Legault’s “reserve of courage”

(Quebec) François Legault had warned at the beginning of the year that he was going to draw on his “reserve of courage” during the parliamentary session, the first “real” session since the elections.

What was unexpected was that he did it to break a promise, “step the paint” in immigration and give his MPs a gift in time for the holidays.

The expression “reserve of courage” comes from his political mentor, Lucien Bouchard. At the beginning of a mandate, said the former Prime Minister, a government has such a reserve. “And every time we do something controversial […]that we make a difficult decision, we draw on the reserve of courage and at some point, there is no more, ”he added, as François Legault himself recalled a few years ago. , before coming to power.

Therefore, “we must be careful how to use” this reserve, well “choosing priorities and battles”. And act early before caution becomes necessary with the approach of the next elections.

Two reforms

At the start of the last session, François Legault had thus announced his intention to “use a lot” his reserve of courage to launch two reforms, in health and in education.

The strong bill of its minister Christian Dubé has indeed “ shake the columns of the temple”, to use his expression. He robbed the unions and the federations of doctors. But the “Third World War” predicted by Gaétan Barrette – who “applauded with a vengeance” the reform to the point of having “burning hands” – did not take place.

Like his health colleague, Bernard Drainville was accused of carrying out a centralization operation. The minister assumes too many powers with his bill, according to the education community.

Is the worst over for these two reforms? Nothing is less sure. They will be the backdrop for another battle, this one at the negotiation tables for the renewal of the collective agreements of the 600,000 state employees. The unions are talking about a strike at the start of the school year… “It could be a hot fall,” François Legault himself admitted on Friday.

The Prime Minister fueled the discontent with the 30% salary increase for deputies, an unexpected decision which certainly dented his “reserve of courage”. The file is very unpopular, and it is no coincidence that the caquists wanted to settle it quickly.

The height will have been to rely on the report of a committee whose mandate, defined by the government with the support of the Liberal Party, was “restricted” by the admission of its president. He could decide on the basic indemnity only, and not all the elements of the total remuneration of the deputies, including the golden pension plan.

The most important thing was to satisfy an imposing caucus, several of whose members were unable to carve out a place in the Council of Ministers.

A decline

“We must value the role of deputy,” argued François Legault to justify the salary increase. He did the opposite by dropping his electoral promise of a third highway link without even consulting his deputies in the Quebec region, who were faced with a fait accompli.

François Legault has well measured the state of his reserve of courage to manage the file internally. Deputies expressed their disappointment, Bernard Drainville was on the verge of tears and Martine Biron suggested a “dismissal” for her region, but there was no scandal. Caquiste activists even refrained from raising the subject at their party’s congress. They acclaimed their leader with a record vote of confidence.

The Coalition avenir Québec is paying the price for this decision in the capital region, but elsewhere the damage is limited. It is even greeted with some relief.

The fact remains that this decline is spectacular, especially because François Legault had erected the promise into dogma. He had gone so far as to claim, despite the absence of studies, that the need for a third link was “obvious” and that the project would not cost more than 6.5 billion dollars…

A flip-flop

This is not the only example of a discrepancy between what was said during the election campaign and what was done afterwards, during the parliamentary session.

During the campaign, François Legault said that it would be “suicidal” to increase the immigration threshold beyond 50,000 newcomers per year. He is now proposing to raise it to 60,000 – or even 70,000 by reopening the tap for foreign students that he had closed in controversy during his first term.

Before the elections, François Legault argued that Quebec risks Louisianization if Ottawa maintains its refusal to give him full powers in immigration. He demanded a strong mandate to win his case, even evoking the holding of general assemblies or a sectoral referendum to mobilize the population around this issue. It’s no longer in the boxes. It is possible to reverse the decline of French with the powers currently held by Quebec, says François Legault now.

The question arises: on immigration as on the third link, would the real courage have been to adopt a more nuanced discourse in the campaign?