More from L. Ian MacDonald available More fromavailable here

The Liberal party’s campaign posters in Quebec are saying a lot — unintentionally — about the party’s dismal prospects with francophone voters.

Both the leader’s brand, and the party’s, are virtually invisible. The Liberal ‘L’ logo does appear at the top, over images of local candidates wearing air-brushed black jackets. The name of the riding appears below the candidate’s name. But you have to squint to see the Team Trudeau and Liberal brands at the bottom of the posters, in very small type.

There are no stand-alone posters of Justin Trudeau to be seen anywhere outside of his own Montreal riding of Papineau. The NDP, meanwhile, has plastered Quebec roads and streets with large posters of a smiling Tom Mulcair, with smaller posters of local candidates underneath or nearby. Mulcair clearly has coattails.

In Quebec, there is no political culture of lawn signs, as there is in Ontario and elsewhere. Instead, posters are put up on light standards and telephone poles, les poteaux. In fact, a candidate running merely to have the party’s name on the ballot is known as a poteau. In 2011, the NDP elected dozens of poteaux in Quebec, some of whom had never even set foot in their ridings. But that’s another story — le bon jack, the man with the cane.

The Liberal posters, effectively hiding both the leader and the brand, speak volumes about the challenges the party faces with francophones, who comprise 85 per cent of the Quebec electorate and control all but a dozen or so of Quebec’s 78 seats in the new 338-seat House.

The poll numbers are equally eloquent. The latest EKOS-iPolitics poll puts the Liberals at 20 per cent provincewide — with just 16 per cent support among francophones.

In the CROP poll for La Presse released Thursday, the NDP has surged to 47 per cent provincewide, with the Liberals at 20 per cent, the Bloc Québécois at 16 per cent and the Conservatives collapsing to 13 per cent.

Among francophone voters, CROP puts the NDP at 51 per cent and the Bloc at 19 per cent, with the Liberals at only 13 per cent and the Conservatives at just 12 per cent. These numbers would produce an NDP sweep off the island of Montreal, in the range of 60 to 65 seats.

It’s very clear that, in Quebec, the NDP controls the ballot question of change. It’s very clear that, in Quebec, the NDP controls the ballot question of change.

(It should be noted that only CROP is seeing this level of NDP strength in Quebec right now, with the party leading even in the Conservative stronghold of Quebec City. The NDP numbers may be overstated by CROP, while the Conservative support is likely a bit understated.)

One thing all the polls agree on is that among francophones, Trudeau and the Liberals are stuck in the mid-teens — in nowhere land.

For Trudeau, this is sadly and ironically a part of his political inheritance. Many francophones still haven’t forgotten or forgiven the Pierre Trudeau Liberals for the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1981-82, over the opposition of all parties in the National Assembly. Then there was the role the Liberals, led by a Trudeau in retirement, played in killing the Meech Lake Accord in 1990.

These events gave birth to the Bloc as a party of grievance, and in six elections from 1993 to 2008 the Bloc dominated the Quebec conversation in Ottawa. In 2011, having suddenly become a party with no agenda of grievance, the Bloc collapsed. It appears to be heading south again as Quebecers opt to use the NDP to get rid of Harper — rather than sending the Bloc to Ottawa to keep an eye on him.

As for the Liberals — if they were killed by Pierre Trudeau, they were buried by the sponsorship scandal in the 2006 election. They have never recovered in francophone Quebec.

Both the Trudeau and Liberal brands are weak among francophones, which explains their virtual invisibility on party posters. And on leadership attributes, Mulcair is seen as best prime minister by 41 per cent of Quebecers in the CROP poll, with Trudeau at only 15 per cent. Just Not Ready, in other words. Harper’s at 13 per cent, tied with his party’s voting intentions.

It’s very clear that, in Quebec, the NDP controls the ballot question of change. What can Trudeau do about that?

He can’t help himself by insisting on the 2000 federal Clarity Act and a clear answer to a clear referendum question — as opposed to the 50-plus-one threshold in the NDP’s 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration. The Sherbrooke formula is the accepted standard in Quebec; Trudeau’s own father played by that rule in the 1980 referendum.

Trudeau scored some points on this subject against Mulcair in the first leaders’ debate — in English-speaking Quebec and the Rest of Canada. Liberal numbers in West End and West Island Montreal ridings have firmed up since the debate, though the NDP is competitive even there. But there are no votes for Trudeau in playing the Clarity card in francophone Quebec. There isn’t even a referendum on the horizon, except perhaps in the mind of Pierre Karl Péladeau. If Trudeau continues to play this card, it will be because arguing that Mulcair can’t be trusted to prevent the break-up of the country is working for him in the ROC.

It all comes back to the ballot question of change, and which party is the more reliable agent of change. That’s the case Trudeau needs to make in Quebec. But he’s carrying the baggage of his family and his party brand.

The posters say it all.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94. The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.