Catherine Dorion is the MP for my riding. I appreciate his dedication to the principles of the common good and his commitment to the public space. However, stated on social networks, his recent positions on the subject of Maison Chevalier disappoint me because they appear to me to be contradictory with these concrete principles.
The sale of Maison Chevalier to private interests is clearly contrary to the State’s mission in terms of heritage. As the Québec solidaire program rightly indicates, heritage is part of the common good: it is “a collective wealth and resource that we must pass on to future generations”. The Québec solidaire program also emphasizes that his party, once in government, “will affirm the responsibility of the State in the protection, conservation, promotion and enhancement of heritage”.
In the case of old public buildings, as is the case with Maison Chevalier, his party wants to keep “the character of public use” “by giving them a multifunctional vocation”. Moreover, a united government “will use and maintain in an exemplary manner the heritage which belongs to the State or which is managed under its responsibility”. While relying on the ideal, these proposals seem very concrete to me.
Therefore, to question “the place of the private in the preservation of heritage” in the present context, is to assume that this common good can be privatized. Of course, private owners can be responsible – which is also in their best interests. However, this good is no longer common. It can no longer be transmitted to all the citizens who constitute the future generations, but only to some. Maison Chevalier was part of the common property, it is not anymore. It is deplorable.
My deputy adds that “here in Quebec, many important players in heritage preservation have not dared to speak publicly on the issue of the Maison Chevalier because of the very divided saga which has taken up all the space. in the public square ”. Why is this saga “very split”? Because it touches on the principles of the common good. These principles are not abstract. They are embodied in our daily life, like the issues of the third link or the tram. As citizens, we do not hesitate to express ourselves publicly on the third link or the tramway since these issues concern us concretely. In the case of Maison Chevalier, the citizens concerned have expressed themselves publicly on this issue, which is of the common good. I hope that my member will take the time to clarify her thoughts in order to dispel these apparent contradictions. It’s a matter of principle.