Without wanting to doubt the sincerity of the tribute that François Legault wanted to pay to Queen Elizabeth II, the break that he imposed on the occasion of his death was still timely. He really needed to come to his senses.
With the approach of the televised debates, the CAQ strategists must be quite nervous. We know that the Prime Minister has a natural propensity for gaffes, but his performance since the start of the campaign has been particularly erratic.
Mr. Legault may be the only one to have the experience of an electoral campaign – and even several – as a leader, himself seems to lack confidence in his means. Even on its scale, the frequency of unprovoked errors is unusual.
After the debates on immigration and secularism at the start of the mandate, avoiding the amalgams that fuel prejudice should now be a reflex. Referring to immigration by evoking violence and extremism could only get him in trouble.
Contrary to what he said afterwards, his remarks were not confusing. They were even crystal clear. It was definitely awkward, but he actually seemed to believe what he was saying.
If he simply wanted to talk about the specific integration challenge facing a French-speaking society in North America, why did he use the word “violence”? We understand that Dominique Anglade has every interest in overwhelming him, but we can hardly blame him for thinking that the chief caquist has delivered the bottom of his thought.
Mr. Legault has the defects of his qualities. Quebecers have learned to love its simplicity and frankness, which contrasts with the wooden language and political correctness, which have too often become the norm, but apologizing all the time is starting to become a little too easy. It would be better to think before you speak.
Between simplicity and simplism, however, there is a line that the Prime Minister too often tends to cross. He is not devoid of common sense, far from it, but his binary vision of things sometimes prevents him from grasping reality in all its complexity, to the point that he comes to deny it. The debate over systemic racism provided a good example.
He is also aware of this, since he tries to avoid subjects that make him feel insecure. This week, it was appalling to hear him say that we could talk about Quebec values, which he has made his bread and butter for years, but that they should not be named.
Yet it was he who wanted to impose a test on immigrants, who must now obtain a “certificate of learning democratic values and Quebec values” to be entitled to the Quebec Selection Certificate. How could newcomers learn values that must not be named?
In anticipation of the televised debates between the party leaders, where he risks being challenged on the subject, Mr. Legault would do well to read the practical guide entitled Democratic values and Québec values expressed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedomswhich his government makes available to those wishing to settle in Quebec.
From the outset, he would find there the five “keys” around which Québec values revolve, which he would simply have to memorize to avoid finding himself again in an embarrassing situation where he would have to choose between keeping quiet and having the look crazy or put your foot in the dish.
They are relatively easy to remember: 1) Quebec is a French-speaking society; 2) Quebec is a democratic society; 3) Equality between women and men; 4) The rights and responsibilities of Quebecers; 5) Quebec is a secular society.
The guide could even inspire the Prime Minister in the exercise of his profession. Thus, it explains that everyone has a right to their reputation and is protected by the Charter against any gesture or word that could harm it. Is gratuitously associating immigrants with violence consistent with Quebec values?
Another example, the guide proclaims the “right to live in a healthy environment”, adding that “this right implies that all people in Quebec contribute to the protection of the environment, including the State and businesses”. This is obviously not the case with the Horne foundry.