Did Projet want Sauvé back?
Valérie Plante claims that Craig Sauvé asked to rejoin Projet in July; Sauvé denies this, and says that after his unsuccessful campaign with the NDP he did talk with Projet, but it was they who wanted him back, and he turned them down.
MarcG 08:37 on 2025-09-23 Permalink
I would love to see Projet get dragged publicly for their very un-progressive homeless camp raiding and police budget boosting. It seems like Sauvé is running a ‘positive’ campaign so probably won’t come from them.
Kate 10:21 on 2025-09-23 Permalink
I’m of two minds about the camps. There are probably parts of town where they would not disturb others, but for example, all along Notre‑Dame East, camps have been set up in those linear parks on the north side of the street, not far from the river. North of the parks are mostly residential streets, so that the folks living there are only a few yards from camps in some cases – camps which, by their nature, don’t have toilet facilities and are prone to collect junk and have fires. The camps bring an unsanitary and chaotic note into the lives of people nearby.
As with the metro, where it’s not fair to expect maintenance people to have to clean up biohazards from the homeless, you can’t reasonably expect residents to welcome the presence of people who may, in some cases, be mentally unwell, using drugs, or otherwise prone to trouble.
I don’t have a solution here that’s fair to everybody.
Nicholas 13:18 on 2025-09-23 Permalink
The camps are a no-win issue, and the police mostly too. People really don’t like homeless people near them. Like a lot. People also don’t like homes for homeless, as the Welcome Hall Mission story recently showed. Like a lot. They don’t like safe injection sites. They don’t like giving money directly to people. And they absolutely don’t like raising taxes to pay for any of this, nor cutting other services. And people actually mostly do like it that when something bad is happening you can call 911 and someone will show up.
I would love it if they just spent the money needed to build homes for people (people also hate building homes, in general). It would cost a lot (let’s not beat around the bush, it would cost A LOT). But over time we would save money. Yet while some people living on the street just need a home to get back on track, many also have severe issues, whether mental health, drugs, alcohol, etc. We’d need those wrap around services, which are usually paid for by the province, so the city would be out of pocket, while the eventual savings would go to the province. It shouldn’t be the city paying for it, it’s a provincial and national problem, but everyone blames local government, because homeless tend to gravitate towards cities.
And many of the problems with the police budget could be solved, but not at the local level. Get police completely out of all traffic enforcement and you would save lives and save money. But the city is prevented from installing more traffic cameras, having private security guard barriers for events like the marathon, or even just have a civilian control traffic lights (the cops are really bad at it too). Many, many of the changes require changing provincial or federal law. And many of these changes would result in a police strike (not an official one, just them not doing their jobs in ways that frustrated the average voter), and as happens wherever that occurs, people absolutely hate that. I would very much enjoy trying to take the brotherhood on, but it’s a high risk measure, especially when most of the best ideas are banned by the province.
This issue will come up again and again for decades and nothing will change, because the province wants to use the city as a scapegoat (helped by the JdM etc etc), and no one wants to risk a police strike. And most importantly, voters who don’t want to deal with the negative results of these problems are very loud. And they’re not all right wing: centrist and centre-left people also don’t like being hassled by people with mental health and drug abuse issues as they walk along the sidewalk, as multiple such women have casually mentioned to me (I doubt it’s a coincidence they were all women). I wish it weren’t so, but those who can solve this don’t want to, and they are the majority.
Kate 19:41 on 2025-09-23 Permalink
I think taxpayers would rather have homes for the homeless like the ones opened recently on the Blue Bonnets land, and planned for Ahuntsic, because they’re supposed to have social workers around, presumably to help the denizens cope and – among other things – not become too unruly.
I am not confident these plans will work out, on several points:
1. The housing is temporary. Nobody wants to give the homeless a permanent place to live. Psychologically, these are often people who’ve repeatedly had the rug pulled out from under them, so it will be just another jolt when they’re told their time’s up, so get out. (There may also be conditions, like if you’re caught drinking or doing drugs, you’ll be evicted. I don’t know how draconian they’ll be.)
2. The housing is deliberately placed far away not only from ordinary residential streets but from the downtown core, where they would find places to hang out, people to mix with (…and probably buy drugs from). There may be some homeless people who have the inner resources to manage alone and sober in a box on an empty piece of land. They are probably not in the majority.
3. They’re construction trailers. Better than nothing, on a cold night, but not exactly gezellig.
4. As I mentioned earlier, people are expected to stay from three to six months. Then what? They can buy a nice condo with the income from their new full‑time six‑figure job?
In a way, we’re starting to corral people into camps. I can’t be the only person who’s seen this coming.
Ian 18:48 on 2025-09-24 Permalink
Agreed 100%. It is extremely reminiscent of an internment camp.
It’s interesting seeing Plante trying to undermine Sauvé. I guess PM sees him as a threat.
DeWolf 09:19 on 2025-09-25 Permalink
Internment camps imply people are being placed and held their against their will.
From the CBC: “The 27 rooms are for those waiting for social housing and are designed for people who don’t have substance abuse issues or behavioural issues related to mental health. … The Old Brewery Mission will be managing care and helping residents get help with welfare, ID cards and looking for permanent housing. … there will be three meals a day, around-the-clock support and the turnaround is expected to be about three to six months.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-first-modular-housing-units-1.7640576
That answers a lot of Kate’s questions.
Joey 10:34 on 2025-09-25 Permalink
Thanks, DeWolf. Definitely seems like this is intended as transitional housing for people who are not likely to be unhoused long-term, but need relatively short-term support. Most of us don’t like to think about how we are a short string of bad luck away from winding up in really dire circumstances – job loss, sudden illness, etc. Single parent gets renovated and loses her job – what are your options? Couch surf? Shelter? This kind of support would provide enough breathing room to get back on your feet, preventing you from becoming more permanently unhoused.
Kate 10:51 on 2025-09-25 Permalink
I was thinking more in terms of what’s being said now, when these projects are being launched, versus how it’s likely to work out in practice.
I hope it helps the people Joey describes, who need a helping hand at a critical life moment to keep them afloat. Probably that will depend on the Mission choosing the subjects carefully, because once you’ve been in the social work business for awhile you probably develop a strong sense of who can be helped in that way. But all it takes is for a new administration to cancel funding and you’ve got ready-made little shack dwelling towns.