By Don White.

Councillor Ben Geselbracht’s motions in the March 29 Nanaimo Council meeting to ask Victoria to defer logging in old growth forests as recommended by their own Old-Growth Strategic Review raised more issues than perhaps he had intended. That motion along with endorsing the protection of these areas were framed by Council opponents as being totally “outside their lane.”

Not only outside Council’s lane, Mayor Krog reiterated at some length. It was “not their knitting, out of their bailiwick. And their jurisdiction”, he added in case we missed the metaphors. Councillor Thorpe joined Krog saying he was simply “not prepared to support this inappropriate and divisive motion. It plays to provincial politics and personal agenda and it doesn’t belong at this table.”

Goodness! Full shame on anyone wanting to discuss these issues.

In fact, Krog’s and Thorpe’s attempts at legislative ejection revealed the motions were about something larger than a stand of trees. Geselbracht’s proposal circled tenets that underpin the foundations and functioning of our various levels of government – local, provincial, and federal. How these levels interact – or don’t – impact the welfare of ourselves and coming generations.

The motions tabled were (1) to support the deferral of old-growth logging as recommended by Victoria’s Review, and (2) to send similar motions to the UBCM and the AVICC, where, if also passed, they would be forwarded to Victoria with a request for action.

Councillor Hemmens explicitly focussed on the larger view. She supported sending the motions to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) because she believed that’s where matters like these should be debated.

At the level of those bodies, a variety of similarly wide-reaching issues are frequently discussed, voted on, and then taken to Victoria. Hemmens rejected the “not-in-our-lane” argument. She believed it appropriate that Council have and advance opinions on things not strictly in their jurisdiction, and the UBCM and AVICC exist for us to do that.

That’s the larger issue in a nutshell (speaking of metaphors): should local levels of government act as conduits to higher levels on concerns of local interest? Or should they pull their heads in and deal only on routine municipal matters like local bylaws?

In reality, our three levels of government often act as hierarchical realms of power focussed mainly on their own concerns and interests as defined by party whips and/or premiers’/prime ministers’ offices. Frequently, they exclude or override the perceived interest and mandates of particular areas to serve their own purposes. (Remember Victoria’s overriding municipal zoning and failing to consult locally when creating shelters for the homeless?) That tone deafness is the basis for many calls for electoral and governmental reform. And by passively staying within our mandated lane at the local level, we effectively abandon any real chance of being heard by those who hold the ability and financial wherewithal to effect desired change.

Which is why inter-level communication is so vital to our interests – particularly from the bottom up. Local governments are not only the most accessible to voters, they are also the most accountable. Want to make contact with a politician and hear back? You have no better chance than with a member of your City Council. If our council also has access to organizations that have the ear of other levels of government, then taking forward issues believed to be important is squarely in the middle of Nanaimo’s Council’s lane. Not outside it. And that was precisely the issue on the table last Monday night (and equally with Councillor Armstrong’s upcoming motion on stronger sentencing for prolific offenders).

“Staying in our lane” translates into perpetuating the inaccessibility of voters to elected officials that contributed to where we are today. It means accepting that we are effectively muted when in comes to other levels of government. It endorses staying reconciled to our lack of influence on levels where decisions actually are made. And to be governed, rather than self-govern.

Fortunately for Nanaimo voters, with Hemmens, Brown, Bonner, and Maartman supporting Geselbracht, the motions passed on Monday night. Regardless of where your sympathies lie on the value of protecting old growth trees, by approving Geselbracht’s motions Nanaimo Council signalled a lane change in how it sees its purview. It stated, in effect, that it endorses an expanded role for local government in taking forward citizens’ voices – our voices – and helping us be heard.

Let’s hope Council continues on this path. Their decision not to stay the old lane can only help us advance other much needed changes and policies in our cities, provinces, and country.