(Texte français disponible ici)

I’ll start you off with a few appetizers. Then we’ll get to the main course.

OK, let’s dive in!

Éric Duhaime doesn’t know if any of his candidates are Indigenous

LOL

“Honestly, I haven’t asked my candidates whether they have Indigenous roots,” Éric Duhaime admitted at a news conference, according to the article in Le Soleil.

LOL

You can generally remove both the adverb “honestly” and the “honesty” from any politician’s answer that starts with “honestly.”

Of course he knows. And if there were any, he’d know that too. It’s just less embarrassing to answer that way.

Today’s pot-calling-the-kettle-black quote

“He doesn’t understand economics.”

— Christine Fréchette, leader of the soon-to-be-defunct Team Christine Fréchette, on Paul St-Pierre Plamondon.

Christine, with all due respect, neither do you.

Re: Northvolt, Nemaska Lithium, Lion Electric, Flying Whales, Recyclage Varennes…

The last CAQ man standing

Projections from polling aggregator Route 127 show Bernard Drainville neck and neck with the QCP candidate in his riding of Lévis.

Which means he might survive.

Imagine the scenario. The PQ wins 63 seats, one short of a majority. Bernard Drainville is the CAQ’s only elected MNA, making him the de facto leader of a party that still has millions in the bank and can therefore survive for a long time, even with a token presence in the legislature.

Whether a referendum is held would then depend entirely on whether our very own Bernard decides to return to his former party.

That would be fantastic.

The QCP promises private hospitals

Yesterday, I explained that the QCP had already won the election by pulling most of the other parties toward it, particularly the one that will form the government, reshaping Quebec politics as no party has in 30 years.

That’s not an endorsement of the QCP’s platform, much less of some of its candidates, who are steeped in conspiracy theories. Nor is it an endorsement of their leader and his penchant for making up or twisting facts when reality might prove him wrong.

(Yes, I know, PSPP and Christine Fréchette do it too. I’ve pointed out examples in this campaign journal.)

I don’t like the QCP’s methods or tone, its habit of targeting vulnerable groups, or its general lack of empathy (yes, yes, PSPP too).

I’m no fonder of Éric Duhaime’s complete lack of scruples. He had no qualms about riding the wave of disinformation during the pandemic to recruit members and raise money. Using anger, ignorance, and resentment as political fuel rarely ends well.

Today, Mr. Duhaime said he wants to build and operate four private hospitals in Quebec: one in Quebec City, one in Montreal, and two others in locations he hasn’t specified.

I agree.

😱

I actually think it’s a very good idea.

😱😱😱

Before we go any further, just a heads-up: my knee’s acting up today after an injection yesterday, so I typed the rest comfortably seated in my armchair, icing it from time to time.

There’ll be fewer reference links than usual because constantly switching windows on an iPad is a pain. I’ll include two at the end, if you’re good.

I’ve worked extensively on health policy and could talk about it for hours. We’ll try to keep this interesting, because there’s an opportunity to make decisions that could reshape the system and make a real difference to the care available over the next few years.

But first, we need to work through a few preconceptions.

Buckle up. Here we go!

+++++++

For many people, private involvement in health care is a matter of ideology. The right is for it, because… The left is against it, because… Each camp sees the issue through the lens of its own preferences and reaches the conclusions it wants.

Health care is extraordinarily complex, so you can always find examples that confirm your preconceptions.

You’ll easily find a stack of studies concluding that privately delivered care kills patients, and others concluding that it practically stops them from getting sick.

It gets downright confusing, because you also have to sort through the methodologies. Not everything is comparable, and bad studies do exist.

I’m not against studies. I like studies. I’ve tracked down and read a ton for my own publications and for others I’ve edited. Many are useful. Others just add noise.

I’ve worked at think tanks on the right, in the centre, and on the left. I’ve seen competent, rigorous people on the right, in the centre, and on the left.

I’ve seen less competent people on the right and the left, more often than in the centre, because overall competence tends to decline as you move closer to the ideological extremes, with convictions getting in the way of reasonably impartial reasoning.

I’ve also pored over enough studies on subjects I know well enough to spot glaring flaws in their premises or methodology. Researchers often have extraordinarily detailed knowledge of their field and tunnel vision about everything else. I’ve also corrected researchers who had misinterpreted the very figures they were citing.

(I’m not saying this to brag. I’m lucky to have an eclectic background. I’m not good at anything, but I’m not terrible at anything either. Well, almost. At our place, my spouse handles the DIY. Less risk of injuries and, above all, damage to the decor.)

Citing a study doesn’t guarantee that it’s conclusive, or that a conclusive study supports the conclusions being drawn from it.

It can be confusing as hell.

I’m ideologically agnostic, so I rarely have strong convictions about the best way to achieve the goal. I leave the ideological feuds to others.

But I do have one fundamental conviction about the goal: health coverage should be universal and organized so that everyone can get care when they need it.

Having owned a business in another life (I mean a previous career, not reincarnation), I don’t tend to see entrepreneurs as money-hungry vampires by default. I see them as innovators who look at a problem and see an opportunity to solve it, with profit as a possible reward.

Yes, there are crooks. That’s why we need rules.

So much for the long preamble.

You’ll find studies saying privately delivered care costs more, and others saying it costs less.

You’ll also find studies saying privately delivered care improves access, and others saying it undermines access.

Finally, you’ll find studies saying privately delivered care siphons resources from the public system, and others saying it makes better use of health care resources, ultimately increasing the amount of care that can be delivered.

All these conclusions can be true at the same time. It depends on what you’re measuring.

I prefer a different kind of study, one that takes a broad macroeconomic view. A natural experiment, if you like.

It’s called Europe.

All European countries have universal health care systems. Some resemble ours, in that the state is the single payer for care. Examples include the United Kingdom (where our health care system originated), Norway, and Sweden.

Others rely on mandatory private coverage through group plans, with the state providing coverage for people who can’t access a group plan. Examples include France, Germany, and Austria.

One thing all these systems have in common is that patients don’t go broke getting care (unlike in the United States, where a significant share of the population has inadequate coverage or none at all).

Another thing European systems have in common is that they generally outperform ours. European health care systems also generally outperform ours, as well as those in the other provinces.

Here’s the typical reaction of a Quebecer getting care in Europe.

It’s so quick you almost find yourself hoping to break something just to go back to the hospital.

One final thing these systems have in common is that the state generally isn’t the only provider of care.

That’s almost unthinkable in Quebec. In Europe, it’s always been that way.

In France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, countries with deeply rooted socialist traditions, a third or more of hospitals are private, for-profit facilities.

That doesn’t even include non-profit organizations operating outside the public sector. Even Sweden, with its strong social democratic tradition, has a few private, for-profit hospitals. There aren’t many, but one is particularly revealing: it shows how a single hospital can stand out within the system it operates in.

A few years ago, I studied St. Göran (St. George) Hospital in Stockholm, which is often cited in conservative circles.

This is St. Göran, in case you were wondering.

Apparently, Swedish saints stand 15 feet tall and, like their flocks, would hold their own in strongman competitions. But let’s carry on.

In the late 1990s, St. Göran Hospital wasn’t doing very well. Stockholm County Council, responsible for delivering health care in the capital, faced two choices: close it, or take a chance on handing its management over to a private company.

(I should note that health care is a local responsibility in Sweden. The national government sets the regulatory framework, overall funding, and rules governing the health professions, but each region decides how care is funded and delivered. We should do that here.)

Stockholm County Council chose to entrust St. Göran’s management to the Swedish multinational Capio, which has since been swallowed up by Australia’s Ramsay (which hasn’t always made good calls, but we won’t get into that today).

Under Capio, St. Göran became a remarkably high-performing hospital. Between 2000 and 2016, it nearly tripled the number of patients treated in its emergency department, from 35,000 to 85,000, a volume comparable to our largest hospitals.

More astonishing still, St. Göran achieved this and remains one of Sweden’s most frequently honoured hospitals for the quality of its care. (Sweden has hospital rankings. We should do that here too.)

It doesn’t cost patients more, because care is covered by the state, just as it is at any public hospital. In practice, and in terms of access, St. Göran has remained public. Many patients, and even some hospital employees, don’t know the hospital is run by a corporation.

It doesn’t cost the state more, because the rates for each procedure are regulated, whether it takes place in a public or private facility. (Another good idea we’re slow to adopt here, notably for specialized medical centres, or CMS, which perform day surgery funded by the RAMQ.)

Even more astonishing was the local union’s reaction. When St. Göran was handed over to Capio, a major Swedish labour federation decided to make it a symbolic fight to preserve the integrity of public services.

After a few years, the hospital’s union let the federation know that, actually, entrepreneurial management wasn’t so bad, and there were advantages to having decision-makers on site. We’ll stick with private management after all, thank you very much.

Regional indicators also showed lower absenteeism and higher staff morale, notably because bottom-up management was encouraged instead of the traditional top-down approach, which often leaves employees demotivated.

Patient satisfaction was higher too. An annual assessment of patient satisfaction is mandatory in Sweden. St. Göran’s managers thought that wasn’t enough. They introduced continuous assessment to measure patient satisfaction in real time.

When was the last time anyone here asked you how satisfied you were with your care?

Remember, I documented all this in 2017. Things don’t exactly move fast in Quebec, do they?

Other hospitals in Sweden started wondering what was in the water at St. Göran and how they could replicate its results. So did public decision-makers.

The moral of the story is that private ownership or management can produce good results when the incentives are properly aligned.

+++++++

Quebec’s relatively little-known private long-term care homes under public contract (CHSLDs) offer another example. These should not be confused with private CHSLDs operating without such contracts. They’ve shown that entrepreneurial management can produce better results with comparable funding and resources. I demonstrated this a few years ago. Economist Pierre Fortin had done so before me. (Hi, Pierre!)

What matters isn’t whether the facility is private or public, but whether we make the best possible use of the health care system’s scarce resources. Competition and good incentives can encourage that within a public, universal system. Europe provides broad evidence of it. Look closely and you’ll find all sorts of rough edges. But if we look at the overall picture, we could adopt just about any European system here, with its mix of care providers, and be better off.

What we must avoid is a parallel private system accessible only to the wealthiest. The QCP wants to take us in that direction when it says it wants to allow private insurance to cover basic medical care.

It’s easy to imagine what would happen: a parallel private system would develop, funded by those who could afford it, with care provided by doctors and other professionals who had left the public system.

We already have this problem in Quebec, with a growing number of doctors practising outside the public system and patients paying out of pocket. Opening the door to private insurers would make the problem worse. That’s what some libertarians associated with the QCP want: some for ideological reasons, others because they’re tired of waiting and think everyone should pay for their own care, since they themselves can afford it (yes, these people exist).

At a stretch, the idea might be defensible if Quebec had a surplus of doctors. Instead, Quebec faces a chronic shortage for the foreseeable future.

For doctors in “fully private” practice, outside universal public coverage, the government would be entirely justified in regulating fees for medical services, as elsewhere in the country. It should also reimburse the cost of that care so it remains accessible to everyone. And above all, no private insurance for basic care.

But for hospitals run independently under the umbrella of public coverage, Europe shows that the model could help us.

The people working in our health care system, who rightly complain about being stuck with an often inhumane employer, might benefit too.

I’ll finish by addressing two objections before they come up.

1. Yes, but what if health care workers want to leave public hospitals?

Yeah, and? If a doctor increases her productivity by 20% because surgeries aren’t being cancelled at the last minute every day, what’s the problem? So much the better if resources naturally move to where they’re put to the best use. It might wake up a few hospital managers, especially if funding is tied to the number of patients treated.

Better workplaces could also help bring back the many nurses who have left the public system in recent years, fed up and exhausted.

2. Yes, but couldn’t resources shift toward more profitable or less complex procedures, leaving oncology, for example, short of staff?

Yes, and it’s important to account for that and monitor how the availability and delivery of care change.

For now, given how many surgeons are underused and how many nurses we might be able to bring back, I wouldn’t be too worried. And we’re talking about 4 hospitals, not 40.

It could also be an opportunity to rethink how our hospitals are organized.

In Quebec, apart from the few university hospitals, each hospital has to offer a similar range of services: obstetrics, oncology, surgery, an emergency department, and so on. In the regions, where two hospitals may be 50 or 100 km apart, that makes sense. In cities, where hospitals are practically within walking distance of each other, it makes no sense.

We could have a single, larger emergency department in one of the two hospitals, better equipped to handle surges (for example, when three ambulances arrive at once during the night and there’s only one doctor on duty). And a larger obstetrics unit in the other hospital. We’d have the same number of health care workers overall, but in settings that could perform better and adapt more easily because resources and expertise would be pooled. This is already done elsewhere.

I’ve spent way too long on this, so I’ll leave it there.

Keep an eye on Éric Duhaime. But on this one, I think he’s right.

Before I forget, here are the promised links. For St. Göran, it’s here. For private long-term care homes under public contract, it’s here.

Fun fact about the second study: it’s based on data the Health Ministry (read: political advisers) would rather have kept hidden. My access-to-information request was initially denied because the data didn’t fit the governing party’s preferred policy direction. I had to appeal the decision.

When someone tells you they’re going into politics first and foremost to help you, they might be lying.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois who writes for a living, and I’m trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this article, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. They also help the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

I’ve decided to make my life easier. Since the CAQ is unlikely to win a single seat next Monday, I’ve decided to stop covering its announcements. They’re increasingly smack of improvisation and desperation anyway.

One fewer party = 20% less work keeping tabs on everyone. That’s something, at least.

But if Ms. Fréchette or anyone else at the CAQ comes out with a real gem, I promise to tell you about it. We’re here to have some fun, after all.

OK, let’s dive in!

Simon Jolin-Barrette’s idea of consensus

Well, that didn’t take as long as I thought. I stumbled over another CAQ announcement from the weekend. The party promised to make its proposed Quebec constitution “Bill 1.”

I’m confused.

The CAQ had a large majority this spring. In theory, it had the power to ram its proposed constitution down the opposition MNAs’ throats, but it ultimately dropped it because just about everyone thought it made no damn sense, albeit for different reasons.

Why bring it back now?

Simon Jolin-Barrette, the outgoing minister of Legislative Rigidity Justice, said there was a “consensus” on his bill.

Oh? So everyone agrees now? Have I been living under a rock for three months?

“The opposition parties didn’t want Quebec to have a constitution at this point, for purely partisan reasons. They put partisan interests ahead of the nation’s interests, which is unfortunate,” Mr. Jolin-Barrette added.

So there’s no consensus at all?

A journalist asked Ms. Fréchette what she thought.

Her answer was that support from just one other party would be enough to pass the CAQ’s proposed constitution.

So the “consensus” is so strong that the CAQ would settle for support from just one of the four other parties represented in the National Assembly.

I’m even more confused.

What was Mr. Jolin-Barrette saying this spring? He blamed the proposal’s failure on “partisanship.”

“There’s nothing in the text, absolutely nothing, that’s problematic, especially after the consultations,” he said.

OK. Everything was fine, nothing was problematic, but the QLP, the PQ and QS were all against the proposal in its current form, along with a host of organizations, including the Barreau du Québec. That’s 100% of the people who will have to interpret the constitution, argue cases under it, and rule on it.

And Mr. Jolin-Barrette is still telling us everything’s fine, move along, nothing to see here?

It reminds me of that scene in Star Wars where Obi-Wan Kenobi manipulates stormtroopers into believing C-3PO and R2-D2 aren’t the droids they’re looking for.

Clearly, Simon Jolin-Barrette is no Jedi.

I really do admire people who can play you for a fool while keeping a straight face and sounding sincere.

But I prefer them as comedians rather than politicians.

Truth and reconciliation, in moderation

It had started out so well.

Early Wednesday, to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon posted a long message addressed to Indigenous communities, reiterating the importance of dialogue and proposing, among other things, to develop courses in Indigenous languages and cultures. An excerpt:

“The Quebec nation, First Nations, and Inuit share the same desire to protect and promote their rights, languages, and cultures. The commitments we are making today will foster the mutual understanding and co-construction [yes, that’s the word he used, Ed.] needed for a relationship with First Nations and Inuit based on respect.”

How lovely.

Mr. Plamondon even made an effort not to get angry about a federal holiday.

Later, someone asked whether adopting a provisional Quebec constitution would require Indigenous nations’ consent.

Well, no, said Mr. Plamondon. There are limits to understanding and co-construction, after all.

On Tuesday, PSPP had told the lieutenant-governor to get lost. She happens to be a member of the Mi’kmaq Nation of Gespeg.

Head in the clouds

Let me take two minutes to tell you about the kook QCP candidate of the day, because about a dozen of them are expected to enter the National Assembly soon.

Tarek Henoud is the QCP candidate in Arthabaska-L’Érable.

Mr. Henoud holds a degree in business administration, has 25 years of experience in management, business development, and entrepreneurship, has deep roots in his community, and is a father of three. He also has perfect teeth.

Source: Quebec Conservative Party

I’m sure Mr. Henoud is also a terrific neighbour, but that has nothing to do with being an MNA.

Anyway, when you and I look at planes in the sky, we see trails of water vapour condensing in the cold, thin air high in the atmosphere.

Mr. Henoud sees a bioweapon.

Facebook photo via Le Journal de Montréal

Mr. Henoud subscribes to other conspiracy theories, notably about the COVID-19 pandemic.

He’s also a fan of Christine Anderson, a member of the European Parliament for the AfD, a far-right party that, among other things, downplays Nazi crimes.

Source: Tarek Henoud’s Facebook page

Mr. Henoud has a good chance of being elected next Monday.

Roughly 15 to 22% of Quebecers believe in conspiracy theories. They tend to vote conservative.

Éric Duhaime has won

Last week, Éric Duhaime was promising to cut services for asylum seekers, including by cutting social assistance by 25%. In Quebec, the basic social assistance benefit is $845 a month. We wouldn’t gain much by making life more miserable for people who have left everything behind while they look for work (often in the health care system, by the way).

What’s more, the number of asylum seekers applying for social assistance fell by 60% between 2024 and 2025, as arrivals also declined. In other words, those who stay generally end up working. Duh.

Never mind. What matters is looking tough on foreigners.

But why stop there when you can score populist points by going after other easy targets?

Éric Duhaime supports the “user-pay” principle. In public policy, the goal is to align usage and incentives through price signals. Typical examples are gas taxes and tolls on roads and bridges: the former to curb consumption, the latter to fund maintenance.

Mr. Duhaime, who loves talking economic theory when it comes to health care and education, is far less enthusiastic about the principle when it comes to the third link and gas taxes.

Funny, isn’t it?

And what’s the connection, anyway?

On Tuesday, the QCP leader proposed making criminals pay part of the cost of their court proceedings and incarceration. That could be 20 or 30% of the costs.

Three things.

One, crime rates have fallen sharply over the past 30 years in Quebec and across the country, and so has the Crime Severity Index. We’re living in increasingly safe societies.

Two, the proposal is completely absurd, outlandish, and unworkable on its face, not least because many criminals have no declared income. And do we really need to explain the potential effects of saddling inmates with debt before releasing them from prison?

Three, the QCP won’t form the government, but it doesn’t give a damn. It’s becoming strong enough to scare the other parties, which keep helping themselves to its bag of populist, reactionary ideas.

The real winner of this election, over the next four years, will be Éric Duhaime.

And what the campaign reveals is that, as it gains ground, the QCP is moving from relatively vanilla economic populism, such as tax cuts, toward a vindictive, reactionary conservatism that plays on resentment and singles out groups to blame and punish.

With a gang of conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, and other cranks, Éric Duhaime will have done more than anyone else in 30 years to shift the boundaries of what is acceptable in public policy.

The CAQ is in trouble even on its own Facebook page

A digital communications consultant decided to have some fun by tallying the reactions visitors left on the political parties’ Facebook pages.

Jonathan Thibeault measured reactions between September 27 and 30, after the last debate, but also after the spy novel parody the CAQ served up.

The CAQ’s Facebook page is a textbook example of “losing the room.” The most common reaction is “Haha,” accounting for 44.4% of the total.

😬

Source: Jonathan Thibeault’s Facebook page

Fewer than half the reactions on the CAQ’s page are favourable (“Like,” “Love,” or “Care”).

For the other parties, the share ranges from roughly 85% for the QLP to 93% or more for QS, the PQ, and the QCP, which enjoys almost unanimous approval among its cult its supporters.

Naturally, Quebec solidaire’s page has the highest proportion of “Care” reactions: solidaire in French.

🥁

Charles Milliard’s principles

Yesterday, I showed the contrast between Charles Milliard’s stated principles and his campaign promises.

I found another example in an interview Mr. Milliard gave to Urbania journalist Hugo Meunier shortly after becoming QLP leader.

Mr. Milliard: “(…) Bill 9, on daycare centres and street prayers, we’re going to vote against that. I think it goes too far. When I hear Bernard Drainville say, ‘Well, the people who lost their jobs brought it on themselves,’ honestly, it disgusts me… (…)”

Host: “(…) the street prayer thing is a bit overblown…”

Mr. Milliard: “That’s a manufactured political issue. I’m uncomfortable with street prayers, whatever the religion, but municipalities have all the tools they need to regulate that. Once again, we don’t need this charade. But, you know, people who follow the news and have five minutes to spare see that and [think], OK, they’re dealing with secularism, but how, and to what end? It makes me uncomfortable.”

(…)

“I know it appeals to a lot of people, but when you go into politics, you also need convictions. So I say, sometimes I take positions that may not appeal to the majority, but at least people will know where I stand.”

It’s all there. Stated clearly, with no hedging. Some bills are unjust and discriminate against Quebec women for no reason, or encourage intolerance by targeting communities to score political points. We won’t go there.

When it came time to walk the talk, those principles got lost along the way.

“(…) sometimes I take positions that may not appeal to the majority, but at least people will know where I stand.”

I’m looking for a single position Mr. Milliard has taken in this campaign that doesn’t “appeal to the majority,” and I’m struggling to find one.

On the contrary, I’ve repeatedly found him gravitating toward the most broadly popular, motherhood-and-apple-pie positions he could find.

On the third link, Mr. Milliard flipped his party’s position yet again to line up with the most popular position in the Quebec City region.

On Bill 96, Mr. Milliard has changed his mind a few times and has generally been at odds with his party’s position, shifting the focus from fundamental rights to red tape for businesses. That’s hardly controversial.

On the secularism legislation, Bills 21, 94, and 9, Mr. Milliard put his principles front and centre during the leadership race and before the campaign, but has recently hit the brakes. Once again, he’s staying on safe ground: a majority of Quebecers support the CAQ’s legislation on identity.

Even on immigration, the QLP has remained very cautious, setting a range of 45,000 to 70,000 permanent immigrants a year. The low end is exactly the CAQ’s target: 45,000 a year. As though the party were determined to keep every option open and appeal to everyone at once.

When you ask economists, though, the numbers are more in the range of 60,000 to 70,000 a year, or even 90,000 for a few years, long enough to grant permanent status to temporary workers and graduates who are already established here.

Since the start of the campaign, mayors across Quebec’s regions have been saying until they’re blue in the face that local businesses need workers. This week, 570 doctors signed an open letter whose headline says it all.

Source: La Presse

“Without immigration, the health care system collapses.”

You look at all this and think there was no shortage of opportunities to campaign on principles and convictions.

Maybe what was missing was the will.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois who writes for a living, and I’m trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this article, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. They also help the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

The Parti Québécois continues its courageous fight against British colonialism by asking Lieutenant Governor Manon Jeannotte not to show up at the opening of the next legislature, making clear that she “will not be welcome.”

Pretty much everyone agrees on the substance, but was it necessary to single her out as though she were personally responsible for the Conquest? We could have discussed it calmly after the election instead of getting angry in front of the cameras to score a few political points.

The PQ has already won the fight over the oath. What would have been wrong with letting a dignitary sit in the Salon bleu one more time to hear the opening address?

Classy.

Incidentally, Ms. Jeannotte is a member of the Micmac Nation of Gespeg. The Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador will be thrilled.

That reminds me. Has anyone seen the chapter of the Blue Book on First Nations and Inuit?…

OK, let’s dive in!

The CAQ wants the votes of snowmobilers and ATV riders

In today’s announcement, the CAQ proposes adding $5 million to the budget for maintaining snowmobile and ATV trails.

It may be necessary. It’s also a ridiculously narrow campaign promise. (We’re talking about 0.003% of the government’s budget.)

The CAQ also wants to make hunting and fishing licences free, which would cost the public purse $50 million in lost revenue.

What are hunting and fishing licences for? To fund the monitoring and protection of wildlife populations and their habitats.

How much does an annual fishing licence cost? $26.73. How much does a hunting licence cost? For big game, between $70 and $90.

Has anyone complained lately?

No doubt about it: these are truly transformative measures that will shape Quebec for decades to come.

Why health care is in deep sh…

I ran out of room to tell you about this yesterday, but I think it’s important. And a little depressing, sorry.

I apologize a lot, I know. I’d like my writing to make people happy, but that’s harder when you’re writing about politics, and harder still when it’s about health care.

Anyway.

In 2024, absences accounted for just over one-fifth of the hours staff were expected to work in the health care system.

For nurses and respiratory therapists, absences accounted for 21% of expected working hours.

For paratechnical staff, such as patient care attendants, it was 24%. So, one hour in four.

The reasons for these absences include sick leave, workplace accidents, occupational illnesses, and preventive leave.

Another reassuring number, while we’re at it: just over 10% of health care system employees are currently on disability leave. Over the past five years, that rate has generally stayed between 9% and 10%. It hit a low of 8.4% in the summer of 2024. It’s now at 10.5%.

Here’s what that looks like.

Source: Santé Québec dashboard

If the rate climbs too high, there’s a real risk of a vicious cycle: the workload keeps piling up on those who remain, who then leave or fall ill themselves.

One of the biggest problems with our health care system is that many of its care providers (women make up the majority) are in no condition to care for us, largely because work is organized in ways that burn out young staff and drive them out of the public system. I touch on this here.

I don’t recall hearing a single party leader talk about this issue during this campaign, the last one, the one before that, or between campaigns.

But religious “infiltration,” on the other hand…

Maybe we’d have a better sense of just how much trouble we’re in if we coloured the line red.

The Liberal Party’s principles

This week, we learned that mothers who volunteered in schools had been excluded from a corn boil their children were attending because they wore hijabs, which Bill 94 prohibits school volunteers from wearing in the presence of students.

An email was sent to parents at a school in a neighbourhood with a large Maghrebi community.

Here’s what it said:

“The entire community is invited to attend the corn boil. However, anyone wishing to help as a volunteer must comply with the provisions of the Act respecting the laicity of the State.”

We don’t want you around because of what you wear on your head. That’s brutal.

You’re a citizen who’s active in your community? Sorry, but your hijab makes some people uneasy. They believe the mere sight of your head covering has a harmful influence on kids.

No more corn boils. No more field trips with students. No more activities where parents could lend a hand.

There was no problem. Why do this?

It’s stupid, mean, and hypocritical.

Stupid, because it’s based on nothing but prejudice. Mean, because it targets people who’ve done nothing wrong. Hypocritical, because teachers, educators, and other employees who were already in their positions when Bills 21, 94, and 9 came into force are left alone… as long as they keep their jobs.

In some cases, they’ll be able to keep contaminating children with religion for another one, two, or three decades, as long as they don’t change employers. But if they change jobs, or if we’re talking about mothers, the hijab becomes radioactive.

It’s absurd. For all the debate over wearing the hijab, no one has ever shown that it causes a problem. And banning the hijab didn’t prevent what happened at Bedford school.

Because what’s between our ears matters more than what’s above them.

+++++++

Fortunately, the Liberal Party, a long-standing defender of individual rights and freedoms and the party that gave us Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, is keeping watch.

Allow me to quote its leader.

“It’s clear that we live in a secular state, but we must also make sure we protect each and every person’s rights,” Charles Milliard said in January 2025, when he was running for the QLP leadership.

Good!

“We can’t play politics at the expense of minorities (…) That distinction matters, and the CAQ and the PQ have been setting traps for us on these issues for years. As far as I’m concerned, that ends now.”

A principled position, then.

Again in March 2026, when it came to targeting early childhood educators who wear a hijab, Mr. Milliard made his position clear:

“(…) The Coalition avenir Québec put forward this bill to serve its own interests and play up identity issues in a general election. We’ve seen this before, and now they’re trying to pull the same stunt on us again.”

True.

“We’re not in favour of this bill. So I understand it could become law very soon, but until it does, we’ll continue to think it goes too far.”

Principles, again.

On Tuesday, when asked about the excluded volunteers, Mr. Milliard acknowledged that Bill 94 “creates” exclusion and “problems.”

Good, then! We’re about to get a principled position from the QLP leader!

“As with all the measures the Coalition avenir Québec has put in place, I’ve said I have no intention of changing these laws.”

Huh?

“Governing means making decisions. We’ve decided that, for now, we don’t want to make any changes.”

Huh?

“We want to preserve secularism in Quebec, we also want to make sure, if we’re going to talk about secularism, we also want to make sure that situations like Bedford school never happen again.”

What does that have to do with anything? At Bedford, they were all men, and they were teachers. What do mothers volunteering at school have to do with any of it?

“For me, this is an issue, but right now, I think we need to ease the pressure.”

Say what?

“We need to take the pot off the stove.”

What the eff?

What pressure? There’s no “pressure” right now. The public debate has died out. Only Québec solidaire is trying, in vain, to remind us that this should still shock us.

So Charles Milliard wants to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on Bill 21 before defining his party’s position.

He’s already said he wouldn’t renew the use of the notwithstanding clause, but that means waiting until 2029. Meanwhile, Quebec women continue to face discrimination every day.

As Mr. Milliard has already noted, two-thirds of Quebecers don’t care whether early childhood educators wear a hijab. I bet the proportion isn’t much different when it comes to mothers lending a hand at a corn boil.

And, as I mentioned in my previous newsletter, far more Quebecers care about respect for fundamental rights than you might think, even when it comes to religious symbols.

So there’s a political opportunity to take a principled stand and defend it.

At the very least, the QLP could promise to restore the Quebec Charter to what it was before it was gutted using closure (a first in over 40 years), so it’s once again worth the paper it’s written on.

But just as it did with Bill 96, the QLP is also backing down on religious symbols, hoping to win over CAQ voters.

Beep, beep, beep.

“We can’t play politics at the expense of minorities,” Mr. Milliard said.

Clearly, you can, and they’re not holding back.

+++++++

I have a few questions.

1. What do the Liberal Party’s current MNAs think, given that they’ve always defended positions opposed to the one their leader is now taking?

2. Does the word “liberal” in “Liberal Party” still mean anything to the party that introduced Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms?

3. In the grand scheme of things, what now distinguishes the QLP from the CAQ?

The economy? Check.

Federalism? Check.

The third link? Check.

De facto acceptance of Bills 21, 96, 94, and 9? Check.

They’re starting to look awfully alike…

Which QLP proposal has helped it articulate a strong, clear, and inspiring vision that Quebecers of all backgrounds could see themselves in?

Cutting the number of civil servants, which four of the five parties are promising? The public telemedicine platform? Quebec music in early childhood centres?

The core of each party’s political pitch can be summed up in a short sentence.

• The PQ wants to make Quebec a country.

• The QCP wants to cut taxes and reduce the role of government.

• Québec solidaire wants a more equal society and a greater role for government.

• The CAQ wants to build on Quebec nationalism within Canada.

• The QLP wants to build on Quebec nationalism within Canada.

Sure, health care, education, housing, the economy. But pretty much everyone wants those things too.

What does the QLP bring to the table in 2026, beyond being some sort of federalist zombie that can’t be killed but will never win power because it’s more concerned with not upsetting anyone than with rediscovering the boldness it once showed?

What’s left of the party of Godbout, Lesage, and Bourassa?

Today’s baloney

“Do Quebecers want us to change the voting system? I’m not hearing that demand.”

- Christine Fréchette, sticking to her party’s line to the bitter end.

My mother has an expression: not knowing your a… from your elbow.

I have another one: karma.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois who writes for a living, and I’m trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this article, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. They also help the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

Have you been following the spy novel the CAQ tried to cast us in?

In case you missed it, I laid out the dubious timeline of events in the previous edition of this campaign newsletter, along with the outgoing premier’s even more dubious explanations.

The reality was even more embarrassing.

For two weeks, at least one CAQ employee had been hounding journalists to get them interested in the public ramblings of a second-rate American think tank whose influence remains unclear. The idea was to put the PQ on the defensive, but have the attack come from the media instead of the CAQ.

That worked out beautifully.

The funny thing is, this employee supposedly acted alone and didn’t think to tell his boss what he was doing. Of course.

Funnier still, those pesky journalists decided to do their jobs instead of swallowing the political spin. The CAQ ended up looking foolish, not the PQ.

Meanwhile, the outgoing premier and deputy premier, who will soon be out altogether, are still trying to clean up the bucket of spaghetti sauce they spilled everywhere.

That produces press conferences like this:

Okay, let’s dive in!

Bye-bye, CAQ

Three polls came out late Sunday or on Monday. All three say the same thing: the PQ could win a majority with 30% of the vote, and the CAQ could disappear.

I’ve written several times about the flaws in our electoral system, which hasn’t changed since the first legislative elections held in Quebec in 1792.

The result we would get if the election were held today shows, once again, that an update wouldn’t hurt.

How do I put this?

It. Makes. No. Effing. Sense.

With less than a third of the vote, the Parti Québécois could hold every lever of political, legislative, and executive power all to itself for four years.

In our entire parliamentary history, only three parties have won a majority with less than 40% of the vote: Honoré Mercier’s Liberals in 1886 (39.6%), Maurice Duplessis’s Union Nationale in 1944 (38%), and François Legault’s CAQ in 2018 (37.4%).

Each time, a strong showing by third parties produced a result our two-party electoral system was never built to handle. Today, five parties have at least 10% of the vote. The system no longer works.

Quebec has also had three minority governments: Joly de Lotbinière’s QLP in 1878 (47.5%), Jean Charest’s QLP in 2007 (33%), and Pauline Marois’s PQ in 2012 (32%).

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s PQ could take us into uncharted political territory: a “majority” government with 30% of the vote.

Just to give you a sense of how surreal this is:

I won’t shed a tear for the CAQ, which gave Quebec the two worst terms in its recent political history and is about to be undone by the very thing it profited from.

Its impending disappearance from the National Assembly raises another question: what will happen to its war chest? A party that could have no elected members after the election might still be the richest, at least for a while.

Whoever becomes its next leader won’t be starting from zero.

The weekend and Monday served up a particularly rich political stew. Forgive me for feeding your cynicism. I’m just reporting what happened.

The cost of living, again and again

“The government needs to tighten its belt and give families a break.”

- Éric Duhaime, on 98.5

Every day, Éric Duhaime and other party leaders suggest that Quebecers have become poorer in recent years. Every time, it’s false. Every time, they’re allowed to stoke our frustrations, feed populism, and encourage counterproductive policies that are out of touch with reality.

On average, every type of household is better off than it was in 2019. Every one. Prices have risen, but our after-tax incomes have risen more.

You can still argue for lower taxes. But inventing reasons to cut them is dishonest. It’s also easy and politically rewarding.

Secular Bullsh*t, Part One

Sunday is the Lord’s Day. In this election campaign, this Sunday became the official day of Secular Bullsh*t.

(In case you’re wondering, I’m agnostic, rational to the point of being boring, and constitutionally allergic to being told what to think. You can imagine how little enthusiasm I have for religion, whether in general or in particular. Fundamental rights are another matter.)

Quebec has been broadly secular for 60 years. The last turn of the screw came 30 years ago, when religion was finally removed from schools.

On Sunday, the Parti Québécois pledged to “defend the Quebec consensus on secularism.” That’s the title of its news release. We’re off to a bad start.

The Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation compiled the results of several surveys asking Quebecers how they understand secularism as it applies to government employees. The surveys were conducted in 2020, 2023, and 2024.

First question, two choices:

1- The government should remain neutral and ensure that its employees display no religious symbols;

2- The government should remain neutral and not prevent its employees from practising the religion of their choice.

Take 30 seconds to guess how the responses split between the two.

Ready?

Here you go:

Source: Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation

In short, there’s a narrow majority, but no “consensus.” And we’re talking about fundamental rights. (You know, the ones we don’t like seeing a majority trample when they’re ours.)

Second question: Do you agree with banning certain government employees from wearing the hijab?

Take another moment to think about it.

Source: Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation

Support is fairly high for people who exercise the state’s coercive power (judges, police officers, and prison guards), which is consistent with the Bouchard–Taylor commission’s findings. Still, we see a drop in 2022, after the issue received more media attention following the adoption of Bill 21. Does the consensus still exist?

For teachers, the average across the four surveys is below 50%. No consensus there, either.

The best is yet to come.

What if there were a dispute over the constitutionality of a law that conflicted with the Charter of Rights? Who should have the final say: the Supreme Court or the National Assembly?

What do Quebecers say?

Source: Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation

Well, damn. That pesky Supreme Court that always leans the same way.

Boom.

Imagine if a few political leaders weren’t afraid to make a principled defence of fundamental rights.

Other than Québec solidaire, I mean.

Secular Bullsh*t, Part Two

A brief detour before we get to Sunday Night Mass.

In 2016, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon identified the PQ as a political vehicle for his ambitions. After denouncing the party’s “referendum obsession” in his essay Les Orphelins politiques, he got to work.

He launched his leadership campaign in June of that year with a production that would have fit right in with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party. Trudeau had become prime minister the year before.

Source: YouTube

On that occasion, PSPP described himself as “a progressive and a democrat.”

He proposed, among other things, that the PQ become “the leader in preventing racism and all forms of discrimination” (at 10:24 here).

(Uncharitable minds might say the wording of that proposal hasn’t changed much. Only the preventing has disappeared. Read the sentence again.)

There was more: “An open, welcoming party that serves those who face injustice, regardless of their mother tongue, regardless of their religion, regardless of their political views.”

(Even artists who congratulate federal politicians? Asking for a friend.)

PSPP also noted how the values charter episode had excluded Quebecers from cultural minorities. His “racialized” friends (a term he wouldn’t use today) had become “allergic” to the PQ and were horrified that he wanted to lead it (at 11:30 here).

(A question, while I’m thinking of it: what do PSPP’s “racialized friends” make of the PQ’s evolution since he became its leader?)

In late August 2016, PSPP publicly debated Mathieu Bock-Côté to defend his principles on fundamental rights. At the time, he denounced “across-the-board secularism” as “a kind of dogma that limits individual freedoms” and championed “the freedom of conscience, the freedom of choice, the freedom to dress as one wishes that defines our democracies.”

Well, yes!

A few weeks later, in September, he explained that “the state has no business intervening, or should intervene as little as possible, in how people dress, except when it raises a societal issue for which there are truly serious, demonstrated reasons.”

Hear! Hear!

Source: YouTube

Fast forward to 2026.

On Sunday, PSPP instead defended Law 94, which bars school volunteers from wearing a hijab. That means mothers can no longer help out at their school’s corn boil. Apparently, overseeing the distribution of corn or butter must be free from divine influence.

Now for the big sermon. On Sunday night, the leaders of the five main parties were invited onto Tout le monde en parle.

The host asked a simple question: are you for or against wearing the hijab in public?

Here’s what happened.

Source: Radio-Canada

PSPP couldn’t even raise his card to show that he had no problem with the hijab in public spaces.

Here’s a cropped version of a photo you just saw.

I’m convinced PSPP hasn’t changed his mind about the hijab.

Know what has changed? The people around him every day and, above all, a segment of voters who are particularly hostile to religious minorities and whose support he wants to keep.

Notice, too, how everyone except Ruba Ghazal walks on eggshells for fear of displeasing the identity-focused voters they’re courting. Even Charles Milliard, the QLP leader, struggles to take a… liberal position.

Do I have principles? How many votes might they cost me?

Welcome to Quebec politics in 2026.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming for a special report.

Quebec may be at the centre of a vast conspiracy to destabilize Canada, then break it apart so the United States can more easily absorb it.

It sounds like a spy thriller set in a parallel universe. Except the first chapter appeared Friday in Le Journal de Montréal, and it involves people you know and will soon have a chance to vote for.

Journalists wanted to know what Ms. Fréchette knew and when she knew it. Her answer changed over the course of the day, becoming deeply embarrassing for the premier.

The sequence matters. Grab a coffee; it’ll help you keep track. And no, Ms. Fréchette was not arrested by the police, even if her expression is perfect for a mugshot.

Here’s the bombshell that broke around noon Friday:

- Québecor’s investigative bureau reported that Ottawa had warned Quebec about possible American interference aimed at helping the Parti Québécois win;

- A senior Quebec government official met with federal government representatives “at a neutral location, where there were no cameras”;

- He was forbidden from bringing his cellphone;

- The Quebec official was shown writings from the American think tank Defense Analyses and Research Corporation, or DARC, proposing a strategy of disruption involving separatist movements in Quebec and Alberta.

You’re entitled to wonder, since you’re reading about this and everyone is talking about it, whether they really needed to play Deep Throat in a parking garage.

It was obviously going to come out sooner or later. These things always do.

And if you want to prevent a campaign of manipulation or destabilization against a population, the best approach is to tell people they may be its target.

It took me all of a minute, incidentally, to find three DARC articles about Canadian separatist movements on its website: here, here, and here.

The meeting between IXE-13 and Ottawa’s Deep Throat could have been an email.

The main article, “Our Canadian Problem,” develops an argument about Canada’s multicultural and egalitarian policies, which promote both ethnic and sexual diversity.

Its author, John Waterman, believes those policies encourage the infiltration of Canadian government institutions, including the federal police, intelligence services, and intelligence-sharing arrangements with allies (among them the Five Eyes network). He sees this as an eventual threat to the United States.

In short, DARC doesn’t like Canadians of Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani origin working in government agencies, which it considers “increasingly captured by sectarian interests more loyal to adversaries of the US.” It doesn’t much like human rights groups or their influence either, which it generally sees as contrary to American interests.

Because Canada is moving further from his vision of the American ideal, Waterman proposes a strategy to “dismember” the country. It would include disinformation operations, diplomatic pressure, and support for regional separatism.

To borrow an expression that resurfaced this week, “it’s completely, utterly nuts.”

Now, I could start a think tank and write all kinds of bullshit. That wouldn’t mean anyone in Ottawa, Washington, or Moscow would listen to me.

Evidently, someone in the federal government who gets paid to assess these things thinks they might.

Above my pay grade, as the Chinese say.

Still, I think the way our politicians handled this matters.

The Deep Throat-style meeting between the senior Quebec official and a federal counterpart took place in early September. So no more than three weeks ago.

The Quebec government received warnings on at least two other occasions:

- The most recent came in the past few days, through CSIS;

- It reportedly involved “deeply concerning and troubling information that we passed on to the appropriate authorities.”

(I’ll note in passing that what happened next gives us reason to question the word “appropriate” as a description of those authorities.)

- The Quebec government also “received similar warnings at the highest level in early 2026, during a meeting of provincial premiers in Ottawa.”

(If “at the highest level” and “meeting of premiers” appear in the same sentence, it’s fair to assume François Legault, who was premier at the time, or his office was informed. Anything below that would hardly be the “highest level.”)

That’s what we knew at noon.

Keep it in mind as we look at what Ms. Fréchette had to say around midday Friday.

“Serious information about possible risks of foreign interference in the Quebec election has just come to light.”

So this is news to Ms. Fréchette.

“I have to tell you that I’m very concerned about this situation, and I want us to get to the bottom of it.”

Source: Le Journal de Montréal

Her delivery is so painful that the camera operator changes the framing three times to liven it up.

I don’t know why, but this image comes to mind.

Christine Fréchette is clearly surprised. But surprised by what? We’ll find out soon enough. She also calls for a meeting with federal officials.

Here’s what Ms. Fréchette had to say later that day:

I’ve transcribed the main points and added the questions from the 106.9 FM Mauricie reporter. You can see her phone and hear her if you turn up the volume and listen closely.

Ms. Fréchette: “Actually, the surprise is seeing this online. I found out about it in the past few days. But at the same time, I’m telling you, we have no reason to believe these threats have materialized.”

Okay. So the premier is mainly “surprised” that the story came out. The rest wasn’t news to her.

Why? Because she had known since last Saturday.

Reporter: “Why didn’t you tell us that at noon?”

Ms. Fréchette: “[Insert a helping of word salad here] (…) I didn’t say everything at noon (…) I wanted to hold a press conference… I didn’t say 100% of what I wanted to say.”

Reporter: “The article came out, but you’d known since Saturday?”

Ms. Fréchette: “Yes. But it’s still concerning.”

Reporter: “I don’t understand why, from [last] Saturday until noon today, you were concerned, but now, six hours later, you don’t really seem to be anymore… What happened between noon and now?”

Ms. Fréchette: “Look, we have no reason to believe it has materialized, but it’s still concerning, because attempts do happen… Whether those groups actually went ahead with anything isn’t for me to say.”

Reporter: “What changed in the past six hours to make you suddenly feel more reassured?”

Ms. Fréchette: “Well… I was, uh… I listened to the teams at the Ministry of Internal Security.”

(Translation: I spoke to my communications team.)

That’s where the torture session ends in the video posted above.

Before going on, I want to give special mention to the 106.9 FM reporter. Her bullshit detector was switched on, and she wouldn’t let go.

Ms. Fréchette’s surprising statements didn’t end there.

Pressed further, the incumbent premier said she learned from the Québecor article that “there had been discussions […] with the previous government.”

Which government, exactly?

“Mr. Legault… Mr. Legault’s government.”

You mean the government whose cabinet you were a member of?

“But I hadn’t been informed about that” (…) “Mr. Lafrenière had been told, but he didn’t inform me.”

And that’s how you throw your internal security minister under the bus.

Late Friday evening, firefighter PR man Minister Lafrenière confirmed that he had known since January.

Mr. Lafrenière reportedly heard about “rumours” of American interference from Premier Legault’s office. The government then reportedly passed the information to Ottawa.

Without getting paranoid, three observations.

First, Minister Lafrenière doesn’t say who told him about these “rumours.” Second, Ian Lafrenière is deputy premier. It never occurred to him to discuss them with his boss? Third, his account contradicts Québecor’s, which says the federal government alerted the provinces at a meeting of premiers.

As far as I know, Quebec doesn’t have its own intelligence service.

Unless you count this one:

Source: Office national du film

(You can watch Quebec’s answer to James Bond for free here. Think Austin Powers rather than Sean Connery.)

The funniest part: while the two levels of government were meeting in secret locations and passing around screenshots as though they were state secrets, Jean-François Lisée was writing about the subject and citing one of the DARC articles on his blog and in Le Devoir. Back in March.

+++++++

Two questions emerged from the television and online commentary I saw Friday evening as I was writing this.

The first is whether the American government can actually influence the outcome of the Quebec election.

We talk about Donald Trump and tariffs every day, so they plainly have an effect. But not the one DARC suggests and hopes for: support for sovereignty and the Parti Québécois has been stable for months.

It’s also hard to imagine the American government dropping leaflets from planes a week before the vote, or doing anything else that could change the result. In a free country, instant access to a wide range of information sources limits the effectiveness of propaganda. If an operation were underway, we’d see it.

Could Donald Trump tell us on Truth Social to support the Parti Québécois? Anything’s possible, especially if Fox News decides to talk about Quebec while Trump can’t sleep. Would that change your vote?

Disrupting the outcome of a future referendum is another matter, especially when the time available to act could stretch over months, potentially years. For example, we also learned Friday that the Quebec government had been approached directly by the U.S. embassy about negotiating a separate tariff deal for Quebec. That is definitely a divide-and-conquer approach.

The goal was not necessarily to “dismember” Canada, since Quebec’s current government is federalist. But it could have planted the first seeds of discord. The Fréchette government didn’t bite.

The second question is what the premier knew and why she didn’t tell us.

The answer could be more troubling for Ms. Fréchette.

When she was asked at noon, there was a perfectly simple answer available: I’ve known since Saturday, we’re monitoring the situation, we’ve been in contact with Ottawa, we see nothing at present that could affect the election result, and if that changes, voters will be informed immediately.

Instead, Ms. Fréchette did what she so often does. She switched to her prerecorded talking points.

The premier said things she either didn’t know to be true or knew were untrue. She focused more on what she wanted people to take away than on what they had a right to know.

And hundreds of thousands of Quebecers watched her try to pull the wool over their eyes.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

Before we begin, a public service announcement:

Dear PQ supporters,

When we say the Parti Québécois is “flirting” with the far right, we aren’t saying the PQ has become France’s National Rally or that PSPP is Donald Trump.

We’re pointing out that some of their tactics are similar.

For example:

• Blaming “mass immigration” for problems that have existed for years;

• Calling everything left of centre “the radical left,” including former PQ ministers;

• Denouncing “wokism” as an existential threat when it is fairly marginal and declining;

• Agreeing with Donald Trump when he says drugs and illegal immigrants are pouring into the United States from Canada;

• Giving Rebel News an interview and using it to make up figures about asylum seekers in hospitals;

• Always blaming Ottawa, never Trump, for the tariff war;

• Refusing to use the word “war” to describe the trade conflict between Canada and the United States, even though media around the world use it;

• Losing his temper whenever anyone criticizes him, including journalists and artists;

• Constantly playing up the “decline” of the nation and its culture.

Among other things.

This is factual and easy to see. Many of us have documented it, from across the political spectrum, including people sympathetic to the PQ.

If you think the comparison goes too far, tell your leader to stop.

Now, let’s get into it!

The debate by the numbers

You know me: I like data. So I’m going to take two minutes of your time and five of mine (writing takes longer) to revisit Wednesday’s debate.

Who spoke the most?

1. Paul St-Pierre Plamondon: 24 minutes

2. Christine Fréchette: 21 minutes

3. Ruba Ghazal: 20 minutes

4. Charles Milliard and Éric Duhaime: 18 minutes each

I would have put money on PSPP coming first. I also would have put money on Christine Fréchette coming last.

Éric Duhaime came last, but I remember several of his interventions.

That’s what an effective communicator does.

Via InfoNews and The Canadian Press.

The words of the debate

· Christine Fréchette: “also,” 23 times

· Paul St-Pierre Plamondon: “young,” 20 times

· Ruba Ghazal: “culture,” 14 times

· Éric Duhaime: “think,” as in “I think,” 18 times

· Charles Milliard thinks too: 14 times

PSPP and Ruba stayed on message, as they say.

The word “referendum” came up 53 times. Every leader said it at least once… except the one promising to hold one.

Via Jean-Simon Bui.

Debate fact-check: The lifespan of a minority government

“Because a minority government, in principle, has a shorter lifespan, and its promises depend on the other parties.”

— Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, during Wednesday’s debate

Ah, minority governments! So complicated! So unstable! So troublesome that they’re common in nearly every democracy on the planet! (Elsewhere, they call them “coalitions.” Real ones.)

I understand why a politician would want both hands on the wheel, or whichever political metaphor you prefer. But it’s worth checking whether what Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon said is true.

(You can probably guess, given how late it is as I write this, that I wouldn’t bother bringing it up if it were.)

1. Minority governments have “a shorter lifespan”

That’s true. But not for the reasons PSPP implies.

Quebec has had three minority governments: in 2007 (Charest), 2012 (Marois), and 1878.

In both recent cases, the opposition parties didn’t want an election and the legislature was functioning. But the governing parties brought about their own downfall in the hope of winning a majority. It worked for Charest. It didn’t work for Marois.

Federally, there is a fairly recent history of opposition parties bringing down minority governments, including those of Pierre Trudeau (1974), Joe Clark (1980), Paul Martin (2006), and Stephen Harper (2011).

In 2008, though, Stephen Harper dissolved Parliament himself and called an election in the hope of winning a majority. Justin Trudeau did the same in 2021. We could add the 2025 election, which Mark Carney called six months early to capitalize on his popularity and catch his opponents off guard.

Put Ottawa and Quebec together, and five of the last six minority governments slipped on banana peels they’d put in their own path.

It would be more accurate to say that when a minority government doesn’t last long, it’s because it has brought itself down in the hope of winning a majority.

Which brings us to the real reason PSPP and every other politician dreams of one.

2. Under a minority government, “promises depend on the other parties”

Absolutely. You have to work things out with other people, as you do in a relationship, with friends, or on any team project. That inevitably means compromise.

That’s life. Grow up.

Christine Fréchette and message control

In a crisis, there are generally two ways to respond. One is to trust people’s intelligence: acknowledge the problem, then explain what you’ll do about it.

That’s what Maple Leaf did during the listeriosis crisis, when about 20 Canadians died after eating contaminated deli meat.

“I believe if we had known then what we know now, had we done then what we do now, we might have saved 21 lives,” Michael McCain said. “We are determined to make a terrible wrong right. That is our obligation to those who died and to their families.”

That approach takes more skill, but it’s also more honest and pays off in the long run because it helps preserve credibility. Listeriosis could have brought Maple Leaf down. The company is still around today.

Speaking of ham and baloney, someone asked Christine Fréchette whether she thought her party was getting its money’s worth from influencer Olivier Primeau. The CAQ paid him $20,000 to benefit from his reach.

This gentleman:

Here’s the word salad Ms. Fréchette served up to reporters:

“I think it’s money well spent to connect with Quebec’s small and medium-sized businesses. And I respect freedom of thought. Mr. Primeau, I think he has substance, expertise, and interesting experience that can help start a dialogue with Quebec’s small and medium-sized businesses.”

(I’m trying to make a joke about salad, ham, and baloney, but I can’t quite pull it off. The poutine must be distracting me.)

Earlier this week, we learned that Mr. Primeau was, in fact, a longtime Conservative who still prefers the QCP but plans to vote strategically in his riding.

Mr. Primeau had also said he wouldn’t use his platforms to promote the CAQ, which was pretty much what CAQ strategists had hoped he would do.

(Let’s be honest: when you pay an influencer, you expect him to influence.)

If Ms. Fréchette still genuinely considers this “money well spent,” it’s easier to understand why she poured another $675 million into Nemaska Lithium when everyone could see where things were headed.

The PQ turns right in its ads

Ok, I’m just teasing the overly partisan PQ supporters. Everybody turns right on the highway. It’s fine.

The ad has already inspired parodies, including this one.

And an official CAQ response.

The CAQ’s liability

I need to tell you about Louis-Charles Taouin Thouin again. It’s not that I want to. He keeps giving me reasons.

As a reminder, he’s the CAQ MNA who recently gave away CAQ hats and T-shirts as bingo door prizes, with $10 and $20 bills tucked into the promotional items.

Subtle.

Mr. Thouin has also:

• Been investigated for inviting mayors to meet the deputy premier in exchange for a $100 donation to the CAQ;

• Been the subject of another investigation over an apparent conflict of interest;

• Awarded grants to businesses run by his stepdaughter;

• Given an animal control contract to an organization he co-founded…

• … and his spouse later became its director…

• … after ending a contract with a competing company…

• … while he was mayor of Saint-Calixte.

Among other things. His leader, Christine Fréchette, had nevertheless reaffirmed her confidence in him.

That’s him.

A CAQ MNA in his natural habitat.

On Thursday, we learned that Mr. Thouin hadn’t paid the municipal property taxes on his work apartment in Quebec City and that the city was preparing to auction off his condo. Over $600.

It wasn’t the first time. Last year, Mr. Thouin was also $5,141 behind on his property taxes. He paid that debt just before his house was to be auctioned.

Mr. Taouin Thouin is the premier’s parliamentary assistant, a position that pays him about $175,000 a year. He also receives a housing allowance of up to $20,000.

I imagine he was so busy reading and rereading the bills he had to vote on that his property taxes slipped his mind.

The sacrifices people make for public service.

One question for Ms. Fréchette before we move on: What does it take to be disqualified from running for the CAQ?

I don’t have a measuring tape handy, but the bar looks awfully low.

The sovereigntist quote of the day

“Independence should be the most unifying vision for our society.”

— Ruba Ghazal, stating the obvious

With 30% support and the two sovereigntist parties at each other’s throats, we’re not exactly off to a great start, to borrow a line from a sovereigntist singer.

Going after English

Election workers will not be allowed to speak English to voters, except voters eligible to attend English-language schools and Indigenous voters.

Élections Québec sent the directive to its staff. In the past, election workers spoke to voters in the language of their choice. This year, if a voter doesn’t understand what an Élections Québec employee says, the employee will have to repeat it in French until the voter does.

That could take a while.

The headline might make it sound like Élections Québec made this decision. In fact, the government is forcing Élections Québec to follow Bill 96, which requires government communications to be in French.

A few weeks ago, we learned that election materials had been sent out in French only, instead of in both languages as in every previous election. Since then, the Superior Court has ordered Élections Québec to send voters their reminder cards in both languages.

Other jurisdictions send voter cards in more than one language as a courtesy to their linguistic minorities. Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, the federal government, and several American states do it.

Why suddenly forbid something we’ve always done, something that has never caused a problem? This has nothing to do with promoting French anymore. It’s simply going after English.

The justification gives it away.

On social media, defenders of the hard line always make the same argument: Francophone minorities haven’t always been treated well in other provinces.

So this is payback?

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

Did you watch the Radio-Canada debate?

Patrice Roy asked an excellent question when he said the point was to find out “what kind of Quebec we want to live in.”

I didn’t get an answer. The Quebec I want to live in has neither narrow ideological lanes nor opportunistic flexibility without any real conviction.

The Quebec I dream of is pragmatic and fair, efficient and empathetic, responsible and tolerant, idealistic and competent.

Every time one of the leaders opened their mouth, I felt I was hearing only a small fraction of that ideal. Yet building a better Quebec would take a little something from each of them, and from each of us.

PSPP spoke of “intelligence” and “optimism,” then moved straight to the “camp of lies and pessimism,” which currently includes 70% of Quebecers.

Éric Duhaime talked about taxes. Ruba Ghazal has plenty of good intentions. Charles Milliard talked about his gut again (what is it with him?), and Christine Fréchette just sounds phony.

Nobody challenged PSPP when he once again spoke of “the worst decline of French and Quebec culture in our recent history,” even though that is objectively and factually false. It bothers me that he keeps getting away with it.

All told, it felt a lot like last week’s debate.

Maybe I was just tired.

Still, I would have preferred fewer canned lines and fewer candidates talking over one another to hurl them back and forth.

But I did take a picture of the debate, just for you.

My ideal debate, since you’re kind enough to ask, wouldn’t really be a debate. It would be one question, followed by a long answer of three, four, or five minutes from each candidate. A few questions from the audience. Then another question on another subject.

A sort of kitchen-table conversation we could all sit in on at once.

It would be long. There would be no grandstanding, no slogans, and no canned lines. We would go to bed late without having covered everything.

But we might finally see something that has yet to emerge after three debates: a fuller expression of what each leader really thinks, something like a vision of what we could become.

And once everyone had talked long enough to exhaust their talking points, maybe we would start listening to one another.

Enough dreaming. Let’s dive in!

Flip-flop of the day

“I think that over the past few months, we’ve really had a problem with how we frame our messages in the Parti Québécois, and I take the blame.”

— Gabriel Pallotta, the PQ candidate in Sherbrooke, who was uncomfortable with his party’s rhetoric and said he wanted to “work really hard to clean it up.”

According to Pallotta, 30 to 40 PQ candidates share his view. At least, that was his view on Tuesday, until early evening.

“The Parti Québécois’s positions on immigration have remained the same and have been consistent for six years now. I decided to run as a PQ candidate because I agree with those positions.”

— Gabriel Pallotta, PQ candidate, beginning a strategic U-turn early Tuesday evening.

It didn’t end there.

“Under the pressure and potential hostility of a debate, I panicked and made some claims that simply aren’t true.”

— Gabriel Pallotta, repentant on Wednesday, and still the PQ candidate because it is too late to replace him.

I don’t know whether Pallotta expected to become a minister, but I’d hold off on renting an apartment in Quebec City.

Sherbrooke is the only riding outside Quebec City held by Québec solidaire. The race between the PQ, QS, and QLP is close, with all three parties within the margin of error.

Pallotta may have been trying to win over QS voters. Instead, he has given QS a considerable hand.

In the meantime, we get a headline like this:

A PQ candidate admits he lied about his party’s message on immigration.

Source: Le Devoir

The good old days weren’t any better

The first televised leaders’ debate took place on November 11, 1962, between Jean Lesage and Daniel Johnson Sr.

Here it is, if you want to hear rolled Rs and watch everyone smoke, including the moderator.

My favourite moment is when Daniel Johnson admits that the Union nationale’s platform is less developed than the Liberal Party’s because his party has fewer resources than the party in power.

Today, that clip would go viral, and the politician who let it slip would spend the next day walking it back.

If you’re still not convinced the good old days weren’t any better, here’s the cartoon La Presse published the day after the debate.

Source: La Presse’s election liveblog

Health care unions want to meet our needs

The nurses’ union (FIQ), the FTQ, the CSN, the CSQ, the family doctors’ union (FMOQ), and other health care organizations want to launch “a major national discussion” on “adopting solutions that will encourage people to choose careers in health and social services and then stay in them, so that the public health and social services system can meet the population’s needs.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I doubt there’s a single person in Quebec who disagrees.

Look how clean and beautiful their hospital is, too. No patients in the hallways, and no holes in the walls or ceilings.

Source: CSN

I have a question for the family doctors’ union: would you agree to reconsider the many bonuses that have cost a fortune in recent years and delivered nothing?

Would you also be willing to take a pay cut to bring your compensation in line with the Canadian average, once Quebec’s cost of living is taken into account? That could free up hundreds of millions of dollars better spent elsewhere, particularly on hiring staff, instead of always resorting to cuts.

We wouldn’t even need a “national discussion,” because pretty much everyone agrees. Except you. So? What do you say?

I have a question for the health care unions, too: would you agree to rethink how work is organized?

For example, could the less stable or less desirable shifts (evenings, nights, and weekends) be shared across the workforce, as they are in anglophone hospitals in Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, and in Europe? Right now, they fall on young workers, who are leaving in droves because the arrangement is unbearable and incompatible with starting a family.

That would encourage people to “choose careers in health and social services and stay in them,” as you put it.

Hello?

Can I get an answer?

Anyone?

Why is the Parti Québécois filing complaints against a psychiatrist?

The Parti Québécois and two of its candidates have filed a professional conduct complaint with the Collège des médecins against psychiatrist Marie-Ève Cotton.

In all, over the past two years, five people associated with the Parti Québécois have filed complaints after Dr. Cotton expressed herself about the PQ leader, his views, or the party’s positions. Amnesty International’s Quebec section describes a pattern of harassment.

So far, every complaint has been dismissed, either initially or on appeal.

Who is Marie-Ève Cotton?

She is a psychiatrist who practises, among other places, in northern Quebec, under conditions you can imagine. She is also very active on social media, where she doesn’t hold back when commenting on current events or expressing her convictions. If you’re on Facebook, you may know her.

Dr. Cotton has no patience for social injustice, and she has the temperament and vocabulary to make her point forcefully. She also seems to have little tolerance for political bullshit, and she isn’t shy about saying so.

What’s interesting about her approach is that she starts with the people’s own words, backed by screenshots. That gives her posts a solid factual foundation (and makes them awkward for the people she quotes).

Her posts look like this:

You can visit her page here.

I sometimes disagree with her on the details, but I find it hard to disagree with her diagnosis of the big picture. This isn’t a matter of left or right. It’s about fundamental rights, humanity, and decency at a time when those things, which ought to be taken for granted, are being battered at the highest levels, including here at home.

Marie-Ève Cotton has her own interpretation, of course, and she may occasionally go overboard rhetorically. But that’s hardly unusual among commentators, including professionals, especially on the radio (though those ones are on the right, so apparently it’s fine).

So what bothers the PQ?

Marie-Ève Cotton is an effective communicator who has built a substantial audience.

She also has a knack for pointing to uncomfortable truths. In the Parti Québécois’s case, that means its none-too-subtle flirtation with the far right.

Take PSPP denouncing “wokism” and “ideological disinformation,” the “radical left,” a label he even applies to former PQ ministers, or the “Marxists” at Radio-Canada. He takes shots at everything on the left to look tough to the right.

Yet PSPP has no problem giving an interview to Rebel News. The Quebec Press Council does not consider it a news outlet, describing it instead as an “activist organization close to far-right circles.” (He also took the opportunity to make up statistics.)

Or take the way PSPP repeatedly blames Ottawa for everything wrong in Quebec, whether the subject is immigration or, more recently, tariffs, even though our neighbouring country is led by a narcissistic sociopath (that’s my diagnosis; please don’t tell Donald Trump, or he’ll file a complaint against me for practising medicine without a licence).

Yet PSPP has no problem agreeing with Donald Trump when Trump invents a massive fentanyl and irregular immigration problem coming from Canada.

Or take PSPP denouncing supposed calls for violence from the far left, when actual violence is almost always on the right.

And so on. It’s happening before our eyes. You don’t need to be a psychiatrist to see it.

Some columnists see it too, including Yves Boisvert of La Presse.

“[PSPP] pretends not to see the difference between immigrants and refugee claimants, who arrive without asking the government’s permission. They all seem to blur together in what he calls ‘mass immigration.’

In language that sounds very much like Mathieu Bock-Côté’s, these are Trump’s themes: there is no border anymore; a deliberate policy of mass immigration is drowning us in diversity; security will disappear; and we are being ‘infiltrated.’

Add to that his call for university programs to be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. Why? To root out ‘wokism,’ another favourite theme of the right. It has become a cliché.”

(…)

“When you hear PSPP talk about immigration, you hear almost the same words as the American president’s, only delivered in a reasonable tone.”

(…)

“On immigration, nationalism, academic freedom, and ‘wokism,’ to use his word, he has chosen to place his positions in Trump’s ideological orbit.”

Boisvert is a filthy federalist who works for La Presse? Maybe. But what has he said that isn’t true?

Régis Labeaume, a longtime PQ supporter, saw the same thing and addressed PSPP (and François Legault) this way:

“Find something better than your dubious identity politics to convince us you can solve our real, pressing problems here at home.

(…)

It is simply not true that the generous, humane Quebec we know will embrace the wave of American intolerance, or the intolerance of far too many European political parties.”

I’ve also noted the shift in PSPP’s rhetoric and his more recent attempts to go easy on Donald Trump. Many of you see it too. Your posts and comments across social media show it.

These are the waters the PQ has chosen to swim in for the past few years.

But isn’t Marie-Ève Cotton is a doctor? Of course. She’s a citizen too. No one seriously thinks she is making clinical diagnoses when she comments on current events on Facebook, even when she talks about “mental illness.” And honestly, given some of the comments out there, she might have a case.

Some PQ supporters are awfully sensitive about this. If I got into an argument with a psychiatrist and they called me an idiot, I wouldn’t complain to the Collège des médecins.

I might tell them where to go, though.

+++++++

There’s another interesting parallel. PQ supporters don’t seem bothered when their leader calls past Liberal governments “corrupt” or links the QLP to organized crime.

Yet corruption is a crime. So is participating in the activities of a criminal organization.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is a lawyer. He knows what words mean. Should someone complain to his professional order?

PQ supporters also don’t seem bothered by having a candidate who has made crude, misogynistic remarks. St-Pierre Plamondon defended him by calling the criticism a “manhunt.”

So, a “womanhunt” is fine?

PSPP added, speaking of his candidate who had become a liability, that “we’re never going to cancel him and prevent him from participating in democratic life,” invoking the cancel culture he associates with a certain kind of left-wing politics.

Is cancelling someone okay when the right does it?

When political opponents or columnists criticize them, PSPP’s supporters can curse them all they want, but there isn’t much else they can do. With Marie-Ève Cotton, they have a way to make her life difficult: her professional order.

So, under a view of politics in which anything goes as long as you win, they’re using the tool they have.

Even though Marie-Ève Cotton has repeatedly been cleared by her professional order.

I’ll finish by connecting this to the time PSPP said he was “ashamed” of part of Quebec’s cultural community, whose “intellectual emptiness” and “servility” he had denounced.

And another connection: the PQ’s idea of taking control of Radio-Canada’s Quebec operations and merging them with Télé-Québec to avoid “ideological excesses,” as set out in its Blue Book (p. 353).

That sounds an awful lot like a deep desire for ideological conformity.

I would have serious doubts about handing the reins of a “majority” government to a party elected with barely 30% of the vote that seems deeply uncomfortable with dissent.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

A few days before the campaign began, Team Christine Fréchette–Coalition Avenir Québec recruited influencer and businessman Olivier Primeau to party campaign for the party.

I imagine this is the kind of influence they were hoping for:

Source: Instagram

It was already a little awkward. Mr. Primeau holds permits covering 36% of the water authorized for extraction in Quebec. Until August 21, he was also registered as a lobbyist for projects involving the commercial use of water.

Primeau saw “no conflict of interest” in his new role and swore he expected nothing from another CAQ government. He had, however, criticized the party extensively in the past and made his conservative sympathies abundantly clear across his many platforms.

The CAQ had even arranged for him to be described as “a longtime CAQ supporter.” At least, that’s what anonymous sources told Radio-Canada in late August.

I love it when anonymous sources talk. Sometimes they need protection from real reprisals. Other times, they just want to fill journalists’ ears with nonsense without having to answer for it.

In politics, the second kind is more common. Someone’s baloney detector should have gone off.

Last week, we learned that the “longtime CAQ supporter” had previously asked about the rules for entering the QLP leadership race. He had also said he was “certain” he would make a good premier.

Well, well. Beep-beep. Baloney.

Today, things went up a notch.

Primeau explained that he is “a conservative in a riding where my vote won’t count for anything, and if I don’t want a referendum, I have to vote CAQ.”

🤣

“I’m a conservative in a coalition, and I’m going to vote strategically,” he said, insisting he has been saying so since the beginning of the campaign.

🤣🤣🤣

And we shouldn’t expect him to post pro-CAQ videos on his platforms.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The CAQ is paying Olivier Primeau $20,000 for his services. He will, in turn, donate the money to charity.

If I were Christine Fréchette, I’d still ask for a refund.

Okay, let’s dive in!

Minister Duranceau gets it wrong. Five times, in fact.

We recently learned that the government ignored an analysis by its own civil servants and outside accounting experts warning that Santé Québec’s finance and procurement information system, known as SIFA, could cost ten times more than originally planned.

Instead of $100 million, it is heading toward $1 billion.

Next to that, SAAQclic looks like a well-managed project. Even if SAAQclic is also going to cost $1 billion, its initial estimate was $638 million. A 50% cost overrun looks almost modest next to a 900% one.

The government didn’t just ignore its experts. It ignored its own rules, which require it to take their advice into account. The savings used to justify SIFA may also have been overstated.

In short, this has the makings of a public inquiry next spring. At this rate, we’ll run out of retired judges and prosecutors.

Here, incidentally, is an analysis of the project’s rising costs prepared by the Ministry of Cybersecurity and Digital Technology and outside firms. The government kept it under wraps for as long as it could.

Source: Radio-Canada

(I love the “Your government” logo in the bottom left corner, permanently stamping this document with the seal of political incompetence.)

Last week, Ms. Duranceau, who is also known for suggesting that tenants invest in real estate and for being nicknamed “Cruella” by former premier François Legault, dismissed the warnings as a “doomsday scenario” and “numbers thrown around to scare people.” She called it an “organized” effort to “embarrass the government” ahead of the debate.

It is embarrassing. But is it wrong?

Ace reporter Thomas Gerbet got hold of a document showing that Minister Duranceau appears to have made at least five inaccurate public statements about SIFA.

I’ll summarize them. They offer a fascinating glimpse into the minds of politicians who can tell you things they don’t know to be true, or even things they know are false, while looking you straight in the eye and all but swearing on their mother’s life.

1. The minister said implementing the project would cost $329 million. The government she still belongs to, as well as Santé Québec, puts the cost at $677 million.

2. The minister defended $329 million in spending by pointing to $1.2 billion in savings. But she counted only five years of costs against 18 years of savings, which were themselves overstated. Oops.

3. The minister said software licences would cost $20 million a year instead of $106 million, producing annual savings of $86 million. The main licence supplier was unimpressed. It wrote to the minister to tell her the licences cost no more than $60 million, which would put the savings at $40 million. Over the project’s 18 years, that amounts to an overstatement of more than $800 million. Oops again.

4. The minister said Santé Québec was the first to sound the alarm. In fact, the Ministry of Health was warned about the problems twice in 2024. Santé Québec, which took over in late 2024, then received three requests to suspend the project in 2025. That makes five warnings before the red light finally went on.

5. The minister said the $1-billion estimate was exaggerated because it assumed 200,000 users rather than the planned 17,000. In fact, the Ministry of Cybersecurity and Digital Technology and the accounting firms based their analyses on 22,000 users.

It’s possible Thomas Gerbet has it wrong. But given his track record, I know whom I’d bet on at an online sportsbook.

The media back-and-forth is interesting, too. An awkward story breaks at Radio-Canada. Ms. Duranceau goes on Mario Dumont’s show at Québecor to defend herself. Radio-Canada publishes something even more awkward for the minister. She goes back to Québecor to defend herself again, this time with Benoît Dutrizac.

Why am I telling you this? As we’ll see below, things aren’t going very well for the CAQ.

They won’t improve if, every two or three days between now and election day, voters seing news about an IT project going badly off the rails despite repeated warnings, while the government concealed information and/or spread falsehoods.

On this platform, I’ve already documented clear, verifiable, and verified lies by François Legault, Jean-François Roberge, and Christine Fréchette.

Minister Duranceau is a chartered professional accountant, like her former boss, François Legault.

Chartered professional accountants are not allowed to lie.

Le Journal de Montréal changes its polling graphic

Last week, the latest Léger poll produced a chart that was funny for all the wrong reasons: the sheer number of distortions and basic mistakes.

There was the enormous gap between the first bar and the others, bearing no relation to the numbers; the inconsistent gaps among the second, third, and fourth bars; the heads enlarged or shrunk; and the logos of varying sizes and styles. It had everything.

It was so ridiculous that Le Journal redid the chart a few hours later with proportions that were more… proportional.

This week, the presentation of the new Léger poll is completely different.

Source: Le Journal de Montréal

The presentation is neutral, the proportions are right, and the logos are roughly the same size.

I mean this without a trace of sarcasm: well done. It shows someone spotted the problem. Credibility remains a news outlet’s most valuable asset.

Still, someone at Le Journal couldn’t resist playing with the candidates’ heads.

I still say they shouldn’t do that.

Okay, Déry, can we talk about the poll now? Voting intentions haven’t really changed, so the seat projections can’t have changed much either, right?

Buckle up!

Could the CAQ be wiped off the map?

Here are the seat projections and voting intentions as of Monday, September 7, and Thursday, September 17. The change is modest.

Both polls were conducted before the debates. Even so, we can see the CAQ losing a little ground in voting intentions, from 25% to 23%, and in projected seats, from 21 to 19.

Now we get to watch our utterly disproportional voting system distort the results in almost real time. It’s quite something.

The Léger poll published Tuesday captures the effect of the debates, in which Christine Fréchette gave a performance that came close to disqualifying her.

The CAQ lost another two little points. The PQ gained just one. Support for the QLP, QCP, and QS didn’t move, or at least not enough to show up in the rounded percentages. So less than one point. All told, there’s no more movement than there was between the previous two polls.

And yet those tiny shifts completely change the seat projection on Qc125.com.

· The PQ gains ten seats with just one additional point of support, putting it only two seats short of a majority.

· The QLP gains no full percentage point, yet its potential seat count rises by three thanks to the CAQ’s decline.

· The QCP gains no vote share or seats, but moves up one place.

· Same for QS.

· The CAQ loses two points but 12 (!) seats, dropping into last place.

What happened? In three-way or even four-way races, a shift of a few points is enough to change the winner.

A party can even gain seats at a rival’s expense without gaining any votes itself. If the third-place party takes a few points from the leader, the party in second can slip through.

I played around with Qc125’s simulator. Take one point away from the PQ, half a point from the QLP, and another half-point from the QCP, then give those two points to the CAQ. The PQ loses about ten seats, the CAQ wins back roughly a dozen, and we’re essentially back where we were before the debates. Wild!

After briefly hoping it might form the official opposition, the CAQ is now in precarious territory.

If it lost another point of support, it could hope for no more than five seats. Lose two points, and it would hang on to only one or two. Lose three, and it could be wiped off the map while still winning close to 20% of the vote.

Coalition Avenir Québec came to power eight years ago by benefiting from our outdated voting system. It stayed in power after breaking its promise to change it.

On October 5, the CAQ could be brought down by the very system it refused to reform.

That said, I look forward to the day we stop pretending it’s normal to contemplate a majority government with less than a third of the vote.

So I made a few adjustments to Tuesday’s Journal front page.

Selective conservative outrage

“It’s pretty incredible to talk about a majority when [a party] can’t even get 30% of people behind it.”

— Éric Duhaime, QCP leader, putting his finger on the problem with our broken voting system.

But…

We need to “stop looking at people in terms of their sex, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.”

— Éric Duhaime, when it was pointed out that only 27% of QCP candidates are women.

So democratic representation matters, except when it comes to women? I suppose that if you’re worried women might “dominate” the world, that changes the calculation.

When nobody believes you anymore, keep promising

I missed this one. On Sunday, Christine Fréchette promised that every Quebecer would have a doctor or be registered with a family medicine group within four years.

I can do better: I promise every Quebecer will be registered with a doctor or a family medicine group within ten minutes.

The promise is worthless because there aren’t enough doctors. This spring, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers were registered with the stroke of a magic bureaucratic wand. But there are no more doctors than before, so getting an appointment is no easier.

Take this 98-year-old woman, who has to go to the emergency room or pay for private care. Or this 59-year-old woman, in remission from cancer. Or you, me, and all the other people who end up in the emergency room when they’re in a bind. C’est comme ça qu’on vit au Québec.

The CAQ was elected in 2018 after promising a doctor for every Quebecer.

It was an impossible promise to keep because Quebec has fewer doctors than most developed countries.

It’s been that way for years. On top of that, we make very poor use of the doctors we have.

I don’t know whether Ms. Fréchette really believes that, within four years, every Quebecer could have a doctor they can actually see. Recent experience suggests she says a lot of things she doesn’t believe.

The only promise anyone can make about health care is that it will remain bad for at least another ten years. It might become a little less bad if we start doing everything that helps right now. (I discuss the solutions here.)

That is essentially what Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said Tuesday.

It’s a bit depressing, but at least it’s honest.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici.)

Manitoba will not set its clocks back on November 1. It will be the fourth province to remain on daylight time year-round, after Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

I wanted to write about it Saturday, but my piece was already long.

I wanted to mention the public consultation held two years ago, which found that 91% of Quebecers want us to stop fiddling with the clocks twice a year. Nearly 80% of businesses want the same thing. Studies have also found a significant increase in car accidents and medical errors on the day after the clocks go back. And the practice, introduced to save energy during the First World War, no longer serves any purpose.

I was going to write that, on November 1, we will all wake up a little happier after getting an extra hour of sleep. Especially parents who have to be at the arena at 7:30 on Sunday morning.

I was going to say that every fall and every spring, we talk about it and hope this will be the last time. Then again, we spent 35 years arguing over the colour of margarine…

I was going to write that it said a lot about our politicians that they were still incapable of taking a clear position on such a thoroughly documented, motherhood-and-apple-pie issue, when the conclusion was both clear and inevitable. The only thing left to decide was how many more pointless turns of the clock hands we would have to put up with.

I was going to write that, as of Monday morning, none of the five parties had expressed a particularly firm preference on the time change. They were all generally in favour, but not too much. They wanted to study the issue further and act “in a coordinated way” with neighbouring provinces and states. (Why? We trade with New Brunswick, Europe, and China, and we manage just fine.) As though the issue carried any political risk whatsoever.

(Sigh.)

The CAQ even specified that “more in-depth analyses of the economic and health impacts are still underway. We’re not at the announcement stage yet.”

That was Monday morning.

I would have told you not to hold your breath. Again, it took us 35 years to settle the margarine question.

And then, a dramatic turn of events!

Early Monday afternoon, Christine Fréchette made a “firm commitment” to abolish the time change.

(Apparently, those “more in-depth analyses of the economic and health impacts” took half a day. Maybe they asked ChatGPT.)

What happened?

A little political manoeuvring. CAQ strategists saw an opportunity to get out ahead of the other parties on a popular issue and make an announcement.

The other parties’ strategists saw the risk of letting the CAQ have a popular issue all to itself.

And we vote in two weeks.

All right, let’s dive in!

When a fact-checker fact-checks La Vérif

Last Wednesday, Christine Fréchette claimed that the CAQ had hired 100,000 teachers during its two terms in office. That was quite the whopper, since Quebec’s public school system employs about 100,000 teachers altogether.

On Monday, Radio-Canada fact-checked the premier and correctly concluded that the CAQ could not have hired 100,000 teachers during those two terms. In the process, however, the public broadcaster claimed that Quebec employs 131,000 teachers at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels.

Source: Radio-Canada

That is not the right number.

The total of 131,000 includes not only teachers, but also support staff, such as special education technicians and educators, as well as professionals, including remedial teachers, psychoeducators, guidance counsellors, speech-language pathologists, and psychologists.

For teachers, the figure is 91,732 positions, minus however many remained unfilled as of mid-September.

Source: Quebec Ministry of Education dashboard.

If even the fact-checkers cannot get their numbers straight, we can hardly blame voters for being confused.

One useful poll and one useless poll

Let’s start with the useless one.

There are too many polls, which means we have to talk about them too often, if only to ensure they are interpreted properly. But that is not what makes this one useless.

Radio-Canada conducted a large-scale election survey last week involving more than 5,000 respondents.

In theory, that provides greater precision than a standard survey of 1,000 respondents, particularly within subgroups such as gender, age, and region. For a typical poll, the margin of error is generally around 3% for the overall results. For Radio-Canada’s survey, it was generally 1.3%.

That is useful. In a close election, it makes a difference. Is the PQ really six points ahead of the CAQ and QLP? Two points? Or are we looking at a statistical tie? Are the CAQ and QLP tied too? Does the CAQ instead have a five-point lead over the QLP? Or is it the other way around?

Radio-Canada’s survey produced the following results:

- PQ: 29%

- CAQ: 22%

- QLP: 19%

- QCP: 18%

- QS: 12%

The QCP only four points behind the CAQ and one point behind the Liberals? Interesting.

Except that… those numbers are now worthless. Most of the fieldwork was completed BEFORE last week’s two debates, which went disastrously for Ms. Fréchette. (I have numbers on that too, further down.)

Maybe the cement has set and nothing has changed. Maybe the tectonic plates have shifted. This survey can no longer tell us, despite everything Radio-Canada put into it.

There is never a perfect time to poll voters during a campaign. Everything moves quickly, and plenty of surprises can occur. Debates, however, are not surprises. The survey should have been conducted entirely before them or entirely after them.

You can read it here if you are interested.

And the useful poll?

That would be Pallas’s, which was conducted after the debate and should therefore, in principle, capture its effects.

The numbers broadly resemble the recent trend:

- PQ: 28%

- QLP: 22%

- CAQ: 22%

- QCP: 16%

- QS: 11%

So the debate apparently had no effect. Except that…

There was movement beneath the surface. Christine Fréchette’s approval rating, to put it bluntly, took a beating. Ms. Fréchette is now seen as only the third-best choice for premier.

Last week, PSPP and Christine Fréchette were tied at 23%. This week, PSPP is alone in first place at 29%. Ms. Fréchette has fallen to 16%, barely ahead of Éric Duhaime and Ruba Ghazal. Charles Milliard is now second at 19%.

Things look even worse for Ms. Fréchette when we examine the leaders’ net favourability ratings.

Everyone’s rating has improved over the past two weeks except that of the leader of Team Christine Fréchette. In other words, everyone gained ground at Ms. Fréchette’s expense.

Two weeks ago, Ms. Fréchette was in second place. She is now dead last, even trailing Éric Duhaime, who until recently was Quebec’s political bogeyman of choice.

On the left, the leaders’ favourability ratings two weeks ago. On the right, their ratings now.

A few takeaways:

· Ms. Fréchette took quite a tumble, dropping 17 points;

· Meanwhile, all her opponents gained ground: PSPP gained 13 points, Ghazal 14, and Milliard 16;

· Even Éric Duhaime managed to gain six points;

· In other words, Christine Fréchette lost 23 points relative to Éric Duhaime, 29 relative to PSPP, 31 relative to Ruba Ghazal, and 33 relative to Charles Milliard;

· Ouch.

Another, rather depressing, takeaway: not one of the party leaders has a positive net favourability rating.

Ruba Ghazal comes closest, at −2%.

As I noted Friday, Québec solidaire still has a reservoir of goodwill to draw on, and therefore room to grow. What it needs are policies that are a little more grounded in reality. (Dear QS, there are two weeks left.)

For the CAQ, Ms. Fréchette’s slide is bad news. A party’s support usually ends up following its leader’s trajectory.

There is another debate this week. Ms. Fréchette might want to come up with a good excuse to skip it.

The Pallas poll is available here.

The PQ thinks there are too many children—and offers $350 starting with baby No. 3

Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has been playing fast and loose with the facts as he denounces the strain that immigration supposedly places on public services, particularly daycares and schools, as well as housing.

So we have too many children.

On Sunday, the PQ unveiled its plan to “stem the decline in the birth rate.”

So we want more children.

I’m confused.

Among other things, the PQ proposes enhancing the Quebec Parental Insurance Plan (QPIP) by raising both the minimum benefit and the amount paid, and making the program even more flexible. It also wants to cover second and third in vitro fertilization cycles.

The PQ would provide an annual allowance of $350 for a third child and another $350 for a fourth.

Unlike the supposed decline of our culture or the French language, the decline in our fertility rate is real, although the PQ does make a small error.

The current rate is indeed 1.36, not 1.33. It was also this low in the late 1980s.

Here is what it looks like over 55 years.

Source: Institut de la statistique du Québec

We can speculate about why the PQ did not include the Institut de la statistique’s chart showing the evolution of the fertility rate in its news release. Your explanation is as good as mine.

Mine is that, when telling a fish story, it helps to make the fish as big as possible, even if that means mixing up centimetres and inches.

+++++++

Pronatalist policies generally do not work, as I explained when the CAQ announced its $1,000 babies, unless governments spend enough to all but eliminate the financial consequences of having children.

We can decide to improve our family policies for reasons of fairness, which is entirely legitimate, but doing so will probably have very little effect on the fertility rate.

QPIP did produce a temporary bump in the mid-2000s, but it probably brought births forward rather than creating more of them. The rate eventually returned to the same level and then fell even lower than it had been before the program was created. The effect of subsidized child care is even harder to discern.

These two programs, the most generous of their kind in North America, have failed to reverse the worldwide decline in fertility rates.

Does anyone at the PQ really believe that $350 a year will make a difference in someone’s decision to have another child?

I sincerely hope not, because at this point, incompetence would worry me even more than intellectual dishonesty. (The bar is low, I know.)

For the sake of argument, let’s nevertheless assume that an allowance equivalent to $7 a week would persuade parents to have another child, along with the rest of the policies intended to “stem the decline in the birth rate.”

If we follow PSPP’s logic, we are shopping for a whole aisle of trouble, because daycares and schools will not be ready to accommodate the Quebecers we will have created. If there is no room for immigrants’ children, why would there be room for the children of old-stock Quebecers?

Housing will not fare any better. If families grow larger, demand for bigger apartments and houses will increase.

Have I missed something?

And what about the fifth child? If the goal is to increase the number of births, why stop at four? Why not reward couples who decide to have five, six, or seven children?

By that logic, the QCP’s proposed weekly allowance of $100, or $5,000 a year, is potentially more effective, even if it is misguided, since it would represent a more substantial net gain for mothers who have already decided to stay home.

Could there be a simpler explanation?

Could this be, once again, another fine slice of political baloney? Bargain-bin baloney, cheaper than eliminating the sales tax on used goods or gasoline, but baloney nonetheless: an individual benefit and a tangible effect that are both close to zero, at a cost to the government amounting to millions that could be better spent elsewhere. ($5 million, if you are wondering. I know community organizations that wouldn’t turn up their noses at that.)

So why did the Parti Québécois put this not-so-subtle bit of baloney this measure in its platform?

Because it also gives the party an opportunity to sound a populist dog whistle, as it does with regressive tax cuts that are easy to sell. And with immigration.

Someone we know well rode that strategy to the White House twice.

France is headed that way too.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

Just a quick note before we get started: the Churchill Falls agreement with Newfoundland has been approved by our neighbours’ legislature. I mention it because it is just about the only good news for Christine Fréchette in what has been a fairly disastrous week. The next poll could hurt and mark a turning point for the CAQ.

Also, a 63-year-old woman has been stuck in hospital for more than a year because there is no room for her in a suitable residence able to take her. She has even brought plants into her room. To add insult to injury, she was reportedly offered a transfer to palliative care even though she is not dying.

I don’t know whether that part is true, but I do know that the number of Quebecers aged 75 and older will climb by roughly 40% by 2034, and that we are nowhere near ready for it.

Mom, keep snowshoeing and eating your vegetables, okay?

OK, let’s dive in!

Numbers and women candidates

Elections Quebec released some election statistics this week.

Some 908 candidates were accepted in Quebec’s 127 ridings, an average of just over seven per riding.

Verdun has the largest field, with 13 candidates. Across Quebec, 19 independent candidates are trying their luck.

By party, ranked by number of candidates, here is what that looks like:

A few observations:

• Climat Québec, led by Martine Ouellet, is the largest of the minor parties, with 52 candidates;

• The Parti nul is ahead of the Green Party. That is not reassuring;

• Three parties registered bilingual names: the Quebec Liberal Party, the Green Party of Quebec, and the Canadian Party of Quebec;

• The CAQ is not the only party with a name long enough to need a hinge. There is also the Parti accès propriété et équité – Équipe Québec debout;

• After more than 100 years of bickering over ideological purity, the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party still have not managed to reconcile their differences.

And the women? Here they are:

QS, the CAQ, the PQ, and the QLP are in roughly the same range as in 2022, when they fielded 69, 69, 54, and 53 women candidates, respectively.

The parity zone is generally considered to fall between 40% and 60% women candidates. (Personally, I think we could make a little more of an effort and aim for 50%. There are, after all, more than three million Quebec women old enough to run for office.)

The Conservative Party managed the remarkable feat of reducing its share of women candidates, fielding 47 in 2022 but only 34 in 2026, even though the number of ridings grew slightly, from 125 to 127.

Which raises a question…

Why does the Conservative Party attract fewer women?

It would be tempting to make an inappropriate joke and say it is because potential candidates are at home waiting for the $100 a week promised by the QCP.

Even leaving aside the spectacular bad faith that would require on my part, however, the theory does not hold up.

Because it is not just about the candidates.

Since the beginning of 2023, Conservative voting intentions have generally trended upward, rising from around 10% to an average of roughly 15%.

But the average human being also has one breast and one testicle, which illustrates the limits of averages, in anatomy as in politics.

Among men, shown on the left below, Conservative support has generally remained around 15% or higher.

Among women, shown on the right, it has generally remained below 10%. (I had to fiddle with the image sizes a little to make the scales line up.)

Source: Qc125.com

The margin of error is substantial, at six percentage points. But the gap is consistent throughout the entire period, which suggests it is probably real.

Some will point out, correctly, that other parties also have gender gaps. The Parti Québécois attracts slightly more support from men, while the QLP attracts slightly more from women. But a five-point gender gap for a party polling at 20% or 27% is much less striking than a five-point gap from a base of 10%.

Support for the QCP is 50% higher among men than among women. That is enormous.

With Québec solidaire, the reverse is true, although the gap is somewhat smaller.

I will close this section by reminding everyone that men are generally the ones who cause the problems, and women the ones who fix them.

The parties don’t care about Montreal

If you think the Third Link, gas taxes, and other populist measures are taking up a little too much room in this campaign, you are not wrong.

And if you think no one is talking much about Montreal, your instincts are right there too. The two are connected, as we are about to see.

The Island of Montreal accounts for 24% of Quebec’s population, or slightly more than two million Quebecers. Party leaders have made only 8% of their campaign stops there.

By contrast, the greater Quebec City region, including its South Shore, has received 36% of all visits despite accounting for only 14% of the population.

In the first case, Montreal received roughly one-third the attention its demographic weight would suggest. In the second, Quebec City received nearly three times as much.

Adjusted for population, Quebec City therefore received nine times as much attention as Montreal from the leaders, and thus from the parties.

Source: La Presse

Montreal’s surrounding suburbs, meaning the South Shore, Laval, and the North Shore, have not received much attention either: 19% of the visits, despite representing 36% of the population.

The PQ’s path to a majority may run through Quebec City. The CAQ’s shrinking hopes of forming the Official Opposition rest there. And for the QCP, Quebec City holds the balance of power.

In short, this year’s electoral battleground is Quebec City, and the political target is its conservative electorate.

Québec solidaire and the “clunkers”

To encourage people to give up their cars, a Québec solidaire government would offer $1,000 and a one-year public transit or car-sharing pass in exchange for scrapping a gas-powered vehicle more than 15 years old.

That sounds as though it was designed by people who do not own a car and do not need one. Which, incidentally, is almost a perfect description of the ridings QS currently holds: downtown Montreal and downtown Quebec City, with Sherbrooke as the lone exception. (And that will not last much longer.)

Very few people buy a car, much less two, on a whim. If public transit were genuinely practical, people would use it without a second thought. Even in Montreal, driving is often faster.

Without adequate public transit, people will not give up their cars. With adequate service, no financial incentive would be necessary.

It is the Field of Dreams principle: build it, and they will come.

(At first glance, it looks like a horror movie, but don’t be fooled. It is about a guy who wanted to play baseball with his father and another guy who did not wear shoes. Yes, it has been a long time since I saw it.)

Back to Québec solidaire. The inadequacy of public transit is not the main problem with its proposal.

How can I put this? If people are lining up to sell 15-year-old cars for $1,000 and a year of public transit, I am opening a used-car dealership, doing this for two or three years, and then retiring.

Take a look at AutoTrader and see what 15-year-old Civics and Corollas are going for. You’ll get the point pretty quickly. With SUVs, the absurdity becomes even clearer. After 15 years, a RAV4 or CR-V, both among Quebec’s best-selling models, can still be worth $10,000. Even a “clunker” with 300,000 kilometres on the odometer can fetch $6,000.

Just look at the screenshots below. I didn’t have to spend two hours hunting for them.

Québec solidaire’s “clunkers”. Source : Autohebdo.net

I realize that QS activists and candidates are more likely to ride a bike than drive, but I would bet they have internet access.

Assuming they do, why did absolutely no one think to check whether the proposal was roadworthy, so to speak, before putting it in the party platform and boasting about it?

Because in Québec solidaire’s certainty-soaked world, a 15-year-old car is an “old clunker.” That would be the name of the program.

Source: Québec solidaire’s climate plan

We have two cars at home. We put off getting the second one for as long as we could. But eventually, for a family of four, it just did not work anymore. I know that can be hard to imagine from the Plateau, but that is life. Communauto is hit-and-miss where I live, and there is no way I am biking to the arena three times a week.

The Honda is 13 years old. And we are not getting rid of it in two years. Not for $1,000, $2,000, or $5,000.

It is always the same problem with QS. The good intentions are there, but you are left with the impression that its activists do not live in the real world, and that some of its proposals came straight out of a CEGEP philosophy club, drafted by people who have never owned a car, never owned a home, and never held a job.

There are social democratic models that manage to be both highly egalitarian and highly effective, and the Nordic countries are pretty good examples. They outperform us both economically and socially.

Yesterday, I explained that Québec solidaire should reconsider its goals: influencing public policy without necessarily trying to form government, much as the QCP has managed to do under Éric Duhaime.

It might also be a good idea to test public policy proposals outside the party’s echo chamber before they make it into the platform. Or the news.

Christine Fréchette and the multiplication of teachers

I have already written about the superpower of the outgoing premier, who will soon simply be out: claiming to know things she does not, and stating as fact things she knows are not true.

Ms. Fréchette has another power: multiplication. Jesus multiplied the loaves; Christine multiplies teachers.

I missed one hell of a lie.

On Wednesday, during an exchange with Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, Ms. Fréchette touted the CAQ’s record on education, casually claiming that the CAQ government had hired 100,000 teachers. Just like that. In passing. Bam.

Here it is.

Let me take a brief detour.

There are roughly 3,000 schools in Quebec. I know that figure by heart because, when you spend enough time looking at education, you keep tripping over it.

So Ms. Fréchette hired more than 30 teachers per school? That seems like a lot.

Especially when you know there are roughly 100,000 teachers in Quebec. That is another figure I know, and it is what I would say in a debate if my team had not prepared me. And I am not running to be premier.

The exact figure, after checking, is 91,732 teaching positions in Quebec schools, according to the Education Department’s dashboard.

In an ideal world, candidates for the most important job in Quebec would know a number of basic facts and useful benchmarks about our society: the number of schools and hospitals; the size of the government’s expenditure budget and those of a few key departments; the number of doctors, nurses, and teachers; the number of people experiencing homelessness; the proportion of Quebecers aged 65 and older; and the number of Stanley Cups Henri Richard won.

That would be true in an ideal world. But in our less-than-ideal one, I do not expect politicians to have every one of those figures at their fingertips whenever they are asked a question.

When Ms. Fréchette throws out a number to try to trip up a political opponent in front of hundreds of thousands of potential voters, however, I do expect her not to make up enormous numbers just to look good. She did that at least once more on Wednesday, when homelessness came up.

Did she knowingly make it up, or was she misled by her advisers? It is hard to say. Either way, it leaves two possibilities: a problem with honesty, or with competence.

+++++++

I am taking a break this Saturday and giving myself two days off for the first time since the campaign began.

I also want to thank you once again for the invaluable support that a growing number of you are giving me. Paid subscriptions continue to rise, which gives me hope that my slightly crazy goal of making this independent outlet sustainable might actually be possible.

If you would like to help this improbable adventure along, this is the place. A free subscription helps too!

Subscribe now

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

A one-year-old baby was found in an encampment, and our politicians are discovering that homeless people include women, too.

Premier Christine Fréchette was visibly moved. “It breaks my heart. I’m a mother, first and foremost. I can’t believe it.”

I can. It isn’t even hard when you know that there are at least 12,000 homeless people in Quebec, nearly one-third of them women.

If even 1% of homeless women become pregnant, that still means a lot of babies. And that only accounts for visible homelessness, counted at a single point in time. Over the course of a year, the number is much higher.

Ms. Fréchette wanted to know more. “What are their profiles? Are there other children? We really need to get these children out of that environment. It is no place for children. Absolutely not.”

Those are all excellent questions for a cabinet minister to ask. As it happens, Ms. Fréchette has been one for the past four years. Perhaps she was too busy handing millions to companies that were about to go bankrupt.

Not to worry: Ms. Fréchette has already promised a summit on homelessness. In 2027.

Which reminds me of my childhood reading.

Ms. Fréchette also showed how well she knew the issue during Wednesday’s debate, when she claimed that her government had taken 4,000 people off the streets in 2024–25.

In reality, the homeless population grew by nearly 1,900 people between 2022 and 2025, bringing the current total to roughly 12,000. The real number may be two or three times higher.

As I explained here, homelessness is a choice we make as a society.

The Conservative Solution to Homelessness

“We have to condemn the fact that these encampments are springing up and make sure they are eliminated as quickly as possible throughout Quebec.”

– Éric Duhaime, leader of the Conservative Party, making the case for “compassion”

$20 Bills Hidden Inside a CAQ Candidate’s Giveaways

It sounds like a parody, but that is the actual headline. I cannot top this.

MNA Louis-Charles Thouin raffled off door prizes at a bingo, including CAQ-branded caps and shirts.

That was already tacky enough, but Mr. Thouin decided to hide $10 and $20 bills inside the “gifts.”

Mr. Thouin had already been investigated by the National Assembly’s Ethics Commissioner for inviting mayors to meet the deputy premier in exchange for a $100 contribution to the CAQ.

He had previously been the subject of another investigation by the Ethics Commissioner, this time over an apparent conflict of interest.

When he was mayor of Saint-Calixte, Mr. Thouin awarded an animal-control contract to an organization he had co-founded and whose executive director was his spouse, after cancelling a contract with a competing company.

He also awarded grants to businesses managed by his daughter-in-law.

Among other things. The full list is available here.

Christine Fréchette, leader of Team Christine Fréchette, reiterated her confidence in Louis-Charles Thouin.

The Conservatative Controverservative Conservative Party and Spelling

On Substack, people read a lot and comment very little. On other social media platforms, the opposite is true.

My posts often get a reaction, particularly on Facebook. I can generally spot people’s political allegiances fairly quickly.

• PQ supporters react whenever someone criticizes the PQ;

• CAQ supporters react whenever someone criticizes the CAQ;

• QS supporters react whenever someone mentions private health care;

• Liberal supporters do not react when someone criticizes the QLP because they also think their party is terrible;

• QCP supporters make a lot of spelling mistakes.

Which brings me to Éric Duhaime’s news conference today, held in part to cut red tape for our “agriculturers.”

🙄

It is still fascinating to imagine how many people must have read “AGRICULTUREURS,” roughly the French equivalent of “AGRICULTURERS,” in giant capital letters before it went to print without ever noticing the problem.

Without meaning to, Mr. Duhaime’s party also highlighted the importance of Quebec’s school dropout problem, as well as another kind of culture, the kind that does not usually grow in a field.

Which reminds me that the gentleman on the right, Frédéric Poulin, a QCP candidate on Quebec City’s South Shore, once declared himself “125% in favour” of Canada being annexed by the United States. Another fine example of an “agriculturer.”

This is not the first time the Conservatives have mangled our language.

(In French, trafic takes only one f, and circulation is the better term. In this particular case, congestion would be better still.)

Roughly half of Quebecers struggle to read and understand long texts, like the one you are reading right now.

For a long time, I have wondered, from a purely statistical standpoint and with absolutely no ulterior motive, what that proportion might be among Conservative Party supporters.

Now I have another question: what is it among the people who work for the Conservative Party?

In the Land of Orange Unicorns

Québec solidaire still hopes to form the government on October 5. “We believe in our chances,” said Sol Zanetti, who is hoping for an “orange wave” like the one that swept through Quebec under Jack Layton’s NDP in 2011.

The NDP became the Official Opposition for the first time in its history that year after winning 103 seats, including 59 in Quebec.

That makes sense. QS’s slogan is “It’s possible,” not “It’s probable.”

It is possible that the Nordiques will return to Quebec City. It is possible that one day we will miss François Legault. It is possible that I will finish my article at a reasonable hour.

Still, a quick clarification before I continue.

Dear Sol,

You are not Jack Layton.

Best,

Patrick

Here is where the races stand.

Québec solidaire can still matter. But it will not form the government.

I know that QS’s co-spokespeople and candidates are convinced they would do a good job. Perhaps they are right, but most Quebecers simply cannot picture Québec solidaire in government.

I know, I know: the other parties have hardly spoiled us. But they are better at looking as though they know how to count. And Quebecers see them as less likely to slap a 15% surtax on their next car, or tax 100% of the gains on their retirement investments.

On the other hand, I am convinced that many more Quebecers would welcome a party that served as the National Assembly’s social conscience, knew when outrage was warranted, and pushed public policy toward greater compassion. We are missing that.

Québec solidaire is also the only party talking about the environment. For that reason alone, it deserves enough representation to have some influence.

The election is in 18 days. Time is running out.

Instead of pretending it can accomplish something no one believes it can, Québec solidaire might want to adopt a more honest and open strategy, similar to the Conservative Party’s.

Éric Duhaime freely admits that his party has no chance of forming the government. He is there to pull every other party to the right, and he is succeeding. Even without a single MNA, Duhaime has had a lasting influence on CAQ policy and pushed the Parti Québécois sharply to the right. Imagine what the QCP could do if it held the balance of power.

Québec solidaire should rally its activists around that goal.

QS faces two choices: try to influence the government and achieve some of its objectives, or go all in and lose everything.

Knowing the party, I suspect it will choose the second option.

Baloney of the Week

“People at hospitals have spoken to me in confidence (…) that in some hospitals, nearly 20% of operating rooms are reserved for asylum seekers.”

– Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, in an interview with Rebel News last April

“I caught a fish this big!”

Here are the numbers:

• Asylum seekers as a proportion of Quebec’s population: 2%, or 190,000 out of nine million;

• Quebecers aged 65 and older as a proportion of the population: 21%;

• People aged 65 and older as a share of patients hospitalized or undergoing day surgery: roughly 46%;

• Asylum seekers in Quebec aged 60 and older: 4%, or fewer than 10,000;

• Number of surgeries performed in Quebec each year: roughly 450,000;

• Probability that the statistic cited by PSPP is true: close to zero;

• Number of times he has repeated the statistic outside Rebel News: zero;

• Probability that it was baloney aimed at Rebel News’s conspiracy-adjacent audience: nearly 100%.

Our future premier is a liar. We can console ourselves with the thought that this at least offers some continuity with his two predecessors.

Quote via Alexandre Dumas. I added or adjusted some of the figures.

The QLP’s Communications Strategy

Are you familiar with the mudslinging strategy?

Some sociopaths political strategists consider it important to “define the opponent,” usually by saddling them with childish nicknames built around cheap puns, then delivering those nicknames theatrically and with contempt.

One variation is to stick a rival party’s label, such as “CAQ,” onto everything in sight and say it as though you had just bitten into a lemon.

For example: a “CAQ tunnel,” because everyone knows that a “Liberal tunnel” is much easier to sell. CAQ budget. CAQ government.

Or, better yet, take one rival party’s label and stick it onto a politician from another party. You might, for example, accuse François Legault of being a “PQ man” and talk about his “PQ side coming out.” The QLP dit that.

Better still, combine the labels of two rival parties and contrast a dreadful “PQ-CAQ constitution” with a marvellous “Liberal constitution.”

Marc Tanguay, MNA for LaFontaine and two-time interim Liberal leader, is a master of the form. (He is also a frequent unwitting guest on Infoman.)

It may sound ridiculous, but this is a genuine QLP communications strategy. I see it constantly, and from now on, you will too.

I had been meaning to write about it for a while, and we got a perfect example this week at a Liberal Party news conference held in the wake of yet another health care IT disaster.

“I’ve really had enough. We’ve all had it up to here with the CAQ’s financial scandals.” (…) “Now we have a* Christine Fréchette-branded CAQ scandal.”

1. “We” (you, me, all of us) have “had it up to here”: we are angry together.

2. “The CAQ’s financial scandals”: “financial scandals” is placed right next to “CAQ.”

3. “Christine Fréchette-branded CAQ scandal”: the same association is hammered home one more time.

And just like that, the opponent has been “defined.”

The same goes for a message posted on X that day. Prepare to be inspired as never before.

“Enough is enough! We urgently need a change of government. We urgently need to take away their chequebook. We urgently need to take control of our finances out of their hands.

We thought the CAQ government would have learned from its terrible mistakes after the SAAQclic fiasco...

But no. Same story: alarm bells, warnings ignored, and a government charging ahead blindly.

Once again, Christine Fréchette and her CAQ government ignored warnings from public servants and accounting firms.

The result: a project initially valued at $96 million now costs $1 billion.”

It opens with manufactured outrage and the “urgent” need to change the government. The CAQ label appears once. Then it appears a second time, now linked to the premier. Add a few more rhetorical devices straight out of a 1950s stump speech.

Aside from the fact that it sounds as though it was generated by the free version of ChatGPT, I struggle to imagine how QLP strategists think this will generate any enthusiasm for their leader or their party.

What in this message demonstrates the QLP’s advantage over its opponents?

Polls have shown for nearly three years that Quebecers want a change of government, yet the QLP has never benefited.

So allow me to offer Liberal Party strategists an observation, followed by a question.

The observation: Here are your voting-intention numbers among francophones, the voters the QLP needs to win over and the audience those messages were meant to reach.

Source: Qc125.com

The question is: Do QLP strategists really think they can win voters over by disparaging parties those voters prefer?

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici.)

Election news has slowed to a crawl in the wake of the debate, which is still dominating campaign coverage. Who came out ahead? Who fell short? You can read my debate recap and other campaign news here. There was another debate Wednesday night. I skipped it. One was enough. Besides, I had this to write.

Since Tuesday’s debate ran so late, I’m taking it easy today with a lighter topic, one far less likely to stir up strong feelings: the state of French in Quebec.

But first, one important story, because we still have functioning courts, followed by another one to make you smile, because the third item probably won’t.

The Superior Court Does the Government a Favour. The Government Just Doesn’t Know It

At the start of the campaign, we learned that, for the first time, voter information cards and other election material would be sent out only in French.

A citizen challenged the decision and asked that all the material be sent in both languages. On Wednesday, the Superior Court ruled in his favour, pointing to a risk of “serious and irreparable harm” for the roughly 6% of Quebecers who do not understand French.

The voter reminder card will therefore be sent in both languages. In practical terms, certain provisions of the Charter of the French Language, as amended by Bill 96, will be suspended for ten days, just long enough to send it out. The rest of the election material has already been sent in French and will not be reprinted.

In his ruling, Justice Sylvain Lussier noted that election results could be overturned if a violation of voting rights were established, citing the recent case of the voided election in Terrebonne.

In other words, the government’s mindless stubbornness could have thrown the whole thing into chaos the day after October 5. The Superior Court just saved it from itself.

Remember, Élections Québec had repeatedly asked, since 2023, for an exemption from the Bill 96 requirement that it communicate exclusively in French. It simply wanted to carry on as it always had, doing something that had never caused a problem.

Let’s be serious. Election material sent out once every four years is not going to turn Quebec into Louisiana.

In Manitoba and New Brunswick, as well as in federal elections across the country, the material is sent in both languages. Ontario also provides it in both languages in areas with a significant francophone population.

In the United States, the Voting Rights Act requires election material to be provided in different languages in different parts of the country, including Spanish, Bengali, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, several languages from India, and several Indigenous languages.

In Texas, voter registration cards are automatically bilingual, in English and Spanish, under state law.

The Cannabis Industry Is Not Amused

“The only company you brought to Bécancour was a pot company.”

— Christine Fréchette, speaking to QLP Leader Charles Milliard on Tuesday night

Cannabis has been legal in Quebec since 2018. The legal age was initially 18, but Uncle François (Legault) and Uncle Lionel (Carmant) decided to raise it to 21, after briefly flirting with 25. Everywhere else in Canada, the legal age is 19, except in Alberta, where it is 18.

On Tuesday, in front of more than a million Quebecers, Auntie Christine took a swipe at an industry that employs 8,000 people in Quebec, generates $1.4 billion in economic activity, and puts nearly half a billion dollars into government coffers, according to figures supplied by an industry group that was not amused.

Way to win votes in a close election!

Is French Declining, or Are French Canadians?

“We have never experienced linguistic and cultural decline this severe in the past century.”

— Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, leader of the Parti Québécois, during Tuesday’s debate

I immediately pointed out how preposterous the claim was, including on X/Twitter and Facebook, if you would like to follow me on either. I promised myself I would come back to it.

Because it is completely disconnected from reality. Delusional. Dissonant.

Let’s start with culture.

Does anyone seriously believe Quebec culture has declined over the past 100, 50, or even 30 years? Has the leader of the Parti Québécois taken the full measure of everything we continue to produce: books, music, theatre, television series, films, and no shortage of actors, writers, musicians, singers, and directors?

We even have the luxury of our own media ecosystem to keep that culture alive. No other province has anything like it, and it compares favourably with those of many countries. Ten daily newspapers. Four conventional television networks, several with local stations. Two 24-hour news networks. Dozens of radio stations. Thousands of digital media outlets and creators of every kind.

And that’s just in French. Quebec culture also exists in other languages, not just English.

Quebec is Canada’s cultural powerhouse. Quebec culture is so vibrant, so fertile, and so strong that it draws creators from elsewhere, turns them into Quebecers, and then helps them shine on the world stage. Through the tremendous reach of the global Francophonie, and even beyond it, Quebec manages to do more than countries many times its size.

Culturally, Quebec punches well above its weight. Funding is up for debate. So is how we should deal with the digital giants.

But cultural “decline”? That is not merely pessimistic. It is fantasy.

Unless you think we peaked in La Bolduc’s day.

Now for the language.

All the data presented below come from Statistics Canada. They are also routinely used by the Institut de la statistique du Québec and the Office québécois de la langue française.

In other words, solid, credible stuff.

I can already hear people objecting that these are “self-reported” data, particularly when it comes to someone’s ability to carry on a conversation in French. That is a limitation. But it has always been there, has remained constant, and has applied equally over time. More importantly, neither StatsCan, the ISQ, nor the OQLF has ever considered it serious enough to invalidate the data.

Some series go back to 1951, others to 1971. I used whatever was available. In one case, I did a little statistical archaeology and made it all the way back to 1901. The full analysis is available here.

Here’s the gist. Stick with me; you’ll quickly see where this is going.

Proportion of Quebecers Who Speak French, Since 1951

• The proportion is higher than it was 50 years ago.

• We are still near an all-time high.

• The proportion of Quebecers who speak only English has been cut in half.

Proportion of Quebecers With French as Their Mother Tongue, Since 1901

(I’m particularly proud of this one. I had to comb through ancient census volumes archived as PDFs. It was no picnic. Apparently, PDFs with hyperlinks weren’t really a thing in 1931.)

• There has been a slight decline in recent years because of immigration.

• English has fallen much more sharply and has also been cut in half.

• “Other” languages have filled the gap. These people and their children have all gone, or will all go, to school in French.

Here is the same series with “other” removed from the equation:

• Once you look only at English and French, it becomes pretty clear who gained ground.

Quebecers’ First Official Language Spoken, Since 1971

• A very slight, gradual, and recent dip. Keep in mind that the data points are ten years apart at first and then five years apart, which distorts the timeline.

• This is largely due to temporary immigration, since temporary residents have less incentive to learn French.

• The proportion of people who have French as their first official language spoken remains higher than the proportion who have it as their mother tongue.

• In other words, people in the “other” category eventually become francophones in practice, over one or two generations. Just not in six months.

Language Spoken Most Often at Home

• A recent dip because of temporary immigration.

• We are still roughly where we were 50 years ago.

• Once again, English has lost much more ground than French.

• “Other” languages are filling the gap.

The OQLF has also documented language transfers, cases in which Quebecers shift away from their original language or from the mother tongue of an immigrant parent.

Since Bill 101 was adopted, most of these transfers have favoured French. Since 2001, roughly 75% have.

What about language use in public?

Here are OQLF data from 2024 that I previously presented here.

The first chart shows the use of French in public and how it changed between 2016 and 2022, broken down by the language spoken at home. The second does the same for English.

• First chart: between 2016 and 2022, the proportion of Quebecers using French in public edged up. Admit it: you’re surprised!

• This was true of Montrealers, anglophones, allophones, and people who speak both French and English at home.

• Second chart: during the same period, the use of English in public declined. Admit it: you’re even more surprised!

• The same pattern held among anglophones, allophones, and people who speak both French and English at home. Even they are being drawn towards French.

Why? Here’s my theory: because our anglos love Quebec and live here. Because we rub shoulders every day, generally without the problems politicians like to exaggerate. Because they are our neighbours, our colleagues, our friends, our partners, our hockey coaches, and our piano teachers. Because, more than their parents and grandparents, they see the value in speaking French. Because they have left their own schools in droves for French schools, or turned their schools into immersion centres for the language of Félix Leclerc.

That doesn’t match what you see around you? That’s why we have data. Public policy cannot be based on impressions or gut feelings.

However you measure it, French is not “in decline.” There are fluctuations. It may even dip slightly. But a slight dip is not a decline.

The word “decline” is never used by StatsCan, the ISQ, or the OQLF. There have been a few exceptions, nearly all recent and politicized, which I noted here, near the end of the article.

But some politicians, helped along by media outlets that struggle to interpret percentages struggle to put the news in context, will still try to frighten us with this:

When what is really happening is this:

One last chart, this time showing absolute numbers.

Here is how the number of Quebecers in each mother-tongue group has changed over time.

The number of francophones, by this definition, has never stopped growing. The same goes for every other group. More people have arrived, and sooner or later, most will become francophones.

In short, while things are not perfect, French is doing pretty well. The 2026 census may move the needle because temporary immigration has risen since 2021. The operative word is temporary. Most of those who stay will eventually speak French, whatever the doomsayers may claim.

The fearmongers would also have us forget that Quebec has never been 100% francophone and that Bill 101 was never intended to make it so.

The goal was a common public language. Common, not uniform. And it worked.

These days, politicians and other agitators obsess over mother tongue and the language spoken at home.

First, that was never what Bill 101 or the Parti Québécois of 1977 set out to change.

Second, with immigration, mother tongue and the language spoken at home will inevitably change for a generation or two before shifting mainly towards French.

We have trouble grasping how this plays out on the ground.

I have told you before about my former roommate, Paolo. He arrived from Chile nearly 50 years ago. He grew up in Warwick. He studied in Quebec City, where he still lives. He had a child with a Tremblay.

Paolo speaks Quebec French just like you and me. He feels like a Quebecer. He is a Quebecer. French is his language. His Spanish is only so-so. Yet Paolo still counts against French in the mother-tongue statistics, 50 years after arriving in Quebec and 50 years after we assimilated him to the core.

His daughter has never known anything but Quebec. She lives in Quebec City and lives entirely in French. Yet the Education Ministry’s dashboard classifies her as a “second-generation immigrant.” That allows politicians to stage a melodrama outside a school, blaming Quebecers who have never known anything but Quebec for the deliberate neglect and decay of our public buildings.

“Second-generation immigrants” exist only as a bureaucratic category. In everyday life, there is another word for them: Quebecers.

One last example, since it’s getting late.

Marie, the sister of a friend, also came from somewhere else as a very young child.

Marie also counts against French in the mother-tongue statistics. And even though she speaks Quebec French just like you and me, Marie would have lit up the Education Ministry’s dashboard. A first-generation immigrant. Imagine that!

What does Marie do today? She teaches French, Quebec French, to immigrants.

Yet Marie still tips the statistics in the “wrong” direction.

Maybe, even now, we still have trouble accepting that Quebecers who came from elsewhere, and English-speaking Quebecers who speak French, really are Quebecers.

+++++++

The birth rate among Quebecers is nowhere near high enough to replace the population. No public policy has ever managed to turn that around.

Immigration is our only lifeline. Without it, extinction awaits. Not tomorrow morning, but eventually. Demographically and statistically, it is inevitable.

Immigration can be French-speaking, and immigrants can become French-speaking. It can allow us to preserve our linguistic distinctiveness in North America without French “declining.”

French may fluctuate a little. It will probably evolve. But it will still be here, in a Quebec that remains overwhelmingly French-speaking, bound together by the social glue of a common language, with welcoming and enlightened policies to promote French, far removed from those we have seen in recent years.

But before we get there, we will have to accept something more difficult, something lurking beneath all the things left unsaid whenever people talk about the “decline” of French.

There is another, very real decline at the root of our collective anxieties. In some ways, it hurts much more and is much harder to accept.

It is the decline of the French Canadian, the pure laine Quebecer, those descendants of settlers steeped in maple syrup, those remnants of New France, and the image we still sometimes have of them.

There is not much we can do about that decline.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

(Texte français disponible ici)

The first real leaders’ debate was held this Tuesday. Were you looking forward to it? I wasn’t, particularly, because I spent the entire day wondering what intelligent thing I could possibly write twenty minutes after the debate that you wouldn’t read a hundred times elsewhere, and I still haven’t come up with anything.

So we’ll start by talking about money, then the debate, then some other stuff that has nothing to do with the debate.

Let’s dive in!

How Much Are the Leaders Worth?

Louis Lacroix, a journalist with 98.5 FM, asked each party to provide a financial statement for its leader, and every one of them complied. Still, credit where credit is due for the transparency.

I turned the numbers into a chart. Here it is:

Oops! Sorry, that’s the version for Le Journal de Montréal.

Here’s the right one:

A few observations:

• Éric Duhaime’s assets are reported to the nearest $10,000;

• Christine Fréchette’s and PSPP’s assets are reported to the nearest $1,000;

• Charles Milliard’s assets are reported to the nearest $10;

• Ruba Ghazal’s assets are reported down to the cent: $1,008,092.82;

• Éric Duhaime drives a hybrid Volvo. I’m not sure his supporters will forgive him;

• Charles Milliard has a $49,000 car loan;

• PSPP has a $1,200 credit card balance and $81,000 in cash. He should pay off his card if he doesn’t want to incur interest;

• Ruba Ghazal lent $25,000 to her party. I didn’t realize things were going that badly for QS;

• Paul St-Pierre Plamondon received $1,775 in royalties in 2025. Perhaps I should reconsider my choice of career;

• Sol Zanette, Quebec Solidaire’s other co-leader spokesperson, has net assets of $254,810.44, and I don’t think anyone cares.

Face-à-Face-à-Face-à-Face-à-Face

For two hours on Tuesday, five politicians tried to talk over one another. For two hours on Tuesday, five million Quebecers tried to understand what they were saying.

Earlier in the day, LCN had assembled its panel to offer advice to the leaders.

A question for Fox News Quebec LCN: could you honestly assemble a more lopsided panel? Could you at least pretend?

(Two former federal Conservative staffers and Karima Brikh, a very conservative commentator who also happens to be Mathieu Bock-Côté’s partner, for anyone wondering.)

Later that evening, we were treated to an interview with a former MNA and former commentator, now a candidate for the same party she once represented.

How shall I put this? I don’t see a huge difference between Elsie Lefebvre the commentator, who promoted the PQ on LCN, and Elsie Lefebvre the candidate, who promotes the PQ on LCN.

Back to the debate, which was divided into three themes: “An Economy Under Strain,” “Our Taxes, Our Services,” and “Quebec’s Future.”

With five candidates, the head-to-heads produced ten different pairings, or x(x−1)/2. We got Duhaime–PSPP, Milliard–Fréchette, Duhaime–Ghazal, Fréchette–PSPP, Ghazal–Milliard, Milliard–Duhaime, PSPP–Milliard, Fréchette–Duhaime, Fréchette–Ghazal, and PSPP–Ghazal, and vice versa.

From time to time, Paul Larocque let everyone speak at once.

It then looked something like this:

Which, predictably, sounded like this:

My favourite screenshot of the evening remains this one:

Fifteen minutes after the debate ended, Mathieu Bock-Côté had already found time to write, edit, submit, and see published a column declaring Paul St-Pierre Plamondon the clear winner. I’m sure you’re just as surprised as I am.

An hour later, Léger released a poll of its own that also gave the PQ leader the win.

What did I think?

• PSPP is generally very articulate, and this debate was no exception. The only danger was that he might lose his temper. He didn’t.

• Éric Duhaime is an equally effective communicator, with an even stronger command of his ideas, whether they are good or bad.

• Charles Milliard was also very good. Natural, likeable, and occasionally incisive. Nothing like last week’s cringeworthy address to the nation.

• Ruba Ghazal’s indignation is sincere and well placed, but it is hard to take seriously someone who wants a government-owned grocery store and calls it “competition.”

• Things did not go well for Ms. Fréchette, who constantly interrupted others so she could squeeze in her canned, none-too-subtle lines.

In fact, when you think about it, the post-debate Léger poll fairly closely mirrors voting intentions among francophones for the PQ, QCP, QLP, and QS.

Image: Le Journal de Montréal

Source: Qc125.com

That confirms that the leaders generally met their respective electorates’ expectations: supporters saw what they expected to see. Christine Fréchette was the exception. She was clearly uncomfortable in a setting where she had to do more than recite canned answers.

At times, she managed to get through her talking points, but only to defend the indefensible, including her government’s record on homelessness (near-total neglect as homelessness rose 60% in eight years) and its health care “investments,” which are essentially the same hospital-renovation announcements already made two, three, or four times and which somehow never seem to come to fruition. (Maisonneuve-Rosemont, where are you?)

Ms. Fréchette was once again unable to answer a simple question: “Would you be able to represent the No side?”

Finally, Ms. Fréchette’s closing statement sounded like an unholy cross between a poorly rehearsed monologue and an old Au Bon Marché commercial.

One more debate like that, and the PQ won’t have to work very hard to win its majority.

Debate Leftovers, in No Particular Order:

• “The last time I saw a government-owned grocery store was when I went to Cuba.”
  — Éric Duhaime, to Ruba Ghazal

• “Canadian provinces are sovereign… within their areas of jurisdiction.”
  — Charles Milliard, to PSPP

• “I would like to address artists in the cultural community.”
  — Christine Fréchette, subtle as ever

• “We have a vision for society, not a pessimistic message.”
  — Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, trying to erase the last year

• “Quebec is in my gut.”
  — Charles Milliard, reaching into the Jean Charest playbook. Not sure about that one.

Dumb Dumas

The charming Quebec Conservative candidate in Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Dominique “DooM” Dumas, had taken care to scrub his social media accounts before entering politics.

Unfortunately for him, the internet has a long memory. Journalists have dug up numerous posts in which the would-be MNA insults an actress over her weight, attacks the founder of an organization that helps vulnerable young people, questions sexual-assault statistics, disparages the #MeToo movement, suggests that an artist turn to pornography, mocks Caitlyn Jenner after her transition, denounces the cancellation of a hazing game that promoted rape culture, and ridicules efforts to call out prostitution during the Montreal Grand Prix.

This poetic anthology comes on top of other comments in which the former shock jock radio host called people who disagreed with him “morons,” “fucking thieves,” and “airheads.”

In short, an articulate mind that will undoubtedly illuminate debate in the National Assembly, where Mr. Dumas still has a fairly good chance of winning a seat.

Today’s Baloney

“I’m certain I would have been a very good premier because I know how to surround myself with the right people.”

— Olivier Primeau, entrepreneur and special envoy for the CAQ, January 16, 2026

“Would I be a good premier? I’m certain I would, because one of my greatest strengths is knowing how to surround myself with the right people.”

— Olivier Primeau, January 19, 2026

He was “asking for a friend.”

— Olivier Primeau, reacting to the news that he had asked about the rules and launch date for the QLP leadership race.

Odds that Olivier Primeau wasn’t asking for himself: 😬

Odds that Primeau finds it awkward to campaign for the CAQ after considering a run for the QLP leadership: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

A Serious Issue

Stéphane, a homeless man, died a few days ago in Trois-Rivières, where Christine Fréchette is running.

People die every day. Homeless people just die a little more often, and it usually doesn’t make the news.

What is absurd is that there was a shelter not far from Stéphane’s tent, with 30 warm beds. They are closed until December because of a lack of funding.

What is even more absurd is that the premier visited Halte Douceur one week before Stéphane died. She was told that the shelter could not afford to open during the summer.

Image from the Le Soleil website.

Even in the winter, the shelter barely gets by. It needs $500,000 to stay open. Three years ago, it received $400,000 a year. Last year, it received $303,000. The people who run it have to beg for the rest to make it through the spring.

It would take another $1 million to shelter 30 people for a full year, give people in desperate straits a safer place to sleep, help them get back on their feet, and save a life now and then. The beds would always be full, according to the shelter’s managers.

After Stéphane died, Christine Fréchette promised to think about it.

“As for the warming-centre service, we will speak with our partners so that it can be available year-round in Trois-Rivières.”

It took another death to produce a bland statement that promises nothing and offers no apology.

In twenty years, the shelter’s managers have seen 296 homeless people die. Only one died of old age. Not Montreal. Trois-Rivières.

+++++

Homelessness has surged by 60% in eight years. It happened on the CAQ’s watch, but the same thing would have happened under another government.

Ten days ago, QLP leader Charles Milliard presented his party’s proposals on homelessness, promising to spend an additional $60 million a year.

“I would have liked us to put in a billion, but look, we’re $7 billion in the hole right now.”

I have no doubt that Mr. Milliard was sincere, because this is how politicians have always responded to homelessness.

“We’d like to.” “It isn’t possible.” “What can you do?”

Notice how, regardless of which party has been in power, there has always been money for dubious projects proposed by multimillionaires. If homeless people were multimillionaires, there would always be money for them.

I don’t know how much money it would take to solve homelessness in Quebec.

What I do know is that four parties are promising a bridge or tunnel of dubious usefulness between Quebec City and Lévis, the least expensive version of which would cost at least $3 billion.

I also know that the governing party, the party likely to form the next government, and the party likely to hold the balance of power have each introduced or promised tax breaks on groceries, used goods, or gasoline that will do almost nothing for most of us, except those who can afford to spend more, while costing the public treasury a fortune every year.

I also know that homelessness already costs all of us a fortune every year.

We can choose to spend that fortune while allowing misery to fester, or spend the same amount addressing it and helping those who want help and who, with our support, will move on.

Homelessness is a choice we make as a society.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

Three polls today. Tequila, Heineken, no time to mess around. Let’s dive in!

The CAQ Isn’t Really “Slipping,” but It Makes for a Good Headline

Léger had recently settled into a habit of releasing its polls on Tuesdays. Then Pallas scooped it with the first poll of the week, so Léger moved its release up to Monday this time. Synopsis jumped on the bandwagon, leaving us to start the week with three polls based on similar samples, conducted at the same time, and all telling the same story.

Source: Qc125.com

The Journal de Montréal, which always goes the extra mile to sell a story, ran a headline saying that the CAQ “slipped in third place”.

Just one problem: it isn’t true.

Even if we look only at Léger, the CAQ is at 22% and the QLP at 24%. With a margin of error of about three percentage points, the CAQ could be in third place, but it could just as easily be in second.

Average the three polls, and you get 23.66% for the CAQ and 23.66% for the QLP. Same difference.

And if you look for a trend since late August, you won’t really find one.

Source: Qc125.com

And the Award for Worst Poll Graphic Goes to…

I’ve mentioned the Journal de Montréal’s odd takes on polling data a few times now. It seems genuinely determined not to let the CAQ climb too much, even when the numbers are fairly inconclusive.

Fine. The pollster can say whatever he likes. It doesn’t change the numbers.

Last week, I pointed out a few peculiarities in the graphic showing the results of that day’s Léger poll.

Among other things, Christine Fréchette looked a little discouraged, Charles Milliard had the sun in his eyes (which rarely makes for a good photo), and poor Ruba Ghazal appeared to be suffering from cranial atrophy.

See for yourself:

At least the column heights were proportional to the numbers.

Here is what the Journal came up with today, based on essentially the same polling numbers.

Why does PSPP look like André the Giant when he is only six points ahead?

Shall we play spot the seven eight ten twelve errors?

• The PQ’s column is more than twice as tall as the QLP’s and three times as tall as the CAQ’s, despite leads of just six and eight points, respectively;

• The two-point gap between the QLP and the CAQ looks larger than the four-point gap between the CAQ and the QCP;

• Meanwhile, the seven-point gap between the QCP and QS looks smaller than the six-point Everest separating the PQ from the QLP;

• Christine Fréchette is smiling, but Charles Milliard is in the shade (could we get some neutral lighting, please?), and Ruba Ghazal has shrunk again;

• The PQ logo dwarfs all the others, while the QLP and QS logos have been reduced to the point of being barely visible because the full party names were left inside the circles (that was also true last week);

• The logos are not vertically aligned.

What the hell is this?

How does the Journal de Montréal make its charts? Is somebody measuring the column heights with an axe?

I took advanced math in CEGEP, and I have no idea what number base lets you multiply 21 by three and get 29.

Anyway, I remade the chart.

Do we agree that it doesn’t send quite the same message?

I also made the base black so the eye could properly read the proportions of the columns. (Yes, I’m a little anal-retentive about this sort of thing.)

I’ve worked in the newsrooms of three daily newspapers. I’ve seen preferences at work; journalists are like everyone else. But I’ve rarely seen outright bias. It can creep into the choice of a headline or photo, or even an angle or source. Sometimes it is deliberate. Most of the time, it isn’t.

It is hard to escape your preferences completely. Journalists are human (so am I!).

But I have to admit, I’m having a hard time explaining this one. I prefer to believe that someone laid it on too thick and got carried away.

Funny thing: a few minutes after I posted my corrected chart on Monday morning, a new version appeared on the Journal’s website.

Before on the left. After on the right.

I won’t claim credit because others pointed it out too. More than anything, it shows that someone at the Journal de Montréal saw the problem.

Éric Duhaime Prefers Immigrants from “Democratic” Countries

The QCP leader wants to change Quebec’s immigration criteria to favour newcomers who “share at least some of our values.” Country of origin would be taken into account, with points awarded “based on respect for democracy and women’s rights,” just as they are for proficiency in French. The treatment of sexual minorities would also factor in.

In short, he is playing the same game as the CAQ and the PQ.

The QCP is also calling asylum seekers’ free access to public schools into question and wants to cut their social assistance by 25%. Because apparently $845 a month is the Klondike.

(I wonder whether Mr. Duhaime really thinks it will help us if asylum seekers’ children cannot attend school because their parents cannot afford it.)

When asked for examples of undemocratic countries whose citizens Quebec should be wary of, Mr. Duhaime refused to name a single one.

You can see why.

First, because any answer could be deeply insulting to Quebecers who are themselves immigrants or the children of immigrants, many of whom came here to escape war or totalitarian regimes, from Kim Thúy to Dany Laferrière.

Second, because some of Mr. Duhaime’s own candidates come from places that are not exactly bastions of democracy, such as Haiti or Algeria. Did they infiltrate Quebec to corrupt our values? Should we test them, just to make sure?

And while we’re at it, what about Ivan Demidov? Russia does not care much for democratic rights, and things are even worse if you belong to a cultural or sexual minority. Demidov does not speak French either. Do we trade him before our values start going off the rails?

Third, excluding people based on their origin would also violate Quebec’s international obligations under the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. But the QCP does not give a damn about that. Neither does the CAQ. Nor, more recently, the PQ.

Yet excluding people based on where they come from now passes for an almost reasonable position, as though being an immigrant were inherently threatening.

One last question for Éric Duhaime: would he be game to give his old-stock supporters the same Quebec values test, on gender equality and minority rights? We might be in for a few surprises.

The (Conservative) False Statement of the Day

One last question for Éric Duhaime: would he be game to put his pure laine supporters through the same Quebec values test on gender equality and minority rights? We might be in for a few surprises.

Really?

I have news for Mr. Duhaime. Asylum claims are plummeting.

This was published less than two months ago.

In short, the number of asylum seekers in Quebec during the first five months of the year fell from 28,000 in 2024 to 16,000 in 2025, and then to 6,800 in 2026.

And here is the overall picture since 2017.

That “steady rise since 2017” has actually been a steady decline since 2023.

We are back to pre-Roxham levels, back when basic human decency was still considered normal.

This is what populism looks like. Éric Duhaime would probably say it doesn’t matter, because it isn’t the facts that count, but the message itself. And in the current climate, he would be absolutely right.

Speaking of populism, want to see what it looks like when a party turns its back on its own principles?

The PQ Reverses Course on Drinking and Driving

In February 2024, the QLP introduced a motion calling on Quebec to enter the 21st century catch up with every other Canadian province and virtually every Western country by imposing administrative penalties (fines and/or licence suspensions) on drivers with a blood alcohol level above 0.05.

Quebec is an outlier in the West, and even across the developed world. And, yes, lowering the threshold from 0.08 to 0.05 saves lives. I explain why here.

When your limit is twice Saskatchewan’s, something is wrong. Anyway, the CAQ, which has never missed an opportunity to base policy on evidence, voted against lowering it. Every other party voted in favour.

Here, incidentally, is what PQ MNA Pascal Bérubé said in a media scrum to justify his support for the Liberal proposal:

“Someone who gets behind the wheel while unfit to drive is just as dangerous in Matane as in a major city.”

When a reporter asked him whether there was greater tolerance for drinking and driving in the regions, here is what he said:

“You know, there are all kinds of stereotypes about the regions. And for 17 years, I’ve been working to combat them.”

Here is what Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said in October 2024, when the CAQ refused to study the 0.05 threshold:

“[The government] does not want to have to face experts or the science. It wants to put a lid on this issue.”

The scientific evidence is extensive. Experts and virtually every organization with any legitimate standing on the issue support lowering the threshold to 0.05. (I am not counting bar or restaurant associations.) Even the SAAQ, a government agency, supports the change.

More importantly, at the time, there were still political points to be scored by making the CAQ look bad.

Then, on Monday, parents whose daughter was killed by an impaired driver asked the parties to commit to revisiting the legal limit.

The CAQ Team Christine Fréchette, true to form, refused to take a stand.

The QCP, even truer to form, explained that such a measure “would unfairly penalize many citizens and business owners.” It is baloney, but at least it is consistent baloney, in keeping with the rest of the party’s fact-free arguments (see immigration above, among other things).

The QLP and QS stood by their previous positions.

The PQ looked at the polls, calculated how many votes it needed in the regions and the Quebec City area, and decided that “it is not part of our platform at this time.”

QLP Communications

Where’s Waldo? Charles finally appeared on the side of his party’s bus on Sunday, 18 days into the campaign.

Photo from Le Devoir.

Here is what it looked like before, complete with giant kindergarten drawings.

Photo from Radio-Canada’s website.

“I heard Quebecers say they wanted to see more of me,” Mr. Milliard said.

Junior stuff, as I wrote here.

The Campaign, as Seen from the Rest of Canada: Smile, Paul, Smile!

“Paul is Paul. I’ve already told him to laugh from time to time.”

A Parti Québécois veteran, quoted in the National Post.

-30-

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

Subscribe now

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

(Texte français disponible ici)

Yesterday, I told you exactly what I thought of the Parti Québécois’s ham-fisted proposal to cut the QST on gasoline in half. I had plenty of reasons, including the likelihood that oil companies would simply pocket the tax savings.

Today, I discovered that a party leader had already explained the problem quite well. Guess who?

Source: outgoing Environment Minister Pascale Déry’s account on X. (No relation, but we know each other. Hi, Pascale!)

You’re going to tell me this isn’t the first time he has changed his mind. And you’ll be right.

Before getting into the details, a quick roundup:

QS wants free transit for people 25 and under and 65 and over

In Montreal, transit has been free for seniors for the past three years. Their ridership has increased by 15 to 20 per cent. That means between 83 and 87 per cent of the seniors now riding for free were already using transit—and helping fund the chronically cash-strapped STM—before the policy was introduced.

My mother-in-law is a retired federal public servant. She doesn’t need us to pay her subway or bus fare.

Just help those who really need it.

The CAQ wants to cap Hydro-Québec rate increases at 3% a year

Same flawed logic as above: give everyone a blanket discount instead of charging according to use and then redistributing money to those who need it.

Or, if you prefer, the opposite of what Nordic social democracies generally do. And, on top of that, subsidize waste.

Norway did not get rich by selling its oil at a discount. It did so by putting the profits into its sovereign wealth fund. The nest egg of this country of six million people is now worth more than C$3 trillion. That is six times the assets of the Caisse de dépôt.

I’ll wrap up this section with a chart that captures the sheer scale of the opportunities we have squandered.

Translation : Average Electricity Price for Residential Customers

Source: La Presse

The CAQ wants to deregulate the alcohol market—in moderation

…particularly to encourage the sale of Quebec products. If it were bold, it would allow Quebec-made alcoholic beverages to be sold freely. Now that would be a real change.

The problem is that it would prove the SAQ no longer serves much purpose.

The QCP wants parents to choose their child’s school

…even within the public system, without being restricted by their home postal code. Éric Duhaime is also calling for a school system with “1,000 different speeds, almost one for every student,” and for local administrators to be given more leeway.

I’m inclined to favour the idea, for reasons I explain here.

The QLP wants to devote 5% of the health budget to prevention

…within 10 years. Now there’s a promise that will get the crowds fired up.

Charles Milliard also wants the scope of practice for different health professionals to be “fully expanded.” I agree with that, and I’ll discuss it below. Mr. Milliard also had the clarity and courage to say that it will take at least 10 years before we see a marked improvement in our health-care system. (A note to the QLP comms team: as part of the “statesman” image you’re trying to craft around Mr. Milliard, this is something that could have set him apart. Six months ago.)

Now for the pièce de résistance…

Let’s Talk Health Care with PSPP

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon reiterated his desire to abolish Santé Québec, the agency that now runs the health-care system in place of the Ministry of Health. I’ll get to the rest and come back to this in a moment.

The PQ is also calling for “stronger front-line care,” an all-purpose category that has appeared in every platform from every party since the dawn of time.

Apparently, even Samuel de Champlain used to talk about strengthening the front line around the fire on cold winter evenings in his Abitation in Quebec City. Of course, back then, the front line kept the Iroquois from attacking, which was rather important.

Seriously, though, unless we completely rethink the way we approach health care, this is nothing more than wishful thinking. We can talk about “strengthening” CLSCs all we want, whether with $150 million, as the PQ proposes, or nearly $10 billion, as Québec solidaire proposes—which, as Jean Perron might put it, is certainly not pulling out half the stops. None of it will make any difference if resources remain insufficient and if the incentives to use them properly and adopt best practices are inadequate. I’ll come back to that below as well.

Finally, the PQ leader wants to increase the number of medical students, as does the Conservative Party, which the Parti Québécois increasingly resembles. I agree with that too.

Taking an Axe to Santé Québec—and the Missed Opportunity of 2023

I completely agree with PSPP that we should take an axe to Santé Québec.

But not for the reasons PSPP has given.

The PQ leader estimates that eliminating redundant positions at the Ministry of Health and Santé Québec would save between $40 million and $100 million. That is not insignificant, but at the scale of this year’s gargantuan $69-billion health-care budget, it is peanuts.

Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon comes a little closer to the answer when he calls Santé Québec a “state within a state,” meaning that elected officials have less control over what happens at the agency. Santé Québec also seems immersed in a corporate culture that has led it to devote more attention to caring for its image than to caring for patients.

The dashboard introduced by former health minister Christian Dubé has been gutted several times. Today, it is barely recognizable, less comprehensive, and far less transparent.

The point of making indicators publicly accessible, a widespread practice throughout the Western world (and Ontario!), was not to hide how badly things were going, but to show it, so that we could understand and improve. Santé Québec seems to have forgotten that it is accountable to us and that the data belong to us.

It was also a little alarming that one of the first decisions made by its high-priced “Top Guns” was to hire consultants to define their mission.

Here you go: “Provide timely access to quality care.” That took me all of 10 seconds.

Because, over the years, I’ve had dozens of hours to think about it while waiting in emergency rooms.

In short, the overall impression is of people who don’t know what they’re doing and haven’t quite realized it yet. They spend a hell of a lot of time applying methods they picked up in their MBA programs, methods that have nothing to do with health-care best practices or sound public policy.

Unfortunately, the bad idea from 2023 is becoming a kind of bureaucratic “too big to fail” that must now be rescued, lest we end up with yet another failed reform and unforeseeable consequences.

Santé Québec has failed to demonstrate its usefulness and has turned out to be the same centralized monster, just in a different form.

But don’t touch it. Things could get even worse. We have no more time to waste; we need to focus all our attention on patients. And besides, if we defenestrate all these Top Guns, who will “run” the system?

The system itself.

There are already enough managers in every region, every hospital, every department, and every subdepartment. The hierarchy is so tall that those at the top are more likely to hinder than to help.

I wrote the following three years ago, when Santé Québec was being established:

“And that may be the greatest danger of the Dubé reform: that four or five years from now, we realize it has failed to produce the desired results and that we have to start all over again.

“If that happens, we’ll really be in trouble, and 2023 will look like the good old days.”

Basically, to spare you from reading all 5,800 words of it, here were my conclusions:

I had also added preventive care for seniors with the help of paramedics (which the QCP is proposing) and “an ideal form of federalism within Quebec’s health-care system.” That meant not only removing the ministry from day-to-day operations, but also allowing regional institutions (the CISSS and CIUSSS) to manage themselves, free from political interference, so they could innovate and be compared with one another, with local governance mechanisms in place.

Finally, I called for higher medical-school admission quotas. The government did that a few months later, in the summer of 2023, but we can raise them further if we want to catch up with Europe.

If you want to understand why Quebec is in such a bind, much of it starts here.

(Doctors per capita, OECD data.)

France and the Netherlands have roughly 25 per cent more doctors per capita than Quebec. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, and Germany have 50 per cent more. Italy and Austria have nearly twice as many.

Now imagine that, on top of having fewer doctors than almost anywhere else, Quebec reserves a broader range of procedures exclusively for physicians) and bars other professionals from performing them) than almost anywhere else. Almost everything has to go through doctors, but we don’t have enough doctors. That, in a nutshell, has been our health-care system for the past 40 years.

Things are improving, particularly for nurses and doctors, but we could still “faire mieux” (do better), to borrow a slogan from the last election campaign that has aged rather poorly.

Remember this?

Okay, don’t get mad!

Getting back to doctors, we also make poor use of them: Quebec family doctors spend too much time in hospitals, while specialists spend too little. We can thank Mr. Legault for that too.

A former vice-dean at the Université de Montréal once explained how Quebec could train more doctors, in less time, throughout the province. Perhaps it’s time we listened to him.

The False Statement of the Day

“After eight years under the CAQ, Quebecers can no longer afford what they could in 2018.”

— Charles Milliard, leader of the Quebec Liberal Party

I have a feeling I’ll have to repeat this again before the end of the campaign, but research by the Université de Sherbrooke’s Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance found an “improvement in the real financial situation of all households” between 2019 and 2026.

There is a perception that purchasing power has declined because pandemic-related government assistance ended in 2022. But over the period as a whole, we became better off, as our incomes grew faster than the cost of living.

The impoverishment of Quebecers makes for a convenient slogan.

The impoverishment of political discourse, unfortunately, is very real.

-30-

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

Subscribe now

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

(Texte français disponible ici.)

The PQ’s promise to lower gas prices takes up almost all the space today because it’s the kind of pork-barrel promise that royally gets on my nerves.

Basically, I’m a victim of Brandolini’s law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle: it takes less time to say something stupid than to debunk it.

There are numbers, but I promise I’ve kept things simple. I did the math. All you have to do is read as I methodically carve up the (political) pork, one slice at a time.

And because you’re such wonderful readers, I also have a few treats for you, courtesy of the QCP, which has once again found a way to push the envelope.

Let’s dive in!

The PQ Wants to Save You $1.40 a Week

If his party forms the next government, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is promising to cut the Quebec sales tax on gasoline in half and eliminate the double taxation of gasoline (Quebec’s fuel tax is itself taxable).

Basically, he would reduce the QST on gasoline from 10% (9.975% if you want to be very precise) to 5%, plus eliminate the effect of the tax-on-tax. The net result would be a discount of about seven cents per litre.

So far, so good. I mean, it’s pork-barrel politics (see the next section), but at least the math checks out.

That’s where the wheels come off.

“In concrete terms, for someone who fills a vehicle with 60 litres of gas every week, that represents savings of $220 a year,” Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon said.

In concrete terms, the PQ leader is way off base because his example is nowhere near representative of average gasoline consumption.

+++++++

In Quebec, a car travels an average of 12,435 kilometres a year, according to the most recent data, from 2022. Average fuel consumption is 8.1 litres per 100 kilometres.

That works out to 1,007.2 litres a year, or 20 litres a week.

That’s one-third of Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon’s dishonest misleading figure of 60 litres a week.

Twenty litres a week, with a discount of seven cents per litre, works out to savings of $1.40 a week. Or $73 a year.

Seventy-three dollars. A year.

For context, the median after-tax family income in Quebec for a couple with two or more children is about $130,000.

To quote Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon at length:

“As a father of three, I understand what it’s like to try to juggle a budget when food costs more, rent or mortgage payments cost more, cars and transportation cost more, and then there’s clothing and gasoline,” Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said in front of a gas station displaying a price of $1.89 per litre.

Break out the tissues.

Why did the Parti Québécois choose a consumption figure of 60 litres a week when it bears no resemblance to reality?

There are several possibilities, and they are not mutually exclusive.

• Because someone plucked a number out of thin air without checking it;

• Because someone did check it and decided that $73 a year would look insignificant, especially compared with the cost to the public treasury;

• Because the party is targeting voters who like bigger engines;

• Because the party is targeting voters who can’t count.

• Because we know it pays politically to get people worked up about gas prices.

I could stop here. But there’s more.

The increase in gas prices that we spend so much time decrying doesn’t exist. That’s because the real price of gasoline has been the same for 20 years.

The pale line shows the average posted price at gas stations. The orange line shows the price adjusted for inflation. There was an increase between the late 1990s and the mid-2000s. Since then, it has been broadly stable. There was an increase this year, but it followed a decline.

Since 2006, the price of a litre of our daily addiction has fluctuated between $1.50 and $2.00, most often hovering between $1.70 and $1.90. You can read the detailed explanation here.

How much did gasoline cost in Montreal this summer?

Between $1.70 and $1.90, according to the Régie de l’énergie. The same damn range as for the past 20 years.

Let’s read a few excerpts from the PQ news release together.

“In response to a significant increase in gasoline prices in recent years.”

(…)

“I completely understand Quebecers who feel that everything costs more than it did before the pandemic: food, rent, mortgages, cars, clothing, and especially gasoline.”

(…)

“Especially since, over the past eight years, the price of a litre of gasoline has jumped from $1.29 to more than $2.”

There’s an awful lot of misrepresentation and cherry-picking packed into those statements.

Claim No. 1: “Everything costs more than it did before the pandemic (…) especially gasoline.”

That’s true… except for gasoline. As for everything else, our incomes have generally risen even faster. As a result, we are, on average, financially better off than we were before the pandemic.

Allow me to quote the Université de Sherbrooke’s Research Chair in Taxation and Public Finance, which I previously mentioned here when discussing the proposal to eliminate sales tax on used goods.

“The overall picture from 2019 to 2026 shows an improvement in the real financial situation of every type of household.”

Clear enough? The PQ is hardly alone here. All the parties, along with the media, are playing along.

Back to gasoline.

Claim No. 2: “In response to a significant increase in gasoline prices in recent years.”

We’ve just seen that this isn’t true.

Claim No. 3: “Over the past eight years, the price of a litre of gasoline has jumped from $1.29 to more than $2.”

• It isn’t true that the real price of gasoline has “jumped.” It has fluctuated, both up and down;

• The September 2018 price of $1.29 would be equivalent to about $1.80 today. By comparison, the average price of gasoline in 2026, from January through the end of August, was $1.73;

• “More than $2.” Not true either. Province-wide, the weekly average price of gasoline has never exceeded $2. The peak was $1.97 in May;

• In Montreal and Laval, the weekly average edged slightly above $2 on three occasions (in May, peaking at $2.02), and another in Montreal in August, barely (2.005). That’s it. Everywhere else in Quebec, the weekly average never reached $2, except in Nord-du-Québec.

The PQ even goes out of its way to mention Radisson in its news release, where the price per litre briefly reached $2.37.

Do you know where Radisson is?

If I had to bet, I’d wager that gasoline isn’t the only thing that costs more there. Ice cream and Corn Flakes probably do, too.

I could stop here as well. But there’s more.

Average vehicle fuel consumption fell by about 11% over the same period. That means that, for the same number of kilometres driven, our inflation-adjusted fuel costs have also fallen by about 11%. Keep in mind that we’re still talking about 2022. With the growing number of hybrid models, the decline is probably even greater in 2026.

And average mileage per vehicle is trending downward. I’d bet at least $1.40 a week that remote work has something to do with it.

So, the savings announced by the PQ are misleading, gasoline doesn’t cost more, and we tend to use less of it.

In other words, all the public, political, and media fuss over gas prices is rooted in distorted perceptions, especially the gap between the posted price and the real price once inflation is taken into account. The same is generally true of the cost of living.

You won’t hear a politician tell you that. It’s easier to say that everything is going badly and blame the party in power for your problems.

The worst part is that the other half of the Parti Québécois proposal is perfectly defensible: giving $125 a year to Quebecers earning less than $40,000. All the effort should go into increasing that amount, while leaving the gasoline tax alone.

Finally, if you want driving to cost less, tell governments to let more Chinese electric vehicles into the country.

After Godwin’s Law, the Pork-Barrel Rule

Godwin’s law holds that any online discussion that drags on long enough will inevitably include a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis.

In Quebec politics, any discussion that drags on long enough will eventually conclude that the gasoline tax needs to be cut. This is nothing new. Jacques Parizeau reached that conclusion when he was a minister in René Lévesque’s second government more than 40 years ago. Mr. Parizeau eventually acknowledged that it had been a mistake.

Because it costs the public treasury a fortune without making any real difference in people’s wallets. Because oil companies always pocket a good share of the tax cut. Because fuel taxes help pay for our pothole-riddled roads. And, today, because we’re trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Forty years after Parizeau’s mistake, public debate in Quebec still invariably ends with the conclusion that the gasoline tax needs to be cut.

The QCP promised to do it because its political business model essentially consists of promising voters whatever they want to hear. Populism 101.

We might have expected better from the Parti Québécois. In another era, when the PQ still had principles, it would have appealed to reason, explained why it didn’t want to go down that road, and left the populism to the QCP.

But when I see how collectively unhinged we can become whenever gas prices come up, I almost understand the politicians.

Today’s Absolutely Terrific Quote

“No one of any calibre will be able to run for office anymore. We’ll end up with nothing but people whose lives are so boring, who are so beige, so neutral, and so empty.”

Éric Duhaime, QCP leader and martyr, whose idea of a candidate with “calibre” includes conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, 51st-state supporters, people who lie under oath, and other perfectly reasonable individuals who compare their political opponents to Nazis.

The quote comes from an episode of the series Lambert en campagne that will air shortly.

(I do have a question, though. I understand the need to frame the shot, but was it really necessary to seat the host quite so close to his guest? It looks as though Mr. Duhaime is trying to escape.)

For two days in a row, Mr. Duhaime has complained that people are asking him about his candidates’ antics instead of his proposals.

Today, things reached another level. Judge for yourselves.

Allow me to translate :

Quebec Conservative Candidate Lied in Court After Vandalizing a Sugar Bush Owned by a Couple in Their 70s

A Superior Court judge described Jimmy Gagnon’s testimony as “fanciful” and entirely lacking in credibility

It looks like a parody. It isn’t.

I’d be tempted to say there’s nothing to add, but that would mean passing up a golden opportunity to understand the kind of rabid anti-everything cranks who make up part of the QCP’s base and candidate roster.

In short, following a dispute over the boundary between two properties, Conservative candidate Jimmy Gagnon decided to help himself to part of his neighbours’ land, even though a land surveyor had determined that he was in the wrong. Mr. Gagnon then cut the water and electricity lines, ripped out the maple sap lines, and blocked his 77- and 79-year-old neighbours from accessing their own property.

Once in court, Mr. Gagnon lied and changed his story several times. The judge described his testimony as “fanciful.”

When asked about it, Jimmy Gagnon replied that “it was a civil boundary dispute between two businessmen.” Of course.

Éric Duhaime, meanwhile, dismissed the situation as a “dispute between neighbours.” Of course. As though both sides shared the blame.

On Friday, Mr. Duhaime was asked whether lying in court should disqualify someone from becoming an MNA. The QCP leader said that we would need to “know the context in which it happened.”

The “context,” dear Éric, was sworn testimony before a judge. I don’t think that helps your candidate.

At least there’s still karma.

The QCP has a few serious candidates (hi, Adrien!), but it also made a deliberate choice to scrape the bottom of the barrel by recruiting clowns whose sole qualification was their ability to mobilize an electorate that is largely anti-establishment, conspiracy-minded, or both, and fuelled by misinformation.

Today, Éric Duhaime is partly reaping what he sowed, even if he will soon be rewarded with a handful of seats. That could be entertaining.

Which brings us to…

Today’s Other Absolutely Terrific Quote

“If people who lie weren’t allowed to sit in the National Assembly, I can tell you right now that we wouldn’t have 125 MNAs as we speak.”

Éric Duhaime, who knows a thing or two about lies himself.

I have to give him that one. It’s sad, but it’s true.

For those who are interested, I’ve documented blatant lies by François Legault (in French), Jean-François Roberge, and Christine Fréchette on this platform.

I could make a full-time job of it and still not keep up.

-30-

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

Subscribe now

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

For a change, we’re going to hand out a few flowers before taking some potshots.

Don’t worry, it won’t take too long. I’m well aware that you’re not here to hear me sing our politicians’ praises. Still, we have to acknowledge good ideas if we don’t want to become cynical. Or simply unpleasant. I’d like to avoid that.

Today, we have three very good public policy ideas. That gives me hope.

Québec solidaire wants a universal school lunch program

Here it is.

It’s common sense, and Canada, including Quebec, is an outlier among Western countries. Yes, it would mean providing lunch to children whose families can afford it. But for the children who need it, the harm caused by doing nothing (and, conversely, the benefit of providing lunch) is so great that a universal program is necessary.

This is why we need Québec solidaire: to serve as the social conscience of other parties that are too often caught up in electoral calculations.

I hope the other parties pick this one up. I have only one request, since bad bureaucratic instincts can easily derail this kind of program: let’s be creative about keeping costs reasonable. It can be done.

The CAQ wants to invest $400 million in worker retraining

Here it is.

Some 25,000 workers would be able to retrain. The estimate seems to have been done on the back of an envelope and on the lower side ($400 million for 25,000 workers works out to $16,000 per worker), but the principle is excellent.

I would go further.

The federal Employment Insurance program, created in an era when people worked for the same employer their entire lives, no longer works. It discourages people from pursuing training while unemployed because claimants can be penalized for being unavailable for work. This pushes them to take the first job that comes along, diminishing the value of the human capital the program is supposed to protect.

Education and vocational training already fall under provincial jurisdiction. Employment Insurance should be aligned with them. A sensible “nationalist” demand? Imagine that!

My dream would be to offer up to two years of Employment Insurance benefits, enhanced for people enrolled in training, thereby transforming our entire approach to career transitions.

In the 21st century, in an economy that is changing quickly and unpredictably, keeping our workforce (that means us!) skilled and productive should be a public policy priority. Our programs should be designed around the idea that having several distinct phases over the course of a career is perfectly normal.

Charles Milliard wants more remote work for public servants

A Liberal government would scrap the requirement that public servants be in the office three days a week.

For those who missed that episode, the government has not enough office space for its employees since increasing the requirement from two to three days a week. Then there is “tele-presenteeism”: commuting to the office only to attend virtual meetings with colleagues. Utter nonsense, all because Cruella Minister France-Élaine Duranceau wants public servants to spend a little more time at the office.

Charles Milliard therefore wants to end the one-size-fits-all policy and have in-office requirements determined on a case-by-case basis.

I would go further.

The government should promote full-time remote work wherever possible, lead by example, and encourage other employers to follow suit. Perhaps retain one day a week in the office, although even that depends on the field and the nature of the work.

It would reduce congestion and pollution, ease the sardine-can conditions on public transit at rush hour, give people more time for themselves, their families, and sleep, and, most importantly, make employees happier.

No serious study has shown that remote work has a consistent effect on productivity. There are all sorts of ways to ensure that a reasonable level of productivity is maintained, and our experience since the pandemic speaks for itself.

Beyond that, we all have our personal preferences, and that’s fine. But for those who are comfortable with remote work and whose jobs allow it, I just want to say: “Because it’s 2026.”

That makes three flowers. Enough for today. Ready for the potshots?

PSPP wants Quebec’s “fair share” of a high-speed rail project that cannot exist without Quebec

The CAQ, the Quebec Liberal Party, and Québec solidaire support the proposed high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto.

The Quebec Conservative Party opposes it, although there is at least a certain intellectual consistency between that stance, its opposition to the tramway in Québec City, and its leader’s rhetoric. He regularly denounces the “war on cars” and generally couldn’t care less about public transit. My car, my choice.

As for the Parti Québécois, one gets the impression that this is less about opposing high-speed rail than opposing anything that comes from Ottawa. In June, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon blew a gasket over the “Canadian unity train,” as though he were being asked to swear allegiance to the statue of John A. Macdonald.

It caught everyone by surprise, including members of his own caucus. Here, incidentally, is what Joël Arseneau, the Parti Québécois MNA for Îles-de-la-Madeleine, had to say about the high-speed rail project in February 2025. And yes, the estimated cost was already known at the time.

Look how delighted he is to talk about high-speed rail. Everyone loves trains. Well, almost everyone.

There are good reasons to oppose high-speed rail. Some people advocate high-frequency rail instead, which could accomplish much of the same thing at a fraction of the cost. I’ll have an opportunity to come back to that.

But the “Canadian” nature of the project is not a good reason. Trains connect different countries throughout Europe, and you can travel by train from Montreal to New York.

I’m pretty sure PSPP is not thinking of severing rail and air links with the rest of Canada if Quebec became independent. (Right?)

On Thursday, in addition to opposing the high-speed rail project, PSPP once again demanded Quebec’s “fair share,” roughly $40 billion, since a Parti Québécois government would withdraw from the project.

Would you like fries with that?

Without Quebec, there would be no high-speed rail project. Because most of the stations would be located in Quebec, including Montreal, the project’s largest potential passenger market after Toronto.

Let’s summarize the method:

1. Complain that federalism does not generate enough benefits for Quebec.

2. Watch an Everest of federal investment and economic spinoffs materialize in Quebec.

3. Realize that federalism can work, undermining one’s (political) reason for being.

4. Experience cognitive dissonance and start climbing the walls.

5. Promise to torpedo the project.

6. Demand the “fair share” of a project that no longer has any reason to exist.

For context, the same sort of intellectual contortion led the Parti Québécois leader to condemn as “federal interference” Ottawa’s financial role in securing the Churchill Falls agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the federal contracts awarded to the Davie shipyard in Lévis and the Alstom plant in La Pocatière.

As my grandmother used to say, some people are never happy.

The CAQ doesn’t like journalists asking questions

While visiting the Saguenay, Team-Christine-Fréchette-Coalition-Avenir-Québec (I can’t wait to see what that looks like on the ballot) added a media scrum to its schedule.

The two reporters accompanying her across Quebec, from La Presse and Radio-Canada, did not get to ask any questions because the sociopaths on Ms. Fréchette’s communications team decided that the outgoing premier would take questions only from local reporters.

Move along, Montrealers. Nothing to see here.

Why? Because it is easier to control the message that way. Local reporters tend to ask about local issues, and those answers are then reported by local media.

By contrast, those damned national media outlets are always trying to put candidates on the spot with awkward questions that can generate unwelcome headlines and make life harder for spin doctors. Which brings us to…

Christine Fréchette, non-practising sovereigntist

The leader of Team Christine Fréchette was pressed by reporters who tried to make her either acknowledge or deny her inner sovereigntism.

It’s amusing on several levels.

First, Ms. Fréchette served as an adviser to Jean-François Lisée, a former Parti Québécois leader, when Lisée was a minister in Pauline Marois’s government. That gives us a pretty good idea.

Second, it shouldn’t even matter. The idea behind the CO-A-LI-TI-ON Avenir Québec was to establish a kind of truce between federalists and sovereigntists, allowing the two camps to join forces to take power move Quebec forward. Bernard Drainville, the outgoing Pork barrel politics Economy minister, is a sovereigntist. So is Mathieu Lacombe, the outgoing culture minister. And then there is, of course, the CAQ’s founder and former leader, François Legault.

Nobody believed that François Legault had fundamentally become a federalist, even though, after several torture sessions being asked the question repeatedly, he eventually managed to whisper the words. Deep down, Mr. Legault is surely still a sovereigntist, but he tried something else after concluding that sovereignty was going nowhere.

There is nothing shameful about that. René Lévesque himself showed some openness to the Beau Risque, the “beautiful risk” offered by Brian Mulroney: formally bringing Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional fold “with honour and enthusiasm.” Sovereignty was not necessarily an end in itself, but a means. What if Canada could meet Quebec’s legitimate aspirations?

Ms. Fréchette probably stands in much the same place politically as Mr. Legault (and is every bit as interested in power as her predecessor was). She could openly describe herself as a non-practising sovereigntist. That is essentially what her series of non-answers amounted to.

“My personal position doesn’t matter.”

“I’m in a position where this is not the time to start that process.”

“That is not a relevant consideration.”

“We are a coalition, and we are convinced that this is the worst possible time to launch a referendum process.”

At least nobody can accuse her of lying. But at this point, she might as well admit it.

Late that afternoon, Ms. Fréchette explained in a campaign video that she had “evolved,” before serving up a salad of clichés.

I still give her an eight out of ten. You be the judge.

“Shame” and purity

Charles Milliard, meanwhile, says it is “shameful” that Ms. Fréchette is unable to state a clear position.

Tsk. Such strong language. That delightful old strategy of “defining your opponent.” Or, if you prefer, throwing enough mud and hoping some of it sticks.

I have a question for Mr. Milliard.

Is it “shameful” that his party recruited influencer and public educator Farnell Morisset, who said he was “comfortable” with considering independence if the federal government failed to meet Quebec’s demands?

There are undoubtedly many Quebecers who, like Ms. Fréchette and Mr. Morisset, are neither completely federalist nor completely sovereigntist. It’s more Yvon Deschamps than Elvis Gratton.

Demanding ideological purity is easy within a political movement. Mr. Milliard should remember that he claims to want to lead all Quebecers, whatever their political leanings.

Given the QLP’s current level of support, it probably wouldn’t hurt the party if sovereigntists who do not want a referendum felt there might be room for them, too.

Quote of the day on temporary immigrants

“We need these people, so we want them to stay. […] Everyone who is working right now and helping Quebec weather the current economic crisis, we want them to stay.”

—Charles Milliard, leader of the QLP, speaking about temporary immigrants currently living in Quebec.

If I were the Liberal leader, I would campaign on that every day, everywhere, for the rest of the campaign.

Because it is a fundamental issue in an aging society that needs more and more services of every kind, but lacks the workers to provide them.

And because the way we have treated many of these people in recent years is shameful. Truly shameful.

Well, I added a fourth flower. Don’t get used to it.

-30-

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Did you watch the leaders’ debate that wasn’t really a debate? I was busy writing this, hoping not to finish at 3 a.m. yet again—and, more importantly, to get this newsletter to you at a halfway reasonable hour.

(I was still surprised by how many people read the newsletter within the first hour after it was published. I hope the Substack notification didn’t wake you up!)

Earlier in the day, Christine Fréchette seized on the tariff threat to try to get people to call her “Captain Quebec.” I imagine her strategists were worried she might become “Captain Canada” in spite of herself.

Before this turns into a fight, I have a costume for everyone.

Once again, I have to thank everyone who has made the leap to a paid subscription. More of you join every day, and it’s wonderful.

Let me reiterate my not-so-secret ambition: I want to make this publication a viable project. There is still a long way to go, and you can help. Right this way:

Subscribe now

OK, let’s dive in!

Duhaime loses control of the message (and his temper)

On Wednesday, the Conservative Party released its fiscal framework. Its significant tax cuts for individuals and businesses would be financed by eliminating most government subsidies and developing shale gas. Public services would not be affected.

We may never find out. Anyway the Conservative leader was mostly questioned about his star-studded team, whose ranks grow every week. Duhaime, usually affable, eventually lost patience and told reporters, “I don’t like your questions.”

LOL

There’s a very simple solution, Éric: stop recruiting clowns.

The two newest world champions are, respectively, an anti-abortion pastor who supports conversion therapy for gay people, and a former mayor who compared Justin Trudeau to a Nazi. The first withdrew, presumably at Duhaime’s request. The second is still there. For now.

Despite the many cranks in the QCP’s ranks, including anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, 51st-state supporters, and assorted boors, this is, unless I’m mistaken, the first Conservative candidate to be forced out.

By comparison, the QLP is already up to eigth, albeit including withdrawals. In this case, perhaps the problem lies more with the QCP than with the QLP.

The (contradictory) quote of the day

“There is a great deal of money [for infrastructure]. Our approach is to say: let’s focus more on maintenance and put an end to ribbon-cutting syndrome.”

– Adrien Pouliot, former Conservative Party leader, now a candidate and highly hypothetical future finance minister

I couldn’t agree more. That reminds me: since we’re talking about putting an end to ribbon-cutting syndrome, what would happen to the QCP’s promise to build a third link at a cost of $3 billion?

Fréchette agrees that people should pay for access to ministers

Two years ago, François Legault looked bad when it emerged that the CAQ was selling access to ministers through fundraising cocktails. The scheme was so blatant that a tally showed that half of Quebec’s mayors and prefects had felt compelled to donate to the party between 2021 and 2023.

Seventeen employees from the same construction firm had also attended a cocktail featuring Pierre Fitzgibbon, the former minister of everything. Perhaps they had all gone to school with him.

Mr. Legault eventually stopped accepting individual donations for a year. He also stopped having ministers attend fundraising cocktails.

Ms. Fréchette thinks it would be a good idea to start again.

As the CAQ slogan says, Avançons!

The Parti Québécois wants to drive home prices even higher

Well, that’s probably not what the PQ wants, but that’s what will happen if it wins the election and follows through on its latest promise.

The PQ actually wants to help first-time buyers by refunding the QST on the purchase of a new home, up to $45,000. It also wants to double the first-time home buyers’ tax credit, increasing it from $1,400 to $3,000.

How do you explain this to a politician… Where is Uncle George when you need him?

Paul wants to buy a house. Christine, Charles, Éric, and Ruba want to buy the same house because there are no other relatively affordable ones in the friendly neighbourhood.

Paul, Christine, Charles, Éric, and Ruba will scrape together every last dollar and borrow from their parents if they can, because their choice is this house or several more months in an apartment. They don’t want that.

Except that for Paul and Christine, it would be their first home. All else being equal, they would therefore have another $45,000 to offer.

And that, my dear little friends, is how home prices end up rising, because governments AL-WAYS throw money at demand without doing anything about supply.

Think of the FHSA, the epitome of a tax-policy contraption, which offers the advantages of both the TFSA and the RRSP without the respective drawbacks of either. Not to mention that the people who can afford to invest in one are already better off to begin with.

(Uncle George would have been funnier, but I hope that was clear.)

+++++++

Most politicians probably understand this. At least, I hope they do.

What most politicians understand above all, however, is that if they give money to targeted groups, it can turn into votes, even when doing so is harmful to society as a whole.

The phenomenon is so deeply embedded in government decision-making that it was developed into an economic theory, public choice theory, in the 1960s. Its originator eventually received a Nobel Prize in 1986.

Perhaps the Nobel Foundation should consider offering a special prize to whoever figures out how to stop politicians from promising nonsense.

Why does PSPP avoid criticizing Donald Trump?

On Monday, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said of Donald Trump’s threats against Bombardier that “it’s just a tweet.”

In Tuesday’s newsletter, I explained that it might be worth taking seriously, since Donald Trump’s executive decisions often begin with a social media post.

I am convinced that Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, an intelligent man, knows all of this. There is clearly a strategy behind the Parti Québécois’s approach to Donald Trump. I’ll come back to that shortly.

In the meantime, here is the front page of the Wichita Eagle, a Kansas newspaper, this Wednesday.

Image via Le Journal de Montréal.

Trump’s threat was also covered by the following media outlets: the New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, The Hill, Business Insider, the Financial Times, The Guardian, El País, Folha de S.Paulo, The Times of India, Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, and Reuters.

Even Fox News, a mouthpiece for Donald Trump and the Republican Party, covered it.

It may be “just a tweet,” but just about everyone concluded that it could go further.

Which brings us to the next point.

If you’re under the impression that the Parti Québécois, and its leader in particular, have been going easy on Donald Trump in recent months, you’re not imagining things. I discuss it in greater detail here.

In fact, PSPP clarified today that he prefers the term “trade conflict” to “tariff war.”

The softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States is a “trade conflict.” What we are living through, with repeated threats and attacks intended to make us cave, against the backdrop of repeated annexation threats, is indeed a “war.”

Radio-Canada, Le Journal de Montréal, La Presse, and Le Devoir all use “guerre commerciale” (trade war) almost systematically in their headlines.

English-language media in Canada generally call it a “trade war,” not a “trade dispute” or “trade conflict.” So do American media.

Le Monde, Le Figaro, the BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, El País, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung all speak of a “trade war” or use its Spanish or German equivalent.

So does the prestigious weekly The Economist.

Why does PSPP resist using the term? I’ll venture an explanation.

There are 18 ridings in the greater Quebec City region, including the South Shore.

The Conservative Party is the clear favourite there, in part because it benefits from propaganda support favourable coverage from local talk radio. If the election were held today, it could win 10 seats.

They are shown in black below. The map comes from the indispensable Qc125.com.

Current projections give the PQ 54 seats. The threshold for a majority in the National Assembly is 64 seats.

The majority PSPP covets may lie in Conservative territory.

The QCP is weaker outside the Quebec City region, but it still draws 16% support outside the major urban centres, and 10% in Greater Montreal. In close races, peeling even a few points away from the QCP could make the difference.

It so happens that Conservative supporters are generally more favourable toward Donald Trump (and far more likely to believe conspiracy theories, particularly those concerning the integrity of Quebec elections).

The Parti Québécois has taken note. It is no accident that it recruited Radio X host François Gariépy, who would be more at home in the Conservative Party. And it is probably no accident that PSPP goes easy on Donald Trump while concentrating his attacks on Ottawa and Christine Fréchette.

He does not want to alienate the Conservative supporters whose votes he also hopes to win. I don’t know whether that is a winning strategy. Perhaps it is.

It also reveals a rather flexible set of moral principles when dealing with a liar and a bully.

The (very naïve) quote of the day

“We can’t always keep responding to counter-tariffs with more counter-tariffs. We’re going to have to sit down with the U.S. administration and see where each side can make gains.”

– Charles Milliard, leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, who wants to “negotiate” with the United States. Mr. Milliard also wants to put himself, “with empathy,” in the U.S. government’s shoes.

Good grief. Where do I begin?

Dear Mr. Milliard,

What do you think the Canadian government has been trying, as best it can, to do for the past year?

How do you think anyone can negotiate with a narcissistic sociopath who lies compulsively, feeds on attention and flattery, prefers dictators to democrats, courts his enemies, and repeatedly vilifies his allies, sometimes threatening to invade them? And, also, a man who built a business empire through intimidation, wrote published a book about the art of swindling his business partners, and surrounded himself with people who think like him?

Allow me to quote Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, who described his delightful view of international relations:

“We live in a world, in the real world (…) that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

“These are the iron laws of the world.”

And also:

“We are a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.”

Try “negotiating” “with empathy” with that.

Or, as Winston Churchill said:

“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”

Best regards to you and your communications team, and good luck with what comes next,

Patrick

+++++++

A few times over the course of this election newsletter, I have criticized the Liberal team for their leader’s lack of visibility.

I must correct myself. Mr. Milliard has indeed been much more visible and much more present in the public debate over the past few days.

I’m not sure it is doing him any favours.

-30-

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Last soccer night of the season. My wonderful teenage girls, whom I’ve told you about before, fought hard and even took the lead in the first half. But with two players missing, they ran out of gas and eventually went down to defeat. It was a great game to close out the season, and I promise this is the last time I’ll use my daughter’s soccer as an excuse for publishing late.

From now on, I’ll blame my son’s hockey.

Now, the campaign. A few words about this stupid and counterproductive trade war with our neighbours, since it will loom over the remaining weeks of the campaign.

Canada’s counter-tariffs of 15% to 50% have taken effect on hundreds of American products, from mozzarella cheese and paper towels to sportswear, screws and bolts, tools, appliances, furniture, and so on. The Quebec government has also announced measures to encourage buying local, particularly for government contracts.

The net result is that everything will cost us more. Because we’ll pay more tax on imported products. Because the government will do business with suppliers that otherwise would not have won the contracts. (The lowest-bidder rule is another story.)

Premier Christine Fréchette calls it a “shield”. In reality, it’s a bill we will all share. There’s a reason we produce maple syrup and buy our oranges from Florida: doing the opposite would cost more. Tariffs can change trade flows, but they do not change the comparative advantages of a region or country.

PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, who has apparently been spending a lot of time lately with liberal economists (in the philosophical sense of the word), opposes dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs and advocates targeted tariffs with corresponding assistance. Economic theory and the experience of the past few months generally support his position.

Politically and strategically, it’s less clear-cut. On one hand, sociopaths like Trump feed on their opponents’ apparent weakness, and failing to respond could encourage him to go further.

On the other, when facing a much stronger opponent who has lost touch with reality and has no problem taking on dangerous levels of debt to indulge his whims, there is also a risk of being dragged into a tariff spiral. We probably aren’t too far from that scenario. Bring on the midterms, and let’s hope the Democrats win at least the House of Representatives.

I’m still left with the impression that we’re collectively shooting ourselves in the foot to make up for the punches our neighbour has landed on our face.

The Quote That Aged Badly, Fast

“It’s a tweet, and I told you I don’t comment on tweets.”

- PSPP during a media scrum, discussing Donald Trump’s threat to shut Bombardier out of the U.S. market unless the company built aircraft in the United States. On Tuesday morning, Bombardier shares fell 7%, before recovering some of the lost ground and closing down 2.5%.

(I wanted to add this yesterday, but that day’s instalment was already quite generous. I figured I’d have an opportunity to revisit it sooner rather than later…)

The problem is that President Trump’s policies often begin with an announcement on social media.

It is worth noting that Bombardier already employs thousands of workers in 20 states and does business with 2,800 companies across 47 states. But technically, since Learjet production ended, final assembly of its aircraft has taken place in Canada. Maybe that’s what bothers Mr. Trump. Who knows? With a little luck, he’ll have forgotten about it by tomorrow.

The Quebec government has sunk $2 billion into Bombardier over the past decade or so. It’s now worth nothing. The bill could rise even further if the government had to rescue Bombardier from the damage caused by a trade war.

When the Pollster Gets Tangled Up (Again)

A new poll today, with little change from yesterday’s or from the general trend over the past week.

Stick with me anyway. This is worth discussing.

Here it is:

Ms. Fréchette looks sorry she couldn’t close the gap with the PQ. Charles Milliard has the sun shining directly in his face. Ruba Ghazal’s head has gone through the shrink ray.

You also have to wonder why the PQ logo is larger.

Meanwhile, the QLP and QS logos are ridiculously small because someone decided to squeeze the parties’ full names into the circles.

It’s the kind of thing you notice in ten seconds when you’ve spent a few years doing page layout (as I have), and in less than two seconds when you’re a graphic designer.

In principle, it should matter to a newspaper to appear neutral, at least when it comes to news and reporting.

+++++++

I don’t like to dwell too much on the conclusions that can be drawn from a poll. First, because there is a margin of error. Second, because the margin of error sometimes misses the mark. Third, because a poll is merely a snapshot in time, nothing more, and all kinds of things can happen. We can make statistical observations. That’s it.

Remember the 2011 Orange Wave with Jack Layton, Justin Trudeau going from third place to prime minister in 2015, and Mark Carney eating Pierre Poilievre for breakfast last year. Or Bernard Landry getting lost in Latin phrases after Jean Charest landed a low blow about Jacques Parizeau during the leaders’ debate. Or PKP raising his fist during the 2014 campaign.

Pollsters always have sophisticated analyses explaining why the vote stands where it does, and where it should go next. And all of it can be swept away overnight by the electorate’s unpredictable mood.

Last week, I noted the intellectual contortions of a pollster who seemed to be struggling to reconcile the numbers with his wishes. It’s less spectacular this week, but one passage in the analysis made me raise an eyebrow.

“The only real trend over the past three months is the Liberal Party’s decline.”

Really?

Here is what the Qc125 polling aggregator shows (one poll is good; a collection of polls is better).

On the left, three months ago. On the right, now.

The CAQ and QLP have switched places. I find it difficult not to see that as a major change. (Yes, it falls within the margin of error of an individual poll, but 12 polls in less than three weeks confirm the trend.)

Limiting the analysis to the past three months is also a little convenient, especially since going back just one more month makes the movement even more striking. Here is what it looks like if I add mid-May as a starting point.

If the CAQ were to take one point from the QLP, it could form the official opposition. If it took two points from the PQ, it could form the government.

Everything else is conjecture.

Quebec City’s Mayor Wants to Eliminate Homelessness

“This isn’t just a problem in Quebec City, Montreal, or central neighbourhoods. It’s a problem everywhere, in Quebec’s cities, communities, and villages. And it is possible to change the trajectory.”

Bruno Marchand, mayor of Quebec City and former president and CEO of Centraide in the Quebec City region, is asking the political parties to commit to “zero homelessness.”

That sounds like an ambitious plan.

Until you remember that approximately 18% of Montreal’s office space is vacant. That some of it can be converted. That other cities have done so. And that 25,000 housing units are sitting vacant. In Montreal alone.

People who study public policy have also known at least two things for several decades. First, providing someone with a roof over their head is the best way to get them off the street. Second, even though it is expensive, it costs less than a succession of crises, hospitalizations, and police interventions.

About 12,000 Quebecers are experiencing “visible” homelessness. The real number is at least twice as high, possibly more, and it keeps rising.

It used to be a downtown problem, especially in Montreal. Then it spread to the suburbs, including where I live, near the métro in Laval. Last summer, while cycling, I saw tents in Terrebonne.

There is no métro in Terrebonne, and it’s getting pretty damn far from downtown. I’d like to insert a witty line here, but I’m feeling a little discouraged.

May I ask you a favour? The next time someone offers to give you back $1 a week through a tax cut that will cost the public treasury $100 million, think about that.

Today’s World Champion

Marie-Pierre Élie is running for the Conservative Party in the Quebec City region.

She is also a well-known conspiracy theorist who took anti-vaccine positions during the pandemic. Nothing unusual so far. I count at least five of them among the Conservatives.

Ms. Élie has no regrets. Nothing unusual there either for the Quebec Conspiracy Cuckoo Conservative Party. She says she’s even “very proud” (très fière.)

A quick salute to Éric Duhaime, on the left, who milked fears about vaccines for all they were worth during the pandemic, for both adults and children, but got vaccinated himself “after discussing it with his doctor.”

Ms. Hélie has found other ways to distinguish herself, including this one at her campaign launch.

Two violations for the price of one in her candidacy announcement!

Ms. Hélie has a chance of being elected in Montmorency. It’s close, but it’s within reach.

Quebec may have found its Marjorie Taylor Greene.

I can’t wait.

PSPP Wants Us to Give Him a Majority of Seats

“The ability to act is greater with a majority government than with a minority government, where you have to seek another party’s consent to get anything done.”

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, leader of the Parti Québécois, stating the obvious.

Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon knows perfectly well that, barring a spectacular reversal, he will not win a majority of the votes. So he is asking for a majority of seats in the National Assembly so that he can, among other things, call a referendum that a majority of Quebecers do not want. “Consent” indeed.

But… Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon also supports electoral reform, which, if done properly (remember the “if”), would bring majority governments to an end for the foreseeable future. Because that is pretty much the point of the whole contraption.

But… Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon would be perfectly happy to have a majority government. Just once. Sixty-four seats, pretty please.

Even if he won it with only 31% or 32% of the popular vote. A majority with 31%. And a 69% “minority.”

See how hypocritical this is.

This isn’t about wanting “a free hand.” It’s about using an artificial majority in the National Assembly to impose the will of a minority on the majority of the population.

+++++++

To those who think my views are coloured by my political preferences, I can assure you that my deep aversion to politicians who settle for a paper-thin majority to impose their agenda applies equally to every party seeking to exploit the flaws in our electoral system.

With my regards to the CAQ and QLP, which have indulged in this freely and show little remorse. But I expected better from the PQ, which got a taste of the system’s unfairness in the recent past.

In the 2022 election, the Parti Québécois received just under 15% of the vote. That should have been good for 10 to 15 seats. It won three.

Here is what Paul St-Pierre Plamondon said on October 3, 2022, on election night.

“In light of the results, which we recognize and accept, some very serious questions nevertheless arise. […] Rarely in our history have we seen such a disparity between the will of the people and the results in terms of seats.”

And the next day:

“The disparity between the popular vote and the number of seats is historic, and it is deeply problematic for democracy in Quebec. We received 15% of the vote, but not even 3% of the seats.”

I suppose our electoral system works poorly only for the losers.

Today’s Awkward Moment

On Tuesday, QLP leader Charles Milliard addressed the nation.

The speech, which he clearly did not write himself (or so I hope), contained a few valid points, though hardly original ones since they were shared by other leaders, including Christine Fréchette, a recurring problem for the QLP.

That said, why did watching it make me so uncomfortable? Was it the delivery, which reminded me of prayers being mumbled at Mass? The extreme coldness of a white-flag-on-white-background set, with the fleurs-de-lis fading away? The fact that he talks about his team while sitting there alone? The framing, reminiscent of François Legault’s pandemic addresses and the bad memories they evoke? The fact that the whole operation feels a little too prefabricated?

Or was it that, the day before, Mr. Milliard had denounced the government’s “theatre” in the following terms: “There will be a press conference, flags, long faces, and people lined up around a table telling us they’re there for Quebecers and will do everything they can to save Quebec.” Before putting on the same kind of theatre himself…

The point of a communications decision is to have a positive impact on the subject’s visibility or credibility.

I’ll let you judge for yourself. You can watch it here.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!

How was your three-day weekend? Mine lasted a day and a half, thanks to the election campaign. There was more teenage soccer tonight, hence the late delivery.

We’re entering that phase of the campaign when the daily din of overlapping announcements starts to blend into a vague roar. Five hundred million more on the left, a billion less on the right, with counter-counter-tariffs thrown into the mix. With five parties, it’s easy to lose the plot. So I’m left with two choices: take a step back and pick the best bits, or hit you with 8,000 words every night.

I briefly considered the 8,000-words-a-day option, but my girlfriend threatened to unsubscribe from my Substack. So I chose to take a step back. Maybe.

What happened on Saturday and Sunday?

Let’s try this: I’ll summarize each announcement and respond to it in one sentence so we can move on to the rest more quickly.

— Québec solidaire wants to raise the minimum wage to $20 (increase refundable tax credits instead; it will be more effective and less inflationary);

— The QCP wants to require a secret ballot for union certification votes (I don’t understand why that hasn’t been the rule for the past 50 years);

— The PQ wants to invest an additional $1.3 billion over four years in home care and subsidize the conversion of homes into multigenerational dwellings (YES! But I still have the same question: where are we going to find the caregivers? Here’s an idea: why not rely on immigration?);

— The QLP promises to expand Cité-de-la-Santé Hospital in Laval, the only hospital serving a city of more than 460,000 people (I live in Laval and I’m biased, so YES! We also have only one Costco. Could the QLP do something about that?);

— The leaders of three of the four opposition parties grudgingly agree to meet with Christine Fréchette about the U.S. tariffs (which lets everyone engage in some bad political theatre: Charles Milliard says he is “not at all reassured,” PSPP says he learned nothing, and Éric Duhaime congratulates himself for not taking part).

Now that we’ve covered that, let’s get to everything else.

But first, a word about subscriptions, which have continued to climb over the past few days.

I’m trying to build a sustainable, independent, unsubsidized media outlet. It isn’t easy, but many of you are answering the call.

Thank you again. Even a free subscription helps if you’d like to try before you buy. You can sign up here:

Subscribe now

By the way, my Substack climbed as high as No. 29 in “Rising in News,” among thousands of publications. And that’s thanks to you. :-)

With that out of the way, let’s dive in!

Has the electoral Jell-O set?

A new Pallas poll shows that voting intentions have not moved much. Factoring the poll into the latest projections would produce the following seat totals if an election were held today. (Each party’s share of the vote appears inside its bar.)

A few quick observations:

• The PQ would still win far more seats (53) than it would under a perfectly proportional system (36), but it would remain well short of a majority;

• The QLP holds on to second place because its support is geographically concentrated, but its position is fragile: if just one percentage point of QLP support shifted to the CAQ, the two parties would trade places (I checked);

• With support similar to its 2022 result (13% then, compared with 15% now), the QCP could elect 11 MNAs instead of none;

• Both the QCP and QS would elect more MNAs under proportional representation than under the current projection (19 instead of 11 for the QCP, and 14 instead of eight for QS). That would make a difference in the balance of power and the checks and balances within the National Assembly;

• The result above, if an election were held today, would nevertheless give us the most balanced Parliament since 2012, when the PQ formed a minority government with 32% of the vote and 54 seats;

• In theory, the QLP could try to form a government with CAQ support. In practice… see the next section;

• Even more theoretically, the CAQ could try to remain in power if it believed it could secure the support of one or more parties on a case-by-case basis. In practice… good luck!

• A PQ-QCP coalition would hold 64 seats and control the National Assembly. It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds.

For any of these scenarios to materialize, our politicians would have to behave like adults. Which brings us to…

The QLP Wants Nothing to Do with a Coalition with the Coalition

Given the polls, a reporter eventually asked the QLP leader whether he would agree to form a coalition with the Coalition Avenir Québec Équipe Christine Fréchette. Mr. Milliard wants nothing to do with it, even though their respective parties increasingly resemble each other.

Three things. First, the QLP should stop imagining that Quebecers are simply waiting for the opportunity to flock back to the party. (Yes, some people inside the QLP believe that. Some believed it in 2022, too. We saw what happened.)

Second, Mr. Milliard may not have a choice if he wants to prevent the PQ from holding a referendum.

Third, what our power-hungry politicians of every stripe see as an aberration is perfectly normal almost everywhere governments are not chosen by divine will or at gunpoint.

Across the Western world, the only countries whose electoral systems include no form of proportional representation are the United States, France, England, Australia, and, of course, Canada, including every province.

In other words, apart from Australia, they are the countries we know best. That gives us the impression that our prehistoric voting system is the norm. The opposite is true.

Almost everywhere else, the different parties have to negotiate after an election to determine who can form a coalition. Contrary to popular belief, this produces governments that are nearly as stable as ours, but far more representative and democratic, as well as much greater continuity in public policy.

One day, Quebec politics will grow up, too.

Québec solidaire Makes an Almost Selfless Proposal

Québec solidaire is trying to revive electoral reform, solemnly promised by François Legault in 2018 and subsequently abandoned. Before that, it was promised and abandoned by Jean Charest. And before that, promised and abandoned by René Lévesque.

Are you noticing a pattern?

In 1972, Mr. Lévesque called our voting system “democratically rotten.” You can understand why. With 23% of the vote, his party had won seven of the National Assembly’s 108 seats.

René Lévesque did not change the voting system once he had the chance, either. Neither did Mr. Charest or Mr. Legault.

We’ve tried to bring electoral reform back to life so many times that it’s starting to look like this:

Québec solidaire is once again trying to resurrect the monster. It proposes replacing our first-past-the-post system, introduced in 1791, with mixed-member proportional representation, similar to the systems used in Germany, Scotland, and New Zealand. That is precisely what the CAQ, PQ, and QS had agreed to before François Legault decided in 2022 to keep his promise not to keep his 2018 promise.

The PQ and QCP support it.

The CAQ remains true to itself.

The QLP opposes it because it believes it can regain voters’ trust while still hoping to keep both hands on the wheel and win a “majority” with 40% or even less of the vote. (Actually, the QLP does support replacing the current system with ranked-choice voting because it thinks that would benefit the party. That’s not a good reason. And it’s no longer true.)

Some free advice for the QLP, because it sorely needs it. But first, a reminder: francophone Quebecers don’t trust you. Anglophone Quebecers don’t either, but they feel they don’t really have another choice.

If you want to make a bold move that captures the public imagination, dominates the media narrative, and might even move the needle, promise not only to change the voting system if you win the election, but also to offer cabinet positions to the other parties in proportion to their share of the vote. Then repeat that promise every day until the campaign ends.

I guarantee that reporters will be surprised, that you’ll get a couple of great headlines out of it, that it will spark debate and analysis, that the coverage will be positive overall, and that the premier will take a beating in the debate if Mr. Milliard is even halfway competent.

And perhaps people will believe that the QLP really is changing.

That’s it for the advice. Office hours are over.

Lie of the Day

Early last week, Christine Fréchette claimed that the federal government had “taken [Quebec’s] requests into account and adjusted its approach,” implying that Ottawa had just changed its counter-tariffs in response to new demands from Quebec.

On Monday, we learned that this was false.

The La Presse headline:

(Ottawa contradicts Fréchette)

My correction:

(Fréchette tells a lie)

This was not an honest mistake.

The premier possesses a superpower common to certain politicians: the ability to assert something they don’t know to be true, or know to be false, with the confidence of an extended-warranty salesman.

Ms. Fréchette notably used that superpower last spring during the initial rollout of the Digital Health Record, guaranteeing that it would cause no delays for patients. That was not true. In the National Assembly, she tossed out a word salad (search for “délais prescrits” and “cas urgents” here) that showed she did not understand what she was saying.

In February, Ms. Fréchette also spent a long time explaining something about the Quebec Experience Program (PEQ) for temporary immigrants: namely, that it was “impossible” to provide a grandfather clause for people who already met the requirements but had been prevented from applying. Three days later, she promised the opposite. You can look on the bright side and see this as someone promising to do the “impossible.” Or as someone who was lying.

And then there’s this gem. (I know, I’ve shown it before, but I never get tired of it.)

“At the CAQ, sound management of public funds is in our DNA.” Yeah, right. Northvolt and SAAQClic, anyone?

The media have a certain squeamishness about calling things what they are, and it only encourages politicians to take us for fools. Every lie should be called out, every time. Donald Trump doesn’t care, and the media stopped counting after the 30,573 Trumpian falsehoods of his first term, but less sociopathic politicians might feel embarrassed if they win the award for best liar too often.

That reminds me: the latest tariff retaliation in the U.S. trade war takes effect this Tuesday. Buckle up.

Lie of the Day (2)

On the first day of the election campaign (that is, Day 0, which has since become Day 1), Charles Milliard promised to “continue the studies on the third link,” which is roughly equivalent to beating your horse until it admits it’s a cow.

Every known study of a third highway link between Québec City and the South Shore reaches the same conclusion: it isn’t necessary. Today, Mr. Milliard says he wants “all of the information currently available.”

It is entirely possible that the government has concealed information about the third link. But given how long the CAQ has been trying to sell us its tunnel to nowhere without the slightest shred of solid evidence, it would be truly astonishing if it had deliberately kept secret a study showing that the project is justified.

Mr. Milliard also said he had heard “some analysts say that we wanted to launch a whole series of new studies. That is not the case.”

Yes, “that was indeed the case.”

By the way, Mr. Milliard, they’re called “reporters,” not “analysts,” and all they did was quote you.

I know a word. It starts with “bull” and ends with “shit.”

Had Mr. Milliard not joined the stupid bidding war over the third link, he would be more credible when discussing another promise, this one necessary: widening Highway 50 in the Outaouais.

And the headline on the story about that announcement would not have turned into a story about backtracking, making it look as though Mr. Milliard can say one thing and its opposite on the very same issue.

Yes, the article really is about Highway 50. But the Journal de Montréal reporter chose to highlight Mr. Milliard’s contradiction about the third link. Reporters are like that.

The best way to avoid losing control of your message and your announcements is not to treat people like idiots. It’s no guarantee. But it helps.

-30-

My name is Patrick Déry. I write for a living, and I am trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this piece, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this publication (for free or as a paid subscriber; the choice is yours).

Subscribe now

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. It also helps the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!