Not all negotiations between the government and public sector workers have the same symbolic charge. Even if we saw it coming from afar, the union anger sweeping across Quebec is striking in its vigorous determination. Its ability to drag in its wake a population which also refuses to make this a routine negotiation rightly shakes the Caquists, who came second this week, behind the Parti Québécois, in the hearts of Quebecers.
With the high cost of living, one would have thought that the Gordian knot to be resolved would remain aligned with the salary percentage points that the two parties are fiercely fighting over. But Quebecers suffer so much from the ills that undermine their public networks – education and health in particular – that they do not seem to want to miss the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
Prime Minister Legault took note of this on Thursday by opening the door to an improvement in the overall offer in exchange for more flexibility on the working conditions front. This is a signal that clashes with the intransigence that his government has shown so far towards the driving forces of these key sectors held at arm’s length by a majority of women.
The fact remains that he still has some catching up to do on the deep issues of this negotiation unlike any other. Starting with the vague speech on the dangers — and the seduction — of amalgamations repeated by the president of the Treasury Board. Sonia LeBel refuses to see a link between the current negotiation and the handful of millions agreed to seduce the Kings or the 600 million in excess from the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec shared for the sole benefit of motorists.
These stones that the government is dragging in its shoes are out of proportion to the colossal sums at stake, she argues. True, these are peanuts faced with the eight billion dollars on the table. But the comparison is not only financial, it is also moral. And it hurts.
François Legault constantly uses taxpayers’ ability to pay to justify his government’s choices. But if we accept that the negotiation depends on what the government can reasonably pay, then we must conclude that it also depends on what it chooses to pay (or not) as a priority. The link is not fabricated, but direct, and it is not to the advantage of the Caquistes, who seem to have lost all compass in the matter.
Logic would dictate that in these “very difficult” times, the Minister of Finance, Eric Girard, in his own words, first cuts the fat. But there is no more fat in health or education, the muscle is barely still holding on. In places, we are even on the bone. His government still chooses to spend money elsewhere by greasing the paws of millionaires on the skids and by substantially inflating the pockets of MPs, for example.
As luck would have it, the Ethics Commissioner returned on Tuesday to the eagerness of the elected representatives of the National Assembly to grant themselves a 30% increase. In doing so, they placed themselves in a situation of apparent conflict of interest, ruled Ariane Mignolet. Nothing to facilitate M’s missionme LeBel, who does not have what it takes to ward off the specter of inflation while chasing away the demons of underfinancing, disorganization, shortages and serial resignations.
Conciliation made it possible to give the parties some perspective, accelerate the pace of negotiation and bring good faith back to the table. With solid support among the population, unions could be tempted to take advantage, but time and the structural ills of our public networks work against them. The patience of Quebecers is directly linked to their hope of seeing workers’ gains translate into revamped public services.
This standoff is not just a strike of civil servants, but a social crisis, with all the indignation and all the hopes that this implies. The normative, which dictates the working conditions in a given environment, will be decisive. It will take height and vision from all parties who will have the immense responsibility of never losing sight of the common good.
However contested they may be, the Dubé and Drainville reforms embody the most tangible thing the population can cling to. Their ball carriers will need flexibility and agility to carry them through. There are locks to break, barriers to knock down and lots of structures to imagine. If the parties were to close the books after settling the salary question without making significant progress on the conditions of practice, we would have to conclude that we would have collectively lost a lot.
Quebecers are attached to their public services. They still want to believe that their failed model is not lost. Let’s be realistic, negotiation will not save the Quebec model. But she won’t leave him unchanged. The whole question now is whether he will emerge weakened or strengthened.