Updates from September, 2025 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 21:49 on 2025-09-18 Permalink | Reply  

    Soraya Martinez Ferrada should be careful. In a debate Friday she complained about various incidents and conditions she feels are ruining Montreal’s reputation internationally. But simply sounding off about these things (which she has never had to solve, let’s not forget) is likely to make them worse. And does she really think one cyclist falling in a road race is a sign of doom?

    In response, Luc Rabouin pointed out the big tourism numbers this year and the city’s popularity among conference planners, so that the Palais des congrès is running out of space. I think he has the measure of Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

     

    • Nicholas 02:00 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      Maybe she should apply to be the Minister of Tourism.

    • Joey 12:27 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      Given the zeal with which the US is scooping any and all non-white, non-US-born people, Montreal has got to be among the top two or three conference destinations, even without marketing campaigns, etc (unless the US egregiousness is taking down the whole North American conference travel market with it).

    • GC 13:05 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      My first thought was “Why do we care what Shatner puts on Instagram?” But, according to the Gazette, it wasn’t even a real post? https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/local-politics/mtl-mayor-race/article1179391.html. Come on, Ferrada. Do better.

    • Kate 11:51 on 2025-09-20 Permalink

      That was weird about Shatner. He is legitimately on record deploring the lack of care given to the environment generally, but not specifically about conditions in Montreal.

    • Ian 18:05 on 2025-09-20 Permalink

      @GC That article has some doozies

      “Rabouin also addressed the recent defection of his campaign manger, Julie Bélanger, who resigned on Monday to join Transition Montréal, the new party founded by city councillor and mayoral candidate Craig Sauvé. Bélanger was asked to leave the campaign, Rabouin said. “We have an issue about the climate within our team, so we have had to make this decision,” he said.”

      Real “she didn’t quit, I fired her” energy. What’s this issue about the climate within the team? Is it the bullying that he says doesn’t exist? I guess they never shook that off since the days of Piper Huggins.

    • GC 19:17 on 2025-09-22 Permalink

      Yeah. Who says municipal politics are boring? 😀

  • Kate 21:42 on 2025-09-18 Permalink | Reply  

    Truckers are not happy about lax training standards in their business and weak enforcement on the highways, so they’re planning morning slowdowns on the Champlain Bridge and in the Lafontaine Tunnel. A spokesman says things are like the Far West!

     

    • Blork 12:50 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      What’s the point of planning a slowdown on a route that is always and forever already slowed down?

    • Ian 14:29 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      That thought crossed my mind. What next, the Turcot exchange? The Decarie trench?

  • Kate 14:15 on 2025-09-18 Permalink | Reply  

    CTV has a list of everything you need to know about voting in the civic election. Students will be able to vote at CEGEPs and universities for the first time at this voting level.

    The campaign is officially starting Friday, although in reality it’s been simmering for awhile.

    Luc Rabouin launched his campaign Wednesday with all 103 candidates from Projet. Ensemble’s campaign was launched on Sunday (video).

    I haven’t seen news of Transition Montreal doing a campaign launch, although they launched their slogan on September 5: Avec courage, pour Montréal.

    Projet’s slogan is a sly Pas de slogan. Que des solutions. and Ensemble’s is Écouter et agir. The fringe parties are not even named in this La Presse piece on the difficulty of inventing a catchy slogan, and yet how forgettable they become.

    (The only one I do remember was Gérald Tremblay’s “Go Montréal” in 2005 because it fell foul of the OQLF.)

     

    • Kate 09:45 on 2025-09-18 Permalink | Reply  

      Le Devoir looks at Valérie Plante’s time in office. Is the city truly greener than it was eight years ago when Projet first won city hall? Nice aerial comparisons in this piece.

      Another piece examines where her administration fell short: the proliferation of construction sites, a ballooning budget, homelessness and the housing crisis. But Montreal’s problems are not unique to this city and can’t be solved only by plans made at city hall, no matter how clever or well‑intentioned. As this piece says, quoting an academic critic, “l’influence qu’a Montréal devant le gouvernement du Québec s’est dissipée au fil du temps. La Ville assume de plus en plus de responsabilités, notamment en matière d’itinérance, sans avoir le financement requis.”

      A third piece discusses bike paths and urban mobility generally.

      On the other hand, CTV reports that Montreal is getting its sixth UN office before the end of the Plante era. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme, aka UN‑Habitat, is opening an office downtown, and Plante is said to be delighted. But this piece also goes on to list ways in which Plante’s promises led to disappointment.

       

      • DeWolf 15:49 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        The Plateau got a head start on greening under Ferrandez and now the same approach has been applied throughout the city since 2018. I think it’s easy to take the change for granted when you’re living here, but take a stroll with someone visiting from another city and they’ll remark on how lush Montreal is.

        You really notice the difference when you go to Toronto, where most of the greenery is on private property and there are a lot of streets like Dufferin or Broadview that are almost completely denuded.

      • Blork 16:36 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        Hmmm. This comment is more about the first Le Devoir article than about the question of whether or not the city is greener. The comment is simply that the aerial shots are a bit of a gimmick because they don’t really show any change, yet the supporting text implies they do show significant changes.

        The top one shows a handful of trees planted in a few places in one park but neglects that in a few other places there are actually fewer trees. (Overall more, but nothing significant.)

        The slider over Parc Lafontaine shows no change at all. A street and a parking lot have been turned into a pedestrian path and some other “pedestrian facility” but there is no change in the greenage. (The change in roles is an improvement, but visually from overhead it looks the same, aside from differences in how the sunlight lands.)

        The other overhead shots show improvements in streets in terms of traffic calming and whatnot, but not a significant change in “greenery.”

        Anyway, nice work on the part of the city, but let’s not convince ourselves that we’re living in some kind of new urban forest or whatever. Still much that can be done.

      • SMD 18:50 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        A related article discusses the challenges of greening and cooling in Park Ex, where it can lead to eco-gentrification: https://therover.ca/the-problem-with-fixing-heat-waves-in-parc-ex/.

      • Meezly 09:44 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        I remember a survey being done for Plateau residents about where bike paths were lacking. My kid was going to St-Enfant Jesus at the time, and I made a case for a bike path that would continue eastward from Clark as it would provide a safer route for families who live west of Clark to travel by bike along Villeneuve to go to and from that school (as Villeneuve is one-way east of St-Urbain).

        I think the following a bike path was installed and i remember feeling like I was heard. I’m sure I was one of many who made the suggestion (and it made sense to connect with the REV), but still, I felt that under Plante’s administration, this kind of thing was possible.

      • Ian 10:24 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        Now that Saint Urbain is down to one lane for driving private vehicles (the others taken up by parking, a reserved bus lane,, and a separated bike path) it has crossed mymind how much more pleasant & quiet it will be for residents of that street between Bernard and Milton. Sucks for drivers as it’s no longer an effective direct line to dwontown and the Old Port, but as the political sentiment on the ground seems to be screw ’em, its certainly effective. I guess when the Rosemont overpass gets torn down Saint Urbain will be very, very different.

        @ DeWolf Don Valley, High Park, and the Beaches make up for a lot. It’s not unheard of to see a deer or foxes at Bloor and Jarvis in the early morning.

        Unlike older sections of Montreal where the houses sit directly at the sidewalk, requiring strips of greenery to be installed along the edge of the street, most of Toronto’s residential property was built with setbacks so it’s not surprising much of the tree population is on front lawns. When I lived in St Henri and Littke Burgundy there were hardly any trees on the streets, they were all in the alleys. It doesn’t mean they weren’t there. SAint Antoine had no greenery at all fromn Atwater to Rose-de-Lima, for instance, and is in the sahdow of the highway – yet St Henri is green enough in that area to support a substantial population of wild rabbits.

        In any case, as the Rover article points out, bits of street greenery as an afterthought is an agent of gentrification. As I’ve tried to point out to you before, gentrification isn’t just being a yuppie with an SUV.

        I’m sure property values along St Urbain are going to skyrocket.

      • DeWolf 10:57 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        Yes, making neighbourhoods nicer generally raises property values. Not just greenery but better public transit, better schools, better libraries — literally any improvement raises property values. I don’t think urban greening initiatives are even in the top 10 of factors leading to rising housing costs. As the article notes, the solution is social housing and restrictions on property speculation.

        I’m not sure why you keep insisting that St-Urbain is down to one lane. The reserved lane will be in effect from 6:30 to 9:30 in the morning. That means there will be 21 hours a day when drivers get to enjoy the same two lanes as before. There are thousands of people who take the 55. Surely it’s a good thing to ensure the bus can run more quickly and reliably during the morning rush hour?

      • Joey 12:29 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        @Ian the reserved lane is going to run 24/7, and not just during rush hour? Has that been confirmed?

      • Blork 12:53 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        @Ian I saw a raccoon at Yonge and King in the middle of the day last week!

      • DeWolf 13:58 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

      • Ian 14:30 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        @Blork in Toronto there’s more raccoons than people & rats combined haha

      • DeWolf 16:20 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        To be clear I wasn’t saying Toronto lacks greenery. On the whole it’s probably greener than Montreal when you take into account the ravines and all the single-family neighborhoods with lots of trees. But the street-level experience of walking around downtown and west end neighbourhoods is a lot less green than here.

      • Ian 12:23 on 2025-09-20 Permalink

        @Joey I don’t know what is going to happen but right now it is painted like a reserved bus lane with no signage indicating times of day. Motorists are respecting the painted indications. Whether this is intended to change later, I have no idea – but for now St Urbain really is down to one lane for motorists, even where tehre is no active roadwork. Maybe it’s lije the eternal bloackages on Parc for small jobs that never seem to completely finish haha

      • Joey 17:17 on 2025-09-20 Permalink

        @Ian DeWolf took the time to look it up for you, least you could do is click on the link or, you know, believe him… presumably they’ll add the signage all at once when all the construction is done.

      • Ian 18:08 on 2025-09-20 Permalink

        I’m reporting from the groujnd on what I saw with my own eyes, I don’t need DeWolf’s passive-aggressive “help” in corrrecting what I already know to be true – but go ahead and presume all you like. The city may intend it to become an airstrip for alien invaders one day, what mattters right now is how it is being used.

    • Kate 09:16 on 2025-09-18 Permalink | Reply  

      The updated Covid vaccine will not only not be free, it will cost $150 a pop unless you’re in one of the high‑risk groups.

      C’est la faute du fédéral, inevitably.

       

      • Ian 09:23 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        If Quebec ever does seperate they’re goign to miss being able to use that excuse. For all our duplication of federal services any actual responsibility seems oddly elusive.

      • maggie rose 10:00 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        Making the Covid vaccine more difficult to get is not good, even for those high-risk groups who can get it. We all share air. Is this fallout from the bad example to the south of us?

      • MarcG 10:30 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        I bet if you asked Boileau, Quach, and their ilk if Covid was airborne, can harm children, affects all organ systems including the brain, can cause Long Covid even in vaccinated people, etc, they would deny, deny, deny. Imagine the risk they would be taking by admitting to those established scientific facts now that everyone and their kids have been infected multiple times and they’re on record as having actively promoted pro-virus policies. That would take some serious moral fortitude (and expensive legal defense?). Limiting access to vaccines is just the next step in the long process of pandemic denial.

        Here’s a choice quote from the CBC article on this subject: “[Boileau] clarified that public health is not “against” vaccination for the general population.” Sounds a bit like Legault claiming he’s not racist while passing racist policies.

      • Kate 10:48 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        It’s probably to cut costs. The CAQ government is not the best, but they’re not anti‑vaxxers.

      • MarcG 10:51 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        If the policy reduces the number of people who get vaccinated then I consider the policymaker to be anti-vaccine.

      • MarcG 11:44 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        Here’s a totally unrelated story about a family suing Sepaq for not protecting them from being seriously injured by smoke exposure in their park. https://archive.is/5QW3S.

      • jeather 11:50 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        Sure, it’s to cut (miniscule in the context of the entire budget) costs — but they can afford the shots. (MNAs just got 10k increases this year.) And most of the costs now are likely long covid effects, something that is the next parliament’s problem. Honestly they could just not have announced much when the new vaccines came out and they’d probably spend the same amount.

        At first I thought this was a leak to see how people responded, I suppose it could still have been, but the response was not particularly negative.

      • Chris 15:41 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        MarcG, you’re entitled to your covid policy opinions of course, but I hope you realise you’re way out there, outside probably 99% of the population.

        There are many many many things that it would be nice if medicare covered for free, but we have to prioritize. Flu vaccine is also not free. Hopefully they’ve done the math and this is a good tradeoff.

      • MarcG 16:04 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        Thanks for your concern, Chris. Let me know when being “way out there” has any bearing on the truth.

      • jeather 16:49 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        The flu vaccine is (was?) free to anyone in Quebec who wants it. I do not trust for a second that they are correctly looking at costs of long covid, though I am sure they are correct that the cost of the vaccines is higher than the cost of hospitalizations. I do not know how or if they include regular time off work for milder cases.

      • SMD 18:47 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        @Chris, the flu vaccine has been free for a couple of years now. And RSV too, for the elderly.

      • jeather 20:06 on 2025-09-18 Permalink

        A lot of the articles used to say flu would remain free for everyone and have since been edited, so I would not be shocked if this changed as well.

      • Kate 09:20 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        I was getting the flu shot free for years by saying that I was in contact with vulnerable people. Originally it was demonstrably true, since I was working for friends, one of whom had elderly parents with chronic respiratory illnesses and he wanted to protect them.

        But one CLSC nurse told me that it was fine, we all come into contact with vulnerable people every day. So I just went on getting it on those terms, because she was right.

      • jeather 09:48 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        I also got it for years before it was free, I had my reasons if the nurses asked, but they never once did.

      • MarcG 09:55 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        It looks like the flu vax won’t be free for everyone this fall, unless you get a smart nurse like Kate did who acknowledges that we live in a society.

      • H. John 10:15 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        @MarcG Did you see something in that document that I didn’t?

        I read “Bien que le MSSS offre gratuitement la vaccination contre l’influenza à toute personne qui en fait la demande, le CIQ réitère l’importance de maintenir une stratégie de vaccination ciblée sur les personnes à risque élevé de complications.”

      • MarcG 10:24 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        The G stands for Gratuite, R for Recommandée, and A for Autorisée (Indication autorisée en fonction de la monographie ou par le CIQ, mais non soutenue financièrement par le MSSS). Link

      • MarcG 10:25 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        Mixed messages, hopefully the one you quoted trumps.

      • CE 10:33 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        On the radio today, they were saying that if there are any leftover doses, they’ll be free for whoever wants them until they run out.

      • EmilyG 11:44 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        I’ve never paid for a flu shot. I haven’t been asked about my medical conditions, but if I was, I could mention my asthma.
        When the Covid vaccines came out, I got one early, being considered in a priority group due to my autism.

      • MarcG 12:56 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        Something else to keep in mind is that the feds cited low demand for not ordering any of the protein-based Novavax Covid vaccine last fall. Access to that vaccine was very restricted and not well publicized.

        Barriers to access + messaging that it’s is no big deal = less uptake = excuse to not provide at all in the future.

      • Orr 19:15 on 2025-09-19 Permalink

        Donate a kidney, get a free covid & flu shot.
        Worked for me.

      • MarcG 17:41 on 2025-09-23 Permalink

        According to an insider acquaintance the flu vax will be free for all over 6 months, and the Covid vaccine will scandalously not be available *at all*, even if you want to pay for it, for children under 12 years old who do not fall into the special “unhealthy” category.

    c
    Compose new post
    j
    Next post/Next comment
    k
    Previous post/Previous comment
    r
    Reply
    e
    Edit
    o
    Show/Hide comments
    t
    Go to top
    l
    Go to login
    h
    Show/Hide help
    shift + esc
    Cancel