In his text of March 7 on the future of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), seasoned editorialist Robert Dutrisac resorts to an old litigator’s trick: he caricatures the opposing point of view to better demolish it. Thus, Mr. Dutrisac writes: “The problem with André Pratte’s new ideas is that they are not that new. The government’s defense of “federal” judges as well as the faith of the federalist coalman as it displays it have not made the recent fortune of the PLQ. »
According to Larousse, the expression “faith of the coalman” means a “blind and thoughtless belief”. Mr. Dutrisac is in his right, of course, to totally disagree with my federalist “faith”; however, can he seriously argue that my beliefs on this subject are blind and ill-considered?
As for “government by federal judges”, this again caricatures my conviction that governments should not be able, with the stroke of a majority pen in Parliament, to set aside the fundamental rights of Quebecers. These rights, let us remember, are defined not only by the Canadian charter, but by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Regarding the Liberal Party of Quebec, the editorialist predicts that “it is the vision of the former senator that has the best chance of prevailing […] “. Three weeks after the elections of October 3, I suggested, in the pages of the Duty, the holding of a “general consultation of the members” of the Liberal Party. This idea, which others have put forward, seems to have made progress within the political formation. The future will tell if the PLQ decides to follow up on it or not.
One thing is certain, in my mind, it should be an exercise in reflection carried out, not in a vacuum, but in close collaboration with Quebeckers who believe in liberal ideas. If this consultation were to be launched, and assuming that I play any role in it, it is certainly not I who would decide its outcome, but all Quebec liberals.
I wrote that the Liberals who are wondering today about the raison d’être of the PLQ do not have to go further than the first article of the party’s constitution. Mr. Dutrisac only mentions the first paragraph of this article, “the primacy of the person, individual freedoms and the right of everyone to achieve their aspirations with respect for others”. It chooses to ignore the nine other principles enshrined in this article 1, in particular “the protection and promotion of the French character and the cultural dynamism of Quebec society, while recognizing the full legitimacy of the Anglophone fact in Quebec and cultural diversity” and “the promotion of Quebec’s interests in the Canadian federation”. However, what makes the Liberal Party of Quebec unique is the whole, the combination of these political objectives.
“Adherence to federalism, especially when it is distorted to make Canada an increasingly unitary state, cannot be unconditional,” adds the editorialist, giving me the opposite opinion. There are two errors in this assertion. First, Canada is not an “increasingly unitary” state; the provinces, including Quebec, are much more powerful today than in the past. Moreover, my “adherence” to federalism has never been unconditional; it is based on the conviction that today, Quebec is better able to develop as a society of French culture, prosperous and just within the federation than as a separate country.
The Liberal Party of Quebec is going through a very difficult period. It is not the first time. Periodically, when this has happened, the party has engaged in a courageous examination of its situation, as evidenced by the background documents that mark its history. If the party decides to launch such a review this time, I know that the Liberals will do a rigorous and daring job, a thousand leagues from the coalman’s faith mentioned by the eminent editorialist of the Duty.