CAQ Driving Montreal to Become the 11th Province

The 'boiling frog fable' describes a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise being that if a frog is suddenly thrust into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in cold water which is then brought to a boil gradually, it will not perceive the danger and will be slowly cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of sinister threats that arise gradually rather than suddenly. Wikipedia

For years Quebec separatist journalists have been bemoaning the fact that immigration has upset the linguistic and demographic balance of Montreal with old-stock francophones seeing their demographic weight reduced year after year to the effect that Quebec is being cleaved linguistically and culturally into two distinct camps...Montreal versus the ROQ (Rest of Quebec.)

Those prescient predictions have largely fallen on deaf ears as the Quebec Liberals while in power have ignored the shift because it served its electoral purpose as the immigrants voted massively for their party, In the recent provincial election, the Liberals retained 19 out of 25 seats on the island, proof that despite the CAQ blowout in the rest of the province, Montreal marches to a different tune.

The new Premier, true to his roots and his old-stock francophone base in the ROQ, felt emboldened to launch the first volley in the war on Montreal by attacking religious garb, something that already brought down the PQ in the past, in its own futile and disastrous attempt to put minorities in their place.

With an impressive election victory in hand and no political obligation to Montreal, the new Premier, feeling his oats, is foolishly choosing to go after Montreal ethnics, rewarding his base with an attack on 'les autres.' It certainly played well in the boonies, not so much in Montreal.
For Legault, there seems to be no political downside to the attack.
He could not be more wrong.

For those who want to see Montreal become the 11th province, things couldn't be working out better, where the accrued polarization of Montreal and the ROQ is the prelude to the separation of Montreal from Quebec.
For those who pooh-pooh the very idea that Montreal could ever separate from Quebec, let me remind them that monumental political change sometimes happens rather abruptly, like the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union or the fall of the Berlin Wall leading to the reunification of Germany.
Where the symptoms of disaffection brew for decades, the final act may seem surprising, when it is anything but.

No one can dispute that Montreal and Quebec are headed on separate political courses and the election of the CAQ, wholly siding with one side will serve only to exacerbate the cleavage between the two as demographic forces in Montreal play out where the weight of old-school francophones is diminishing each year.

The quick rejection in Montreal of Legault's new policy on religious garb wasn't unexpected and the demonstrations that greeted the announcement may have been satisfying for Legault and his supporters because he and the CAQ believe that it is a fight in which they will prevail, a huge political win for his base which has hankered to put Montreal, its Anglos and ethnics in their place for some time.

But the victory over religious garb may actually be Pyrrhic in nature and like British Townshend Acts which imposed taxes on staples like tea in the American colonies, it may well serve only to inflame independence aspirations in Montreal.
The harsher the treatment of Montreal ethnics and Anglos, (something that the CAQ base relishes) the further along Montreal veers towards independence.

 Even Montreal's current leftist mayor, Valerie Plante, herself no fan of federalism, feels impelled to walk a fine line, defending and opposing the CAQ plan at the same time.

"I'm in favour of neutrality of the State, but this bill is ill-conceived. The government must go back to the drawing board"

Mayor Plante seems also to be advancing the idea of Montreal as a nation-state, having taken the remarkable decision to remove the Quebec flag from municipal buildings.

But should Montreal elect a truly federalist mayor next election, it will set the scene for some mighty fireworks between Montreal and the Quebec government, with Legault's freedom to attack Montreal seriously challenged.
A Montreal mayor demanding special status will send shock waves through the political establishment in Quebec and like Canada in its dealings with an ornery Quebec, decisions will have to be made to either placate Montreal's demands for special treatment or run the risk of sovereignty.
It is a delicious prospect that I cannot wait for and certainly a case of just desserts.

The CAQ seems to have a free hand in dealing with Montreal now, but Legault would be smart to be prudent.
Montreal remains the economic engine and the heart of Quebec, with the wherewithal to become the 11th province should it choose so.
Pushed too hard, Montreal with its clearly defined borders can easily fend for itself as a province, something that would be massively supported in the rest of Canada.

Quebec nationalists who believe that this should never be allowed to happen under any circumstances and that Montreal belongs to Quebec, need to understand that those who live by the sword can also die by the sword.
With the demographic shift marching onward,  a 50% +1 vote by those living on the island on Montreal to leave Quebec and become Canada's eleventh province can be a reality within a decade.
The new province would enjoy instant Canadian and international recognition.

So if Legault, the CAQ and its base plan to pound Montreal into becoming another Quebec City forcing the anglos and ethics to adopt the French language exclusively, abandoning their religion and singing 'Alouette' while changing their diet to steamed hot dogs, poutine and maple syrup, they are bound for miserable shock.

Montreal is not Quebec city and never will be. It is and will continue to evolve as cosmopolitan, urbane and diverse city, worthy of international stature.
Those in the CAQ and their old-stock francophone supporters in the boonies that think that they can force Montreal into becoming the backwater that the ROQ is, are doomed to failure.

So let François Legault, the eager-beaver Premier,  have his fun as he takes power believing he can reshape Montreal.
It won't take long before he realizes the limitations of his power and if he dares to play rough, it is he who will be burned.

Like George III and his Parliament found out, passing oppressive and unpopular legislation from afar, forces the imposed upon to decide whether to obey or revolt.

Montreal is too strong to acquiesce to redneck laws that are out of touch with its reality and so sooner or later, Legault may find himself facing a Montreal version of the  Boston Tea Party.

Quebec's Religious Debate Will Get Nasty

The debate over religious symbols and garb in the public space has polarized Quebecers as few issues have, sovereignty aside. People have strong opinions one way or the other and largely view the other side as extreme, dogmatic and out of touch.
It is a debate fraught with danger, with the distinct possibility that things will get awfully nasty.
As for me, I can honestly see the point of view of each camp and so I am the proverbial fence-sitter, watching the events unfold, feeling like a fan watching a hockey game between two teams that I have no interest in.

I am reminded of the scene in the movie Fiddler on the Roof, where the protagonist Tevye, is called upon to referee a difference of opinion.

I'll do something here that I haven't done in the over 1300 blog posts, that is, defend the points of view of both sides with a view to opening the debate up a little, so those stridently for or against might have a glimpse into the other sides perspective without demonization or rancour.

Let's start with something that we all should believe in, that is that religious freedom is a tenant of a free and democratic society. We are free to worship or not worship as we see fit.

But that being said, religious freedom is not absolute and where religious beliefs run counter to the law of the land, it is the civic law that prevails, something that some religiously observant people disagree with.
Religious laws and customs that provide for female circumcision, forced marriages, underage marriages, polygamy, some animal and all human sacrifices or restrictive education are not allowed. Parents cannot refuse a blood transfusion or a necessary medical procedure for their children on religious grounds, while ironically, they can refuse it for themselves. There is a fine line of reasonableness that our society walks in order to satisfy our right to religious freedom and yet insure our basic human right to health, happiness and well-being.

Restricting religious garb in public certainly runs counter to Canada's Charter of Rights but the new Premier has already stated that he's prepared to use the infamous  'Notwithstanding Clause' to sidestep those charter protections.
This represents an affront to many, who believe that opting out of the Charter is a legalized cheat.
However, it's important to note that Quebec never signed on to the Charter, which was rammed down its throat by the rest of the country.
So among Quebec francophones, both federalist or sovereigntist, using the Notwithstanding Clause is considered not only morally justified, but rather as some sweet revenge.

One of the main reasons the Parti Quebecois' Charter of Secularism failed, was because it painted too broad a stroke, banning all manner of religious garb for public and para-public employees.
The edict would apply to nurses, doctors, teachers, clerks and support staff in hospitals, government-run senior citizen residences and in fact anybody who directly or indirectly received a paycheque that ultimately came from government.
It was too ambitious a project for a minority government, which also rejected a CAQ compromise, a promise for legislative support in return for limiting such a ban to those public employees in positions of power, like police and judges.

And so now that the CAQ is in power it should be no surprise that it wants to enact a law similar to what they proposed, that is, that restrictions on religious garb be placed on those public employees in positions of power.

Why?

Well, let us consider the secularist's point of view, which is that those who wear religious garb in public, likely hold the view that God's law supersedes the law of the land, something that someone who doesn't believe in God would have a hard time accepting. It actually isn't the garb that is in conflict, but the point of view that the garb or symbols represent.

When I went to cegep, the very first year that Vanier college came into existence, we attended classes in what was clearly a Church beforehand and where crucifixes dotted the campus with the school and the government holding that these were historic and cultural symbols. Fair enough.

I had a teacher who was a nun (that probably couldn't be permitted today,) who gave a course in children's literature. She was a kind, affable, well-read and informed person who just happened to wear a full nun's cassock while teaching class. 

It did not bother or offend me, but I am forever reminded of an incident in a class where a female student was called upon to give an interpretation of a fairy tale and where her slant was that the story was an allegory for sexual power with a reference to an erect penis.

It was here that I said to myself...Whoa! This should get interesting, and it did.

The teacher had great difficulty discussing the subject and was clearly uncomfortable. She steered the discussion away from sex, but most in the class (I assume) felt as I did, that her deep religious beliefs affected her teaching, and not in a good way.

It wasn't that big a deal, but something that I remember.

And so with a judge who wears a hijab, turban or a kippa, it is fair to question whether their deep religious beliefs, beliefs that may hold that God's law trumps our civil law, will adversely affect their decision. It's a fair concern.

People who wear religious garb publicly remind us of their deep devotion to God and the accompanying baggage. While it is a personal statement made for personal reasons, there is a message that is impossible to ignore.

In some respects, it is similar to someone who wears a "Black Lives Matter" or a "Greenpeace" t-shirt. You know where these people are coming from and that is fine.

But it isn't fine for a judge to wear these articles of clothing in a court, (that is why they wear a black frock.) They may hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, but should not display them openly, lest they give the impression that their judgments will be based on these core beliefs, rather than the civil law.

The same can be said of a teacher or policeman whom all have the right to believe what they will, but should not wear those beliefs on their sleeves, lest they give the wrong impression.

And so one can understand the point of view that those public employees in a position of power (including teachers in public schools) be reasonably restricted from wearing religious paraphernalia.

But the idea that employees at the license bureau or the SAQ, or those mopping the floor in a hospital or treating patients as a technician, nurse or doctor should be restricted from wearing religious symbols is pretty much indefensible. One would have to believe that a nurse in a hijab, a doctor in a kippah or a technician in a turban could possibly have their religious beliefs impede or give the impression that the religious views could impede them from providing equal service to all.

As for the secularists who want to ban religious symbols in public buildings, especially in the National Assembly where a crucifix that sits over the speaker's chair is causing a big stink, they should remember that while the crucifix may have a Catholic heritage, there are plenty of other symbols that would have to be treated the same.

The British coat of arms that sits higher than the crucifix is topped by an Anglican crown and the inscription "Dieu et mon Droit" (God and my Right). The royal sceptre, or the "Mace" the symbol of the Queen's assent to Parliament is also crowned with an Anglican cross.
Does all this also have to go, or can we agree that these symbols have become historical vestiges that no longer have a religious connotation?
The same goes for our Quebec flag which clearly displays a Christian cross.
Should we be obliged to change the name of streets and towns that have a Christian appellation? Should the crucifix on top of Mount-Royal be removed?
Most Quebecers of francophone heritage have little affinity for the Church, with less than 5% attending church services regularly and few marrying in church or marrying at all. Baptism rates are falling precipitously and it is fair to say that the Catholic Church is pretty much done in Quebec or will be within another generation.
Why then the attachment to symbols of the past that underscored Quebec's strong bond between church and state?

Likely the answer lies not in the affinity to the Catholic Church but rather in the outrage many Quebeckers feel in being told to erase their history.

But a caveat ....

A couple of years ago I wrote a blog post about an incident I witnessed in a Canadian Tire.
A young Muslim female cashier was accosted by an old francophone bag who castigated the girl for wearing a hijab, a symbol, according to her of the young girl's enslavement.

The girl was driven to tears and I could not resist intervening, unloading on the racist bitch in the most unpleasant and cruel intervention I could muster.

This resulted in the manager intervening, removing the bleary-eyed cashier and leaving myself and the insulter to fend for ourselves.
It wasn't pleasant for any of us.

This is what we are to expect, vigilantes empowered by public policy unloading on innocent citizens based on their religious convictions.

Are you ready for that?

Is François Legault Quebec's Donald Trump?

I must say I'm taken a bit aback by the aberrant behaviour of the newly minted CAQ Premier of Quebec who unleashed a surprisingly aggressive political attitude right off the bat of his election, something that was hitherto unseen.

Throughout the campaign Legault portrayed himself as a safe, capable and comfortable politician, but his demeanour changed rapidly upon victory.

It's rather disturbing because not only are his first announced priorities inflammatory, but also ill-thought-out, as if he is excitedly shooting from the hip, like someone who's waited patiently outside the nightclub in an eternal queue only to go immediately crazy on the dance floor, once let in.

Was the whole 'I am a federalist, friend of the Anglos," nothing but a sinister ploy?'
Is Legault really a wolf in sheep's clothing, like a burlesque villain in a Marvel comic who rips off a false mask to reveal a nasty and sneering face, a triumphant scoundrel exposed once he has wormed himself into our confidence?

I'm not so sure it isn't true, and its a bit scary.

Not only are his priorities suspect, but he is displaying a tenuous grasp of the realities and limits of government, the law and the consequences of his proposals, acting very similar to Donald Trump who shoots first and asks questions later,

Let me say how disappointed I am, that even before he is sworn in as Premier he told his first political lie, actually two.

"The crucifix hanging in Quebec's National Assembly is a historical symbol, not a religious one, even though it represents the Christian values of the province's two colonial ancestors, premier-designate François Legault said Thursday."

Really, only a Donald Trump type character could dare come up with that nose-stretcher, that a depiction of Jesus on the cross under the motto of 'INRI' (signifying that a true Christian lies here)  is not a religious symbol.
The second lie he told is that the crucifix and the Quebec flag references historical Catholic AND Protestant influence on Quebec, are an utterly blatant lie.

"We have a cross on our flag. I think that we have to understand that our past, we had Protestants, Catholics, they built the values we have in Quebec. François Legault said Thursday."

Is Legault  actually pedalling the falsehood that Premier Maurice Duplessis installed the crucifix in the National Assembly to honour Protestant contributions to Quebec as well as Catholic, rather than to underline Quebec's holy commitment to state Catholicism?

When Duplessis and the infamous Abbé Lionel Groulx sat down in 1948 to create a distinctive Quebec flag, do you think they were honouring the contribution of Quebec Protestants in creating the modern Fleur-de-Lys flag.
Not only an absurd idea, but a patent lie.
Congratulations Mr Legault, in the vernacular of the vulgar, as Premier-elect you've broken your cherry of truthfulness.

As for his promise to reduce immigration from 50,000 per year to 40,000, he is actually shooting Quebec in the foot.
There is no way Justin Trudeau will lower the current level of Immigration from 300,000 to 290,000 to accommodate Legault, those immigrants will just go to the rest of Canada with painful effect.
Given that about 20% of the current 50,000 immigrants Quebec receives each year skedaddle out of Quebec to greener pastures in other provinces, the effect of the demographic loss will be amplified.

Let us do some math.
Canada accepts 300,000 immigrants of which (under Legault) 40,000 will come to Quebec, of which 8,000 will move away to other provinces.
That means that in ten years English Canada will grow by 2,700,000 people and Quebec will grow by 320,000 or just 12% of the immigrants.
By reducing immigration to Quebec, Legault will be exacerbating an already bad situation where Quebec's proportion of Canada's population is shrinking.

As for kicking out immigrants who don't adopt, I can't think of a stupider idea politically.
Imagine the photo op of those poor rejected shlubs with packed bags and crying children being trundling onto a flight out of Quebec like a criminal deportee.
More likely they will be accepted like heroes at the Ontario border with an enthusiastic welcome, another disastrous photo op for Quebec.

As for banning religious headgear, Legault has charged full-steam ahead into shark-infested waters. Telling us that he'll ban religious regalia for public employees in positions of power, he has forgotten or never understood that he cannot tell judges what or what not to wear and he cannot invoke the notwithstanding clause against the courts which are independent.
As for people in positions of power being banned from wearing religious symbols, he has said that it will include judges, policemen, prison guards and teachers in the public system.
Suspiciously absent is politicians from his list because banning an elected official from serving would be a United Nations human rights disaster.

At any rate, Legault is lurching forward and backward, now offering a grandfather clause to those already in the system. The idea of some teacher in a hijab being escorted out of a school by police, perhaps too much of a political disaster to anticipate.

Being Premier is no easy task and there are few easy solutions to complex situations where the interests of all Quebecers must be balanced.

I hope Legault's early blunders serve him as a wake-up call that he hasn't got the cat by the tail and that good governing is a lot more complicated than he anticipated.

But I'm not getting a good vibe, his nasty statement that Quebec is a nation and can decide for itself without consideration that it is a Canadian entity is troubling because he gave opposite signals during the election campaign.

I like the quality of the potential cabinet members from which he will pull together and I hope they will serve to calm down Legault's impetuous nature and perhaps convince him to get off the dance floor until he has learned some better moves.

Rise of Quebec Solidaire a Gift to Federalists

The Quebec provincial election was not surprising for the fact that pollsters once again got it woefully wrong and miscalculated the popular vote falling outside the famous so-called margin of error of plus or minus 4%. Claiming that their polls are accurate to 4% points nine times out of ten is becoming a recurring joke, as I can't remember when a Quebec election prediction that fell within this norm.
At any rate, the results shouldn't be surprising, Liberal backbenchers and ministerial defections before the election presaged the upcoming Liberal debacle.

But the majority CAQ government is a good thing for federalists as a minority government would be subject to blackmail by the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire, thus elevating both parties to relevancy and a measure of control.
 So federalists should take joy that Quebec Solidaire improved its showing beyond the lunatic fringe, adding disgruntled PQ sovereigntists to the fold, thus splitting the separatist vote, casting both parties into oblivion, having both failed to reach party status. Failing to win twelve seats or twenty percent of the popular vote means that Quebec Solidaire and Parti Quebecois members will have to sit as independents and although the ruling CAQ may grant an exception as has been done in the past, I don't think Francois Legault is in that generous a mood.

But let's dig into the numbers a bit;

Here's how the election actually finished.

As you can clearly see, the CAQ forms a majority government with the Liberals in opposition and both the PQ and QS forced to sit as independents.

But consider if the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Solidaire actually merged as was proposed a while back and that their respective votes were combined.
The assumption isn't a stretch, I can't see any of a combined QS/PQ coalition losing any of it's combined strength to the CAQ or Liberals.
In fact, an alliance of sovereigntists might even attract those apathetic and disgruntled sovereigntist voters who just gave up voting in frustration.

This is what the election results would look like if we were to combine the PQ and QS votes.

And so the QS/PQ alliance would have won party status and a combined 19 seats which is less shabby a performance than what actually happened. The 34% popular vote is respectable and probably lines up with the reality of those who continue to support sovereignty.

But here is the gigantic kicker.
I reviewed the voting tallies riding by riding and if the votes of the PQ and QS were to be combined, it would have significantly affected the outcome in twelve ridings where the CAQ winner would have been upended by the QS/PQ candidate.

Yup, in all of the twelve ridings listed below, the CAQ winner would be replaced by the PQ/QS candidate who polled more combined votes than the actual winner.

For example, in Bourget, the CAQ candidate Richard Campeau, won with just 27.5% of the vote, while the PQ's Mako Kotto lost with 26% of the vote and QS candidate Marlène Lessard lost with 24% of the vote.
Had the PQ and QS votes been united, the riding would have gone to them easily with a vote count of 50.4%
Amazing!

These are the twelve ridings won by the CAQ, that would have gone over to a PQ /QS coalition.

St. Jean
Abitibi-Ouest
Bourget
Gaspé
labelle
Saint-Jean
Pointe-aux-Trembles
Saint-François
Maurice-Richard
Lac-Saint-Jean
Taillon
Ungava
Verchères

 If that happened, look at what the National Assembly standing would be today, a minority CAQ government.

Yes, anglos will have no representation in this CAQ government but on the other hand, those Anglos in the former Liberal government were complete sell-outs, kowtowing to the party line which disdained English and Anglophones in general, so it is no real step backward.

As for Francois Legault, it remains to be seen from where he governs from.
Will he stay true to his nature and expose himself as another Doug Ford, or will he moderate and rule closer to the center, albeit from the right side.

I look forward to seeing this government with a free hand and a fresh start and want to officially thank Quebec Solidaire for doing so well, thus paving the way for four years of peaceful, responsible government.

To all the idiots and fools who voted for the wacky and loony Quebec Solidaire, we federalists should all give them a heartfelt thank-you.

In Defence of Montreal Bagels

The Montreal food world is in an uproar after a New York food writer and ex-New York Times food critic insulted Montreal-type bagels in a flippant and cavalier slam.

"Former New York Times food critic Mimi Sheraton stirred up a ruckus on Twitter Thursday night after criticizing Montreal-style bagels, complaining that “it’s like chewing glass.”
It all started when a former Montrealer and current New York Times writer, Adam Gopnik, claimed that the best bagels are the wood-fired ones Montreal is famous for.
Sheraton chimed in, slammed our famous bagels and the reactions from Montrealers on Twitter are priceless." Link

The reaction on Twitter by Montreal natives was swift and vicious, as one might expect when an insult so deep and hurtful is gratuitously proffered.
I don't know Ms. Sheraton, but her credentials are impressive and so the tweet probably goes along the lines of a good troll, meant to elicit a lively reaction bringing with it the attached notoriety, publicity that every writer needs in order to sell books.

Could you imagine the reaction of New Yorkers if a Montreal travel writer mentioned in a column that the Statue of Liberty was decidedly ugly and obscene?

As for the bagels, I'll not get into the comparisons as food tastes vary and my mom taught me that if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all.

But on second thought, I shall do just that, that is troll New York City food in order to assuage the rage and frustration of Montreal food lovers in response to the hurtful tweet.

Now I'm no expert like Ms. Shereton, but I do travel to New York City many times a year to visit family and eat out more often there, than in Montreal. I don't eat at the Michelin-starred restaurants that NYC boasts because these few establishments are unrepresentative and grossly over-priced and require a couple of hours at the table, an experience I eschew.

But when it comes to the rest of the food scene, Montreal is equal or better than NYC, where middle-priced restaurants in Montreal are just plain better than their counterparts in New York.

As for that sophisticated New York foodie, it is a sad myth. New Yorkers eat trash that Montrealers would never touch.

Let's start with the lower end, where disgusting food carts do a booming business selling gross looking mystery meats cooked up on an unsanitary looking grill by a guy who doesn't bother to wear a hat and who handles the money and the food bare-handed without a second thought.
The famous New York hot-dogs carts, serve over-boiled dogs directly out of a pool of dirty looking slimy hot water topped with globules of floating fat. Ugh!!
Other staples like frighteningly greyish shawarma accompanied by a warmish bottle of water or coke, are meals only a New Yorker could tolerate.
As for street food, NYC boasts just about the most disgusting offerings in THE WORLD and cannot compare to cities like LA or Miami, where street food is an art.

The famous hot dogs at the Papaya King are terrible and the service and attitude obscene.
Most of the offerings and toppings can best be described as slop. What Montrealer would actually want to eat the hot dog pictured here?

Now the world-famous Nathan's at Coney Island is just about the worst fast food restaurant I've ever eaten at.
I can understand tourists wanting to be a part of the famous Nathan's lore, but how locals can eat here is beyond the pale.
There isn't one item on the menu that is in the least bit palatable with a special mention of the waffle fries being the worst.

As for New York's best fast food burger joint, the Shake Shack, hamburgers are indeed delicious, but everything else sucks, especially the crinkle fries that are so dry that they taste like cardboard and require mounds of ketchup to get down.

There isn't a poutinerie in Montreal that doesn't beat the heck out of New York fast food joints for taste variety and value.

Now the reason I dwell on the New York food cart industry is that it is omnipresent. Every street corner has its version of these eyesores. It seems that half of New York eats at these shitholes, a sad testament to the New Yorker palate.

As for New York bagels which I promised not to critique,,,, well I lied.
The hallmark of a New York bagel is huge lead-like dough ball with a tiny hole in the middle so as to better carry the massive amount of fillings that are required to balance out the dryness. New York bagels are indistinguishable from any other plain bread product, with zero personality and zero oomph. Toasted, they taste like white bread..ugh.

Montreal bagels are really two treats in one. Toasted they are light and delicious, where a dash of topping is all that required to bring out the best. A Montreal bagel, well-toasted or lightly toasted is sublime, whether topped by a dash of jam, cream cheese or classic European churned butter.
But the real culinary treat is when Montreal bagels are bought fresh out of the wood-fired oven (something that doesn't exist in New York.) The delicate bagels are placed in an open paper bag (so as to let the bagels cool slowly) which ultimately leads to the baker's dozen turning into twelve on the trip home. New Yorkers aren't sophisticated enough to fathom a Montreal bagel because, in New York, bagels have to be obscenely massive.
The only similar experience I can compare to a fresh-out-of-the-oven Montreal bagel is that which every Frenchman enjoys in France.
On a Paris holiday, I skipped the hotel and went across the street to a café that served freshly-baked baguette with outstanding European butter and a generous wedge of Camembert. Delicious!
This delicate bread experience is something New Yorkers are never able to comprehend because everything has to be over-sized, over-salted, over-spiced and over-stuffed.

The only redeeming factor in the bagel scene in New York is the famous but fading in popularity bialy, which when freshly baked is something special, but a product that doesn't toast well and so is an ethereal but fleeting experience at best.

As for the vaunted New York pizza scene, all I can say is pizza is pizza and most of us have our personal favourite type, be it regular, thin-crust, deep dish or Napoli style. The street version of New York pizza is that sloppy gooey mess of a slice that needs to be folded over in order to eat. Okay, but nothing to write home about.
You can find as good or better pizza in just about every single North American city.
At the top of the heap are the over-rated famous NYC pizza joints that live on reputation and so can charge an arm and a leg. Di Fara's is perhaps the most renowned, charging a whopping $38 ($50 Canadian) for a four topping extra-large.
Only an idiot New Yorker with more money than sense would pay that much considering that there are dozens of other pizza joints in the city making pizza as good or better for less than half the price.
But reputation is everything in New York, where over-paying is the rule, where money replaces taste as a criterion.

Take for example the famous Peter Luger steakhouse in Brooklyn where tourists flock and uniformed richnicks blow an exorbitant amount of money on steaks that are good, but no better than most fine steak-house across America. To boot the side dishes liked steamed broccoli are exorbitantly priced yet are pedestrian and uninspired. Bah!
If you are looking for a better place to blow big bucks on steak try M. Wells Steakhouse in the Bronx, which actually owns a Michelin star and is described by the famous Michelin guide "with its distinct French-Canadian culinary influence," It is of course run by Montreal expatriate chef Hugue Dufour.

Miami has a lively Cuban food culture, New Orleans has sublime cajun, Boston is seafood and LA and environs have a bold Mexican food environment. All delightful and original.
What is New York famous for?
Deli.
A lost food culture that is in its death throes. Where the once hundreds and hundreds of Jewish style delis populated just about every neighbourhood, New York is now reduced to about a dozen or two dinosaurs where innovation is a dirty word and where the same old, same old has less and less appeal.
The one bright light is the innovative and brass Mile End Deli in Borem Hill, where ex-Montrealers (who else) have brought traditional Montreal Jewish deli to New York with an updated and fresh approach.

King of the hill is the famous Katz's Deli on the lower east sides of "When Harry met Sally" fame. Sadly it is a dreary military-like mess hall atmosphere where sullen New Yorkers wolf down crappy food with nary a look left or right.
Katz's reminds me of BEN'S deli in Montreal, which while full of lore and a deep history suffered and ultimately closed because the food just wasn't that good.
On a late night, after-wedding nosh at Katz's our group was singularly unimpressed with the service and the food. My turkey sandwich was dry as a bone and the matzah-ball in my chicken soup was stone cold.
Unacceptable.

Probably the only deli of interest is Junior's, a massive old-style Jewish deli converted to Jack of all trades, where the food isn't anything special, but the experience delightful. Junior's safeguards the New York reputation of excess, where an egg salad sandwich is eight inches high and probably consists of a dozen eggs and a cup of mayonnaise. While the food isn't great, the people watching is. It is mesmerizing to see people put away so much food, an experience that will have you shaking your head.

I won't bother describing the rest of the food scene but will offer that Los Angeles, Miami and New Orleans all have a style and personality that is unique, fresh and exciting, something sadly lacking in New York.

As for middle-of-the-road restaurants, I've never had a meal in New York where I've commented that you can't get that in Montreal, but the opposite is true.
New York restaurants are generally uninspired, over-priced, over-crowded and staffed by an arrogant uninterested, rude and surly waitstaff.
It is, I suppose a badge of honour that New Yorkers wear with pride. Have at it.

As for Montreal bagels tasting like glass, all I can say is that New York bagels taste like shit.