N.D.G. residents mobilize to save right to force referendums
Bill 122 would remove citizens’ ability to intervene in urban planning
Residents and politicians in Côte-des-Neiges—Notre-Damede-Grâce are mobilizing against a proposed bill that will strip citizens of their referendum power.
A component in Bill 122, which is being debated by the National Assembly, would remove citizens’ right to force local referendums on a council’s urban planning decisions.
The bill “would actually give more power to the city and reduce transparency and local accountability,” said N.D.G. resident Larry Karass of the Vendôme Village Association.
“How the province could even consider this, given the recent events here in Quebec, defies logic. More importantly, how is it that people who are democratically elected can propose laws that would reduce democracy in our society?”
During the April 3 borough meeting, Projet Montréal councillor Magda Popeanu proposed a motion that demands Quebec reconsider the bill, which seeks to give municipalities more autonomy. With fellow councillor Peter McQueen seconding, the motion passed four to two.
Borough mayor Russell Copeman and Councillor Lionel Perez were the two nay votes. They are both on Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre’s team, which supports the controversial bill.
Coderre and Quebec City’s Régis Labeaume have described the referendum process as a drag on municipal development.
Popeanu said Copeman and Perez voted against the motion because “they don’t really believe in the citizens.”
In a phone interview Thursday, Marie-Ève Pelletier, the press secretary to Municipal Affairs Minister Martin Coiteux, confirmed that the bill, going to a vote later this year, would eradicate the referendum process as the government looks for the “best way to encourage citizen participation.”
Popeanu said the process of public consultation could be modified but she is against completely eradicating referendums “because the citizens will completely lose control.” Elected officials have to represent the people, she said, but Coderre “wants all the power to control everything. Step by step, the people lose power.”
Residents of the west-end borough have shown in the past they aren’t afraid to fight proposed developments in their neighbourhood, having signed registries to challenge 11 urban planning proposals since 2004.
Three times citizens were victorious, collecting enough signatures to force a referendum, but rather than hosting a costly public vote, councillors withdrew the proposed zoning changes. McQueen said councillors should be able to vote with their conscience, just as citizens should be able to launch a referendum.
With former mayor Michael Applebaum’s corruption conviction and recent accusations that Coderre accepted money from a developer, McQueen said, “the citizens have to have that final right to say how they feel about a project and have their voice heard.”
Councillor Marvin Rotrand said the right to a referendum is an “important democratic tool” that Montrealers were finally given in 2002 and repealing that right is not a citizen-led initiative.
“It is being driven by politicians who find their lives a lot easier when citizens don’t get a say in whether zoning should change or borrowing bylaws should go ahead,” Rotrand said.
During the borough meeting, Copeman said he supports eliminating the referendum process but is in favour of citizen participation.
The Office de consultation publique de Montréal already involves citizens in the decision-making process, he noted.
“We can improve the process of public consultation,” he said.
“We are in the middle of reflecting on this at centre city.”
In 2015, enough residents signed a register to force a referendum on a proposed supermarket/senior residence in southeastern N.D.G. and it was withdrawn.
Last year it happened again, when a developer wanted to turn St. Columba Church in N.D.G. into townhouses.
Jo-Anne Wemmers, like Karass, is a member of the Vendôme Village Association, which collected more than 200 signatures against the proposed supermarket/seniors residence at the corner of Ste-Catherine St. and de Maisonneuve Blvd. (Ste-Catherine curves northwest at its western end to join Claremont Ave.)
When Copeman was elected in November 2013, his administration vowed to restore democratic health at a time when public confidence had plummeted, she recounted, and she has publicly challenged him on this issue several times since the election.
“Essentially, nothing has been done at the borough level and this makes the proposed abolition of the referendum all the more worrying,” Wemmers said.
“It is clear that they see the public as a nuisance rather than a partner. As a result, the democratic health of the borough shows no signs of recovery.”
James Luck, another member of the association, also spoke out against the bill at the borough meeting.
Luck and his neighbours have been contacting municipal and provincial officials to contest Bill 122. In a phone interview, Luck said there was plenty of opposition to the proposed supermarket/senior residence in the neighbouring city of Westmount, but only neighbours in directly adjacent N.D.G. zones were allowed to sign the register. Those adjacent zones include a parking lot and a vacant section of the super hospital’s property, but the registry still collected 18 signatures.
“It wasn’t only 18 signatures because there was a petition that everybody else in the surrounding area, including people in Westmount, signed,” said Luck. “Nobody is against density. It’s the kind of density that they want to put there. That’s where referendums come into play.”
How is it that people who are democratically elected can propose laws that would reduce democracy in our society?