Are we witnessing the death of the Parti Québécois?

Charles Anthony · March 26, 2007

Were you?

I did not need to be because I am suggesting a possible result. You, on the other hand, were ruling out a possible result.

Like I said, you do not understand that they are entering an entire political environment that is completely foreign to them.

I think you said "go it alone." I've seen no evidence that they are about to go it alone in a majority or a minority. I've seen no evidence that Harper is about to turn over more spending money to the provinces to do such a thing, have you? He increased transfer payments of course. But as he relinquished any taxing authority to Quebec?

None of that matters if Quebeckers want to be an independent state in the future.

I am hoping that their upcoming experience with a minority government will make them start thinking of politics differently. Your questions will become moot.

jdobbin · March 26, 2007

I did not need to be because I am suggesting a possible result. You, on the other hand, were ruling out a possible result.
Like I said, you do not understand that they are entering an entire political environment that is completely foreign to them.

None of that matters if Quebeckers want to be an independent state in the future.

I am hoping that their upcoming experience with a minority government will make them start thinking of politics differently. Your questions will become moot.

I said I've seen no indication. Where does it say I am ruling things out?

I don't think they're moot at all. I know that anti-Statist separatists are reading this with a very open and broad interpretation but I have seen little to suggest that an independent state is any closer under a minority as it is a majority. If anything, a minority will have to somehow appeal to both federalists and separatists to function. I don't think that means acting as an independent state and have seen no evidence to support that conclusion.

jbg · March 26, 2007

Anyone ever ask Quebeckers what life would be like with independence and no Canadian subsidy?

Charles Anthony · March 26, 2007

If anything, a minority will have to somehow appeal to both federalists and separatists to function.

No, it will not.

The three-way split is not just a Canada versus Quebec issue but it also pits interventionists againsts minarchists.

I don't think that means acting as an independent state and have seen no evidence to support that conclusion.

The evidence is that it will be a minority government. This is something that Quebeckers have never experienced.

Quebeckers have never had politicians who had to negotiate amongst eachother within Quebec in this manner.

Anyone ever ask Quebeckers what life would be like with independence and no Canadian subsidy?

There is no concensus as to what independence would do.

Michael Bluth · March 27, 2007

Anyone ever ask Quebeckers what life would be like with independence and no Canadian subsidy?
There is no concensus as to what independence would do.

In terms of Quebec's economic situation?

Far from it. Quebec would undoubtedly lose it's equalization payments. There is no guarantee that they will be part of NAFTA or the FTA. They won't have any say in whatever currency they choose to use.

How could Quebec *not* be worse off economically as an independent country?

jdobbin · March 27, 2007

No, it will not.
The three-way split is not just a Canada versus Quebec issue but it also pits interventionists againsts minarchists.

The evidence is that it will be a minority government. This is something that Quebeckers have never experienced.

Quebeckers have never had politicians who had to negotiate amongst eachother within Quebec in this manner.

I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on minimal state functioning in this. I've seen little to indicate that Mario Dumont is a minarchist.

Quebec may have not had a minority government in over a hundred years but it doesn't mean the same dynamic of negotiation won't have to be done to keep power.

In any event, the early results are in and it looks like a Liberal minority government.

Correction: The ADQ is now in the lead.

August1991 · March 27, 2007

I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on minimal state functioning in this. I've seen little to indicate that Mario Dumont is a minarchist.

I agree with you Dobbin.

It is true that Quebec has taken a (small) right turn by giving so many votes to the ADQ.

But what is more pertinent is that they are rejecting the old federalist/sovereigntist split of the two parties. In particular, the PQ approach of referendums is going absolutely nowhere. The Liberal Party of Quebec will survive. I don't know what will happen to the PQ. Perhaps it will further divide into two. Some will go to Quebec solidaire and others will go to teh ADQ.

The bigger question is what happens to the BQ.

IOW, the big winner tonight is Stephen Harper. (Harper seems to always come out on top when others make decisions. Everyone also said that Harper was the big winner at the federal Liberal leadership convention.)

ScottSA · March 27, 2007

I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on minimal state functioning in this. I've seen little to indicate that Mario Dumont is a minarchist.
I agree with you Dobbin.
It is true that Quebec has taken a (small) right turn by giving so many votes to the ADQ.

LMAO...here come the spin doctors...teensy little turns to the right are when the popular vote swings ten points to the right. When a party surges from 5 seats to over 40, that's a seachange.

August1991 · March 27, 2007

LMAO...here come the spin doctors...teensy little turns to the right are when the popular vote swings ten points to the right. When a party surges from 5 seats to over 40, that's a seachange.

The seachange is in how Quebec deals with Canada. Many Quebecers have opted for "autonomy without referendum" rather than "sovereignty by referendum".

Don't underestimate the tremendous insult this represents for the PQ to be reduced to third party status. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a ghostly smile in a crypt south of Montreal tonight.

As to the ADQ's economic policies, Dumont has stepped quite a ways back from his previous "neo-liberal" programme. (He wants to give $100/week for every child.)

I agree that many Quebecers want their government to work differently. But keep in mind that teh ADQ isn't forming a government.

jbg · March 27, 2007

ADQ's in second. It will be interesting to see where this wild card in the deck takes a minority government.

jdobbin · March 27, 2007

I agree with you Dobbin.
It is true that Quebec has taken a (small) right turn by giving so many votes to the ADQ.

But what is more pertinent is that they are rejecting the old federalist/sovereigntist split of the two parties. In particular, the PQ approach of referendums is going absolutely nowhere. The Liberal Party of Quebec will survive. I don't know what will happen to the PQ. Perhaps it will further divide into two. Some will go to Quebec solidaire and others will go to teh ADQ.

The bigger question is what happens to the BQ.

IOW, the big winner tonight is Stephen Harper. (Harper seems to always come out on top when others make decisions. Everyone also said that Harper was the big winner at the federal Liberal leadership convention.)

It has been quite the night for the ADQ. Charest will have a tough decision to make in the next day or so. Resign or find someone in his party to resign and and run in a bye-election. The PQ leader won but they will likely have to thrash out how they approach things next.

Seems this election might have shown a rural/urban split rather than a straight federal/sovereignist battle.

Is a victory for Harper? I think they will have to break things down as to how it was all play out in Quebec.

Will the provincial Liberals attribute their defeat to the Tories in Ottawa who worked both sides? Will they throw their not inconsiderable organization to help Federal Liberals? Will the BQ have enough organization to help the Tories federally? Will the PQ have enough wherewithal to help the Bloq in Ottawa?

It is hard to see how the dynamic will unfold.

Harper might see this as the opportunity to go to the polls but it shouldn't be lost on him that Charest looked like a winner at the start of the election. Things got real close, real fast in the polls. It seems some people made the decision who to support on election day.

Canuck E Stan · March 27, 2007

I agree that many Quebecers want their government to work differently. But keep in mind that the ADQ isn't forming a government.

That's a very good point. But will their government even work at all with no real power at the hands of anyone.

Here's where election promises made, will for the first time in Quebec, have to be negotiated if they are to be kept.

Or broken because of the lack of power to implement them.

How long before the politics of wheeling and dealing gets in the way of running the province and another election will have to be called?

Michael Bluth · March 27, 2007

That's a very good point. But will their government even work at all with no real power at the hands of anyone.
Here's where election promises made, will for the first time in Quebec, have to be negotiated if they are to be kept.

Or broken because of the lack of power to implement them.

How long before the politics of wheeling and dealing gets in the way of running the province and another election will have to be called?

I think this minority will last a while.

A lot depends on the next Federal election.

This bodes very well for the Conservatives Federally.

If you transfer the ADQ vote to the Conservatives they would be very happy with that result...

Canadian Blue · March 27, 2007

Jean Charest has been elected in his riding, atleast that's what CTV is now saying.

Michael Bluth · March 27, 2007

Jean Charest has been elected in his riding, atleast that's what CTV is now saying.

Yup same thing on Newsworld.

OMG, I thought Dumont's wife was one of his bodyguards when he walked to the podium...

Charles Anthony · March 27, 2007

In terms of Quebec's economic situation?

Yes, of course.

How could Quebec *not* be worse off economically as an independent country?

Forgive me but that question and your answers are completely irrelevant because, surprise, surprise: about 30% of Quebecois want sovereignty. They are convinced (rightly or wrongly) that they would be better off. That is enough to unequivocally say: there is no concensus.

I think you are projecting your own viewpoint on minimal state functioning in this. I've seen little to indicate that Mario Dumont is a minarchist.

I have about 30% of the Quebec population on my side. That is a lot. I almost had 50% only a few years ago.

However, let me get this straight: you are staring at the counting of election results while simultaneously attributing my comment which was made long before the election and with no reference and with no contingency on the possible winner......???

Quebec may have not had a minority government in over a hundred years but it doesn't mean the same dynamic of negotiation won't have to be done to keep power.

Yes, it does.

The seachange is in how Quebec deals with Canada. Many Quebecers have opted for "autonomy without referendum" rather than "sovereignty by referendum".

You are really attributing a lot of credit to the Quebec voters. I wonder if their analytical skills are as critical or as discerning as that.

As to the ADQ's economic policies, Dumont has stepped quite a ways back from his previous "neo-liberal" programme. (He wants to give $100/week for every child.)

You can make sense out of his economic policies?? Instead of saying he "stepped quite a ways back" how about you call it what the Quebec press aptly calls it: grosso modo, c'est la foutaise. Are you calling it differently for us, the rest-o-Canadians?

I agree that many Quebecers want their government to work differently. But keep in mind that teh ADQ isn't forming a government.

Interesting, given the fact that not a single Quebec voter walked into the urns saying "I want to give a third of my vote to this party and a third of my vote to that party and keep a third for my favorite party."

How long before the politics of wheeling and dealing gets in the way of running the province and another election will have to be called?

The wheeling and dealing will be among elected parties instead of between crony-lobbyists and elected officials. Quebeckers may learn to expect different things from their government. Compared to before, they may even learn how to govern themselves independent of a foreign influence.

Here is one for all of you hindsightologists:

One day after the election, how many Quebec voters (the handlers of the party leaders excluded) can tell you half of the election platform of the party for whom they voted?

Here is one more:

This is the death of the Parti Quebecois like Kim Campbell and Jean Chretien (with his wise and populist economic policies) were the death of the Progressive Conservatives only a few years ago. Anybody remember how that played out?

jdobbin · March 28, 2007

I have about 30% of the Quebec population on my side. That is a lot. I almost had 50% only a few years ago.
However, let me get this straight: you are staring at the counting of election results while simultaneously attributing my comment which was made long before the election and with no reference and with no contingency on the possible winner......???

I could care less about the winner. I focussed on your comment that Quebec seemed to be moving to small government. I saw nothing of that in the campaign.

No need to get angry about it. I have no idea what 30% or 50% you're talking about. Any reference to it or citation?

ScottSA · March 28, 2007

I have about 30% of the Quebec population on my side. That is a lot. I almost had 50% only a few years ago.

However, let me get this straight: you are staring at the counting of election results while simultaneously attributing my comment which was made long before the election and with no reference and with no contingency on the possible winner......???

I could care less about the winner. I focussed on your comment that Quebec seemed to be moving to small government. I saw nothing of that in the campaign.

No need to get angry about it. I have no idea what 30% or 50% you're talking about. Any reference to it or citation?

He's refering to the last referendum for the 50% statistic, and using the 30% who voted for the PQ this time. I think the 50% is fairly safe to use, because it was, after all on the question of seperation. But I suspect that all 30% who voted PQ this time didn't do so solely because they wanted seperation, and all 30% who voted ADQ didn't do so because they rejected seperation. So I'm not sure 30% is a reliable figure. It's probably higher, but fairly soft outside the core seperatist vote.

jdobbin · March 28, 2007

He's refering to the last referendum for the 50% statistic, and using the 30% who voted for the PQ this time. I think the 50% is fairly safe to use, because it was, after all on the question of seperation. But I suspect that all 30% who voted PQ this time didn't do so solely because they wanted seperation, and all 30% who voted ADQ didn't do so because they rejected seperation. So I'm not sure 30% is a reliable figure. It's probably higher, but fairly soft outside the core seperatist vote.

I don't believe people who voted for sovereignty voted for small government. I think they voted for "cake and eat it too."

Charles Anthony · March 28, 2007

I don't believe people who voted for sovereignty voted for small government. I think they voted for "cake and eat it too."

Possibly. A separate Quebec could have a government that is even bigger than the Canadian federal government.

What cake is that?

Keepitsimple · March 28, 2007

The ADQ bring with them 3 solid election planks that they will use to pressure Charest for concessions in those areas.

1) Help for families

2) Smaller Government - Dumont was campaining on reducing government by 1% each year by attrition.

3) Allowing more private health care services to operate within the government system.

If Charest can work with Dumont in these three areas, I think the minority could last for some time. I actually think that Charest would like to act in these areas because in principle, they are good for Quebec. There is a push in several provinces towards having the private sector participate more in Government Healthcare. It's refreshing to finally see the former Fed Libs artificial wall against private participation start to crumble. I think we'll finally start to get somewhere.

As for the PQ, I think we're finally starting to get a read on exactly how many true-blue separatists there are. I think it's fair to say that although some "soft" separatists voted for the ADQ, hardliners stayed with the PQ. That to me says that there are no more than 30% of Quebeckers who really, really want separation. But in my mind, even a good number of these would change their mind when the day comes that Quebec and Canada put all the cards on the table and Quebec would have to stare into the cold face of reality. Given all that, I still think that 20% of Quebec's population would vote for separation - no matter what. As a result, there will always be a political force of some kind. The question is whether that force can be held together in one party or whether it will be splintered.

August1991 · March 29, 2007

As for the PQ, I think we're finally starting to get a read on exactly how many true-blue separatists there are. I think it's fair to say that although some "soft" separatists voted for the ADQ, hardliners stayed with the PQ. That to me says that there are no more than 30% of Quebeckers who really, really want separation.

I tend to agree that it's somewhere between 20% and 30%.

These pequistes (most but not all Leftists and most but not all in the 40s or older) are now coming to grips with the fact that they will not win a referendum. This is hard to admit. Very hard. They are in denial and some are blaming the ungrateful Quebec population. Boisclair managed to say that "sovereignty will not happen in the short run" and he will likely be accused of being too soft for this admission.

If they keep Boisclair, they'll go nowhere. If they get rid of Boisclair, they'll go nowhere. Their problem is not really the leader.

In short, I think the PQ is about to implode.

Its popular vote totals have gone down since 1998, it has gone through four leaders in just over 10 years. (Bouchard and Landry left because it was impossible to be PQ leader.) In the past four years, it went through the so-called Saison des idées with a view to renew itself. Boisclair was supposed to give it a modern, younger image and attract a new generation.

None of this has worked.

I dunno. Maybe someone of phenomenal stature outside of politics could give the PQ some elan but God knows why anyone like that would accept the task.

The discussion is turning to whether the PQ and the mouvement souverainiste are really the same thing.

Quebec has a long, long tradition of les bleus - these were the traditional defenders of nationalist sentiment, Quebec autonomy and the core being of the French fact in North America.

Despite being a Liberal, Rene Levesque often tried to connect with this core and eventually the PQ subsumed it. Well, the PQ's failure has resurrected this old bleu tradition and its curiously another ex-Liberal, Mario Dumont, who is now the carrier of the baton bleu.

Incidentally, people are comparing Dumont to Bourassa. In that sense, Dumont could also be compared to Honore Mercier. But I think this is projecting too much.

There are two questions now in Quebec: First, how will Dumont lead this autonomist movement? Will he suffer schisms and arguments? (I think not too much. The baby-boomer pequistes were a noisy bunch.)

And second, how will English-Canada respond to Dumont and his desire for autonomy or the defence of Quebec rights?

----

On a related note. There is another tradition in Quebec - les rouges. This tradition has been just as badly abused. The PLQ is almost an anglophone party.

The election of Philippe Couillard in Jean-Talon in Quebec City is a victory that Wilfrid Laurier would understand well.

Lastly, there are all sorts of opinion columns describing or lamenting the impossible position of the PQ. It's like watching a wounded beast writhe.

Il y a tant de tueurs de chef dans le Parti québécois, que si Boisclair y survit, ce parti ne sera plus jamais le même.
Ils diront - les buveurs du sang de leur chef - que Boisclair ne l'a pas, qu'il ne sait pas parler au monde. Ils auront sans doute raison. André Boisclair n'est pas un tribun très doué.

Ils auront raison là-dessus, mais ils se tromperont sur le fond : Bernard Landry ou Pauline Marois, même Gilles Duceppe n'auraient guère fait mieux lundi. Ils diront, ils disent toujours, que leur chef n'EN a pas assez parlé - de la souveraineté, évidemment.

...

«Je reste pour éviter que le Parti québécois ne sombre dans le déni», a dit André Boisclair. Pour un type qui promettait un référendum la semaine dernière, même avec un gouvernement minoritaire, disons que ça fait drôle de l'entendre parler de déni. Le désespoir fait dire de drôles de choses. La peur aussi.

L'autre problème pour lutter contre le déni, c'est que le vrai André Boisclair, celui qui avait des idées pour recentrer et revigorer ce parti, le faire changer de génération, ne s'est jamais montré, ou si peu. Dès qu'il montrait le bout de son nez, dès qu'il s'éloignait de l'orthodoxie sociale-démocrate bien fixée des aïeux, les tueurs de chef sortaient leurs couteaux. Et il rentrait sagement au bercail du programme.

Yves Boisvert