Are there signs of impending trouble at Niagara Regional Council?

An advocacy group is warning Niagara Regional Council that it faces legal action against a proposed procedural ordinance banning signs, flags, props and posters in council chambers if it chooses to pass it later this month.

Christine Van Geyn, litigation director at the Canadian Constitution Foundation in Calgary, said if the amended statute goes into effect, it would be “extremely vulnerable” to a constitutional challenge.

The group believes that the ban on signs and props set out in the regulation violates Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. If the regulation is passed, the CCF will challenge it.

“Niagara Region must demonstrate through a proportionality test that the ban on signs, flags, props and posters is a reasonable and demonstrably justified restriction on free expression,” Van Geyn wrote.

That test, she said, requires that there be “a pressing and essential purpose” and that the means chosen to achieve that purpose (1) be rationally related to the aim, (2) minimize the interference, and (3) produce a benefit that outweighs the interference with freedom of expression.

The CCF wrote the letter after regional councillors voted 27-2 last month to make a series of changes to its rules of procedure. The changes include banning signs, posters, props and flags in the public gallery at meetings.

But regional chairman Jim Bradley said the region is not the only one imposing such restrictions on people coming to council chambers for council meetings, stressing that Niagara residents have many opportunities to voice their opinions.

“Mississauga, Guelph, Waterloo and Toronto are just a few examples of other municipalities that have similar regulations,” he said. “And the display of signs is also prohibited in the public galleries in Queen's Park and the House of Commons.”

Council meetings, Bradley said, are the time to get business done.

“The council sees maintaining decorum during the meeting as a reasonable measure and does not make us outsiders in any way,” he said. “The council's sole objective was to change the rules of procedure to ensure that council meetings are effective, free of distractions and that decorum is maintained. Members were not playing politics when they voted on staff recommendations.”

Pelham Mayor Marvin Junkin joined St. Catharines Councillor Haley Bateman in voting against the changes and said they intend to vote against the amended ordinance at its next hearing before council on August 29.

“We are there, elected by the people, and I don't think it's right that we impose more and more restrictions on them coming before us and speaking, while at the same time recognizing that decorum must be maintained,” Junkin said.

I don't think it's right that we are imposing more and more restrictions on them when they want to come before us and talk.

He added that he had no problem with people coming into the chambers with signs as long as they were not derogatory.

“I didn’t think it was right that we restrict the use of signs in the council chamber unless they are personally offensive.”

Pelham Regional Councillor Diana Huson voted in favour of the charter change and said she had made her views on the matter clear through PelhamToday in a recent letter to the editor and declined to comment further on the CCF letter.

Huson pointed out in her letter that the provision regarding signs and props has been discussed several times.

“An environmental review was conducted which confirmed that the changes were consistent with those of other legislative bodies,” she wrote.

The rule applies only within the council chamber and does not prevent the use of signs and posters in “cases of peaceful assembly” in front of the region’s offices.

The council chamber, on the other hand, is a workplace.

“During meetings, council members are tasked with focusing on and addressing the business of our meetings,” Huson wrote. This is not the place to bring every little complaint into the council chamber. Delegations are welcome, provided they comment directly on an item on the council agenda.

The discussion about signs and props arose after a gallery member used a whiteboard to criticize a member of staff. At another meeting, the sign was held up several times and abused.

“It is somewhat distracting from focusing on the debate and considering policy decisions to have a sign with the F-word shoved in your face – a fact you would not be aware of while watching the council video,” Huson wrote.

Andrea Kaiser, regional councillor for Niagara-on-the-Lake, said at the July meeting that she supported the changes.

“I support something that creates a positive work environment where people – whether they are staff or councillors, regional team members or councillors – can attend meetings, conduct their business and be in a respectful work environment.”

However, Kaiser said she is still open to learning more.

“I am always open to new information,” she said.

Tim Whelan, Thorold Regional Councillor, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Mayor Terry Ugulini, who also represents Thorold, was unavailable for an interview. PelhamTodaya spokesman for the mayor's office said last week, explaining that Ugulini was preparing for the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) conference taking place this week in Ottawa.

Meanwhile, David Siegel, professor emeritus of political science at Brock University, said he did not want to get involved in the debate over the constitutionality of the ordinance because he is not a lawyer.

“However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is preceded by a commentary stating that freedom of expression is subject to reasonable limitations,” Siegel said. “In other words, no one has completely unrestricted freedom of expression.”

He noted that CCF is a group that has a “strong tendency” to emphasize personal freedoms.

“It is good that they are putting this emphasis, but the Charter says that there must be a reasonable balance between the rights.”

Siegel said he personally did not agree with spectators bringing signs to the meetings.

“They can obstruct the view of other participants in the gathering, limiting their freedom of expression. In addition, the signs can incite others and become the subject of fights, and someone could get hurt.”

Siegel said that municipalities must have such statutes in place so that the meetings can be held properly.

“To maintain decorum at meetings, municipalities have bylaws that determine who may speak, what rules they must follow, and so on,” Siegel said. “These rules must be applied fairly but strictly to ensure that everyone is heard. The bylaw should also include a provision to ensure that speakers at a meeting address issues that are relevant to the work of the council.”

If appealed, this would not be the first time the CCF has clashed with the region. The group is working with Ontario lawyer Julian Renaud, who sought a judicial review of the region's declaration of a state of emergency ahead of the April 8 solar eclipse.

Renaud added that the CCF agreed that maintaining decorum at meetings was important to ensure that meetings ran efficiently, and that eliminating disruptions and obstructions at meetings could be useful. However, he questioned whether a complete ban on signs, props, posters and flags “is rationally linked to these goals.”

Renaud said the notion that signs and props are a distraction is nonsense. “Objects are not usually so distracting that the council cannot participate in its deliberations. And they are certainly far less distracting than the cell phones that council members often use during their meetings.”