Major interview with Mr. Claude Corbo

It is with sadness and gratitude that we learned that after more than 15 years as Chair of the Table de concertation du Mont-Royal (TCRM), Mr. Claude Corbo will not be reappointed. Mr. Corbo is best known for having been Rector at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) from 1986 to 1996 and from 2008 to 2013 and for having written several books on education and politics in Quebec. In addition to his successful academic career, he has also done a great deal for Montreal and for heritage. In particular, he worked as a part-time commissioner at the OCPM and in 2004 he chaired a consultation on the Montreal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. He was a member of the expert committee on the future of disused CHUM/MUHC buildings in 2013-2014 and he is also co-author of the Courchesne-Corbo report on the management of real estate heritage, published in 2016 as part of the renewal of the cultural policy. Mr. Corbo, who will have chaired 100 meetings of the TCMR, has thus contributed enormously to the defence of Mount Royal and national heritage. We wanted to meet with him to take stock of his experience, discuss the importance of heritage, and also to pay tribute to him.

Mr. Corbo, you have been at the helm of the Table de concertation du Mont-Royal (TCMR) for over 15 years. How would you describe that table? What is its nature, its role, its usefulness? In your opinion, what have been its best achievements since your arrival and why?

In light of my experience, there is a first way to answer the question of the nature of the Table de concertation du Mont-Royal (TCMR), which consists in defining it as an instrument of the Montreal community (i.e., the institutions located on the mountain and the associative groups interested in the mountain) and of the municipal authorities having jurisdiction on the mountain. Thus defined, the Table's raison d'être is to contribute to a better protection, enhancement and management of the Mount Royal Heritage Site. Its primary utility lies in its very existence, that is to say, to promote consultation on issues related to Mount Royal.

Beyond this conceptual definition, I can also say that the TCMR is a living experiment in collective action, based on the regularly reiterated determination of its members to continue working together for the benefit of the mountain, which is a common asset for all Montrealers, now and for future generations. Although the association was created by a decision of the Executive Committee of ville de Montréal, it has lived and continues to live, producing benefits for the mountain thanks to the enduring commitment of its members. 

And I say again that the Table is the current incarnation of an already long-standing desire to serve the good of Montreal's iconic mountain, which began in 1876 with the inauguration of Mount Royal Park designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, thanks to the expropriation of land by Ville de Montréal. This initial desire is not just a historical event; it is carried forward in its own way by the TCMR. The Table is therefore a multi-dimensional reality.

Since 2005, the TCMR has achieved many things: more than 50 consensus on various issues concerning Mount Royal, a Mountain Protection and Enhancement Plan, encouraging the development of statements of heritage interest for institutional properties, supporting the creation of the Third Summit Park and the ring road, developing an in-depth reflection on issues such as accessibility to the mountain and the presentation of information on the heritage site. In addition, the Table has been a place for sharing concerns, visions and vocabularies, a place for familiarization and better mutual understanding of the sensitivities of the three categories of members it brings together, a place for developing a common vocabulary and shared reflection, and a framework for sharing heritage knowledge and experiences.

And, more fundamentally, the Table has allowed the development of a sense of our shared responsibility to preserve a legacy of which we are simply the trustees, not the owners, for the benefit of future generations. I hope that, in fifty or a hundred years, our descendants will be able to say that, at the beginning of the 21st century, Montreal instituted and kept alive an instrument that played a decisive role, for their benefit, in protecting, preserving and enhancing the Mount Royal that was passed on to them.

Beyond the good things you've done, what do you think we can learn from this experience?

Two lessons, it seems to me, emerge from the experience of the TCMR.

The first is the most obvious. It has been possible to sit members with different visions, ambitions, aspirations and wills around the same table, and get them to work together to protect a reality of common interest that both challenges and transcends them. This doesn't magically make the diversity of interests disappear. But it does reduce mutual distrust or misunderstanding, it allows us to talk to each other in a more relaxed way, it often helps to smooth out excessively sharp edges, and it sometimes even allows us to find solutions that we hadn't even imagined at the outset, and to carry out projects that satisfy both sides. It is a reminder, in particular, that the mountain belongs to no one but the community - the community of Montreal, of course, but also the community of Quebec, because it is protected by a decree from gouvernement du Québec- and also to the human community in a more general sense, represented in particular by the tourists who never fail to visit it when they're here. Moreover, the widely shared desire of TCMR and elected officials to one day have Mount Royal listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site illustrates that this is a heritage asset whose value far exceeds the political boundaries that circumscribe it.

The second lesson that I believe emerges from the experience of the CRT is our relationship to the past. This goes well beyond the case of Mount Royal. Generations of political and institutional leaders who preceded us have, on Mount Royal, in light of their conceptions of the world, carried out developments with which we often disagree. Faced with this state of affairs, we must first resist the temptation of ex-cathedra condemnation. On the one hand, the generations of the past cannot be held guilty of not having had or applied ideas that developed after their passage into this world and from which we ourselves can draw inspiration. On the other hand, it is just as perilous to judge the past without appeal in the light of our current standards, which in some cases are still recent and sometimes even strongly contested by some of our contemporaries. These standards must be used to judge our conduct, not to put previous generations on trial. On the other hand, it is in our interest, for our own information, to be aware of the real possibility that we ourselves may one day be severely judged by our descendants, for some of our ideas and for some of our behaviour. An example of this possibility is the tragic fate that too many of our elders have suffered as a result of VIDOC-19: this state of affairs, in terms of our collective behaviour towards our elders, should make us humble. Having said that, the experience of the CCRT shows that it is possible, not to completely redo the past, which is often impossible, but to make changes to things we consider to be badly done, or to develop accommodations that we feel are better in light of ideas that were lacking in our predecessors. With respect to the past, including Mount Royal, we must identify what can be corrected, we must have the courage and determination to do so, and we must also be careful and very well thought out in our interventions, if we do not want to deserve the same kind of blame or criticism from future generations that we readily give to older generations.

The TCMR was created in 2005 following the declaration of the Mount Royal site. How is this declaration fundamental to the history of heritage in Montreal and Quebec?

The recognition of the Mount Royal heritage site by decree 190-2005 of gouvernement du Québec in 2005 is a fundamental development in the history of heritage in Montreal, for several reasons. Firstly, it follows on, albeit more forcefully, from the action already taken by Ville de Montréal to give Mount Royal status in 1987, with the creation of the "Mount Royal Heritage Site". Secondly, this recognition recognizes a multi-dimensional heritage: a heritage that is both natural and built, a living heritage that is both material and cultural. This was a first in Quebec. Thirdly, this decision, by decree of the government, commits all the ministries and public organizations under its authority. I can personally testify that this has already been made abundantly clear to a Quebec Minister of Health and a Minister of Education, for the benefit of their respective institutional networks. I believe that Ville de Montréal could periodically issue a similar reminder to successive future holders of these two powerful and omnipresent ministries. Finally, to date, heritage site status has served the protection and preservation of Mount Royal well, despite the diversity of interests that coexist on the mountain, despite the inherent complexity of managing a place that must be protected but which we cannot place under a glass bell. Under these conditions, the experience of the Mount Royal heritage site can be instructive for the protection and enhancement of heritage elsewhere.

In addition to Mount Royal, you are also interested in heritage in a broader sense. In fact, in 2016, you participated in the drafting of the Corbo-Courchesne Report on Heritage Governance. Why did you invest so much in the defence of heritage?

Heritage in general is of great concern to me and I have, indeed, invested a great deal in its defence. In 2013, I had the privilege of chairing a working group of the Minister of Culture on the future of museums, which are particularly important and essential agents for the protection, preservation and presentation of components of different categories of heritage. In 2014, for the Minister of Culture, I worked on the consultation and partnership between the four major museums governed by an act of the National Assembly of Quebec. In 2015, with Ms. Michelle Courchesne, I prepared a report on the future of the Bibliothèque Saint-Sulpice de Montréal. And in 2016, Ms. Courchesne and I teamed up again and prepared a report to the Minister of Culture on the governance of real estate heritage. 

There are several reasons why I am committed to the defence and promotion of heritage, particularly real estate. First of all, there are reasons that I readily qualify, without any pejorative connotation, as "materialistic".

The first materialistic reason is that many heritage buildings, particularly those owned or used by the public, are well and solidly constructed and, with proper maintenance, can be used for many years and for many generations to come. If we live in a time of unbridled consumerism, planned obsolescence of objects, and an unbridled appetite for change, we must remember that generations before us were inspired by other values and sought to build buildings that would last a long time. Many such buildings have been bequeathed to us by those generations, be they government, religious, educational, cultural or other buildings. These buildings can be used for a long time to come if, as I said, they are properly maintained. In fact, there is a choice between investing in the proper maintenance of a public heritage building, which often already belongs to the state or public agencies, to make it suitable for housing government services while keeping it in public ownership, or paying for it for years to come, of rent to a private landlord to occupy space in any building that will age rapidly and be replaced by another building with no additional character, and with no lasting gain in community ownership, I submit with conviction that it is infinitely better, in the short and long term, to invest in heritage buildings that will be used to house government or public services and that will remain in the long-term ownership of the community. In this connection, I find it intolerable, scandalous and indecent that the Government of Quebec should leave vacant for years, at the risk of condemning them to slow deterioration, heritage buildings, built with public or community funds, which could be used for a long time to come. A particularly pathetic case is that of the magnificent Bibliothèque Saint-Sulpice in Montreal, which we have not known what to do with since 2005, despite very worthwhile projects put forward in the wake of the report submitted by Ms. Courchesne and myself in December 2015.

The second "materialistic" reason is that heritage, especially real estate, is a powerful appealing product for the tourism industry. Tens, if not hundreds of millions of tourists ruthlessly invade (except in times of pandemic, of course) countries around the world to visit buildings of all kinds that have a heritage character. Religious buildings, military or pleasure castles, archaeological sites of ancient buildings, unusual or spectacular sports stadiums, royal or imperial palaces, theatres or opera houses, picturesque villages, ancient cities still living or dead, utilitarian constructions such as dams or aqueducts, towers combining decorative and utilitarian concerns, railway stations, mausoleums and cemeteries, these are all real estate heritages that many countries carefully maintain because they bring tourists in large numbers and all willing to leave abundant financial resources in the host country. Two sources feed the tourism industry: the nature and culture of the countries. Quebec is well endowed with natural sites; it also has an original culture, including its heritage, real estate and other assets; both must be well maintained to support our tourism industry, whose revenues directly or indirectly irrigate all sectors of the economy. Under these conditions, it is in our interest to jealously preserve our heritage, especially real estate, and to follow the example of many countries.

But my attachment to heritage, particularly real estate, also responds to non-materialistic reasons.

Heritage has the great virtue of telling us who we are and contributing to our identity as a nation. Quebec's entire history is illustrated by a collection of public and private heritage buildings. I like to mention Place d'Armes in Montreal. There is the old Séminaire Saint-Sulpice de Montréal dating back to the 17th century and the French colony, the Notre-Dame-de-Montréal Basilica built in the first half of the 19th century to bear witness to the strength of Catholicism in a colony in a Protestant country, the Bank of Montreal's classical-style building, dating from the same period and illustrating the power of the business bourgeoisie of British origin, office buildings dating from the second half of the same century where architectural influences from various countries were emerging, the Aldred Art Deco style building built between the two World Wars, the International style building of the National Bank of Canada witnessing Quebec during the years of the Quiet Revolution.

In fact, whether in the main cities, i.e. Montreal and Quebec City, or elsewhere in the territory, Quebec's real estate heritage sums up not only the history, but also the variety of political, economic, religious and cultural conditions and influences that have shaped its historical journey and identity: that of the royal France of the Ancien Régime, that of imperial Great Britain from the Conquest of 1760 to the First World War, that of the expansionist and capitalist United States since the same period. Moreover, the multiplicity of religious traditions in Quebec is reflected in the architecture of both places of worship and church-related health and educational institutions. In short, heritage, particularly real estate, after the French language, is certainly a major component of Quebec's identity, and this is true not only for public buildings, but also for housing, from the houses of the New France era to those in the suburbs, which bear many similarities to their counterparts in the United States. In the case of Montreal, it is a North American city, but not an American or even Canadian one, where European, French and British legacies remain, particularly but not exclusively. The preservation and development of the real estate heritage throughout Quebec is essential to the appropriation by the younger generations of an identity that is specific to Quebec and that ensures reference points and a sense of self in a world subject to very strong forces of cultural homogenization that dissolve people's original identity.

Real estate heritage also has the great virtue of being rooted in a historical continuity that reminds each generation that it is both heir to those that preceded it and passed on to the next generations. Successive styles of building construction instruct both on the greater or lesser capacity for invention and innovation of each generation and on the variability of tastes over time. Moreover, by rooting each generation in historical continuity and the breaks that mark it from time to time, the real estate heritage weaves links between generations. Thus, when looking at old buildings, one is invited to remember those anonymous workers, carpenters, carpenters, masons and others, who built these buildings with their know-how, their energy and also undoubtedly their taste for "beautiful work well done". Of these anonymous people of history, the only traces that remain are those summarized by the buildings they built. Preserving the real estate heritage that deserves to be preserved - and there is still a significant amount of it - means not only paying the tribute owed by the heirs to those who made up the legacy, it also means affirming that their work has not been totally in vain or forgotten and that it can remain useful for successive generations. This is an act of respect and human solidarity. Real estate heritage, like heritage in general, embodies the efforts, dreams, aspirations and wills of the generation that created it. To let it be lost is, for the generation that bears witness to such carelessness, to invite subsequent generations to treat it in the same way. In a world in search of landmarks and meaning, solidarity between generations, particularly through the preservation and development of heritage, real estate and other assets, helps to conquer a sense of continuity and to give oneself landmarks.

Finally, what would you like to say to Héritage Montréal its members?

For over forty years, Héritage Montréal played a vital role in protecting, preserving, and promoting Montreal's heritage. It is imperative that this role continue, and I sincerely hope that it will.

We warmly thank Mr. Claude Corbo for his involvement in the defence of Quebec's heritage, and of course for his answers to our questions.