The Parti Québécois (PQ) may have the wind in its sails, but it is presumptuous to predict its victory with as much confidence as Paul St-Pierre Plamondon did at the last national council. Between confidence and arrogance, there is a line that we must be careful not to cross.
It has been more than 25 years since PQ activists had displayed such optimism. Since the 1998 elections, won despite obtaining fewer votes than the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), the “winning conditions” had continued to move away. In Drummondville, the faith that is said to be capable of moving mountains was back.
For the holding of a referendum before the end of the decade to become “a certainty”, however, the PQ would have to form a majority government. Otherwise, he will have to negotiate the wording of the question with at least one other party to be able to pass it. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon called for the formation of “the largest coalition for Yes that Quebec will ever know.” Inviting other parties to “abandon the current partisan dynamic in the National Assembly” is unfortunately dreaming in colors. The past has shown that the party generally prevails over the country.
The rhetoric he used at the end of the week is not likely to promote rapprochement. All parties, even the PLQ, deplore the invasion of Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction by Ottawa. From there to seeing a definite desire for annihilation, like Lord Durham, is another matter.
*****
Unsurprisingly, the interim leader of the PLQ, Marc Tanguay, denounced the “radical” nature of his speech. The Liberals would like nothing better than to once again become the champions of the fight against the separatists. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon certainly does not imagine being able to enlist them in his coalition.
The fate of the Coalition Avenir Québec after the next elections remains a question mark. The prospect of a referendum could even break it. The PQ leader took great pleasure in thanking François Legault for his contribution to the independence cause by demonstrating the impossibility of a “third way”, which indeed seems blocked.
In 2017, Québec solidaire (QS) signed, with the PQ, Option nationale and the Bloc Québécois, a “road map” providing for a common approach to achieving independence. During a congress which turned into a real trial, QS activists however rejected any form of alliance with the PQ. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon indicated at the end of the week that he did not intend to repeat the exercise before the 2026 elections. He also reiterated that the approach planned in the solidarity program, which proposes the election of a constituent assembly prior to holding a referendum on a draft constitution, could not lead to independence.
There is clearly a problem there.
*****
Beyond the referendum mechanics, the remarks that the leader of the PQ made at the end of the week risk reviving the distrust of solidarity activists. If there is one thing that annoys them the most, it is that immigration is presented as a danger for Quebec and its identity.
In fairness, let us point out that Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon did not address any reproaches to immigrants. When he said that “the erasure of our difference is underway” and that he presented the next referendum as “the last chance to give ourselves linguistic and cultural sustainability”, he was thinking rather of the threat represented by the company of nation-building that Ottawa has tirelessly pursued for decades. The fact remains that federal immigration objectives exceed Quebec’s integration capacity, even if the Trudeau government plans to temporarily put a stop to the influx of temporary immigrants.
Both in the PQ and in the QS, we know very well that union is an essential condition for independence. The question is knowing when and on what basis to resume the dialogue. It will not be possible to erase the wounds of the past; it would already be progress not to cause new ones and to avoid unnecessary quarrels.
Delegates to the general council worked for two days on a program to combat the housing crisis and facilitate access to property. This is essential for any party that aspires to form a government, especially when it claims to adhere to the values of social democracy. We nevertheless feel a certain annoyance linked to the fact that QS has succeeded in appropriating this theme, as evidenced by the petty refusal to attach the name of Françoise David to the law aimed at protecting seniors against evictions. It is easier to assert your own merits when you recognize those of others.
On both sides, we see that electoral objectives are no longer necessarily incompatible. QS was born and developed by drawing on the PQ electorate, but the latter’s progress over the past year has been essentially at the expense of the Coalition Avenir Québec. It’s as if the two parties now have distinct constituencies.
This could remove an obstacle. Temporarily, at least.