A gang of four men robbed a downtown pawnshop of $100,000 in jewelry on Thursday afternoon.
Updates from December, 2020 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
Kate
-
Kate
I was going to append this one to the REM post from earlier, but it would tend to get lost. The Journal’s Michel Girard points out here that the profitability of the REM is projected to come from government subventions, not from users. Passengers are not meant to prop it up – government is. The last two paragraphs ask the cromulent questions.
David635
It’s a big surprise that the fare box recovery doesn’t sustain the system, and that the government has to make up the difference? Did we think that the STM just made it all up?
With how much this blog has exposed just how awful the STM arrive is, we’re really going to say that another agency could do it worse?
Do we even yet know how much less the REM will cost the government than the STM?
Dhomas
@David∞ The STM is NOT run for profit, though. The REM is. So, it’s not enough for the REM to break even and provide a public service, they need to pay for the system to be profitable to investors with year over year growth. This would be fine if it was a private endeavour, but it’s funded by the public. It’s literally siphoning money from the pubic purse to private coffers.
ant6n
I don’t get it, this has been known since 2017, that the ARTM will pay CDPQInfra 72c per passenger-km, and that the fare usually brings in around 20c. The Deux Montagnes line did cost about 30c to operate, and and another 10c for capital costs, for a total cost of about 40c (basically half the REM).
I wasn’t the only one who had repated over and over and over again that the REM will only be profitable from their contract with the ARTM. But the ARTM can’t cover the expenses of that contract with fares. The fares are still up to the ARTM, but the ARTM has to cover the 50-60c shortfall for every passenger-km (indefinitely). A lot of the shortfall will be paid by the province directly to the ARTM – effectively Quebec is paying money into the CDPQ using transit spending as a detour.
See articles here
http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/07/is-the-montreal-metro-profitable/
http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/privatization-of-the-deux-montagnes-linehow-to-value-a-transit-line/Ephraim
@Dhomas – Well, yeah… it’s our pensions. But the REM itself doesn’t need to make a profit to be profitable. The rent on the station space, the buildings around that they are building, there are other ways to turn a profit… and they aren’t really going to appear as part of the REM. If you have land around that you develop into apartments, stores, etc, it’s not going to be marked as income for Infra, is it? If the value of the warehouses, office space and other properties that are owned by CDPQ go up in value… that’s not Infra’s income.
su
That makes sense in theory Ephraim, but it seems that the more development we have had since 2008, the more in the hole all 3 levels of government become. Should they not be swimming in dough given the scale of development? Clearly something is not adding up.
DeWolf
Dhomas, the investors in the CDPQ are all public agencies: the civil servant retirement plan, the Quebec pension plan, the Ministry of Finance, the construction industry pension plan, the CSST and the SAAQ. So any profits go to the public purse.
Which doesn’t justify the situation, of course. It’s public money in, public money out, so why play weird financial games by having the CDPQ serve as a middleman?
Ant6n
Are we starting these discussions again? The teachers’ private employee pensions aren’t public money. Here’s some discussion on that back from 2016:
http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/08/how-the-caisses-public-public-partnership-is-privatization-in-disguise/Oh and get a quick chart from that article above about the privatization of the dm line, showing how the structure of the REM puts the infrastructure outside of the control of the public:
http://www.cat-bus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/deux-montagnes-ownership-chart.png
(Actually there was a change at some point, the cdpq assets somehow purchased the Mount Royal tunnel directly, so is not owned by the REM)Ephraim
Su, under 25% of the money in the CDPQ is actually the Quebec Pension Plan. The government pensions, and teacher’s pensions are essentially their own pensions, part of their salary and benefit package. For example, if you are in REGOP, you can withdraw the money and put it into your RRSP, if you prefer.
The reason this was done with the CDPQ is that they aren’t tried down to hire Quebec companies and Quebec supplies that are often overinflated.
But they need a profit, because they need to turn a profit on the funds. Yes, some of the funds are the SAAQ and CNESST and of course the Generations Fund. But these are hands off funds. A way to keep the government from dipping it’s hands into it.
su
I was referring not only to CDPQ . Questioning more why all the infrastructure and other forms of development are always touted as benefitting all of us and our government coffers. It seems to me that in fact our City is still low on dough after the major explosion in building going on since the 2008 crash. Maybe off topic-not CDPQ specific.
-
Kate
The NHL has announced that matches will start on January 13 and the Canadiens start on that day with a match against the Leafs.
This will go on until there’s an inevitable Covid outbreak in the ranks, and then it’s anyone’s guess.
Update: Canadian teams will only be playing Canadian teams!
Douglas
Covid outbreaks aren’t a big deal at all. Games will just be re-scheduled like all the other sports leagues are doing.
Kate
Covid outbreaks aren’t a big deal at all.
Of course they aren’t. 2,349 new cases in Quebec over the last 24 hours, and 46 more deaths. No big.
Uatu
Nurses at the Lakeshore are told to choose to go full time, increase to 12hr shifts or give up vacation time. If they don’t choose, the choice will be made for them. The Vic ICU is so full they’re discussing who will get treatment and who won’t. Adult patients are being transferred to the children’s hospital for lack of space.
So yeah all you whiny hospital staff quit griping. It’s no biggie.
Oh and “food on the table”Dhomas
At this point, I’m pretty sure Douglas is a troll.
Douglas
Healthy people under 50 barely die from this disease. So healthy hockey players getting infected = no big deal.
So why is anyone concerned about an outbreak between players?And Kate, 280 000 Canadians die every year on average, 800 per day. So what do your numbers tell me exactly?
Douglas
Uatu,
Entire entertainment industry is broke, thousands of small businesses went bankrupt, restaurant industry can’t even “put food on the table” and you want me to feel sorry for people still earning money this year?
Kate
Excess mortality, Douglas.
I can’t get my head around the idea that we should all behave “normally” and if a lot of people die, or get chronic conditions that dog them for a long time, who gives a shit, it’s no big deal. But that seems to be what you say every time you comment here.
Jebediah Pallendrome
^ exactly. Glad someone had the immense courage to say this. People die every day ergo there is absolutely nothing wrong with having 4-5 times as many people die every day.
I’m with Douglas. No more seatbelts or airbags, no safety standards or regulations for commercial aviation either. The FDA is a waste, let the free market decide what’s poison and what isn’t. And forget modern medicine. Our society was purer like during the time of the ancient Greeks, when if you’re slave-catomite’s appendix burst or leg broke, you just threw him off a cliff into the sea and then made someone else your new slave-catomite.
I’m in complete agreement with Douglas, there’s no way I’m allowing myself to be mildly inconvenienced for the betterment of all.
It’s so inconsiderate to people like me and Douglas, who have never in any way needed or depended on the society we live in nor it’s vast social safety net. We’ve managed to go our whole lives completely unloved and therefore on our own and without any friends, and therefore because we’re miserable we feel it’s our job to make sure everyone else is, because some Austrian hypocrite poorly wrote a book about an architect 75 years ago that unlettered fools think is secretly brilliant.
Obviously unfettered capitalism and grovelling to the almighty dollar isn’t an existential slavery that’s at the root cause of all our problems, sharing and thinking of others is.
Le mic. She is dropped.
Max
Le sarcasme. She is strong these days.
Chris
>Excess mortality, Douglas.
Doesn’t that link kinda make Douglas’ point though? It says only 12% of the excess deaths were people under 65 years of age. No doubt even less for fit 20 somethings. And the excess deaths, at their peak, were “only” about 2x the regular death count. The way the media goes on about covid, I bet if you took a poll, Joe Average would think excess deaths are at 100x.
>I can’t get my head around the idea that we should all behave “normally” and if a lot of people die, or get chronic conditions that dog them for a long time, who gives a shit, it’s no big deal.
Not sure why you can’t get your head around it, because alas it’s forever been humanity’s modus operandi. We slash and burn rainforest, we burn fossil fuel, we turn a blind eye to forced labour, we generate and dump all kinds of pollutants, all the while knowing it will sicken and kill millions and millions. We’d rather have our low cost trinkets.
Just as you or I may calculate that a little forced labour, toxic chemicals, polluted waters, strip mining, and deforestation is worth it for that new iPhone, so others calculate that a few people catching covid is worth it for that hockey game or trip to Cuba.
Mark
Merry Christmas folks. Chris, you say “only” 2x the regular death count. This, despite worldwide lockdowns, closing travel, masks, social distancing, and so on. Had we not done this, what do you think the excess death count would have been? This nasty virus spreads like nothing we’ve seen in decades.
Public health has never said: We need to reduce the risk to 0. They are aiming to reduce the risk enough to avoid the collapse of our health care system. The ICUs are full now.
Hockey players are not going to die, but they can transmit the disease. As a hockey fan, I’m happy to see it start up again. But this is all about making $ for the teams, and I don’t think it’s the right call.
Chris
Mark, I put “only” in quotes exactly because I meant it’s not just a little bit.
>Had we not done this, what do you think the excess death count would have been?
More. Duh.
>But this is all about making $ for the teams
Just about everything in our society is about making money for someone. But I can see an argument for allowing these games: if people can’t shop, can’t go out because it’s too cold, can’t go to work, can’t do just about fuck all, and they’re told to stay inside at home, well they need something to watch. Some live sports could help keep people home, and thus be a net reducer of virus transmission.
Mark
Hi Chris, fair point about people staying home more to watch hockey. And I agree that society is foolishly trying to reduce risk to zero, when that isn’t possible ( pollution, injuries etc. ). A good example is that proves your point is how jungle gyms transformed over the last 30 years try to reduce injuries to kids, but probably failing in that respect.
But I don’t see the response to covid in the same vein as this over protectiveness. I see doctors pleading for people to stop contacts to avoid a collapse of the health care system. Maybe I’m wrong in respect.
-
Kate
Metro has some items about Mayor Plante: she’s worried about people coming back from trips south carrying disease; she regrets how the hasty introduction of safe active transit lanes was taken badly; she speaks about her response to departures from her party and what she intends to do to shore up the party’s solidarity going into an election year.
Jason
Quick question: Why is non-essential travel even allowed?
Kate
I wish I understood that myself. I suspect it’s that government knows that if it banned travel outright it would be unpopular, for one, and for another, that such a rule would be hard to enforce. Authority never likes to look weak, and nothing’s weaker than making rules that can’t be enforced.
Spi
Chapter 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, or are we going to suspend constitutional rights now?
Kate
States of emergency include overrides, Spi.
MtlWeb
Decisions…….sorry Spi but deferring to the charter during this pandemic is as noble as asking for the public’s word to govern themselves for 2 weeks before and after their trip, to avoid cross-site transmission, let alone protect their own contacts’ health.
Since everyone is allowed to define ‘essential travel’ as it applies to their own needs and wants, there should be a decree that can protect both destinations while still allowing those who need or just want to travel to do so: To book a ticket, the traveller must pay for a private PCR test & a one night stay at hotel near airport, test done in evening (within 12h of flight) with result in early AM: PCR negative, allowed to go on flight; PCR positive, not allowed to fly & must remain 14d at hotel to ensure isolation measures adhered to. Same process for return, on arrival, 1-night stay including PCR test, result available in AM…if negative can go home, if positive 14 day stay….only way to leave hotel if positive is if in need of health care……should be the cost of travelling during this pandemic. Break the rules, you’re placed on a no-fly list.
Whoever does not want to follow guidelines and respect the effect & potential of C19 can always opt out and claim their constitutional rights are being violated but FIRST they can present themselves at any one of our hospitals for a 16 hour shift, 12 hours scheduled and 4 hours forced to stay – they will be asked to A) help our PABs assist the staff in mobilizing/positioning/cleaning patients, while wearing full PPE including that reusable N-95 then without stopping for a pee, snack, smoke, etc….B) join our RTs and RNs in ER when a new admission presents and requires endotracheal intubation, full PPE (same mask as above) in case patient is C19+, staff will show them how to place an IV, suction their oropharynx and assist with placing the tube…and finally, they can participate in the newly created triage for ‘critical care allocation’ teams ( includes an MD intensivist, an ethics officer, and a mix of critical care staff)…their mandate, forced upon them by the situation, is to decide which decompensating patients waiting for an ICU bed in ER or on the wards or even already in an ICU bed can use or stay in that same ICU bed, based on their prognosis & medical history. Decisions need to be made based on supply and demand of health-care resources….these decisions are counter to everything the field of medicine has stood for in Canada throughout these health care professionals’ careers and will likely haunt them for the rest of their careers and lives. Does this sound like a Michael Crichton novel or episode 47 of ER? Perhaps, but it’s what is being planned as you are reading this since the need for critical care and hospital beds is projected to spike in the middle of January. Those who ‘decided’ to take a trip because they’ve had such a rough time away from the sun, beach and buffet cuisine are likely to return to Montreal during this same period, and make things even worse.
Do I sound bitter, a fear-mongerer, a pessimist, someone who wants to sacrifice the constitution’s guarantees and freedoms to try to help as many people as possible from our community live? Will do anything to care for our sickest of the sick, no matter who and have only been doing it for the last 30 years but at this point, listening to people defend their right to fly to Cuba, I and all of my colleagues are just exhausted, pissed off, fed up and in utter disbelief as to how selfish, ignorant, self-entitled, and full of sh** so many of our neighbours are showing themselves and sadly their children to be.
Sorry Kate, for writing a novel.
Kate
MtlWeb, no worries. People need to understand this stuff and you’ve written well and passionately about it.
Chris
OTOH, some people (not saying anyone here) seem to be acting like we should do anything and everything to save every last person from covid, no matter the cost. Well, you know what: we shouldn’t. Nor do we do so for air pollution, car crashes, cancer, heart disease, or anything else. It’s a balance between saving as many as we can, without making the cure worse than the disease. We’ve been doing reasonably well overall I think.
Dhomas
That sentence… “The cure is worse than the disease”. Please stop. We should do as much as possible to save people from heart disease, climate change, car crashes, etc. Is not eating a steak every day “worse than the disease”? Is taking public transit over a personal vehicle “worse than the disease”?
We will never be able to save everyone from every disease, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
Chris
>We should do as much as possible to save people from heart disease, climate change, car crashes, etc
That phrase… “as much as possible”. Please stop. 🙂 So we should ban high cholesterol food, cigarettes, and cars, right? That would be doing “as much as possible”. But we don’t do that, do we? Why not? Because, (in the view of many,) it would be a cure worse than the disease.
>Is not eating a steak every day “worse than the disease”?
Is never eating steak ever again?
>Is taking public transit over a personal vehicle “worse than the disease”?
Is everyone giving up all personal vehicles forever? Getting rid of all cars would save many air pollution and collision deaths. That would be doing “as much as possible”.
People are only willing to go so far for climate change, covid, or anything else.
dhomas
@Chris In my view, there are three main reasons people don’t do as much as they could for the environment.
1) the alternatives are easier.
2) the alternatives are cheaper (somewhat related to point 1).
3) it seems pointless if not everyone is working toward the same goal. Probably the biggest reason.There is a “cure” for this, though it probably could only be applied gradually, or there would be too much pushback.
1) It’s far more convenient in most cases to use products that are bad for the environment, and to humans by association. We all know (well, most of us) that single use plastics are bad for the environment, but it’s much easier to send individually wrapped snacks in our kids’ lunches than it would be to put them in reusable containers. Same goes for using cars over public transit. I’m sure we could come up with many more examples.
2) it’s much more expensive to use sustainable products. It’s so much cheaper to buy made-in-China products that will go to the landfill after a few uses, but most people will go for the cheaper option because it’s available.
3) this one is probably the most important reason. Why should one try so hard to reduce their own impact on the environment if their neighbour, the next country over, or the giant ethically-questionable corporation is going to do exactly the opposite. Seems quite pointless, doesn’t it? Like our efforts are completely negated by the actions of others.The solution to this problem, similar to what the government is trying to do with the C19 pandemic, is strong government to put in place extreme solutions, and push them through as quickly as possible while avoiding public backlash that would cause a backslide back into bad behaviours. Make the convenient option unavailable (banning single use plastics, for example); make the cheap option more expensive (carbon taxes, tariffs on environment-damaging products, ban ICE vehicles, etc); apply these new rules universally and hold other countries accountable for their actions. That last part is the hardest to do, because it needs to be applied globally. But it’s not impossible! The Montreal Protocol in the late 80’s showed us that we CAN come together across the globe to take needed actions for the planet.
So, all this to say, I don’t think the fact that the government takes these actions to stem the spread of the pandemic and not for the environment (or any other public good) does NOT mean they should stop the C19 restrictions. It means they should take similarly drastic measures for those other causes as well!
-
Kate
Some possibly useful lists of what will be open and closed over the holiday period. This year it intersects with the general closure of nonessentials from Christmas till at least January 11.
-
Kate
More on the windy, rainy weather we’ll have for Christmas, but which has begun Thursday morning.
-
Kate
The MUHC hospitals are filling up with COVID patients, so that some adults are being moved to the Children’s.
-
Kate
A lot of churches will be ringing their bells Thursday at 6 pm.
Reply