We had a good example this week: in politics, there's nothing better than sitting around without really knowing what you're talking about.
The Quebec Constitution, which the justice minister is due to present on Thursday, is already stirring passion and outrage.
“Electoral nonsense”, written “on a piece of a table”, this document, which all political parties, starting with the “Patriots”, dreamed of, has already been condemned by the opposition even before we saw its contents.
This shows that there are times in political life when party interests come before the good of the Quebec nation, which everyone supports.
Worm in an apple
Of course, the CAQ didn't help itself. A project so ambitious and fundamental to Quebec society should never have been developed behind closed doors by Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette and his team.
He defends himself by claiming to have consulted widely with “civil society figures, constitutionalists, former prime ministers.”
First of all, he promises that this constitution will not be CAQ, nor Liberal, nor PQ, but will be Quebec. We certainly hope so!
Indeed, if medical assistance in dying and the impact of screens on young people merited extensive cross-party consultation in all four corners of the province, one would hope that the Quebec Constitution would be entitled to the same treatment. It's the least we can do.
But there is no need to imitate Poland in 1989 and spend 8 years adopting the Constitution. General de Gaulle did it in 4 months for V.e Republic and West Germany in 8 months.
So Simon Jolin-Barrette's schedule is not unrealistic. It is the rift between his government and the Quebec electorate that is undermining the entire effort. It was as if the Constitution had finally established the CAQ's role as an effective protector of the nation.
Purity test
Conversely, the Parti Québécois's caustic reaction even before it saw the text is puzzling.
Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon, always a purist, explains that without Quebec sovereignty, the Quebec Constitution will always be only symbolic, since it will inevitably be “subordinate to the Canadian Constitution.”
But Jacques-Yvan Morin and Daniel Turpe were not supporters of façade nationalism when they themselves worked on such projects.
First of all, if the CP pays lip service to the value of the opinion received from Lucien Bouchard and Pauline Marois, then when we talk about Jean Chard and Philippe Couillard, the situation is out of control.
“If their recommendations are taken into account, Canada will not be too scared,” said Matane MP Pascal Bérubé.
Is this the goal of establishing the nation of Quebec? Does the CP hope to achieve sovereignty by “bullying Canada”?
On both sides, the political class invites the enemy to “show arrogance” on this issue. They would all do well to take their own advice.
