Montreal’s new powers raise concerns

Questions remain about how legislation will affect power balances, heritage protections, Spiro Metaxas says.

Two bills recently introduced by the Quebec government certainly have the potential to usher in a new era of development for the city of Montreal. For some, Bills 121 and 122, which give the city more latitude in managing its affairs, signal the end of provincial government paternalism and bureaucratic inefficiency.

However, where they will leave civil society and citizens in terms of the overall balance of power in Montreal politics remains unclear.

When the National Assembly gets back to business next month, amending these bills to improve local democracy should be a focus.

A public forum organized by l’Institut de politiques alternatives de Montréal (IPAM) on Nov. 30 at the Canadian Centre for Architecture, at which more than 150 persons were present, entertained such concerns through engaged panel and audience discussion. What emerged from this forum is that citizens are concerned about the future of their new “metropolis” and their place in it.

The proposed legislation raises several questions for Montrealers. We should ask: Are there appropriate checks and balances in place to prevent excess administrative centralization? Will Montreal’s heritage be better protected? Do these bills facilitate a closer relationship between the city’s administration and civil society? Are there adequate financial resources in place to permit the city to enhance Montrealers’ quality of life?

The title of “metropolis” certainly befits an island city that is the economic and social hub of an entire province. The first concern, however, has to do with the democratic-procedural elements that seem to be overshadowed by the proposed legislation, which chiefly focuses on urban and economic development. For instance, consider the fate of referendums concerning urban development: According to the proposed legislation, citizens of Montreal will no longer have a right to demand that a referendum be held concerning certain zoning matters. What’s more, there is little set in place to substitute for such a democratic loss, other than policies for access to information and consultation. We need stronger policies on information and consultation for all Montreal boroughs as well as for the central city administration. Essentially, it is a question of how real power is to be exercised between elections, and by whom.

The continued existence and effective functioning of certain important councils, notably the Conseil du patrimoine de Montréal, is also a grave concern. The new bills threaten to weaken the Conseil, proposing to delegate substantial powers from the minister of Culture and Communication to the city administration. More than ever, we need ongoing expert advice and evaluations of heritage sites, as well as an action plan to protect what is left. Without proper protections, it is possible that important councils could be modified or dissolved. Such was the misfortune of the Chantier sur la democratie (Task Force on Municipal Democracy), dissolved by the Coderre administration, while its Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities remains largely unknown to the general public.

One final note regarding the preservation of inclusivity and democratic integrity: Public consultations during the forthcoming parliamentary commission ought to be open to all those interested, so as not to repeat what happened during the hearings regarding Bill 109 (Quebec — Capitale). Participation in the hearings in that case was by invitation only. Given the magnitude of the Montreal bills, it is only appropriate that public hearings remain open so that citizen organizations and others can make their voices heard.

In the long-term, the proposed legislation could be a historic step forward for Montreal. However, a glaring issue remains: collaborative democracy is not part of the package on offer at present. This should be borne in mind by those who welcome the city’s new powers, and serve as a wake-up call for those who hold steadfast to the principle of “vivre-ensemble.”