City council has passed the city’s new civility policy. Members did so by a four-to-two vote Monday evening, after about an hour of back-and-forth debate.
The policy addresses the behaviour of citizens – called delegates – who appear before council.
Council made two amendments before passing the policy. One was to provide for an appeal session before the presiding officer at a meeting could remove a participant from council chambers.
The second amendment resulted in the policy reading, “Participants at meetings with council are encouraged to choose clothing that reflects respect for council and the opinion of municipal council,” it reads.
“Attire, including buttons, non-religious headwear, pins or other items, is not appropriate if, in the opinion of the presiding officer, it has language, statements or imagery that is detrimental, discriminatory, offensive, profane, racial, sexist, violent or vulgar. Participants shall remove or cover up anything that is held to be disrespectful, when directed by the presiding officer.”
Four residents attended Monday’s meeting. Some of the things in the original policy caused them concern.
“There are some potential consequences I can see: the inclusion of the extremely broad and undefined category of causes or issues beyond council’s roles and responsibilities,” said Robin Reid-Fraser.
“That it flattens or makes a mockery of the very real harms caused by messages spreading forms of oppression such as sexism, racism, transphobia and ableism, by collapsing them together with those other “causes or issues” [beyond Council’s roles and responsibilities as defined in the Municipal Act],” she said.
Reid-Fraser also mentioned that such a policy could potentially give the presiding officer an opportunity to use their power in an unequal way, and the feedback could vary, depending on what the person is wearing.
As well, the lack of clarity in the policy could open the city up to Charter of Rights and Freedoms violation lawsuits on the basis of human rights complaints, Reid-Fraser added.
All council members had something to say about the draft policy, with most sharing the delegates’ concerns.
Coun. Michelle Friesen said that raising a concern about the policy could cause the city to lose community trust.
She echoed the delegates’ views that the original policy showed a lack of clarity and lack of an appeal process.
On the other hand, the policy gives the city the power to summon the RCMP in certain circumstances, Friesen added, and that could scare the public away from approaching council.
She questioned the city administration about whether a public consultation took place before Monday’s meeting. The answer was no.
“There was no public consultation on the draft policy,” said city manager Jeff O’Farrell. “Often, in these processes, we rely on the council processes, which are open to the public — meaning to canvass public perspectives.”
Coun. Ted Laking said it would be hard for him to move the policy forward if there wasn’t enough review of the legal and freedom of speech aspects.
“These are really sensitive topics,” he said. “I think, certainly, that we all heard the delegates’ concerns, and across council, here, that for us, certain ones of these are very cut and dried, and we don’t want that to happen.”
Mayor Laura Cabott was “surprised” at how the councillors were reacting to the policy.
“I’m going to disagree with those that want to hold back, because that leaves the opportunity for the things that we are trying to protect, and trying to encourage, and trying to protect people’s right to come here and speak to us, to express their opinions and to protect their disagreements with us and not let them feel that they are going to be shut down or turned away,” said Cabott.
