by Royson James
by Royson James
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a useful reminder for municipal politicians who sometimes forget that city business is best done openly and in full view of the public.
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, in particular, could have used that lesson last week when she unfairly criticized Councillor Carolyn Parrish for asking questions at an open council meeting. The mayor insisted the process traditionally followed in Mississauga involves seeking answers from staff in private, before council meets. "I got the answers (in advance), therefore I don't have to ask ... at council," McCallion said. But that is not necessarily the best approach.
City councils are not private clubs, and the principle of open government is not some inconvenience to be readily set aside. People have a right to see how their city is run, including hearing the questions of their elected representatives and the official response to them.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of municipal openness with a welcome 7-0 decision last week against the City of London. The court found that London council had breached Ontario's Municipal Act by conducting discussions on a land development bylaw behind closed doors. Once the debate was over and a decision reached, councillors emerged for a quick open vote. With the Municipal Act clearly giving residents the right to see the workings of their local government, Supreme Court judges ruled against London and quashed the bylaw. Unfortunately, this southwest Ontario municipality is hardly alone in breaching the rules.
To its credit, Toronto City Council has generally had a good record on openness. But there is a sense that some smaller councils routinely flout people's right to know and needlessly conduct important business in camera. There is a troubling hint of that attitude in McCallion's objection to having questions raised at an open meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment