Paris, Saturday, December 5, 1998

Quebec in Canada, and an Unusual

Debate

By E.J. Dionne Jr. The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Canadians are engaged in one of the

most remarkable experiments ever undertaken by a

democracy. They are carrying on a nearly three-decade-old

debate on whether their country should continue to exist.

Quebec's voters have made sure that the issue will remain

unresolved for a while longer. In their elections this past

Monday, they gave a clear majority of legislative seats to

the separatist Parti Québécois, and also a narrow plurality

of the popular vote to the anti-separatist Liberal Party.

By winning a majority of seats (because much of the

Liberal vote was concentrated in predominantly

English-speaking districts), the party of separatist Premier

Lucien Bou-chard will continue to run Quebec's

government. But the results provided no mandate for the

separation that he seeks.

If the voters sent any message, it was on behalf of

ambiguity and ambivalence, exactly what Quebeckers seem

to feel toward their status within Canada.

Mr. Bouchard played on that ambiguity brilliantly. He was,

in theory, for yet another referendum on whether Quebec

should separate from Canada - it would be the third such

vote. But he would call a referendum only if he sensed

''winning conditions.'' In other words, you could vote for

him if you wanted a referendum, but you didn't have to

worry much if you didn't.

His campaign slogan ''J'ai confiance'' (''I have confidence'')

was equally brilliant in its ambiguity. It could mean simple

confidence in his government, which, despite unpopular

health care cuts (he apologized for them), stands well with

Quebec's voters. But it also touched a psychological chord

among French-speaking Quebeckers: that they have

confidence in themselves to go it alone if they must.

Mr. Bouchard, one of Canada's shrewdest politicians, read

what Quebeckers said in the voting just right. ''They don't

want a referendum at present,'' he said. ''We must first

deliver the goods as a good government.''

For federalists - those who want Quebec to stay in Canada -

the results were both a disappointment and a relief. Under

enormous pressure, Jean Cha-rest stepped down as the

national leader of the Conservative Party to take the helm of

the Quebec Liberals. (On keeping Quebec in Canada, the

Conservatives and Liberals agree.) He has a reputation for

political skillfulness just short of Mr. Bouchard's. It was

thought that if anyone could stem the separatist tide, it was

Mr. Charest.

But he was out-campaigned by Mr. Bouchard. He fell

behind when he proposed to cut back Quebec's government.

Quebeckers, even business people, like active government.

Still, when election day came, Mr. Charest did far better

than the polls said he would.

All my forebears came from Quebec. French is my first

language, and I spent some childhood summers there. So, I

suspect, my attitudes on these matters are close to those of

many Quebeckers.

Quebec is culturally distinct from the rest of Canada and

should be recognized as such. It would be a good country if

it chose to become one. But it is also true that Canada is a

fine and decent country, and its breakup would be a great

loss.

Understand that ambiguity, and you understand why

Quebeckers keep pushing for separation, yet keep pulling

away from the final act.

The rest of Canada is tired of the fight. ''It's time to pull

away from the obsession,'' wrote Catherine Ford of the

Calgary Herald, in a column reprinted in the National Post.

Worse for Canada, every new discussion about granting

Quebec more powers distorts the national debate. Whatever

powers Quebec wants, some of the other provincial

governments want, too.

New negotiations are about to begin on giving the provinces

more power over social service programs. Devolution in

these matters may or may not be a good idea, but this sort

of devolution is not what motivates separatist sentiment in

Quebec. It is rooted in culture, language and

distinctiveness, not in funding formulas.

Canada and Quebec need to settle the fundamental question:

Is the rest of Canada willing to give formal recognition to

Quebec's distinctiveness within the federation? And is

Quebec willing to settle for that?

Or are Canadians outside of Quebec willing to live with the

same ambiguity that Quebeckers seem to cherish, and to

figure out how to avoid pressing this question to the limits?

Perhaps Canada is destined to be the first democracy in the

world whose national identity will be in a state of

permanent but peaceful negotiation. There are many worse

fates. Canadians and Quebeckers have to decide if that is

what they really want.