Roger Taillibert was a great French architect. But in Montreal there was a time when he was about as welcome as the Queen of England at a congress of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
There was certainly an element of injustice there. The fact remains that this man has never been forgiven for the Olympic Stadium, his recurring roof problems, his cost overruns. Mr. Taillibert has become the scapegoat for collective discontent, for a feeling that we had “been made to have”.
The situation is obviously different, but the Caisse de depot et placement du Québec today would have an interest in wondering what image it wants to leave in Montreal with the REM and the Eastern REM. There is not a week without the discontent and concerns surrounding these two projects being spread in the media.
Like the Stadium, these infrastructures will be part of Montreal’s visual signature for decades. The inhabitants will have them before their eyes every day, for generations.
Will we celebrate them as a symbol of efficiency and progress? Will they fit into the urban fabric to the point where they will be forgotten? Or will they become emblems that we will love to hate… and which will be irreparably associated with the name of the Caisse?
It is too early to tell. But it is far from too early to think about it. The Caisse plays part of its reputation with the pylons, rails and catenaries that are about to be installed in the Quebec metropolis. Both at home and internationally.
Do you know the “ESG criteria”? In the investment world, this is the topic everyone is talking about. These are the environmental (E), social (S) and good governance (G) dimensions that companies and those who finance them must respect.
La Caisse is recognized as a world leader in this field. The institution has even played an active role in the fact that Montreal will soon host an office of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), an organization that will set standards on this subject. It is to be greeted.
But with the REM, the Caisse realizes that it is easier to meet ESG criteria as an investor than as a project developer. The institution ensures that these standards are respected in the case of the REM. But we can still wonder if, here, the boots follow the lips.
The McKinsey firm defines the social dimension of ESG criteria as “the relationships, and the trust that these relationships nourish, with the people and institutions belonging to the communities in which a firm does business”.
To assess the Caisse’s compliance with this criterion, it is therefore necessary to take the pulse of the community and assess its confidence in the institution. From a strictly objective point of view, we have no choice but to see that it hooks.
It is of course inevitable that projects of the magnitude of the REM and the Eastern REM will arouse some opposition. Except that here, we go beyond the syndrome of “not in my backyard”. We are not just talking about citizens directly affected by the inconveniences of trains, which pit their personal well-being against the collective interest.
Architectural firms refused to be associated with the Eastern REM. Experts denounce the choice of an elevated structure in the city center, the route that cannibalizes the green line, the lack of integration of stations in the neighborhoods. Elected officials and citizens are expressing their concern.
When the Caisse tells us that it is impossible to cut a tunnel under the city center or to install more elegant catenaries above the trains, we no longer know if that means that it is really impossible, or simply that it does not fit into the model concocted by the institution to obtain the desired return. It shows how much the confidence is shaken.
The Caisse has one great merit: that of advancing projects. Just think of the endless saga of the extension of the metro blue line to see it. But it is by being transparent that it will regain confidence. By agreeing, above all, to develop these projects according to external criticism.
Remember that the Caisse, as powerful as it is, is not immune to errors. We remember the collapse of commercial paper, which cost it 40 billion in 2008.
In finance, ESG criteria are not just about making the world a better place. They are used to assess risks. With the REM, the Caisse runs what the administrators call a “reputational risk”. Especially if she wants to make this project a showcase and reproduce the model elsewhere in the world.
The interest of the Caisse therefore goes directly to that of Montrealers and Quebeckers. And the reverse is true. The Caisse, after all, is us. Its performance is that of our retirement funds. Its successes and failures are ours.
Everyone therefore has an interest in making the REM a success to be proud of. If the Caisse understands it, it’s time to show it.