do north of 60 bumpkins know about legal stuff anyway.)
Democracy is not about making the right decision, it is about citizens taking responsibility for their own governance. What that means is that citizens have as much right to be wrong as governments do. (This is not a reference to the Stats Can long-form census). Canadian politicians are elected, for the most part (lets forget about Senators for a minute), but Canadian politics are a long way from being democratic, a long, long way.
I will have my manuscript back to the editor by the end of the month. And when the editor is done it will be publisher hunting time again. So I don’t know when it will get published. That story needs to be told.
But regardless, if you decide to organize an ad hoc conference for the purpose of bringing to the surface and out in the open the citizens’ perspective of the public votes sections of the Municipal Act – just to balance the on-going behind closed doors YTG-AYC consultations – I would drive up there and contribute to that undertaking in any way that would help the effort. That’s a promise.
Andre, I’m not sure that bringing up the gulf disaster as an example of poor expertise is a fair comparison. First of all, we don’t know for sure if it’s true and even if it was, our thirst for oil will always trump our thirst for democracy.
Where is our defense of the developing nations who are being robbed of their resources while we use our plastic computers and cell phones to argue the virtues of democracy and the public vote?
Accidents happen, just like bad decisions happen.
You have no idea what we went through as a municipal government who under pressure of the courts and with a viable solution in hand were turned around by another political agenda that had little to do with reasons that were brought forward as justification for denying the project. And that’s the truth.
When the Municipal Act Review Committee came to town asking for the public’s input no one showed up, including many of the most vehement proponents of the Dawson referendum. Where were the throngs of “public voters” pushing at the door, fighting for justice? Unfortunately it appears to be a sexy topic for only the intellectual elite, I’m afraid. It was pretty much the same result everywhere the committee traveled.
Democracy may not be about always making the right decision but governing is all about making the right decision in the interests of the common good based on some form of public consultation. That’s what the people elected government to do on their behalf, right?
When government makes a decision that is objectionable to some people – typically those directly affected in an adverse way – they might mobilize and assert their views. It could be a hatred for corporate America, a defense of personal green-space or the nuisance of an industrial plant in the neighbourhood. I suppose it doesn’t matter what the controversy is. What matters is that the remedy available to the activists vis-à-vis the referendum provision should be structured in a way that is fair to both the petitioners and the public at large who may wish not to participate in the democratic process which of course is in itself a right within our society. Perhaps we should look at the Australian model and the compulsory vote, that would certainly shake things up.
Probably my strongest objection to the Dawson result has to do with the fact that we were under the constraints of a court order as a result of a democratically arrived at guilty plea by the previous council.
From my perspective an important change to the act would exempt issues from a public vote that are before the courts.
Our good friend Churchill drew a distinction between governing and democracy saying that the latter was a hindrance to the former. Tongue in cheek no doubt but not without a kernel of truth. The two are very different, that much I’ve come to appreciate.
Okay John, I will agree with you that the Gulf of Mexico comparison is a bit of a stretch. But I certainly do remember the wholesale replacement of woodstave pipes with insulated polyethylene pipes in Dawson, and the years of problems with that engineered solution due to collapsing pipes, a problem no engineer had anticipated when the system was installed.
On the subject of the new democratic principles written into the 1998 Yukon Municipal Act, the people who were least able to accept it, and who applied themselves to block it and destroy from the start, were not citizens, but municipal politicians with Whitehorse mayors in a leadership position. Watson was on hte AYC executive and she was a member of MARC when the recommendation was made to the Yukon Government to adopt the public votes provisions for local government. Yet Watson, Bourassa, and Buckway were all in the mayor’s chair when citizens in Whitehorse decided to act as citizens in ways so eloquently presented in the Municipal Act’s preamble. What the citizens got for their efforts from these three Whitehorse mayors was personal attacks and abuse from the word go, leaving them all with a bitter “never again” taste in their mouths.
I share your respect for Churchill. But there are a few Canadians who have written about democracy expressing views reflecting my beliefs in ways far superior to what I am able to. Philip Resnick for example:
“Those who advocate the representative model tend to define democracy as a method, to highlight elections as its privileged moment, and to accept a virtual delegation of power into the hands of those who have been chosen to rule for the four to five year period between elections.”
And also Patrick Boyer:
“Is it not a curiosity of our country that we deeply embrace a collective concern rather than the ideology of rugged individualists, and yet so seldom seem prepared to entrust important issues to the collective wisdom of the people?”
And Frederick Barnard:
“Procedural practices must support citizens’ shared convictions that, having authorized others to govern, they have not given up their essential autonomy in the assertion of their individual rights and freedoms and, collectively, their ultimate sovereignty. In effect, this demands two things: one, that democratic governments observe their own commitments to self-limitation in the exercise of their power; and, the other, that there be public channels for the expression of civic control over the choice and implementation of policy objectives.”