If we rely on certain fierce supporters of a third link in the form of a tunnel separating Quebec and Lévis, the case would almost be in the pocket. Two shots of the spoon, file settled. For these followers, social acceptability would be there, and the studies would support the need for such a project, which, still according to these enthusiasts, would serve the most vigorous plans for the defense of the environment.
Within hours of each other, Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) candidate Bernard Drainville and party leader François Legault showed that this topic was hot and that they didn’t like being bothered with insistent questions. .
“Let go of me with the GHGs!” said Bernard Drainville excessively last week, after specifying that the third CAQ version link was going to be used by more and more electric vehicles. “The people of Montreal must stop looking down on the people of Quebec and then Lévis! ” dropped Mr. Legault on Sunday, while answering questions from antenna chief Céline Galipeau during the program Five leaders, one electionon Radio-Canada.
Stung, gentlemen? This crucial question nevertheless has all the attributes of a subject of national debate, let it be said. As others have rightly mentioned, firstly because it is a large-scale infrastructure project — from 6 to 10 billion, at the very least —; then because the project is part of an environmental debate and must be consistent with a global vision of reducing greenhouse gases, whether some people like it; because it is in no way the result of a Montreal-Quebec conflict, the proof being that the last two mayors of Quebec do not support it; and finally because it must arouse public support and be based on conclusive data.
A few useful clarifications on this subject: a Segma survey–The sun–FM93 broadcast Tuesday tells us that 60% of respondents in the greater Quebec City region are in favor of a third link, but that of this number, half consider that the project is too expensive. This is the proof that questions can still be asked without getting the fly.
As for the famous “studies” which should allow us to understand the evidence on which the need for this third link is based, they must be updated, according to Mr. Legault, among other things because of teleworking, which may have changed the given. What a fabulous counter-argument, which directly targets the relevance of the project and which raises… new questions.