Updates from April, 2017 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 20:28 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Denis Coderre says he’s ready to spend public money on Major League Baseball, but not ready to say how much.

    • Chris 21:06 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      As much as it takes, no doubt. :(

    • Kate 21:24 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      Is the November election going to be effectively a referendum on baseball?

    • Tim S. 21:24 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      1) “Mais c’est sur que moi, je veux être un partenaire.” That’s fine. Coderre can invest as much of his money as he wants. I mean, if it was our money, he wouldn’t be using ‘moi’ and ‘je’, right?

      2) I’m one of the 92,000 people who went to the games. I’d be thrilled if Bronfman, Coderre and various other investors use their own money to bring back a team. Just no public money.

    • mare 23:43 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      There will always be public money involved. If only for the police to handle the crowds of suburban spectators and their cars.

      Fortunately the stadium will be sitting idle for most of the year, and the surrounding streets and giant parking lots will be devoid of any liveliness except on game days, so it doesn’t require much policing.

    • Jack 08:45 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      Another reason to vote Projet. Looking at that lineup of millionaire businessman, with their hands out waiting for the public’s rain is Bombardier like.

    • Joey 10:12 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

    • Jim 12:09 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      We need to invest in the exercise, health and well-being of Montreal citizens with the creation and renovations of public parks & recreation centres. Not subsidize billion dollar owners and millionaire players with public money.

    • Clément 16:50 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      @Joey, my favourite quote: “Peut-être que j’aurais dû le déclarer, je ne vois pas d’autre problème”. There’s the problem, he thinks the only issue is the fact that he neglected to declare it, not that he actually accepted it.

  • Kate 20:10 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    The approach to the Jacques-Cartier bridge is set to be smartened up, but not for the 375th.

    • ant6n 21:57 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      Bergeron is all happily tweeting about it, but in the end it’s just a highway in the park, no matter how much you spiff it up.

    • Zeke 00:06 on 2017/04/03 Permalink


      It already was “smartened up” by Luc Laporte in 1985, for a lot less than $120 million. This is the first I’ve ever heard of a park becoming obsolete.

    • Irina 11:16 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      I’m surprised there’s not more outcry over the plan. Yes, there is a part of this project that spruces up underneath the bridge – cool. However, the major part involves raising the bridge exit of De Lorimier (creating more noise and more of a highway ambiance) and lowering the existing Parc des Faubourgs and replacing all of the mature trees and grass on the south side of the park with – you guessed it – concrete blocks. All the while there is no increased connection between Ste Marie to the east with either the park or downtown as there is no crosswalk from Logan. So, yeah, the proposed plan connects the new concrete wasteland park to the metro – if anyone will be so inclined to visit it from afar. But the surrounding residents to the east will be even more cut from it than before – having to cross the highway-ised De Lorimier somehow to be able to take an underpass into a urinal-like concrete bowl of a park…

  • Kate 20:06 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Two of the Dionne quintuplets remain alive. The New York Times interviewed them.

  • Kate 11:53 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Tale to warm a lawyer’s heart: a man who both lives and works in a Rosemont building has been freezing all winter since an adjoining building was demolished two years ago and not replaced. Does he have a basis for suing the owner of the lot for his troubles?

    • rue david 16:04 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      Like the judge said , he has a good claim for any harm that resulted to the wall as the result of demolition, and possibly might get something on the insulation, based on some reliance point, but it’s unlikely. If a neighbor takes down his tall fence exposing you to winds, he’s generally not at fault for wind damage to your property. That said, you could did through the records and possibly find something in the deed or contracting documents that creates that burden.

  • Kate 11:06 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    A brief Gazette item notes Monday’s byelection in St-Laurent, one of five federal byelections happening simultaneously across Canada. La Presse looks at the candidates vying for Stéphane Dion’s old seat.

    I’ll be working in the byelection all day so the blog won’t hear from me till late on Monday.

    I was glancing at posts I made during the 2015 federal election and remembered that a new federal riding was created in Montreal that year: Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs. If Elections Canada felt the city’s population growth meant we needed to get an additional riding, how is it that the DGEQ is doing the exact opposite and attempting to subtract a provincial riding from the island?

    • Phil C. 14:27 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      It pains me to read articles about the riding merge and have people say that it was because Montreal lost population. Just straight up false. It’s an easy to say that since Montreal only grew at 3% and other places (ex. Laval at 5%) that Montreal should lose a riding. But in real terms, Montreal gained more population than any other jurisdiction in Quebec. That’s how percentages work. An inexcusable mistake to make if it’s your job to analyze stats and make decisions.

    • Zeke 16:37 on 2017/04/02 Permalink


      Umm, you guys are talking apples and oranges. Federal election ridings are completely different from provincial ridings. Population growth (or loss) in Montreal in comparison to population change here in comparison to the whole of Canada are two different numbers.

      Add to that, the fact that the variation in the population size allowed in provincial ridings is much larger than with the federal – and it’s a whole different ballgame.

    • ant6n 19:53 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      It’s still just the total population in Montreal, same apple.
      One note: between 2011 and 2015, 3 federal seats where added for Montreal. Did the Quebec assembly grow as well?

    • Zeke 23:13 on 2017/04/02 Permalink


      Federal electoral ridings start out with the idea that every one should have 111,166 voters. Two clauses are invoked, and they make the calculations so that there are 338 MPs.

      In the last federal election the 75 ridings in Quebec ranged in size from 73,140 to 122,825 (or if you prefer from -27.3% to +22.1% of the provincial average or -34.2% to +10.5% of the federal average).

      In Quebec, a riding can have as much as 25% more, or 25% less than the provincial average. “However, the Commission de la représentation électorale (CRE) can establish an exceptional electoral division that will have special dispensation from the ±25% criteria..

      There is no cap on the number of ridings, and the concept of “Natural communities” makes sure that the regions will have more representation than the cities – because that how it has always been. (Kinda like the crosses in the National Assembly and various hospitals).

      In the last election the 125 ridings ranged in size from 10,855 to 63,181,/a> (or if you prefer from -77.4% to +31.4% of the provincial average).

      Not bad for a guy who can’t vote, if I do say so myself.

    • ant6n 23:43 on 2017/04/02 Permalink

      I’m a little confused. You’re describing that it’s _legal_ that Montreal gets screwed over wrt to representation, not that it doesn’t get screwed over.

    • Zeke 23:59 on 2017/04/02 Permalink


      Yup, it is most definitely is written into law, and that is not the only law that screws the city over.

    • ant6n 00:02 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      It’s not written into the law that Montreal _should_ get screwed over, just that it’s not illegal. It’s still the DGEQ which assigned the ridings. So the original question Kate asked cannot be waived away by citing the law.

    • Zeke 00:17 on 2017/04/03 Permalink


      As I initially said, the way the ridings are defined is completely different. The provincial ridings in Montreal that the DGEQ are trying to combine are way below their thresholds and do not have any “natural community.”

      The Feds have to guarantee at minimum the same number of provincial seats as in 1985 and keep everything to an average of 111,166.

      “Lieu de Culte” does not translate to wherever the Raelians hangout. Despite what the words mean in both languages.

    • ant6n 00:58 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      I’m sorry, you’re throwing around a bunch of facts and numbres, but I struggle to see a point. Maybe you should start by stating your thesis, are you defending the DGEQ or what?

    • Phil C. 03:30 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      Please excuse my ignorance on the topic, my understanding of the Canadian political system is shallow at best. But, what I did understand is that the federal electoral districts don’t have to coincide with the provincial ones (with exceptions). The electoral districts being merged here are the Mont-Royal and Outremont ridings, which are provincial, and as you mentioned “the 125 ridings ranged in size from 10,855 to 63,181” and that there is no limit to the number of provincial ridings. So how are Outremont and Mont-Royal way below their thresholds? The point I was trying to make in my original post was that since Montreal’s population is growing, why should it lose a provincial riding?

      If I’m just totally lost, my bad :)

    • Zeke 11:14 on 2017/04/03 Permalink


      ant6n; my thesis is that there is no correspondence between federal electoral boundaries and provincial ones. They are two completely different things, designed completely differently, for very different reasons.

      Phil; Montreal can lose a riding if its growth rate is below that of other places in the province.

      And Kate, is it possible to clean up my HTML? Please and thanks. It appears I missed a shift key last night.

    • Kevin 12:54 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      The point is that DGEQ, along with provincial politicians, have created a system whereby the voters of Montreal are not as important as those of rural Quebec.

      It’s like they read every folk tale and watched every Hollywood movie where only country folk are good and “the city” is a bad place full of bad people, and used it as the basis for an electoral system.

      @Phil C.
      Outremont and Mount Royal are actually very close to the average number of voters per riding, about 42,000 each.
      The redistribution isn’t a total merger. It pushes them together, then cuts out a chunk and adds it to another average riding, so instead of three ridings with about 40,000, you get two ridings with more than 60,000.

      It’s total gerrymandering, and it only makes sense when you consider the basic premise of political life in Quebec: Montreal doesn’t matter.

    • thomas 16:57 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      @Kevin You are correct that the mandated instructions to the DGEQ is to favour rural ridings at the expense of urban. However, how is this gerrymandering? There is no redistribution to favour one political party over another. If anything, these changes hurt the ruling Liberals — unlike any gerrymandering I know of.

    • ant6n 17:19 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      Then your point is not connected to anything anybody has said here. Nobody tried to make any connection between the _boundaries_ of federal and provincial ridings.

      Phils point was about the total number of federal and provincial representatives in Montreal, and how they should both be related to population.

    • Zeke 18:53 on 2017/04/03 Permalink


      ant6n, I quote the last line of Kate’s original post: “If Elections Canada felt the city’s population growth meant we needed to get an additional riding, how is it that the DGEQ is doing the exact opposite and attempting to subtract a provincial riding from the island?”

      All I did was try to explain how one organization could increase the number of ridings, while a second organization (with what appears to be the same goal) could decrease the number of ridings.

    • ant6n 20:16 on 2017/04/03 Permalink

      I think you just changed your thesis again. It’s all very blurry.

    • Kevin 08:19 on 2017/04/04 Permalink

      Gerrymandering can also favour a group, not just a political party.
      The redistribution explicitly disfavours Montrealers.

    • Zeke 10:32 on 2017/04/04 Permalink


      ant6n, I think you need to get better glasses.

    • thomas 12:26 on 2017/04/04 Permalink

      @Kevin By that definition every electoral district on the planet is gerrymandered. Just to be clear, I do think the current formula used in Quebec is egregiously unfair to Montreal. Unfortunately, Montreal lacks an advocate on such matters.

    • Kevin 13:46 on 2017/04/04 Permalink

      Only if it’s an unnatural drawing of the map.
      A relevant quote from the Atlantic.

      “Rural areas are naturally punished by an economy that prizes density and proximity to large urban metros; yet, they’re rewarded, by design, in representation.”


  • Kate 10:37 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    Interesting Toronto Star piece on a YMCA centre where refugees are sheltered in Montreal and the program that helps them adjust.

  • Kate 10:18 on 2017/04/02 Permalink | Reply  

    We live in a town where the biggest story I can find Sunday morning is about a hit-and-run in Villeray.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc