The question of access to the public beach has been at the centre of the concerns of many people in North Hatley and surrounding villages for the past two months (and for some, even much longer than that). Two petitions asking for negotiations between the North Hatley Recreational Society and the Town of North Hatley, and for access to the public beach to remain open 24/7, received some 500 signatures, and the regular council sessions of May and June were attended by some 120 and 80 citizens respectively, most of them vocal in their disapproval of the decision by the town council to prevent access to the lake at the public beach outside supervised hours for swimming. 

At the council meeting in May, the mayor justified this decision in the following terms: “Today, in the public environment we have to deal with, the old ways are no longer viable. The laws have changed. Insurers are watching more closely.” 

But what in fact is the situation? Is there any obligation under Québec law to close off access to the beach? Are the town’s insurers insisting on the beach being closed during unsupervised hours? The answer to both these questions is the same: NO. In fact the town’s insurer – the Mutuelle des municipalités du Québec – repeated in an e-mail dated 10 May 2018 what it had already said on 01 September 2016: It is not necessary to fence off the beach. [Emphasis added.]

Why is the mayor letting us, the people he is supposed to represent, believe the opposite? And why does he write that “Drownings in Quebec have risen exponentially in recent years,” when, in fact, the most recent figures (for 2013 and 2014) show them to be at their lowest point in recent years (see “2017 Drowning Report, Quebec Version”)? It would seem that any argument – true or false – can be called upon to justify what is an almost universally unpopular decision.

Things have come to a sorry pass when our elected officials act on the presumption that they know better than, and are willing to mislead, those they represent. But then, most members of council suffer nothing from access to the public beach being closed, since they have either private access to the lake, or pools in their backyards. Perhaps this is why they do not seem to have grasped why their decision has been so poorly received. Many people – in particular young families (who, the mayor has often maintained, are a priority for the town council) – move to North Hatley specifically with the idea that they and their children will be able to take advantage of the town’s location on beautiful Lake Massawippi. Unfortunately, an arbitrary and unnecessary decision by council has deprived them – and us – of this possibility.

The mayor has been constantly framing the decision by council in terms of ‘prudence’, but those wishing to have access to the public beach are not imprudent risk takers. Rather, they are responsible adults, willing to take responsibility for the actions of themselves and of their children. The members of the council seem to have cast themselves in the role of ‘helicopter parents’, a role the population of North Hatley and of surrounding villages have not asked them – and do not want them – to assume.

– Paul St-Pierre

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.

(English follows)

Aux membres de la SRNH,

Comme vous avez pu le constater, la décision de suspendre nos activités cette année a suscité un certain nombre de réactions auprès de nos usagers, de la part des médias et de la municipalité.

En premier lieu, plusieurs membres de la SRNH ont organisé, de leur propre initiative, une pétition en ligne demandant, entre autres, à la municipalité de renouveler le protocole d’entente de l’année dernière sans nouvelles conditions.

Vous pouvez y accéder à l’adresse suivante : https://bit.ly/2jvOWLg

De plus, plusieurs usagers vont exprimer leur mécontentement lors de la prochaine séance du Conseil municipal qui se déroulera le 7 mai prochain, rv à partir de 18h30.

En deuxième lieu, le président de la SRNH, Mathieu Devinat, a exprimé le point de vue de la SRNH à la radio (https://bit.ly/2rk6jDa), à la Tribune (https://bit.ly/2HW4t1H), à Radio-Canada (https://bit.ly/2KCAiyg) et à CBC (https://bit.ly/2ju9ALy). Comme vous pourrez le constater, la municipalité reprend à plusieurs reprises l’argument selon lequel la SRNH n’aurait pas fourni de bilan financier dans les années antérieures, ce qui justifierait sa position. Le Conseil d’administration de la SRNH a été profondément surpris de cette réponse, car la municipalité n’avait jamais évoqué cette question lors des négociations antérieures.

Il est important de savoir qu’un rapport annuel, dans lequel on trouve une description des revenus et des dépenses engendrées par les activités à la plage, a toujours été fourni par la SRNH. En retour, celle-ci n’a jamais présenté de bilan financier (avec une description générale de ses actifs et de son passif) pour la simple raison qu’elle ne disposait pas des services d’un comptable parmi ses bénévoles. Nous tenons à préciser que la SRNH a bel et bien informé le Conseil municipal qu’elle avait remédié à ce problème par le recrutement d’un comptable.

En troisième et dernier lieu, la municipalité a, à son tour, diffusé une lettre d’information exprimant son point de vue, voir la version française (https://bit.ly/2w92p4R) et anglaise (https://bit.ly/2FIJbm5).

Selon le Conseil d’administration de la SRNH, cette lettre contient un certain nombre d’affirmations qui méritent d’être clarifiées, précisées et parfois contredites. C’est pourquoi nous avons formulé une réponse aux prétentions de la municipalité que vous trouverez annexée au présent courriel.

Conseil d’administration / Board of directors

Mathieu Devinat, president/président, Michael Munkittrick, secretary/secrétaire, Carrol Haller, Steve Piercy, Darryl Williams, Elaine Lebourveau, John McCrea

Lettre disponible sur dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/l/scl/AADsxILh05dVklzzznalmnIwUVhi-8WqXYE

Les opinions exprimées sur ce site Web reflètent celles de leurs auteurs. L’espace est offert à titre de service à la communauté et FANHCA, ses administrateurs et son hébergeur ne peuvent en aucun cas être tenus responsables des opinions qui y sont émises.

Dear members of the NHRS,

As you may have noticed, the decision to suspend our activities this year has generated a number of reactions from our users, from the media, and from the municipality.

First, several users of the NHRS organized, on their own initiative, an online petition asking, among other things, the municipality to renew the memorandum of understanding without new conditions.

In addition, several users will express their concerns at the next City Council meeting on 7th May, at 6:30 pm.

Secondly, I was able to express the NHRS’s point of view on the radio (https://bit.ly/2rk6jDa), in the Tribune (https://bit.ly/2HW4t1H), on Radio-Canada (https://bit.ly/2KCAiyg) and CBC (https://bit.ly/2ju9ALy). As you will see, the municipality repeatedly points out that the SRNH did not provide a financial statement in previous years as a justification to its position. The Board was deeply surprised by this response, as the municipality had never raised this issue in previous negotiations.

It is important to know that an annual report, in which a description of the income and expenses generated by activities at the beach, was always provided by the NHRS. In return, it never presented a financial balance sheet (with a general description of its assets and liabilities) for the simple reason that it did not have the benefit of having an accountant among its volunteers. We would like to point out that the NHRS did inform City Council that it had found an accountant to remedy this situation.

Thirdly, the municipality has, in turn, distributed a newsletter expressing its point of view, see the French (https://bit.ly/2w92p4R) and English versions (https://https://bit.ly/2FIJbm5).

According to the Board of Directors, this letter contains a number of statements that need to be clarified and sometimes contradicted. This explains why we have formulated a response that you will find attached to this e-mail.

Conseil d’administration / Board of directors

Mathieu Devinat, president/président, Michael Munkittrick, secretary/secrétaire, Carrol Haller, Steve Piercy, Darryl Williams, Elaine Lebourveau, John McCrea

Letter available on dropbox :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yj3245dm9pl366q/NHRS%20second%20letter.pdf?dl=0

The opinions expressed on this website are those of their authors. Space on the website is provided as a service to the community and FANHCA, its administrators and host cannot be held responsible for any of the opinions expressed thereon.