For those who are worried about the stubbornness of the Legault government in the files of the REM in eastern Montreal and the third Quebec-Lévis link, the upcoming election year is hardly encouraging. Obviously, the two projects are part of a political agenda that we do not intend to deviate.
At least this is what the way in which we reject out of hand any form of criticism, whether it is based on hard-to-contest data, eloquent empirical observations, or a convergence of studies covering long periods of time, suggests. . We know, it is argued, what the population wants, regardless of what opponents think and say about it, whether they are informed observers, recognized experts, concerned citizens or elected officials worried about a questionable use of public funds. .
This attitude, which the Prime Minister intends to ensure is endorsed without reservation by all the ministers concerned by these files, borders on arrogance. However, it is worth recalling that such arrogance presided over, a few decades ago, the launch with great fanfare of a project which had a sad end, despite all the guarantees given. at the beginning.
The construction of the Mirabel airport was announced in March 1969 by the Prime Minister of a government which, he argued, had all the data required to make a decision of which the necessity and legitimacy were beyond doubt. The government of Quebec and all those who had reservations and objections had to take it for granted. Conducted in accelerated mode, the site was completed in five years, at a cost of $ 500 million ($ 3.5 billion in today’s dollars).
The airport, built in the heart of a vast agricultural estate of more than 39,000 hectares whose owners had been summarily expropriated, was to include six runways and six terminals and, by 2000, to accommodate some 40 million passengers. .
Plagued by disagreements between Quebec and Ottawa, particularly with regard to highway and rail service, the project will also be a victim of the consequences of the 1973 oil shock and the consequent adaptations of the aeronautics industry.
In 1975, Pierre Elliott Trudeau still continued to assert that he was right against all odds. Dorval airport – ironically renamed Montreal-Trudeau – nevertheless remains in service and dethroned Mirabel in 1997. The end of passenger flights at Mirabel was decided in 2004 and the terminal was demolished in 2015 and 2016.
It must be recognized that it was difficult to foresee in all its magnitude this dismal failure. The project surfed on the wave of prosperity of the Thirty Glorious Years and on growth expectations whose candor we now recognize. No one could anticipate the consequences of the first oil shock on international air traffic. The fact remains that the extreme politicization of the dossier and the boundless assurance of its promoters were hardly favorable to the adjustments which would soon be necessary. Everyone has remained in their positions, both in Ottawa and in Quebec, and we have paid the price.
This is why the stubbornness shown by the CAQ government in the files of the Eastern REM and the third link must be of concern.
Contrary to what happened at Mirabel, we can already foresee the disastrous consequences of these two projects, the justifications of which have been severely criticized.
In other words, the carefree enthusiasm we showed when launching Mirabel is now simply indefensible and irresponsible. We cannot persist in affirming loud and clear that these projects are well founded, both from the point of view of their usefulness and their variation, especially when we recognize at the same time that one of the two is not in line with the objectives. fight against climate change.
The teachings of Mirabel cannot be ignored. They can do so all the less since, this time, it is important to insist, we persist in knowingly defending extremely controversial projects because of the many negative impacts announced. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that if economists had more memory, they would make a fool of themselves less often. In this election year, the relevance of the words of the eminent economist is not in doubt, all brotherhoods combined. Especially when the ridiculousness with which we insist on trying to cover ourselves up amounts to tens of billions of dollars.
What do you think? Express your opinion