From her first steps in the National Assembly, it was clear that Catherine Dorion would be as unhappy there as stones. She’s neither the first nor the last to discover that it didn’t suit her, but rarely had it been so predictable.
It is true that parliamentary procedure, the tyranny of the majority, the asepsis of the authorized vocabulary, the manifest ulterior motives of the “friends opposite”, on one side or the other, can become irritating, even downright unbearable.
Mme Dorion criticizes these “rigid, old and outdated frameworks”, imposed on elected officials, for hindering social transformations, but the most conservative business people can be as allergic to them as those who dream of revolution. Premier Legault, who once saw question period as a waste of time, took time to get used to it himself.
Rebels other than the member for Taschereau have learned to deal with this frustration. Amir Khadir understood that he could denounce injustice more effectively than by throwing his shoes, and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois would undoubtedly get on Mr. Legault’s nerves less if he had chosen to continue his action in the street. .
We may repeat Churchill’s aphorism that democracy is the worst system of government with the exception of all the others—which a quick overview will suffice to confirm—yet there are times when we can understand Catherine Dorion’s exasperation, the dice seem so loaded in favor of bad faith and stupidity.
One of the first files she tackled after her election was that of the third link between Quebec and Lévis, which she compared from the outset to “a line of coke which will only increase dependence on the automobile. The image was quite unusual in the parliamentary precinct, but it had the merit of clarity.
We can understand that the Legault government wishes to facilitate the movement of suburbanites, who above all have the great merit of being CAQ voters, but the increasingly preposterous justifications that it has provided over the months are likely to discourage n ‘anyone.
The Minister of Transport, François Bonnardel, had already left many flabbergasted last fall by arguing that the third link would be carbon neutral, but his colleague from the Environment, Benoit Charette, reached a peak in absurdity this week by declaring that the third link was “a great way” to contain urban sprawl.
The former leader of Démocratie Québec, David Lemelin, translated the general opinion by writing in The Carrefour of Quebec “Please, Mr. Charette, stop!” Really. You really have to stop the bones of your chin from moving, because the sounds that emerge don’t make any sense. » Just press the button and it starts.
That Mr. Charette is in charge of the fight against climate change seems as reassuring as entrusting the wheel of the fire truck to an arsonist. Now that he has decreed the impossibility of reaching higher targets, it is as if he is busy sowing obstacles in order to be right.
If need be, the past two years have dramatically demonstrated that viruses know no borders. They can spread with lightning speed and infect even those who seemed immune. That of stupidity is no exception.
Honestly, did anyone really think that Mr. Charette had the convictions, the will, the courage and the moral authority necessary to take up the challenge of the climate emergency? If he had had these qualities, Mr. Legault would not have appointed him to this position.
It is true that a Minister of the Environment is subject to tremendous pressures, inside and outside the government to which he belongs. Many nevertheless had the hope — or the naivety to believe — that Steven Guilbeault would be up to it. Obviously, Justin Trudeau had judged him better.
That the champion of the environment manages to give the green light to the Bay du Nord oil project precisely at the moment when the IPCC launched the most strident cry of alarm since its creation is a scenario worthy of a Greek tragedy.
How many young and old will rather see it as a joke cynical and the demonstration that the rules of politics always end up ensuring the triumph of stupidity, as Catherine Dorion concluded? How could we blame them?