This was a special meeting of council to keep the HRM’s major policy review on its new COVID-delayed schedule. This public hearing was initially scheduled for Sept. 29, but was postponed because of post-tropical storm Fiona. Since this meeting is more than 14 days after Sept. 29, there are no procedural hurdles like there would have been with the pizza bylaw.
So, without further ado, here’s everything you need to know about the meeting. And a bunch of stuff you might not have known about how walking on the street became a crime.
Things that passed:
Because this meeting was a little strange and because this policy update is very dense, it’s perhaps best to explain the point of the policy overhaul by explaining how walking on the street became illegal.
Back when cars were exclusively toys for the rich, streets used to be public property. Rich people back then, as rich people today, demonstrated a casual disregard for the plight of the poor. Back in the 1920s, pedestrians had the right of way on roads, and drivers were responsible for getting out of the way of pedestrians.
But drivers back then, who were almost exclusively entitled rich men, didn’t really care for pedestrian safety. This led to a movement by pedestrians to limit the speed of cars on the road to 25km/h to prevent drivers from killing children and the elderly on city streets.
But rich men hate rules, so instead of accepting that their actions were causing the needless deaths of children, they launched a campaign to make it illegal to walk on the street. And that single policy change in 1920 was foundational in establishing North American car culture and exceptionalism. Since 1920 we have built upon this policy foundation, and now exceptionalism and car culture are pillars of society so large they are almost immovable. Two hegemonic pillars of hubris that are making the fight against climate change nigh impossible.
The point of the HRM’s regional plan review is to try to identify, change and prevent the HRM policies that could be as detrimental to our city and world as making streets illegal for pedestrian use was in 1920. And so, that’s why the 375-page pdf was debated at council and had a public hearing on Oct. 11: To make sure councillors and the public could help staff identify any policy changes that might be as detrimental as making jaywalking a crime.
And finally, barring any outside decisions, the World Junior Hockey Championships are still going to be held in Halifax in 2023. For those who may be unaware, in 2018, up to eight members of Canada’s World Junior Hockey team were accused of participating in a gang rape after the World Juniors in London, Ont. Hockey Canada’s leadership dealt with that allegation by paying out some hush money and sweeping it under the rug. When that coverup was exposed, Hockey Canada’s leadership doubled down on its lies, only to later be caught out, leading to an exodus of sponsors. In response, mayor Mike Savage put out a statement saying Halifax would need to reconsider its status as host of the 2023 tournament. But it’s an International Ice Hockey Federation Tournament, not a Hockey Canada one, and because ticket sales have been good, council decided to move ahead with the event. There might be a code of conduct or something, though, so that’s neat.
Notable debates:
Councillor Trish Purdy took issue with the policy review because of some specific issues on Caldwell Road (page 204 has the best plain language description and illustration of her concern). Purdy told council she was concerned about the “lack of infrastructure” on Caldwell and said the street is now too narrow for emergency vehicles because the city increased the active transportation infrastructure at the expense of car-specific infrastructure (this is city hall jargon for “they made very wide car lanes into normal sized car lanes, and added two lanes for bikes”). But, as many of the public speakers pointed out, the best way for this city council to prevent climate change is to not develop wilderness, allow denser housing on land that already has housing and increase transportation options that are not car-specific. Preventing dense housing on Caldwell to make it easier for cars is bad policy because it exacerbates the climate emergency and the homelessness epidemic caused by capitalism.
Councillor Tim Outhit asked the city’s lawyer John Traves if staff could incorporate suggestions that came from the public hearing. Traves responded that “this is not a good time to make changes,” which casually eviscerated any credibility the public hearing had. Because what is the point of having a public hearing if public input can’t lead to changes?
The public feedback issue Outhit was responding to is one that advocacy group Our HRM Alliance has been telling council about since at least June. They say the city’s strategic plans, like the green network plan, aren’t backed up by bylaws, so city staff doesn’t have to consider council’s strategic priorities in staff reports. This policy review says staff will now have to consider council’s strategic plans. But public speakers pointed out that, with the current wording, staff don’t have to show how they considered the strategic plan in reports to council. Our HRM Alliance suggested the bylaw language changes, so staff have to demonstrate their consideration. A speaker suggested this is a policy change that could be implemented immediately, but that was poo-pooed by deputy mayor Pam Lovelace, who said it wasn’t possible because the HRM doesn’t have a “money tree.”
In other money tree news, the Halifax Convention Centre annual report was declassified by the city. The Convention Centre shook just over $9.5 million in municipal money from the tree. $4,158,054 for operating costs and $5,380,285 for the city’s share of the lease.
And finally, during the Hockey Canada debate, there was a very clear gender divide in how appropriate Hockey Canada’s corporate response has been. The unofficial old boys caucus seemed to believe that since the entire board of Hockey Canada has resigned, everything is fine. But to use a hockey example of why changing leadership isn’t enough, the Toronto Maple Leafs have changed their head coach seven times since 2004 but still haven’t won a playoff series in that time.
Compare that attitude with the start of councillor Lisa Blackburn’s remarks during the debate: “I’m not a hockey parent; I’ve never been a hockey parent. So I’ve never paid a dime to Hockey Canada in fees, but as an outsider looking in, I see an organization in need of complete systemic change. Through their actions, they’ve taught these boys—who are now men—that it’s OK to use women any way they want, and they’ll be supported. They’ve taught these boys through their actions—these boys who are now men—that it’s OK to cover up that wrongdoing and bury it from scrutiny. Hockey Canada has done a disservice not only to the athletes they represent but to all Canadians. From the generations of men that they have coddled from responsibility. The response from Hockey Canada has been lacking. And when I say lacking, I’m being kind because we still have to use parliamentary language in this chamber. When given the opportunity for transparency at a parliamentary hearing, Hockey Canada instead chose to present themselves as arrogant, tone deaf and their testimony reeked of hubris.”
Related Stories
Should Halifax host the World Juniors in wake of Hockey Canada’s scandal?
This article appears in Oct 1 – Nov 6, 2022.
