Protecting public health: the mayor’s mission
It is dishonest and immoral to prevent the resolution of this documented public health problem by ignoring its negative effects and frightening the population with tax increases
What happens when “those in charge” pretend to ignore a problem and hope it will go away on its own? Well, he’s not going away, the situation is getting worse, and it is dividing the population.
If the municipal administration had paid its fair share in 1987, we would no longer talk about it, the acoustic screen would have cost much less and it would already be fully paid. But today the health of many is affected, the screen will cost more and there will be debate over the false problem of costs.
Like COVID
We are in a similar, albeit more serious, situation on a global scale: COVID-19. Our leaders listened to science, they controlled the situation for us. The cost will be discussed later. The important thing is the health of the population.
Where leaders have downplayed the public health problem (USA, Brazil, etc.), citizens are paying dearly for the price of this strategy.
61 Public health: it is also a municipal responsibility
A public health problem must be managed by the local authorities. This is NOT a personal problem of the affected residents!
ALL public health organizations (WHO, DSPQ , INSRQ, etc.) and the MTQ define pollution along highways as a public health issue. In fact, many other cities in Quebec have signed agreements to build 50-50 noise barriers with the MTQ. Everyone agrees that the municipality and the province share the responsibility for managing public health here. It’s a community issue, the same as it is when there is a flood. Some are affected but everyone pays:
-Should the Prime Minister of Canada demand that the citizens of Nunavut pay more than others because they are the ones who suffer the most from pollution and global warming?
-Should the Premier of Quebec require residents of the banks of the St. Lawrence River, the Outaouais, Saint-Jean, Chaudière and St-Maurice rivers, among others, to pay more than other citizens because they have bought these residences by the water and that there is flooding?
-Should our governments tax Quebec, Ontario, Montreal and Toronto more because COVID has hit harder in these areas?
Asking the question, is answering it. A public health problem must be managed by local government entities responsible for the health of these citizens.
62 Delegating difficult decisions to citizens?
We have already said:
“When he takes an oath at the start of his mandate, each mayor implicitly undertakes to protect his population. To refuse to resolve this public health situation is to betray his oath. “
It is however the game played by the city of Beaconsfield for more than 30 years.
Representatives from the City of Beaconsfield decided, as early as 1987, that the city was not responsible for paying to protect its citizens. We have discussed no-fault liability. Many cities paid their fair share of their barriers without acknowledging any responsibility. They did it to improve the quality of life of their citizens.
The city and the mayors of Beaconsfield have only one speech: “building the wall will be expensive”, not to mention the health impacts of a third of the population. The mayor insisted on calling for a referendum on the matter, when he too was elected to make these decisions. He therefore wants to delegate to citizens the decision to tax themselves without explaining the public health situation to them. This is leadership!
Which citizen will vote for more taxes if we only talk to him about money?
63 A question of honesty and good faith
The city and the mayor of Beaconsfield must be honest, that is to say that they must answer for their intentions and their actions before their conscience and before the citizens. When we know that a situation has negative effects on the health of many of our fellow citizens, we must inform them and protect them.
It is dishonest and immoral to prevent the resolution of this situation by ignoring its negative effects. Why scare the population with tax increases?
We must explain why this project is essential to protect the health of a third of the population of Beaconsfield and support this noise screen project.
Many other mayors have done it. Why not at Beaconsfield?
The city of Beaconsfield and its mayor must therefore lead the debate to protect public health.
Unfortunately, the city’s attitude is the opposite.