News

If the polls are right, the Liberal status quo will be reinstated in the Dec. 8 Quebec election and the Parti Québécois is in for some psychoanalysis.

That's the argument The Globe's Konrad Yakabuski put forth Saturday in his essay Quebec's false turn and its next realignment

"The provincial Liberals — a species that admits no relation to its federal namesake — emerged as Quebec's natural governing party by straddling the mushy middle," Mr. Yakabuski wrote.

"The QLP places economic stability and social peace above all else, sometimes to the point of postponing worthy reforms, or ignoring demands from within, if they entail temporary or messy upheaval. Once in a while, its incrementalism becomes its own worst enemy.

"The proof is that the two other parties contesting the Dec. 8 provincial election, not counting those on the fringes, were both formed by Liberals in a hurry.

"Forty-one years ago, René Lévesque stormed out of a Liberal convention when the party snubbed his idea of sovereignty association. A year later, he founded the Parti Québécois, a left-leaning formation with an explicit predisposition in favour of workers. Less than a decade later, it knocked the Liberals out of power.

"Fifteen years after Mr. Lévesque's fateful exit, it was Mr. Dumont's turn to slam the door on his natural political home. Again, the pretext was a divergence over how to secure a new deal for Quebec within Canada.

"But by the time Mr. Dumont and his Liberal defectors put the meat on the bones of their Action Démocratique du Québec, it had become the vehicle for Quebec's disenfranchised right.

"And in the previous provincial election, in March, 2007, it came within a whisker of beating the Liberals.

"That election had the markings of what the late American political scientist V..O. Key termed a 'realigning election'," Mr. Yakabuski added.

"The Liberals were reduced to 48 of 125 seats. Leader Jean Charest managed to win a minority government, but thanks only to the Liberals' seemingly permanent lock on about 70 per cent of the non-francophone vote, a base that ensures the party a minimum of roughly 25 seats.

"But the QLP finished third among the French-speaking majority. Most of francophone Quebec split between the ADQ and the PQ. For months after the election, polls showed the Liberals slipping further while the opposition parties gained ground.

"It seemed for a while that the Liberals could be reduced in the next election to a rump of seats in anglophone Quebec. Francophones — united in their resolve to assert their distinct cultural identity, an issue on which both the PQ and ADQ had equal credibility — seemed to be dividing according to a classic left-right cleavage.

"But party realignments are like the transit of Venus. They are the rarest of political eclipses.

"The 2007 vote now looks as if it could go down as what Dr. Key labelled a "deviating" election, one during which there is a temporary shift in the electorate, but after which traditional voting patterns soon re-emerge . . . "

"If the latest polls are accurate, the Dec. 8 vote should go down as a "reinstating" election with the Liberals on top, the PQ second and the ADQ third . . .

"[Regardless, it is the PQ, not the ADQ, that most risks imploding after Dec. 8. It is on its fourth leader this decade.

"The move to ditch the promise of a referendum on sovereignty was supposed to broaden the party's appeal. But Ms. Marois may not fare much better than André Boisclair, who wore the referendum albatross in 2007.

"Although it seems assured of at least second-place showing this time, the PQ is in for a long and very public psychoanalysis session after Dec. 8.

"There may well be a party realignment in Quebec in the next few years. Just not the one we might have expected after the previous election."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument, so we at globeandmail.com are pleased that Mr. Yakabuski joined us online Tuesday to take your questions on his essay, on the election, and on the future of politics in Quebec.

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.

Adam Radwanski, globeandmail.com: Konrad, thanks very much for joining us today. Given the way the ADQ's slide has been portrayed in the rest of the country, I was intrigued by your argument that it's actually in more stable condition than the PQ. Does that mean that Mario Dumont's hold on the party is secure, even if it collapses in this election? And if so, is that more a product of satisfaction with his performance, or the lack of any suitable replacements?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hi Adam. What an excellent question! What I was implying was that the ADQ, whether it ends up at 10 per cent or 15 per cent, has a clearer idea of what it stands for than the PQ.

Mr. Dumont has been criticized by his opponents and the media as a "girouette" (weather vane) for seeming to shift positions easily. I think that was a case of Mr. Dumont looking for an issue that would give him traction. As he slides in the polls, he actually returns to a more coherent discourse.

On the basics, the ADQ has stayed very loyal to a small-c conservative, free-market agenda. Pushing private health care in an election campaign is not a move to get votes. It is a move to consolidate a base (a small one by all accounts) that is looking for ways to challenge the status quo.

That said, Mr. Dumont has become a bit of a victim of his own way with words. What was once seen as a talent - he is the king of the one-liner - is now coming off as glib. For the first time in the ADQ's history, Mr. Dumont is possibly a drag on his party. That can change. Jean Charest was a drag on the Liberals in 1998 and 2003. He's not now.

As for the PQ, I suggested in the essay that if the shelving of the referendum option does not dramatcally help it score votes, there will be a lot of soul-searching within the party about what it stands for. On sovereignty, yes, but also on a host of policy issues where it is being criticized by the base, and the media, for being the same as the Liberals.

The fact that Pauline Marois has been the victim of ample friendly fire during this campaign is a sign of things to come. Unless she comes close to getting 40 per cent in the election - and she's not there yet.

SG from Montreal: Thanks for taking questions, Mr. Yakabuski. We appreciate your opinions. Concerning the state of the autonomist position, which seems to have seeped up from the ADQ into the other two major parties and perhaps trickled down to the two main minor parties (Green and Quebec Solidaire), are we seeing a real shift away from large-scale enthusiasm for hard-line sovereignty? Or is it because there is no charismatic Levesque figure to lead Quebec to the promised land that les independantistes seem to be currently biding their time? And will enough of these voters choose to make a dent by leaving the PQ and voting for QS, giving them perhaps a seat or two to see if they are a fad or have staying power like some left-wing version of the ADQ?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hello, SG. Thanks for the questions. There are a few of them in there. Let's start with the premise that any Quebec party that wants to connect must at the very least be "autonomist."

Now, let's address the issue of sovereignty. The most recent Léger poll had support for sovereignty at 37 per cent. That looks low. But the question was on sovereignty alone, not sovereignty-partnership (the subject of the 1995 referendum) or sovereignty-association (the 1980 question). So, the core of Quebeckers that are pure unhyphenated sovereigntists is not unsubstantial.

That said, there is a difference between being a sovereigntist and wanting a referendum. They are not mutually inclusive conditions. Few sovereigntists want to go into a referendum they know they would lose. The "cause" would be set back 50 years by another defeat. Where there is divergence in the sovereigntist camp is on the question as to whether the PQ should be a pure sovereigntist party, even if it means accepting a long stint in opposition. Many in the movement believe support for sovereignty is cyclical, and it's just a question of time before their moment comes again.

That brings us to the leadership question. One of the biggest criticisms one hears about Mme Marois is that she's not the leader to inspire Quebeckers to take the plunge. Neither was André Boisclair. This is still a sense that sovereignty can only be achieved if a new Lévesque emerges, someone in whom almost every Quebecker sees part of themselves.

As for Québec Solidaire, its support is overwhelmingly concentrated in four or five Montreal ridings, especially Mercier and Gouin. QS, with co-leader Amir Kadir, came within 1,100 votes of unseating the PQ incumbent in 2007. Only Mr. Kadir and Françoise David stand a chance in this election. In maybe one or two other ridings, the QS candidate could capture enough votes to ensure a Liberal victory by draining votes from the PQ. But at four per cent in the polls, QS is not growing.

Francis McInerney from New York: What I find interesting about this provincial election is that the last federal PM to win a majority who was not from Québec, francophone, and nominally Catholic was Diefenbaker in 1958, and then only through a deal with the Union Nationale. The last to do it on his own merits was Mackenzie-King in 1945. This tells me that unlike the United States, where they say all politics is local, in some way all Québec politics is national, making the outcome of this election in some way determinative of Canada's future. What do you think? And in what way might it be determinative?

Konrad Yakabuski: Hello, Francis. Of all the Quebec elections since 1960, this one seems to be the one with the lowest stakes - for the province and for Canada as a whole. There is not even a promise of a referendum from the PQ. With the ADQ destined to retreat - at current poll numbers it risked losing all of its 39 seats - there will be no demand for reopening the constitution to repatriate powers to Quebec.

The question becomes this: For how long can Jean Charest - who insists the "fruit is not ripe" for constitutional talks - maintain this line? He wants to negotiate administrative agreements with Ottawa to repatriate certain powers - and money - from Ottawa. But will this be enough to satisfy the autonomists, even those within his own party?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's promises to pursue Senate reform and allocate more seats in the House of Commons to Western Canada have the potential to inflame autonomist sentiment here. If there is a sense that Quebec's influence in federal institutions is waning, it gives a powerful argument to the sovereigntists and autonomists alike that a new constitutional deal is essential to the survival of French-speaking culture.

R. Carriere: On the provincial level, most have finally realized that putting bread and butter on the table ranks higher on the priority list than waving the flag. Before this economic world debacle, Quebec had become a wonderful mix of business opportunity and social awareness. With the election of a federalist/nationalist Charest, Quebec portrayed economic stability that allowed dollars to flow into the province (Aerospace-Pharmaceutical....) Speaking with some long-time professional friends, their property values for the most part have doubled in the major centres since Jean Charest came to power in 2003. AT THIS TIME, electing a provincial separatist govt. makes no sense and would cause more economic instability. The future? Who knows…

Adam Radwanski: Is that a fair analysis, Konrad? To what extent is the PQ suffering from lack of confidence in its economic credentials?

Konrad Yakabuski: It's not for nothing that the Liberal slogan in this campaign is "L'économie d'abord - OUI" (The Economy First - YES). History shows that whenever economic questions top the list of voter priorities, it favours the Liberals. Whenever identity questions come first, it favours the PQ (and in 2007, the ADQ). Identity questions are almost entirely absent from this campaign. As the party that puts "stability" above all else, the Liberals have the right message given voters' current state of mind.

The reader is right - bread and butter issues are top of mind right now. The Liberal record on the economy since 2003 is mixed, though. Mr.Charest himself has taken a while to determine what his own economic priorities are. He came to office promising almost ADQ-like reforms, but has now shifted to a very traditional Liberal economic development strategy that puts the government at the heart of it all. There's a pay-off if things go well, but if they don't, the Liberals risk getting blamed.

And no one really expects things to go well over the next couple of years. Mr. Charest, like Mr. Harper and Barack Obama, will have to govern through months of bad statistics.

Adam Radwanski: Having just been in Montreal myself, I was struck by the overwhelming apathy toward this election. That's mostly been attributed to sheer fatigue - people just don't have the appetite for another campaign after a succession of federal and provincial ones. But are there other factors at play as well?

Konrad Yakabuski: Adam, this is definitely the strangest campaign I've witnessed. Yes, apathy is probably at an all-time high. But Montrealers in general always feel a bit disenfranchised in provincial elections, since the 28 ridings on the island rarely change hands. The Liberals win lanslides in the west and handily in a couple of northeast ridings with large Italian populations, and the PQ usually wins comfortably in the east.

Off the island, if voters aren't apathetic, they're downright angry. They resent this election. They see it as opportunistic on Mr. Charest's part. But this doesn't appear to be hurting the Liberals. Rather, their base is more motivated because a big victory is possible. The other parties will suffer most from a low turnout.

Adam Radwanski: Some of the questions and comments we've received from readers outside Quebec have been to the effect that the province is a drain on Canada. In the past, such attitudes have been exploited by Quebec nationalists to suggest a divide with the rest of the country. Are they attempting to do anything similar in this election, or is that attitude not sufficiently widespread right now to really have much impact?

Konrad Yakabuski: The ROC (Rest of Canada) is the "grand absent" from this campaign. Not a word about transfer payments, whether Quebec gets its fair share; no one has uttered the expression "fiscal imbalance" - which was a big issue in 2003 and 2007. It's all a bit surprising considering how successfully the Bloc Québécois exploited this Quebec vs. Canada divide during the federal election, when it suggested Quebec's values were not compatible with those of the plurality of Canadians choosing the Tories.

What is exceptional in this campaign is that it is the opposition parties, not the governing one, that are most on the defensive: Mr. Dumont, for his failure to present an effective opposition (or government, since you get the impression that many Quebeckers think he and the ADQ actually won the last election), and Mme Marois for her record as a PQ minister responsible for reforming education and sending doctors and nurses into early retirement.

Adam Radwanski: Konrad, thanks again for taking the time to join us today. Before we go, I'm wondering what you're expecting out of tonight's debate. Is this the last best hope for Ms. Marois and Mr. Dumont to really grab the public's attention and reverse the direction of the campaign? Is there any sense of how they might try to do that?

Konrad Yakabuski: Thanks Adam, always a privilege to weigh in.

The debate is probably the last chance for the opposition to halt Liberal gains. It's possible that the Liberals have peaked too early in the campaign and with the debate as the moment voters really start focusing, those parking their vote with the Liberals could reconsider.

Many people think minority government has been good for Jean Charest. If the polls show him heading toward a massive victory - and a 13 point lead over the PQ in today's polls translates into a pretty big win - some voters could return to one of the other parties.

In tonight's debate, Mr. Dumont and Mme Marois must make them want to do that. Mme Marois must stress her competence and experience and go on the offensive, instead of spending most of the campaign on the defensive. Mr. Dumont is no longer in a position to present himself as a premier in waiting, so he must persuade voters that a strong ADQ contingent is necessary to challenge Mr. Charest's complacency in the face of Quebec's longer term challenges. Reminding voters about Mr. Charest's rocky first term - when he had a solid majority - will be on the agenda, too.

There is no doubt that both opposition leaders will raise today's Globe and Mail story by my colleague Andy Willis, suggesting the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec has been forced to sell stocks into a plunging market to raise cash. Management of the caisse, which is supposedly at arm's length from the government, is always a politically explosive issue. Mr. Charest exploited it to his advantage against the former PQ government. Now he will be on the firing line.