Fear of debate | The Press

If one thing stands out from the first weeks of this rather quiet election campaign, it is the curious reluctance of the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) and its representatives to debate. Around mid-August, just before the election was called, I was struck to learn that François Legault refused the invitation of young people from the Institut du Nouveau Monde to debate with the other leaders.

Perhaps the man was trying to spare his strength for the coming confrontation. But perhaps his advisers had suggested he abstain, in order to avoid a misstep that would have caused them to lose the initiative in what to do next. It must be said that the spin doctors from the Prime Minister’s Office are working very hard on social networks to control the message, at the cost of sometimes surprising partisanship.

At Face-to-face VAT last week, I felt a form of annoyance in Mr. Legault at the questions and challenges of his opponents. Of course, the formula gave rise to often chaotic exchanges – at times it seemed that we were dealing less with a debate than with a five-way collision – not to mention that it was not easy to defend one’s record when opponents had you in their sights. But it seemed that the Prime Minister did not really want to be there, that he did not have the patience to explain his party’s positions or to show how his opponents’ proposals were inadequate, except to place a few “lines” intended to create an image in the mind of the public (the Camry, the hole in the boat, the orange tax). Paul Journet spoke with reason of an “irritated” man^⁠1. One could add that he seemed upset, as if he didn’t like being contradicted and forced to justify his choices, that he resented having his authority questioned.

Several interventions by the Prime Minister since the beginning of the campaign give an impression of impatience, as if he were trying to end the discussion before it had even begun.

To do this, he multiplies lapidary formulas, at the risk of appearing contemptuous. Thus, we should not discuss the reform of the ballot because it only interests “intellectuals”. We should beware of immigrants who do not speak French because they threaten “national cohesion”. After saying that the problem of racism at the Joliette hospital was “solved”, he criticized the representatives of the Atikamekw nation for not wanting to solve the problems. About the third link, he said that the project would come true; “everything has been said” on this subject, he decided, while his government does not yet have any study. I don’t want to argue here about the validity of the Prime Minister’s assertions; it is he who is in charge, and perhaps he knows things that we do not know. But why point people like this, as if there was no need to discuss? Why not take the time to explain the positions, to recall the context which led to certain decisions, the imperatives which his government must face? Has it been decided in the Prime Minister’s Office that Quebeckers are too stupid to understand?

This reluctance to debate is not just about the prime minister; it extends to his troops, who follow the leader’s example. One thinks of Bernard Drainville, brushing aside the questions about the third link (“Let go of me with the GHGs!”). But also to all those candidates who refuse to take part in local debates.

Since the beginning of this campaign, journalists have counted no less than thirty refusals to participate by CAQ candidates, compared to three for the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) and none for the other parties.^⁠2.

Latest example: during a debate on the environment held Monday evening in Rouyn-Noranda, where arsenic emissions from the Horne smelter make the headlines, the new CAQ candidate, Daniel Bernard, shone with his absence. It was the second time he withdrew. Did the instructions come from the Prime Minister’s office or had he decided on his own not to appear before his citizens? I cannot say.

But in view of all these absences, the question that arises is this: can we debate at the CAQ? Do we take it for granted that everyone always agrees with the leader? We know that the debates tore the Parti Québécois apart for a long time, that the Quebec Solidarity conventions give rise to sometimes heated exchanges, that even the PLQ has already been the scene of major confrontations, particularly between the party and its youth wing. But at the CAQ, a party that nevertheless brings together members from the most diverse and opposing backgrounds, one has the impression these days that the political debate has something incidental, even useless, as if one is was convinced that we were already right on all points.