News

"No doubt about it, there is something unsavoury about the way [ADQ Leader Mario] Mr. Dumont has shamelessly exploited Quebeckers' insecurity over the survival of their language and culture for political gain," Konrad Yakabuski writes in his weekend essay Appearances in Quebec are misleading

"Hence, the recent poll scores may be his comeuppance for offending Quebeckers' fairness and generosity. Three by-elections [today] will enable some to show their displeasure at such anti-immigrant pandering.

"Mr. Dumont's biggest albatross, though, is his 41-member caucus, almost all of them political neophytes. One MNA explained to a radio host why neither he nor most of his colleagues ever stood up in Question Period by saying: "It's better to be quiet and look stupid than to speak and prove you are."

Mr. Dumont, who at 38 may be the most talented Canadian politician of his generation, has been dragged down by this team of not-ready-for-prime-time players.

"It would be erroneous, however, to dismiss the ADQ as a flameout. The ideas it brings to the table are increasingly finding favour with a plurality, if not majority, of Quebeckers.

"A strong and growing constituency of voters is seeking new (or old) solutions — not just with respect to cultural survival, but also on the role of the state and on individual responsibility.

"Neither of the established political parties has been either willing or able to successfully process these demands."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative thesis. That's why we're glad that Mr. Yakabuski was online earlier today to take your questions on his essay, the ADQ and Quebec nationalism.

Your questions and Mr. Yakabuski's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Konrad Yakabuski has written on Quebec business, politics and culture for The Globe and Mail since 1996. He previously worked as a political reporter at Le Devoir.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from McGill University and a Master of Science in Business Administration degree from the University of British Columbia.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Konrad, and thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com.

Were you surprised in any way by the results of yesterday's by-elections? Did the ADQ do even worse than expected?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hi, Jim. The answers to that are No and Yes

It must be remembered that these were by-elections in ridings where the ADQ was particularly disadvantaged. That said, the party fared even worse than it needed to in all three ridings and I would suspect that a lack of organization was responsible for its failure to even get its core vote out.

The turnout in these ridings hovered slightly above 30%. Low turnouts traditionally favour the Liberals since they are disproportionately represented among those 55 years and up. This is the one group that always gets out to vote, even in by-elections.

It helps that the Liberal candidates in these ridings could count on a well-oiled machine that made sure that every potential Liberal voter was reminded their vote was needed and help was offered to get to the poll. It really does make a difference.

The Parti Québécois surprised observers because of the strength of its support, particularly in Hull. It, too, is well-organized.

But the solidity of its vote in the two Montreal ridings and Hull suggests that Pauline Marois, who campaigned in the ridings, is playing well with voters.

There were local issues in the two Montreal ridings — particularly the redevelopment of rue Notre-Dame in east end Montreal into a sort of mini-expressway that mobilized voters for or against the Liberals. The Notre-Dame issue likely also played a big part in the mobilization of the protest vote for Québec Solidaire and The Greens, who are against the redevelopment.

The ADQ's core vote is middle-class working parents between 25 and 44. I would suspect that this group, along with the under 25-year-olds, voted the least yesterday.

The ADQ's score was particularly disappointing, however, because it presented two excellent candidates in Bourget and Pointe-aux-Trembles. Denis Mondor in Bourget is a former head of the Quebec Bar Association. Diane Bellemare in Pointe-aux-Trembles has a PhD in economics and used to run Emploi Quebec, the provincial labour market training agency.

Either would have given credibility to an ADQ as an effective Opposition and potential alternative to the government. Without them, Mario Dumont's challenge of rebuilding the party becomes more difficult still.

None of this changes, however, the thesis I advanced in Saturday's essay.

By-elections are not general elections. The ADQ remains a party with the potential to capitalize on a potential reconfiguration of the party system. It may not happen before the next election.

The ADQ is disadvantaged by poor organization, a lack of money and, lately, a lot of negative media coverage. The Liberals are enjoying quite the opposite — unmatched organization, a full bank account and good media coverage.

But I would not want to be the one to underestimate Mr. Dumont's ability to identify the next hot botton issue and connect with Quebec voters on it.

Langevin Côté: Mr. Yakabuski, I enjoy your work very much, as well as your fine grasp of what makes Quebec and Quebeckers tick.

Mario Dumont has tapped into une corde sensible with many of the issue he raises, but his skills and comportment do not seem to be standing the test of real politics.

Some have seen a new Duplessis in him but Duplessis was much more cunning in handling people and, as you know, he built on an existing base of already well-known politicians.

Can Dumont last and, if not, could the ADQ outlast him at least in its present form?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hello, Mr. Côté, and thank you for your kind words, especially since few understand better than you the particular challenges involved in writing about Quebec for an audience in the rest of Canada.

You are so correct about Mr. Dumont's difficult first year as Opposition Leader.

But I am more understanding of his particular situation. He has 40 largely inexperienced MNAs to monitor and train and this, I suspect, has distracted and exhausted him.

Attracting credible candidates will be key to turning the current situation around and relieving Mr. Dumont of the need to be everywhere and to police his caucus.

But getting good candidates to run just became even harder after last night's defeats. The losses by Mme Bellemare and Monsieur Mondor will discourage people like them from running.

The ADQ, without Mr. Dumont, could not survive, except on the fringes. It would need to be reborn under a different name, I think, if Mr. Dumont left for, say . . . Ottawa.

Nigel Martin: I agree with Mr. Yakabuski's thesis up to a point. In my view, the determination of Quebeckers to ensure cultural survival will not wither. In this sense, the importance of the collective approach will endure.

However, I do believe that Quebeckers are now secure enough to believe that cultural survival will come through economic, rather than political, independence. For centuries, the Church was the guardian, then the political class. Now it is the entrepreneurs and Quebec-owned corporations.

This obviously will require a greater dependence on private rather than public initiatives, although the social economy (cooperatives, credit unions etc,) is a very advanced and effective economic tool in Quebec.

Any perceived threat to survival from the outside will still trigger an instant reversal to political means. Although Dumont understands this and exploits sensitivities, he has lost a lot of credibility in recent months.

Immigration into francophone Quebec is a relatively new phenomenon and there remains a high level of discomfort and suspicion, given decades of experience where immigrants opted for the Anglo culture. However, this unease will dissipate as studies continue to demonstrate the extent to which new arrivals are, in fact, becoming Francophones. Although this is lived out on a daily and harmonious basis in Montreal, it is not understood nor appreciated in the outlying areas.

Dumont is trying to exploit this gap, but it is a losing game. The demographics are totally against him and this will increasingly be the case. Quebeckers do not want to be ruled by fear and they don't want to linger in victimization.

Konrad Yakabuski: I generally agree with what you say, Mr. Martin, but I would not conclude that Quebeckers are content with the extent to which newcomers are adopting their language.

It is one thing for a new Quebecker to be able to speak French or learn it. It is quite another them to embrace French and Quebec culture and become as big a consumer of it as old stock Quebeckers.

The statistics show very modest progress with respect to this and it remains very fragile. The force of attraction of English is unbelievably strong for newcomers and old stock Quebeckers alike.

It matters not that those outside Montreal do not feel personally threatened by immigration or anglicization. If there is a sense that Montreal, the island of Montreal, is becoming more English, it becomes a political issue in all of Quebec.

Jasmine Francis, Halifax: Does the ADQ's current slide make it less likely that there will be another provincial election soon? I presume this can only help Mr. Charest.

Konrad Yakabuski: Mr. Charest, Jasmine, is a smart politician (despite being badly adivsed last year.) He is not keen on an early election.

The Liberals are doing relatively well in the polls but not well enough to handily win an election that Quebeckers most decidedly do not want.

Last night's by-elections are not all rosy for Mr. Charest, either, since they confirm the solidity of the PQ's core vote. Ms. Marois is playing well with voters and the PQ stands to benefit just as much, if not more, from a collapse (whether short-term or long-term) of the ADQ vote.

I think Mr. Charest is looking forward to a nice long summer holiday, one that he fully deserves, after one of the best seasons of his political life.

He has said there will be no election in 2008 and I think he means it. By the spring of 2009, all bets are off. Who knows what can happen by then?

John Robertson, Regina: Is the PQ as dead as some "experts" say? I've read a lot lately about it being a "one-generation" phenomenon, with little support among younger Quebeckers. Is that true?

Konrad Yakabuski: The PQ as the parti d'une seule génération thesis is attractive in many ways. The last election results clearly showed that the PQ's core voter was a francophone between 45 and 65 — in other words, the babyboomers.

The ADQ performed best among 25- to 44-year-olds. Again, this group was probably among the least likely to have voted yesterday.

Now that the PQ no longer officially promises a referendum on sovereignty within a specified period of time, the party has to stand for something other than a referendum.

Offering an alternative to the Liberals may be good enough to win the next election, especially with a competent leader such as Mme Marois.

But the fundamental contradiction remains: This is an officially sovereigntist party that no longer promises sovereignty fast enough for its core supporters and remains too statist for a large number of nationalists who voted for the PQ before because there was no alternative.

Laval University political scientist Vincent Lemieux has written extensively about the reconfiguration of Quebec's party system that seems to have occurred every 40 years since Confederation. The PQ is 40 years old this year But maybe, as they say, 40 is the new 30

Bruno D., Montreal: Hi, Konrad. I'm a Canadian who lives in Quebec and I've seen most of my friends leave La Belle Province due to language restrictions.

I would like to see what Quebec can do on its own. I believe that they are getting way too much credit for Montreal, a city that they did not build alone.

In your opinion, can Canada continue to operate as is if Quebec does decide to separate? Will it be business as usual or will there be chaos?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hi, Bruno. People have been trying to answer this hypothetical question since the independence movement first emerged in the 1960s.

I doubt I could offer an answer that would be any more satisfying than any you've gotten before. What I can say is that I think the odds of ever needing to answer it have receded for quite a long time.

Quebec will remain a member of the Canadian federation — period. It will continue to demand special status and recognition. But when even the PQ no longer promises a referendum, who could possibly carry the independence torch with any credibility?

Mike Quinlan, Gatineau, Que.: There seems to be some weird connection between "political modernity" and the ADQ in your thesis. I just don't see it. I see them as more throwbacks to the old Union Nationale days or the Créditistes.

As far as I can tell, Dumont's biggest recent contribution to Quebec politics was to add an Orwellian think-speak dimension to the notion of "reasonable accommodation."

Just for fun, what do you think Mordecai Richler would have made the current ADQ?

Konrad Yakabuski: That is a delicious question, Mike. I suspect he would have skewered many of Mario's declarations, but at the same time expressed a hidden admiration for the man and his political skills.

I don't know if the "chief" — as UN leader Maurice Duplessis was known — would have missed an important appearance in the National Assembly to meet with Jewish leaders at a private dinner in Montreal. But that is what Mr. Dumont did last spring. I wonder what Mr. Richler would have made of that.

Whether the ADQ is a "throwback" is open for debate. The fact remains that the aspects of Quebec's political culture that gave voice to the Union Nationale still exist in Quebec. They had no political vehicle for more than a quarter century — after the death of the UN and before the birth of the ADQ as a credible party.

In between, that vote was largely parked with the PQ, but it was never very comfortable there. Which is why I maintain that the ADQ may be closer to the core Quebec voter — francophone Quebec voter off the island of Montreal, that is — than either of the two other main parties.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks again, Konrad. I'm sure our readers appreciated your insight and analysis. Any last thoughts?

Konrad Yakabuski: Thanks for having me, Jim.

I would say only that the ADQ is in that precarious position of not having the organization and money to realize its ambitions. Mr. Dumont must re-establish himself and his party as a credible governing alternative. All the success of 2007 is in tatters and it will be very hard, perhaps impossible, picking up the pieces without money and organization. Yet, it becomes a chicken and egg story. Success is needed to attract money and workers.

The ADQ's main hope for future relevance remains the failure of the other two parties to address the ideas it puts on the table.

Quebec faces the biggest economic and demographic challenges of any Canadian province. The federal Tories gave Mr. Charest a lifeline by reforming equalization and "resolving" the fiscal imbalance. The result is that federal transfers have increased to $14-billion this year from $9-billion in 2003-04.

Money from Ottawa now represents 22.4% of Quebec's provincial budget. This has enabled Mr. Charest to put off the kind of the structural changes that are needed to ensure the long-term viability of the province's social programs and to modernize its infrastructure.

But it will eventually have to do so. Health care alone will soon be consuming half of the provincial budget.

It may be that only an outsider party, such as the ADQ could risk taking on the vested interests that would be needed to effect fundamental changes.

I would not want to count Mr. Dumont out. His presence and that of the ADQ remain the wild cards of Quebec politics.

Which is why is it all so interesting.