(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.
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?
Does the word “liberal” in “Liberal Party” still mean anything to the party that introduced Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms?
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).
Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated. They also help the Substack algorithm notice me, so don’t be shy!