BOUCHARD QUITS: ABLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Introduction ...... 5 A Coup de théâtre ...... 7 For the Record...... 8 The Significance of Being Bouchard ...... 9 Et je dirais même plus ...... 11 Maître chez lui...... 12 Heir Apparent? ...... 16 Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions ...... 17 BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Introduction

Canada was less than two weeks into the new as a remarkable political leader. They com- year of 2001 when the nation’s political mended Bouchard for his intelligence, scene was rocked by an unanticipated devel- dynamism, and considerable talents in opment; Lucien Bouchard, the premier of governing Quebec. During his tenure as Quebec, announced that he was resigning premier, he brought the province’s balloon- and leaving public life. The man who had ing government deficits under control, played a key role in federal and provincial restored the province’s economy to health, politics for over a decade, and under whose and demonstrated a clear-sighted vision and leadership the sovereignist movement had steady administrative hand that he was come within a hair’s breadth of victory in the convinced would eventually persuade a 1995 referendum, was stepping down for majority of Quebecers to follow his good. Bouchard gave the reasons for his sovereignist dream. By creating what he sudden and unexpected departure in an referred to as the “winning conditions” of emotional farewell speech to stunned and prosperity and fiscal stability, Bouchard visibly distraught members of the Parti thought he was setting the stage for an Québécois and government officials who inevitable referendum victory within the next gathered in the ornate Red Chamber of the few years. But, as he reluctantly confessed to Quebec National Assembly to say goodbye his followers, he no longer believed that this to their leader. Despite his continuing popu- was going to be possible in the immediate larity as Quebec’s premier, Bouchard had future under his leadership. For this, he become increasingly frustrated at the con- stated, he took full responsibility. Despite stant bickering and divisiveness plaguing his what he justly regarded as his government’s party. He was also deeply disappointed by many achievements, it was this failure that the poor showing of the pro-sovereignist represented his greatest political disappoint- Bloc Québécois in the November 2000 ment. federal election, which had seen its level of Within hours of Bouchard’s announce- voter support dip below that of Jean ment, political speculation was rife regarding Chrétien’s Liberals. But the determining its likely impact on the future of the factors in his difficult decision, he said, had sovereignist movement in Quebec. Many been personal. After a brush with death in federalists rejoiced at his departure, confident 1994, which had cost him a leg, he had that it would represent a major setback for become more aware of his mortality. How- their opponents’ cause. If a majority of ever many years remained to him, he in- Quebecers had not been persuaded to vote tended to spend them with his wife and for independence with a personable, elo- young sons, to whom he had previously quent, and inspiring leader like Lucien made and then broken a promise to leave Bouchard at the helm, they argued, then how public life after the 1995 referendum defeat. likely were they to rally en masse behind his Reaction to Bouchard’s resignation from most likely successor, the remarkably the rest of Canada was not slow in coming. uncharismatic finance minister, Bernard Political foes like Prime Minister Chrétien Landry? A number of sovereignists also and other provincial premiers, who had shared this view, and regretted the problems consistently opposed his sovereignist agenda, their party had created for Bouchard while he nonetheless paid tribute to their old adversary led it. Some commentators even went so far

News in Review — 5 — February 2001 as to pronounce the Quebec sovereignty course as regards public finances, the movement “dead,” as had been done so economy, taxation, health care, education, many times in recent Canadian history. But social progress, and municipal organization. I others were not so hasty in their postmor- think you will admit that I have never hesi- tems. It was noted that the sovereignists had tated to face problems squarely and that I revived from equally devastating setbacks have always sought to advance Quebec’s before, and this time might be no exception. interests, with a constant concern to be the In any case, Bouchard’s resignation was Prime Minister of all Quebecers. I said that I seen as a victory for the hardline would accept the challenge and I believe that sovereignists within the Parti Québécois who I have done so to the best of my abilities. had long distrusted their leader’s commit- For more than 10 years, I have waged ment to the cause. Their hero was former through elective office the struggle for premier Jacques Parizeau, whose stock in the sovereignty. I must acknowledge that the party was expected to rise under Landry’s outcome of my efforts is less convincing as leadership. Despite what may be waning successes have alternated with setbacks. . . . voter support for the sovereignty option at [I]n addition to his obligations as Prime present, the fact remains that Quebec is still Minister, a party leader is bound by the governed by a party committed to that ulti- political commitments he shares with his mate goal. And the province’s new premier party. In the case of the Parti Québécois, the is likely to pursue it with a far more zealous, first commitment is to achieve Quebec’s uncompromising stance than his predecessor, sovereignty. . . . a man who was admired and respected by both I set myself the same goal when I assumed friend and foe, in Quebec and Canada, alike. the party leadership in 1996. We had just come out of a referendum campaign that brought us to the threshold of a new country. Excerpts from notes for a speech by It is true that bitter disappointment followed Lucien Bouchard announcing his on referendum night the exaltation that the resignation near certainty of victory had instilled in us. Nonetheless, the sovereignist advance was “I have devoted the Christmas holidays to a such that it justified our hope of soon reach- profound reflection on my commitment to ing our objective. . . . public life. This respite has allowed me, This is not the time for lengthy analyses, above all, to take stock of the effectiveness of but the fact is these hopes have not yet been my contribution to the promotion of sover- fulfilled. eignty. We were undoubtedly faced immediately I have decided to end my participation in thereafter with pressing problems. We no public affairs and resign from my position as doubt succeeded in reaching the consensuses Prime Minister of Quebec. that enabled us to curb Quebec’s chronic It is with pride that I have performed my deficit, revitalize Montreal’s and the regions’ duties over the past five years. Despite what economies, and create jobs that, among other the task demands in terms of energy, open- things, have allowed many welfare recipients mindedness and endurance, assuming this to rejoin the labour market. role has given me a great deal of satisfaction. However, as has been rightly noted, we did It is not my intention today to review the not succeed for all that in bolstering government’s achievements. Suffice it to say sovereignist fervour.” that my government has set Quebec on a new

February 2001 — 6 — News in Review BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? A Coup de théâtre

The sudden resignation of Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard caught Canadians completely off-guard. While Bouchard’s frustration with what he regarded as extremist, disruptive elements within his own party was mounting during the weeks before his announcement, almost no one expected he would quit. As the comments of other politicians across Canada made clear, Lucien Bouchard was a leader who could arouse strong passions, both positive and negative. To most Quebec sovereignists, he represented their best hope for the eventual realization of their dream of an independent state. To federalists, whether in Quebec, Ottawa, or other regions of Canada, Bouchard was their worst nightmare, the charismatic, inspiring champion of the sovereignist cause who had nearly succeeded in winning the 1995 referendum. But when one examines his public career, from his earliest forays into Quebec politics in the 1960s, through his years as a federal Cabinet minister in the government of Brian Mulroney, to his leadership of the sovereignist movement, both in Ottawa and later in Quebec City, it becomes clear that Lucien Bouchard is a remarkably complex and dramatic figure, in fact a man of many contradictions.

As you watch this News in Review report, focus on the dramatic elements of Bouchard’s sudden resignation and of images of his career. How does this recent development on the Canadian political stage suggest a climax in the social and political drama in which Lucien Bouchard has played a central role? Use the following questions as a focus for viewing what may prove to be Bouchard’s political dénouement. (The images depict an entire historical period in Canadian political history and in Bouchard’s political career.) 1. What impression did Bouchard’s resignation speech make on you? 2. In what ways does Lucien Bouchard’s public persona seem to have changed from 1988 to 2001? 3. Describe the dramatic impact of Bouchard’s brush with death in terms of this news story. 4. How is the sovereignty referendum of 1995 seen as the high point of Bouchard’s political career? 5. From Bouchard’s resignation speech, what can you gather about his relationship with his family? 6. Referring to the images and information in the video, write down the adjectives and descriptive phrases you would use to characterize Bouchard as a political leader. Follow-up Discussion In your opinion, what dramatic personnage does Lucien Bouchard represent? For example, is he a tragic hero with a tragic flaw? Is he a classic hero representing high principles and truths? Has he played some other role?

News in Review — 7 — February 2001 BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? For the Record

Watch the video a second time and then, working in small groups, formulate answers to the following questions, which are designed to help you trace the political career of Lucien Bouchard and to give you an important historical context in which to assess his career.

1. What international position did Bouchard hold before entering federal politics in 1988?

2. Why did Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appoint Bouchard to his Cabinet?

3. What was the Meech Lake Accord? Why did Bouchard resign from the Cabinet over it?

4. What new political party did Bouchard form in 1990? What was its objective?

5. Why did some federal politicians object to Bouchard’s party’s presence in Parlia- ment? How did Bouchard respond to this?

6. In what way did the federal election of 1993 represent a political victory for Bouchard?

7. Why was Bouchard’s 1994 illness so serious?

8. Why was the Quebec referendum of 1995 a key event in recent Canadian history?

9. What controversial statement did Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau make on the night of the referendum? What was the result of this statement?

10. What issues occupied Bouchard’s attention as Quebec premier after 1996?

11. What positive results did he have to show for his efforts by late 2000?

12. To what extent was Bouchard’s decision to resign based on personal factors?

February 2001 — 8 — News in Review BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? The Significance of Being Bouchard

Now, examine the answers to your questions and formulate additional answers in order to assess the significance of these events. 1. Before entering federal politics, Lucien Bouchard was Canada’s ambassador to France. Suggest the importance of this posting.

2. Mulroney needed strong representation from Quebec in his Cabinet, in order to achieve his goal of constitutional reform. Why would he need this strong representation?

3. The Meech Lake Accord was a set of constitutional reforms proposed by Quebec to satisfy the province about its status in Canada. It was negotiated by federal and provincial leaders in May 1987 and was required to be ratified by June 2000. After some English-Canadian premiers and Native groups raised doubts about the agreement, the Mulroney government made some changes to it that were unac- ceptable to Bouchard. He feared that Quebec’s recognition as a “distinct society” was under threat, and as a result, he resigned from the Cabinet and the Progressive Conservative Party. Suggest why Meech was a turning point in Bouchard’s career.

4. Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois with a handful of former Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec who were also unhappy about the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. The Bloc’s ultimate goal was to win sovereignty for Quebec, and its strategy was to pursue that objective while working within the federal Parliament in Ottawa. Explain the significance of the name of this party. What does it denote?

5. Some federal politicians, like Liberal MP Herb Gray, questioned the Bloc’s right to sit in the federal Parliament, considering that its goal was to win independence for Quebec. Bouchard claimed that as long as Quebec was part of Canada, then nationalists and sovereignists in that province had a right to be represented there; the Bloc Québécois was the party that spoke for them. In what ways is this a conundrum?

6. In the federal election of 1993, Bouchard led the Bloc Québécois to a sweeping victory, winning 54 of Quebec’s 75 seats in Parliament, and forming the Official Opposition. It was the first time in Canadian history that a party other than the Liberals or Conservatives had formed the Official Opposition. What is ironic in this victory?

7. In December 1994, Bouchard contracted the deadly flesh-eating disease necrotizing fasciitis. Doctors were forced to amputate his leg in order to save his life. How might such an event change a person’s outlook on life?

8. The Quebec sovereignty referendum of 1995 was a key event in Canadian history, because it was the closest the country has ever come to breaking up. Under

News in Review — 9 — February 2001 Bouchard’s dynamic leadership, the pro-sovereignty forces came within a percent- age point of winning a majority YES vote for independence. Only a vast majority of NO votes from the Montreal area ensured the victory of the federalist side, and Quebec remained in Canada. In your opinion, what lessons can we learn from this referendum?

9. Bitter at the narrow loss in the referendum for the sovereignty side, Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau lashed out at “money and the ethnic vote” as the reasons behind the result. Parizeau’s remarks were taken as offensive and even racist toward Quebec’s minority groups of neither English nor French background, most of whom had voted NO. A day after his controversial speech, Jacques Parizeau resigned as premier of Quebec. The stage was set for Bouchard to leave federal politics and assume that position. Why, politically, was Parizeau’s statement so counterproductive?

10. Bouchard clashed with Parti Québécois hardliners who wanted Quebec’s language law affirming French as the sole official language made even stronger, but made it clear that his main priority was creating what he called “winning conditions” for the sovereignty side in the next referendum. The most important of these in his view was restoring the province’s finances by eliminating the deficit. He also managed a serious health-care crisis. Why was this disagreement a signifi- cant test of his leadership?

11. Bouchard led the PQ to a re-election victory in the 1998 provincial election despite a strong showing by the opposition Liberals under their new leader, Jean Charest. By 2000, the provincial deficit was zero, Quebec’s economy was healthy, and unemployment was down. Bouchard claimed and largely received credit for these achievements. In your opinion, what is the historical significance of these achievements?

12. Bouchard’s decision to leave politics was largely motivated by personal factors. In his farewell speech, he said that his years were numbered, and that he wanted to spend them with his wife, Audrey Best, and his two young sons, Alexandre and Simon. They had hoped he would leave politics after the 1995 referendum, and were very disappointed at his decision to assume the premiership at that time. Why might such decisions for politicians like Lucien Bouchard be so difficult?

February 2001 — 10 — News in Review BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Et je dirais même plus

During another viewing of the video, focus on the following statements that Lucien Bouchard makes in it. Watch carefully how he delivers the statements. For example, does he use dramatic or revealing non-verbal language? Prepare a response to each statement, understanding it within the context (time, place, occasion) that it was made, and expressing your views on it, including what it tells you about the political views and personality of the person who said it.

“I am a Canadian. I have no problem with that you know. I’m very proud to be a Canadian.”

“Quebecers should be united. The problem in 1980 was that Quebec was divided. Now I have a sense that Quebec is getting more and more united and getting out of ambiguity. So all parties in Quebec should have a coalition and they should define themselves what should be the path for the future of Quebec.”

“We work in Ottawa under the flag of sovereignty of Quebec . . . there is nothing subversive in what we’re doing. “

“The NO side may have won, but the problem of Canada remains. Ottawa may think it now has an open field, but it is mistaken. Keep hope, that the next time will be the right time.”

“I do not have the appetite to have any more discussion on the holocaust and on the ethnic vote.”

“When people refer to my reaction as being mean and petty, perhaps I can be excused for taking it personally.”

“I recognize that my efforts to relaunch the sovereignty debate were in vain. I assume the responsibility for this failure, and arrive at the necessary conclusion.”

“My years are numbered and I have a young family, even more precious to me having come late in my life. Audrey has given me more than I can ever return. I also want to live fully the marvelous adventure of educating my boys, 11 and nine years old. Alexandre and Simon need me. And I need to rediscover them and to give them my energy and my time.”

News in Review — 11 — February 2001 BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Maître chez lui

Although a controversial and contentious politician, Lucien Bouchard is respected for his intellectual skills, his tenacity, and his own sense of self-determination. While reading the information below think about how his personal life and political career became linked.

Born on December 22, 1938, in a small town in Quebec’s Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region, he grew up at a time when Quebec was ruled by the conservative nationalist regime of Premier Maurice Duplessis and when the Catholic Church was a dominant institution in the province. The francophone majority was largely shut out of positions of economic influence, mainly held by the anglophone minority. Quebec’s educational system was the most backward in the country.

During the early 1960s Bouchard studied law at Laval University in Quebec City, a hotbed of emerging French-Canadian nationalism. The Liberals under Jean Lesage had swept to power in 1960, promising radical economic, social, and political change in Quebec, a period known as the Quiet Revolution. Lesage pledged to make francophone Quebecers “maîtres chez nous” and introduced major reforms in education, government, and the economy. Already a strong supporter of Lesage, Bouchard met the dynamic René Lévesque, Minister of Energy, and, ironically, formed a close friendship at Laval with fellow student Brian Mulroney. After graduation he returned to Chicoutimi to practise law.

In 1974 he was named chief legal council to a provincial commission headed by judge Robert Cliché to investigate corruption in the construction industry. Cliché, a strong Quebec nationalist, would have a great influence on Bouchard’s views. Mulroney, as it turns out, was a fellow member of the commission. Between 1980 and 1982 Bouchard helped negotiate contracts with public sector unions on behalf of Lévesque’s Parti Québécois government, which had won a surprising victory in 1976. For the first time, a party pledged to Quebec independence held power. In 1980, Lévesque asked the voters in a provincial referendum to approve his plans for “sovereignty-association” with Canada; it lost the referendum by a 60-40 per cent margin. Bouchard worked hard for the YES side, and concluded that a majority of Quebecers was not ready to accept the idea of independence; a better strategy would be to try to increase its power within the Canadian federation, the “beau risqué” that Lévesque also came to endorse during his last years as premier.

In 1984, Bouchard’s former colleague Brian Mulroney led the Progressive Conservatives to a landslide federal election victory, winning a majority of seats in Quebec, and in the 1980s Bouchard served as Canadian ambassador to France. Mulroney promised a constitutional reform measure (which eventually became the Meech Lake Accord) that would enable Que- bec to accept the Canadian constitution, patriated in 1982, which Lévesque’s PQ government had refused to sign. Mulroney’s strong supporters among Quebec nationalist voters insisted his government keep its promise of granting the province “distinct society” status. Bouchard was one of these people.

February 2001 — 12 — News in Review In 1988, Bouchard was named federal secretary of state in the Mulroney government and in 1989 federal environment minister. But on May 22, 1990, angry over proposed changes to the Meech Lake Accord, which he feared undermined Quebec’s distinct society status, he resigned from the Mulroney Cabinet to sit as an independent. The May 1987 Meech Lake Accord had to be formally approved by the federal Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures within three years, or it would not pass. Many English-speaking Canadians opposed granting Quebec the status of a “distinct society,” and aboriginal groups were against the deal because it offered them no similar recognition. By late June 1990, the Newfoundland and Manitoba legislatures had not ratified the accord, and it was declared officially dead. Reaction to the failure of Meech inside Quebec was swift and dramatic. Support for sovereignty soared, as it appeared to many francophones that their last hopes for change within Canada had been dashed. Capitalizing on this mood of discontent, Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, a small group of former Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec who were angry over the failure of Meech and now decided to support sovereignty. Bouchard was chosen leader.

In the October 25, 1993, federal election, the Liberals under fellow Quebecer Jean Chrétien won a majority across Canada. Bouchard led the Bloc to a sweeping victory of its own, winning 54 of 75 seats in Quebec. The Reform Party, led by Preston Manning and drawing most of its support from Western Canada, came third. The once-governing Conservatives, under their new leader Kim Campbell, won only two seats. Bouchard’s pro-sovereignist party was now the Official Opposition in a federal state it wanted to leave.

In 1994 Bouchard contracted necrotizing fasciitis, a rare and deadly flesh-eating disease that nearly cost him his life; doctors were forced to amputate his leg. From his hospital bed, he issued a brief note stating, “Que l’on continue” (Please carry on). Public sympathy for Bouchard throughout his personal ordeal was strong in all parts of Canada.

On October 30, 1995, the YES side came within 50 000 votes of winning the Quebec sovereignty referendum, out of a total six million cast. Weeks before the vote, Bouchard had re- placed Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau as leader of the YES forces, and under his impas- sioned direction, the sovereignty movement nearly prevailed. Federalists, led by Jean Chrétien and former Quebec premier Daniel Johnson, were caught completely unawares by the strong surge in support for sovereignty, which they later attributed largely to Bouchard’s personal appeal and persuasive oratory. Bouchard promised that the next referendum would result in a YES victory. After his controversial remarks on “money and the ethnic vote” were widely condemned, Parizeau resigned, and on January 29, 1996, Bouchard became premier of Que- bec after winning the PQ leadership without a challenge.

However in 1996 he won only a lukewarm vote of approval from the PQ convention, and contemplated quitting. Party hardliners distrusted his commitment to sovereignty, and re- sented his efforts to restore the province’s financial position and economy as “winning conditions” for the next referendum. Nonetheless, in 1998 Bouchard led the PQ to a re-election victory, over the Liberals under new leader Jean Charest. The PQ won a majority of seats, but the Liberals actually won more votes overall. To Bouchard, he was still a long way from achieving the “winning conditions.” Persevering, on May 6, 2000, Bouchard won an over- whelming vote of confidence from PQ delegates at the party’s convention; Quebec’s eco-

News in Review — 13 — February 2001 nomic and fiscal health had been restored. PQ militants recognized that despite their strategic differences, Bouchard was the party’s best hope for sovereignty. Another dip occurred when in the November 27, 2000, federal election the Bloc slipped below the Liberals when the Chrétien government won re-election, a clear indication to Bouchard that support for sovereignty in Quebec was declining. On December 20, 2000, Bouchard informed the PQ that he could not support it if it endorsed member Yves Michaud’s comments on the Holocaust and Quebec’s immigrant population. Michaud’s remarks revealed a serious tension within the Quebec sovereignty movement that had previously appeared in 1995 when Parizeau lashed out at “the ethnic vote” and finance minister Bernard Landry berated a Mexican-Canadian hotel receptionist on referendum night. While the PQ’s official position, endorsed by Bouchard, stated that anyone living in the province was considered a Quebecer, there were strong suspicions among anglophones and other non-francophone residents that some people within the PQ considered only French-speakers to be “true” Quebecers. Bouchard made it clear that he could not lead a party where these views were expressed or endorsed. On January 11, 2001, he announced his resignation as premier of Quebec and member of the National Assembly for Jonquière.

What They Said Examine the following selection of reactions to Lucien Bouchard’s resignation. Suggest how each assesses Bouchard’s career and political role in the history of Canada.

“While our visions of the future of Quebec in Canada were fundamentally irreconcilable, I want to salute Lucien Bouchard as an able parliamentarian who has fought for his beliefs with passion and determination.” — Prime Minister Jean Chrétien

“If part of his reason for leaving is hardliners who have just exhausted his patience to some extent, then probably what you’ll see is a weakening of the sovereignist movement and I think a greater appreciation of people across the country for the importance of Quebec’s role within Canada.” — NDP leader Alexa McDonough

“I think what [Bouchard’s resignation] does is signal a new chapter in relations between Quebec and Canada. . . . It could be a quite hopeful opportunity to find some new ways in which Canadians who want to make the country work can work together.” — Conservative Party leader Joe Clark

“I very much regret his decision because I think he incarnates the modern view of Quebec, and there’s no one else but him in whom the population of Quebec has so much confidence. It’s sad.” — Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe

“[Bouchard] was by far the most dangerous separatist leader, the most charismatic, the most convincing, the most effective, so it’s good for Canadian unity that he has left.” — Federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion

“Lucien Bouchard’s dream is my worst nightmare, and while we must be vigilant in preserv- ing and strengthening Canada, the potential nightmare of Quebec separation has today in my judgment receded significantly.” — Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow

February 2001 — 14 — News in Review “I have to say he was a very destructive influence on Canadian politics. He’s one of those largely responsible for the state the Progressive Conservative national party finds itself in today. He betrayed the Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney) and also the party and he’s been a destructive influence in supporting separation in Quebec—although not as destructive as some of the hardliners he’s now leaving behind him.” — Former federal Cabinet minister John Crosbie

“I have lost a strong ally. I think Canada has lost a strong ally on provincial responsibilities and on social programs. I trusted him. He always said to me privately the same things he said publicly and we had a good working relationship that way.” — Ontario Premier Mike Harris

“We would perhaps be getting ahead of ourselves if we pronounced Quebec separatism dead. But it has suffered a body blow it may not recover from.” — Jack Granatstein, Canadian historian

“Quebec as a whole loses one of its most dynamic premiers in recent history. . . . Bouchard has put into place a universal daycare program that most parents elsewhere in the country can only dream of. . . . introduced the kind of pharmacare program that the Chrétien government does not even dare to promise anymore. He has balanced the province’s books and offered Quebecers modest tax cuts. . . . His years in office have been much better for Quebec than for sovereignty.” — Chantal Hébert, journalist and commentator

“Love him or hate him, Lucien Bouchard’s decision to quit robbed us of our last political giant. The Quebec Premier’s departure has highlighted the realization that most levels of Canadian society suddenly seem to be populated by political midgets. Bouchard’s heavy- weight status had nothing to do with his assaults on Confederation. It was his seductive charisma that endowed him with greatness. . . . Bouchard worked his magic on the political stage by inhabiting a space where only those words and thoughts that fuelled his personal view of the world carried the stamp of reality. That’s what giants do; they have a vision, and turn it into a crusade.” — Peter C. Newman, journalist and author

News in Review — 15 — February 2001 BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Heir Apparent?

At the time of this writing, Minister of Health Bernard Landry appears likely to be chosen to succeed Bouchard at the PQ convention in the spring of 2001. He will then lead his party into the next provincial election, and possibly another referendum on sovereignty.

How will Bernard Landry’s style of leadership differ from that of his impressive predecessor? He has served as a minister in a number of PQ governments and has been uncompromising and consistent in his advocacy of political sovereignty for Quebec, first elected in 1976 and involved in the sovereignty movement since the 1960s. Landry has regarded that party’s nationalism and commitment to greater power for Quebec as only a stepping stone to his ultimate goal: total independence. He is close to both the hardline faction represented by figures like former premier Jacques Parizeau and to more moderate forces who looked to Bouchard for leadership. However, Landry lacks Bouchard’s political charisma and personal dynamism although he is certainly an astute, determined, and highly intelligent politician. Paradoxically, he is given to outbursts of temper and ill-chosen remarks, recently causing an uproar among many English-Canadians by casting aspersions on the Canadian flag. Many federalists are convinced that Landry will be unable to rekindle the passion for sovereignty among the province’s voters that Bouchard ignited so skillfully in 1995. On the other hand many sovereignists believe the opposite; that Landry will in fact increase the fervour and commitment of Quebecers to the ultimate political goal of soverignty. It should be noted that Quebec politics has been full of surprises over the past few decades and the sovereignist cause has been pronounced dead many times before, only to surge back to high levels of support again and again.

It is difficult to predict the future in politics, and this is especially true when one is trying to determine what the voters of Quebec are likely to do. The hard core of support for independence is unlikely to vanish in the foreseeable future. At the same time, many francophone Quebecers value both their distinct linguistic and cultural identity as well as their membership in the Canadian federation. These are the people who jokingly claim that what Quebec really wants is to be “a free and independent nation inside a strong and united Canada.” But so far it appears that a majority of francophone Quebecers see a high degree of provincial autonomy, especially over issues of language and culture, coupled with the undeniable economic, social, and political benefits of remaining inside Canada as the best of both worlds. The sovereignist forces now have a leader who knows full well the challenge that faces him but who has demonstrated determination and unwavering commitment to sovereignty.

Discussion What do all Canadians have to learn from the career of Lucien Bouchard? What legacy has Bouchard left Bernard Landry?

February 2001 — 16 — News in Review BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY? Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Using recent newspaper and magazine articles, prepare a visual display representing the important events in Lucien Bouchard’s political career. Your display could include articles, photos, and cartoons.

2. As a class, read the text of Bouchard’s farewell address to the members of his party, which he delivered in the Quebec National Assembly on January 11, 2001 (www.premier.gouv.qc.ca/premier_ministre/english/press_releases/ index_discours.html). Analyze the reasons he gives for his decision to resign as premier. What impressions of Bouchard, both political and personal, are you able to form on the basis of reading this speech?

3. Read and prepare a book report on one of the following books dealing with Lucien Bouchard’s political career and recent Quebec politics: On the Record, by Lucien Bouchard (trans. Domenique Clift); The Antagonist: Lucien Bouchard and the Politics of Delusion, by Lawrence Martin; The Struggle for Quebec: From Referendum to Referendum?, by Robert A. Young; Quebec-Canada: What is the Path Ahead?, edited by John E. Trent, Robert A. Young, and Guy Lachapelle.

4. As a class, debate the following resolution: “The departure of Lucien Bouchard from politics signifies the beginning of the end of the sovereignty movement in Quebec.”

5. Using your school’s resource centre or local public library, find The Toronto Star’s “National Report” (Saturday, January 13, 2001) and read the articles “Con- flict at the core,” by Thomas Walkom, and “A leader like no other, a man of compassion,” by Jean-François Lisée. Discuss their evaluations of Lucien Bouchard’s political career, and its legacy for Quebec and the rest of Canada. In what ways are their interpretations similar? In what ways do they differ?

6. If you read French, find a copy of Jean-François Lisée’s recent influential book Sortie de Secours: Comment Échapper au Declin du Québec, and discuss its major arguments about the future of the sovereignist movement. Lisée was a senior advisor to Bouchard and tried to convince him of the merits of his “emer- gency exit” plan for Quebec.

7. Why do you think Lucien Bouchard aroused such strong passions as a political leader? How would you compare him with other leading figures in recent Cana- dian politics? For an interesting viewpoint on this topic, find the article in The National Post (January 20, 2001), “Bouchard, the last colossus,” by Peter C. Newman. Do you agree with Newman’s opinion of Bouchard?

News in Review — 17 — February 2001