[Chronique de Jean-François Lisée] My questions to Jean Charest and Pierre Poilievre

The duo Pierre Poilievre-Jean Charest offers today the best political spectacle of the continent. No coffee or energy drink needed to follow their debates, on the contrary, we stamp our feet in our chairs waiting for the next evasion. I just wonder why a YouTuber doesn’t already offer a reenactment of their exchanges embellished with the “Wham”, “Bam” and “Kaboum” speech bubbles made famous in the fight scenes of the old TV series Batman

We almost wish the debates would rule out the other contenders for the title. They just break the rhythm. During the first debate, last Thursday, only three messages from them were withheld: Poilievre supported insufficiently and too late the illegal blockade of Ottawa by truck drivers; he who generally expresses himself violently only silently reminds himself that he is pre-choice; all in all, Charest-Poilievre’s screaming matches have damaged the unity of the party. Yes, yes, we understand. Can you let the point guards, who are clearly in a league of their own, both in the power and clarity of their words and in their ease of throwing and punching, to take up the most space?

However, I fear that the debate scheduled for Wednesday is just a repeat of last week’s. In a pure impulse of public service, I therefore allow myself to pose additional questions to the participants and moderators of the debate that may help move the discussion forward. There they are :

Mr Charest, you said that Pierre Poilievre disqualified himself from leading the government by supporting an illegal movement, that of the truck drivers. One cannot, you said, be both the one who makes the laws and the one who cheers the breaking of the laws.

Should we not conclude on this solid foundation of principle that in the event of Mr Poilievre’s victory, you will in no case be able to join a party leader thus disqualified, in no way be part of his government, in no case, not even to call on the electorate to vote for a party that would have elected this party as leader, disqualified it from politics?

Mr Poilièvre“You believe that the case of these truck drivers was good, despite the illegalities committed. We remember that in early 2020 you took the opposite stance during the blockade of the railways by Aborigines. Can you tell us what criteria will guide you as Prime Minister to determine which illegal actions are acceptable and which illegal actions are unacceptable? This would be very helpful, especially for the protesters who want to oppose the many pipelines you promise to build.

Mr Charestyou said it is thanks to you that Quebec is in the 1 . founder April 2019, with a budget surplus of $8 billion. Since you had not been Prime Minister since your electoral defeat in September 2012, six and a half years earlier, would you be so kind as to tell us how your influence has had such a profound impact over time?

Should the Quebec government destroy in its records the official documents showing that you left a deficit of three billion when you left? And should we also credit you with other achievements of the governments that followed during these six years and which, for some, made possible the accumulation of this jackpot? If so, why? Cutbacks in Public Health and the DPJ, dismantling regional development aids, closing organizations against early school leaving, rationing home care?

Mr Poilièvre, you promised to reduce federal laws and regulations that would restrict the – how to say – “free flow” of oil in the area. You even propose to restart the GNL project in Québec, which has nevertheless lost the support of investors and the Québec government. If a province formally refuses to allow a pipeline authorized by you to pass through its territory, are you going to impose it on that province against its will? If so, how?

Mr Charest, you refused 19 times during the first debate to tell us how much fees you received from the Chinese company Huawei when you were a lawyer. Since the company is accused of in cahoots with the Chinese secret services and of having based some of its wealth on the theft of innovations from the Canadian company Nortel, the information about the amounts it paid you could be considered in the public interest. For your part, you seem to have decided it was less damaging to your campaign to be secretive than to reveal the amount. It is believed that if the total payment was modest, you would be less secretive about it.

Your tactical calculation is both understandable and objectionable. But by refusing to break through this abscess, aren’t you giving your future Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc opponents ammunition that they will use so repeatedly that it is reminiscent of China’s gout torture? More importantly, as it relates to national security, your silence in this regard does not give the other keepers of this secret – Huawei, the Chinese intelligence services and the Chinese government – ​​any leverage that they could use against you by threatening it amount to be disclosed?

Mr Poilièvre, can you tell us the amount of your current cryptocurrency investments? We don’t want to have to ask you 19 times.

jflisee@gmail.com; blog: jflisee.org

To be seen in video

Leave a Comment