This is the Latin phrase that Bernard Landry brought back into fashion in the documentary film At human height which recounts his 2003 election campaign. Mr. Landry was trapped in the leaders’ debate by a quote from Jacques Parizeau on a future referendum.
Unable to reach him and not wanting to comment on the case before having done so, the lawyer that was Landry replied: “ Audi alteram partem “. In law, this means that we cannot judge if we have not heard both parties.
This week, we had some fine examples of what should and should not be done when the time comes for our MPs to comment on someone’s remarks.
In what is called the Amira Elghawaby affair, we saw the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, wait before saying whether Mme Elghawaby would be an acceptable candidate for the position of Canadian government special representative on combating Islamophobia.
Since his appointment, we have found several articles and publications on social networks that accused, among other things, the majority of Quebecers of having anti-Muslim feelings.
Mr. Blanchet argued on Radio-Canada that, for him, “there was no correct way to manage this without, at least, having given him the opportunity to explain himself” and therefore to organize a meeting.
Once the explanations were heard, the next day, he decided that they were not acceptable to him given the position she would occupy. This is not surprising, given the political option of Mr. Blanchet, but all this was done in the forms.
Another example of a good way to do things: the appointment of the first French language commissioner. The government had proposed Benoit Dubreuil, but Québec solidaire had reservations because of a book on immigration co-authored by him.
At the suggestion of the government, MM. Dubreuil and Nadeau-Dubois met: “We come out of this meeting with the impression that he is a competent man who is capable of occupying these functions. »
“This is proof that meeting people before making judgments on the person, sometimes, often, allows us to move forward,” said Mr. Nadeau-Dubois, explaining that his party will vote for the appointment of Mr. Dubreuil.
The thing not to do now: unfortunately, that is precisely what the National Assembly did this week. A motion proposed by the CAQ, the Liberals and the PQ (QS had decided to abstain) said “that the National Assembly take note of the unacceptable remarks made in the past by Ms. Elghawaby concerning Quebecers and Islamophobia and denounce these about… “.
There was no time to let her explain herself, the case was heard and she therefore had to be immediately condemned by the National Assembly.
This causes some discomfort. First, because the primary role of the National Assembly is to adopt laws, not to condemn the words of citizens, especially not without having taken the time to hear their explanations or their excuses.
It is all the more sad that the National Assembly has already played in this film. It became what was called “the Michaud affair”. Yves Michaud, a well-known sovereigntist activist, had been blamed by the National Assembly for a declaration that some had equated with anti-Semitism.
Several deputies subsequently regretted their vote and even repudiated the motion. But it was too late and, despite all his efforts, Mr. Michaud never received the apology he was asking for.
But what must be remembered is that the National Assembly is not a court and that Members should not be asked to react like clockwork to denounce every statement that may seem outrageous or unjustified of Quebec.
Because if the National Assembly plays too often in court, we will end up demanding that it provide itself with some sort of appeal mechanism.
And why not a parliamentary commission responsible for hearing the dissatisfied? There would be no shortage of people who want publicity or visibility and who would be delighted to be blamed by the National Assembly if it were to give them a platform and a few moments in the spotlight!
So let’s keep itAudi alteram partem as good practice so that Members hear as many points of view as possible and speak out in full knowledge of the facts, but let us avoid diverting the institution that is the National Assembly from its primary responsibilities.
In closing, a brief return to the Elghawaby affair. None of this would have happened if the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa had done its homework. A simple Google search would have revealed Mr.me Elghawaby and realizing that they were going to rob so many people that she couldn’t complete the task given to her by the government.
There are days when it seems that in Ottawa, we are no longer capable of carrying out the responsibilities of a government. Whether it’s delivering a passport or doing the normal checks before appointing someone.