03:24 on 2011/12/20 Reply  

• qatzelok 04:13 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  By the time it’s built, it will be the Telus Bridge.

• Bert 07:20 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  Not that I would mind another thing named after Maurice Richard, but the Autoroute 50 is already named in his honour.

• Kate 11:01 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  It also makes me wonder: so would we have to find something else major to name after Champlain?

• Steve Quilliam 11:43 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  I don’t really agree that a bridge should be name after Maurice Richard. As much as i admire the hockey player, he was, after all, a hockey player. An arena, a place in the city, monuments, a street or boulevard, ok, but a bridge. Maurice Richard is part of Quebec and more importantly of Montreal but Montreal is not only about Maurice Richard so i wouldn’t like to go over board on that. It’s a lot for one hockay player.

  Of course i won’t loose sleep about it and won’t make a big fuss but the name Champlain should remain, IMO. But i think it is a way for the federal conservative to appeal to nationalist quebeckers.

• Kate 13:05 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  I think maybe someone realized that the very names “Champlain Bridge” and “Pont Champlain” now have overtones of fail, so they’d prefer to give the new one a fresh name. The sad thing about Maurice Richard is that, while he’s always a nice memory in Montreal, the name is also a reminder of how far back we have to go to find real hockey glory.

• Beeper 16:49 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  Richard didn’t even go to the war. The fact that he’s considered such a hero is beyond me.

• Kate 19:07 on 2011/12/20 Permalink

  Richard was turned down three times for military service. He had already bashed up his ankles and wrists badly enough playing minor-league hockey that they wouldn’t take him for a soldier. There may be issues with considering him a hero, but the war service thing isn’t one of them.

Reply Cancel reply

Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website