The blind angle, the obtuse angle and the acute angle

One of the avowed goals of Prime Minister François Legault in forming his Council of Ministers was to change the tone, too often unnecessarily acrimonious, that came from his government. We hope so. But it would have been more effective to change the assignments of certain ministers.

More than ever, the environment will be this government’s blind spot. According to many environmental groups, Benoit Charette did not live up to expectations during the first mandate.

And it is doubtful that it will become so during the new one, if only because of the overly modest objectives that the government sets for reducing greenhouse gases. Thus, last April, the update of the green plan presented a year and a half earlier showed that it was only on track to reduce its GHGs by half compared to its own already modest targets.

But, above all, for the future, one wonders what real weight Mr. Charette will have within the Council of Ministers.

In a “lively discussion” with a colleague in the Prime Minister’s inner circle, especially if it is a question of economic development, it is doubtful that he will decide in favor of the Minister of the Environment. In any case, if it had happened often during the first term, we would know.

But the main problem for Mr. Charette will not come from his government, but from Ottawa. The credibility of the federal Minister of the Environment, Stephen Guilbault, is well established and he will have plenty of time to denounce projects like the third link: good for greenhouse gases and harmful for the environment.

Meanwhile, Mr. Charette will have his hands tied by certain policies of his own government. This second mandate will be very long for the Minister of the Environment.

The obtuse angle of the government is its Minister of the Economy, who has just expanded his responsibilities by obtaining the Energy portfolio. Not to mention the title of responsible for the Montreal region. Obtuse in the sense of broad, of course, but also in the sense of stubborn. Which, in politics, can be an advantage as well as a problem.

The danger in such a concentration of powers is that Pierre Fitzgibbon – who was already leading the way in the Council of Ministers – tolerates contradiction even less easily.

It is not surprising that we have seen, in recent days, a well-targeted preventive offensive by the president of Hydro-Québec, Sophie Brochu, against the type of development favored by Mr. Fitzgibbon, which she described as ” Energy Dollarama”.

To avoid direct confrontation, Prime Minister Legault has formed a committee on the economy and the energy transition chaired by him, and which will include ministers and the CEO of Hydro.

This is the first time that a ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister includes someone who is not part of the Council of Ministers. But it shows how much he feared a possible departure of M^me Brochu after a clash with Mr. Fitzgibbon. Mr. Legault decided that he would make the arbitrations himself, rather than trying to pick up the pots that would have been broken.

In addition, Mayor Valérie Plante said she was happy to see Mr. Fitzgibbon become minister responsible for Montreal. In fact, it’s a double-edged sword. For questions of economic development, the arrival of Mr. Fitzgibbon—a Montrealer, even though his riding is in the suburbs—means the possibility of quickly unblocking files. There are benefits to having a bulldozer friend.

On the other hand, in matters important to Montrealers such as social housing, homelessness, armed violence and inclusion, we cannot say that this falls squarely within Mr. Fitzgibbon’s sensitivities. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to get the minister to devote any energy to it.

Finally, there is a file which will require first and foremost to pick up the broken pots and it is that of immigration: the acute angle of the government, the one on which we prick ourselves.

The new Minister, Christine Fréchette, has everything needed to succeed at the Department of Immigration, both the experience of the business world and the international sensitivities required in this position.

But it is clear that after this electoral campaign where immigration has most often been shown by the Prime Minister and his colleagues as a problem and even a mortal danger for the survival of French people, his priority must be to re-establish bridges with many people who were hurt by the words of the head of the CAQ.

It is to be hoped that the Minister does not too often have to make up for the misfortunes of her fellow Ministers — including the Prime Minister. During the election campaign, Mr. Legault’s speech was certainly not one of openness and welcome.

The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to change that rhetoric, but it is so easy to fall back into old habits, especially when you think it pays off electorally.