Skip to content

Community Summary Report: Montréal (Coalition Climat Montréal) – English

Click to download the PDF.

Community Partner Name: Montreal Climate Coalition

Dialogue held on: February 2, 2022

Report written by Barbara Duroselle and Jean-François Boisvert

Translated by Karen Muir for the Green Resilience Project 

1. Introduction

A. Summary   

The consequences of climate change were a concern for nearly everyone present. All participants agreed it was necessary to act immediately to prevent even more dire consequences for the community. Although unanimity was not reached on the ways to take action, most participants acknowledged that sweeping changes must be undertaken by our society, starting with our current economic model that is based on the exploitation of resources and the relentless pursuit of growth. Everyone was agreed that the most vulnerable people, especially low wage earners, are and will be the most harshly affected by the impacts of climate change. A more equitable sharing of wealth appeared to be essential to be able to close this gap. The introduction of a guaranteed basic income was thought to be one of the solutions possible, but not the only one; however, some participants wondered about its feasibility. In the end, there was unanimity on the importance of building up the resilience of the community.

B.  About the Green Resilience Project 

This community conversation is part of the Green Resilience Project, a series of talks held across Canada and exploring and documenting the links between community resilience, income security and the shift toward a low-carbon economy. Working with a designated partner organization from each community, the Green Resilience Project aims to create spaces in which a broad range of people can get together to discuss how climate change and income security are interconnected and what possible next steps could be taken to build on or maintain the resilience of communities faced with these challenges.

This Community Summary Report is the result of what we have heard and learned during the dialogue with our community. Each partner organization belonging to the project across Canada will produce a similar report. In March 2022, the Green Resilience Project will produce a final report summarizing the findings across conversations and will be made available to the public, as well as conveyed to Environment and Climate Change Canada. 

Funding for the Green Resilience Project is generously provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Climate Action and Awareness Fund. The project is managed and implemented by Energy Mix Productions, the Basic Income Canada Network, Coalition Canada Basic Income, the Basic Income Canada Youth Network, as well as national experts and local partners.

C. About the Community Partner Organization

The Montreal Climate Coalition has been an active NPO for 7 years. Its mission is to inform and network with citizens, policymakers, and all stakeholders in energy transition about the practices and policies that will definitively lead to carbon neutrality. Among other things, it aims to motivate stakeholders to undertake bold and innovative actions to create a society that lives in harmony with the environment. It also seeks to influence citizens and the various players involved in the energy shift to work together to define a common roadmap and democratically decide on priorities for action and strategies for implementation. Citizen participation is one of its four pillars of action.

The Montreal Climate Coalition maintains links with individuals and organizations from a variety of backgrounds: citizen groups, environmental NGOs, social innovation enterprises, university researchers, students, community associations, social organizations, religious organizations, the elderly… It has contacts as well with municipal elected representatives and actively participates in various forums, such as public consultations and public meetings of the municipal council. It organizes events such as conferences, roundtables, and workshops, with the aim of informing, mobilizing and connecting citizens and organizations to undertake or continue climate action.

The Montreal Climate Coalition organized a conversation space in Montreal after being approached by the Green Resilience Project.

D. Why was this community selected to hold a conversation with us?

Several problems relating to climate change are beginning to affect our community (i.e. food insecurity, heat waves, floods, smog, pandemic). It is also apparent that these problems do not have the same intensity or occurrence everywhere. For example, heat waves are much more prevalent in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods; apartments are often less well insulated, there is less plant cover and, with lower incomes, residents have fewer resources (e.g. buying  air conditioning units or moving away from the city) to cope with most natural hazards, including heat waves. Unfortunately, as with most disasters, climate change is hitting the most vulnerable people harder: low-wage earners, marginalized individuals, seniors, and certain minorities.

The housing situation is also difficult. Owing mainly to real estate speculation, rental prices have risen sharply over the past few years, which seriously hampers access to housing for low-wage earners. All too often, they have to make do with housing that is in poor condition, located in remote, less developed neighbourhoods and with less access to essential resources such as transportation, grocery stores and green spaces. 

As in all major cities, there are wide income disparities in Montreal. This has an impact on people’s living conditions and even on their own life span. For example, life expectancy in impoverished neighbourhoods may be up to ten years lower than in wealthier ones. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was also observed that “Montrealers living in the most disadvantaged areas of the city were twice as affected by COVID-19 as those living in the most affluent areas. The mortality rate is also twice as high (La Presse, October 22, 2021, translated).

Nevertheless, Montreal is not without its resources. Many players are becoming organized to respond to existing and emerging needs. Solutions are being put in place, for example, access to food aid, the greening of neighborhoods, urban agriculture, the pooling of goods or services… Among the community’s strengths are the presence of many environmental, community and social groups, and there are a number of citizens’ initiatives. The municipal government is also relatively responsive to these issues. Among other things, it has an Office of Ecological Transition and Resilience (BTER; https://montreal.ca/en).

It is important to emphasize that, given that the climate crisis will worsen over the coming decades, the levels of awareness, mobilization and action are clearly insufficient to address the threats facing our community. By way of example, the authorities (https://www.ouranos.ca/en/) predict that by 2070 in Montréal’s central neighbourhoods, the number of days per year when temperatures exceed 30 degrees Celsius will rise from 12 to 43, and when temperatures exceed 32 degrees Celsius will rise from 3.8 to 22.9. Such changes will have significant repercussions on the population and for the time being, we are not sufficiently prepared to cope with them.

E. About the conversation participants

The Montreal Climate Coalition has a network of approximately 1,100 members and supporters. Generally speaking, they are relatively better informed about environmental issues than the average person. There is a multitude of citizen activists involved in environmental and/or social movements. For the conversation, we aimed at reaching a greater diversity and sought to go outside the circle as much as possible, inviting people we don’t usually contact.

To do this, we contacted 34 organizations, many of which work primarily at the social or community level, for example: an organization that provides services to immigrants and refugees in Montreal North, others that work with women, youth or families in precarious situations, the homeless population in the downtown area, and seniors. The list of organizations contacted is available in Appendix 1; they were invited to share the invitation to participate in the conversation with their networks.

We are well aware that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the profiles of specific participants by issuing general invitations and not pre-selecting. However, without the process being perfect, we were able to get a good diversity of participants.

In concrete terms, the following portrays the profile of participants:

  • The age distribution was quite varied, but with a greater representation of young people: 
AGE GROUPNUMBER
Under 20 years old10
20-40 years old4
41-60 years old5
Over 60 years old6
  • Four participants identified themselves as being from a visible minority, while three preferred not to answer the question.
  • No one identified themselves as being Aboriginal and one person preferred not to answer the question.
  • Three people said they were recent immigrants to Canada.
  • There was a variety of languages spoken at home, but all participants were fluent enough in French to discuss matters with others in that language.
  • The gender distribution was fairly well balanced: 
GENDERNUMBER
Female 14
Male10
Prefer not to answer1
  • The age distribution was varied, but with a greater representation of young people:
  • One person identified themselves as a member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, while two people preferred not to answer the question.
  • No one identified themselves as persons as having a disability (one preferred not to answer).
  • Income distribution appears to mirror that of the community’s population: 
INCOMENUMBER
Low6
Medium13
High3
Prefer not to answer3
  • Four people said they were members of a union, while six said they preferred not to answer.
  • Participants’ involvement in the community was relatively high:
LEVELNUMBER
12
22
38
48
55
  • Two people said they had experienced homelessness, and one experienced poverty.
  • Eight people said they were not very familiar with the potential links between climate change, income security and community resilience.
  • Six people noted that their livelihoods have not yet been directly affected by COVID-19, climate change or the transition to eliminate fossil fuels.
  • One person said that their livelihood has been or is likely to be seriously affected by climate change.
  • Five people said they are working toward, or they are advocating for, climate change.

F. The community conversation

Due to the restrictions imposed by the health situation, the conversation was held virtually on February 2, 2022, from 7 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., and was structured as follows: 

  1. Introductory session: 40 minutes
  2. Breakout groups: 80 minutes
  3. Break: 10 minutes 
  4. Report to all by the facilitators of each group: 5 minutes
  5. Conclusion: 15 minutes

The purpose of the introduction was to present the Green Resilience Project, explain how the event was to unfold, as well as situate participants in a setting while going over some key concepts.

Participants were then divided into 5 breakout groups. The facilitators’ discussions focused on the four questions provided by the Green Resilience Project.

We had a lead facilitator, five breakout group facilitators and four note-takers (in one  breakout group, the same person facilitated and took notes).

In addition to this team, 26 people took part in the discussions. We viewed the event as a success. Skilfully led, the presentation was highly interesting, as were the discussions. Various points of view were expressed by the participants, reflecting the group’s diversity. Indeed, we were able to bring together young people, a few elderly people, workers, retirees, students, and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.  Of course, as regards the size of the group vis-à-vis the population of the Montréal community, we did not reach a significantly statistical representation. Nonetheless, we managed to go beyond the circle of citizen environmental activists who often participate in such events.

However, we were disappointed at the number of participants. Despite the 51 people who registered, only 26 people showed up. At 51%, this level of participation vs. the registration rate is less than what we usually find: close to 75%. We can’t say why this was the case, but possibly after nearly 2 years of pandemic confinement and virtual events, “zoom fatigue” could be to blame… We believe that holding an event like this in person could spark greater participation … so we can’t wait for the return of real face-to-face meetings! 

2. What we heard

The vast majority of respondents talked about several changes for the environment and the  economy within their communities.

In terms of the economy, each discussion group brought up the fact that food prices have shot up. The groups are worried that a growing number of individuals appear to have trouble buying food. Several participants also shared their concern that climate change is affecting agriculture and the quality of food they consume. Indeed, they see a link between eating well and maintaining good health and point out that rising prices is a challenge for people with low incomes, including the elderly with fixed pensions. As well, the participants believe that the consequences of financial precariousness goes beyond food insecurity, potentially affecting security and stability of the Montreal community:  One person commented: “My income has not been affected so far, so I am not in a tight spot, but it’s stressful to think that people around us live with social instability and food insecurity and that it is growing among us. It’s very stressful.

Environmental changes sparked much discussion in the focus groups. Some participants reported having first-hand experience with severe weather: “My house has been flooded twice … Some people couldn’t rebuild because their houses were too damaged. Insurance wouldn’t pay.” All groups observed that weather events associated with climate change (floods, forest fires, drought) appear to be more frequent and closer to home. They are aware that these risks may affect their financial security (increased energy costs, reconstruction, access to housing following a crisis), but also their physical security (suicide, death).

The effects of rising temperatures and floods on society were examined from several angles. First, in terms of the impact on family dynamics, since they are associated with sources of stress and conflict. Second, the consequences on physical health were also widely discussed, particularly in regard to the more potentially vulnerable strata of society and the elderly. “I’m worried about the heat since I don’t have air conditioning. Because of COVID, I’ve been working from home, and it was very hot and hard to take. I’m 33 years old … how do the elderly cope with that? Who has enough income to afford the necessary equipment to withstand the heat?”  And although workers and young people were identified as being generally less vulnerable, a few participants mentioned that young people are also affected because, when a heat wave comes along, they don’t see their friends as much, and that affects their morale. 

The general feeling is that these changes make many people upset; they are afraid of what tomorrow might bring and that they might lose control. Such uncertainties, together with the potential impact of poverty, gave rise to profound questions about the ways to put a halt to this “hemorrhaging.”  Some people pointed out that while climate change will have long-term consequences, it is impossible at this time to know all the impacts. Using the pandemic as an example, many believe that the health crisis has exacerbated social inequalities and have shown that part of the population is in survival mode. They feel it is natural that this portion of the community thinks first of feeding themselves and keeping their jobs, rather than climate issues. However, those with grandchildren seem worried about the future implications for the planet.

Although they notice the signs of climate change, participants criticize the fact that there is hardly any discussion on the topic. Some shared that talking about environmental issues seemed to cause an unease, even a kind of paralysis, among both youth and adults. On a few occasions, urban policies as well as political figures were criticized for seeming to “sweep the issue under the rug” or resort to greenwashing strategies. Many people believe that climate change is a major problem, and that this reactive – rather than preventive – stance will cause the community to “hit a wall.” While it is important to discuss climate issues, they also stress the relevance of balancing the notion of urgency with other types of messages to create a “budget of hope” and in so doing avoid fatalism. And while certain people believe that the pandemic has overshadowed the climate debate, one participant noted that in several respects it has nonetheless shone a light on the high level of mutual support between neighbours and among different communities.

Links between environmental and economic changes

Several aspects have been observed in the discussions on links between environmental and economic changes. The main observation was that the economy and climate change are linked to the economy and, in Québec especially, closely related to natural resources. Participants agreed that climate change (or initiatives to curb its impact) will affect all economic activity, especially the workers in certain industries (e.g., air transportation, oil sector). During the conversation, the impact on transitioning jobs led the participants to wonder about the funding available to support such a shift.

A few speakers indicated that they did not believe that income security or a guaranteed minimum income would make it possible to better adapt to climate change. However, a relatively large number of respondents indicated that some form of guaranteed minimum wage would prevent many people from experiencing distress, especially when it comes to having the means to better adapt to climate change. Some saw this as a change of direction, or even a revolution in society, one that would allow people to have more opportunities to adapt to climate change. Income security, they argue, would provide some respite for people “in survival mode,” for whom meeting their basic needs is top priority. It would create better conditions for them to identify how they can contribute more to the community, including with regard to future generations.

Much of the discussion centered on the fact that climate change would exacerbate inequality if nothing were done to change the situation. In this respect, they deemed a basic wage desirable from the perspective of equity, inclusion, and social justice. Emphasizing that welfare payments currently cover only 50% of the basic expenses for survival, a guaranteed basic wage would allow the most vulnerable to emerge from a culture of impoverishment and poverty and thus “cope” with change. Other aspects were also discussed through specific examples concerning income disparity, the difficulty of accessing housing due to speculation or the fact of living in a neighbourhood lacking green spaces. It would therefore not just be a question of giving more to those who have less, but also of putting pressure on the government to reduce the gap with those who have too much, both within the community and with regard to other countries that possess fewer resources.

Among the other proposals shared by the group, it was mentioned that it is time to question the logic of accumulating goods, as the planetary limits have been exceeded. Recognizing that the ways society succeeds in becoming resilient will depend on how climate change is stopped. Several participants argued that a basic income would lead to a kind of acceptable degrowth (curbed growth) so that people could strike a better balance and have more time to imagine new solutions. This space would also be conducive to changing people’s  habits, as many agreed that it is not easy to talk about this kind of change in moderation when people are feeling anxious.

During the discussions, community resilience was repeatedly mentioned in relation to education and enhancing the local economy. The perception that the current economic model is not properly working led to many proposals for dealing with environmental and economic issues. Some participants also suggested that a more nature-based economic model ought to be considered. Since some opined that today’s economy is influenced by the power of huge multinationals, it was suggested to beef up self-sufficiency and local purchasing initiatives. In addition, it was suggested that plans be developed that link economic benefits to environmental benefits. Other ideas of note were minimizing individual consumption (downsizing, frugal consumption), the circular economy, as well as a collective approach (community projects, cooperative initiatives) in an effort to shrink the environmental footprint.

Alternative solutions to help the community to deal with climate change and create income security

The groups proposed a wide range of solutions. They include:

Actions to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). Several participants noted the importance of measuring and tracking GHGs in the community. Others explained that certain practices can be changed to curb emissions. For example, wood could be used more often in construction projects, certain plastics could be used that can capture GHGs, and geothermal energy could be harnessed. Public transport was often cited as a concrete solution to reduce the use of motor vehicles to shrink our environmental footprint, provided that the network be improved in terms of time-efficiency and better routing. Finally, another proposal was shifting the economy towards an improved utilization of renewable energy, thereby creating jobs in this sector.

Income security. While the possibility of a basic wage was repeated as an option to deal with fundamental problems (“If you’re hungry, you won’t get anywhere“), one participant suggested that such a system could have a negative impact on the labour market, especially in the absence of the political will to eradicate poverty. It would therefore be a long-term problem to ponder, not simply reacting to an urgent situation.

Income security was also discussed in terms of making the effort to curb consumption to avoid possible rebound effects. Yet another idea proposed was the possibility of taxing companies that opt to replace employees with robots to perform certain jobs (writing blog posts, performing research, etc.), with a view to optimizing costs. This would involve compensating for an external impact created by technology.

Simplify and rethink lifestyles. Many exchanges and solutions emerged in connection with this theme. In addition to curbing consumption, participants suggested buying second-hand or recycled products instead of new, eating more local and seasonal products, eliminating meat products, adopting a zero-waste lifestyle, avoiding “fast fashion” and roll out bulk service in major grocery store chains to allow more people to adopt this habit.

Strengthen natural and urban ecosystems. Several comments highlighted the importance of protecting a “common heritage:” the protection of forests, wetlands, but also combatting the decline in the amount of agricultural land. There were recommendations to adopt measures to counter urban sprawl. At the same time, people had proposals to restructure cities aimed at improving community traffic, promoting urban agriculture, and combatting heat islands. Another aspect discussed was the importance of raising awareness among young people and encouraging agriculture in schools.

Multiplying community initiatives. Participants shared a wide variety of group actions. The many initiatives mentioned include Mothers on the Fronts, the Declaration of a climate emergency, activities of “the Planet invites itself to Parliament,” awareness activities held by certain trade unions, ZéN communities, and Villages in Transition. They believe that these activities promote the emergence of networks of communities, while fostering individual involvement and hope.

Resilience through mutual aid and education.  Anticipating the consequences of climate issues (e.g. power outages, water cuts), the need to know your neighbours, your community, and help each other out was also expressed: “We should start as a community and think collectively. This can be small gestures at first, leading to bigger changes over time.” One participant shared that education may be a more impactful way to leverage growing resilience than a guaranteed minimum income. In her view, informing people about their own empowerment and steps on how to get involved in the community was pivotal because people don’t seem to know how to take action on climate change.

Change the model of youth education. Several high school and Cegep (college-level) students made it clear that they would like more information about the topics discussed here within their own curriculum. They feel that environmental education and greener practices are still very superficial. One respondent felt that Cegep and university instruction is based on a traditional capitalist economic model and that he would like to be exposed to other types of values, such as examining the exchange of time rather than money. In addition, these young people find that while teachers sometimes mention the importance of addressing issues such as over-consumption, solutions are rarely discussed. In addition, they notice that there is a minority of young people who want to be involved in the fight against climate change, while others feel less concerned because they don’t believe they will be here when the disasters occur.

Suggestions for solutions to build, maintain or strengthen community resilience, and the players responsible for these changes

With a view to finding solutions to strengthen community resilience and the fight against climate change, participants stressed that all players were important.

For some of them, the responsibility was initially individual: “Industry and government have the most power. If individuals and communities begin to change, they, too, will change.” In many groups, the desire to boost social interaction and act collectively was deemed a priority, especially since Quebec has a long-standing tradition of solidarity and cooperation. The participants cited two projects (Neighbourhood Tables and Impact) that they found interesting because they bring together people around the same table who do not usually mix. Drawing on indigenous knowledge and collaborative approaches were other topics raised as a way to safeguard the environment. Finally, in order to bolster resilience, it was suggested that a citizens’ movement, supported by community groups, and even holding demonstrations, could bring pressure to bear on governments to change laws regarding the production system and initiate tax reform that would allow access to a guaranteed income.

Some of the suggestions also focused on the possible role of public authorities and politicians to act as stimulators rather than brakes – the idea being that ecology does not necessarily stand in the way of the economy. For many participants, it would be important for all parties to put aside their partisan struggles and for politicians from all stripes to work together more often, especially in order to better monitor corporations. This aspect of the conversation sparked several exchanges on how to finance a guaranteed income, some being of the opinion that it would be best to tax the richest, alter the distribution of income, take measures against fiscal evasion, break away from the current mindset of profit-making, that the current capitalist system which drives over-production and over-consumption should be changed, and that alternative economic models such as cooperatives should be explored to shift to an economic system that does not destroy the planet.

There was a general desire to find ways to make citizens better informed and aware. Several solutions were proposed, including involving artists to get the message across, the possibility of changing some aspects of the educational model for young people, and the broadcast of a prime-time television program that would address issues of the environment and ecological transition.

3. What we learned 

There was a consensus that climate change is already affecting us and that this is creating anxiety among many participants. They also find that climate change has and will have a greater impact on the physical and mental health of individuals.

The idea of a guaranteed income was relatively popular and was considered relevant to address inequities in the face of climate change impacts. However, in order for it to have the desired effect, this measure should be accompanied by more systemic actions (e.g. increasing the tax contribution of the wealthiest). These changes are needed if guaranteed income is to act as a lever to tackle poverty issues and ensure that it does not become a purely technical policy measure that could also exacerbate inequalities on other levels. Since the effects of climate change will be felt in the labour market, it becomes important not to act in the short term, but rather weigh the longer-term effects of the measure, with a view to ensuring better environmental justice. Questions remain as to the feasibility of such a measure, mainly in relation to its financing. To sum up, the general view was that other structural changes must accompany this measure, such as halting overconsumption, redistributing wealth, and respecting planetary limits.

Finally, the consensus was that it is important to boost our collective resilience. It would appear urgent and necessary to act without delay to undertake major transformations, which go well beyond superficial “greening.” To achieve the desired objectives, education, consciousness-raising and collective action supported by governments are the main means that have been identified.

  • To what extent do you think your conversation has led to a better understanding of the relationships and synergies between community resilience, livelihoods, income security and the transition to a low-carbon economy? Please explain your answer.

○ 1 – Not at all

○ 2

○ 3

4

○ 5 – Absolutely

In all groups, participants spontaneously cited examples of linkages between resilience, climate change and action. When some examples were inspired by those proposed in the introduction, however, they were altered to add a personal touch.

  • To what extent have participants demonstrated increased awareness of climate change and their own capability to act on climate change? Please explain your answer.

○ 1 – Not at all 

○ 2

3 

○ 4

○ 5 – Absolutely

We believe that participants were already partially aware of climate issues as they demonstrated interest in participating in the event. We believe that the workshop, the examples provided in the introduction, and the discussions have increased the understanding of the issues and the capacity for action.

While we are confident that the participants who are already involved will have found additional information that can bolster their capacity for action, we believe that the conversation will also have benefited the younger participants, who seemed better equipped to comprehend the changes, which is a prerequisite and a condition for action.

  • To what extent have new relationships between community partners and dialogue participants been created and encouraged? Please explain your answer.

○ 1 – Not at all

2

○ 3

○ 4

○ 5 – Absolutely

The facilitators have done a great job of creating a friendly, inclusive and respectful climate of exchange that encourages the emergence of new relationships. However, the virtual evening format (due to sanitary restrictions) is not an ideal format for more spontaneous interpersonal exchanges. This probably limited the possibility of establishing contacts for further action.

  • To what extent has your conversation created opportunities for further discussion on solutions related to climate change, income insecurity and community resilience? Please explain your answer.

○ 1 – Not at all

○ 2

3

○ 4

○ 5 – Absolutely

According to the results of the post-event survey of participants, 23% would like to continue conversations and 30% would like to be kept informed. While interest seemed to be obvious among some individuals, we also noted that participants affiliated with some organizations wish to continue thinking about resilience issues.

  • What do you think the community needs to do to build or maintain resilience to climate change and growing income insecurity?

Two actions seem to us to be the most effective. First, we suggest increasing exchange and awareness activities. Focus groups are an ideal way for individuals and organizations to gather more information and inspire them to action. Second, we believe that it would be useful to create opportunities to bring together stakeholders in the field to enhance the possibilities for collaboration and scale up promising projects.

4. The next steps

Of the twenty-six participants, eight responded to the two questions about follow-up to the dialogue. They all indicated that they wanted to “learn more about future events, activities, and opportunities related to climate change, income security, and community resilience in the Green Resilience Project.” Of these, six wished to “continue this dialogue with those present today.”

The next steps have not been ascertained conclusively.  However, several participants expressed concern about resilience issues. In particular, a growing number of people are becoming aware of the fallout of climate change (e.g. heat waves, droughts, forest fires, flooding, rising food prices, disruption of supply) – issues that are already starting to have an impact on their lives. They realize that these impacts will most likely worsen over the coming years. This prospect has increasingly alarmed them, spurring many to act.

The Montreal Climate Coalition is concerned about resilience issues in the Montreal community and intends to devote part of its efforts to this. The conversation held on February 2nd brought people together with others who share this concern. The Coalition therefore plans to follow up on this by organizing other events on the topic, such as workshops and conferences, with the aim of raising awareness of these issues among citizens and elected representatives, seeking solutions, and encouraging stakeholders to take action.

APPENDIX 1

ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED TO DISSEMINATE THE INVITATION TO THE CONVERSATION

À nous le PlateauACEF de l’Est de Mtl

ACEF du Sud-Ouest de Mtl

CIUSS de Montréal Nord

Collectif Démocratisons Montréal

CPAS Pointe St-Charles

Demain le sud-ouest

Demain Verdun

Écosphère

Farehd

Frappru

Gauche urbaine de Montréal

Imagine Lachine-Est

Laval en transition

Maison des Amériques

Milton Parc

Mobilisation MHM 6600

Native Montréal

NDG en transition

Prenons la ville

Réseau des femmes en environnement

RUI Chomedey

RUI Montréal-Nord

RUI Pont- Viau

RUI St-Martin

Société du développement social

Solidarité Ahuntsic

Table de Concertation Faubourg-Saint-Laurent

Table des groupes de femmes de Montréal

Table Peter Mcgill

Tandem Villeray – Saint-Michel – Parc-Extension

Un Itinéraire pour tous

VertCité

Y des femmes