Who we are

Trainsparence is a coalition involving experts and citizens engaged in promoting transparency, good governance and sustainable development in projects of infrastructure and territorial development.

Why we oppose the REM

The government is rushing through the approval process for the REM even though many ministries considered their impact studies “irreceivable” and the public still has no access to essential information. CDPQ INFRA refuses to disclose ridership studies, cost/benefit analyses with other options, nor do they answer important questions on many subjects including the impact on the current transit system, or on existing fares.

The REM project will be the biggest PPP in Quebec’s history and the liberal government is giving an unprecedented amount of power to a private entity.

We are handing over the planning, financing, operation, maintenance and ownership of a strategic transit infrastructure to an external consortium.

By privatising the REM, decisions will be motivated by profit rather than the public good.

Meanwhile, this project will be financed with billions of dollars in subsidies from federal and provincial governments as well as an undetermined contribution of municipal and transit fares.

CDPQ Infra will also receive billions in value in public property and existing operating transit systems, including the existing tunnel under Mount-Royal and the Two Mountains Train line.

They can then sell these assets off to any other private owner at anytime.

This is inacceptable.

REM lawsuits

1. In light of the blatant disregard for due process and citizens’ rights that was shown throughout the REM process, a group of citizens is taking legal action to force the Government to conduct new BAPE hearings. The demand was dismissed by judge Yergeau. Plaintiffs are currently appealing this ruling.

» You can help finance this court case by donating through Coalition Climat Montréal

2. The owner of expropriated lots on the South Shore, Claude Gazaille, is contesting the expropriation as well as the constitutionality of the REM with respect to indirect taxation (see La Presse article).