The PQ would have bad kind of being indignant at the passage of Bernard Drainville to the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ). First, because he had a purgatory out of politics for a few years. Then, especially because the Parti Québécois (PQ) was formed of defectors.
Posted on June 12
René Lévesque left the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ). He was joined by members of the Union Nationale and the PLQ and opposed “Bill 63”, the first of a series of language laws that were to be at the center of the debates of the 1970s.
And since it was a new party, people came from all walks of life, from the public service and universities and, of course, from other parties. The Jacques Parizeau, Jacques-Yvan Morin, Claude Morin, Camille Laurin and others who formed the heart of the party between its founding and the seizure of power in 1976.
The defectors? This is the destiny of all new parties, at least those that were not there at Confederation, such as the Liberal Party.
Even Québec solidaire was formed with people from grassroots groups, of course, but also several defectors from the Parti Québécois and the New Democratic Party.
Defectors are part of political life for the simple reason that political life must reflect changes in society.
But the fact remains that defectors have a moral obligation: that of explaining why they change sides. If only to show that their “crossing the floor of the House” is not just a matter of opportunism or the promise of having the limousine.
René Lévesque published Quebec Option leaving the PLQ. The book has become a classic, it has been reissued several times and is still found on the shelves of good booksellers. A sign that it is still relevant for anyone interested in Quebec politics.
When he left the PQ, François Legault first published a manifesto, then, in the fall of 2013, a book entitled Heading for a winning Quebec to which he sometimes still refers today.
In France, each new stage of political life is almost always accompanied by a work, some of which are genuine literary works. (The recent book by Edouard Philippe, after his departure from Matignon, is absolutely remarkable.)
In the United States, the book is part of the DNA of politics. One cannot be a candidate for the presidency, or even for the Senate, without writing a book.
From the first words of the Declaration of Independence, it is explained that “the respect due to the opinion of humanity obliges to declare the causes which determine it to separation”. Although it was written more than 200 years ago, it has become the norm among our neighbors to the south.
So why, on this side of the border, is “the respect due to public opinion” not a sufficient reason for defectors to explain themselves?
One reason is the excessive strength of political parties, which not only no longer allow dissent, but even no longer the right to question themselves publicly.
We saw this week in the United Kingdom a vote initiated by Conservative backbenchers, which almost overthrew Prime Minister Boris Johnson who, with 40% of dissident MPs, is perhaps fatally weakened.
It does not require a heavy constitutional amendment, just the political will to restore power to backbenchers.
In Quebec and Canada, it is the opposite. Political parties are stronger than anything. And allegiance to the leader is at the forefront of the qualities sought in a candidate.
In Ottawa, the most structuring political development of the past year is undoubtedly the agreement between Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh to allow the Liberals to continue to govern until the end of the normal four-year term.
The agreement was reached between the two chiefs. Neither the deputies of the two parties nor even the ministers were consulted in advance. They learned at 4:00 p.m. that there would be a cabinet meeting at 7:00 p.m. and then a caucus at 8:30 p.m. No amendment possible. Take it or leave it.
In Quebec, there are tests of loyalty to the chief. To become a CAQ candidate, for example, you have to swear that you support the third link, whatever you may have said before.
It’s got to the point where the two main defectors of the 2022 vintage, Bernard Drainville and Caroline St-Hilaire, had to repeat the exact same lie on the subject, that the third link is now acceptable because its second version has a way reserved for buses. But that’s only at peak times. While the reserved lane was permanent in the first version. It’s not greener, it’s less!
But, here, it seems that the defectors do not have to explain themselves.