The regions are not waiting | The Press

Last Thursday, in Rouyn, a symposium was held on the theme “How to unite the voices of Abitibi-Témiscamingue? All-Abitibi-Témiscamingue (as in “All-Paris”) took part.


The goal? Fill the void left by the abolition of the regional conferences of elected officials, a void which, even today, poses numerous problems for the regions. Since 2015, they have been tearing their hair out on this issue.

The underlying problem? The place of civil society in regional governance. Its absence considerably weakens the regions. This is the kind of subject that does not make the headlines, but which is decisive if we want to build strong and dynamic regions, capable, too, of mobilizing around today’s challenges: climate change, reception of immigrants, protection of the territory, etc.

To understand the current debates, we need to do a bit of history.

From 1970 to 2003, regional development was ensured by regional development councils (CRD). The CRDs ensured regional consultation, drew up strategic planning and gave advice to the Minister of Regions on all matters relating to the development of the territory. Several dozen organizations sat on its board and civil society held the majority.

From 2003 to 2015, the regional development councils were replaced by the regional conferences of elected officials (CRÉ). The biggest difference between CRÉ and CRD was the place of elected officials, who now held at least two-thirds of the seats and could completely exclude civil society.

The CRÉs were abolished in 2015. Responsibility for regional consultation was transferred to cities and RCMs, as well as local economic development responsibilities (but with 40% less funding!). Purely regional expertise has been lost. In 2021, the leader of the PLQ recognized that with the abolition of the CRÉs, the government had “thrown the baby out with the bathwater”. The CRÉs were very, very imperfect, but they met a real need.

The proof ? As soon as the CRÉs were abolished, the problems began.

First, the Government of Quebec no longer had a contact person when the time came to consult the regions. Instead of consulting a single authority, he had to contact the MRCs of the region, civil society, chambers of commerce, etc. And who among these can really claim to speak on behalf of the region? A fine excuse to stop consulting and do as you please.

For their part, the regions had lost their place of gathering and mobilization to think about the future together and to collectively defend their own interests.

Obviously, the Government of Quebec nevertheless continued to regionalize programs (such as the Regions and Rurality Fund or the Quebec Fund for Social Initiatives), by formally obliging the MRCs to work together (!?), still without financing the exercise.

It is following this reregionalization that today, all regions have a “table of prefects” 1. But everywhere, as in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, these bodies are criticized, for three main reasons.

First problem: the addition of the visions of local development carried by the prefects does not constitute a regional vision. It is fundamental. To develop a region, it is necessary to master its ecosystem, to ensure that the actions of some do not contradict those of others, to understand the interaction of the region with its neighbours, etc.

Moreover, in several crucial areas of regional development, the RCMs have very little expertise: forestry, tourism, social development, watershed management, health, etc. Without this expertise and without the contribution of civil society, the regional allocation of funds, for example, can quickly turn into an exercise in drawing covers. I repeat: the addition of visions of local development does not constitute a regional vision.

Second problem: in addition to being a powerful mobilization tool, consultation itself is an expertise. It is not enough to sit people together. You have to know who to invite, how to build consensus, do all this transparently, report to partners, follow up with all the players, etc. This expertise has also been lost, which causes a lot of frustration.

Third problem: some prefects are reluctant to give up part of their power to civil society. It is much easier to allocate funds and give advice to Quebec when there are only five or six of us to decide. But we are far from sound management and even further from sound democracy.

So what to do?

The regions themselves, like Abitibi-Témiscamingue, are in the process of answering this question. The Outaouais has given itself a regional assembly, some regions are adding to the tables of the prefects, others are recreating lighter CRÉs, etc.

One day, Quebec will have to recognize the bodies that the regions are setting up and participate in their financing… all this while repressing its atavistic desire to go wall-to-wall.

The longer he waits, the more difficult it will be for him, because the regions are already organizing themselves.

1. Large cities are cities/MRCs, so the mayor is a mayor/prefect. For example, in the Outaouais, there are 4 rural MRCs and one city/MRC, Gatineau, whose mayor is considered a prefect.


source site-58