In May 2006, a handful of Liberal activists mutinied when the Charest government introduced a bill to privatize part of Mont-Orford Park.
Three years earlier, the delegates to the general council of the PLQ had unanimously adopted a resolution which committed it to “clearly and unambiguously prohibiting any possibility of abolishing a park, reducing it or exchanging land part of a park, in perpetuity, for the benefit of present and future generations”. It could hardly be more explicit. But the Charest government had taken no notice of this, relying on the “discipline” of Liberal activists to cede 650 hectares of the park to real estate developers who wanted to develop a golf course there and build more than 1,000 homes.
This rebellion had been led by notorious Liberals, including the former member for Orford and former president of the PLQ, Robert Benoit, and a member of the committee for monitoring the party’s electoral commitments, Jean-Guy Dépôt. It had been disavowed by the general council, but Mr. Charest had learned his lesson. With a smirk, he said he understood the media’s interest in bickering at the PQ, but that they had no place at the PLQ; the follow-up committee was quickly dissolved.
Everyone got the message. In 2010, an activist by the name of Martin Drapeau dared to propose that the General Council debate whether to hold an inquiry into corruption in the construction industry. Hundreds of delegates were present, but none supported him. By muzzling his militants, Mr. Charest powerfully contributed to plunging the PLQ into an apathy that no one has been able to shake since.
Even if he himself comes from the PQ — or precisely because of that — François Legault clearly opted for the liberal model when he founded his own party. One could even say that he perfected it. In CAQ meetings, there is never the shadow of a controversy, only applause.
Of course, there is nothing in the bodies of the CAQ that closely or remotely resembles a committee for monitoring electoral commitments. Whether the government respects them or not, it is not accountable.
On the other hand, the abandonment of the project for a third highway link between Quebec and Lévis constitutes by far the most spectacular non-respect of an electoral promise made in Quebec for decades. The activists were rolled in the flour as cynically as the population and the elected caquistes of the greater region of the capital. It is difficult to imagine that a party, even the most docile, could suffer such a snub without reacting in one way or another. Or at the very least show some annoyance, failing to address a blame in good and due form.
The program of the CAQ congress, which is being held this weekend in Sherbrooke, provides for a period of “discussions with the cabinet” lasting 30 minutes. The Minister of Transport, Geneviève Guilbault, will perhaps have the opportunity to repeat the explanations sewn with white thread that she gave during her press conference on April 20.
There remains the vote of confidence to which Mr. Legault must submit. After such a resounding victory as that of October 3, there is obviously no question of inflicting on the Prime Minister a slap comparable to that which the delegates to the PQ convention in November 1996 dealt Lucien Bouchard, who came to a hair to resign because he deemed a score of 76.7% humiliating.
On the other hand, the CAQ militants would humiliate themselves by reiterating their support for him in a proportion of 97.2% as they had done in 2014. Loyalty does not require that we turn into a rug; a call to order can even be beneficial. After his disappointment in 1996, Mr. Bouchard showed a little more respect for his party.
They would be doing their leader a favor by warning him that it is dangerous to believe that he can promise anything with impunity. Voters might be less forgiving than themselves.
Whether it’s health, education or daycare, the interim leader of the official opposition, the Liberal Marc Tanguay, asks a question day after day that invariably ends in the same way: “What is the word of the prime minister? »
Voters generally accept that a promise made in good faith may not be kept for one reason or another, or that its fulfillment may take longer than expected. They are less forgiving of having been deliberately deceived. If they were in the case of the third link, why should they trust the Legault government and the CAQ in other cases?