|
Maître
chez nous on Viagra
Adam Daifallah
National Post
October 6, 2004
MONTREAL - Is there an adage that there are no dull moments
in Quebec politics? If there isn't, there should be.
Newspapers here
are replete with stories of the Parti Quebecois' infighting
over tactics and leadership. Premier Jean Charest's bargaining
prowess at the federal health summit has brought "asymmetrical
federalism" back into the public discourse, while Heritage
Minister Liza Frulla's musing about allowing Quebec politicians
to represent Canada at international meetings is turning heads.
Then there's the recent decision by l'Action democratique
du Quebec, Mario Dumont's third-place provincial party, to
adopt a policy of making the province an "autonomous
state" within Canada.
The ADQ is effectively proposing to make Quebec a country
within a country. It would have its own constitution, become
the collector of federal and provincial income taxes and have
the right to representation on certain international bodies.
The idea immediately sent shockwaves throughout most of the
anglophone media, which panned the idea in exceptionally strong
terms -- to the delight of Mr. Dumont and his advisors, no
doubt -- because it offended their predominantly Trudeauvian
federalist sensibilities.
This newspaper's editorial board called it a "particularly
goofy" idea "that sounds like it was borrowed from
the 1990s-era revolutionary manifesto of some central Asian
former Soviet republic." The Gazette called it a "dog's
breakfast of a policy." "Should we laugh or cry?"
asked Jeffrey Simpson, that paragon of conventional wisdom,
in The Globe and Mail.
I'm not overly enthused about the idea myself. But everyone
should take a deep breath and relax.
Yes, this is as close to being separatist as you can get without
being explicitly separatist. It's maitre chez nous on Viagra.
However, this scheme is really only marginally different from
the ADQ's previous policy -- a potpourri of demands for decentralization
based largely on the Allaire Report, the 1991 document that
led to the creation of the ADQ and continues to act as the
party's philosophical bible. (Jean Allaire, the report's author
and the ADQ's first leader, is fully supportive of Mr. Dumont's
new plan.)
The new moniker is more of a branding exercise than anything
else. The ADQ's position on Quebec's future can now be summed
up in one simple word: autonomist. And as Mr. Dumont apparently
sees it, that label will lay to rest any lingering doubts
about the ADQ's true intentions -- an important step since
the party's perceived schizophrenia on Quebec's future in
Canada has often been one of its Achilles heels.
Until now, Mr. Dumont hadn't done much to help dispel that
perception. He supported and campaigned for the Yes side in
the 1995 referendum, but has acted as a crypto-federalist
in the two subsequent provincial elections. The party has
always been recognized as a third-way alternative to the federalist
Liberals and the separatist PQ, but now faces the challenge
of properly defining itself.
I attended the party conference in Drummondville a week ago,
where the ADQ's new plan was debated by delegates. Privately,
party activists expressed concerns: Some thought it was going
too far in the separatist direction, while others said it
was still too federalist. One delegate even got up to the
microphone to contend that the autonomy idea would be going
further than the PQ, because it would be declaring de facto
independence without first holding a referendum.
Still, the plan ultimately passed with near-unanimous support.
That was due in part to Mr. Dumont's immense popularity, since
he had staked his own reputation on the idea. But there was
also a sense that the ADQ needed to take a political risk.
After briefly leading in the polls leading up to the last
provincial election, the ADQ finished with a paltry four seats.
Its challenge now is to prove that it's more than just an
NDP-type party, permanently relegated to last place.
To achieve that, according to party strategists, it must displace
one of the two old-line parties. There isn't enough room in
Quebec for the three to continue existing. So Mr. Dumont's
new plan is a deliberate attempt to marginalize the PQ by
taking away soft sovereignist votes.
Since the ADQ was founded in 1994, Mr. Dumont has made plenty
of mistakes -- not the least of which was disappointing right-wingers
when he backtracked on conservative ideas like a flat tax
and school vouchers. But he remains committed to allowing
more private health care, and brilliantly parlayed the recent
controversy over CHOI-FM into an important by-election win
in a Quebec City riding last month.
The test now will be how well the autonomist idea goes over
in nationalist, francophone Quebec -- the demographic where
the party must make gains. At some point, sovereignist voters
will have to acknowledge that they are getting nowhere and
have no chance of winning a referendum. Mr. Dumont's idea
is a logical, achievable alternative for them.
What the ADQ is proposing might not be what the rest of Canada
wants to hear, but the rest of Canada is not who Mr. Dumont
is addressing. More to the point, it might be our best chance
at a permanent solution to the Quebec-Canada question. Given
the choice between the ADQ and the péquistes,
I'll go with the former.
Adam Daifallah is a Sauvé Scholar at McGill University.
© National Post 2004
|
