In his most recent column (“Le parti de la division”, May 31), Jean-François Lisée does me the honor of quoting three sentences from the “speech” that I delivered last Saturday, on the occasion of the General Council of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ). I use quotation marks here, because it would be very pretentious to present this little four-minute speech as a speech.
The title of Jean-François’s column (I take the liberty of using his first name, since I consider Mr. Lisée a friend) is intended to be provocative: “Le parti de la division”. These words are supposed to describe the PLQ. In my speech, I rather claimed that the nationalism of the PLQ was intended to be “unifying, inclusive. We reject the nationalism that divides Quebecers among themselves, because you cannot build a strong nation on division”. It is this passage that made the columnist “twitch”.
According to Jean-François, the nationalist gestures made by Liberal governments in the past have all divided Quebecers, even the nationalization of electricity in 1962. t was originally a unifier,” he observes after a brief historical overview. According to him, it would be better to take for granted that political choices are inherently divisive.
There is some truth in this analysis. However, the columnist misinterprets the few words I spoke on Saturday. When I say that the nationalism of the PLQ is unifying, I obviously do not claim that a future Liberal government would be unanimous around it. Politics, in fact, involves decisions, choices, each of which arouses its share of opposition.
The word “unifier” here refers to the intention of the Liberals, as opposed to that of other political parties, the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) in particular. Since coming to power in 2018, the Legault government has continued to exacerbate prejudice against new Quebecers and the English-speaking community, accused of being responsible for the anglicization of Quebec. As Jean-François points out, “there are cases where the approach, the tone, the rhetoric can seek or cause division where it should not be”. This is exactly what the CAQ does. This is what the Liberals are against.
We are nationalists, since our priority is to defend the interests of the Quebec nation. We are also unifiers, because our conception of the Quebec nation includes all people who have chosen to live in Quebec, regardless of their origin, culture, language or religion. Our nationalism invites all Quebecers to build a more French-speaking, more prosperous, fairer and more sustainable Quebec within the Canadian federation.
The general council held over the weekend was a good example of this approach. A strong French-speaking majority from all regions of Quebec were joined by Quebecers from the English-speaking community and from cultural diversity. There were young and old, long-time activists and more recent ones. With all due respect to Jean-François, the Liberal Party is not in an ambulance, even less in a hearse. The activists gathered in Victoriaville were alive and well. Aware of the difficulties facing the party, these members are determined to do what is necessary to revive the party and cautiously optimistic about the future.
Our goal is to be ready to replace the CAQ government in the next election, in 2026. On this occasion, we will present Quebecers with a unifying national project, contrary to the harmful strategy favored by the current government.
Columnist’s reply
Dear André, you are right to question comments made at the CAQ. Those of Jean Boulet should, despite his apologies, forbid him to return to the Council of Ministers anytime soon. However, allow me to dispute your assertion that the CAQ (and the other nationalists, including myself) are attacking “new Quebecers and [à] the Anglophone community, accused of being responsible for the anglicization of Quebec”. The new Quebecers have respected the conditions required of them, the Anglos are defending their gains, that’s normal. We criticize the reckless laxity of immigration policies, and in particular the weak language requirements in Anglo education, which is completely different. If your contribution allowed this distinction to be imposed in the rhetoric of your party, it would allow an enormous cleansing of our public discussion. Sincerely, Jean-François.