English button

January 31, 2014

To the Members of La Guilde des Musiciens et Musiciennes du Québec, Local 406, AFM:

We’ve been informed by the Guild that the December General Meeting of the Guild passed a motion to conduct a referendum of the membership on whether or not to remain in the AFM.  Though not surprised, we are deeply disappointed.  This motion appears to be the culmination of a deliberate crafting of events over the past couple of years designed specifically to obtain this result.  This letter will put before you facts and information that may not have been given a full airing up until now.

The International Executive Board (IEB) and the Guild’s elected leadership have been discussing the Local 406’s unique advantages and challenges under the provincial Status of the Artist for more than twenty years.  The Guild’s current leadership claims that income isn’t sufficient to cover both the Federation affiliation fees and to meet the various obligations prescribed under the provincial Status of the Artist Act.

Recognizing both the unique advantages and corresponding responsibilities that Local 406 has under Status, the IEB has acted to support Local 406 in many ways.  Among those were grants of several thousand dollars to pay for French translation of union documents; a reclassification of electronic agreements negotiated under Status as local agreements – thereby allowing Local 406 to retain funds that would otherwise be payable to the Federation as recording work dues; and hiring an Associate Director of Symphonic Services in Canada, who was assigned to work exclusively from Local 406’s offices and help negotiate with the large number of orchestras within the province.  In addition, my predecessor funded the legal fees for several ongoing Local 406 negotiations.

Still, the Guild leadership maintained that this was insufficient and that they required further subsidy from the IEB.  Over the past two years, the Guild leadership has presented two different proposals to the IEB:  One was for the AFM to return $180,000 per year to the Guild, and the other, in the form of a resolution to the AFM Convention, was to discontinue its status as a Local of the AFM and instead become a “non-local affiliate,” which would relieve the Guild of thousands of dollars annually in Federation per capita and work dues.

Frankly, the problem with both of these proposals as put forth is that the Federation requires those funds, from every local, for its operation.  Everyone pays taxes to pay for their government; and every local pays per capita and work dues to support the Federation.  To relieve the Guild of its financial responsibilities when every other local in this Federation still pays their appropriate share would be unfair, and could start a chain reaction that would cripple our union.

The Guild leadership says they need a staff of lawyers in order to discharge their obligations under Status.  Staff lawyers are expensive.  The Guild can’t afford them, and the Federation would be hard pressed to subsidize them.  Looking for a mutual solution, last year the IEB offered to join with Local 406 in proposing to last year’s AFM Convention an extra $2 in Federation per capita.  The additional $160-$180K it could have generated would have been specifically allocated to fund necessary staff through a proposed service agreement between the Guild and the Federation, allowing the AFM to provide the necessary assistance to the Guild as required under Status.  Let me be clear about this:  The IEB offered to put its full weight behind a proposal for every member of this Federation to help Local 406, to the tune of an extra $2 per year per member.

I believe that this strategy could have succeeded.  The delegates to this last convention were in a mood to properly fund programmes that would successfully propel the AFM well into the future, and I think they would have happily approved an extra $2 to help out the local of their brothers and sisters in Quebec.  Unfortunately, the delegates did not get that opportunity.  The Guild leadership rejected the IEB’s offer, and instead proposed that the Convention permit the Guild to be affiliated with the AFM without being a local, and thereby avoid paying what other locals pay to be part of the Federation.  As we had previously counselled the Guild leadership, the Convention delegates were not at all enthusiastic about that proposal.  However, upon hearing the plight of Local 406, the Convention, rather than voting “yea or nay” on the resolution, placed the matter back in the hands of the IEB and instructed it to find a workable solution.

The IEB took up the matter at its next meeting, which was in November of 2013.   Determining that the resolution to allow locals to become watered-down “affiliates” of the AFM was not in the best interests of the union or its members, the IEB instead proposed meeting again with the Guild leadership in late January, 2014, to again try to find a mutually-workable solution.  Knowing that emotions could run high, the IEB even suggested that we use legal counsels for Local 406 and the AFM to mediate, answer legal, Status and labour code questions and ensure that when the meetings concluded, a workable agreement would have been reached.  The Guild leadership rejected the offer to meet, and instead presided over the December meeting’s motion to hold a referendum to secede from the AFM, and become a separate entity.  We have to believe that this was the agenda all along.


Should the Guild disaffiliate from the AFM, its members would no longer be eligible for many of the services and benefits to which they are now entitled.  These include, to name but a few:

  • Access to CFM/AFM negotiated agreements (e.g. Sound Recording Labor Agreement, National Film Board, CBC outside Québec, Motion Picture and TV Film, Canadian Content Production Rules ((CCPR)) and Commercial Announcements) and subsequent reuse and New Use payments;
  • Emergency travel assistance and Roadgig services when travelling outside Québec;
  • CFM–endorsed instrument, liability and travel insurance;
  • Strike fund for currently participating orchestras;
  • Special Payments Fund (on sound recordings);
  • Film Musicians’ Secondary Markets Fund;
  • Continued participation in the Musicians’ Pension Fund of Canada could be in jeopardy;
  • The ability to be included on contracts with AFM members;
  • The ability to obtain P-2 visas through the AFM for work in the United States;
  • GoPro Music, GoPro Lessons, GoPro Tunes and GoPro Hosting;
  • Booking through AFM Entertainment;
  • Lester Petrillo Fund, providing financial assistance to musicians with medical disabilities.

As a working musician, are these benefits things you can afford to lose?

Please realize and appreciate that as a member of the AFM, you currently have the best of both worlds.  Local 406 negotiates on your behalf, in both official languages within Québec, while the AFM covers all other engagements in Canada and the US.  Disaffiliation means you would be without representation or protection outside Québec, because you could not maintain membership in both.

Labour is under attack globally.  To separate from and fragment the AFM will have negative repercussions for all musicians throughout Canada and the United States.   We should be organizing and solidifying our position as the largest entertainment organization in the world, working to improve the standards we have fought for and maintained since 1896.  Solidarity means together, not apart!

I ask you to consider carefully, because it is in the best interests of your career as a professional musician to remain with us.  Please vote against disaffiliation, stay with the AFM, and let’s mobilize 17,000 Canadian members!

Sincerely and fraternally,


Alan Willaert
AFM Vice-President from Canada

37 thoughts on “Home

  1. I read this e mail thoroughly and in view of the people that run the province of Quebec and the mentality that I have had to be exposed to for decades with regard to separation
    and now the most serious charter of values situation, all this is not a surprise and just adds to the further incompetence. The frustration of having to deal from the AFM’s side
    I don’t envy.

    I joined 406 maybe over 45 years ago and having the experience of wages set and contracts taken care of among other services was a blessing and one as a young musician I probably took for granted.

    All very very unfortunate and so my main question and concern is that my monthly pension will remain in force. At the age of 69 the importance of this monthly income
    cannot be measured in this e mail

    Good luck to the AFM

    Leon Aronson #00064

    1. What would be the possibility of Montreal Musicians wanting to remain in the CFM, to be able to join the Ottawa Local 180?
      Bill Gobby

  2. This is a very bad idea. I quite frankly don’t understand the motive behind local 406 leaving the AFM. In my opinion there is no factor that makes local 406 distinct among AFM locals. Local 406 is the first local I ever joined when it was a Montreal local. This is yet another example of an entity based in Quebec choosing to claim exceptional status presumably because of a language difference. Utter nonsense.

  3. I’ve heard this song before, in connection with the Parti Quebecois proposal for ‘sovereignty association’. That didn’t fly because Quebecers realized they had a better deal as full members of the Canadian confederation than they would as partial or non-members.

    Here it looks the same to me. If the Guild insists on secession, so be it: but they should realize that none of their members will be eligible to play with AFM/CFM members. That, it seems to me, would force a large number of their membership to pay at least double dues in order to work (assuming membership in the Guild is not made irreconcilable with AFM membership), if not to forsake the Guild altogether to earn the living (and in prominent cases, international recognition) they have become accustomed to. I would expect that many musicians would get tired of playing for each other and in order to experience the broader musical climate outside Quebec would leave the Guild, which would put it under the same kind of financial pressure it hopes to use here as a bargaining chip.

    So, call their bluff.

    1. When Quebec wished to separate from Canada and become independent, they requested that in doing so, that they would still expect all of the federal bonuses and benefits that were all ready in place. This current proposal smacks of the very same inequalities, which in my opinion cite unrealistic expectations, and surely do not represent a win-win situation that myself and Ik now thousands of other brothers and sisters in the AFM utilize in their musical contractural modes of negotiation………..While this reply does not offer a solution to the immediate problem at hand, I still offer my vote of confidence to keep the AFM strong, by working and remaining together…………………..Charles Conway

  4. We fought this battle long ago in the 80 s/90 s, when the O.S.M symphony musicians, conducted by Charles Dutoit, rose up to protect the EPW pension fund from the hands of the separatist leadership of 406.

    406 leadership wanted all Quebec musician’s pension contributions to stay in Quebec

    Given the $40 Billion lost by the Quebec solidarity fund, a Quebec AFM pension fund would have been in bankruptcy.

    Without my retirement EPW pension I would be living on the street!

    Sorry to be cynical, but just another reminder why I left Quebec for Canada.


  5. Rick (and others who might be unaware of mitigating factors),

    It’s the special Quebec provincial law, the Law pertaining to the Status of the Artist, that makes Quebec different from other locals, as well the added expense and necessity of having documents available in French. While the grants given to Local 406 for translation are appreciated and an excellent idea, we still have the special law to worry about. Provincial law REQUIRES the Guilde (that is, Local 406) to negotiate with ALL producers on behalf of ALL musicians in the province. This is a giant task, and very expensive, and is not being accomplished in a timely or efficient fashion, through no fault of the Guilde’s.

    While I don’t support the movement to withdraw from the AFM (I think we can still be better served inside the AFM than out of it) we need a little more understanding from our brothers and sisters outside the province. The whole cultural scene—not just musicians—is under terrific pressure, not least of which was a disastrous arbitration years ago with ADISQ (the Quebec recording industry) that we are still feeling the financial bite from. The expense of AFM affiliation with so little apparent return is a difficult case to sell to the membership. We need friendly persuasion, information, proposals for solutions, and help, not angry rebukes.

    1. The angry, nasty replies are certainly not conducive to a solution to this problem. I guess, in defence of the Guilde, I’d say that this is a notice to the federation that the recent levies and amounts of funds that go back to New York are getting excessive and making it difficult for locals, and “superlocals” like the Guilde to get by without charging their members excessive fees. It’s a balancing act to get it right. I certainly wouldn’t want to be deprived of a pension should the vote go the wrong way and I do hope the Guilde gives a “Non,” mais comme j’ai dit c’est une alerte.

    2. Agreed. During my tenure as president of local 547 I experienced a top level administration which chose to dictate to, rather than listen to members. A large part of this is a cultural bias which is not congruent with Canadian values rooted in our Franco-British heritage. The answer to this dilemma exists in a negotiation firstly between the Canadian entities involved and then once the ducks are in order a presentation to the IEB.
      I hope this matter will spur the Canadian office to take charge rather than look to our U.S. Friends to solve a problem they could never understand.

  6. Chers amis et musiciens professionnel du Québec.. N’oublier pas les avantages et pouvoir qu’on a gagner, grace a notre appartenance dans le Fédération des Musiciens depuis au moin une centainne d’années.

    Pour contempler l’idée de désaffiliation de l’AFM est simplement la folie et semble
    comme un perte de raison.

    Ce motivation est entièrement influencé par des éléments séparatistes qui ont perdu la raison qui a nous gagner les grands ententes avec CBC etc etc. Avec tout le respect, je demande instamment à tous les membres de la Guilde à examiner attentivement les consequenses de désaffiliation de l’AFM et de faire le bon choix en restant à l’intérieur de la CFM.

    C’est difficile a exprimer les sentiments a ce temps mais c’est aussi absolument que
    toutes les voix des musicien Québecois soit repecter en meme temps.

    AFM. merci

    1. Just a quick note that my French written skills are not what they used to be.
      I grew up in Montreal but left the Province to go to university and never returned because of the horrors of a PQ Government that overstepped its
      boundaries by imposing its will on minorities. This charter of values is,
      from the perspective of a former Quebecer (and secular type of person who likes a clearseparation between church and state), a clear continuation of
      a pequiste tradition of meddling in areas that are better left well enough alone.

      I would also welcome hearing from Local 406 members about their unique
      perspectives on the matter and wonder if there were any way that CFM could
      hold a summit on this issue in Montreal and invite all the important cultural
      players not just from inside Quebec but from the other Provinces as well. This would be outside of the Canadian conference but there should be a full and open dialogue here before this matter is put to a vote by the Quebec Musicians..

      Thanks for putting up this website.. it is a good start to keeping us together.. As musicians, there is greater strength in unity.. Pat Metheny named his band the Unity band and so it should be with all AFM members in one all powerful bigger band that works together for the good of all musicians!

  7. Hi Leon, long time no see!

    I remember, ‘back in the day’ when I had a contract to do 13 very well paying TV shows for an important Ontario based Film/TV company.

    Some local technicians (or their Quebec Union) caused problems for the producers, so the shows production was cancelled in Montreal, to the great financial loss of all concerned, and filming went to the Hamilton Symphony. The company saved so much money it never returned.

    In another ‘fait au Quebec’ situation, a film-union conflict over National/Quebec jurisdiction, I believe, caused most big Hollywood films to go elsewhere for long enough to wreak economic havok in the film studio, equipment supply, rental business’, as well as the local acting community.

    Ongoing, never ending, Union des Artistes (etc.) conflicts with Canadian arts organisation unions, not to mention the self inflicted internal strife that brought the Montreal International Film Festival to a marginal status, seem now to be par for the course in Quebec. It has done irreparable damage to Montreal’s International Arts/business image.

    TIFF anyone? Yes, Toronto has a big Jazz Festival also, and, a dedicated Opera House, many more concert halls than Montreal, or as we say…’Toronto, the city the P.Q. built’.

    Out here, on the West Coast , companies are bending over backwards to get U.S arts and film business. Jus’ sayin’.

    Is this what will continue to happen if 406 turns its back on many decades of membership in the International Union? Well… ‘Hell Yeah’.

    Has anyone seen the ‘You tube’ video of an abandoned, falling down, and derelict ,’Le Studio’ in Morin Heights. Now is not the time to ‘make waves’ with job opportunities.

    Actually, how many large recording studios, and patrons/producers of the arts are left in Quebec?

    Remember, no touring Canadian or U.S. show/ballet/commercial production, can hire/record, or tour, non union players.

    Also, concert venues under AFM contract will not allow non-union Quebec musicians to perform with U.S./Cdn. members.

    All very very sad.

    I hear McDonald’s is hiring!

    No further comment.


  8. This is truly a sad situation. It feels like years of misinformation and propaganda by the leadership of Local 406 have pushed us to where we are now. On the other hand, I do also understand that the Status of the Artist law has placed unnatural demands on the Local which are difficult to fulfill while still maintaining the costs of AFM affiliation.

    I do believe though that if the Local 406 leadership were of a mindset to make things work with the AFM, they would be able to do so. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that is really their goal. And worse, I’m not really sure it ever was.

    To echo the concerns that have been voiced here already, I too am worried about the future status of my AFM pension.

    It would be nice if the AFM were able to offer an option, for those of us so inclined, to remain AFM members, should the Guilde succeed with it’s goal of secession.

    Perhaps we could partner up and “opt in” with the Ottawa/Hull local? And leave the newly separated Local 406 to deal with Quebec’s Status of The Artist on their own without aid or alleged hindrance from the AFM.

    Eli Krantzberg

  9. Je pense que on a besoin d’une nouvelle administration chez le 406. Des gens qui sont pour les artistes and leurs bein-être. For the people, of the people. Let’s get new management in the 406. Perhaps the law on the Status of the Artist should be reworked. Quel mauvais situation. Shame on the directors of the 406.

  10. My AFM membership is like my passport and S.I. N. and health insurance ; something I need and paid into over time. If the Montreal local’s separation is inevitable, I, and many other members I assume, will want to maintain our membership and benefits with the AFM and CFM. We will want access to the visa program and all of the other advantages of our national and international community that will be lost or at best in turmoil when the Quebec Local becomes the (Quebec) local. I want to know what provisions will be made for those who wish to stay members of the AFM / CFM. Do we all join Local 1000? What happens with our dues? I’m ready to stay with the AFM / CFM. …. How?

  11. Regarding this issue, I would like to share one relevant observation that I made after spending more than 35 years working for the cause of creators.

    When a union, association, society or any other entity can speak with one voice that represents similar interests in all provinces, in both official languages, and for all musical genres, styles and media uses, it will always be more effective than a small group of distinct voices, who cannot agree on one vision or the way to achieve that vision.

    Decision makers (governments and their agencies) and others who deal with associations, are likely to listen more intently and respond to a single voice than to disparate ones that don’t share a common goal. Instead, their response to disparate voices is typically one that dismisses them or ignores them for lack of agreement.

  12. Having read through the French section of comments as well, what is being shown, I believe, is a division between ‘the haves and have nots’ of 406. This, again is not new.

    A player who works on weekends at the local bar, does not really care about the ‘big picture’. ‘Sultan’s of Swing’. The fat recording/TV cats, (the musical 1%) and Carnegie Hall, are not in his world.

    By that I mean, there are many players who, like grinders in Hockey, eek out a modest living playing locally, while teaching, and doing other work to survive in today’s difficult times. They are pros, but get little salary.

    For these players, it has always been more of a tax than a benefit to be in the AFM.

    However, without the entire musician population supporting the union, it will fail. That is the ‘catch 22’ in this situation.

    This was the dilemma, often faced, with a small group of highly paid classical , commercial, and TV/recording players paying the bulk of the guild’s costs from their wages, while not having enough representation due to their tiny voting numbers.

    Since even fewer players, these days, are making a large (or any) living wage, it is normal there would be strife over high union fees.

    In short, a study of the economic troubles in the U.S musician population shows us that being a very good musician is no longer a guarantee of making a living wage.

    Times have changed so much I now tell my students to find a steady job to support their musical studies.

    Actually, it is exactly the same in other industries such as aviation. At the Boeing plant, in Seattle, very powerful unions are fighting to keep pensions and salary. Boeing says it will just move work elsewhere and put most on the street. We have also seen this in musical organisation lock-outs in Minneapolis and many other US cities.

    Imagine trying to get paid, or negotiate benefits all alone.

    The irony is that successful musicians have no time to be guild officers, and so the administration usually is made up of those players that have not made it in the ‘big time’. So naturally they have no vested interest in the AFM, which benefits successful PROFESSIONAL full time players most.

    This situation, apart from all the other ‘Quebec angst’, begs the question. How many full time career musicians are left in Quebec.

    What is clear, sadly, is that music is now slowly becoming more of a pass time, hobby, or vocation, not a great financial career path.


    1. although i moved to toronto three years ago, i have maintained my local 406 card….occasionally i receive residual cheques which are dependent on AFM contracts.. i was never in favour of the “super local” concept….and if ANY local had “unique” properties , it would have been 406….
      of course the duo that plays fridays in a remote bar or hotel lounge accompanied by a beat box has no interest in the importance of a united force that can negotiate border issues for global orchestras and reasonable rates for contracted work….
      …as a 44 year member of local #406…i defy you to take what belongs to ME…my contracts, my stationary…the desks and chairs..they belong to ME , not you!!!!

      if you want out, then GET OUT!!!!!!…yes i get upset with this ****!!!!!

      bob cohen…#4233

  13. After reading Bob’s comments, I went onto the website of local 406 to refresh my memory.

    I must admit, from a practical and financial point of view, the administration of 406 is in a possibly untenable situation.

    Clearly, one solution could be a small, frugal, professional AFM guild in Montreal, for the full time pro. , and a second Quebec musical association to represent the semi professional players (defined by salary) in the rest of the Province.

    Some sort of agreement between the two groups could allow access to AFM exclusive work on a ‘pay to play’ basis. A situation now in place, anyway, for non members hired on a free lance basis.

    Anyone who has travelled around the Province of Quebec knows that outside Montreal and Quebec city, there are mostly very small cities, towns, and villages, surrounded by rural areas. Many very charming and beautiful tourist spots. But…

    When 406 merged with 119, the vast majority of players added, (as I alluded to in the ‘Sultan’s of Swing’ comment -the new reality for many), would have come from a very different gigging background than those working regularly with the very large musical institutions in Montreal.

    And here we have the Quebec political dilemma in a nutshell. Montreal is the only major International city in Quebec from an economic stand point.

    So the financial burden of the Guild’s expenses would mostly come from a very small number of full time Montreal musicians. This clearly has led to the present situation.

    After expressing initial emotional outrage, I must admit we do live in a completely different world economically, and 406 cannot exist in the ‘status quo’ situation.

    Rather than face the fate of the New York City Opera/Ballet, the Philadelphia Orchestra, and so many high status, now fading, expensive cultural icons, some compromise must be found in sober second thought. (Note the recent firing of a famous large TV Band by Disney Corp. to save money etc.

    The AFM, from the point of view of many young ‘I-Phone App’ musicians who record at home and post on Youtube, is that it is a ‘Dinosaur Union’ not relevant to their needs.

    In the end, putting aside emotion, and the nostalgia of a great bygone musical era, we should seek ways to both protect musicians, and keep access to the International scene in a rational and economically viable way.

    That is the real job of administrators, book keepers and accountants.

    Just dropping the ball, and simply leaving the AFM is, however, a facile and unimaginative cop out.

    jus’ sayin’


  14. OK sorry, here I am again.

    On a philosophical note………

    As Frank Zappa taught us (’69 on Verve)………….

    ‘TV dinner by the pool, boy i’m glad I went to school’……

    Learn a blue collar trade dudes. Welding, plumber, mechanic, garbage man (person), soldier, sailor, etc.

    Y’all got ten years of economic stagnation to face.

    My drummer colleague has a ‘You tube’ pay channel, a self published series of drum books, and does electronic DJ-drum and bass. He said.. ‘Union, what Union????’

    Better move to where the action is anyway.

    Bye Bye Bye, (no snow here)


  15. As a retired musician of the MSO, this is “deja vue” as we went through this same scenario back in the 1980’s. Meanwhile, I am confident that this will encourage many of the best musicians to begin looking afield for their musical and financial future. If separation from the AFM ever does pass, I am confident that this will be the final act in killing this once illustrious orchestra. How sad!

  16. After reading the many comments and info from other sources, it’s clear to me that my comment (at the top) about this issue centering around language differences was ill considered or, more likely ,ill informed. However I continue to feel strongly that the idea of disaffiliation is not a good one. As well, the expression ” you can’t have your cake and eat it too” is too appropriate to ignore. Many locals question the “returns” gained by AFM affiliation. Having worked extensively in Canada and U.S. as a player and now, for the past ten years as a Contractor in Toronto, I’ve been witness to the advantages of being a member of my current Local 149 AND the AFM. And, for that matter, Local 406 until the seventies.

  17. As a lifetime member of Local 406 I have made my living for 40 years as a touring musician all over Canada, The U.S.A and Europe. This would not have happened without the assistance of the A.F.M and the various union affiliates in throughout the world.
    I don’t know what can be accomplished by having a small splintered offshoot of 406 as this referendum wants to do. I value the contacts I have worked with over the past decades and have no inclination to want to change that. Stay in 406. I am.

  18. I would think that Montreal Musicians wishing to remain in the CFM, could find a way to join Ottawa Local 180, which already represents Hull /Gatineau parts of Quebec and has Bilingual staff..

  19. I hope people don’t mix politics with that. This has nothing to do with the PQ please !!!

    I’m not for the separation of the AFM. It seems to come from younger members that believe magic will happen and producers will make contracts now. Gee they are naive.

    1. Sylvain

      Some are worried that there is indeed a connection with the SPQ Libre and other Quebec pro-separation groups.

      The last time a Guild administration tried to disaffiliate from the AFM, a strike fund was converted to a ‘political action fund’ that was suspected of eventually contributing Guild member funds to the PQ.

      Is it only coincidence that the Guild’s current disaffiliation push is happening while the PQ are in power and possibly towards another Quebec referendum?

      The Guild has a ‘plan of action’ just like all the pro-separation groups. They are also using similar talking points.

  20. Last post re all of above.

    My first music lesson in N.Y. city from a Juilliard professor.

    ‘You can be replaced with one phone call’.

    Wake up and smell ‘le cafe’.

    We are all so tired of this.

    Goodbye and best luck in your future endeavours.

  21. Just to be clear, I was the first to post that link to the convention video. The Guild then re-posted it.

    I posted the link so that the actions of the convention would be clear and not distorted in any way.


  22. Dear CFM/AFM Member.

    The 406 Referendum Website contains a segment of a 2013 report prepared by the Executive Board of the Conference of Canadian CFM Locals and directed at the International Executive Board of the Federation. The selected language may create the impression that the CC Board is in favour of the disaffiliation by La Guilde des Musiciens et Musiciennes de Quebec from the AFM.


    The CC Board is made up of experienced, dedicated and caring individuals who administer Locals across Canada. They are acutely aware of the reality that united we negotiate, but divided we beg. That applies to persons as well as provinces and nations.

    It is in the interest of Canadian musicians, wherever they may reside or perform that they are represented by one strong united organisation rather than by two or more, not only from a labour representative perspective but also from a linguistic/cultural point of view.

    The CC Board and the CFM National Office have played a significant role in informing the IEB of the unique cultural/labour circumstances that are in place in Quebec. The IEB has come a long way making considerable human and financial resources available to la Guilde.

    Divided we are less efficient representing the interests of musicians in Canada, including in Quebec. United internationally we are infinitely stronger and more effective throughout North America.

    Neither music nor financial interests recognise borders. Our representative horizon needs to be equally broad. As we are not convinced that this disaffiliation initiative is driven by the membership, we urge you to carefully consider the above sentiments.

    If you require additional information, the CC Board and its members look forward to hearing from you.

    Fraternally Yours,

    CC Executive Board

  23. Results were not good but also a bit unusual.

    The 70% rate of participation during this referendum , in which 2028 of 2906 members in good-standing at the time of the vote cast their ballot may be ‘historic’ but it also means a full 30% of the membership did not vote!

    53.3% of voters voted yes. 47.7% voted no. This is well short of a 2/3 majority.

    The question for me is why did nearly 900 members not vote?

    Did they not get ballots?

    Did they not get all the mailings?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *