The Implication

Something interesting happened at Council yesterday. At first, it seemed like a blip during a lengthy meeting. I honestly didn’t think too much of until people started talking about what happened on the internets. Joey Coleman posted on Bluesky about it, though focused on the procedural aspects of the back-and-forth. The procedure is one thing, but the content is what I want to focus on here. Because, once I revisited it, I couldn’t get it out of my head. And I’ve finally figured out why.

***

The blip happened during a routine part of the meeting.

Council was, at that point, debating an amendment, brought forward by Ward 5 councillor Matt Francis, to a motion they had before them.

But, before we get to that, we need a little procedural backstory as to how council got there. These things can get a little “inside baseball”, so I’ll do my best to explain this in more of a “beer-league softball” kind of way.

Council met at the Public Works Committee (PWC) early last week. At that meeting, they heard a report from the City’s manager of Transportation Planning Services on the potential widening of both the Lincoln Alexander and Red Hill Valley (RHVP) parkways. The PWC then voted on a motion put forward by Ward 6 councillor Tom Jackson and Ward 14 councillor Mike Spadafora that would “recommend” council officially receive the report and direct staff to do some more work - stakeholder engagement, cost estimates, environmental assessments, etc. - relating to the expansion of the Linc and the Linc alone. That motion doesn’t mean the Linc is going to be expanded, just that the PWC would recommend that council direct staff to do more work so we, as the residents of Hamilton, have all the necessary details before moving forward.

All this is because of a quirk in how some council committees work. In this instance, the PWC “recommended” items to council after getting all the technical specifics. It was then up to council to consider those recommendations one more time before voting to actually do something.

When it came to Jackson and Spadafora’s motion, the twelve councillors in the PWC meeting at that time all voted in favour. That set the stage for council to discuss the recommendations yesterday.

When council met as capital-c Council (think of our municipal government as a matryoshka doll - layer upon layer of the same thing, in varying sizes, all nested one within the other) they needed to “approve” the recommendations. Spadafora, who, for the month of April, is the “acting mayor”, was in the chair and called for a motion to do just that. The motion was provided by Ward 7 councillor Esther Pauls and seconded by Francis. Right off the bat, Francis jumped in with an amendment.

The amendment was supposed to come to the PWC meeting last week but, because of time constraints, they were unable to address it. Thanks to that scheduling issue, Francis waited until Council met yesterday to move forward. The amendment was simply to add six words - “and the Red Hill Valley Parkway” - to the end of both recommendations. Simply put, the amendment would have directed staff to advance the process of expansion of both highways, rather than the original recommendation of just moving forward on the Linc. Again, this isn’t saying both would be expanded, just that council would direct staff to gather the necessary information which would be used, in the future, to help them decide whether to approve any expansions. It’s like agreeing to read the Google reviews of restaurants before making any decisions about whether you’re going to go out and eat; you gotta get all the facts before digging in.

Francis puts the amendment out there, albeit expressing some mild irritation that it had to be done at all. Spadafora, as chair, opens up the floor to discussion. Ward 1 councillor Maureen Wilson asks for some clarity around the matter, as issues surrounding the Red Hill Valley require extra steps and consultation. That’s because one of the last steps to completing the 50+ year project that would become the RHVP was to deal with one of Canada’s great challenges - colonialism.

***

When the RVHP was first proposed in the 1950’s, little consideration was made for the Indigenous peoples for whom the area was an important part of daily life for centuries. Despite the official ignorance from the highway-hungry planners and politicians of the time, settlers came to understand the valley’s importance to Indigenous people early in the city’s history. Records from 1915 point to important archeological finds of tools, paths, and burial grounds. Contemporary histories note the crucial role played by Indigenous people during the Battle of Stoney Creek in the War of 1812, which began after a skirmish in the Red Hill Valley, as well as the presence of Indigenous people in the early farming communities along the banks of the creek. Proposals from environmentalists in the early 1990’s included abandoning the highway project in favour of creating an urban park, complete with an Indigenous friendship centre and a renaturalized creek where Indigenous people and settlers alike could fish.¹

Following the City’s success in fighting the federal government in 2001, it seemed like construction on the RHVP would finally begin. But, in late spring, representatives of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy reminded the City of 300-year-old NanFan Treaty that guaranteed Indigenous rights to hunt, fish, and live in the “beaver hunting grounds”, which includes all of the present-day City of Hamilton - rights that were reinforced by The Royal Proclamation of 1763. To really bring their point home, members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy began posting “No Trespassing” signs in the Red Hill Valley.²

From that point on, tensions continued to rise. Despite Mayor Bob Wade’s efforts to negotiate, movement on the issue stalled. Haudenosaunee representatives reminded council that previous attempts to circumvent Indigenous claims to land had resulted in unnecessary violence, debates raged about burial grounds and historic settlements, and the City ended up spending tens of thousands of dollars on security to guard archeological digs after looters began stealing artifacts.³

By the summer of 2003, protests flared and an encampment - a “fire lodge” intended to spark dialogue - was established, with Haudenosaunee activists refusing to leave until the City entered into a meaningful mediation with Indigenous groups.⁴ After this point, the saga entered delicate territory. Negotiations started and stopped, protests flared and died out, and depending on the day, it seemed like either side might come out victorious. The election of vehemently pro-RHVP Ward 10 councillor (who, at the time, was the chair of the “Expressway Implementation Committee”) Larry Di Ianni to the office of mayor in November of that year threatened to derail negotiations.

But, by early 2004, the talks that had begun the previous summer paid off and the City reached an agreement with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Both the City and Indigenous groups maintained their claims to the land, the construction could move forward, and a “Joint Stewardship Board” (JSB), comprised of three members from the City and three members from the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, that would be established to oversee the creation of a master plan for the Red Hill Valley and, in the City’s own wording: “have significant control over what happens in the Valley in the future.”⁵ In 2007, to solidify the relationship, trees were planted in the Valley and three strings of white wampum, called “The Fire of the Valley” were given to then-Mayor Eisenberger. The three strings symbolized mutual respect after the re-establishment of a relationship between the City and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a culture of respect enforced by the JSB, and the friendship between our cultures that honours all the traditions of the people who now call this land home.

The JSB’s work progressed slowly, but steadily, over the years. By 2014, work had been completed on deer inventories, public art installations, and exhibits of artifacts at City Hall.⁶ At the time, it seemed like significant progress was being made and the spirit of the Fire of the Valley wampum was being realized. But things quickly devolved.

In 2021, tensions flared after Haudenosaunee representatives on the JSB indicated they were not consulted on the Roxborough Park development. That continued into 2022, with the Haudenosaunee representatives on the JSB contending they were not included in the inquiry around the RHVP’s safety issues and were bypassed by staff who were doing preliminary work regarding the possible expansion of the highway.⁷ For the latter incident, JSB member and Ward 9 councillor Brad Clark was, as chair of a General Issues Committee meeting, forced to apologize for the oversight to the board’s Haudenosaunee representatives. The event was seen as a major step backward on the City’s work toward meaningful reconciliation and a direct affront to the values of the Fire of the Valley wampum.

After the 2022 municipal election, council appointed Clark to the JSB, along with Francis and Ward 4 councillor Tammy Hwang, but the deteriorated relationship continued its downward spiral. By the fall of last year, the relationship between the city appointees and the Haudenosaunee representatives was so tense that meetings were unable to proceed due to the board’s inability to agree to an agenda. In October, Clark and Francis resigned from the JSB, in part because disagreements meant city staff were barred from meetings - a move that Clark called “truly problematic”.⁸

After all that, the stage was set for the blip during yesterday’s Council meeting.

It all starts at 10:10 AM. That’s 1 hour, 6 minutes, 27 seconds into the City’s livestream of the meeting. The whole thing lasts for just four minutes and three seconds.

After Maureen Wilson gets clarification regarding the JSB from City staff and Jackson gives a little speech about the need for wider highways, Clark recounts his own personal history with these issues. He was the one who needed to apologize for the City’s oversight, he has considerable experience with the JSB, he has a personal connection to this whole situation (Clark was the Tory Transportation Minister who confirmed the province supported the City’s efforts to get the RHVP built in 2001).

Clark notes that the JSB has the right to be informed and consulted (and that the Haudenosaunee representatives contend they have the right to consent - a point the City disputes) about what happens in the Valley. He reminds his colleagues that he had to stand up, in public, and apologize to the Haudenosaunee for the City’s failure to live up to the agreements put in place and to the spirit of the Fire of the Valley wampum. “Those agreements still stand today. They have not been changed…This city and this council are obligated to fulfil those [agreements],” he says, the passion rising in his voice. You can tell he cares about this and, as one of council’s most experienced members, is frustrated that he has to remind his colleagues of their obligations. And then he says:

“By amending this report so that the [RHVP] is now back in is an affront to the Haudenosaunee, it is an insult to myself, and it is an insult to the [JSB]…”

Before he can finish, Clark is cut off. Francis pipes up, calling a Point of Order. Spadafora is insulted, saying that he has “been doing a pretty good job with the order of things,” and instructs Francis that what he likely has is a Point of Privilege. Spadafora is correct; a Point of Order is called when a member notices that the rules of order have been breached while a Point of Privilege is called when the respect and/or credibility of a member has been attacked - an infringement on the privileges afforded a member of a deliberative body.

So Francis pivots to his Point of Privilege. “The councillor is implying something that is not true,” says Francis. There’s an awkward pause as everyone waits for Francis to make his point. But he just stops talking. So Spadafora is forced to ask “…but what is he implying that’s not true?” Clark agrees, saying “What’s the implication?”

Francis looks to Spadafora, lets his gaze linger, and then turns back to council, saying nothing. “You can’t imply,” he says after a long few seconds, but trails off. He comes back with “I’m going to cede the floor, but you can’t make that…you can’t make implications that aren’t true. I’m just sayin’. You can’t do that.”

Clark asks Francis to explain himself. Spadafora tells Clark there’s no need because Francis ceded the floor back to Clark. But Clark demands clarification as to whether the Point of Privilege has been withdrawn. Spadafora confirms this is the case, and the whole blip is done.

***

Francis was, rather obviously, offended by the implication, whatever that means. But there are two sides to this whole thing.

The first side is the actual politics of the amendment. Clark rather bluntly informed his ward neighbour that his amendment would cause further harm to the relationship between the City and Indigenous peoples - a relationship many are working diligently to repair. Francis, with his knee-jerk and ideological amendment, may be satisfying a segment of his actual base or his imagined base or his contacts in the city’s right-wing political establishment or whomever, but might be setting the City up for protracted legal action, strained relationships with neighbouring Indigenous communities (not to mention Hamilton’s residents of Indigenous heritage), and nothing short of a public relations disaster. Satisfying one segment of the electorate and achieving a short-term goal while setting the stage for long-term pain.

That’s one side of the coin. The other side is a little less obvious.

What I’m interested in is the way that Francis both presented the motion and expressed his offence. He tried to shoehorn six words into an existing motion - six words that would have run afoul of existing agreements with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the purpose of the JSB - and then bungled procedure in a ham-fisted attempt to silence a critic. He was on the JSB, but still tried to move forward with an amendment that would have inevitably resulted in formal action being taken against the City. He’s been on council for over two years - having been elected based on his experience working with Chad Collins and fighting both the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton and Oshawa Port Authority over their closure of the Burlington Canal piers - but still doesn’t understand how council works.

Once I sat with that for a minute, I came to realize the real thing those four minutes and three seconds of back-and-forth at Council revealed. If you think about it, it’s kind of obvious.

Hamilton’s municipally-focused right-wing populists have no idea what they’re doing.

***

One of the hallmarks of the first Trump administration was their almost unbelievable bumbling. They fought each other in public, failed to accomplish anything of substance despite having complete control over two branches of the US government, and ended up handing control back to the Democrats in the 2018 midterms.

Our right-wing populists run a slightly more seaworthy ship, if only because they have the benefit of being backed by a cadre of former politicians, backroom strategists, and wealthy donors that help keep them in line. While Trump staffed his first administration with a bunch of weirdos, this group is ever-so-slightly more professional, with knowledge of the ins-and-outs of local politics (since they held office periodically over the past few decades and/or have been funding local politicians for as long - we all know who they are).

But instances like this indicate the limits of their reach. Francis is the poster child of this movement - he was elected as a populist, with the very specific mission to stand up for taxpayers, motorists, single-detached homeowners, business interests, and the aggrieved. You know, the “those clowns down at city hall!” crowd. I have said before that he is, effectively, the leader of the right-wing caucus on council.

Of all the people around the horseshoe to expose the limits of the populist bloc, it was Brad Clark who delivered. Clark is, in many ways, a natural ally for council’s right wing. But he also represents a very different variety of conservatism. He was a PC cabinet minister during the days of the Common Sense Revolution, so he’s no Red Tory, but he’s also more professional than today’s crop of right-wing populists. He represents a kind of centre-right politics that, federally and provincially, doesn’t hold much sway anymore. While he’ll lend support to many of the proposals that come from council’s populist right, he has a keen eye for procedure and policy. That’s a big part of what sets him apart from folks like Francis.

Francis represents contemporary conservatism. He’ll get kicked out of council chambers for attacking the credibility of his colleagues (the encampment debate), introduce a slew of culture war motions that will take up resources and go nowhere (registry of “encampment supporters), smash and blast his way through procedure to achieve a short-term goal without any regard for the long-term implications of his actions (the aforementioned amendment). At the same time, he attempts to shut down colleagues who challenge him (in the case of Clark), wages war against councillors to his ideological left when they pursue the policies they believe in (his obsession with Cameron Kroetsch), and raises hell when he believes he hasn’t been consulted on issues (the Stoney Creek parking lot fiasco).

What makes him so familiar to people is precisely what is such a liability. Smash bash crash your way to victory only works if you lead a caucus that has a majority. That’s why the second Trump administration is able to accomplish what they have thus far, for better or for worse (exclusively for worse). Francis, lacking a majority and more polished leadership skills, isn’t there yet. He needs more classical conservatives like Clark and ambiguous populists like the soon-to-be-elevated-to-Ottawa Danko (don’t worry, Dawn Danko will be the exact same as the new Ward 8 councillor), to be on his side for his crusade. But his coalition requires more subtle finessing than he seems to be capable of at the present moment. Swing too far to the culture war side and you lose folks like Ward 15 councillor Ted McMeekin. Swing too hard to the motorists and you lose Danko. And show a blatant disregard for process, you lose Clark.

While the whole blip at council this week showed Francis’ limitations, it should also signal what’s possible if the right-wing populist coalition wins its desired majority in the 2026 municipal election. With just a couple more seats, they will have the power to ram through whatever they want, process be damned, caution to the wind! Imagine a process-oriented person like Clark wasn’t at the table? Imagine if their target wards - Wards 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 15 - were represented by Francis-ites who have a similar disregard for process or long-term consequences? Imagine there were even more councillors around the horseshoe who have no idea what they’re doing but the absolute certainty of their convictions that allows them to do whatever they want anyway?

This isn’t some implication. It’s a cold, hard fact. Contemporary right-wing populists offer easy solutions to complex problems. But, to achieve their desired goals, they blast their way through the institutions we have. When someone challenges them, they get angry and try to shut down debate. The question we need to ask ourselves is if we want our municipal government to run that way.

If Francis and his backers in the right-wing political establishment get their way, these kinds of events won’t be some blip. That’ll be how our city is run.

1  _{Scott McNie. “A future for the Red Hill Valley,” Hamilton Spectator, July 6, 1991 (Spec archive link); Don McLean. “Red Hill discovery runs deeper than any local political controversy,” Hamilton Spectator, July 2, 1993 (Spec archive link).}

2  _{Kate Barlow. “Natives object to highway,” Hamilton Spectator, June 1, 2001 (Spec archive link).}

3  _{Rick Hughes. “Native warns of anger over Red Hill Valley,” Hamilton Spectator, April 11, 2002 (Spec archive link); "" “Red Hill faces new hurdle,” Hamilton Spectator, May 13, 2002 (Spec archive link); "" “Native artifacts stolen” Hamilton Spectator, September 6, 2002 (Spec archive link); Paul Morse. “City seeks deal on Red Hill digs” Hamilton Spectator, May 17, 2003 (Spec archive link).}

4  _{Emily Bowers. “Six Nations camps in valley” Hamilton Spectator, August 12, 2003 (Spec archive link).}

5  _{City of Hamilton Public Works Committee report “Haudenosaunee - Hamilton Red Hill Agreements (PW04055) - (City Wide)” April 28, 2004 (Wayback Machine archived post).}

6  _{Carmela Fragomeni. “‘Fascinating’ artifacts from Valley on display” Hamilton Spectator, March 26, 2014 (Spec archive link).}

7  _{Teviah Moro. “Indigenous institute says no feedback on Roxborough” Hamilton Spectator, March 9, 2021 (Spec archive link); "" “Electric cars ‘change game’ for Red Hill widening: Merulla” Hamilton Spectator, April 14, 2022 (Spec archive link); "" “Joint stewardship board will weigh in on RHVP” Hamilton Spectator, June 14, 2022 (Spec archive link).}

8  _{Teviah Moro. “Hamilton councillors resign from Red Hill board amid rising tensions” Hamilton Spectator, October 10, 2024 (Spec link).}