Pontiac’s perceived political wisdom has been that the MRC has far too many member municipalities. How many is too many? That has never been clear, but certainly less than 10. For our small and declining population, the argument went, we don’t need 18 to accomplish municipal works across the Pontiac – plus, that same small population cannot afford so much municipal management.
There seemed always the odd insinuation that having “too many” (say 18) is “old-fashioned” and out of date. During every debate or public exchange on municipal numbers, this “old-fashioned” insinuation was clearly heard although no one
specifically used these words.
This decades-long debate is not about a couple of municipalities merging or making sharing agreements, it was, we all thought at the time, about reducing the number of the smallest municipalities – several have less than 1,000 population – and at the same time, merging nearby municipalities, all to bring the MRC Pontiac’s population down to about seven or eight New Municipalities. And we all assumed that where 10 municipalities would be an improvement, six or seven would be even better, automatically solving so many
local-government problems.
But would it? Maybe for garbage collection and sorting, for example, but what about another very important task of local government: re-asserting our confidence in democratic processes? That’s a significant problem today, because the less respect shown to the notion of democracy and its rules, the more social unrest and dissatisfaction we’ll see.
Democracy is the only form of government which guarantees in law the equality of all citizens . . . this is its basic point.
Back home, 18 municipalities is more democratic than, say, seven. Given the Pontiac’s huge size, the problems and concerns of citizens in one area can be very different from another. Allowing more voices, especially from the far regions, provides us with more information, intelligence; all giving a clearer picture to the authorities. It’s too easy for small areas to be ignored, unless they have voices in a municipal office nearby.
The cost argument seems relevant to Quebec City, as the province must foot the bill for these “entities of their own creation”. This whole argument sounds as if drafted by the province: to save the province from funding our insistence on more democracy, not less. And if anyone thinks that centralizing a bureaucracy will save money; they might give that another thought.
Third point: to think that 18 or even a dozen municipalities for our population
size is “old-fashioned” may be true. So? “Fashion” is fickle; today’s latest
idea for mega-municipalities will be itself “old-fashioned”. Be patient. Strengthening
democratic principles seems a grander goal.
