It was surprising that Jim Watson proposed a borough council system for Ottawa at the same time as suggesting that City Council be reduced to 14 to 17 Councillors. Both ideas are worth discussing, but by bringing the two concepts together, Watson may have ensured that little progress can be made on either.
On the borough idea, surely the former Minister of Municipal Affairs realizes that a real borough system would require legislation from Queens Park. Nevertheless the concept of devolution of decision-making to a local level does have merit and could be accomplished with relative ease.
The question is why Watson did not stop there, but went on to talk about cutting the number of Councillors. This provoked the knee-jerk reaction of protecting rural voices on Council and the counter-reaction about "rep-by-pop" as the basis of democracy.
The trial-balloon about a Council cut-back has drowned out any meaningful discussion about devolution, and that is a pity. The editorial in today’s Le Droit speaks about Watson’s diversion. By talking as if reducing the number of Councillors would be a meaningful saving of expenditure, it could be argued he has effectively concealed the shallowness of his thinking about devolution. I hope that was not his intention.
No comments:
Post a Comment