The sudden resignation of Lucien Bouchard in January 2001 plunged his government into disarray. The most dejected was undoubtedly François Legault, who considered him a real father.
If he had stayed longer, Mr. Legault’s political itinerary might have been quite different. At the time, he was not up to contesting the succession to Bernard Landry, who had been waiting for his turn for 15 years. If he had had more time, he might have become leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ) and he would never have founded the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ).
Even before leaving the PQ in 2009, Mr. Bouchard encouraged his spiritual son to create his party, as he himself had founded the Bloc Québécois. The former prime minister must envy the ease with which he makes himself obey the finger and the eye, while his own reign was, from beginning to end, an interminable squabble with PQ activists. This week, he must have been almost happy to deliver the PQ’s funeral oration.
He was not required to attend the unveiling of the statue of Jacques Parizeau, whose interventions have made him damn for years. Nor was he obliged to take advantage of the occasion to multiply statements and interviews. He would not have done so if it could have put Mr. Legault in any embarrassment.
While recalling that immigration is a subject that must be treated with delicacy, it is rather a well-felt support that he gave to Mr. Legault in his showdown with Ottawa. Granted, we are not yet at Louisianization, but he too considers “certain that the French language is in decline” and that immigration control is “essential for the future of Quebec”, while openly displaying his skepticism about the possibility of making the federal government give in.
It was obviously his remarks on sovereignty, the only guarantee of the durability of a French Quebec, that especially caught the attention. Knowing the ties that unite the two men, we had the impression of hearing Mr. Bouchard say aloud what Mr. Legault must be content to think quietly.
The fervor of the professions of federalist faith of some of its deputies or ministers draws a clear limit to the emancipatory ambitions of the Prime Minister. The cry of love for Canada from the Minister for the Economy, Lucie Lecours, recalled the hymn to the Rockies once sung by Solange Chaput-Rolland.
The member for Chauveau, Sylvain Lévesque, even contradicted his leader by declaring that “the Quebec nation is not in danger”. The CAQ may well elect 25 more deputies like these, Mr. Legault will not be better equipped to wage war.
Political sense is not given to everyone. Robert Bourassa never seriously thought that independence could be an option, but he found it useful in his negotiations with the rest of Canada to let this hypothesis circulate.
At least his deputies let him fantasize in peace. Mr. Legault currently has no power relationship to drag Ottawa to the negotiating table, and his flock gives him no leeway.
Since the federalist wing is predominant at the CAQ, it is fascinating to witness the contortions of the most sovereignists to fit into the mould. At the end of last week, between two cocoricos of his speech on “pride”, the Minister of Agriculture, André Lamontagne, an apparently repentant separatist, declared that it was “important to be ready to take strong action” . He now says he is “completely comfortable with the current context”.
Now another former tenor of independence, Bernard Drainville, has come to join his PQ friends who are already surrounding the Prime Minister. In the national councils of the PQ, Mr. Drainville was the most effective tribune. It will be frankly entertaining to hear him sing the praises of autonomy and explain how it is quite possible to have “an independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada”. It is true that in recent years, the former radio host has managed to discover the merits of the CAQ’s positions that many did not see.
The spiritual father of Mr. Legault fortunately recalled that there is independence and independence. PQ activists criticized Mr. Bouchard for not being a “hardcore” à la Parizeau. The tripartite agreement and the bill that Mario Dumont and he had imposed on the Yes leader in 1995 looked like a “kid’s license” that the “chief negotiator” would never have succeeded in getting the rest of Canada to swallow.
He now suggests that eventual sovereignty might take a different form than is usually thought of. This could perhaps inspire Mr. Legault and be easier to sell to lovers of Canada at the CAQ.