It’s only fools who don’t change their minds, they say. No doubt, but you have to give good reasons to do so when you have defended an idea tooth and nail for years.
Three years ago, the Parti Québécois (PQ) and its new leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, were categorically opposed to the third highway link between Quebec and Lévis. Their position could not be clearer: “A Parti Québécois government would cancel this disproportionate project which does not serve the public interest and would invest the planned amounts in health, education, social housing and public transportation. »
Tuesday, for a second time in less than three weeks, Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon suggested that the PQ’s position could possibly change. “We are going to do vigorous work again with other consultations to come up with the best possible offer for Quebec during the 2026 election,” he said.
The about-face made by the Legault government a year ago cost his party dearly in the Quebec region, which seemed to be an impregnable fortress, but where a 20-point lead over the PQ was suddenly transformed into behind by 23 points.
If the population still does not seem to be angry with the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), this does not mean that they would turn their noses up at a new version of the project presented by the Caisse de dépôt. The PQ leader clearly considers it more prudent to see what is going on and what the voters think of it. Everything is going well for the PQ currently, but this saga has demonstrated how changeable the mood of the electorate can be.
The matter is not without risk. The resurrection of the PQ is largely due to the bond of trust that Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon was able to establish with Quebecers, who were seduced by what appeared to them to be an unusual sincerity in politics. It is in his best interest not to disappoint them by engaging in the same solicitation that the CAQ has been accused of.
The PQ argument against the third link, which was already convincing three years ago, seems even more so. All the problems that the PQ mentioned have worsened since then. With the housing crisis, that of agriculture, the insufficiency of the Canada Health Transfer, the underfunding of public transportation, the accelerated deterioration of school equipment, while the deficit explodes, swallowing up billions in “a insane project which does not respond to any real need” still seems just as unjustifiable.
At the time, the PQ argued that Quebec was sixth among the least congested cities in Canada. Of the 11 largest cities in the country, it ranked second in highway miles per capita. What changed ?
“This project borders on delirium and gives a bitter impression to all Quebecers: that their real priorities can wait and that they are not significant enough for the electoral interests of the CAQ,” said the PQ at the time. Would his family now find what they are looking for?
Virtue is less meritorious when opportunities to sin are rarer, as is the case when power is only a distant prospect. It is when he gets closer that the temptation to compromise with his convictions tends to become stronger.
Since he became leader of the PQ, Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon has never given any indication that he could go back on his commitment to hold a referendum on sovereignty in a first mandate, especially since this would not has not seemed to slow down the progress of his party even if the Yes vote is still stagnating around 35%.
There are nevertheless perfectly sincere separatists who fear above all else losing a third referendum. As for the third link, they would find it preferable to “do vigorous work again with other consultations to arrive at the best possible offer for Quebec during the 2026 election”.
Note, there will always be time to wait until after the election to announce the postponement of the referendum to a second term. Since the PQ seems to be able to take power by promising to hold it during the first, why risk demobilizing those who want it or who simply value frankness?
This would be very similar to what the Legault government did in the case of the third link, that is to say, waiting to be elected before renouncing a commitment that we already planned not to keep. Of course, such duplicity seems completely unthinkable.