(Quebec) Prime Minister François Legault has said one thing and its opposite about the idea of investing public funds in the baseball stadium project of Stephen Bronfman’s group during virulent exchanges with the parliamentary leader of Quebec solidarity, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois.
During question period in the National Assembly on Wednesday, the member for Gouin asked Mr. Legault not to put “a cent in Stephen Bronfman’s private stadium”, because Quebecers “have other priorities “. “My steamer, in baseball, I like it all dressed ketchup, but no public money!” “, He launched.
François Legault immediately reproached him for a tweet sent on Twitter the day before in which he said that “to put millions in a half-baseball team while the seniors eat mud, that’s the vision of the CAQ”.
“The leader of Québec solidaire tells us that he wants to make new politics, that he wants to make it modern. I’ve never seen it, mud like that, ”accused the Prime Minister. He added that Mr. Nadeau-Dubois’ “Twitter sparages” are “not worthy of a party leader”. The President of the National Assembly, François Paradis, had to intervene a few times because of the turn of the exchanges.
Basically, François Legault made very ambiguous remarks. He first indicated that “there is no question of our government putting a penny from the taxpayers in this”. But when Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois relaunched it, he then said that “if there is ever a baseball stadium, it will not cost Quebec taxpayers a penny”. Using this formula, he sort of took up the idea he himself had expressed in recent months by showing himself open to financial support from the state at zero cost to taxpayers, which would take into account the fallout. economics of Stephen Bronfman’s project.
For his part, the Minister of the Economy, Pierre Fitzgibbon, reiterated that discussions had been underway for a few months with Mr. Bronfman’s group about his $ 1 billion project including a baseball stadium. “Each economic project, we look at them. For me, baseball is like the Nordiques, it’s like a mine, we watch them all, ”he said. “If there was an agreement that would be made, it is because we would have concluded as a government that there are economic benefits greater than the cost, and that would have to be explained. The big debate is how we define economic spinoffs. ”
