Memorial placed for boy who drowned
CTV has a story about a permanent memorial placed in a Pointe‑Claire park for a six‑year‑old boy who drowned there, 52 years ago.
His mother is quoted saying there’s finally something to mark the spot where her son died.
This strikes me as odd. Most people who perish in accidents don’t have permanent markers showing where they died, so how can it be an expectation? Sometimes when there’s a disaster there will be a memorial to the incident, but except for white memorial bicycles (ghost bikes), we don’t usually pinpoint the place where a person got killed.
This isn’t to minimize the pain of the boy’s family, but wondering what the reporter was up to, writing as if it’s perfectly normal to expect a memorial where it happened.
Ephraim 12:41 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
So, the ghost bikes?
Blork 13:16 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
I suspect the reporter was just doing her job (assigned as something like “do a puff piece on this memorial”). But yeah, it raises questions. Maybe the reporter even raised the questions and they were cut in editing to maintain a puffy and sympathetic tone, which the boss probably prefers as it’s friendlier to advertisers. (This isn’t the NY Times after all; it’s local CTV.)
On a practical level, I’m curious as to who paid for it. If it was privately funded then fine, no worries. But if it was publicly funded then that raises the question of why does this drowning victim get a memorial when the (likely) hundreds of other drowning victims in that area in the 50 years since (not to mention those who drowned before) don’t get a memorial?
Maybe there is a good explanation. Maybe there was something about this case that stands out, like it prompted some kind of change in procedures or safety rules that has saved many people since then. That would be notable and worthy of commemoration, but if that were the case wouldn’t it be mentioned on the memorial?
Blork 13:38 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
A wee follow-up. This story has a surprising amount of coverage. I saw elsewhere that Pointe Claire borough paid for it. I suspect it’s a case of everyone piling on to a sentimental story that gives warm and fuzzy feels at a time when we’re all cringing over the state of the world.
A CBC story from 2024 (link below) shows the plaque that was put up anonymously. That bit adds an interesting twist to the story and sort of hooks us and reels us in. Add the bit about the family declaring that they feel the city did not provide adequate support for them in 1974 and you get a bag of reparations deficit tossed into the mix. Stir all that up with a big dose of overall injustice anxiety and all it takes is a few minutes at a Pointe Claire borough council meeting and bingo, memorial.
I don’t say any of this to denigrate the memory of that tragic event or the loss of the boy. It’s just a question of trying to understand where this comes from 50 years later.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mystery-new-plaque-montreal-1.7333285
Kate 14:05 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
Ghost bikes, yes, Ephraim – thanks. I was writing before coffee. I’ve edited.
(I don’t know how long ghost bikes are expected to last. Walking around this time of year you can see what happens to bikes locked outside all winter.)
I suppose, to me, that you have a gravestone, or you have ashes and place them or scatter them somewhere with meaning to the individual or the family. That’s where the memorial is, not on the location of their misadventure.
Blork 14:31 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
The difference in this case seems to be that, as a public memorial, it is a memorial to the event as well as to the person. As such, it’s the location of the event that gets the plaque. In other words it’s a memorial to the drowning and its effect on the community, not just to the passing of an individual. It would be weird for the city to just pay for a grave marker 50 years later; that would be a personal memorial not a public one.
Kate 16:16 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
As an example of that kind of thing, Blork, there’s the boating accident 70 years ago in which 12 kids from the Negro Community Centre day camp drowned off Île Bizard. That incident affected an entire community in addition to the families, so putting up a memorial seems more appropriate.
Anyway, I’m not saying the memorial in this recent story was a misstep, or begrudging it of the relatives, only that the tone of the article – that it was long past due and so on – struck me as unusual.
R T 21:56 on 2026-03-07 Permalink
The unspoken thing about the ghost bikes is that they are political statements as much as they are memorials; they tell the world “someone died here” and implicitly tell the world “and they didn’t have to”.
AMF 07:15 on 2026-03-08 Permalink
There’s a mural in memorial of the children who died in the boating accident near Île Bizard in the Union United Church courtyard, and a plaque by the site where it happened.
Margaret Black 08:34 on 2026-03-08 Permalink
Here in Boucherville, we have a plaque on site and an Aquatic Centre named for Laurie-Eve Cormier, who was killed at our smaller outdoor public pool while serving as a lifeguard in 2013. She was working to evacuate the children at the pool when a sudden intense thunderstorm brought down a large nearby tree.
Kate 09:27 on 2026-03-08 Permalink
Margaret Black, but that plaque recognizes a person who died saving others, which is notable in a different way.
R T : Very good point.