Despite tunnel cracks, Laval Metro safe, insists Vaillancourt
But still refuses to pay Montreal $1.8 million deficit fee
Published January 13, 2010
By Martin C. Barry • TLN

While refusing for the second year to pay a $1.8 million subsidy fee to Montreal for Metro service, Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt does not believe that cracks found in the Metro tunnel leading to Laval will reinforce the city’s position. Repeating an initiative taken last year, Vaillancourt announced last week that Laval would once again refuse to pay the sum to subsidize the Metro system, unless local Metro users are charged the same monthly pass price as users in Longueuil.

Fee parity sought
Users in Laval are paying the same as on the island of Montreal for a monthly pass, $70, while those in Laval pay $110. Vaillancourt says that until parity between Laval and Longueuil is established, Laval will not pay the extra amount, which is charged to subsidize an operating deficit for the Metro. Vaillancourt’s stance on that issue was followed this week by a media report that stress cracks have been found in the Metro tunnel leading from Montreal to Laval.
While they are not considered dangerous, it will cost $80,000 to fix them. In an interview with the Laval News following last Monday’s city council meeting, Vaillancourt insisted there is no relationship between the two issues and that the state of the tunnel is unlikely to reinforce Laval’s position on what it owes Montreal. “It’s two different things,” he said. “What we are fighting with Mayor Tremblay is a very simple thing — everybody on the island of Montreal is supposed to pay their fair share.”

Wants Tremblay to act
Vaillancourt maintains that Tremblay is reneguing on an agreement. “Since we opened the Metro in Laval in the middle of the year, they could not change a budget decision, so we agreed at that time that in the next project by Montreal that they would put the south shore at the same level as Laval. Even though I sent four letters, they did not do that. He didn’t correct the situation. So I decided to withhold the money until he corrects it. But this has nothing to do with the cracks.”
According to an assessment made of the stress cracks by a Société de Transport de Montréal official responsible for the Laval Metro extension, they were the result of shrinkage which occurred when the tunnel’s concrete walls dried. “I’m concerned they should be repaired to avoid further costs,” added Vaillancourt. “But from the information that was given to me today, I’m not worried about potential danger. The engineers that I’ve spoken to today have told me there’s no danger.”

Opposition the new norm?
Last November’s municipal election saw Vaillancourt elected to a sixth term with the Parti PRO, taking all the seats, although he faced more electoral opposition than ever. During this week’s council meeting, as at the previous one in December, many of those opponents (including members of the Parti au Service du Citoyen, the Mouvement Lavallois, and even perennial independent mayoralty rival Rick Blatter) gave Vaillancourt a taste of what is likely to become the norm at city hall for the next four years.
PSC leader and former mayoralty candidate Robert Bordeleau laced into the Vaillancourt administration for “wasting money” on a housing handbook the city developed. Bordeleau claims Laval’s efforts fail to address a problem enforcing sanitation at housing projects in Laval which drew media attention last year, and that they essentially duplicate services from the Quebec government and the provincial housing code. Vaillancourt pointed out that the City of Montreal is dealing with similar problems in the same way as Laval.

Code of ethics cited
Addressing the mayor, David De Cotis, president of the Mouvement Lavallois, claimed that since 2001 the Vaillancourt administration has awarded $52 million in contracts to a business whose owner is the brother-in-law of a Laval city councillor. “This kind of situation raises questions about a code of ethics and appearance of conflict of interest,” said de Cotis. Vaillancourt said the city consulted an independent consultant on public ethics, who concluded that the councillor in question had acted in a manner that was entirely legal.