The new year isn’t even three weeks old yet and we’ve already been afflicted by a disturbing trend that is only growing: Our government doesn’t seem to think it should tell us what they’re doing and why.
I wish to begin with a caveat: I hate talking like this. I hate sounding like Fox Mulder or Alex Jones talking about government secret keeping. I hate that in this conspiracy age, with its blind hate for politicians, you can’t criticize without sounding like a partisan crank.
(You won’t believe the number of people raging on my You Tube channel about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau having the audacity to come to Guelph for a photo op.)
Having said that, our local governments are screwing up, and they’re screwing up badly on what’s probably the quintessential issues of our time, trust in institutions and housing.
First, let’s talk about the housing symposium at the end of the month. We know when it is and we know where it is, but being allowed to attend is a privilege only extended by invitation, and a report from the January social services meeting seems to indicate there are zero opportunities for the media to participate or observe the discussions.
While it’s understandable there will likely be some deeply personal anecdotes shared about the issues and barriers to housing in the region this is supposed to be about policy and policy solutions, and reporters are routinely been asked to keep certain pieces of information confidential. We even have a term for this, “off the record.”
But now all of this seems to be off the record, though I’m sure we’ll be provided with a tidy 300-word press release that’s all upside no matter what comes from the two-day affair. Someone will call it “transparency”, just like Mayor Cam Guthrie’s “transparent” fully-formed motion that came out of a two-hour in-camera meeting on Tuesday.
You may recall back in November, the mayor proposed the creation of a bylaw to curb the growing number of encampments downtown. The move was typical Guthrie: performative, reactionary, and light on details, so naturally it sent everyone to their corners and set up a contentious council meeting with 40-something delegates that was going to be the political equivalent of an underground coal fire.
Guthrie’s justification for pulling the motion last minute was legal, a Kingston judge denied that city’s application to clear an encampment on constitutional ground the Friday before. Not accidentally, the Kingston decision built on one made in Kitchener last summer, so long before Guthrie proposed his motion, this matter was already on legally shaky ground.
That’s probably why it was decided to discuss the matter in closed session at Tuesday’s meeting as matters of solicitor’s advice are fair game to go in-camera, but there was more than the receipt of advice that happened behind the closed meeting room doors.
After getting legal and "other" advice from staff, Guthrie said he and council wanted to be "open and transparent" by putting a motion on the floor that they had fully developed in closed session without any background information to the people in the public agenda, and without any forewarning that they were going to give staff formal direction.
The motion reads, “That staff be directed to draft a Public Space Use Bylaw to address safety concerns regarding encampments and related activities on lands owned or operated by the City of Guelph, to be brought for Council consideration by the end of February, 2024.”
And don’t worry plebes, city council is totally going to give you your chance to say a few words on this matter… When they bring a draft bylaw back to council on Feb. 14. Cancel your Valentine’s Day plans!
To say this clearly, for the second time, I understand the use of the closed meeting provisions to get legal advice, and while some on council will say the public will have their opportunity to “shape” the bylaw, if council directed staff to write a draft bylaw then they already have some idea of what they want to say. Why don’t we?
Where was the staff report to inform this decision? Who’s been consulted? What legal justifications do we have given previous court decisions? What can this bylaw do? What can’t it do? What social services are being engaged? Are the county and police involved?
For that matter, in November it was determined the city can’t make a decision about new daytime shelter space until they’ve taken part in the housing symposium, so how are we creating new homelessness policy now when we’ve got the symposium happening in a just a few weeks?
It’s clear city council can’t be trusted with its closed meeting privileges. They knew this was a contentious issue, the mayor had talked about revisiting in the media, and on Tuesday morning there was a fire at one of the tents in St. George’s Square, which is exactly the situation this bylaw is supposedly meant to address.
And on top of that there’s still no answer to the fundamental question: If these encampments are illegal, where are the people living in them supposed to go? Are they magically filled with the desire to stay at a shelter, do they remember they’re just sitting on $20,000 for a down payment and it slipped their mind?
There are so many of us in this community who are looking down the maw of that one bad day, or week, or month, that could mean we’re homelessness too, so why is there so much secrecy on answering homelessness and creating affordable housing? Is this the time to be tackling these issues of deep-seeded community interest behind a black curtain?
In this era of exceptional suspicion of authority, the only answer to that is extraordinary openness. There’s no shortage of people online who think the lack of public openness at the symposium is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of what no one can say, but these things have never had to make much sense.
What does make sense though is making these decisions in the most open and inclusive way possible and less than a month into the new year both the City of Guelph and County of Wellington are failing. It’s a couple of weeks too late, but I have a New Year’s resolution for both: do better.
