Dear Editor,

Recently I was watching a report on the great dictators of this world and I remembered how lucky we were to live in a country where democracy and freedom of expression guide our governments, at least some. Indeed, I have witnessed several. . .

situations in the last year that confirm to me that maintaining division within a group seems to be the leitmotif of some elected officials and it leads me to seriously doubt that we will soon experience prosperity in the Pontiac. At the risk of forgetting some points, since there are several of them, I will try to be as concise as possible.

Let us start with this resolution tabled by the Warden in November 2020 to end the service agreement with a consultant. The head of a major economic development project that would make Pontiac a world leader in the biomass industry.  This resolution was tabled by one of the 18 mayors on the pretext that the Warden cannot table a resolution. The fact remains that this openly contravenes ethical considerations since the original resolution came from her. And to top it off, she got a resolution adopted at the last regular sitting to proceed with the hiring of … a consultant.

Let us continue with the divided votes, on at least three occasions, which were the result of an attempt to change this decision by a handful of courageous elected officials who have at heart the future of the MRC Pontiac. How can we explain that the Warden can use or not use her right of veto at will for the sole purpose of maintaining division on a fundamental issue? And what about the addition of a subject to the agenda, how can you explain, Madam Warden, that when one of the mayors wanted to have a subject added to the agenda, you strongly opposed it, citing many pretexts when you yourself have just done the exact same thing at the last regular sitting, in this case the hiring of the consultant? 

But the icing on the cake is when you persisted in maintaining that some questions submitted by the public had been submitted by a councilor of a municipality, whereas it came from a private citizen, who yes, devotes himself to being a municipal councilor, and this although the mayor of that said municipality insisted on knowing the exact origin of the questions, it is to ascribe false intentions to a person and that is far from being ethical, even reprehensible.

These simple points are just a few glaring examples of an attack on democracy and freedom of speech which increasingly convinces me that you are not preaching by example at all, Mrs. Toller, despite all your fine words leading us to believe otherwise. What hypocrisy.

Jean-Pierre Landry

Citizen of the MRC Pontiac