Without wanting to, the orientation convention of the Parti Québécois (PQ) will have succeeded in showing why the voters largely abandoned it. Because in half a century of history, the PQ has tried everything. And voters are simply no longer able to follow it.
Referendum, no referendum. Association, not association. Economic nationalist, then free trader, then partisan of identity nationalism. Quebec dollar, Canadian or even American dollar. NATO member army, peaceful army or no army at all. Going green and a new logo? Hey, André Boisclair had tried that in 2007… We could go on like this for a long time.
At the congress last weekend, a new invention, a “data sheet” which will be presented shortly before the next elections – therefore in less than 10 months – and which will offer a “clear definition of sovereign Quebec”.
It describes, among other things, the “political regime of a sovereign Quebec” – good luck, when we know that the PQ has always had difficulty in connecting with the simple reform of the voting system – and even “the custody of the borders ”.
Borders are new. And above all opportunist.
For most of its history, the PQ has insisted that there would be no hard border with Canada. This was the very essence of the sovereignty-association project in the manifesto Quebec Option by René Lévesque, who led to the founding of the party.
The example of the European Union and the “Four Freedoms” of the single market – free movement of people, goods, capital and services – which should serve as a model for future relations between Quebec and Canada was readily cited.
And suddenly “the border guard” appears. For the leader of the PQ, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the wave of gun crime that we currently find in Greater Montreal is “a striking example of what the concrete price is of not having a country and to let a distant level of government manage things ”.
In short, sovereignty and borders will solve the problem of shootings.
We can certainly deplore the lack of political courage of the Trudeau government on the issue of firearms and its annoying habit of wanting to shovel the problem into the backyards of the provinces or even the municipalities.
But when we say that the simple fact of deploying Quebec border guards on the bridges between Ottawa and Gatineau or in Lacolle will solve the problem of the illegal entry of handguns, especially from the United States, we fall squarely in the caricature.
But let us return to the “identification sheet” which will inform voters of the contours of a sovereign Quebec. We are going to talk about the currency. Good idea, because the PQ has said white, black and all shades of gray on the currency issue since its founding.
In Quebec Option, René Lévesque spoke of a common currency with Canada. In 1973, during the unfortunate campaign for the “Year 1 budget”, Jacques Parizeau evoked the idea of a Quebec dollar that would float “a little below or a little above” the Canadian dollar. It hadn’t gone very well. In 1976, therefore, return to the common currency.
Then, in the 1995 referendum, the PQ said that Quebec would keep the Canadian dollar, whether Canada liked it or not, and even without common institutions. But some PQ, Minister Richard Le Hir, among others, spoke of the use of the US dollar. Finally, during the leadership race of the PQ in 2014, Jean-François Lisée – before giving up his candidacy – mentioned a Quebec central bank and a Quebec dollar.
In short, the PQ still does not have a clear position on an issue that is central to its project, while it proposes a referendum on sovereignty from its first term, should it take power.
In fact, these debates no longer even fascinate the majority of the PQ and only interest historians.
In any case, for the PQ, the stake of the next electoral campaign will not be the Quebec dollar or sovereignty with or without association. It will be the survival of the party itself.
With nearly 50% of the voting intentions in the polls and even with a little less, the Coalition d’avenir Québec should be able to count on the most pernicious effect of our electoral system, namely to win many more seats than its share of the vote. .
Thus, with more than 50% of the votes in 1973 and in 1985, the liberals of Robert Bourassa had gained 102 seats out of 110 and 99 seats out of 122. With an opposition split into three, it is plausible that we obtain a similar result or even worse next October.
This is a very real threat to the survival of the PQ. And a much more urgent issue for its activists than the establishment of a “border guard”.