MUNICIPAL REFERENDA: ON THE AGENDA?? Oct 31

A number of frustrated federalists, who can't get no satisfaction - nor even much reaction - from provincial or federal Liberals, have turned to their most responsive layer of government and are trying to dragoon local city councils into the battle for the future of Canada.

We are being asked to pass a resolution that requires our city to hold a referendum just before a future Quebec referendum on secession. The question would be: "do you want our city to stay in Canada irrespective of the results of the upcoming Quebec referendum?".

The fact that such a resolution is clearly outside the municipal ambit, and is even ultra vires does not dissuade proponents of municipal referenda. They say such an action would be a political statement on the subject of partition; and, anyway, unusual times call for unusual measures. A kind of force majeure. Besides, if the separatists threaten to ignore the law, they argue, why can't municipalities?

And would such referenda really be illegal? Well, according to the Supreme Court, "municipalities are entirely the creatures of the provincial statutes. Accordingly, they can exercise only those powers which are explicitly conferred upon them by a provincial statute". The key word here is "explicitly". Nowhere in Quebec legislation can be found the power to conduct referenda of this sort. Unfortunately, we municipalities can only do those things we are expressly authorized to do.

Mayors have long deplored this manacled, subservient role that is the lot of Canadian municipalities. We should be emancipated and given the freedom to act as a true level of government. But that requires a constitutional change. Breaking the law is not making the law.

I have always said that municipalities should take on more responsibilities, but I did not have constitutional matters in mind. We should deliver a wider range of services, but not get embroiled in national policies.

I have also argued that, more and more, urban regions are becoming the international nexus of power and that nation-states are less and less important. This still does not mean we should exercise national powers. (At least, not yet!) But a municipal right-to-life clause in the constitution would make us feel a whole lot more secure.

Indeed, Quebec can technically wipe out Westmount with the stroke of a pen. Succeeding politically, though, is another matter. But the spectre of amalgamation with Montreal never quite goes away. The way I see things, ensuring the survival of Westmount is my principal job. Putting the Westmount pawn in the federal-provincial chess game could prove to be a pretty dangerous move. I would do it if I thought it would help the future of our country. But I don't think it will.

Next week, I'll give you the non-legal arguments why municipal referenda on partition are not really the route to go.

MUNICPAL REFERENDA (PART II) Nov 7

In my view, the battle for Canada will not be won on the playing fields of Westmount. Nor on the greenswards of the West Island. It will be won in the east end of Montreal (where 55% voted for the YES), in the off-Island suburbs (56% for the YES), in the hinterlands of Quebec, and, equally importantly, in the rest of Canada. While Quebec Anglos tie up telephone lines to English radio shows, they are just selling to the sold. The 18% of Quebec that is non-francophone needs to get out and go after the soft federalist underbelly of the francophone population.

We also have to convince Canadians in other provinces that an attitude of "let the bastards go" will result in their joining the United States.

In other words, rather than passing resolutions in those cities that have already pronounced for the NO a year ago, let's channel our energies towards convincing the rest of Quebec and the rest of Canada that we collectively can find a solution other than the carving up the country.

The Herculean task of getting scores of cities and towns to pass such resolutions not only saps energy and sends a defeatist message, but it is not practical. That's because it is based on what one could call the "freckle theory": as individual cities declare, they supposedly coalesce with others, thereby creating a contiguous territory requesting to remain in Canada.

One look at the map shows this aggregation idea won't work: in ridings that barely voted in favour of the NO there must logically be found many cities in which a majority voted YES. They won't go along with the idea. And in the Salaberry-Soulanges riding that sits between Montreal and the Ontario border, people voted 57% for the YES. Dozens of towns there such as St Timoth‚e (99% French), Les CŠdres (98%), Coteau du Lac (100%) would never pass such resolutions. So what's the point?

And if the city of Montreal doesn't go along with it, how can Westmount, which is surrounded by Montreal on all sides, maintain connections with "loyalist" cities without mounting a second Berlin airlift?

My personal view as to how we can purge the corrosive climate of uncertainty in Quebec is to either get a 10-year moratorium on a secession referendum; or, once the Supreme Court has established the ground rules next year, precipitate a definitive, jointly-or-federally-sponsored referendum with a clear question whose result would be binding for decades. And, in the extremely unlikely event of a YES win, it would be up to the feds to have predetermined the map of post-referendum Quebec.

STRUCTURITIS November 14, 1996

Predictably, the forum followed the usual pattern. First, there is what the organizers hope to be a rallying speech, designed to impress upon the participants the necessity for them to be there, and to fire them up for the challenge ahead. Then the assembled group deconstructs into workshops, which are presented with a series of questions to be debated. Then, in plenary session, some poor soul has the job of synthesizing the undigested product of the workshops. Next, a panel - in this case, I was a member - applies its collective wisdom to the emerging consensus. Finally, the moving force behind the whole exercise makes a rousing speech about how marvellous it all is that such a mixed bag of people can arrive at consensus through this intellectual alchemy. And consensus is always "broad", have you noticed? And it always "emerges".

Now, in case future exigencies require a little backing-off, just what was decided is never clearly expressed. Everyone goes away thinking that they agreed on something, but few are sure exactly what it was. But, ah, ain't consensus grand! The media, naturally, come to their own, often divergent, conclusions. The instigator, armed with this kaleidoscope of interpretations, can now go ahead and do what he wants, secure in the knowledge that he can claim the backing of the milieu.

In the few minutes allotted to me to speak to the forum, I tried desperately to give a condensed version of the position of the mayors I represent: 1) Any new regional structure cannot simply overlie all the myriad sub-regional structures that currently layer the region, like so much sedimentary rock. 2) It should be run by elected people, indirectly elected from their member cities. The Metro Toronto model of universal suffrage introduced in 1988 is unworkable, and effectively creates another level of government.
3) It should plan, set norms, and co-ordinate, but not deliver services. That's up to local governments to do. Mass transit, however, should be a regional responsibility. We even suggested merging the three transit boards that currently operate in the region. After all, the MUCTC spends 82% of all regional transit spending. 4) We need a new fiscal pact for the entire region, not just for Montreal. One of the driving forces behind urban sprawl is the unfair fiscal system. 5) While the region has to work out a collective vision, just like any other major North American urban agglomeration, if that vision is blinkered by petty jealousies from Quebec, the whole exercise will have been for nought.

GETTING CHARGED FOR A LEAPING GOAT Nov 21

Now, taxis have improved over the years. Rarely do we see dashboards festooned with St Christopher medals, or calling cards jammed in the windshield surround. Cabs are cleaner too. Occasionally, though, you smell the pong of sour sweat or stale cigarette smoke.

Some drivers still use those strange seatcovers of brown wooden beads, or have a strip of rear-view mirrors that reveals everything you ever wanted to know about rearward traffic, but were too afraid to look. Some cabs make you feel as if you are violating someone's personal space, as if you just stepped into the driver's living-room, his favourite chair raked well back. He is so convinced you share his tastes in music or sports chat shows that he has cranked up the speakers to full volume right next to your ears. To add to the ambience and to your knowledge of the taxi dispatching trade, his two-way radio scratches and barks out orders to other cabbies. Since he already has a customer, why is he so interested in listening to his colleagues servicing others? What's the aural equivalent to voyeurism? Auditeurism?

Some cabbies are so lazy, they just hand me a receipt, magnanimously indicating that I can fill it out myself - thereby suggesting either that his time is too valuable, or that I pad my expense account. Other cab-drivers laboriously fill out every line on the little card, as if they were completing the captain's log after a transcontinental flight.

When you hand some drivers a $20 bill, they look at you as if you were asking for the change from an ingot of gold bullion.

In Montreal, there are two classes of client: those who are going to the airport, and those who are not. In some cab ranks, the minute the driver finds out you are only going a short distance, he gets an emergency call to pick up someone else, and summarily tells you to get the cab behind him, who is no more pleased to take you.

Here in Westmount, Atlas shrugged off its sloppy habits, sloughed off their jouncing Jettas, and is now providing a decent, reliable service. >

Things have also improved since the MUC took over taxi regulation in 1987. Now, if we could just get a fleet of taxis actually designed to be taxis, not just a bunch of cars pressed into service, cars for which the back seat is an afterthought. Unlike London's roomy taximeter cabriolets.

Sept. page Dec. page

Please Sign Our Guest book

david.nicholson's

© 1997 by David T. Nicholson Please phone (514)934-0023 for a human
or e-mail us your thoughts.

96nov.htm Sunday, January 17, 1999