Tag Archives: Montréal Politics

Commentary

Sainte Louise Harel РLes m̻mes causes produisent les m̻mes effets

Leave a comment
That's the most relaxing smile I've ever seen...
That’s the most relaxing smile I’ve ever seen…

Well, the first post on this site from someone other than myself. My first contributor!

And he’d prefer to remain anonymous…

Perhaps it’s best. He’s been working for the city for a while now, and has the pulse of the city like few people I know (though, given his job, it’s not surprising he’s so knowledgeable, few would care to ask his opinion. There are many people invisible to politicians). We got into a conversation about the merits of Louise Harel as mayor, and he lent me an earful about her and Vision Montreal.

I asked if he’d write an article to express himself and he obliged under the condition of anonymity.

So without further adieu, may I present you l’Heptade du Sainte Louise Harel…

1. Benoît Labonté et l’aveuglement volontaire de Louise Harel

Suite à un différent avec Gérald Tremblay, Benoît Labonté, maire de l’arrondissement Ville-Marie, a quitté la formation politique Union Montréal en septembre 2007. Il est devenu chef de Vision Montréal en 2008, au terme d’une campagne à la chefferie à l’évidence très coûteuse : lancement en grande pompe en mars au SAT, conclusion sur une scène circulaire entourée d’écrans géants au plasma en mai à la TOHU. À l’hiver 2009, il s’est lancé en pré-campagne à la mairie de Montréal, à nouveau en dépensant à l’évidence beaucoup d’argent, notamment pour la location de panneaux publicitaires géants dispersés un peu partout dans les stations du métro. Le 3 juin 2009, il a cédé la chefferie de Vision Montréal à Louise Harel, dont il devint le président pré-désigné de son futur comité exécutif.

Vision Montréal était à l’époque un parti politique sans le sou. Mais alors, d’où tout cet argent dépensé lors de la campagne à la chefferie puis de la pré-campagne à la mairie pouvait-il provenir ? En octobre 2009, en pleine campagne électorale, on allait apprendre que l’entrepreneur aujourd’hui tristement célèbre Tony Accurso avait été le principal financier de Benoît Labonté. Plus tard, on apprendrait qu’un autre entrepreneur, Lino Zambito, a pour sa part financé la campagne électorale de Benoît Labonté. Si à ce jour ces deux noms, Tony Accurso et Lino Zambito, sont les seuls à être sortis publiquement, on a toutes les raisons de suspecter qu’ils ne furent pas les seuls à avoir financé Benoît Labonté.

Louise Harel n’a jamais raté une occasion de faire état de l’aveuglement volontaire dont a fait montre durant tant d’années Gérald Tremblay, soulignant qu’en contrepartie de son titre de maire, il avait ni plus ni moins que remis les clefs de la Ville à un groupe de personnages douteux, Frank Zampino, Bernard Trépanier, Martial Fillion, Robert Cassius de Linval, Robert Dutil et autres. Or, c’est exactement ce que Louise Harel comptait elle même faire avec Benoît Labonté. Ainsi, les tandems Tremblay-Zampino et Harel-Labonté paraissent parfaitement interchangeables.

Le 14 octobre 2009, le scandale Labonté éclatait. Louise Harel soutint alors « ne pas avoir de doutes sur l’intégrité de son second » (Rue Frontenac, 16 octobre 2009). Le 18 octobre, désormais convaincue de sa culpabilité, elle lui demandait de se retirer de la campagne et l’expulsait de Vision Montréal.

L’aveuglement volontaire dont a fait montre Louise Harel vis à vis de Benoît Labonté jette un doute suffisant autant sur son jugement que sur ses mœurs politiques pour la disqualifier en tant que candidate à la mairie de Montréal.

2. Louise Harel doit rembourser 180 000 $ en lien avec l’élection de 2009

L’artile 447,1 de la Loi sur les élections et les référendums dans les municipalités (LERM) stipule qu’un électeur ne peut consentir un prêt supérieur à 10 000 $ à un parti politique, non plus que se porter caution d’un prêt supérieur à ce montant contracté auprès d’une institution financière. L’article 475 stipule pour sa part qu’une municipalité rembourse 50 % de leurs dépenses électorales aux partis politiques ayant obtenu le minimum de 15 % du vote.

Peu après la campagne électorale de 2009, Louise Harel a personnellement cautionné un emprunt bancaire de 230 000 $ et a convaincu 14 élus de Vision Montréal de cautionner chacun un emprunt de 20 000 $, pour un total de 280 000 $. Vision Montréal a ainsi disposé de 510 000 $ à injecter dans la campagne. Or, la loi ne permettait qu’un cautionnement de 10 000 $ par individu, soit 150 000 $ pour Louise Harel et les 14 autres élus concernés chez Vision Montréal. La différence entre 510 000 $ et 150 000 $ est 360 000 $ : ce dernier montant a constitué un financement illégal de la campagne électorale de 2009.

Se prévalant de l’article 475 de la loi, Vision Montréal s’est fait rembourser 50 % de ses dépenses électorales, incluant pour les 360 000 $ de financement illégal. Les contribuables montréalais ont ainsi payé 180 000 $ en trop à Vision Montréal.

Avant de prétendre concourir à la mairie de Montréal en 2013, Louise Harel doit commencer par rembourser à la Ville ces 180 000 $ payés en trop à Vision Montréal par les contribuables montréalais suite à l’élection de 2009.

3. Louise Harel doit rembourser 108 165,27 $ en lien avec l’élection de 2009

Vision Montréal a investi 1,2 M$ dans la campagne électorale 2009. Ne disposant pas de tant d’argent, le parti a contracté une dette auprès d’une institution financière. Suite à l’élection, les contribuables montréalais ont versé à Vision 50 % de ses dépenses électorales, dont les 180 000 $ vus plus tôt. Ce versement fermait la comptabilité de l’élection de 2009, c’est-à-dire que les contribuables montréalais ne devaient plus rien à Vision Montréal en lien avec cette élection.

Vision Montréal ayant vu ses financements autonomes diminuer drastiquement suite à tous les scandales dans lesquels baigne la politique montréalaise depuis 2009, ce parti fut incapable d’assumer les charges de sa dette électorale de 2009. Louise Harel a alors pris la décision d’utiliser à cette fin l’Allocation aux partis et les fonds de Recherche et secrétariat alloués par la Ville à Vision Montréal. Les contribuables montréalais ont de cette façon continué de payer pour l’élection de 2009, ce qui est contraire à l’esprit de la loi. En 2010 et 2011, Vision Montréal a ainsi versé à son institution financière 108 165,27$ au titre des paiements d’intérêts sur sa dette électorale de 2009.

Avant de prétendre concourir à la mairie de Montréal en 2013, Louise Harel doit commencer par rembourser à la Ville ces 108 165,27$ payés en trop par les contribuables montréalais en lien avec l’élection de 2009.

4. Louise Harel doit rembourser les 25 000 $ à 30 000 $ reçus de Lino Zambito

Le 15 octobre 2012, comparaissant devant la Commission Charbonneau, le promoteur Lino Zambito a reconnu que lors de la campagne 2009, il avait remis à Benoît Labonté une enveloppe contenant entre 25 000 $ et 30 000 $ d’argent comptant. Louise Harel s’est toujours montrée fière d’avoir expulsé son bras droit de Vision Montréal aussitôt qu’elle a su ses liens avec Tony Accurso : Benoît Labonté a certes été expulsé, mais Vision Montréal a conservé l’argent qui lui avait été remis illégalement.

Avant de prétendre concourir à la mairie de Montréal en 2013, Louise Harel doit commencer par rembourser à la Ville ces 25 000 $ à 30 000 $ versés par Lino Zambito à Benoît Labonté au cours de la campagne électorale de 2009.

5. Louise Harel se reconnaît coupable de 18 fraudes et paie une amende de 8 500 $

Le DGEQ (Directeur général des élections du Québec) a poursuivi Louise Harel et Vision Montréal relativement aux 510 000 $ de cautionnements illégaux de la campagne électorale de 2009.

Durant deux années et demie, Louise Harel a soutenu qu’il s’agissait d’une « erreur de bonne foi », alléguant qu’elle ne connaissait pas les dispositions en cause de la LERM. Chacun sait que nul ne peut prétendre ignorer la loi. L’argument de la méconnaissance de la loi est d’autant plus irrecevable de la part de Louise Harel qu’elle est avocate de formation et qu’elle a 35 années d’expérience politique.

Le 20 juin 2012, Louise Harel s’est rendue à l’évidence et a résolu de plaider coupable à 18 constats d’infraction à la LERM. En conséquence, elle a été condamnée à payer une amende totalisant 8 500 $. Michael Applebaum, alors président du comité exécutif de Gérald Tremblay, a immédiatement évoqué sa démission : « C’est inacceptable qu’une ancienne ministre des Affaires municipales, aussi chef de l’opposition à l’hôtel de ville, n’ait pas respecté la loi électorale. Je crois que Mme Harel devrait commencer à questionner sa présence au conseil municipal » (TVA Nouvelles, 21 juin 2012).

Toute personne de bonne foi admettra que s’étant avouée coupable de nombreuses fraudes électorales, Louise Harel s’est disqualifiée en tant que candidate à la mairie de Montréal.

6. Louise Harel continue de faire du «financement sectoriel»

L’article 431 de la LERM fixe une limite de 1 000 $ par année aux contributions d’un électeur à un parti politique municipal. Seules les personnes physiques ayant statut d’électeur sont autorisés à financer un candidat ou un parti politique.

Dans l’esprit de la LERM, la limite de 1 000 $ a été fixée dans le but de permettre à un candidat, à ses proches désireux de l’encourager, ou encore à un militant vraiment convaincu de la valeur du message véhiculé par le candidat et/ou par le parti politique auquel il appartient, de contribuer significativement à une campagne électorale. Les trois années de scandales qui culminent présentement avec les audiences publiques de la Commission Charbonneau ont mis en lumière divers stratagèmes couramment utilisés pour contourner la loi. L’un d’eux consiste pour les partis politiques à tenir des activités de financement ciblant les entrepreneurs, firmes de génie-conseil, bureaux d’architectes, firmes de communication ou cabinets d’avocats dont l’admission est fixée entre 500 $ et 1 000 $ par individu. Dans le jargon politique, on parle alors de « financement sectoriel ». Les entreprises privées qui dépêchent une ou plusieurs personnes à de telles activités de financement s’attendent à un retour d’ascenseur sous forme de contrats publics une fois le parti politique en cause arrivé au pouvoir.

Le financement sectoriel est aujourd’hui dénoncé par l’ensemble de la population montréalaise autant que québécoise. Louise Harel n’a de cesse d’assurer avoir assaini les mœurs financières historiquement douteuses de Vision Montréal. Pourtant, elle continue de tenir des activités de financement sectoriel, grossièrement maquillées en « rencontres thématiques » et autres « déjeuners-causeries ».

En juin 2011, Louise Harel a tenu une telle activité ciblée sur les promoteurs actifs dans le secteur Griffintown de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest, contrôlé par Vision Montréal. Elle a récidivé en janvier 2012, en ciblant le même groupe de promoteurs. Ces deux activités ont rapporté 14 500 $ à Vision Montréal.

Quand La Presse a publié cette information, le 12 novembre 2012, Louise Harel a admis que ces activités contrevenaient à la Loi sur le lobbyisme, puisqu’aucune des personnes présentes n’était inscrite au registre des lobbyistes. Soraya Martinez, directrice générale de Vision Montréal, a pour sa part soutenu que les individus présents « sont venus comme citoyens et non comme promoteurs ». Quant à Benoît Dorais, maire de l’arrondissement Sud-Ouest, il a soutenu avoir simplement « échangé avec des entrepreneurs. Ce sont des citoyens comme les autres, au même titre que la coiffeuse qui m’interpelle au IGA » (Le Devoir, 13 novembre 2012).

Toute personne de bonne foi admettra que par sa persistance à tenir des activités de financement sectoriel, a fortiori dans le climat actuel de perte de confiance du public à l’endroit de la classe politique, Louise Harel s’est disqualifiée en tant que candidate à la mairie de Montréal.

7. La double rémunération publique de Louise Harel

Dans le contexte des scandales à répétition des dernières années et de la tenue des audiences publiques de la Commission Charbonneau, la classe politique municipale toute entière fait l’objet d’un lourd discrédit. Le 12 décembre 2012, Louise Harel a choisi d’en rajouter en dénonçant la faible contribution des élus montréalais à leur régime de retraite : Finir de briser le lien de confiance entre la population et leurs élus municipaux, que ne voilà un bon moyen de se faire du capital politique ! s’est-elle dite.

Les élus montréalais cotisent 25 % à leur régime de retraite, la Ville 75 %. Louise Harel propose que ce soit 50 % – 50 %. Tout le monde est d’accord avec cette proposition. Le problème ne se situe pas au niveau du message, mais de la messagère.

Le régime de retraite des élus municipaux montréalais correspond à 2 % de leur salaire annuel pour chaque année de service. Ainsi, un simple conseiller qui siège huit ans au conseil municipal aura droit, à partir de 65 ans, à une rente représentant 16 % de son salaire, soit environ 9 000 $ par année.

Considérons maintenant le cas de Louise Harel. Elle touche 120 000 $ de retraite de l’Assemblée nationale (Canal Argent, 4 mai 2011), en plus des 107 000 $, allocation de dépense incluse, que la Ville de Montréal lui verse à titre de chef de l’Opposition officielle. Cette double rémunération publique lui assure un revenu de 227 000 $ pour l’année 2012. Mieux, ses quatre années passées à l’Hôtel de Ville lui procureront un supplément de retraite de 7 500 $ par année. Si donc elle devait quitter la politique municipale au terme du présent mandat, elle toucherait une retraite totalisant autour de 130 000 $ par année.

Qui encaisse une rémunération annuelle de 227 000 $ et est assurée de toucher 130 000 $ par an après un mandat à la Ville est drôlement culotée de dénoncer ceux et celles qui devront se contenter de 9 000 $ par année au terme de deux mandats.

Louise Harel soutient qu’elle n’est pas en situation de double rémunération publique puisque sa retraite de Québec « proviendrait plutôt des cotisations qu’elle a payées durant sa carrière » (TVA Nouvelles, 13 décembre 2012). Cette affirmation est fausse dans une proportion de 78 %, puisque les élus de l’Assemblée nationale ne cotisent que 22 % à leur régime de retraite (Le Journal de Québec, 15 janvier 2011).

Rappelons que Pierre Bourque, fondateur de Vision Montréal, le parti que dirige Louise Harel, a renoncé à son salaire d’élu lorsqu’il est devenu maire, en 1994. Se disant satisfait de la retraite de 72 500 $ qu’il recevait de la Ville, il a créé la Fondation du maire de Montréal pour la jeunesse, à laquelle il a remis 700 000 $ au cours de ses deux mandats (La Presse, 13 décembre 2012). De Pierre Bourque à Louise Harel, c’est une certaine éthique du service public qui a été liquidée à Vision Montréal.

En estimant acceptable de toucher deux revenus publics, l’un versé par l’ensemble des contribuables québécois, l’autre par les seuls contribuables montréalais, Louise Harel a fait montre d’une avidité qui trahit l’héritage de Pierre Bourque et la disqualifie en tant que candidate à la mairie de Montréal.

Let's make this an election issue, Political commentary, Social commentary, Video

Meet Your Next Mayor

6 Comments

Ensemble nous allons définir une belle avenir pour Montréal.

Projet Montréal’s Richard Bergeron, the only legitimate mayoral candidate in Montréal’s 2013 municipal election, isn’t looking to tell you about his party or its ideas, but rather wants to hear what you have to say first.

This is real leadership. Not the pseudo drama of the Coderre campaign. Not the plagiarism of the Harel campaign. Not the slow-motion implosion of Union Montréal.

In fact, he’s not campaigning at all.

This is the opposite of campaigning. It’s listening, something a real leader does, and a mere politician all too often fakes.

We need to ask ourselves a serious question Рdo we want four more years of the status quo, or do we want to build a better city Рfor all Montr̩alais Рstarting tomorrow.

When it comes to electing a mayor for Montréal, my money’s on the trained academic architect.

I’ve had enough of career politicians.

It’s time to get our pride back.

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Québec sovereignty, Scenes from the City, Social commentary, Video

Student Activists: A New Source of Revenue for the Montréal Police

Leave a comment

Welcome to Montréal, Québec – where civil disobedience has been turned into a revenue generator for the city’s police department.

Using an unethical and possibly illegal method called ‘kettling’, Montréal Police gather around a gathering and slowly process all the people there, issuing fines they may or may not collect. Assuming everyone pays up, the estimate is Montréal’s police made nearly $180,000 last night. I call this method unethical because it is specifically designed to prevent people from being able to get away.

Or disperse as police so often request.

As you can see by this video, police have a total advantage against the protesters, one of whom decided to bring his guitar.

Or perhaps he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That would be anywhere within fifty feet of an SPVM constable at any time of the day; our boys and girls in black and blue will gladly break into your home and throw you down the stairs (say if they think you might be drunk, as an example). Or if you live in the Plateau, or wear black, or happen to be a minority. Whichever’s most convenient.

Here’s constable Stéphanie Trudeau using her using the choke-hold to subdue an old man; local policing at its finest:

And most terrifying of all, this is all happening with the full consent of those who both run the city of Montréal, its police force, as well as the government of Québec, currently managed by the insufferable gasbag wannabe country-destroyer Pauline Marois.

A woman who was praised but months ago for finally bringing a woman’s touch to the old boys club of provincial politics. No more paternalist, police-heavy practices! she said while awkwardly clanging pots and pans. We all thought, at the very least, she’d do the right thing, find other methods of funding our universities and kill the bills that have so infringed on our federally protected right to freedom of assembly and conscience.

But I suppose therein lies the problem; if you don’t want to be a part of Canada, you’ll likely be disinclined from appealing to your federal government for assistance (not that it would happen, though at least our MPs could make a stink in Ottawa, coordinate class-action lawsuits against the SPVM for criminal violation of individual rights etc etc.)

Marois knows these students voted for her back in September, but despite this has decided not to pressure the city of Montréal nor the SPVM to cease this obscene and vile practice.

Unless the money collected is being used to fund higher education in Québec.

At which point she’d be an evil super-genius of epic cartoon proportions.

That would be preferable to our current state.

That of being an international joke and national embarrassment.

Where the hell is the leadership in this province, this city?

Who defends the interests of the people from the abuse as we see above?

There are other non-violent means of executing social and political change, outside the realm of non-violent (though for the time being illegal) protests and demonstrations. Organization would be a good place to start, and how Montréal’s activists vote this coming Autumn (i.e., whether they vote en masse for someone who will repeal P6 and kick pathologically abusive police constables to the curb) will be a demonstration of whether grassroots political organization truly extends beyond the all-to-often party atmosphere of public protest in our city.

Il faut que ça change.

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Let's make this an election issue, Political commentary, Québec sovereignty, Social commentary, Worth reconsidering

Changing the Game

2 Comments
Admittedly, not our proudest moment as Montrealers
Admittedly, not our proudest moment as Montrealers

We need to change the question of Québec independence.

From the ground up, in fact.

For nearly forty years Montr̩al has been on a veritable decline Рin terms of economic security, long-term investment, population growth and relative political power among others Рand the single driving force of this decline is the as-yet unresolved (and I would argue fundamentally dishonest, historically inaccurate and politically hypocritical) issue of Qu̩bec separation.

We’ve been lucky – the decline has been steady and, at the best of times, appearing to be on the way out. It certainly helped that, since the creation of the Parti Québécois most of the significant prime ministers – Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin – have Québec roots and strong personal connections with Montréal. But alas, it’s 2013 and the City of Montréal finds itself in a perilous state. Now the prime minister is a schmuck, a mail-room clerk with a spending habit, decidedly anti-Québécois in manner and speech. We also have a separatist dimwit premiere trying to impose austerity measures, something I would have figured ran counter to progressive, perhaps even historically Keynesian economic approaches valued by the PQ. A considerable portion of the local population is now thinking about greener pastures elsewhere, a brain drain is occurring, militant student protesters clash with police in our city’s streets, we have no faith in municipal officials and our initial enthusiasm about Ms. Marois (thinking she might, at least, focus on the economy, progressive social values and seek to run a corruption-free government) has all but disappeared as we begin to see her true colours as a vindictive and short-sighted wannabe iconoclast.

We have a place-holder mayor and our public focus, of late, has been on the over-zealous actions of a state-sponsored public annoyance while we wonder whether the Charbonneau Commission has anything more than quick wit and a sharp tongue-lashing in store for the criminal shit-stains who have robbed us of an immense wealth in tax-revenue with kick-backs and socks stuffed with cash.

Our city isn’t just held hostage by an unstable political situation, it’s that such a situation is being purposely maintained, and has been for quite some time in fact, quite to the benefit of the organized crime element in the city. As long as the political situation remains unstable, political parties of every shape and size will seek to attain some new leverage by feeling compelled to bend or break rules to secure a militant voting base.

Is it any wonder our best and brightest refuse to involve themselves with politics? It’s a losing proposition, particularly if you actually value clean government over whatever bribe might get waved in your face. The altruistic among us leave – if we can’t get our shit together here why even bother trying to create a more perfect and just society, we were best suited to make it happen, and look at us now. Forty years of stasis.

At the provincial level it seems as though one party is in bed with the mob while the other is in bed with the unions that work for the mob. The rest don’t owe anyone any favours and thus aren’t likely to get elected, even in a province as progressive as our own. This situation trickles down to municipal level, especially when it concerns Montréal – that from where nearly all the money flows. Either way you slice it, it’s the people who wind up fucked.

This has been going on for far too long, and I know I can’t be alone thinking we fundamentally need to change the question, change the political situation, so at the very least it is the people of Montréal who force and shape the issue.

As long as the question of Québec independence remains unresolved, we cannot hope to grow, to develop, to progress as a city. We’ll remain stuck between the apparently competing interests of Québec and Canada. We’ll remain hostages.

If the twentieth was the century of nation-states, then the twenty-first shall be the century of great cities; already we’re seeing the development of an entirely new network of key cities that focus the world’s cultural, social and political development, a trend that will assuredly grow as cities begin to implement new methods to lessen their negative environmental and ecological footprints. A lot of progress will flow forth from cities the world over, and I want Montréal to regain its position as a global city, a leading city, a city that defines itself and future orientation, rather than one caught between outside interests attempting to settle scores from a quater-millenium ago. Our greatness cannot and will not be denied.

An illustration of the maturity of progressive Québécois politicians
An illustration of the maturity of progressive Québécois politicians

I want the brain-drain to end, I want an end to the instability. Most of all, I don’t want our city to continue having to go hat in hand to various levels of government seeking funds to grow. Enough is enough, we have nearly two million people within the city and another two living in bedroom suburbs that simply would not exist without the city’s economic power. Why are we not in control of our own destiny?

Is it not time for us to be masters in our own house?

I propose we change the debate – permanently – so that Canada and Québec work for us, and we cease to be the battleground for this ridiculous war of attrition. Let’s be real – don’t tell me these student demos concern the rise in tuition exclusively – this is just as much an expression of extreme public distaste for the Harper regime and the ‘out-of-left-field’ development of a socially-regressive and economically incompetent conservative element in Canadian politics.

But we cannot be a permanent political battleground, which is why we must forge ahead and seek to do what is best for ourselves first and foremost. I’m not advocating that Montréal seek to make itself a sovereign and separate entity – far from it – but it wouldn’t hurt us to steer the conversation, and possibly seek to create new revenue streams and strategic wealth reserves so as to throw a bit of weight behind our demands, our interests as a city and metropolis.

So how do we change the conversation?

Either Montréal will become Québec’s metropolis and economic capital or it will be rejuvenated as Canada’s cosmopolis and international city. But it’s high time the matter is settled permanently so that we can get on with our lives and start planning our city’s future.

That, of course, is far easier said than done. The spineless Parti Québécois has so far fell so short of numerous campaign promises it is now focused nearly uniquely on punitive measures designed to limit the Anglo-Québécois community to a permanent underclass. Provisions in Bill 14 to change the bilingual status of numerous ‘historically Anglophone’ communities is quite literally erasing their existence and making it impossible for their presence throughout much of Québec to be sustained.

Hitting Montréal right in the pills are the provisions that demand all entreprises over ten employees to conduct all official business in French. For the innumerable start-ups and small businesses that actually drive the local economy, this may prove the final straw; why stay here when your clients are all in Silicon Valley?

The PQ wants to go further still by making it impossible for Francophones and Allophones to attend bilingual ‘Anglophone’ post-secondary institutions (literally telling adults where they can go to school, and what languages they can choose to be instructed in). And despite massive cuts to education and healthcare, there’s apparently more than enough money to continue funding the OQLF, who rather than do anything to encourage people to speak French, send petty, short-sighted zombies to harass local small businesses, charging them if they dare display a sign in English (which now includes the On/Off switch on microwaves, signs that say WC above the loo, the words pasta, caffé, steak).

Used Without Permission
Used Without Permission

All of this isn’t just bad for Québec’s Anglophones mind you, it’s bad for Montréal as well. Montréal’s future as an integrated cosmopolis is largely dependent on how the Francophone majority interacts with the Anglophone minority, and how both communities seek to pursue enhanced cultural integration. The inter-married, multicultural and multi-lingual among us should be particularly prized as a clear sign of the future – languages can coexists, even at an official level, with no cultural loss or societal deterioration. Those come about when we retreat into our silos and define ourselves in terms of opposition. It screws up literally everything we’ve been working towards over the course of the last 371 years.

Quick aside, I was overjoyed to see how quickly all this OQLF bullshit went viral, attracting international scorn and further serving to remind the world of what a pathetic laughing stock the PQ really is.

For a party that claims to wish to defend the ‘European’ or ‘Latin’ in North America, it’s remarkably poor at recognizing most Europeans have openly accepted multi-lingualism and it hasn’t had any negative effect whatsoever on the sanctity of the myriad languages spoken in Europe. For a party that suggests it is emblematic of a bright future for Québec, it’s remarkably poor at understanding modern communications and social media technologies as well. Perhaps this explains their inability to recognize our nascent high-technology start-ups, the ones that function principally in English and are focused on international business development, are so crucial to our future economic success.

In any event I digress. The future of Québec and Canada is a question Montréal wants solved, needs to have solved, in order to free us to grow, to become the great leading city we’ve always been destined to become.

I call on our potential mayoral candidates to state not a cop-out position of official neutrality on the issue of Québec separatism, but rather state a defined position that the problem must be solved immediately, and that until the issue is settled, Montréal will do what is best for its own citizens.

A member of the RRQ makes a compelling and insightful argument for the merits of an independent Québec state.
A member of the RRQ makes a compelling and insightful argument for the merits of an independent Québec state.

I would go so far as to recommend Montr̩al begin setting aside money as a permanent source of capital (much like the current Mayor of Atlanta did, setting aside a $100 million war chest of sorts to use as equity for a variety of long-term development projects). But we should take it a step further, seeking to unify all school boards into a single city-administered public education department and finally desegregate our schools, followed by mandatory bilingual public education (French being the majority language of instruction regardless of mother-tongue) in addition to taking a leadership role in maintaining decentralized public healthcare services. We already know superhospitals are an obsolete concept, and we should reconsider gutting our historic hospitals and selling them off to condo developers Рthese are our properties, our resources, and they ought to be ours to administer and use as we see fit.

Montréal must do what is best for its citizens, first and foremost. If we are unique amongst Canadian cities we should be cognizant as well of our uniqueness among Québec’s cities too.

Remaining in the middle, caught between competing interests gives us nothing but fodder for our media, and countless reasons to hate on each other, returning to solitudes and silos, something we once turned our backs on as regressive, counter to our nature.

Our city will only succeed when our own citizens recognize their inherent, personal sovereignty, and the sanctity of our own society and culture.

A modest proposal, Cultural commentary, Economic commentary, History and Culture, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Let's make this an election issue, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Social commentary, Urban Redevelopment

Leadership

Leave a comment


Jean Drapeau with the French actor Jean Marais, 1965

A fascinating piece by noted Montréal affairs columnist Francois Cardinal on why we simply have no reason to be as down on ourselves as we so stereotypically are.

He attributes the problem to the twin issues of going two decades (and I’d argue further still) without an inspiring mayor and the related drop in civic engagement. Keep in mind, Mayor Tremblay was elected in 2009 with an all-time low in voter participation, less than 40% of the eligible voting population actually participated.

The eroding levels in civic engagement are in turn a result of the various scandals which have dogged both the Bourque and Tremblay administrations. Mayor Applebaum has his work cut out for him in terms of restoring civic confidence in municipal administration, and it will certainly colour the forthcoming local elections roughly a year from now.

We can’t ignore the fact that Tremblay, Bourque, Doré and Drapeau all managed to accomplish some things during their tenures, but there’s been a gradual depreciation in overall vision since the early years of the Drapeau administration. At the same time, what we expect from our mayors has declined as well, as has their openness to the actually engaging the public.

We’ve permitted our elected local politicians to hold themselves in higher esteem than most of them are worth, and we’ve become bitter and cynical at the mere idea or mention of an inspiring local leader. Perhaps its because Drapeau, that bug-eyed nerd and soft-dictator, was our last legitimate city-builder mayor. He was corrupt, it’s well documented. But at least he managed to channel his corruption towards the betterment of the city.

Our next mayor needs to be able to present a clearly articulated vision of a future city, a future standard of living and community we hold to be better than what we currently have. Our next mayor must have a plan to solidify our city and citizens’ financial foundations, create new jobs and consistently expand the population base living within the city proper. We need a plan for growth, development, evolution and an idea of what a more perfect city looks and feels like.

An interesting note, the Tremblay administration was able to develop the Montréal2025 document, a mega-project composed of many small, largely disparate private development initiatives and a few larger provincially-funded developments. It’s about as close to a master plan as we currently have, though it’s lacking in multiple areas (I find it overly focused on building new residential units in the city without any provisions for new social infrastructure, among other problems).

Our future mayor should seek to build off this, but ask broader questions about how to create a more egalitarian society, how to eliminate waste and inefficiencies to maximize the value of local tax-dollars, how to provide incomparable servies for the benefit of all citizens.

If I was planning for 2025, I would want the following:

1. A public transit system so well designed and effective automobiles are no longer required for travel throughout the metropolitan region. A system that clears our highways of congestion and allows car-owners to stretch out the lives and minimize costs associated with owning a car simply by not needing to use it as often. A system that could facilitate more pedestrian streets, green alleys and bike lanes in the dense urban core and allow travel throughout the metro region on a single low-fare, any time of the day. I consider this to be a basic standard for what a city such as our own will require in terms of public transit in the future.

2. An expansion on the existing plans to re-populate the city-centre by providing for the construction of new schools, parks, playgrounds, gyms, daycares, clinics, libraries and community centres (among other required pieces of social infrastructure) as ‘community anchors’ to encourage families to live in the city proper. The prominence of abandoned heritage buildings in parts of the urban core provide numerous locations for such facilities to be housed, but the city needs to take a leading role in this kind of development as it’s precisely a point of local prerogative. On a similar note, the city should take a leadership role in helping in the establishment of small-businesses owned and operated by local residents, such as by providing subsidized commercial space. Furthermore, the city should become far more implicated in maintaining higher local housing standards, in securing subsidized rental properties for students and low-income earners and in providing renters the means to eventually own their property, whether through a city-run RHSP type savings vehicle or by creating more co-operative housing projects.

3. The development of new means for the city to generate revenue outside increased taxation, the equivalent of local crown corporations, financed initially through taxation but with the aim of becoming solvent and then seeking to generate money for city development. This could come in many forms, be they various cultural and leisure attractions, festivals, sports facilities, stadiums, theatres and other performance venues etc. They add to the prestige of the city inasmuch as they serve to attract international attention, tourists and the chances we may one day hold massive international events as we did in the past. We also happen to have a very long list of proposals which never got off the drawing board we could re-consider – at least our next great mayor wouldn’t have to start from scratch.

In any event, just a few thoughts.

Cultural commentary, Kondiaronk - My Montréal Experience, Perspectives on the City, Political commentary, Québec sovereignty, Social commentary, Sovereign Socialist, What were they thinking?

Mountains out of Molehills (and Mountains beyond Mountains)

Leave a comment

This man is not yelling in French.

And it’s pissing people off.

This is Randy Cunneyworth, the new Interim Head Coach of the Montréal Canadiens, hired after Jacques Martin was dumped by General Manager Pierre Gauthier on Saturday. He’s been an assistant coach with the Habs for a little while, and distinguished himself with a long career in the NHL.

The problem is that Cunneyworth is unilingually Anglophone and that has upset the hard core lingua-fascists over at Impératif Francais (a Gatineau-based organization) and Movement Québec Francais. These groups have, astoundingly, called for a total boycott of all Molson products, though it is unclear if this includes attending Habs games, buying Canadiens ball caps and hoodies etc. And to be fair I’ve never met an ultra-nationalist who drank Molson; Labatt Bleue all the way.

Today Geoff Molson fired back, stating simply that Cunneyworth is a good choice given the disappointing start to the season, and that ultimately, Molson and the Canadiens’ management pays its dues to the fans, the merciless Montréal fans. Thus, they made the call and will consider Cunneyworth’s linguistic abilities (or lack thereof) as part of their on-going search for a permanent coach. If Cunneyworth can manage to teach himself some half-decent French between now and the end of the season, he’ll be in a better position to graduate from interim to head coach. If he manages to bring home the cup, you and I both know no one will give a flying Philadelphia fuck.

That’s the reality. Money talks, and the Habs need to keep attendance and sales up. A new coach may be able to turn the team around, which in my opinion is considerably better for morale in Montréal and Québec than the apparent ‘attack against Franco-Québecois society and culture’ that is a unilingually Anglophone coach.

What’s flat-out retarded is Christine St-Pierre’s decision to weigh in on the issue. The worst thing the PLQ could do was implicate itself in an issue brought up by radical pseudo-linguists. The smart thing to do would be to focus on your job and not the twitter-verse. We’re paying her to improve the condition of women, culture and communications. Well guess what? Women are still not making as much as men (on average, in Canada), our highest high-speed internet is ludicrously expensive and a hundredth of the speed of Korean or Japanese hi-speed and myopic mono-culturalists are raising this Cunneyworth stink in the first place.

C’mon! Get it together!

It’s not the government’s business. Leave the world’s most successful hockey club alone and let them do what they’ve done so well for years. I love government intervention, but not in this case. There’s simply no good reason.

If Cunneyworth and Molson are smart apart and smart together they may conspire to set Cunneyworth down the fast track towards official bilingualism – intensive courses, Bescherelles, subliminal training, whatever it takes.

Point is it’s clear to the capitalists bilingualism in Montreal is vital, but they’re caught between a rock and a hard place managing a losing team that desperately needs to be shaken up. Another fabricated language politics scandal isn’t going to help anyone, especially not the Canadiens.

So, though Cunneyworth may have a hard time expressing himself to the French media, if he wants to keep his job and bring the Habs to the cup, he’ll learn, and quick too. Be patient. Calm down.

And keep this in mind too – there are only three Québecois on the team. Three. They’re all bilingual and have been trained under Cunneyworth for several years now. They all understand him just fine.

We may have birthed the modern game of hockey here in Montréal, we may have the winningest team in NHL history. Hell, we may have even founded the NHL and saw the first Stanley Cup match. But it’s not our game anymore. It’s a multi-national entertainment corporation with assets, capital and international interests. We’re lucky we still retain such a privileged position within the hockey hierarchy, but who are we kidding? Our success spread the game across oceans and united enemies, all this is true. But to play at the international level, you may need to shed provincial attitudes. We are intimately tied to hockey here in Montréal, of this there can be no doubt, and no reasonable person would actually believe an Anglophone acting-coach poses any sort of threat to that cultural institution and element of local national character. Only weak-willed shrill people with a lot of time on their hands would proselytize such nonsense. And it being a slow-news day (Havel who?), our idiotic mainstream media decided to make yet another mountain out of mole-hill.

The self-depricating, self-perpetuating national inferiority complex rearing its ugly head once more.

How do these things happen?

*** Coda ***

Just realized the song Sprawl II (Mountains Beyond Mountains) would be a great campaign song for when I run for mayor, though I’d somehow need to explain to those congregated that the band (like myself) is critical of the rampant excess of suburbia, and that I’m not generally in favour of dead shopping malls rising with no end in sight.

How’s subtlety doing these days?