MTQ Responds Quickly

And they are saying NO!

All three major political parties of Montreal have said very clearly that the MTQ needs to change it’s plans for Turcot. Normally that carries a lot of weight, and when you throw in demerged cities such as Westmount being on board it is fairly safe to say that politically the Island of Montreal wants a new deal for Turcot!

What we have now in Quebec is obviously a failure of basic democratic principles. Do the Ministries of the Quebec government hold such omniscient and permanent power that they can make final decisions based on their own criteria without being held accountable to anyone, including the sitting government of the day? It appears to be that way.

Jean Charest has managed to become the most unpopular premier in the history of poll taking in Quebec for many reasons, but shoving user fees for Medicare unto the people of Quebec is something that may never be forgiven. And now we see one of the Ministries acting with an arrogance, an out and out open disregard for the people of Montreal, that is totally unacceptable.

This is not going to go away and a new kind of war will be fought in Quebec. We need to get politicians to work for us not against us as seems to be the case in Quebec these days. The days of arrogant corrupt leadership are over!

The people of Montreal deserve respect. And it looks like we are going to have earn it by not allowing a sinking ship of a Liberal government to drag us down under the water with them! Turcot is a great metaphor for all that is sailing out of control in Quebec (public inquiry into corruption, anyone?) and perhaps it’s time that Montreal chooses to control it’s own destiny.


3 responses to “MTQ Responds Quickly

  1. Perhaps, speaking strictly as a novice, but that during these times of fiscal conservatism, multiple billions of dollars spent on any project may seem excessive. That isn’t to say there isn’t some kind of corrupt undertow to all of this, or that the federal and provincial politics du jour aren’t traditionally anti-urban for some philosophical reason. Personally the Turcot Yard idea has a ton of merit, specially when it comes to reducing traffic. The day the 30 is finally open, will greatly contribute to this idea. It is just that from the outset, a five+ billion dollar budget in an sea of corrupt disinterested political times will have a way of becoming fifty billion [can you say pregnant man?] and where would that leave us? But hey what do I know?

  2. The exact same can be said for the Bonaventure project and the Dalhousie!!!!! ONLY in that one the CITY is the culprit so lets not get so excited about what the City of Montreal wants…. The stakeholders of Griffintown are hoping that the MTQ will have the brains to say NO to that expensive extravaganzatic disaster!! It sure seems like the only reason the city has proposed something for the turcot is the possibility that they can reap more tax dollars out of what they call economic development projects… a euphemism for Yeah more tax money

  3. I agree with you there. Montreal has not been much help in these projects so far. But it does have to be said that in regard to Turcot all 3 of Montreal’s political parties did present briefs asking for changes in the MTQ’s plan at the BAPE hearings back in June of 2009. The real mystery to me is why the city waited so long to present their concept?

    Not matter what happens with Turcot there should be a very long look into how projects like this get going in the first place. Ideally, the MTQ would suggest that the interchange needs to be rebuilt and the city could then set up some committees to look into it. Clearly, the MTQ does not understand Montreal nor is it well versed in contemporary transportation issues (?!?!?!?), so changes need to be made in the way things are done.

    And I have to agree that all that housing along the city’s proposed Turcot just looks, well, kind of ridiculous after all the talk about health. I thought we were trying to get away from people living besides freeways?

    Dalhousie is another case of a very arrogant body coming up with a plan that no one likes. I have not seen the Office de la Consultation Publique pretty much tear apart a project like they did with Dalhousie, and it is important to remember that impartiality is their raison d’etre. These people go out of their way to try to see things on balance and they still couldn’t come up with any positives for Dalhousie.

    What, you may ask, do these people stand to gain by having very unpopular projects go through?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s