Racist comments were made during the public engagement sessions for renaming in St. Albert, said the city’s mayor.
More than a year after city council voted to fund a significant review of the city's naming policy, draft revisions and processes were presented to council during a standing committee of the whole meeting on Feb. 14, where St. Albert mayor Cathy Heron said members of the public made multiple racist comments during the sessions.
A process for removing commemorative names from municipal assets such as parks, roads, and city-owned facilities, and an established renaming process were included in the draft policy changes.
The policy also outlines what would disqualify potential commemorative names, and what could cause a current name, such as Grandin, to be removed. The renaming process was started after it was revealed that Bishop Grandin played a large role in the establishment of residential schools. As a result, the city began to craft a naming policy for neighbourhoods and important landmarks.
Prior to discussing the policy during the Feb. 14 meeting, the committee went in-camera for a discussion with the consultants hired to undertake a nation-wide scan of similar policies in other municipalities and gather feedback from local residents.
When the meeting resumed publicly, Heron said the consultants told council a "number" of racist comments were made in the public engagement sessions.
"Council did receive two 'What We Heard' reports. We got a confidential one that had all the comments that were deemed quite inappropriate ... but the public 'What We Heard' report is more summaries and generalities of all the feedback," Heron said.
"My job today is to guide my council and this city through a difficult conversation on where we're going to go with the naming policy but ... when it does get into the racist comments, I will denounce it and say it doesn't belong here in St. Albert."
"I think this council and this city could probably do a better job at saying that more frequently, and not just saying it, [but] taking action," Heron said.
"You can be neutral to these things, but what we have to do is actually be anti-racist. We need to speak up against this racism and not just stay silent."
Heron said the racist comments would not be made public.
Policy discussion
Much of the discussion around the draft policy during the Feb. 14 meeting involved councillors, as well as the city's director of legal and legislative services David Leflar, seeking clarification on definitions and noting grammatical mistakes to be fixed prior to the draft policy being recommended to council for approval.
At the end of the discussion, the standing committee of the whole unanimously passed a motion that directs administration to correct vague language, remove grammatical errors, "establishing the authority of the [Chief Administrative Officer] to issue Administrative Directives not inconsistent with the policy to specify details of administrative processes required to facilitate implementation of the policy," and directing the further revised draft policy be brought back to the committee in a future meeting.
"Besides some of the clarifications that are needed, I thought the policy was really strong," Heron said.
A date for when the revised draft policy will be discussed at the committee stage again has not been set.
Policy specifics
The draft policy states existing or future commemorative names shall not "be or be perceived to be discriminatory or derogatory of race, colour, ethnic origin, gender identity or expression, sex, sexual orientation ... or other social factors."
Other disqualifying factors include if a commemorative name represents a person, group, or practice is connected to the oppression of others.
Qualifying factors for commemorative names, according to the draft policy, include geographical or topographical names; flora, fauna, and other environment-related names; historical events significant to local Indigenous communities or the city, and more.
The name-removal process, as outlined in the draft policy, says a member of the public may apply to have a municipal asset renamed. Once an application is received, the city's core naming committee, composed of representatives from eight city departments, as well as the St. Albert Arts and Heritage Foundation, will then review the application.
If the core naming committee finds the application appropriate, the committee will contact affected local groups and community members and request the formation of a naming subcommittee which can recommend the asset be renamed or not, and recommend a new name that meets the criteria or a name from the pre-approved name reserve list.
The naming subcommittee may, the draft policy states, also recommend the residents living in, on, or by the asset recommend a new name.
Once a new name is recommended, city council will be responsible for approving the name change.
A previous complete draft of the revised policy released on the city's YouTube account had stated a name-removal application submitted by a member of the public would require a petition with at least 20 signatures, but that requirement was removed before being presented to council on Feb. 14.
However, council heard the requirement to gather documented support to submit a name-removal application is still included in the policy, but the amount of documented support will later be determined by city administration.
Administration is still working to determine the amount of documented support needed to have a name-removal application be accepted for consideration, but a couple of options being considered are 20 signatures or 50 signatures.
The full draft of the revised municipal naming policy can be read on the city's website by visiting: https://stalbert.ca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=52483&GUID=4C094923-AD99-4C5E-BF85-33F50F80E902.
