When members of Council are on Committees...

Many Councils make it a practice to have Councillors sit on committees that are run by volunteers. That way, Council knows what is happening with the committee, and the committee knows it has a voice when it comes to Council.  That is the usual logic. However, it has a flaw. 

Sitting on a committee does not exempt the Councillor from their duties to the municipality. Where it crosses the line is when the Councillor takes an active part in the decision making for the committee and then represents that committee to the Council for funding, land, or any other advantage.  

It is important that Councillors understand that when you step into a committee role, you do not shed your Council skin. According to Manitoba’s Municipal Act, subsection 83(1) your general duties as Councillor do not change when you sit on the [rink] board. You do not get to wear two hats. When you take the oath of office, you get one, which is always the Council one.  

When you step into a committee role, you are not shedding your Council skin. According to Manitoba's Municipal Act, specifically subsection 83(1), your general duties as a council member remain firmly attached. This means that even in committee settings, you are expected to: 

• Consider the well-being and interests of the municipality, over that of any one committee. 

• Participate in developing and evaluating municipal policies, services, and programs for all the facilities and services the municipality provides, not just the one where you have an interest.  

• Maintain the financial integrity of the municipality ahead of the wish list of the committee.  

  
  

Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the Municipalities Act does not provide a way to drop your role as Councillor to favor your pet project. Your obligations as a Councillor take precedence, and it is up to the Councillor to take on the committee role with the broader goals and responsibilities of the Council and the municipality. 

While Councils can delegate certain powers to committees, and Councillors can sit on a committee, becoming a director of the committee or taking part in decision making for the committee moves the role from delegate, and for some people this is confusing. The Municipal Act allows for delegation but emphasizes that ultimate responsibility for that person still rests with the Council. The Councillor, as a delegate, would attend the meetings, report back to the Council, but not take part in the committee's decision-making process. He or she would not make decisions or vote while on the committee, they would not be a director, and they would not receive an honorarium. The code of conduct and the code of ethics still applies.  

They certainly would not make a motion that favours the committee or vote on such a motion at Council.  To do so would be a blatant code of ethics violation because they demonstrated favoritism to their cause. That would be better left to someone on the committee without the dual role.  To make it clear, no Councillor should sit on a committee without a clear term of reference, and a policy that demonstrates how all facilities are funded within the municipality.  

The public has a right to know about the decisions that get made on their behalf. The Municipal Act, and the Municipalities Act require that Council meetings be held in public, with a few exceptions. A Councillor taking an active role in a committee meeting provides an opportunity for decisions to be made that affect the rest of the population, in private. Committees do not have the same obligation to make their information public as Councils. Many expensive decisions made at the committee level fly under the radar of the citizens expected to pay for them, while other facilities were not even considered. Councillors have obligations under asset management legislation, which are typically ignored at the committee level.  

 Serving on a committee is not a separate show. You are a Councillor first, with all the duties and responsibilities that come with it. 

Our little Towns and Villages, First Nations Communities and Hamlets are essential to the provincial economy. So why are "we" letting "they" treat us like we are the "country cousins?"

“Country cousin.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country%20cousin. Accessed 6 Jan. 2025.

Lacking sophistication, and it shows. Pfft.

It is true that people who choose to live in small communities may be different from those who choose to live in the city. One is no better than the other; they just live differently. You might say the same about any group. For example, those who live on assistance in the inner city likely live differently than those who live in single-family dwellings in the suburbs of a large urban center. That doesn't mean one person should have more value than the other. I would agree; people-wise, we all have value.

However, one core difference exists between small-population communities and larger urban centers, and it is almost always dismissed. We live where the revenue is generated.

The mines, oil and gas, cows, chickens, and pork chops are all out here, as are the grains that feed us all. Miners, farmers, truckers, and many labourers live in these little economic hubs supporting entire industries and provinces. We are essential because we produce revenue.

Yet we need to duke it out and compete for funding to maintain our infrastructure and continue to provide a basic level of service essential for people to live here. We keep having to apologize for what we don't have and, in some cases, go into deep debt as a community to provide the services to attract the people we need to deliver our services.

The government provides funding per capita. Consider that for a moment. A town with less than a thousand people provides the labour force and bedrooms for their families, creates enough wealth to meet the community needs and support the provincial needs, but has to apply to get back a teeny small amount of the revenue they produce.

Their infrastructure ages out, while local people with little say in provincial matters pay increasing property taxes to pay for the lagoon and water treatment systems. Other plans die on the vine while we are just trying to keep the taps on and toilets working.

In the meantime, we feel lucky if we can access a grant to provide the essential services. I wonder if anyone has done any mathing? What could losing the little towns, villages, and communities cost? How would it impact the trucking rates, storage rates, and all of the rates?

When I was growing up, most people thought it was inevitable that we would all work in the city. Most of us tried it, and many preferred returning to living in a small town. Not because we are country cousins and too unsophisticated to live in the city, but because we prefer the lesser crime rate, the lack of homeless people propped into our building entries, and how people lean in and help each other. It is just NICE out here.

Lots of us have degrees, and lots of us are educated out of the wazoo. There are more opportunities for those who want to be self-employed, and housing is affordable. It is a great place to live until we have to raise funds for our infrastructure on the backs of fewer than 500 households. Our provincial and federal governments will let us struggle to pay for an essential service that provides the labour force that creates the revenue for the entire province! When we cannot do it anymore, and the town dies, we might not move to the city; we will move to the next town with a lifestyle similar to the one we love.

Making the smallest populations go without providing the necessities of life while scooping up all the revenue they produce seems counterintuitive. If I had little hives producing revenue like many small populations do, I would consider what they make as part of how we should fund them. Instead of stressing out our little communities, some of the revenue we produce here should go to maintaining the infrastructure to keep the revenue flowing. Then, we could spend some of our dollars on the other things we value, like health care.

Is your small town really friendly?

Spoiler Alert: Many communities are anything but unless you fit the profile.

People are friendly to each other, especially their neighbours and friends who they know well, agree with their politics, and go to the same church. They are more tolerant of those who have kids who went to school with their kids and to those who were raised there. They love those with the correct mix of humility and success. There is nothing like a small town where you can band together and fundraise, build facilities, and ease the burdens of the injured, the unfortunate, and the sick. They have huge hearts until they see a threat. They still band together, but the outcome is anything but friendly.

If you are different, funny-looking, from a country that feels threatening or a neighbouring town the locals think is snotty, your small-town living experience might be anything but friendly. There is a weird sense of entitlement among people who spend their entire lives in one place. Locals regard their opinions as legitimate because they see each other as having greater local power and privilege than the newbies. They have been here longer and, therefore, think their opinions hold greater weight. Any change to that, even a positive change, can be seen as disrupting the status quo. Nobody likes change or that feeling that we are out of our element. The Disney Animated special said it best in a song from Beauty and the Beast, "We don't like what we don't understand; in fact it scares us, and the monster is mysterious at least...bring your guns and your knives, protect your children and your wives...we'll save our village and our lives, Kill the Beast!"

You hear a lot about "old school" in those communities while the infrastructure crumbles under them. You hear a great deal of resistance to immigration, where the Council tries to attract immigrants, preferably English-speaking Caucasians, who won't want to change a thing about the community and are willing to forgo everything they ever valued while at the same time, expecting them to invest their life savings into your community. I am particularly annoyed by comments that go, "When in Canada, you should act like a Canadian," assuming, of course, that everyone is Canadian the way they are Canadian.

I know there are Canadians who do not speak English in their homes, some Canadians do not celebrate the same holidays that others do, and there are different values even within the smallest population. For some reason, though, some people within those communities think they set the standard for all in the country and defend their point of view in a way that I can describe as not friendly—maybe even a little threatening.

So, when we say we are 'friendly,' are we really? And really, who needs who? We aren't having 13 babies per family anymore, and our systems are built on the need for employees. Thoughts?