Busting Some Referendum Rumors

Regina Water War - Referendum 2013There sure are some crazy notions about the referendum swirling about the Regina rumor-scape these days. I thought it might be worthwhile putting a couple of them to rest.

The latest I’ve heard (last night at recreation program sign-up) is that the city clerk’s office has declared that for a Yes side win to be binding, they would need to capture 60 per cent of the vote and there would have to have been a 50 per cent voter turnout — an impossible threshold.

But that rumour is 100 per cent false.

I just spoke with Jim Nicol, executive director of governance, and he says some people may have read the provincial Referendum And Plebiscite Act and assumed it applies to the City of Regina. It doesn’t.¹

“Ours is a strict 50 per cent plus one [vote],” says Nicol.

And that means that if only 10,000 people show up to vote, the question of whether to P3 or not P3 could be decided by as few as 5,001 people.

Another rumour I’ve heard is that the result of this referendum won’t be binding because it was called by council. If the referendum had been forced by a petition then it would have been binding. But because the clerk’s office declared the petition invalid, council won’t have to abide by a Yes side win.

Again, this is false.

First of all, at at least two press conferences, Mayor Michael Fougere has been asked if council would abide by a Yes vote and on both occasions, Fougere said that the majority would rule and if Reginans voted against the P3, council would abide by their wishes.

I’ve got that on tape here somewhere.

Also, the Saskatchewan Cities Act is pretty clear on this. Check out sections 105 and 111:

Referendum initiated by council
105(1) A council may submit any proposed bylaw or resolution, or alternative proposed bylaws or resolutions, to a referendum. (2) If a referendum approves the proposed bylaw or resolution, the council shall proceed to pass the bylaw or resolution. (3) If a council submits a proposed bylaw or resolution to a referendum pursuant to subsection (1), the council is bound by the result of the vote for a period of one year from the date of the vote, except to the extent the council’s subsequent intervention is required to deal with an imminent danger to the health or safety of the residents of the city.

Result of referendum
111(1) If a proposed bylaw or resolution is approved by a vote at a referendum by a majority of the electors voting whose ballots are not rejected, the council shall pass the bylaw or resolution within four weeks after the date of the vote.

So, if the Yes side wins, council will have to pass a bylaw conforming with the language of the referendum question within four weeks of the end of the referendum and will be bound by that for a minimum of a year. (Conversely, if the No side wins, council can just carry on with their plans as if nothing happened.)

Now, I imagine some of the confusion may have arisen due to section 104 which says the results of a plebiscite aren’t binding:

104(1) A council may submit to a vote of the electors any question on any matter that the council determines affects the residents of the city. (2) A vote of the electors pursuant to subsection (1) does not bind the council.

But after spending the last six weeks calling this a “referendum” in all of their public statements, on their website and in all their promotional material, it would be pretty difficult for council to claim after the fact that this was in fact a plebiscite all along and not a referendum.

¹ But, while tangential, I think it is newsworthy that that Referendum And Plebiscite Act does apply to any provincial level referendums.

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5'10'' tall and he was born in a place. He's not there now. He's sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It's "Girl From Ipanema", thanks for asking. You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

10 thoughts on “Busting Some Referendum Rumors”

  1. When I lived in Calgary, the vote to add Fluoride to the city water, was on the civic election ballot.
    The city’s pop. at the time was around 800,000. A pathetic 25-30k votes, was all it took to be the 50 + 1.

    Hello tainted water..

  2. Given the shenanigans attempted by the City Clerk’s office in re: the referendum, it’s not surprising that such rumours should pop up. That said, the growing paranoia is beginning to be annoying, and is drawing away energy better used to discuss the actual issues.

  3. I’m waiting to see if Michael Fougere resigns in the event of a Yes win. I got my large City of Regina official NO pamphlet in the mail today.

  4. Ron: Didn’t do more than skim the article but the red flags on this site are legion… broccoli-based medicine? vinyl flooring causes autism? earthing? defences of Jenny McCarthy?

    Thanks. I’ll stick to my science sites.

  5. The less rumors there are, the better. I feel both sides are adding rumors to anti-up their yes or no positions.

  6. I’ve heard the casual claim that ‘both sides’ are giving false info.

    But objectively speaking, what has water watch published that isn’t true? I haven’t seen much from them, but what I have seems factual.

  7. Reader – I think pretty much anything that RWW has posted is about as factual as you will get. Where the “No” side is muddying the waters – specifically the sewage coming from the Regina Chamber – is that they are capitalizing on the fact that the RWW numbers have to keep switching to keep up with the constantly changing numbers from the City of Regina. The Chamber has taken the position that “oh, look at how often their numbers are changing. They can’t make up their minds!” Nice one, Mr. Hopkins, nice one.

    Did you hear the “debate” that Rawlco (read: http://www.rawlcotransit.com) had with John Hopkins and Jim Holmes? Mr. Hopkins wouldn’t let Mr. Holmes get his full statements out without interrupting with statements like “Oh puuulleeaaase”. Mr. Holmes remained as professional as can be, given the circumstances, and I think it does nothing but hurt the Chamber’s image, let alone the “Vote No” campaign. http://www.cjme.com/sites/default/files/JGLP3DEBATESEP9.mp3

Comments are closed.