Well attended public information meetings in Richmond are becoming a thing

By Nick Fonda

Local Journalism Initiative

A few months ago, the Town’s urbanist, Francesco Cappai and the town’s director general, Mario Mayette, organized a last-minute meeting with two dozen residents of Thomas Street to address concerns about Bylaw 350 which concerned a zoning change.  On Aug. 5, they drew twice that number to a scheduled meeting to outline Richmond’s Bylaw 337, which would do away with the right that citizens have to ask for a referendum in questions of urban planning.   

Bylaw 350 proposed a change to zoning regulations governing a large, empty field on Thomas Street.  The change would have permitted as many as 170 housing units to be erected on what, until recently, was agricultural land.  When the residents of Thomas Street heard of the proposed zoning change, they were alarmed.  While the parcel of land might accommodate a large housing project the narrow road leading to the site would be unable to accommodate the traffic generated by 170 new households.  The homeowners on Thomas Street were quick to mobilize. Had it been necessary, they were prepared to ask for a referendum to ensure that their voices were heard.  As it turned out, they were able to meet with the Town urbanist and director general and express their concerns.  At the following council meeting, the Town’s elected officials—responding to unambiguous public sentiment—abandoned the proposed zoning change.

That was in June.  Since then, several Thomas Street residents have started attending Richmond’s monthly council meetings.  One resident, Paul Massé, has announced that he will be running for the District 1 seat on town council in next November’s municipal elections.

At the July council meeting, Bylaw 337 was mentioned and the initial reaction of those in attendance was positive.  The bylaw, which runs to 37 pages of text (including the appendices) and is written in legal language which, for the average layman is almost indecipherable, outlines a consultation process.   At the council meeting, it was not mentioned that adoption of the new consultation process also meant that the citizenry would simultaneously give up the right to ask for a referendum.

It was only when the proposed bylaw, available on the Town of Richmond web site, was examined more closely that the loss of recourse to a referendum was discovered.  A single line on the first page of the document announces that the proposed consultative process replaces the right to a referendum.  No explanation or rationale for abandoning the referendum process is offered.  (Unique to Quebec, referendums have been an accepted method of settling civic questions for almost a century.  Expensive to administer, they are relatively rare.  A decade ago, when the issue was water fluoridation, the Town of Richmond proposed to hold a binding consultation rather than a referendum.)   

The Aug. 5 meeting was announced in L’Étincelle, the local guaranteed circulation weekly.  Despite this, many of those in attendance heard about it by word-of-mouth only a day or two before.  While such information meetings are part of the Town’s regular protocol, they are normally held in the Town Hall council chambers.  Having received a letter asking that the right to referendum be maintained signed by over 80 citizens, this meeting was moved to the community center.

Some four-dozen people turned out to hear what Bylaw 337 was all about.  In a cavernous space with poor acoustics, the Town urbanist outlined Bylaw 337—a document drawn up by the provincial government—and presented it as a democratic process designed to better permit the municipal government to serve the population.  The citizenry could be consulted on various topics including the environment, land use, culture and social development.  The consultation process could include questionnaires, polling, focus groups, public meetings, and suggestion boxes.

Given the length of the proposed bylaw, it’s not surprising that it had some seemingly quirky provisions, for example, no consultation process could be held less than 44 days before a municipal election.  No doubt, there is a good and valid reason for such a provision.

In the question period following Francesco Cappai’s presentation, over a dozen people stepped forward to either ask questions or make suggestions.

No one spoke in favour of the new proposed consultation process.  Several of those who spoke affirmed a strong desire to maintain their right to request a referendum.

Not that anyone spoke against consultation.  On the contrary, those present welcomed consultation and if anything, bemoaned the fact that there hasn’t been more consultation in the past.  It was pointed out, for example, that when the Town was contemplating the zoning change on Thomas Street, the councillor for that district did not take the time to knock on a few doors to ask how homeowners felt about the proposed change.

Another speaker expressed skepticism.  It’s fine to consult but what assurance is there that concerns and suggestions will figure into the final decision?   It’s too easy for the consultative process to become nothing more than window dressing and easily ignored.  A referendum has the advantage of making clear how the majority feels about a particular issue, even if that majority is a very slim 50 per cent plus one.

More than one speaker questioned why the town could not, on its own, adopt a policy of consulting the population without depriving it of its right to referendums.  It was pointed out that a number of municipalities in the province have adopted their own consultative policies while maintaining the recourse to referendums.

One of the more interesting points mentioned was that the Order of Urbanists of Quebec has pronounced itself in favour of maintaining the citizens’ right to a referendum.  This, despite the fact that a referendum, because it is often limited to a smaller population, can promote the interests of a few over the wishes of the many.   For example, only Quebecers voted in the Quebec referendum on separation even though all of Canada would have been affected had the vote been a yes.  Still, despite the possibility that the tail might sometimes wag the dog, the Order of Urbanists views the right to referendums as guardrails that should be maintained.

Equally revealing is the fact that Quebec has been encouraging municipalities to adopt its consultative legislation since 2017, yet very few places have opted to do so. 

Exactly why Richmond is considering this now is not clear, although the current economic and political climate may be the principal factor.   While many would suggest that we should be curtailing our activities so as to minimize the damage we are doing to the environment, government and industry are advocating to fast-track everything from housing starts to new pipelines.  Abolishing the recourse to referendums in favour of consultation is seen as a way to streamline the approval process for new projects.

The Aug. 5 public meeting was orderly even if some of those who spoke were giving voice to deeply rooted emotions.   As property owners and citizens, they have a vested interest in their community and how it grows.  Some of the questions and comments reflected an underlying current of mistrust.  All who were present would welcome more consultation but none seemed willing to give up on the right to request a referendum.  Among those in attendance were at least four town councillors.  It will be interesting to see what they took away from the Aug. 5 meeting and just how they will vote when Bylaw 337 comes up at the next council meeting—a meeting which is likely to draw a much larger crowd than council meetings normally do.