Boisclair's Bye Bye

We in the Rest of Canada (ROC) get our timing all wrong when it comes to Quebec. We assume that after a referendum, such as 1980 and 1995, that the crisis has passed and we can collectively heave a national sigh of relief. We assume that there is nothing more to worry about as long as we keep treating Quebec as a special place at which you throw money and constitutional changes.

This is a very dangerous attitude.

André Boisclair has resigned the Parti Quebec leadership presumably in favour of Gilles Duceppe and in the shorter term, this is good for national unity. Unhappily Canadians don't like to look ahead, and scorn those who do.

Since 1960 Quebec has seen the rise of separatism starting with Jean Lesage's "maîtres chez nous,' to Rene Levesque's "sovereignty association," to Bourassa's "distinct society" to Charest's "nationhood." Yet we lack the wit to guess what comes next.

Left, right and secede

What we also don't see is that the Quebec electoral habits are very different than in ROC where we see parties as left, right, or centre. There is, of course, that division in Quebec but the main segments are "Secede Now," "Secede Later," or 'Don't Secede as long as ever-increasing bribes keep pouring in." The blurred lines between left, right and center were emphasized when Jean Charest made a seamless transfer from being the leader of the federal Conservative party to leader of the Quebec Liberals.

I now must repeat a Rafe Mair mantra: Charest going to Quebec City was a bad thing for ROC. Why? Because he must be listened to when he demands from Ottawa special monetary and constitutional concessions coupled with the unsaid threat that if demands are not met, the separatists will come to power. He is, therefore, the "devil we know" but no less a devil for that. The danger is pretty simple. If Charest feels that he's been not listened to by the feds, on national issues he'll move the Quebec Liberals closer to the centre overlapping much of the turf occupied by Mario Dumont and his Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ).

Dumont, one must note, has created the word "Autonomist" which means he favours increased powers and responsibilities for Quebec while remaining within the Canadian federation. In practical terms, Dumont has supported the creation of a Quebec constitution, the change of the province's name to that of the "autonomous state of Québec" and more power to Quebec City.

What do you suppose would be the attitude of the Mario Dumont and his ADQ if Ottawa and ROC resist these extraordinary suggestions?

Ottawa's bottom line?

What indeed would be Jean Charest's position? His strength is mainly Montreal Anglophones, Allophones and loyalist Francophones. As the notions of Mr. Dumont start to take political form, I fear that Mr. Charest and the Liberals will be further marginalized. Remember, many Liberal supporters stay loyal to the Party because they see it as able to extract more and more out of Ottawa.

It doesn't have to be the Parti Quebecois that calls for a referendum. A rejected premier-to-be Dumont, with the usual surrounding humiliation will do nicely.

This brings us to this position: how much is Ottawa ready to pay in political extortion and how much can it pay and keep ROC supportive? Does the time not come when other regions of Canada say "enough"? What then?

As I see it, though the lines are often blurred we have the Parti Quebecois whose raison d'etre is to exit Canada and the ADQ who will stay in Canada provided Ottawa pays ongoing danegeld to Quebec City. (Remember Kipling's advice: "Once you pay him the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.") We also have the Liberals who will play "me too" to the ADQ but will see their support outside the Anglophone community badly erode.

Dumont a 'yes' man?

Won't the PQ and the ADQ cancel each other out?

Yes and no. The problem is that where they disagree may well be simply a matter of when.

It's useful to remember that in 1995 Mario Dumont supported the "yes" side.

The PQ want a referendum as soon as possible and the ADQ want to extract as much as they can from Ottawa before seeking secession. If Ottawa can continually meet the price -- which includes fundamental constitutional change -- the ADQ will keep the PQ at bay. Otherwise you can be as sure as God made little green apples that Mr. Dumont will pull the "we have been humiliated" card from the deck and play it with considerable skill.

We in ROC are pushed closer and closer to the precipice and far from doing anything about it, would prefer to believe that it's not there.

By the way

On another matter, I'm appalled at David Radler being given an offer by the prosecution which will only be redeemed if he gives "truthful" evidence. This means that if Mr. Radler gives any evidence that supports Conrad Black he risks losing the deal. In short Lord Black's freedom may depend upon a former partner giving evidence against him not because Mr. Radler wants to be truthful but because he's saving his own skin.

The reason the prosecution has taken this step is that Mr. Radler, under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be compelled to say anything that that might incriminate him. In Canada we do things differently -- here Mr. Radler would be compelled to give evidence but that evidence could not be later used to incriminate him.

Clearly, our system is much fairer.

Related Tyee stories:

• Quebec, Angry and Torn
  Pinched voters vent against rich, poor, immigrants and the political class.
• Dumont: Québec's Preston Manning
• Oil May Grease Quebec Separatism
  Nation could split over Alberta's resources.