Letters to the Editor

We won't get fooled again

To the editor:

Mayor Marks, it seems, is willing to trust the Liberals once more, unlike some West Island mayors.

For some reason I am reminded of the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you… Fool me twice, shame on me."

J. Turgeon

Mount Stephen Avenue



Meeting produced alternative choices

To the editor:

It's too bad the Meet the Candidates event on March 14 wasn't better attended—it was quite illuminating.

All six candidates stuck pretty much to their party lines and trotted out platform positions and party ideology, but there were a few fireworks.

The incumbent, Liberal candidate Jacques Chagnon, came in for a rough ride on the merger/demerger issue. He responded with a vague promise to look into something that works better than the Agglomeration Council, but I don't imagine anyone expects anything concrete to come from that. Candour about his party's responsibility for the mess and some kind of acknowledgement of his leader's cynical broken promises on that issue would have served him better, but that, of course, was never going to happen.

The Liberals take it for granted that the Westmount federalist vote is all wrapped up, but Mr. Chagnon's tired, lacklustre and occasionally irritable performance shone a light on a couple of more energetic alternatives.

The ADQ candidate did well and the Green Party candidate impressed even more: Patrick Daoust displayed vitality, a command of the issues and even a willingness to depart from the script and venture into actual spontaneity.

He has my support this time around and I suspect he'll attract a sizeable protest vote from other disaffected electors.

Matthew Cope

Somerville Avenue



Who should we vote for on 26 March?

To the editor:

In terms of ideas for dealing with cities, the major provincial political parties are bankrupt.

The PQ originated the idea of mergers, forcing them even over the objections of almost 100 per cent of the citizens of some municipalities; should we expect them to suddenly see democracy as a worthwhile idea? The Liberals campaigned and were elected on a promise to allow cities to undo the forced mergers; they then set the bar to demerge at an impossibly high level, resulting in a number of cities being denied the right to demerge even though a majority of their citizens asked for it. The Liberals don't value democracy either, judging by their behaviour. The ADQ has never been in power, but they publicly supported the forced mergers, thereby making a mockery of the "democratique" in their name.

All three parties have been asked how they would make the dysfunctional agglomeration council in Montreal work. None have come up with any specific solutions. They're not alone: no one, including the mayors of the demerged cities, seems to have any good answers. It may be that there really is no way to make the agglom perform. The basic problem is that only 13 per cent of the citizens live in the demerged cities, compared to 87 per cent in Montreal. If votes are on the basis of majority decisions, Montreal is bound to win every time.

Contrast this with the old MUC, where a double majority rule actually worked, because the ratio of Montreal votes to suburban votes was closer to 50-50.

Could we ever get back to a situation with a better balance? Perhaps, if the demerger process were to be revisited. A number of former cities failed to win their demerger referendums, because the Liberals required that at least 35 per cent of the electoral list needed to vote for demerger. If the required level were a simple majority, seven more former cities would be able to demerge. If the existing boroughs of Montreal were also polled on whether they wished to form independent cities, some of them might also choose to break away from the city of Montreal. The net result would be a more even balance of power between the smaller cities and the city of Montreal in the agglom or in any similar structure.

Is it realistic to even consider revisiting the demerger referendums?

I believe it is. At the 'Meet the Candidates' evening on March 14 at Victoria Hall in Westmount, the agglomeration question was a hot topic. Patrick Daoust, the candidate representing the Green Party of Quebec, stated unequivocally that he would support the idea of redoing the demerger referendums. But even before I posed the question, Patrick had shown himself to be an articulate and perceptive individual.

So who to vote for, on 26 March? As a federalist and an advocate for less government, I cannot support either the PQ or the new Quebec Solidaire party. The Liberals have broken their promises and have not governed well, so they're out. While the local ADQ candidate, Caroline Morgan, is clearly motivated and intelligent, party leader Dumont comes across as an opportunist who willingly sacrifices democracy if he thinks it will get him elected. That leaves only the Marxist-Leninists and the Greens. Pretty easy decision!

It's time to give a message to the major parties that they cannot take urban voters for granted. I urge all of you to vote Green, by marking your ballot for Patrick Daoust.

Henry Olders

Lansdowne Avenue



Let's have that public meeting

To the editor:

During last month's city council meeting, the Mayor was once again asked to make a decision regarding the timing of the public meeting to be held to discuss the issue of artificial turf in Westmount Park.

A public forum, at which all aspects of such a project could be debated was first agreed to by the Mayor in October 2006, following a request by a group of concerned citizens. At that time the Mayor also acknowledged the need for an objective environmental report and reiterated the commitment to a public meeting following receipt and dissemination of such a report.

Subsequently, an assurance was given that the environmental report, commissioned from consultants Golder Associates, would be available for citizen consultation on or around Jan. 15 and the meeting would take place some time afterward, probably in February. As of now, no report has been produced.

Mayor Marks revealed, at the council meeting at the end of February, that due to council's dissatisfaction, the environmental report had been sent back to Golder Associates for redrafting, apparently for the second time and that therefore no public meeting can be scheduled. As citizens, we should be asking the City of Westmount why it is spending thousands of taxpayer dollars to obtain third-party reports, when such massaging and continual tweaking of the results can only serve to nullify their objectivity, thus rendering the exercise pointless.

The whole point of soliciting outside advice is to receive objective evaluation, possibly of a negative kind, which can lead to sounder decisions. It is time for the City to produce the report and proceed to a public meeting.

Mavis Young

Melville Avenue