Summary#
Montréal city council adopted a bylaw amending the Règlement intérieur de la ville sur la délégation de pouvoirs du conseil de la Ville aux conseils d'arrondissement (02-002). It gives borough councils the city council’s power to authorize collective religious practice on a public road or in a park, subject to Québec law. City staff say the goal is to make decisions about such authorizations simpler.
- Borough councils may authorize such a practice only exceptionally, case by case, and only if the conditions in provincial law are met.
- Borough councils remain responsible for local rules that may also apply, such as noise, traffic and use of public space.
- According to city staff, provincial law generally prohibits collective religious practice on public roads and in parks; it provides for fines for people who organize or take part in a prohibited practice.
What it means for you#
- Borough councils: They now have the delegated power to decide whether to authorize a collective religious practice on a public road or in a park. They may also need to use local rules, such as issuing a permit or adopting an order.
- People organizing or attending a practice: This bylaw does not itself authorize an event or create a general right to hold one. Any authorization must be exceptional and meet provincial-law conditions as well as applicable local rules.
- Other users of public space: The decision does not itself change local rules on matters such as noise, traffic or use of public space.
Money#
City staff list the financial impact as not applicable; no cost estimate is provided.
- The materials do not state whether the delegated work will require additional staff or other spending.
What is unclear#
- The bylaw is stated to take effect on publication, but the supplied material does not give the publication date.
- The supplied material does not set out an application process, decision timelines, reasons that must be given, or an appeal process.
- The underlying bylaw 02-002 was not supplied, so its other delegation rules and the exact wording of this amendment could not be checked.
Case for#
- City staff say the delegation avoids having both city council and the borough council involved in decisions, which could simplify decision-making.
- Borough councils already handle local rules affecting public space, so giving them the authorization power puts related decisions at one level of municipal government.
Case against#
- A possible concern is that borough councils could take different approaches; the supplied material does not describe shared decision criteria or oversight.
- The amendment delegates authority but does not explain how people would seek authorization or how the public would learn about decisions.