Pierre Poilievre may be the darling of Western Canadian Conservatives, but Jean Charest also has admirers there who have applauded his entry into the race to succeed Erin O’Toole.
Columnist Licia Corbella, from Calgary Herald, is part of. In her column last Saturday, she recalls the love-in at Place du Canada, three days before the referendum of October 30, 1995. “I don’t remember much of what was said that day. Above all, I remember a gesture more eloquent than the thousands of words that have been spoken. […] Charest was on stage, fluent in both French and English, when he held up his Canadian passport. He gave me goosebumps and still gives it to me today just thinking about it,” writes the one who finds that Jean Charest would make an “excellent prime minister.”
Everyone recognizes that Mr. Charest was the most eloquent of the “no” triumvirate and that the passport trick was a great find, even if his advisers had feared that the gesture was a little too theatrical when he showed it. the first time, in Saint-Joseph-de-Beauce, before the official start of the campaign.
What a good number of Quebecers remembered from the love-in, however, was less Mr. Charest’s performance — which, incidentally, was not the best — than the human tide that submerged downtown Montreal. thanks to generous sponsors who had brought them at great expense, openly contravening the Popular Consultation Act.
Mr. Charest has always protested against the idea that the referendum was “stolen” by money from English Canada. According to him, it would be an insult to the intelligence of the voters, who voted in full knowledge of the facts.
He assured that, at the time, he was unaware of all the activities of Option Canada, whose expenses carried out illegally during the month preceding the referendum were evaluated by the commission of inquiry chaired by judge Bernard Grenier at more than 500 $000, an amount that many felt was just the tip of the iceberg.
There is nothing naïve about Mr. Charest, however. Even if he wasn’t in on all the secrets of the gods, it’s hard to believe he was completely unaware that the “no” side was spending more than they were allowed to; there are times when it is better to close your eyes.
Certainly, he can’t say he knew nothing about the campaign that his friend and ally in the leadership race, Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown, launched last December to fund the legal challenge to the law. 21, which he considers “odious” and “racist”. Its popularity has skyrocketed ever since.
Like many Quebecers, Mr. Charest has every right to oppose the Act respecting the secularism of the state. It is quite another matter to accept that large cities in English Canada use their taxpayers’ money to contest a law passed legitimately by the National Assembly, and which does not affect them in any way.
The historian and former candidate for the leadership of the PQ Frédéric Bastien, a group of Quebec lawyers and a resident of Toronto, Louis Labrecque, addressed themselves last Friday to the Superior Court of Ontario in order to invalidate a grant of $100,000 authorized by Toronto City Council, hoping that will also apply to other cities that have followed suit.
We’ll see what the courts have to say, but that doesn’t exempt Mr. Charest from speaking out. When he was Prime Minister, would he have accepted that the towns of English Canada club together to contest a law that his government had passed?
The Superior Court of Ontario would be doing Mr. Charest a great service by declaring the towns’ contributions illegal. This would save him from upsetting the well-meaning ROC people who feel it their duty to “educate” Quebecers, those eternal hicks who will find it hard to understand that he tolerates people coming to teach them once again how they should behave. at their home.
Not to mention Prime Minister Legault. Mr. Charest may not need him to become leader of the Conservative Party, but he could be very useful to him during the next federal campaign. That he doesn’t try to harm her would already be a good thing.