Re: Proposed Amendments to Council Procedure By-Law (Public Question Period)

July 31, 2009

When asked about the directive issued by Council on July 8th, 2009 (GC – 0486-2009) Deputy City Clerk Grant Bivol cited the need for efficiency and the fact that certain individuals were “grandstanding” at televised meetings. While it is understandable that Council needs to maintain decorum and stay on topic during sessions, the actions of one or two individuals cannot possibly justify the extreme measure of completely removing the tradition of Public Question Period (PQP) from Council meetings.

The objective here should be to refine the quality of questions asked at Council, not eliminate them altogether. Rather than redirecting debate to another level (i.e. committees) these changes will actually serve to undermine it. Citizens are already free to attend committee meetings under the current system, and although the common sense seems to be that public questions are handled more effectively through committees, little evidence of this exists. The ultimate effect is to simply herd more citizens into fewer avenues of recourse.

The fifteen minute time limit for all public questions at the end of each committee meeting will hardly address this reduction of opportunities for public discussion. Worse still, this brief time includes the time required to hear responses. It is entirely conceivable that only one question could be asked and only one answer given within a fifteen minute period, depending on the complexity of an issue.

Do these changes represent a genuine attempt by Council to streamline public inquiry?

By referring all questions to city staff and committees, Council is restricting the ability of citizens to communicate with their elected representatives or hold them accountable. Although it is true that most municipalities in Ontario do not have PQP at council, to its’ credit Mississauga has granted this privilege to its citizens for thirty years.

There are many alternatives to destroying this part of our history: impose time limits on questioners, limits on number of questions, agenda-relevancy rules which are enforceable, and so on. Potential questions could be quietly screened by a city clerk during the meeting to make sure it is related to the agenda.

After the trial period for these changes expires in June 2010, how will Council evaluate them? If the intention is not to save money (since city staff reported on June 30, 2009 that financial costs of PQP at Council are not applicable), what will be used to gauge the effectiveness of these changes? Efficiency is hard to define or measure when part of Council’s job is to listen and respond to citizens at every opportunity, and not just vote on routine measures prepared by staff.

With one less opportunity to participate in the process of government, citizens may simply disengage and walk away. Council should carefully weigh this danger against the expected benefits before approving these amendments to the by-law.

Thank you for your consideration.

On behalf of the Mississauga South New Democrats,

Steven Martin,
President, MSNDP

Cc: All City Councilors
Grant Bivol, Deputy City Clerk
Shalini Alleluia, City Clerk’s Office
All Mississauga NDP riding associations
Mississauga News