By Chelsey St-Pierre
The Suburban
The battle over water fluoridation in Montreal’s West Island has reached a critical point, with Montreal standing firm on its January 30 decision to end the practice despite opposition from West Island mayors and health officials.
“This isn’t just about fluoride – it’s about proper governance and public health,” Beaconsfield Mayor Georges Bourelle told The Suburban. “The administration is making decisions that affect our residents’ health without proper consultation or scientific basis.”
The controversy intensified after Montreal’s agglomeration council voted to cease fluoridation at the Pointe-Claire and Dorval water treatment plants, affecting over 143,000 West Island residents across six municipalities. “We will not reopen the debate on water fluoridation,” Lachine Mayor and Projet Montréal member Maja Vodanovic stated, reflecting the administration’s unwavering stance.
In response, the Association of Suburban Municipalities (ASM) has formally denounced the decision-making process, highlighting what it sees as a troubling pattern of the agglomeration making unilateral decisions affecting West Island residents without consultation.
West Island Mayors unanimously argue that a public vote should have taken place with those directly affected by the water fluoridation decision, emphasizing the democratic principle of community involvement regarding critical public health decisions.
The decision ignores substantial expert recommendations, including comprehensive research from Dr. Michael Levy, a former lead expert on water fluoridation from the Quebec Public Health Institute. In a detailed letter to West Island mayors, Dr. Levy emphasized the public health benefits of water fluoridation, presenting extensive research that found no link between fluoridation and bone cancer, as alleged by theories from Denmark cited by elected officials and included in the documents prepared by the City of Montreal leading up to its decision. His studies particularly highlighted how a previous cessation of fluoridation in Dorval led to worsened dental health outcomes.
The Regional Public Health Department (DRSP), led by Dr. Mylène Drouin, has acknowledged concerns introduced by Montreal’s “research” but maintains strong support for water fluoridation as a crucial public health intervention. Despite this expert backing, West Island Mayors believe that Montreal has prioritized technical and economic considerations over public health evidence.
Quebec public health officials have voiced their support for maintaining water fluoridation, putting them at odds with the city’s decision. Health Canada strongly recommends water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure. These recommendations are further bolstered by decades of North American research demonstrating fluoridation’s critical role in preventing tooth decay and improving public dental health.
Montreal also cited socio-economic equality as one of the reasons in its recent four-year review, suggesting that removing fluoride from wealthier communities would equalize services across the Greater Montreal Area. “It feels like punishing higher-income communities rather than uplifting those in need,” Baie-D’Urfé Mayor Heidi Ektvedt told The Suburban, noting that Montreal could easily apply for Quebec grants to extend fluoridation to all communities.
In a detailed open letter to Quebec’s health authorities, Ektvedt raised concerns about the lack of transparency and democratic consultation in the decision-making process. “The City of Montreal decided to take over the water plants. It is then their responsibility to consult with our population before making decisions that concern them,” she explained. “And, politicians should not pronounce themselves as health experts.”
For over 74 years, residents of these West Island communities have benefitted from fluoridated water. The water plants in Pointe-Claire and Dorval are currently the only ones in the GMA fluoridating their water, serving about 5% of Montreal’s water supply.
The city estimates $19 million in necessary plant upgrades and $330,000 annually for maintenance, citing these costs along with employee safety concerns in handling corrosive chemicals as factors in its decision.
“This decision perfectly illustrates the democratic deficit in the agglomeration’s governance structure,” Ektvedt said to The Suburban. “We’re being forced to accept a significant change to our water treatment process despite united opposition from the affected communities.” n