Prime Minister Legault responded with caustic humor to the interim leader of the PLQ, Marc Tanguay, who described him at the end of last week as “the worst prime minister in the history of Quebec.”
“I want to tell him that, on the other hand, I find that, as leader of the opposition, he is perfect. I wouldn’t change it,” Mr. Legault said. He would surely not have asked for anything better than to see him take the leadership of the PLQ permanently. This thought would be enough to make Liberal MPs break out in a cold sweat.
Hearing Mr. Tanguay’s speeches in the National Assembly, we quickly understood that inspiration rarely visited him, but he would do well to avoid the comparison game. He had a sudden enlightenment when he advocated budgetary austerity, the better to denounce the record deficit of 11 billion that Quebec will record in 2024-2025. Mr. Legault probably did not hope for so much.
It is still a little early to determine what place History will reserve for the current Prime Minister, let alone decree that he will have been the worst of all. He may not have said his last word, and the competition for the dunce cap is strong.
The PLQ itself contributed to putting things into perspective at the Bromont general council, by parading its former leaders. Seeing Jean Charest and Philippe Couillard side by side already helped to enhance the image of Mr. Legault. If not the best, it is better to be the “least worst”.
*****
The assessment of a government’s performance can differ considerably depending on the criteria one chooses. Obviously, fiscal responsibility is the criterion favored by Mr. Tanguay.
Taking into account the variation in expenditure per capita and in relation to GDP, the Montreal Economic Institute (IEDM) established in 2022 a ranking of the 14 prime ministers who have governed for at least one year since 1944. The results could be of interest to the interim leader of the PLQ.
On this basis, the most rigorous manager was not Philippe Couillard, but rather Jacques Parizeau, the third being Lucien Bouchard. Conversely, the biggest spenders were Jean Lesage, followed by Robert Bourassa in his phase 1 (1970-1976), François Legault and Daniel Johnson senior.
We will have understood the limits of this criterion. No one would dream of reproaching the liberality of the prime ministers who presided over the Quiet Revolution. Building a modern state had a cost. In the same way, when we draw up the final assessment of Mr. Legault, the pandemic and inflation will largely explain why he will probably be crowned spending champion.
In any case, public opinion has a more complex evaluation grid. If the brevity of Mr. Parizeau’s mandate does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn on his budgetary management, the closure of around ten hospitals has certainly left a less vivid memory than the referendum adventures, including his unfortunate sentence on the money and ethnic votes.
In the MEI ranking, Jean Charest is at 5e rank, just ahead of René Lévesque. We will never know what savings his abortive attempt to “reengineer” the state would have generated, but he was above all held responsible for the perversion of Quebec political mores.
*****
According to Marc Tanguay, the Couillard government “provided better services than today”. At the time, teachers may not have complained about having to hand out popsicles to cool students in overheated classrooms, but we no longer saw schools surrounded by human chains to protest against budget cuts.
Of all the prime ministers elected at the head of a majority government for 80 years, Mr. Couillard is the only one who was entitled to only one mandate without having resigned of his own accord or died. There must be a reason.
History will “in due time” recognize its benefits, believes Mr. Tanguay. Perhaps, but that day has not yet come, if it ever comes. Until then, he should leave it to the next leader of the PLQ to determine the timetable for returning to a balanced budget.
When he launched his crusade for a zero deficit in 1996, Lucien Bouchard did not try to make people believe that the operation would be painless. On the contrary, he told anyone who would listen that it would require great sacrifices, which would make the result all the more satisfactory. Some may have blamed him, but no one claimed to have been deceived.
Mr. Couillard’s great error was perhaps less in having imposed austerity that he considered necessary, but rather in having denied its effects. Or even not having seen them. No doubt we should be grateful to Mr. Tanguay for warning us that the PLQ intends to repeat it.