Inevitably, the memory of public figures who have left their mark on us fades from the collective memory over time. It is also in the order of things, at certain moments, to revive this presence.
I had the privilege of working with Claude Ryan for almost 25 years. First in politics, with the Liberal parliamentarian and minister from 1981 to 1991, when our professional paths separated. We kept in close contact until his death on February 9, 2004, 20 years ago now.
I note that his passage into politics has not yet been the subject of such in-depth studies as the previous stages of his career in the movement of Catholic Action and at Duty. He was convinced that it would come one day.
Claude Ryan did not see himself rehashing his considerable production of writings and public interventions to write his memoirs. The material is accessible for anyone who wants to study his political contribution or compare it with his earlier views. In certain cases, we could find elements and approaches that could help understand certain current issues.
It has often been said that he sought the happy medium. That is not exactly correct. Claude Ryan did not believe in the pure middle ground, which he saw as a disembodied exercise. He thought it best to seek a point of balance, a position that he could adopt on a given issue, in a given context, to help achieve or move closer to goals leading to a greater good in a predictable way. His approach was very close to that of the “tinker” described by the philosopher Raymond Geuss.
In public policy matters, this approach translated into a demanding exercise of analysis aimed at understanding the issues and finding possible or desirable solutions from all relevant angles within the allotted time. He compartmentalized his search for information a lot, which confused more than one about his intentions until the final decision, from which he deviated very little once it was stated.
Claude Ryan agreed to make improvements or corrections, to the extent that they contributed to achieving the objective he was pursuing. This way of doing things very often brought him closer to a consensus, but that was not necessarily what he was aiming for. If he judged that he had to use his decision-making prerogatives to move in a direction, he committed to it and feared neither the ministerial or parliamentary joust nor the judgment of public opinion.
In special cases, he ensured that, both in the office and in public administration, the person was treated with fairness and respect as quickly as possible. He also considered that any law could not provide for all scenarios and that the minister must have a discretionary margin to avoid the application of a rule which would have caused more harm than good. He made sure to use it judiciously where it was possible and to have provisions adopted to this effect in certain laws where it was not provided for.
Very quickly after being appointed minister, he put aside his distrust of the public service to develop effective methods of collaboration, regardless of the ministry he headed or the organizations for which he was responsible. Which did not prevent him from being critical of the bureaucracy on occasion.
His understanding of politics, which he saw essentially as a debate of ideas at the time of his arrival as leader, gave way to a conception granting more importance to the personal and institutional dimension of public action. He had accepted his failure as leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), but was determined to fully fulfill his mandate as a parliamentarian, first as deputy for Argenteuil or as minister if he was invited to do so. He polished his individualistic side to collaborate effectively with his colleagues. The complicity that developed with Robert Bourassa and Gérard D. Levesque around the table of the Council of Ministers was unique.
Claude Ryan did not seek to play an active role within the PLQ once he retired. We had to insist that he write his booklet on liberal values. He feared the reception that would be given to such a document. During the drafting, he judged that it would have been more profitable to seek to know how liberal values could inspire the choices of a future PLQ government to meet the needs of Quebec than to make a factual presentation.
There was not enough time to reconcile such an approach with the party’s approach in anticipation of the general elections expected in 2003. His suggestion was not subsequently taken up. But, who knows, maybe there is an avenue that the Liberals should consider now.