Six months later: Niagara Regional Council’s removal of a motion supporting a Gaza ceasefire continues to reverberate

“[T]he January 25, 2024, meeting of Regional Council was considered by many to be an exceptionally challenging meeting that revealed numerous opportunities to strengthen the Region’s policies and procedures in the interest of more efficient meetings, stronger agenda management and more appropriate decorum from both elected officials and members of the public who were observing the meeting from the gallery.”

So begins the analysis section of a staff report on Thursday’s Regional Council agenda on recommended changes to Council’s Procedural By-law and Code of Conduct. The latter is the by-law that governs the “calling, place and proceedings of (Council) meetings.” The former is the accountability document that governs the behaviour of Council and local board members.

What made January 25th “exceptionally challenging” was a decision by the majority of Regional Council to remove a motion entitled “Support for Israelis and Palestinians Living in Niagara”, which called for the Region’s support of a ceasefire in Gaza and to light the Region headquarters sign in Palestinian colours. Mississauga and Brampton Councils had passed similar motions. 

Council’s rationale for removal of the item was that it did not pertain to Niagara Regional business and that the resolution would “only result in division in our community.”

The immediate result of the removal of the motion was 18 delegates, who had been listed on the meeting agenda, not being allowed to address Council. In the six months, since, the consequences of the decision have continued to be felt with calls of racism against Council; changes to the Region’s flag and lighting policy; a confidential education session with the Region’s Integrity Commissioner; a debate on the meaning of Indigenous; and an unsuccessful effort by the Region’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Advisory Committee to expand its terms of reference to deal with “external” matters—for which dealing with racism in Niagara appears to fall.   

The fallout from the January 25th meeting prompted Pelham Regional Councillor Diana Huson to state during the June 27 flag raising debate:

“[H]ow much time have we been talking about this and not spending the time helping people get out of homelessness, helping people have access to an income, helping people have jobs or find housing? That is what you are responsible for. It does not mean that we don't care about people and that we don't care about the things that are happening in the world. But the proper place for this discussion is with the federal government.”

A screengrab from the January 25th meeting when residents were blocked from speaking by elected officials.

(Niagara Region)

Regional Council have standing committees that specifically deal with Public Health and Social Services and (Planning) and Economic Development that continue to report on the issues identified by the councillor.

In addition, agendas often include items where Regional Council attempt to influence federal and provincial policy and while those motions consistently impact municipal matters, the same consistency is not seen in geopolitical matters. Council previously unanimously approved a motion denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that supported sanctions the federal government had imposed; and Chair Jim Bradley unilaterally decided to light the Region’s sign in the Israeli colours after the October 7th, 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas.

While the latter two actions of Regional Council were certainly well intentioned and not subject to criticism, Fort Erie Regional Councillor and Mayor Wayne Redekop came closest to articulating the rationale for Council’s skittishness on the issues in the Middle East during the March 6th Corporate Services Committee debate on the Region’s Flag and Lighting Policy.

“[T]here’s hardly ever a situation where there’s some type of agreement on how these (international) issues should be addressed and we don’t go out and canvas constituents about international matters because it is not in our lane.”

The “not in our lane” phrase has been regularly repeated over the last six months by others. While councillors may not be canvassing constituents on international matters, they have certainly been apprised of their concerns. 

Despite not hearing from 18 delegates in January, in fairness, many subsequent delegations by Niagara Palestinians and their supporters have been entertained by Regional Council and its various standing committees; however, none of the requests by the delegates have met with success. 

Regional Council’s June 27th meeting was no different. Items included the proposed changes to the DEI’s Terms of Reference—which staff were recommending against—and changes to the Flag and Lighting Policy, which would remove any vagueness, essentially precluding any lighting of the Region sign in the Palestinian colours.

St. Catharines Regional Councillor Haley Bateman, who had authored the January 25th motion, remarked that the delegates had come out “in great faith”. While all of the other councillors who spoke also commended the delegates and the work of the DEI Advisory Committee, they were not willing to go as far as accepting any of the requests the delegates were calling for.  

St. Catharines Regional Councillor Laura Ip, who seconded the January 25th action to remove the Gaza ceasefire motion and chairs the DEI Advisory Committee, questioned three of the delegates, not on anything they specifically said, but whether they felt she had engaged in anti-Palestinian racism. 

St. Catharines Regional Councillor Laura Ip chairs the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Committee.

(Niagara Region)

Councillor Ip explained that her January 25th actions were a result of being contacted by a local member of the Palestinian community who implored her to “not let Council debate their (Palestinian’s) trauma.”

The delegates were not sympathetic to Councillor Ip’s rationale.

“[I] don’t know who these Palestinians were.They can come and delegate. If their trauma is too heavy for them, then they don't have to tune in to what's happening,” St. Catharines resident Gabriel Gebril responded. “There is no amount of Palestinians you can speak to that justifies silencing even one Palestinian who wanted to participate in the democratic process.”

Zeina Othman, also of St. Catharines, echoed the criticism.

“[Y]ou are being selective saying that you are listening to the people. You weren't listening to all people, you were choosing which people to listen to. And that is not right…You are retraumatizing Palestinians who have not been heard, who are always silenced, and again, you are silencing them.”

Niagara Falls Regional Councillor Joyce Morocco, who had faced criticism for her comments citing her “diverse family” as an example of her understanding of racism, attempted to put an idealistic spin on the changes to the flag and lighting policy.

“[I] think that where we're going now is the right place, that we're not going to cause this division. And I don't want anyone to feel that they're not a part of the community and that we don't care because we do,” she said. 

Her comments, which ignored the division felt in the local Palestinian community, were met by derision in the gallery. After the Chair called order, Morocco concluded her comments with,”I love this country because it is a melting pot and because we're so diverse. And with that being said, I want to say Happy Canada Day to everyone.”
 

Several rallies have taken place across Niagara Region in support of the Palestinian community and calls for a ceasefire in Gaza.

(Top: Ed Smith/The Pointer Files. Bottom: Niagara Palestinian Coalition)

The seeming contradiction between councillors’ comments and their actions continued with St. Catharines Regional Councillor and former long-time Mayor Tim Rigby, who had been criticized regarding his comments on the Land Acknowledgement statements. 

Rigby positively reminisced about the Race Relations committee that existed when he was mayor, which had a mandate to “help initiate proactive measures to promote harmony among different community groups and provide advice and act as a resource to Council in ensuring appropriate responses to discrimination and human rights violations”, not dissimilar to what the Region’s DEI Advisory Committee was seeking with their changes to the Terms of Reference. Nonetheless, Rigby voted in favour of staff’s recommendation to not amend the DEI terms of reference.

Despite eight delegates opposed to the proposed amendments to the flag and sign lighting policy, Regional Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the changes. Similarly, the amendments to the DEI Terms of Reference were soundly rejected, with Council approving staff’s recommendation that the proposed changes be denied.

Not surprisingly, Councillor Bateman was in the minority on both votes, though she was joined by West Lincoln Regional Councillor Albert Witteveen, in opposition to the flag and sign policy amendments, and Lincoln Regional Councillor and Mayor Sandra Easton on the DEI issue.

On the latter vote, Committee Chair Ip indicated that she did see value in the DEI Advisory Committee, taking on some “more external roles”, but she voted based on the pragmatic consideration of a lack of support staff to undertake such actions. 

Councillor Easton explained her thoughts and concerns:

“[A]s leaders, what are our intentions in terms of providing support to members of the public who have very legitimate dilemmas that they're looking for answers on? How do we engage with members of the public? The comments that were made tonight about systemic racism are absolutely real. 

If the DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) committee is not the place for these issues to land, okay, but what are we going to offer the community as an alternative?” 

The origins of Thursday’s report on the proposed Procedural By-law and Code of Conduct changes go back to the January 25th meeting. At the subsequent meeting where Regional Council would have routinely approved the minutes, Councillor Huson moved a motion to defer their consideration so they could be referred, along with the video of the meeting, to the Region’s Integrity Commissioner for review to develop a training session, that Councillor Huson hoped would provide an opportunity to “clarify, as well as learn from the (January 25th) proceedings.” 

The Integrity Commissioner is a mandatory accountability officer appointed by the municipality, who is responsible for applying the rules governing the ethical conduct of members of municipal councils. 

While the Integrity Commissioner can provide educational sessions to Council members, the Municipal Act indicates that such educational information would pertain to Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest matters, not necessarily meeting procedures.

The training session was held three months to the day of the January Council meeting and was conducted behind closed doors. While the legislation permits Council to meet confidentially on education matters it is not mandatory, though being away from the cameras would undoubtedly allow Councillors to be more candid in their conversations. 

After a nearly two and a half hour meeting behind closed doors, the Council did provide a public airing on next steps. Councillor Morocco moved an approved motion that staff be directed to provide a report summarizing Integrity Commissioner Michael Maynard’s recommendations from the closed session; “options for implementation”, including any recommended amendments to the Procedural By-law, Code of Conduct or other relevant policies; and an environmental scan of best practices that may assist Council in the management of agendas and proper decorum.   

Thursday’s report by Regional staff notes that Mr. Maynard stated during the session that Council “is a self-governing body and decides what is appropriate for their agendas and how it will conduct its business.”

The result is a staff-authored report, which makes seven recommended changes to Council’s Procedure By-law or the Code of Conduct.

The first recommendation is a proposed insertion of a definition in the Procedural By-law on the Region’s “core jurisdiction”, which would read:

“[J]urisdiction means the scope of authority and governance granted to a municipality, encompassing the powers, duties, and responsibilities as outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001. This includes but is not limited to, local by-laws, public services, infrastructure, and regulatory matters within the geographic boundaries of the municipality, as specified under the Municipal Act.”

The staff report cautions against Council acting on matters outside of its jurisdiction, correctly pointing out that the courts have squashed municipal by-laws for being “ultra vires”. There is a difference, however, between a motion such as the one on January 25th lobbying actions of a higher level of government and a municipal by-law, which is drafted by municipal legal staff.  

Despite the core jurisdiction definition, the change does not go as far as precluding Councillors from bringing forward a motion that is supposedly outside of the Region’s core jurisdiction.  They can still do so, as long as the councillor moving the motion has a seconder, the implication being that Councillor Bateman’s January 25th motion had no such seconder an opinion that Chair Jim Bradley expressed to the Pointer in early February:

“[T]he events of last Thursday (January 25) are evidence as to why members should be cautious about moving a motion, without a seconder, that is not within our core mandate.”

At Council’s June 27th meeting, Niagara-on-the-Lake Regional Councillor Andrea Kaiser, who voted with Councillor Bateman against the removal of Gaza ceasefire motion from the agenda in January, indicated that while she did not support all aspects of the motion, she would have seconded it so that the delegates could have had an opportunity to speak that evening.

Another suggested amendment to the Procedural By-law is a provision “encouraging” Councillors to consult with the Chief Administrative Officer and Regional Clerk before bringing forward a motion outside of the Region’s jurisdiction.

When contacted by the Pointer, Councillor Bateman bristled at the suggestion.

“I respect staff and have always, including prior to January 25th, made every effort to speak to staff prior to making a motion or gathering information in preparation for a motion. I also speak to residents and other levels of government. I think that if the CAO has concerns, he could easily reach out to any member of Council, as well.”

Bateman also feels that some of the suggested amendments are targeted at her, including one that would amend the Code of Conduct discouraging Members of Council from fraternizing or engaging with members of the gallery while Council or Committee is in session.

While she denies that she ever done such during a Council meeting, the Councillor admits that during a recess on January 25th, she did not go back to the “Green Room” but went outside to console delegates, who had been denied the right to address Council, and defends such actions: “I will determine how I engage with residents and when it is imperative to engage with them.”

A couple of changes are proposed to Section 9, the Public Access to Meetings section, of the Procedural By-law. One amendment will now prohibit members of the public to have signs, props, placards or flags of any kind at meetings of Regional Council. The recommendation differs from the original position of the Procedural By-law Committee, which would have formalized rules allowing signage in Council Chambers, even signs of pro-Palestinian sentiment, which Lincoln Regional Councillor Rob Foster described as “perfectly fine”, as long as such signage did not “attack or call out individual staff or Council members.” 

The other amendment prohibits the public from “applauding, heckling, making other audible demonstrations of support or opposition or engaging in conversation or other behaviour which may be considered to be disruptive, inconsiderate, disrespectful or intimidating to others.” The amendment appears to explicitly detail what would be considered “disruptive behaviour” under the existing Procedural By-law. Whether such language is necessary is debatable, as the meeting Chair is usually able to quell such interruptions with the bang of their gavel or a short recess to the meeting.

As of press time, eight delegates have registered to speak to the report on Thursday, many of the same individuals who have previously addressed Council on issues of anti-Palestinian racism and DEI matters. Despite receiving no support from the vast majority of regional council members previously, they remain undaunted.

As for Councillor Bateman, she acknowledges that her actions over the last six months have ostracized her from many of her colleagues, some who have accused her of “inciting violence”. 

“[I] remain proud of the January 25th motion and the change it helped create.”

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you