A debate without losers | The Press

To win, you sometimes have to give the other person the impression that they are not losing. And at the national council of Québec solidaire in Saguenay, everyone had the impression of making gains. Or, at least, to have avoided defeats.

The tension was palpable.

At the entrance, a photo of Émilise Lessard-Therrien with a heart recalled her resignation in April. A book was opened to collect testimonies, as if the party was still in mourning.

For several weeks, activists have partly blamed Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois and his entourage for the departure of the female co-spokesperson.

The debate became more personal. Mr. Nadeau-Dubois moved him to another subject: the future of the party.

After losing regional votes in the last campaign, QS launched a tour. It was 2023. The party did not only consult its supporters. He also met with stakeholders from various sectors, including unions and businesses. Their message: your program is too long and complicated. And you don’t understand certain regional realities, such as the importance of the forestry and mining industries in our communities.

The party’s response is the “Saguenay Declaration”. It was written before the resignation of Mr.^me Lessard-Therrien. Ideas from the co-spokesperson can also be found there.

Mr. Nadeau-Dubois anticipated and intensified the debate on this declaration in order to divert the debate on his person.

During the tour, QS was also told that the agricultural community, in the midst of a crisis, did not need to divide over the union monopoly of the Union of Agricultural Producers (UPA). The declaration therefore proposed not to touch it. It also recommended including industry in thinking about the future of forestry.

Another example: the program, the development of which began in 2009, talks about disarming the police. During the last campaign, while shootings increased in Montreal, candidates found the idea difficult to defend…

This gives an idea of ​​the cleaning to be done. Analysts have spoken of “refocusing”, a word hated in this left-wing party.

Saturday morning, behind closed doors, disappointed activists emptied their bags. Later in the day, some distrust remained.

“There is a crisis, everyone knows it,” admitted an activist on the microphone.

Activists did not understand what status to give to the Saguenay declaration. Others tried to reduce it to the status of an “observation” of testimonies heard on tour. They did not want it to become a party position. Trade union activist André Frappier approached the microphone to propose this interpretation.

On the floor, Manon Massé and others were busy. Mr. Frappier felt he was going to lose the vote. He had the wisdom to abandon his approach. “We will work together,” he said, before being applauded.

While the population enjoyed the radiant sunshine, solidarity activists locked themselves in a windowless room to debate the substance and, often also, the form. Confusion was never far away.

The “modernization” of the program was scary. Activists feared it would be completely rewritten. To reassure them, the verb “modernize” has been changed to “update”…

Two months have been added to allow more time for reviewing the program and platform. This work will be completed as planned before the next election campaign.

But basically, all the hard left’s amendments were rejected. On the microphone, we heard voices that didn’t exist in the early days of QS.

A forestry engineer from Charlevoix, who works with the public, explained how the forestry regime works and the role of small entrepreneurs.

Another activist recalled that free public transport was unthinkable for interregional bus connections.

The nationalizations of the “housing industry” and the battery sector were also massively rejected.

This is what the party had in mind when talking about an applicable government program, and not theoretical ideas formulated without a budget, timeline or minimal plan.

The party leadership has been particularly adept with the UPA. On the surface, it was a defeat. Activists refused to vote for the end of the union monopoly. In fact, they voted… not to speak out. However, they recognized its importance in defending farmers.

But read on carefully. The end of the monopoly is only mentioned in the electoral platform. Unlike the program, this platform is rewritten from scratch before each campaign. So if the party doesn’t do anything about it, it won’t promise any change. Which amounts to the status quo. Or the maintenance of the union monopoly. Exactly what GND offers…

The exercise, however, demonstrated the limits of the spokesperson formula. The interim women’s representative, Christine Labrie, assured that there was no contradiction between the program and the Saguenay declaration. Yet it is obvious. The first wishes to “place the large forestry industry under public control”, by “considering complete nationalization if necessary”. While the second recognizes the “central role of the forestry industry”. But^me Labrie must wait for members to vote on the program. In the meantime, she and her colleagues are forced to do the splits.

Nevertheless, at the end of this national council, the party as a whole emerges as a winner. The crisis has provided valuable visibility to this declaration, which will help QS broaden its support. Or, to quote Mr. Nadeau-Dubois, to “talk to convinced people, but also to convincing people”.