I have been following the Colacem municipal zoning issue for a few months now. I read The Review’s publication of Mr. Champagne’s Open Letter to the riding’s MP and MPP as well as M.P. Francis Drouin’s reply to same. I guess I, like everyone else, will wait ’til the cows come home before we hear from Mr. Crack.
Without knowing all the particulars, I can say that Mr. Drouin’s reply has left me with a sour taste in my mouth. It’s not that he has skirted around the points Mr. Champagne has raised and failed to address any of them head on. It has to do with the fact that he has chosen to reply by deriding a fellow Liberal M.P. on her decision to ask the municipal politicians whose responsibility she admits it is to decide on a “municipal property zoning matter” in her riding to not only consider the planning considerations involved “but also the social impacts the municipal decision would have on the citizens she also represents’’. That he goes on to describe her concerns about the health and social impacts of the citizens she represents as those of a “a demagogue” is quite frankly shocking, in poor taste and far from those of what he indicates should be those of a “political leader that uses rational arguments’’. If that is how Mr. Drouin interprets a fellow Liberal colleague’s call on her municipal level politicians to consider the social impacts their decision will have on the citizens she and they both represent, Mr. Drouin’s sense of ethics and his definition of a ‘’political leader’’ differ greatly from mine.
While he characterizes Mona Fortier’s interventions as a bark with no bite, I view them as the mark of a political leader whose bark alone carries weight. On a much higher ground than that of a politician with neither bark or bite.
Dr. Denis Labelle,