Why a consultative referendum where the mayor will oppose protecting the health of thousands of his citizens?
There is no legal requirement to hold a referendum to approve the noise barrier loan.
A referendum is a big, unnecessary expense, especially when it comes to the health and common good of several thousand citizens and children of Beaconsfield.
Obviously, a mayor must protect his fellow citizens.
How can a mayor impose a referendum and be on the NO side, in opposition to his duty to protect the health of its citizens?
The municipal administration was informed in 1987 and 2010 of excessive noise levels along the 20.
The mayor has publicly acknowledged the negative impact of this situation on the health of many of his citizens.
Several cities already mentioned (Laval, Longueuil, Quebec, Baie d’Urfé, etc.) have already built acoustic screens financed at 50-50 and without resorting to a referendum.
But the mayor of Beaconsfield has said , including in 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2020 that any loan to finance the sound barrier will have to be put to a referendum. This is another attempt to avoid taking a position and relying on the population by betting on the citizens of the north side of the 2-20 to derail the project while its Council has all the latitude to proceed with the loan given the effects of noise on the health of its citizens.
.
Fact: There is no obligation to hold a referendum for a noise barrier. Several cities made this decision without a referendum.
72.1 Referendum: useless and costly
A referendum seems a fine democratic gesture. It sounds good in front of journalists or voters.
However, Mayor Bourelle has repeated several times, among others in July 2018 (page 6) and in October 2018, that the city will not be governed by referendums, that the elections gave him the mandate to govern.
“We govern for four years and after four years you can assess our performance. We cannot hold a referendum every time we make a decision. “
Indeed, the very concept of a referendum does not fit with the British parliamentary tradition:
“Referendums do not easily fit with the traditions of British parliamentary practice, in which the [elected government] decides most political questions. Referendums are inherently polarizing, even impassioning processes. “
“In the British parliamentary tradition, referendums can only be advisory because of the principle of the sovereignty of [elected government], a principle which makes the legislative chamber the sole holder of popular sovereignty. “
Indeed, let us repeat that other cities decided to build noise barriers in response to popular demand and without holding a referendum.72.2 ADVISORY referendum: useless and costly
Despite his claims, the mayor did not hesitate to threaten the use of a referendum to have the decision approved by voters. The mayor probably relies on this definition taken from the “Elections and Referendums Act“:
“The Act respecting elections and referendums in municipalities allows municipalities to hold referendums of a consultative type. (…)
Some municipal laws (Municipal Code, Cities and Towns Act, Planning and Development Act) oblige municipalities to have some of their decisions approved by the population before they can come into force. Most long-term loans as well as certain modifications to the zoning by-law or the subdivision by-law are notably subject to this approval. »
Not required anymore
On the other hand, that obligation no longer exists since 2017, when the Québec government adopted law 122 mainly aimed at “recognizing that municipalities are local governments and thereby increasing their autonomy and powers”.
Law 122 contained article 66, which has since been inserted into article 556 of the Cities and Towns Act. According to these articles of law, the city does NOT need an approval referendum for a noise barrier because:
“A loan by-law is only subject to the approval of the Minister when (…)
1 ° the purpose of the regulation is the performance of work (…) which aims to eliminate a risk to the health or safety of people (…)
2 ° the repayment of the loan is provided by the general revenue of the municipality or is entirely supported by the owners of buildings throughout the territory of the municipality.
Also subject to the approval of the Minister is a borrowing by-law, at least 50% of the planned expenditure of which is the subject of a subsidy, the payment of which is provided by the government or by one of its ministers or agencies. »
All of these conditions are met. Only an advisory referendum is possible. There is no legal obligation to hold an unnecessary advisory referendum that would cause significant costs.
So what is the decision criterion? A referendum for decisions that we reject, that we do not want to make and that will cost? And for the rest, it’s useless, the city decides without consulting?
72.3 How can a mayor oppose to the well-being of its citizens?
The question then becomes:
How can a mayor impose a referendum and be on the NO side, in opposition to his duty to protect the health of its citizens?
In our opinion a referendum is an unnecessary expense when it comes to the health and common good of several thousand citizens and children of Beaconsfield.
Of course we must protect our citizens.
Is this another tactic to “drown the fish” by asking unaffected citizens to decide if we should protect the health of citizens attacked by the highway.