Who will be the downtown boss?

Should downtown Montreal have its own borough mayor, like Rosemont or the Plateau, or rather be led de facto by the mayoress or mayor of the metropolis?

This question, apparently very technical, will be the subject of a consultation until the end of March.

The conclusions could have a considerable – and very concrete – impact on the way in which the economic heart of Montreal will be managed for the years to come.

Let me take a quick step back here.

Everyone remembers the municipal mergers of 2002, and the demergers that followed in 2006. This exercise transformed the island of Montreal into a quilt of boroughs and independent cities, several threads of which still stick out today ¹.

The boroughs are headed by a mayor elected by universal suffrage. All, except that of Ville-Marie. Former mayor Gérald Tremblay demanded – and obtained – that Quebec change the rules of governance for the 2009 elections, after a dispute with the former local mayor, Benoît Labonté.

Since that time, the mayor (or mayoress) of Montreal automatically controls the central districts of the metropolis.

With its 105,000 inhabitants, the borough of Ville-Marie is the most sensitive of Montreal.

The most heterogeneous, too.

It includes downtown, the Village, Old Montreal, several residential neighborhoods, three universities, part of Mount Royal and Parc Jean-Drapeau. It is an extraordinary magnet for investment, as evidenced by all these skyscrapers under construction, and an outlet for human distress, as can be seen around Berri-UQAM.

Decisions made in this borough – the economic lung of Quebec – can have a major impact on the entire metropolitan area, and even beyond.

In this context, it seems entirely logical to me that the Mayor of Montreal should have authority over the heart of the metropolis.

But not everyone sees things the same way.

Many citizens believe that this situation causes a significant “democratic deficit”. They would like to have their own local mayor and more elected city councillors.

Projet Montréal, Valérie Plante’s party, promised during its 2017 election campaign to tackle this issue. He kept his word. The City has mandated a committee of experts in 2021 to dig into the question, under the supervision of the Institut du Nouveau Monde.

The group has produced a report that contains three scenarios for Ville-Marie².

Basically, the first scenario would keep the mayor of Montreal in charge of the borough. In the second, she would also remain at the head of Ville-Marie, but would appoint a designated mayor who would take care of local issues. In the third, a local mayor would be elected by universal suffrage.

In all cases, two municipal councilors would be elected in each of Ville-Marie’s three districts, rather than just one. This would be a game changer compared to the current situation, where the mayor of Montreal means two councilors who automatically give him a majority in the event of a dispute.

I spoke Wednesday with Louise Harel, the former PQ minister who spearheaded municipal mergers at the turn of the millennium. She also sits on the committee of experts that developed the three potential scenarios for Ville-Marie.

If she considers “essential” that there are more municipal councilors elected in each district, she is much less favorable to the election of a separate mayor for the borough.

“You can really buy trouble in the medium or long term,” she believes.

I agree.

Right now, Valérie Plante’s party is in good shape. The mayor runs the city center, of course, but she was also elected in the district of Sainte-Marie, which is part of the borough of Ville-Marie. She knows the terrain and local issues very well. Projet Montréal firmly holds the reins of power.

The tide could turn – it always ends up turning.

If the citizens of Ville-Marie chose to elect a separate mayor from that of the city-centre, the bickering could reinstall. Especially if this local mayor belongs to another party, as was seen under Gérald Tremblay.

The borough could say “yellow” when the central city says “green”, and do exactly what it wants on several issues.

Not likely to help the heart of the metropolis, which will face a series of existential problems in the coming years, with the rise in office vacancy rates and the explosion of social unrest such as homelessness and drug addiction .

“There needs to be harmony, in the context where the rivalries are between the big cities of the world, and not within the cities”, sums up Louise Harel.

***

The Plante administration is aware of the potential pitfalls related to its citizen consultation, but it is keen to respect its promise of 2017.

Robert Beaudry, the elected official responsible for urban planning, citizen participation and democracy on the executive committee, considers the exercise that is taking place at the moment to be very “healthy”. His party wants to hear the citizens rather than “unilaterally” imposing a change in the governance of Ville-Marie, he told me, as was done in 2009.

It should be noted, however, that this consultation takes a rather specific form. Ville-Marie residents can complete an online questionnaire by the end of the month, and two “discussion workshops” will take place on March 18 and 23.

Some would have preferred that the process be supervised in good and due form by the Office de consultation publique de Montréal, rather than by the Institut du Nouveau Monde. Understandable reservations.

The final report of this consultation will be tabled next summer and changes to the electoral structure, if any, could be implemented as soon as the next election.

We can judge the tree by its fruits.

In any case, one could hardly blame the party of Valérie Plante for respecting an electoral commitment. Especially after seeing François Legault and Justin Trudeau both renege on their promises to reform the voting system, in Quebec and Ottawa.