Peter Black, Local Journalism Initiative reporter

peterblack@qctonline.com

Jean-Yves Duclos had some uncharacteristically harsh words for the Legault government’s decision to hand Quebec City’s tramway project over to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ).

The powerful federal procurement minister and MP for the downtown Québec riding called the move a “sabotage attempt” by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government.

Questioned by reporters on Parliament Hill in Ottawa the day after the Nov. 8 announcement, Duclos said, “I think that the Quebec government sabotaged the community’s efforts yesterday because the tramway project has been under study and discussion for 15 years.”

Duclos did not say whether the CAQ decision puts federal funding for an eventual transit project at risk. Last week, Duclos said the Liberal government would financially support the city’s “Plan B” option, with a revised budget of $8.4 billion.

Noting that Quebec City is the only city of its size in North America not to have a modern and electric public transit system, Duclos said the CAQ government is putting at risk “the largest Canadian investment in Quebec in history.”

He said, “The only way the Canadian government can exercise leadership is if the leadership of the Quebec government is also present. I’m sad about yesterday’s result, but I think we have to continue. We can’t afford to stay behind. We must invest in people’s quality of life and people’s health.”

Nora Loreto, cofounder of the group Québec désire son Tramway (QDST; Quebec wants its tramway), said in a statement to the QCT, “This is a really disappointing move from François Legault. Projects like these take years, and by delaying it, the costs will only increase. At the same time, car traffic will also increase, exacerbating an already difficult situation within the national capital region.”

She said, “If the CAQ thinks that delaying this project will hand them the next election, they’re wrong. This decision is a gift to Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québécois, both parties who support the project, and also to the Conservatives, who can cynically use this flip-flopping to try and win a riding or two in the region.”

A post on the QDST Facebook page speculated on the potential impact of the CAQ-Caisse decision on the current project office. William Gagnon-Moisan, who says he’s an engineer specializing in urban transit who’s worked at the office for three years, said, “This project will always have been complicated and strewn with upheavals. But this evening I have difficulty being positive, seeing hope, to still perceive light. So much hard work (and money spent) by so many competent people, to end up like this.” He said, “87 people at the [project office] will lose their jobs … I would have liked to be one of those who will have positively changed the face of our city; unfortunately, it seems that this will not be the case … let’s just hope that the CDPQ will be able to take over.”

The city’s neighbourhood councils, which had, the week before, issued a collective message of support for the city’s plan, reacted with anger and disappointment to the CAQ government’s move. Alexia Oman, president of the Saint-Roch council, told the local news website Mon Quartier that “the CAQ’s recent abandonment of the Quebec City tram project is more than a disappointment; it is a betrayal of citizens and a regression for the future of our city. By refusing a structuring transport system, the government is turning its back not only on residents of central neighbourhoods but also on anyone who dreams of a modern, ecological and efficient capital.”

Veteran municipal columnist François Bourque of Le Soleil wrote, “The good news here, if there is any, is that the government says it is committed to a structuring transport project – for what its word is still worth. Concretely, the scenario of a tram remains possible. However, it will be put back into the balance with others. As if the exercise had never been done. As if the Caisse was going to be able to do better in six months than what has been analyzed for 10 years. The difference is that the bill will have continued to rise and the federal funding may no longer be there when Groundhog Day returns.”