Illegal guides are multiplying in the city
Some people offering to guide tours around Montreal are doing it illegally, without a permit or the legally required training. You’re not supposed to undertake this work without training from the ITHQ.
-
Kate
Reply
Daniel 10:19 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
“M. Nissen dénonce ces plateformes internationales qui ne facturent pas la TPS et la TVQ à leurs clients et qui affichent des sites internet souvent uniquement en anglais.”
Hard to say which is the graver sin — dodging taxes or communicating with visitors in English.
And without wishing to diminish the work tour guides do, is it really something that requires 240 hours (and $2500) of training?
shawn 10:30 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
Yes, I was amused by how a good deal of the early outrage was simply these ‘illegal’ tour guides describing Montreal as a bilingual or multicultural city. The horror!
Yes then there’s stuff later on, which is more truly ridiculous, such as the USSR pavilion being an Old Montreal? That’s so ridiculous. I’m not even sure I believe it.
The interviewee is nitpicking about Notre-Dame Cathedral. Architect James O’Donnell was anglophone. Irish-American yes but English-speaking. In fact, he had to convert from Anglicanism (i.e. Church of England) to Roman Catholicism to be entombed there. So come on.
The article seems to me to be as much about the need to erase the anglophone presence in Montreal when talking to tourists as anything else.
I’m think I’m rooting for the illegals, once again.
Kate 10:58 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
I looked into it at one time, but you need all that training, and they require that you speak not only English and French but a third language, not specified. So I’d have to have started by learning (probably) Spanish, even before starting the course. Mandarin would be more useful, probably.
(I’d had an idea for a guided tour of the underground city, since tourists are primed to have great expectations of it, before I knew the trade was so controlled – in theory.)
shawn, thanks for pointing that out. I’m always cautious about sounding like a paranoid anglo, but they do seem to have a party line about what’s expressable, officially.
Tim S. 11:06 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
My take on the article is that if we do need a certification system (I’m a tad dubious), then it should be run by one/some/all of the four university history departments in this city and not the ITHQ. Could be a pretty good job for lots of students.
shawn 11:13 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
“il n’y a pas plus église catholique française que la basilique Notre-Dame !” is such a slight too to all of the prominent church architecture that we do have from Catholic French-Canadian architects.
Meezly 11:31 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
If I hadn’t read the article, I would’ve thought it was all about language based on the comments. There was some eye-rolling nitpickiness to be sure, but I have seen the gangs of tourists on electric scooters crowding the bike paths and doing down alleys where children are playing in the Mile End, and it’s really quite obnoxious. I’d wholeheartedly support the crackdown on that!
There are often two kinds of tour guides: the for-profit professional tour guide and volunteers who are associated with a historical society or non-profit organization. Even volunteer guides require a minimum amount of training.
If I’m paying upwards of $280 sans tip for a 3-hour tour, that guide better be knowledgeable about what he’s talking about or showing me. But if I’m a naive tourist, how would I know it? It’s the same thing with the illegal AirBnBs, Montreal is considered an international destination, yet our local governments are seriously lacking in any vetting infrastructure for the tourist industry.
Nicholas 11:50 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
It’s clear that sometime trained for 240 hours is much more likely to be a more knowledgeable tour guide, and if I was paying $300 for a 3-hour tour with no food or entrance fees I’d absolutely want that. But it seems the complaints were not just about not knowing things (and sneakily shortening the tour, false advertising), but how the professional guide would do it differently. There are wrong ways, but there is no right way to teach history, talk about politics or guide a tour, even if the official guides think there is. It can even be interesting to do the same tour twice with different guides to see how they differ.
Quebec tends to over-license, and this is an area where I think you could make it optional and, say, require everyone to state in their ads whether the tour guide is an officially licensed/trained guide or not, and let people decide. This feels like gatekeeping history, and our city.
Not sure why it was relevant to say they booked a guide from France who’s lived here two years and got a guide from Brazil who’s lived here six years. Presumably they must have been happy with the switch, getting someone who’s been here three times as long, though not sure why they pointed out where the people were from originally….
Meezly 13:36 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
There are indeed wrong ways, that if unchecked or unregulated, can be very damaging. We’ve already the destruction that Uber and AirBnB have left in their wake and are continuing to make. Quebec may tend to over-license, but I would argue that it’s not always for the right things.
There shouldn’t be any gatekeeping of history, but we need a way of ensuring that an upstart illegal operation isn’t disrupting a local industry that depends on accreditation to make a living, or disrupting the quality of life for the locals.
Whenever I’m in doubt about how QC/MTL should be doing things, I google how other places are dealing with problems. I see things like legal tour companies in Malaysia cutting costs to compete with illegal ones as they have to pay for licensing, insurance and complying with labor laws resulting in rising costs and a drop in quality for the end customer, not to mention how it’s damaging the industry.
Then you have more extreme examples in NWT, where illegal fishing and hunting tours are causing havoc, not just with legal tour operators, but with the local ecosystem.
These are the kinds of things that a local government should have some oversight over. And I gotta say, that La Presse article was terribly written and researched. They could’ve went deeper with the hordes of electric scooters. If they’re illegal businesses that are allowing inexperienced riders to operate scooters, how are they dealing with insurance waivers? What happens if there’s an accident? Instead they went with the stupid trivial complaints. I see the issue being much larger than what La Presse is covering.
Kate 18:49 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
[Points at city hall] This is Céline Dion’s house…
Joey 18:50 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
I thought the article was pretty good. Add it to the pile of recent stories that suggest that more and more people and businesses in Montreal are ignoring the rules that ostensibly apply to them, and more and more levels of government simply refuse to enforce their rules. Or perhaps I’m just getting older…
Orr 21:38 on 2023-04-16 Permalink
I am not a tour guide but I have given guided tours. These are not the same thing. A tour guide authority cannot prevent me from using my university degree in economic history to give an economic history lesson walking tour of Montreal. I have the right to free speech to disseminate information to the public as an independent scholar and this applies equally to a public lecture hall or outside on the street. And in the language of my choice.
jeather 10:26 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
I think we can fairly distinguish between “a tour guide has to have a permit” (possibly reasonable for insurance and liability reasons) and “all tour guides must have taken this same course”. (I’m looking up the absolutely nuts clothing requirements for tour guides.) Though it points out that the only cities in North America which require a permit are Montreal, Quebec City and NYC.
There was a whole pile of stories/podcasts that came out about requiring licensing for things that probably don’t need it, especially when the license comes with a hefty education requirement, and even more so when the education requirement isn’t actually covering what you’re doing. (Offhand, the articles I remember were about hair braiding. Unsurprisingly, the courses did not cover African hair styles or care, but you still had to take them.
Nicholas 11:12 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
If people giving tours are illegally hunting and fishing or illegally violating labour laws or illegally not collecting taxes or illegally blocking rights of way, the authorities have laws on the books to deal with that for everyone (which are actually enforced, at least more than the tour guide laws). I do (or should) not need a license to tutor someone privately, rake leaves or suggest what colour people should paint their walls. We have licences for fields where significant harm can occur (construction, law, medicine). When the harm is minimal, voluntary associations and word of mouth and reviews work fine: if you do a bad job no one will hire you. Are we going require courses for busking and caricaturists? Are we going to make chefs take courses not in food safety but food style? (Fun fact: the National Restaurant Association in the US runs a semi-mandatory food safety course and uses the profits from it to lobby against higher wages for restaurant workers!) If the ITHQ and official tour guides are concerned about others giving tours, maybe they should better advertise their value, get hotel clerks to tell guests the benefits of official tour guides, etc.
But what licensing in these low-harm fields usually does is make it hard for newcomers, especially low-income and less privileged people, to work, and protect the incumbents from competition. I understand why they want the system to continue as is, but is the tour guide situation in DC or Boston or Ottawa bad enough without licensing that we need to keep it here?
Daniel 11:46 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Exactly, Nicholas. This seems WAY more like an industry protection racket than, what, a safety or even quality thing? As you say, there are laws on the books to deal with taxes, nuisance, etc.
And what are these licensed people supposed to say? Of course having paid the money and gone through the training themselves, they aren’t fans of those who haven’t! It’s understandable to a point, even if the whole thing is ridiculous.
jeather 12:26 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Nicholas, I don’t disagree with you, but of course there are (were?) permits for busking. I can see the concern for permits, because you are in public and there might be liability issues — I’m not convinced it’s necessary, but I can see the argument. I agree with you fully about licensing. This is one of the podcasts I remember about over licensing.
CE 17:40 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
I’m a certified Montreal tour guide, I did the ITHQ course and have the permit and APGT membership. It baffles me as to why so many commenters here are against the rules that are in place governing my profession!
Let’s start with the ITHQ course. To answer Daniel’s question, I believe the course produces very good guides who, for the most part, do an excellent job showing visitors the city. I worked in another city before doing the course and the difference in quality of the tours I gave is night and day. I feel embarrassed by the tours I gave before. The course makes sure that guides are knowledgable and articulate but also ensures they know how to give a tour that is as unobtrusive and safe as possible (although I admit that some guide don’t always seem to remember what they were taught). This applies to both walking/biking tours and bus tours. The application process for this course is competitive and many different skillsets are taken into account when choosing applicants such as being able to speak a third language (although only about half the students in my cohort were more than bilingual) which is based on what the industry is asking for. The number of students who graduate help control the number of guides working in the industry, which is both good for the guides and the tourists who hire them.
Moving onto permit and APGT membership requirements, the permit simply proves that a guide has done the course and is in good standing (ie hasn’t broken the rules governing the profession). APGT membership allows us industry-wide protection for pay as they put out a price guide every year which helps us ensure we’re not underselling our labour. They run conferences and field trips so we can continue to learn about different aspects of the city, and members get insurance in case anything happens on a tour. The social aspect of membership in a professional organisation also can’t be understated. The money paid for the membership is well worth it and ensures that Montreal has very good guides.
I think this backlash against tour guides having a “protection racket” has more to do with the shift in how society views labour, as well as a movement away from “profesionalization” of professions. More and more, we believe that anyone can and should be able to do any job no matter their level of expertise or training. Do you have a car? You can be a taxi driver. Do you have space in your house, congrats, you’re an hotelier! Planning a trip? Who needs a professional travel agent when you can do it yourself on Expedia. Have the latest iPhone? You’re a photographer! Etc, etc. We tend to look at the benefits of this shift (which is almost exclusively lower prices) without thinking of the lower quality outcomes that result.
It’s discouraging to see that after four decades of neoliberalism, and the last 15 years of techno-disruption, even people who tend to lean left of centre (most of the commenters here), see the protections granted to tour guides not as something akin to a union, but as a racket or cartel that should be dismantled.
shawn 18:18 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
I hear that, CE. Yeah, I just had a visceral reaction against the anti-English framing of the article, which seem to be more in tone with Québecor than La Presse.
But I do now have a better appreciation of what trained tour guides bring to their jobs.
Tim S. 19:16 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Interesting perspective about professionalization CE, but I’m still worried that one institution seems to have set itself up as a gatekeeper for the proper understanding of our city. A quick look at the AGPT website suggests that only the ITHQ offers the course. I tried poking around on the ITHQ website to see who they had teaching guides (any professional historians/urbanists?) but didn’t get very far.
(Also, the English translation on the AGPT website was not great, which considering their role and how many people in this city could do a competent translation, says something in itself)
Nicholas, thanks for your post, it’s given me some things to think about.
jeather 19:51 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Thinking “everyone must take this same course from this one school” isn’t actually a huge bonus does not mean that we disapprove of any protections for tour guides whatsoever.
Daniel 21:00 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Interesting perspectives. Good in particular to hear from you, CE. You’ve given me food for thought. I still do think it’s over-regulated, but by way of disclosure I’ve made my living in unregulated jobs (editor and then author) and I come from a place with less government intervention in general. And I’ve made money from a gig economy side job (no, not uber or airbnb). So that’s all certainly informed my perspective.
And, fwiw, I definitely want my doctor, dentist, pharmacist. pilot, lawyer, real estate agent and more licensed; I’m not some free market fanboy. (Not that anyone said I was!)
Kate 21:12 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
Yes, thank you, CE.
Nicholas 22:28 on 2023-04-17 Permalink
I appreciate all the perspectives. When talking about this and labour in general, I think there are a few related issues it’s important to think about.
Unionization: may be by employer or by industry. You have to join to work there. There is no limit in membership, and no training or licensing requirements per se.
Permitting: this term is a little squishy, but here I’ll take it to mean registering with the government. It’s like setting up a business, but for a specific type of job: you pay a fee, get a number, and promise to follow the rules and be responsive to complaints, etc.
Licensing: you need a license to perform the work. Usually issued by one body, often filled with people who already have the licence. Often requires significant expense and training. Number of licensees are usually limited.
Some jobs don’t require any of these, some require all three, and some are a mix. Unionization is one way to keep salaries and benefits up, and you don’t need licensing or permitting, because you have a company (and union) that can monitor and self-enforce this (though you could have this). If you’re working on your own, whether as a shopkeeper or a tour guide, you have no boss so you can only unionize across a sector, and that’s harder to organize.
Licensing and permitting can be helpful for independent, or even group, jobs, but most people will want to limit those requirements somewhere. Should we require it for tutoring, babysitting, hockey refereeing, gardening, playing a show, lemonade stands? Sure, we could say caring for children is important and we want some oversight, but while you’d expect that for a company, I don’t think fining 14 year olds watching or tutoring their neighbours because they haven’t taken a course and filed a permit (or joined a union) is going to be popular. At some point people will want the ability to be free to do paid tasks themselves, even if they aren’t a libertarian.
I don’t doubt that a non-trained, non-licensed tour guide will do a worse job than a trained one. I also don’t doubt the law requires licensing, but I ask if it should. You need to be licensed if you want to referee a hockey game licensed by Hockey Canada, but there’s no limit to the number of referees, the training happens over a weekend and costs like $100. And unlicensed people are not banned by law from taking some money to throw on some stripes to keep a pickup game clean.
The question here is whether we should use the power of government to stop people from taking money to talk to others about our city as they lead them around it unless they spend $2,500 and six weeks full-time learning from a single approved program that self-selects its guild members and keeps them limited. (And I won’t go into all the problematic hate keeping, usually of recent immigrants but also minorities in general, that licencing often leads to in other fields.) I think if you want to do that you should to show that other methods don’t work. There could be permitting with a number, and we could require guides to wear the permit number and a phone number or website so people can effectively complain about the bad ones. We could have a website of all the guides with rankings and specialties, or even their names (which would be a nice thing for APGT to do, but it seems they keep that private for members only, though other sites allow people to list). I just don’t see the harm, which is people buying something they didn’t end up liking and learning some incorrect pieces of trivia, justifies a licensing regime. It’s not like the unofficial taxis that are kidnapping people or places that are serving uncooked meat, or people failing to stop two hockey players from giving each other a concussion.
Sorry to go on so long, and I understand that people may disagree. But after going on paid and unpaid and official and unofficial tours in various cities, I don’t see the need here, and hope this story backfires and they change the law. (But I doubt it.) And I hope that the good tour guides keep getting business because they’re good at their jobs, not because they’re the only ones allowed to do this job.
CE 11:04 on 2023-04-18 Permalink
Regarding the ITHQ course, the teachers change each time it’s offered, which is why there isn’t a lot of information on the website.
The course itself is broken up into a few different sections. For many years, the urbanism/architecture section was taught by David Hanna who is a very well respected professor and researcher. Other sections are usually taught by guides who have a background in the topic.
I’m not entirely sure I understand the criticism of the course. Many schools teach tourism and many people who take the tour guide course have taken those courses. This course is a technical program specifically to work as a tour guide in Montreal. The content is either very specific (how to direct a bus driver while giving a tour, where to stand when talking about something, how to build a route, etc.) or gives a broad overview of different topics that could come up in a tour (architecture, history, public art, etc). There isn’t really anything controversial that comes up and teachers are open to discussing different points of view and are aware that different guides are going to have their own biases. Logistically and practically, I don’t see how it would make sense to offer this course at a second school or what the benefit of doing so would be.
Rob Costigan 16:36 on 2024-06-06 Permalink
And now, the one institution that offers the course is not offering it for 2024-25 and therefore completely controlling the supply of tour guides into the market.
CE 18:16 on 2024-06-06 Permalink
The course is offered every other year. It’s been that way for a long time.