Leaders' debate on the economic future of Montreal before the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal

The three "community leaders" running for the mayor of Montreal position in the 1st of November 2009 municipal elections in Montreal crossed their wits today, October 27, 2009 in a debate that was causing embarrassment due to the lack of discipline, charisma and substance.

The incumbent mayor, Mr. Tremblay, has obviously the most charismatic presence, and he is the one that can sell even the most benign ideas with success. Unfortunately, his ideas are benign, and even though not ridiculous or antiquated as those of Mrs. Harel, they are not looking toward the future but rather towards the next mandate. He is right to want to solidify the administrative base acquired by the city after long and tedious struggle with decentralization, but what will truly bring Montreal into the 21st century and make it a real contestant in the fight against Toronto (any Montrealer will tell you that Toronto is our benchmark)?

Mrs. Harel seemed completely out of place, not only due to her excessive mannerisms and her lack of respect for the process but mostly because of her antiquated ideas of wanting to grow the administrative apparatus in order to shorten the lead time on projects and her insistence that Montreal be in the race for the next World Expo because they bring prestige, like the Olympics... quick reality check: the World Expo and the Olympics are not the same. The World Expo is for an emerging metropolis, hungry for the attention (any kind, really), not for a world renowned city like Montreal.

Mr. Bergeron, despite the fact that he was as dry as a stone, had more common sense than the others, with a real vision for a cleaner, more environmentally friendly Montreal, attracting families back to the city from the suburbs. However, his realism was damaging the quality of the presentation, and the fact that it would take a 6.3% increase per year in the transport budget over four years in order to reduce Montreal traffic by a mere 10% in the fifth year, or that in ten years his program would be able to decrease the Montreal population by only 100,000 rather than one million had difficulty contending with the political discourse of mayor Tremblay.

Despite the fact that keeping families in Montreal, increasing the work opportunities for local talent and improving transport and governance were the main themes, the solutions proposed (some that even went beyond the mayoral responsibilities and into provincial and federal domain) never took into consideration the real issues that make Montreal Eastern Canada's "ugly little duckling": fiscal and political. How can a family pay the premium for city real estate, cramped up and children-unfriendly, take the increase in energy costs and transport costs on top of general inflation with all the Federal, Provincial and ultimately Municipal taxes imposed on them? If I want to put some money aside for my retirement, I need some to be left over and, moreover, the average salary in Montreal for a specific job is on the lower side when compared to other international-level cities. As for companies, how can they establish their headquarters in Montreal when they cannot offer competitive wages because themselves are taxed at high levels (even though not ridiculous) and access to financing is difficult and tedious? This issue is linked to the political issue as well, which is not only the over-taxation of the middle-class and of property for sub-par services but also regarding the notorious political instability of Quebec as a Province. I understand that this is not of the mayor's resort, but to ignore these issues would be irresponsible.

All this to say that on Sunday, as the people are going to the urns to vote, it will be, like always, a difficult choice to pick "the least worst candidate" from the pile.