As most of you are aware, Bill 22 has now passed in the National Assembly and we are on our way to a “new deal” within the agglomeration of Montreal.

The signing of this bill is the culmination of two and a half years of lobbying, negotiating, and seemingly endless attempts at convincing the Quebec government of the need for significant change in the agglomeration. While Bill 22 represents a big improvement for which we fought ardently, the powers of governments and the ways in which they function are in a constant state of evolution. Bill 22 definitely leaves us better off than we were during merger and since the referendum, but there are issues which still need to be improved to make the system both just and effective. The law provides for a working group to continue examining those issues.

In the negotiations leading up to Bill 22, Westmount and the 14 other reconstituted cities were the David to Montreal and Quebec’s Goliath.

The final agreement signed with Quebec, Montreal and the reconstituted cities was the part of the agreement made visible to the public. What went on behind the scenes leading up to this agreement? The Quebec government had made it clear it wanted two entities at the table: the city of Montreal and the 15 suburbs. That set out a challenge where 15 separate suburban voices had to speak as a single voice.

The mayors who represent the 15 reconstituted cities are not a political party. The implications of the changes to the law had differing effects on each of our communities, thereby creating our first hurdle. Throughout this process, each of the 15 mayors has had to find a balance between agitating for what was best for their own city on each issue and looking at the importance of coming to a joint proposal which would actually culminate in an agreement. For example, the return of responsibility for arterial roads and assuming the debt for work which had been done was of greater financial benefit to some than to others. Cities like Hampstead and Senneville have almost no major arteries, while Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue has proportionately more than the others. The single tax bill based on each city’s fiscal potential may be more costly to cities which have a significant non-residential component than those which are primarily residential. Within the agreement we, the 15 cities, agreed to include the particular needs of Côte St. Luc, who had a volunteer emergency rescue squad which necessitated a change in law in order for that service to be able to continue to be provided to their residents. This would have no benefit to any of the other municipalities. Our proposals had to assure that there would be ongoing talks on the true cost of water so that the West Island cities would cease to be double taxed for the water they used, even though it might mean increased costs for the rest of us. While each of these elements benefited some cities and penalized others, we all recognized the importance of finding a common position overall. It was our goal to establish principals that we believed to be fair and to continue to lobby for the changes which were the result of those principals, something we will continue to do.

And so, there were many meetings over the past two and a half years, during which we tried to find positions which enabled consensus to emerge. At every step, we each spoke to our MNAs to rally support. (In Westmount’s case, Jacques Chagnon was always readily available for this.) We then communicated with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and her deputies to explain and justify our proposals. We were in contact with Premier Jean Charest’s office and some of us met with the ADQ and the PQ to explain our rationale for change.

At the final stage of the agreement, in early June, we held a meeting with most of the city mayors, the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and his assistants in Quebec City. One of his first comments was that we would never have achieved what we had if it were not for the fact that throughout this entire process, our group of 15 mayors had consistently maintained solidarity. For me, as president of the Association of Suburban Mayors and a strong proponent of non-partisan politics, I was enormously pleased to hear this acknowledgement of our accomplishment. It was a testament to the fact that political parties are not necessary to force members to formulate a unified policy and platform reflecting the needs of their constituents. In our small municipalities, collaboration and clarity of purpose can still be a successful guide to finding consensus within the political process.