Published at 1:08 am. Updated at 6:00 am.
What is the purpose of the Office de Consultation Publique de Montréal (OCPM)? And most importantly, what difference has this office made to the lives of Montrealers since its founding in 2002?
That’s the question that has been on my mind ever since the Journal de Montréal revealed its executives’ spending, which includes numerous meals in restaurants and many trips abroad. Legal costs, but still excessive. And those responsible for the OCPM justify this by saying that the organization is a model that inspires several cities around the world.
This whole matter led me to question whether the bureau’s recommendations have had a positive impact on the lives of Montrealers since its inception.
The answer: difficult to say. Very difficult actually.
I spoke about this with Mario Gauthier, professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Quebec en Outaouais. Together with two other professors who are members of the Cities Regions World research network, he organized a conference last year to mark the 20th anniversary of the OCPM.
Professor Gauthier gives me a little historical reminder: In 1989, following several demands from popular movements in Montreal, the government of Jean Doré was inspired by the BAPE (Poll-Opinion-Report) model to create the Montreal Advisory Office Former BAPE Commissioner Luc Ouimet led it until its abolition by the Bourque government in 1994. Five years later, an independent commission chaired by the former Liberal minister Gérald Tremblay (who would become mayor of the metropolis two years later) laid the foundations of the OCPM, its status would be enshrined in the Montreal Charter, thereby protecting them from political dangers.
PHOTO MARTIN TREMBLAY, THE PRESS
It was Gérald Tremblay who laid the foundation for the OCPM in 1999, about two years before he became mayor of Montreal.
It’s true, Mario Gauthier assures me, that the OCPM model has inspired other cities: Longueuil, for example, created its own office for citizen participation a year ago. Gatineau and Sherbrooke also examined the Montreal model.
At the international level, France was inspired by the OCPM to create its National Commission for Public Debates. The Montreal model is interesting in that it can improve a project in advance, i.e. before its completion. At least in theory… In practice it’s something different.
In fact, Professor Gauthier notes that there is little internal research or monitoring to document the concrete impact of the office’s work.
We tried to document the follow-up to the Office’s recommendations, but were unable to do so.
Mario Gauthier, Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Quebec en Outaouais
The researcher adds that the former director of the OCPM, Dominique Ollivier, herself raised this issue in her recent annual reports. “There is no reflective work within the office, no independent researchers dealing with the issue,” emphasizes Mr. Gauthier.
In other words, 20 years after its founding, the OCPM is struggling to show whether it has had an impact…
PHOTO FRANÇOIS ROY, LA PRESS ARCHIVE
In 2019, after a survey of 10,000 citizens, the OCPM recommended maintaining “vehicular traffic on the entire Remembrance-Camillien-Houde axis” but making it safe. However, last September the city of Montreal announced its intention to ban car traffic on the Camillien-Houde route.
Conclusions ignored
In fact, it is easier to find cases where the opinions of Montrealers gathered during the OCPM consultations were ignored than examples where their opinions made a difference: think of Camillien-Houde Lane or the Griffintown district. In both cases, the bureau’s report was shelved and elected officials did whatever they wanted without considering the recommendations…
Danielle Pilette, Professor in the Department of Strategy, Social and Environmental Responsibility at UQAM, knows the files of public consultations like the back of her hand. She gave me an example – JUST ONE! – where the office made a real difference: a report on a densification project in Pierrefonds-Ouest in 2017 led by Denis Coderre. “People were against densification and the project was abandoned,” she tells me. It was necessary to completely revise the wording to include protection of specific environments. »
Professor Pilette points out that there is nothing obliging the local council to take into account the OCPM’s recommendations.
From the expert’s point of view, it seems abundantly clear that the work of the OCPM generally makes no real difference.
PHOTO HUGO-SÉBASTIEN AUBERT, LA PRESSE ARCHIVE
The OCPM has conducted several consultations regarding the Griffintown district.
“I never gave the office any importance,” she says. They duplicate the work of civil servants. There are already city planners in the city planning and housing department who make recommendations to the city. The problem is that they don’t communicate them to the population. There is a lack of transparency and communication on their part, which is troubling and is where we should focus our efforts, even though in the end we know full well that elected officials will make decisions based on their interests. »
A former OCPM commissioner already told me: “The office is an organization of popular discontent. People come to have fun and ask questions, and we make a big connection with that…”
Danielle Pilette, Professor in the Department of Strategy, Social and Environmental Responsibility at UQAM
In short, the bills for oyster dinners in Paris and business class travel capture the imagination.
But I think it is just as serious to give the population the feeling that they are being consulted and that their opinion counts, when in reality this is not true.
It is high time to put an end to this organization’s excessive spending. And if the OCPM cannot demonstrate that its work has concretely improved the lives of Montrealers by improving the projects submitted for consultation, it would be high time to question their relevance when the city also writes its reports.