Fed up in the Pontiac

Dear Editor,

Why shouldn’t the public question the transparency of our local government?

From personal experience, we’ve found public participation to be hindered by the very same government employees who should foster democratic participation. We’ve even been told by a certain mayor that he, “[does] not care if it takes a year to respond to [my] information requests.” How is this transparency?

Our experience with the MRC isn’t much better. We’ve asked for public questions to be answered publicly, which Warden Jane Toller had agreed to. But as we’ve seen during the MRC meetings, thanks to Facebook live, some suggestions are ignored and questions put forth to council are either vaguely answered, if at all, or the resident is told to email the mayor directly. Doesn’t this defeat the whole purpose of the public question period?

Additionally, the powers that be may choose not to respond to emails. This has been the case when we’ve asked about local sawmills and certain emergency funds. What about when an elected official violates the Municipal Code of Quebec by refusing to allow residents to speak during local council meetings? Do they not hold a responsibility to best represent the residents? By refusing to respond or provide details and concrete facts to local journalists and ratepayers, the public’s logical conclusion assumes there must be something to hide, otherwise, why not be forthcoming with information?

For six months, we have continued to ask for plenary meetings to be made public, in hopes to see debate and discussion rather than the usual quick passing of resolutions. Wouldn’t this foster more knowledge and democratic participation within our communities? After all, plenary is where the real dialogue begins and ends, where major statements and broad ranging debate can be conducted. So why not allow the ratepayers to be privy to the discussion and ultimately the decisions that affect their lives?

For years, we’ve heard about projects that will surely “revive the Pontiac” – a swimming pool, a prison, a call centre, a waste from energy project, and sawmill regeneration, to name only a few gems. Great ideas in theory, but where are the facts, actions and deadlines to move forward such projects? After countless expensive and fruitless “economic development studies,” how much more political rhetoric should we listen to and not respond?

While the Rapides sawmill opened only due to Commonwealth’s actions following their closure and recent investment, the local mills are not in that same situation. How many times has a certain non-functioning sawmill changed hands that were greased with taxpayer funded loans and grants?

Over the past years we’ve been slowly subjected to top-down governance with little public input. We’ve endured scandals, democratic ignorance and nonsensical policies that affect the vulnerable while leaving those making the policies mostly untouched. Are we expected to accept being left out of the conversation completely?

Although it is everyone’s civic responsibility to ensure inclusive and accountable governance, the pressing question remains, are the elected officials, government employees and the public up to the challenge?

Amy Taylor, Chapeau, Que.

Pat Goyette, Fort-Coulonge, Que.

Understanding

Dear Editor,

Your editorial Understanding Notwithstanding clearly shows the rampant nondemocratic nature of Ontario’s Ford’s maneuver. The sad fact of the matter is that the correction to this unjust legislative assault by the Ontario Progressive Conservative government would take years to correct. Ford’s subsequent reversal does not mitigate the fact that he would do something like that in the first place. Its a bully tactic by an authoritarian premier who spouts the Conservative mantra of “freedom.” His education minister should resign or be fired.

Ford’s actions were perpetrated on education workers who have endured very low wage gains these past five years. To saddle them with a below the cost of inflation salary agreement during these times and club them with a law forcing them to accept without true negotiations taking place is a direct assault on their well being. Our education workers — and we need many more of them to assist teachers with their tasks — deserve better consideration. It is heartening that they did not take this assault on their rights and well being lying down.

The federal conservative leader I fear will be following in the same footsteps. Poilievre’s mantra that all Canada needs is less government spending and everything will be fine needs much scrutiny.

It will take a heck of a lot of government cutbacks to find the money needed to hire more doctors and nurses, more medical availability for surgery and diagnostics, education workers, teachers, senior care workers, better nursing homes, innovative green energy strategies, better cyber protection from online scam artists, and more income equality so that income levels become fairer in Canada. It’s a tall order that I fear will not be accomplished by the line that cutting waste will fix all that ails us. We need our politicians to get real, not spout useless political rhetoric, and deliver what Canadians truly need.

Carl Hager

Carl Hager is a retired educator, community volunteer and active member of the Pontiac NDP riding association.