End of session “Bouette”

& laquo; Bouette & raquo; end of session

MISE & Agrave; DAY

Sign that, despite Omicron, it is indeed a return to normal that we are experiencing, our parliamentarians are currently replaying a classic end of session: verbal slippages.

< p> For the day yesterday, the palm for the worst went to Dominique Anglade, who asked François Legault, at the Blue Salon, if he was the only one, in March 2020, “not to be aware that we went to the slaughterhouse in our CHSLDs ”.

Why not the extermination camp or even the accusation of gerontocide, while you're there?

I know that the oppositions must be critical and, as much as possible, implacable. Also, faced with the massacre in the CHSLDs, during the first wave, their incessant questions are legitimate and useful.

But they must know “how far to go too far”. There are already enough “conspiratorial” spirits in our society today, our elected officials should avoid, by excesses, shortcuts or hyperbole, creating new ones.

Since her convention at the end of November, we can tell that the Liberal leader has wanted to be more direct.

This is sometimes happy. Tuesday, when she denounced a possible aid from Quebec for the construction of a baseball stadium in Montreal, she raged: “When I read […] 'It will be at zero cost for Quebecers” [.. .] we take people for idiots when we say that. “

But it remains a risky game. His “slaughterhouse” yesterday was a second misstep in a week. During the Senneterre drama, she hinted that Legault and Dubé were responsible for the death of Richard Genest.

Of course, the government's decisions (here to close the emergency outside working hours) may have terrible consequences. But we get out of hand when we conclude that every unfortunate consequence necessarily stems from an intention to see it materialize.

Example: Criticizing – legitimately – the behavior of state representatives before the coroner Géhane Kamel, the PQ leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, went so far as to accuse the government of “obstructing” Kamel's work, of ” manufacture of forgery ”. In other words, criminal acts involving a “mens rea”.

The PM too

In the opposition, François Legault was an ace of indignation, of questions that kill. “On the parliamentary level, he has proven to be a strong opponent,” Jean Charest declared in 2009, when Legault had left the PQ and his seat at Rousseau.

The man suffered in a way , since he was prime minister, his own medicine. And we understand that, for him, in this game, attacking is the best defense.

The strategy does not always work. Yesterday, for example, in order to ward off the arrows of Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois on possible public aid to baseball, François Legault tried to deflect the debate on the “tone” of the parliamentary leader in solidarity. According to him, GND is simply “not worthy of a party leader” since he wrote, on Twitter, “I flipped” when he learned that the CAQ was considering putting “millions in a half-team. baseball while the seniors eat mud “.

Then, the Prime Minister did what he criticized his opponent by throwing:” I have never seen it, mud like that . “

 & laquo; Bouette & raquo; end of session

Share Button