bulletins

The bulletin is prepared by John Sewell, the site manager, with the assistance and under the guidance of the advisory committee. It is published monthly, and is being sent to a wide range of people across Canada. Past copies of the bulletin will be archived in this section of the site.

search   |   show all   |   subscribe to the bulletin

Bulletin No. 47, May 2004
 Local Government Bulletin No.47, May 2004

The purpose of this bulletin is to focus debate on the need to increase local self-government in Canada and to help local communities achieve more autonomy. The local self-government website is: http://www.localgovernmetn.ca

****
In this bulletin:
1. Le demerger, Yes Sir!
2. Who’s Afraid of Demergers?
3. Yes, New Municipal Law has Teeth
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
****
1. Le demerger, Yes Sir!

The interest in municipal demergers in Quebec - the unravelling of forced amalgamations and the restoration of local municipalities - is enormous. As reported in Bulletin No. 37, legislation was introduced by Jean Charest’s government last June, permitting demerger votes in municipalities which had been forcibly amalgamated in 2001. After much debate the bill was amended somewhat and passed at the end of 2003.

The process was hedged with several conditions: at least 10 per cent of registered voters in the former municipality would be required to indicate their wish to demerge before a vote would be taken; at least 35 per cent of the registered voters would be required to vote for the result to be effective; and a majority of those voting would be required to support the demerger. Providing these conditions were met then former municipalities could opt out of the amalgamated municipalities and re-establish themselves, although they would be required to share in certain regional expenses.

On May 20, the registration period ended for the first part of the process, requiring interest by at least 10 per cent of registered voters. That margin was more than achieved in no less than 89 former municipalities across the province, forcing the full vote in those municipalities. In Quebec City enough voters turned out in all 12 former suburban municipalities to require the referendums to be held. In Montreal the referendum was authorized by voters in 22 of the 28 former municipalities.

In three of the former municipalities in the Montreal area, more than 50 per cent of registered voters signed the registry asking for the referendum and in a further 17 more than 20 per cent asked for the referendum.

The referendums will be held in these 89 former municipalities on June 20. The forces of demerger, led by, among others, the former mayor of Westmount Peter Trent, seem confident in their ability to produce the required number of voters to favour demerger of many of these forced amalgamations..

Many think that Premier Jean Charest’s promise in the Spring 2003 election campaign to allow these referendums, was what turned the tide and give his government a majority. Given the results of the first phase of voting, it is clear that the hostility to amalgamations in Quebec is deep-seated and extensive.

One suspects that if even half of these municipalities succeed in forcing a demerger, then the nature of municipal government in Quebec must be seriously rethought. This time it will be the proponents of local democracy who will be in the driver’s seat.

2. Who’s afraid of demergers?

Just in time for the demerger registration process, Henry Aubin, a columnist at the Montreal Gazette, issued his booklet on the subject, `Who’s afraid of demergers?’ Published by Véhicule Press, the book contains the best of Aubin’s many columns on the subject written since the mergers were first hinted in Quebec in 1999. In many cases the columns are augmented with updates.

Aubin is an engaging writer, and the columns seem to have aged hardly at all. They remain fresh and timely, and generally they induce a feeling of outrage. Aubin documents the attack on local democracy by forced amalgamations, the false promises of benefits, the resulting loss of local access, and the refusal of the courts to pay much heed to local government. He uses telling examples and point-on quotes from those directly engaged in the fight. He notes that, as in Toronto, mergers proceeded without any serious studies supporting them. He notes that, also as in Toronto, virtually all media supported forced amalgamation in Montreal’s case by ignoring the practical issues, sluffing off the philosophical issues, and distorting the importance of language as a divisive force.

He concludes with a chapter about what happens after demergers, noting “Plenty of successful metropolitan areas can serve as models.”


It makes for a fascinating and compelling read. Aubin has a serious but engaging style as he lays out very plainly the extraordinary problems with amalgamation.

The 155-page paperback is available from Véhicule Press, http://www.vehiculepress.com at a cost of $11.95.

3. Yes, New Municipal Law has Teeth

The court case of the United Taxi Drivers Fellowship vs. the City of Calgary was reported in Bulletin No.30, referring to the rough ride the appeal court had given to the new powers provincial governments were inserting into contemporary municipal legislation. As that Bulletin noted,

“The Alberta Municipal Government Act passed in 1994 was intended to broadened and strengthen municipal powers, and has been used as the blueprint for legislation in many other provinces, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Yukon. It promises more flexibility to municipalities by giving them powers within broad spheres of jurisdiction, a legal mechanism intended to free municipalities from the minutiae of provincial regulation and invest them with general powers of governance. Instead of stating what a municipality can do, the legislation assumes the legitimate range of municipal activity is very broad, so it simply says what a municipality cannot do.

”The MGA (as it was often called) is explicit in saying (in Section 3) that the power of the municipality is “to provide good government,” to “provide services, facilities or other things that, in the opinion of the council, are necessary or desirable,” and to “develop and maintain safe and viable communities.”. The general powers are amplified in the Sections 7, 8, and 9 which give municipalities broad bylaw-making authority. “

The Alberta Court of Appeal gave a very narrow reading to these sections, and stuck municipalities in the mud of needing specific authorization to express their powers, questioning the effectiveness of provincial attempts to bestow general powers.

But the matter has happily been resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada in favour of a broad interpretation of broad municipal powers. The Supreme Court of Canada decision states “The evolution of the modern municipality has produced a shift in the proper approach to the interpretation of statutes empowering municipalities. The ‘benevolent’ and ‘strict’ construction dichotomy has been set aside, and a broad and purposive approach to the interpretation of municipal powers has been embraced. This interpretive approach has evolved concomitantly with the modern method of drafting municipal legislation.

“Several provinces have moved away from the practice of granting municipalities specific powers in particular subject areas, choosing instead to confer them broad authority over generally defined matters. This shift in legislative drafting reflects the true nature of modern municipalities which require greater flexibility in fulfilling their statutory purposes.

“Alberta’s Municipal Government Act follows the modern method of drafting municipal legislation. The legislature’s intention to enhance the powers of its municipalities by drafting the bylaws passing provisions of the Act in broad and general terms is expressly stated in section 9. Accordingly, to determine whether a municipality is authorized to exercise a certain power, such as limiting the issuance of taxi plate licenses, the provisions of the Act must be construed in a broad and purposive manner.

“A broad and purposive approach to the interpretation of municipal legislation is also consistent with this Court’s approach to statutory interpretation generally. The contextual approach requires ‘the words of an Act…to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature.”

The full decision can be found at http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2004/2004scc19.html

4. Subscribe to the Bulletin

The bulletin is sent monthly, at no cost, to about 1500 individuals involved directly or indirectly in local government in Canada. Those who receive this Bulletin directly (not forwarded by a third party) are already part of the subscription list. Others who wish to subscribe should go to http://www.localgovernment.ca and follow the instructions. To unsubscribe, please send a message to info@localgovernment.ca indicating your wish to unsubscribe.

More information about the sponsors of the bulletin, a library of relevant and useful documents, and an archive of past Bulletins, can be found on our web site. We appreciate your comments, your feedback (to j.sewell@on.aibn.com ), and items of interest that you wish to share with us and others who visit the web site. Our next Bulletin will be in June.

- end -


'