Legault, Drainville and piéno players
CHRONICLE – Asked about the abandonment of the proportional ballot project by his government, François Legault recently launched, presumptuous: “Apart from a few intellectuals, the reform of the ballot does not interest anyone!”
Spectacular quip, which is reminiscent of the Duplessis contempt for the intellectuals of the time, whom he described almost hatefully as « pieno players ». Legault’s posture, like that of Le Chef, consciously pursues the following purpose: to ensure the mirage of a break between the « people » – which he would represent – and a nebulous form of opposing right-thinking elite, of facto, to this one.
The maneuver is all the less subtle if we remember the 18 months when Sonia Lebel, then Minister of Justice, worked on the project in question.
Ditto when we remember the survey published by The duty, June 7, 2019, where 69% of Quebecers called on the CAQ government to keep its promise, one of the key commitments of its campaign. More than two thirds of the electorate, therefore. Lots of people – or rather intellectuals – at mass.
Why have you abandoned it, then? Stupidly because in the end, the party in power would lose, in all likelihood, a few seats as a result of the reform. It was also the same calculation, post-promise, of the PQ of 1976 and the PLC of 2015. For vision and probity, we will come back.
In the same vein, the arrival on the scene of the candidate Drainville. Now relieved of his independence and identity ideals, the latter recycles himself – involuntary pun – as a new apostle of sustainable development, populist sauce.
Calling for studies on the third link, Bernard tells us, would serve more to “lead a cabal” against the project “than to enlighten the debate”. Useless studies, therefore, for the purposes of science. Should have thought about it.
Justifying himself: “Ah yes, the famous studies… What do you need them for, exactly? To determine if the bridges are glued? If the bridges deteriorate? If there is a bottleneck at the head of the bridges? If a reserved lane would be better than not at all?
Demagoguery in all its glory.
The antithesis, to tell the truth, of a René Lévesque whose praises were recently sung. Because the latter, unlike the cheap populists who have now invaded the public space, addressed people’s intelligence, and not the lowest common denominator, or even ti-counes reflexes.
The studies, with all due respect to Drainville, ensure precisely this: scientific bases on which to build the debate. Realize for example that a third link, in addition to its deleterious environmental impacts, will in no way reduce the decried traffic, but will ADD it, $10 billion later.
Facts, said Lenin, are stubborn. This is why it is preferable to avoid them, replies Bernard.
For anyone who remembers, he had acted in a similar film during the Charter of Values saga. Shortly after the PQ defeat in 2014, the Department of Justice told Radio-Canada that it had not « been asked to write a legal opinion on the constitutionality and legality of the entire bill [sur la Charte des valeurs], in order to assess the risks of challenge before the courts. Usually, a project of this nature is the subject of a request to produce such a written opinion”.
Perhaps the best, now, for dessert. Pressed with questions about the third link during a recent press conference, an annoyed Bernard Drainville – or by pure toga effect – balance: “Let go of me, with the GHGs!”
At the same time when China emits less GHG per capita than Quebec.
At the same time when our GHG emissions are at least four times too high to respect the Paris Agreement.
At the same time when a third of Pakistan, thanks to global warming, is submerged under water.
And when the fleet overwhelms us in turn, it will then be agreed to (finally) agree with Bernard: let the studies and SWIM take over!