March 11, 1999 

Last Saturday, I walked up Atwater to a deserted grey fieldstone building. I examined its six acres of grounds adorned with hundreds of straight old trees that stuck out of encrusted snow like sentinels. And, on reminiscing about its glory days in full summer, I felt a bit like Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited. But this was the former Army Headquarters revisited and I was just north of Sherbrooke street in Montreal, not in Wiltshire.

In a now-rare burst of military savoir-vivre, "Land Force Quebec Area" used to invite various notables each Canada Day to an at-home, style champêtre. A huge tent would be set up on the grassed parterre for guests - both civilian and military - who needed respite from the sun. The band played, the flags flew, and the brass and boots shone. The very thing to demystify the military and to promote Canadian patriotism.

I used to attend, blue-blazered as mayor, and, after being appointed Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the Royal Montreal Regiment, I would show up in uniform - in summer Tans, in fact. In 1997, "Land Summer Dress" was taken out of service. That same year, in another misguided cost cutting measure, the military decided to get rid of their magnificent demesne on Atwater - an irremediable mistake. It was traded for a mess of pottage in the form of an anonymous strip-windowed industrial three-storey architectural banality that was built in the middle of the Longue-Pointe Garrison compound, safe behind Frost fences and any possible civilian contact. This well-hidden "Metro---politan Headquarters" was opened by the Minister of Defence on the 19th of June, 1998.

When, oh when, will Canada and the military understand that they should be in the public eye, not hide away from it? And when will Canada and Copps understand that it's Canada's presence in Quebec that is needed to boost Canadian unity, not the visual jingoism of give-away Canadian flags.

The loss of this precious piece of history to development is not the fault of the developer. Nor is it, at bottom, the fault of the cash-strapped City of Montreal. The blame has to be laid squarely at the feet of the federal government. You can bet that if this land (dating from 1665) and building (dating from 1803) were in Ottawa, they would never have divested themselves of it so callously. They would not have allowed the Treasury Board to declare it surplus, nor allowed Canada Lands Company to attend to its " commercially-oriented, orderly disposition".

Another villain in the piece is Ottawa's yo-yo budgeting: they slash mil-itary funding (and transfer payments!) one day, giving a bit back the next.

On a happier note, I can report to you that my and Councillor Matossian's efforts to ensure that de Lavigne remain a dead-end street seem to have borne fruit. The development plan just approved by Montreal now shows the new street going into this property does not join up with de Lavigne.

Me Jill Hugessen

#875 2 Dec, 1998 deLavigne project, Me Jill Huguesson Brillon husband Mark Brillon,

See also Trent's letter and more on de Lavigne.

Whenever the chance presents itself, I ask a simple question to anyone who favours the idea of Montreal municipal mergers. The question is, "Why?" I usually get one of two answers:

• "That's what they did in Toronto." (Ah, that explains everything. QED.)
• "We have 28 cities on the Island of Montreal. That's too many."

Mayor Trent

I see. So the main justification for amalgamating cities is that there are too many of them. This is circular reasoning at its best. Or worst. The fancy name for circular reasoning is petitio principii, rendered into English as "begging the question". This is a term from logic that refers to assuming as true the premise of an argument you undertake to prove. (So next time someone says ponderously "that begs the question", please tell the speaker that "beg" is not just a more impressive word for "raise".)

Are there too many cities on the Island? I don't think so. What's "too many"? Are there too many vineyards in Bordeaux? Too many banks in Canada? Too many anglophone hospitals in Montreal? (Oops. Sorry about that one.) What is so ruddy mystical about the number 1, anyway?

Speaking of numbers, I've written over a dozen columns on the subject of mergers since 1992, not to mention some Gazette editorials. In them, I tried to outline the many objections to forced amalgamation: it encourages urban sprawl; it creates a monopoly; it results in huge bureaucracies remote from citizens; it leads to higher costs through diseconomies of scale; it permits one powerful (and not always law-abiding) labour union; it removes bilingual status; it kills volunteerism and a sense of community. And the list goes on.

Lysiane Gagnon, writing in La Presse last week, went on about "the suburban enclaves, the pockets of privilege that dig into the natural territory of Montreal." Then she wrung her hands about that fact that "even with amalgamation, Montreal will still be much smaller than the megacity in Toronto." Talk about urbis envy. And do you know what? The CN tower is much taller than anything we have here. So?

Are we the parasites that Lysiane Gagnon suggests we are? Not at all. Take the MUC. We Island suburban cities pay $484 per capita (Westmount: $1020) to finance the MUC. Montreal citizens pay only $444 per capita. Overall, the Island suburban cities pay nearly one-half of the cost of running the MUC, even though Montreal benefits from the lion's share of its services: 58% of its bus service, 62% of its police services, 68% of its sewage service. A whopping 84% of metro stations are found in Montreal.

Since one-third (Westmount: 40%) of Island suburban revenues go to pay for the MUC, we're already partially merged. Let's draw the line right there.

Acting Council Menu page

• Menu of Trent's Stories
  
  
• Febuary 25, 1999 OUR ACTING COUNCIL
  
• Febuary 4, 1999 VICTORIA HALL: A DOWAGER REJUVENATED
  
• January 14, 1999 O CHRISTMAS PALM
  
• November 26 BOURQUE REDUX
  
• November 12 MASS TRANSIT: GLORIA MUNDI?
  
• September 3, 1998 SOUND BEGETS FURY
  
• 2 Oct TAXATION BY MISREPRESENTATION
  
• 12 OCT on $500,000,000 TAX GRAB Tax grab turns into burlesque
  
• 16 OCT A MEETING WITH BOUCHARD