In October 1967, I am invited to give a conference in Banff on the age-old problem of Canadian federalism. I then advise the Office of the Premier of Quebec. I have been with Jean Lesage, I'm with Daniel Johnson, the father, and I will be with his successor, Jean-Jacques Bertrand.
In 1967, I am a federalist, I have always been. First, because, economically and socially, I'm left of center. Like many people at that time, as the Liberals in Ottawa and the Liberals in Quebec. However, I have never done politics. Since my youth, I feel a profound distaste for the plessisme-which for me is an extension of a form of narrow Clerici-ism that exists in Quebec since the mid-nineteenth century, that is to say since the crushing of the rebellions of 1837-1838. This mixture of ideas from primary right of linguistic nationalism bounded, so as voritisme-conformism and gets on my nerves. Returning to England in 1955 at the end of my studies, I look from my position as professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commer-cial, to Ottawa where much social reform has been underway for over ten years . The Ottawa government has managed the economy during the Second World War. He started at that time to set up the threads of the social security that were so lacking during the Great Depression of the thirties. Unemployment insurance, family allowances and the universal old age pensions, and hospital insurance are only the most impor-tant of these reforms.
One form of equalization is introduced to compensate for inequities in income between provinces. Access to private property is greatly facilitated by the creation of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It reviews the laws against monopolies. We create from scratch a new financial tools.
In short, a country is built. It's exciting, it's exciting. But it is not without drawbacks. In fact, being a Canadian rather than American has a cost that the most important is the Canadian Customs Tariff, which is very high. The Ukrainian the Saskatchewan has difficulty understanding why its neighbor to the Dako-ta, which is yet arrived in America along with him from their native Ukraine, that he pays less for his car and receives more than him for his wheat.
But the fact of being Canadian then represents something as precious-tion that we willingly accept the sacrifice. And the idea that sacrifice is required to be independent of the United States is so-ingrained in their minds that when they like, forty years later, to persuade Quebecers that they could also aspire to build their country Many remain convinced that they will pay the price, they will agree to make sacrifices, seen as a kind of punishment. However, the context has changed completely. Free trade has expanded across the continent, we know that Quebec society can save billions of dollars a year by eliminating duplication of government services. Never, indeed, it would have been as advantageous for Quebec to be independent of Canada. But in many older people, the old dogmatic background is still present: to become independent, it is paid.
Still, Maurice Duplessis died in 1959. His successor, Paul Sauve, has barely had time to shake Quebec society with its discourse that invariably begin with the same word: "Now," he dies in turn. And the Liberals came to power in 1960 see. This is the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
I plunged enthusiastically into what is happening in Quebec. En-end! The modernization of Quebec will be an extraordinary task. How late we took! Some 54% of French-speaking adults in Quebec did not exceed the sixth year. The State of Quebec say poses little or no intervention instrument. Almost all the centers of economic decisions in the hands of outside interests to the Francophone community. Under-educated, most often uni-lingual, speaking not only do they have in the total income much lower than those of most Anglo-Quebecers, but members of other ethnic communities are doing better than them.
Quebec, however, contains a wealth of imagination and dy-namisme, just go look for them: the university and at school, in the press, trade unions and, yes, in a part of clergy, the Jesuits in particular.
Thus begins the first adventure of "responsible ¬ sabilisation" of Quebecers in respect of themselves, in a thoroughly modern intellectual, a very naive perhaps, but with enthusiasm and faith can raise the moun-tains: the reform of education, the first attempts to plan-ning to the French, the major economic policy instruments that the introduction of social security measures, always keeping his eyes fixed the unemployment rate, at a time when the term "full employment" was not laughing. "Who learns enriched," we read on billboards along the roads.
For me as for others, the coming to power of Daniel Johnson in 1966, he, the successor of Maurice Duplessis, is a real disaster. Right is back. But after one month, there is not. The momentum is too powerful. It will continue.
But here I am in October 1967. I'll say a conference in Banff. I had so much work in the weeks before that I have not had time to write my text or even thinking about it. So I took the train to the West, saying that, over the three days of the trip, I will have peace and all the time necessary to prepare.
I boarded the train. I remember ... as the background with the endless forests of northern Ontario. Will scroll in my head all the projects completed during the Quiet Revolution: the emergence of the State of Quebec, the phases of expansion, the as-delivered against Ottawa jumps back to the central government, thanks World War II, seized all the true power and most of the tax, the establishment of direct relations with abroad, and, thanks to General de Gaulle, particu-larly with the countries of the Francophonie .
A few months before this trip to Banff, I presented at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, a project to participate in the launch communications satellites called Franco-German Symphonie. They would be launched from Russian rockets (until the French Ariane rocket is ready). At that time, Canada was negotiating its participation in the launch of satellites-tions, primarily with the United States but also with Great Britain and Japan.
I was pretty proud of myself. At the same time, I was uncomfortable. Quebecers were really afford two systems of communication satellite? Quebec has probably then the dynamism and financial resources to engage in new ways, creative, exciting. The fact remains that we are, all Federal ralistes we are, undermining the ability of Ottawa to be a real government.
One way to maintain some consistency in government-ment policies of the federations is to use joint ventures. The central government agrees to bear, say, 50% of the cost of construction of a highway as long as states or provinces that make up the country accept the road map defined by the central government and minimum standards of construction. There are of course in the country, states or provinces are richer than others. Equalization is used for central government to balance the costs based on the wealth of the respective states or provinces. To return to my example of highway, the central government may decide that its contribution will be lower for states so-called rich and higher for poorer states said.
No doubt, states or provinces do they have their own way of taxa-tion, but it must find ways to coordinate their use of the money collected. If the central government lowers the tax rate to promote economic recovery, should not the other level of government the opportunity to increase his own.
In some federations, only the central government may be in deficit with respect to current operations. The governments of the provinces can not borrow for fixed assets. It also happens that only the central government can borrow abroad. We search everywhere to coordinate the large public investment, so that, in times of inflation, everyone invest-woven together.
In Canada, under the repeated assaults of Quebec, almost all coordination mechanisms jumped. Jean Lesage of Quebec withdrew 29 joint programs at once full compen-sation against tax and financial. Equalization is generous and unconditional. Each province, in the field of direct taxation, tax-based hand as she wants. Each borrows at will. The large in-vestors (the hydro and transport companies, for example) never speak.
All this will end badly. I have not understood, then, how such a disorder is likely to cause a gross waste of public funds, as and as the escalation of both levels of government to the electorate even brings a sense of duplication programs and services and thus an increase in expenditure.
I did not expected that the federal government to stiffen so quickly after the election of Pierre Trudeau as Minister Premiere. But I feel that sooner or later, each government of Quebec will be able to hinder if not em-fishing work of the other.
One people, one nation, a country must have a government, a real one. And in a federation, it is necessary that the Central Government may establish guidelines, policies, based on specific objectives, and ensures that it has the means to implement its policies. In all federations, we understood that.
When drawing up the list of powers that Quebec would agree to return to Ottawa to enable it to effectively fight against unemployment, against poverty, against inflation, I think that we never found a political party in Quebec that will agree to that. And we will continue to denounce Ottawa, to attack, to complain.
If so, for Quebecers, it is unthinkable that their true govern-ment is in Ottawa, so it is in Quebec!
The first paragraphs of my lecture in Banff reflected in a core-federalist viewpoint. The long technical analysis that I write across the Prairies me out of the intellectual straightjacket has been mine for so many years. Arriving in the Rockies, the conclusion falls inevitable: at the bottom, Quebec may become an independent country.
I became sovereignty to ensure that a true govern-ment moves into a real country, a country where people are responsi-ble for themselves and where leaders can not unload on each other their responsibilities.
I became sovereignty because I saw that the sovereignty of Quebec was one of two avenues available, but the only possible to ensure employment growth and the economy, equal opportunities for citizens, a good social safety net pro-tecting true, lies against the vagaries of life, without these protections, however, make the subject of a ruinous bidding war between two governments who are courting the same voters.
Sovereignty does not automatically smart. But it does not automatically stupid either. In an industrialized country, modern, cost of sovereignty is the cost of ill-policies that are adopted and that is applied. If policies are well suited to the needs, sovereignty, free, and it allows the economy to progress and growth to occur, because the ves-entered fewer.
And language? And culture? For many people, it's language and French culture that is after the long march of the Quebec people to his country. It took me a long time before they can see the fervor in Communion. In one respect intellectual, I understood the crucial importance of language and French culture, that is not the question. But having done almost all my studies in French and British institutions, being bilingual and having any kind of "complex" language, I had so many reluctant to insert myself in the movement that many Quebec francophones were in the immigrant have in the fifties and sixties.
It is understandable that by his poverty, a population can eventually come to accept being led in a different language than his own. It is understandable that the few who has the money and control the movement to get all the constitu-tional guarantees to preserve their language rights. However, I have never admitted that one of institutional bilingualism makes an ideal, a moral purpose, a kind of civic virtue. You know what, Belgium, led one such attempt: a clear division between the country's cultural and linguistic communities. And Switzerland, do we find the German public schools in the canton of Geneva and the French public schools in the canton of Zurich? No!
Best of all, to preserve the right to display in English in Quebec, it has even been invoking the argument of freedom of expression from the charters of rights. What freedom of expression? That of com-panies? The commercial companies? What about freedom of religion or conscience business? These fundamental freedoms belong in the natural world, the individual, man or woman, not to companies that, unlike people, are creatures of the state.
The weight of history, the constraints of political or peace of the souls lead us to accept situations that are not habitual or normal is! But the people of Quebec, a French-speaking people, must first protect their language and culture to flourish, which are neither English nor Canadian culture. Cel-the latter, other caregivers.
That is why the Charter of the French language, known as Bill 101, passed in 1977, was for me as a real breath of fresh air. The popularity of the law was good to see. As if, finally, a feasible way appeared in the linguistic mess.
But waste is still part of the resistance of a large number of Quebecers to recognize that if the institutional bilingualism is an aberration, individual bilingualism is, cons, necessary when one is so isolated in North America . And children are ap-more easily speak English and even better they have learned young. It can be said of a third lan-gauge, that the student can choose from a list of the languages most in-Lees.
Again there misdeal. Multiculturalism is an aberration, as well as constitutional and institutional bilingualism, but be multilingual for someone who belongs to a small nation like ours is useful, even necessary, in the world of-hand.
Is also part of the wave of linguistic mess glorification of slang that has swept for some time among many Quebec intellectuals. What damage it caused! The worst thing that happen to us Vaienti-louse happened: the glorification of the ghetto language. The temptation of patois is also much stronger than the disappearance of history as a compulsory subject in school students cut points of reference to Western civilization to which they belong. ("Sir, what that means, BC?")
It will be understood, for me, unlike many others, the lan-gauge and culture are the main elements that inspired my desire for independence for Quebec. However, I understand its importance. I know that without the language and culture, the chances of achieving sovereignty would be lower. I know it's the French who are going to sovereignty!
That said, for me, language is the rock of Sisyphus, and the development of Quebec culture is influenced by its ability to carve out a place outside the borders of Quebec. It is probably very reassuring for Quebecers to know that 47 of their 50 French television programs most popular are your produi-Quebec, and very upsetting for English Canadians of his 47-see 50 of their most popular shows are produced in the United States. But it is in the world that culture québécoise will manifest its inherent vitality. Nothing should be spared in this regard.
Nor should we worked hard to advance quickly on the information highway. This is a new language in which Quebecers feel at home, where, in terms of technology, it fully participates in the movement of things and give free rein to his creativity-ness. No doubt, this new language does not seem necessary for people who have over forty. Nevertheless it is interesting, convenient, useful, very useful even intellectually and culturally rewarding. Young people, themselves, will live in a world where this new language is required, where his mastery in part will determine success. In fact, for today's children, access to the information highway is part of equal opportunities.
We can see, I am a little conformist sovereignty and initiative-tion, at least, not very emotional. Only little by little I learned to love Quebec for what it is. Basically, I chose a government before choosing a country.
This rubbed off on all my political activity and all the speeches I had to say in my political career. The policy should be used to accomplish something, to complete a project. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. We have better things to do in life.
Returning to the Banff conference. Once past the scandal that caused my speech, calm returns. I can extend my involvement in the world of policy, policy. I chair at that time a study commission on financial institutions, I continue in the office of prime minister, to take care of wage policy in the public sector, I attend, in the conflict between federal and pro -vincial, in the late cavalry charges and the beginning of trench warfare.
In September 1969, I commend the Government of Quebec the ratio of the Study Commission on Financial Institutions and the following month, I enter the PQ. A few weeks later, I am elected president of the National Executive Committee of the party. I dove! The Parti Quebecois is very young. We seek, we brainstorm, we redo the world. But first and foremost, we seek a scenario that allows access to sovereignty.
The scenario began with the publication of the book Option Quebec René Lévesque in 1968. This is the birth of the Movement sovereignty-association (MSA) that Rene Levesque created after crashing out of the Liberal Party. It is a starting point, Option Québec, but also an end point.
This is the starting point of the first movement sovereignist-bécois able to take power and thus achieve the sovereignty of Quebec. And it is the culmination of the Quiet Revolution. All Quebecers who have contributed to a complete revolution of the education system, which created what became a series of instruments of economic decisions of the first order, which have completely transformed the health care system and so-cial services, which have implemented Québec diplomacy abroad and have done all this by winning almost every battle against the federal government, making him disgorge a tie-in of what he had removed the Quebec during the Second World War, the Quebecers, I say, are quite proud of the results, they include little wind do even great things, provided the political and constitutional straitjacket relaxes. They are all federalists, they are also Latin Cartesian reasoners. They are not content to act in fits and starts.
Quebec, like the Quiet Revolution has shown, is not a province like the others. It needs a special status, that is to say the powers of a legal nature, nature-tional constitution itself, of its own. Of two founding peoples, who had fallen asleep finally woke up: he demands the recognition of its political status. It is not enough, some would say, gathered around the minister of education at the time, Paul Gerin Lajoie, one of the two major architects of the educational reform (the other being Arthur Smith) and this we really need is not a special status for Quebec, two associated states, one consisting of Quebec, the other the rest of Canada.
While the Liberals are still looking for forms of autonomy within the federal framework, new political parties are beginning to tackle head the issue of Quebec independence. In the elections of 1966, this will be the foundation programs of the Rally for National Independence (INR) of Pierre Bourgault and the Métis National (RN) Gre-Gilles Grégoire. They will not win many votes, but the idea is taking hand-launched and the slogan of Pierre Bourgault, "We are able," while expressing a wish than a statement, will never be forgotten.
The election of 1966 brought to power the National Union, led by Daniel Johnson, the father, has a great idea because it fits so well that many people would like, "Equality or Independence".
After a few months, we will travel well aware that this is neither the one nor the other. We will see a little further, to what pressure the govern-ment Johnson was submitted. We can not hold it against him for not having achieved his goal. He did not have the means to his goal. The idea, however, that "you get what should be federal or we leave" will remain to this day the right way to wait for Godot. Or, to speak like Marius, "Hold me back or I'm a misfortune. "
In any case, the start of the new constitutional government is overwhelming. Daniel Johnson, barely settled in his chair Premiere minister, places the order to counsel that he kept from the time of demand to justify Lesage of Quebec in Ottawa to get all three so-called direct taxes: the income tax, tax on corporate profits and taxes on succession.
The exercise of justification, wonderfully successful in terms listique-sty, is unconvincing. Would have whole fields of expenses previously paid by the federal government came under the jurisdiction of Quebec is not only a special status, but a very special status. It's actually a status unimaginable.
The three doves - Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau - come to perch in Ottawa to save Canada Quebec nationalism.
In the first federal-provincial conference of the first Minis-ters, Pierre Trudeau, then minister of justice, once and for all clarify the issue of special status: it can not be at Parliament Hill in Ottawa MPs elected in Quebec who vote laws and applicable taxes for all Canadians, except for Quebecers. As for hand-held Parliament in the same two classes of MPs, some, ac-cording their origin, have the right to vote for certain laws or cer-tain taxes, other voting all laws and all taxes, This would be a perversion-parliamentary system.
In short, we are in the system or it is outside the system. Alternatively, it is Canadian or Quebec we are. It makes sense.
Daniel Johnson for a while seek some consolation in the inter-relations. Quebec Liberals, meanwhile, will not know where to turn to, at least until Robert Bourassa finally found the philosopher's stone: Quebec would be recognized as a distinct society in Canada, but this recognition n would not have legal consequences.
René Lévesque, who was the most popular minister of the cabinet of Jean Lesage, will take roughly the same lesson as Pierre Trudeau and Quebec separatist tendencies. But his conclusion is the in-verse. While Trudeau is that Quebec remains a province of the same status as other, Levesque concludes that the particularities that make Quebec so different from the rest of Canada does little more wind to be respected, even by the statehood partner. The culmination of sovereignty would be normal.
The definition of sovereignty will be given in Quebec Op-tion leads directly to the more explicit, that the Party québécoise will gradually accept it. The Quebec people should have the right to pass laws that apply to him. It should have the right to vote the taxes that taxpayers have to pay. And treaties that bind Quebec to other countries must be approved by his government or Parliament.
It is curious that for a quarter of a century that this definition exists, it has taken so long for it to be understood. Ment not only in areas where we do not particularly interested in politics, but by people who should, as we say in English beautifully, know better.
Part of the explanation lies in the resonance of words. Sovereignty is independence, and independence is the separation of tion with Canada.
Subjectively, that's another story. The word "sovereignty" is less fear that the word "independence" and the word "separation" shakes. Together they dream of one day being responsible for ourselves, we want to maintain a link, a special relationship with Canada. In this sense, psychologically, thirty years ago, it was a "sovereignty-association" in the same way that today we look for a "sovereignty-partnership".
And it is important not to believe that the search for the second face of Janus affects only public fragile and frightened by definition. On the contrary! Many leaders are aware of access to in-peace, a lack of confidence that the public perceives periodically. It is not wrong.
Propaganda plays an important role in the persistence of this climate of anxiety. It stems from control over the media of a small number of individuals and the federal government. When most of these "decision makers" have the same views on a fundamental political issue, all-pervasive propaganda. And you can not do anything about it. It's like rain or hail, it is expected to calm down.
It is not necessary to go back far in time to find examples of misinformation. Here is a very recent: the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1992. She posed a serious challenge to Canadian federalists.
This is a country that became independent on a simple vote of its Parliament, in agreement with the Czechs are exceeded. The division of assets and liabilities is done quickly. There is no violence. "And with us," say the Slovaks. "Good riddance," say the Chih-questions.
A few months before our 1995 referendum, Slovakia forth suddenly be a voracious curiosity on the part of the biggest names in Canadian media and Quebec. The Globe and Mail editorial page publishes some caveats well felt. Radio-Canada sends to Le Point, one of its leaders to investigate on site. For some time, commentators in our media manifest in relation to Slovakia a nice tee-unanimous. Is not that the Slovak economy is smaller than the Czech economy, and therefore more fragile, unemployment is higher in Slova-quie, that monetary union collapsed dear to the Slovaks, the Czech market will close for Slovak products? All that to say to Quebecers. Be wary, look into what abyss is to train yourself.
Subsequently, Slovakia disappears from our media such as in chant. Its useful life to the federalist cause is finished. What-a few months later, I received a long analysis by the ser-vice Research Morgan Guaranty Trust, published in London and called Slovakia: Is Rapid Growth Sustainable?, That is to say, "Slovakia: rapid growth can be maintained? "A subtitle reads: Slovak Economy Continues to Impress (" Slovak economic performance continues to impress ").
I understand that one is impressed! In 1995, the growth rate of Slovakia, in real terms was 7%, one of the highest, if not the highest of all countries in Europe. Already in 1994, the growth rate was 6%. Export and domestic consump-tion are very strong and Slovakia sells more of products to the Czech Republic than it buys him.
In short, everything we suggested is wrong. But this, after all, does not matter ... What matters essentially is that the majority rejects the 1995 referendum ...
The story of the last thirty years is marked by propaganda operations of this kind. I will give two examples below, past those, which relate to capital flight, good old propaganda theme absolutely indestructible.
Fortunately, all is not just a matter of psychology and propaganda. The facts are there: the risk must be calculated. A political cien responsible can not be content to brew images and slogans. It is in this context that has shown the intuitive genius of Rene Levesque and what became the concept of "sovereignty-association."
In 1967, sovereignty-association was not only useful to reassure Quebecers cautious. She was responding to a re-alist reading of the situation. In fact, it reflected a need for absolute. And even if, later, in 1980, it will become a real trap, in retrospect, I do not see how we could avoid it.
This is the demonstration of this need that the next pages are devoted. Be better understood with the emergence and meaning of the new concept of "partnership". Is it the same? The con-straints, obstacles to sovereignty would they now what they were yesterday?
Beyond the words, questioning motives, accusations of dog-matic and symbols reassuring or exciting, you must look at the facts, the stubborn facts.
In 1967, a Quebec that wants to become independent may have to overcome formidable obstacles. The most important of these barriers is commercial in nature.
In fact, tariffs are still very high in the western world. Of course, successive meetings of the GATT contributed since 1947 to lower trade barriers. But the rates remain high. In addition, quotas and embargoes are commonplace. This is true of Canada and the United States. For Quebec, the Canadian market is much larger than the U.S. market, which is really open for raw materials. The free trade on the car then comes just been signed.
If a hostile Canada had decided to treat the products of a Que-bec sovereign as it treats those of foreign countries, we would have been caught between the tariff and quota walls of our two major markets. We went to the break-pipe.
Thirty years later, one does the degree of over-saved Gerie that still prevailed in trade relations. We judge by this episode is contemporaneous with the appearance of the idea of sovereignty-association.
In 1961, following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry Borden, the federal government decided to reserve the Ontario market in the Alberta oil in order to encourage the expansion of production. Montreal is at that time the largest refining center in Canada and a major petrochemical industry developed there. For several years, sharing the market will be amicably between large companies and governments. The raf-fineries will expand in Ontario, Quebec farm, the petrochemical industry will spin to Sarnia and Edmonton, despite the protests of Quebecers can not help it.
When, however, independent companies will refuse the discipline of the cartel and start selling petroleum products from Montreal to Ontario, the National Energy ordered a halt to such transfers, the Borden line (along the Ottawa River) will de-sealed and police patrol the roads to prevent tank cars to move! Within the same country!
Faced with such a gesture, can we blame those who sought to make Quebec a sovereign country to have so wanted a contract of economic association with Canada? Can they repro-dear for giving such importance to the link placed between the words "sovereignty" and "association", so much so that one has come to believe that, without association, no sovereignty is possi-ble?
Lack of insurance separatists in the late sixties is all the more understandable that the economic institutions and financial Quebec has, and which are optionally to provide effective protection and levers, have not really been proven.
The relative ease with which had been overthrown all obstacle raised against the nationalization of private companies for electricity in 1962 should not be misled. How the building was fragile, he was seen well, shortly after coming to power of Daniel Johnson. The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec had just been created and had not yet learned to use it.
To mark the danger of flirting with the Prime Minister Johnson independence, capital flight was organized in 1967. The presidency of the Montreal Exchange Advisors of the major banks, to financial analysts newspapers and other media, all say that capital is fleeing Quebec. Da-niel Johnson is now recovering in Hawaii. There is visited by Marcel Faribault, then president of General Trust of Canada, Marc Carriere and Paul Desmarais has just bought La Presse. The three visitors ensure that capital flight will stop if the first few Minister signing the declaration it received from and by which it agrees to give up independence, his pomps and his works.
Daniel Johnson called Paul Dozois, his finance minister, who can only confirm to him that everyone he emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. Daniel Johnson sign. The statement is pub-lished on the front page of La Presse. The so-called crisis ends soon after.
The Prime Minister's office where I work, I ask the Caisse de depot to give me a daily record of transactions and prices in the bond market in Quebec. The titles of the most fair SES period of capital flight are bonds issued by the Quebec government and Hydro-Quebec. From these obligations then that the investor wants to get rid nervous: they are those with the highest risk.
The results of my investigation are clear: throughout this alleged crisis, the market is actually very calm, no panic has hit Quebec titles. We got rolling. It was not even necessary to move the capital. The only fear different rocket by the media was enough.
How were we to be aware of? Ten, not more. For all of Quebec, a prime minister was elected with a mandate to achieve equality or independence. But it was scary to investors, he put in their jobs at risk. But Thankfully, the "big businessmen" were watching the grain. The prime minister apologized and pledged to properly administer Quebec now.
And it continues like this since. Paul Desmarais has yet tried to make the coup in 1995, with the help of other leading businessmen, including Laurent Beaudoin and Michel Bélanger. How-ever, it is not as easy to scare. After thirty years, the arguments are worn. We must change, adapt.
It took time and taking power in 1976 by the Party that bécois-so that we learn how to protect themselves against this kind of pressure. It was also the PQ rule the question of money. Otherwise, the perceived crisis in relation to a Quebec currency consistently poison the political climate and economical.
Naturally, for me, must have an independent central bank, currency and monetary policy. In fact, over the danger is great on the commercial side, the greater the risk of financial pressure, the higher it is important to have a good degree of monetary autonomy.
For René Lévesque, the maintenance of the Canadian dollar was fundamental to the project by the sovereignty of Quebec. The reasoning was political. Rene Levesque is that which was right.
That this issue of the currency was able to do any harm! The first campaign that led the Parti Quebecois in 1970, was an opportunity for his opponents to launch "the dollar to Levesque," which also predicted the collapse to 65 cents, in pen-health what happened since the Canadian dollar, can smile.
The 1970 election was also recalled, during another stunt by the federalists. A few days before the election, at dawn, several of the Brinks armored car stop in front of the Royal Trust, Montreal, and a swarm of guards carry the main gate for trucks dozens of large bags. The trucks, then tries to Toronto. Journalists and press photographers - we got out of bed for the occasion - are on the scene.
The blow was great. For many people, dollars fleeing Quebec. A Quebec currency would collapse so necessarily. With what money would be able to pay his mortgage? Votes slip through our fingers. The Parti Quebecois won 23% in spite of all the votes and seven seats.
In the 1973 election, the question of the currency remained unresolved at the Parti Quebecois. Despite the fear-mongering, the PQ ob-held 31% of the vote, but took only six seats.
From there, caution became de rigueur. The link between sovereignty and association will be set in stone and the associa-tion will be expanded far beyond what relates to commer-cial currents. Obviously, the Canadian dollar will be one of the essential elements.
The Parti Québécois take power, as we know, in 1976, with only 41% of the vote and not surprisingly really. Finally, this is it! There is a moment of truth. The separatists, for the first time, do not have to apologize to exist or to defend themselves from harm employment and development. What they can do, we shall see.
For the Federalists, too, the time is crucial. If they want to be is-the new government to its knees, they must now do so. All were false capital flight experiences, trial balloons for what just happened.
Except that the economic and financial levers which Quebec has in the sixties are now lapped. They be waiting for the federalists.
The English language media in Quebec and Canada spreading across North America as the new Quebec government is the "Northern Cuba". And Cuba is the plague. Both socialist and separation ratiste, Quebec is a threat to the capitalists, the true democrats and the English. That's a lot of people!
The Caisse de depot et placement has several hundreds of millions of dollars in short-term liquidity. During the days following the 1976 election, tens of millions of dollars in obligations of Quebec and Hydro Quebec are launched on the market. The Fund leaves a little down the course, just to lose the ar-gent to those who sell and buy it. In fact, two days after the election, it is clear that the Fund is not "cross".
But the financial markets of Montreal, Toronto and New York so close to the new bond of govern-ment of Quebec. What is surprising from New York, because the competition is usually fierce. It is thanks to this competition we were able to secure funding for the na-nationalization of utilities. But the constant evocation of socialism and Cuba has unfortunately taken its toll. As Minister of Finance, I get to make some private investments in 1977, but overall, the boycott is.
The Caisse probably buy huge amounts of government securities, but it is insufficient. So I will take away from the epicenter ... with the greatest ease. It must be said that the abundance of petrodollars at this time favors the operation.
So I'll take everything we have in Switzerland, Britain, Germany, Japan and Belgium. The Canadian and U.S. financial communities begin to realize that the only effect of their boycott was to make them lose lucrative commissions.
Thus we become honorable people. The markets open again through the action of our new finan-cial unions in Canada, led by Levesque Beaubien. This is the first time in the history of Quebec that French home runs the place-ment and marketing of government bonds of Que-bec. We are not hiding anything: each prospectus makes clear that the government's main policy objective is to achieve Quebec sovereignty.
And what about the economy now? The uncertainty, the federal-provincial wrangling, social democracy, all that he has not flowed in-deep on the economy? All this he has certainly not scared away foreign capital?
Judge for yourself! The more volatile capital are those invested in the manufacturing industry. Not those who are invested in natural resources. There is no question, for example, al-can give up to produce the raw aluminum, electricity derived from its own dams at a cost equivalent to the real-sixth the price at which Hydro-Québec sells own electricity industry. But the manufacture of pans or aluminum beams can be done anywhere.
For three consecutive years, in 1977, 1978 and 1979, manufacturing investment rose in Quebec more quickly than in Ontario. Vive political uncertainty!
Some successful operations such as OSE program, the nationalization of the auto and agricultural zoning, are not only demonstrate that the new government has resisted the first assaults Federalists, but he knows about it.
Caution remains terribly appropriate. Party québécoise committed to its Congress in 1974 to hold a referendum before taking anything in terms of sovereignty. I per-sonally led the fight against the very idea of a referendum. To me, Quebec entered the Confederation by a vote of its members, why could he not leave the same way? But the principle of a referendum was adopted by the congress of the Parti Quebecois, a good soldier, I accepted the new situation.
Many years later, seeing how easily the Slovak quie separated peacefully from the Czech Republic with a simple vote of its parliament, I like a blow to the heart. But it's too late now. Voluntarily give up the commitment not to separate from Canada after a referendum won the mandate would be to betray the people of Quebec told its leaders. Unless we can not force, of course. If, in Ottawa, wants to make an illegal referendum in Quebec ... "Those that Jupiter wants to lose, it drives them mad," they said in the past.
Anyway, as time passes, the problem becomes more complex rendaire reference. In 1976, the PQ has promised to for-mer good government and to seek, later, by way of reference only dum, to obtain a warrant on sovereignty.
No doubt the government formed it is very good. We should be happy, but the years pass and it does not happen much on the referendum question, nor, consequently, on the question of sovereignty. The survey results are hardly excitatory aunt which is normal since it is impossible to see an idea grow in public opinion if we do not talk about, is the rule in a democracy. Above all, we can not ask voters to have the insurance for the future if we do not ourselves as a member or minister of good government.
However, as time passes, the perils of the hyphen is manifestly-tent. Using memoirs, studies, consultations, it says, it polishes the content and prospects of the association, saying that one day all this will serve. But what was designed to reassure Quebecers is with Ottawa and English Canada that he'll have to negotiate.
And if they refused to negotiate? Not after the referendum ... but before? What we would have to say to those that should be reassuring-operate? And while some are already established in Hull, the seat of the future common central bank, or commune Supreme Court, we must ask the question: Why do Canadians accept to reassure customers of their opponents ?
In this logic, we must demonstrate that we are not adversaries, basically, it is in the interest of the two "associated states" to find common ground, we will live better if we are two different countries if we act, in the words of Rene Levesque, as "two scorpions in a button-Teil". In short, it is as much for the good of Canadians. In sum, too, we like them. I exaggerate, of course, thinking about other events that will occur five years later.
The 1980 referendum question will ultimately be a long, soft and complicated: the most reassuring as possible for French and least offensive as possible for English speakers. A second reference dum is expected to relieve each other.
Here is the wording of the question:
The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to come up with the rest of Canada, a new agreement based on the principle of equality of peoples;
this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the ex-clusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad, what is sovereignty - and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association involving the use of the same currency;
any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be conducted without the consent of the people through another referendum;
therefore, give yourself to the Government of Que-bec mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?
This is clearly seen, an application for a mandate to negotiate. The population, however, make no mistake: those who answer yes are in favor of sovereignty and those who will vote against.
The response of the Federalists organized around three themes. First, the response to the request for negotiation: No thank you! Several premiers of other provinces will join their voices to that of Ottawa: No thank you!
Second, we have the right arguments federalists classic old-age pensions will not be paid, the uncertainty study will continue to prevail, unemployment will intensify, not to mention that gas prices will rise. Note that the national energy policy is in effect, it will cost 50 or 60 billion dollars to the western provinces, which must provide the Ontario oil at a price below the international price. Quebec, which s'approvi session on international markets, receives grants from the federation to maintain prices in Ontario. It is completely absurd, this program is unsustainable and it will not last. But it came at the right time. The current Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, then minister in the Trudeau government, fighting the campaign on the theme: "If you separate, gas prices will rise. "We do not lace!
And then, as the third theme, Pierre Trudeau committed solemn-tion, during a large meeting at the Paul Sauvé, to amend the Constitution if the majority of Quebecers vote no. Everyone understands that it would be in line to expand the powers of Quebec. We will see a year later that the opposite is true he had in mind. It will remove power in Quebec. We were rolled again.
The results of the 1980 referendum, 40% for Yes, 60% for NO, show that the French are divided into two groups of equal importance. This result can be daunting. The question was meant soft, just to get a mandate to negotiate, re-forth like a boomerang. That Quebecers have rejected their government, not to the sovereignty, after all, they could resume later on the grounds that the spirits were not sufficiently prepared, the opponent was unfair, and who knows what else. No, that Quebecers have rejected their government, the mandate to go and see what it is.
A kind of psychological breakdown among separatists will follow 1980, the new breakdown of the Parti Quebecois election victory in 1981 will fail to really address. The constitutional reform unilateral Ottawa, treason committed against the Quebec province with which he had temporarily ally (we will never forget the "night of long knives") and the recession that began leading a deep discouragement.
Yet Quebec is not doing so bad. It will emerge from recession faster than any other province. The spring line of business by wonders.
But why put so much effort when the dream is broken? In 1984, with the advent of the "beau risque" the Prime Minister of Quebec agrees to take the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, we understand that a page has been turned. The text to be published by René Lévesque November 20 of that year for me marks the end of an era. I resign as both Minister of Finance and as a member. Several other MPs and ministers leave the Parti Quebecois, which Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101.
In 1988, I return to my business as a candidate pre-Ala Presidency of the Parti Quebecois. During the four years of my retirement, I often reflected on these fifteen years (1969-1984) during which the thought and action separatists have developed. With hindsight, I have come to the conclusion that it would go no further in the direction of our goal by using the same formulas, the same means, the same path.
In addition, the economic environment has changed dramatically in the last quarter century. Apprehensions are justified, we have seen, in the sixties, are no longer today. There are risks in all, life is like that, but they are not the same, and otherwise protect themselves against these new risks.
Nothing in what I will now present should, even implicitly, be seen as a criticism of any aspect of thought or the political evolution of René Lévesque. I tried to show what I think they were. Agree or disagree with him from event to event, I was supportive. And when I have been supportive, I left. Renier Levesque would disown me myself.
The first lesson I learned during the 1980 referendum, is that if we want to achieve sovereignty, it must be said, bluntly. God knows how, in the path that goes from the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in the 1995 referendum, many proposals were an attempt to make Quebec a sovereign country without it being quite the real thing, seeking various means to reassure independent cis, claiming inspiration from the European Union but not by the ser-state sovereignty, or by offering choices mul-tiple in the same referendum question.
I do not think the confusion as a political tool to get things done. And I no longer believe those for whom time is never good.
I broke up with repeated these hesitations, these constitu-tional quirky constructions, these delaying tactics, relying on two simple formulas. First, the PQ is sovereignty before, during and after the elections, sovereignty is its main purpose. Secondly, a referendum must be held ob-hold the mandate to achieve Quebec sovereignty, after taking power, we will quickly referendum.
All that will follow is based on two ideas there. They guide me in all the constitutional debates that begin with the negotiation of the Meech Lake Accord.
Without going into the whole litany of high masses the constitutional-that took place year after year, it is true that I am not distracted from my purpose and I used up my mind to the same rigor. I've been accused of being the man responsible for the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. There is truth in this statement. May have been as futile the provisions of this agreement, I was profoundly convinced, perhaps because I often have long, that English Canadians would not accept the agreement proposed by their leaders . They would find that it was still too general for Quebec-gerous. So I spent months begging in the National Assem-bly and outside the National Assembly, "my" Premier Robert Bourassa do not back down even one inch, compared to the five conditions that 'he asked.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission was, paradoxically, a mo-ment of great peril. Never the sovereignty option had been as strong in public opinion. But there was still a threat, you hope that it should be given one last chance to fed-eral system. Would be a last chance in Canada before proposing a referendum on sovereignty? And who would judge the quality of this last chance?
Without going into the minutiae of the negotiations between members of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, let's just say my stubbornness did not come to grips with the hope that continued to raise the idea of a last chance. But at least the recom-mendation was made to hold a referendum on sovereignty and to keep it no later than October 1992.
Government officials signed the Bélanger-Campeau report. The government introduced a bill (Act 150) which reproduced verbatim the recommendations of the Commission Bé-lang-Campeau, but by preceding the recitals often raised serious doubts as to the true intent to hold férendum re-established by law. After the two parliamentarians commissions created by law 150 had sat for months (one dealing with the consequences of statehood, the other focusing on the beacon of a federal offer acceptable), the Government an-nounced that there would be no referendum. Quebecers were in-core rolls.
In Ottawa, meanwhile, is still looking for a solution. Commissions of Inquiry into television shows, we finally arrived to an agreement between Canadian Prime Minister, the premiers and aboriginal leaders on a draft comprehensive constitutional reform project to be submitted for voter approval in the part of a national referendum. This will be the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. Not what I wanted. No matter. There is an opportunity to get off this duck in the last cord, last chance of Canadian federalism.
Quebecers voted overwhelmingly against the project, the Ca-nadian provinces English is also most pronounced against-larly, as the natives. The circus ended constitutional so by voting against all three electorates The leaders of Canada. Unheard of!
From there, my program became clear. In 1992 we won the Charlottetown referendum. In 1993, the majority of the members from Quebec in Ottawa is made up of separatists. In 1994, the Parti Québécois returned to power in Quebec. And in 1995, the referendum on sovereignty will take place.
How would you access this sovereignty? On what ba-its? It is clear that for several years, I was talking about more than sovereignty. The link had waned. You could, I was convinced achieve sovereignty while Canadians were intractable for a while. I wanted more than ever we are faced with a "No thank you! "Also, I was convinced that the vast majority of anglophones and allophones in Canada and Quebec would in any case against any form of sovereignty as long as Quebecers would not democratically voted in favor of it .
In 1967, I am a federalist, I have always been. First, because, economically and socially, I'm left of center. Like many people at that time, as the Liberals in Ottawa and the Liberals in Quebec. However, I have never done politics. Since my youth, I feel a profound distaste for the plessisme-which for me is an extension of a form of narrow Clerici-ism that exists in Quebec since the mid-nineteenth century, that is to say since the crushing of the rebellions of 1837-1838. This mixture of ideas from primary right of linguistic nationalism bounded, so as voritisme-conformism and gets on my nerves. Returning to England in 1955 at the end of my studies, I look from my position as professor at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commer-cial, to Ottawa where much social reform has been underway for over ten years . The Ottawa government has managed the economy during the Second World War. He started at that time to set up the threads of the social security that were so lacking during the Great Depression of the thirties. Unemployment insurance, family allowances and the universal old age pensions, and hospital insurance are only the most impor-tant of these reforms.
One form of equalization is introduced to compensate for inequities in income between provinces. Access to private property is greatly facilitated by the creation of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It reviews the laws against monopolies. We create from scratch a new financial tools.
In short, a country is built. It's exciting, it's exciting. But it is not without drawbacks. In fact, being a Canadian rather than American has a cost that the most important is the Canadian Customs Tariff, which is very high. The Ukrainian the Saskatchewan has difficulty understanding why its neighbor to the Dako-ta, which is yet arrived in America along with him from their native Ukraine, that he pays less for his car and receives more than him for his wheat.
But the fact of being Canadian then represents something as precious-tion that we willingly accept the sacrifice. And the idea that sacrifice is required to be independent of the United States is so-ingrained in their minds that when they like, forty years later, to persuade Quebecers that they could also aspire to build their country Many remain convinced that they will pay the price, they will agree to make sacrifices, seen as a kind of punishment. However, the context has changed completely. Free trade has expanded across the continent, we know that Quebec society can save billions of dollars a year by eliminating duplication of government services. Never, indeed, it would have been as advantageous for Quebec to be independent of Canada. But in many older people, the old dogmatic background is still present: to become independent, it is paid.
Still, Maurice Duplessis died in 1959. His successor, Paul Sauve, has barely had time to shake Quebec society with its discourse that invariably begin with the same word: "Now," he dies in turn. And the Liberals came to power in 1960 see. This is the beginning of the Quiet Revolution.
I plunged enthusiastically into what is happening in Quebec. En-end! The modernization of Quebec will be an extraordinary task. How late we took! Some 54% of French-speaking adults in Quebec did not exceed the sixth year. The State of Quebec say poses little or no intervention instrument. Almost all the centers of economic decisions in the hands of outside interests to the Francophone community. Under-educated, most often uni-lingual, speaking not only do they have in the total income much lower than those of most Anglo-Quebecers, but members of other ethnic communities are doing better than them.
Quebec, however, contains a wealth of imagination and dy-namisme, just go look for them: the university and at school, in the press, trade unions and, yes, in a part of clergy, the Jesuits in particular.
Thus begins the first adventure of "responsible ¬ sabilisation" of Quebecers in respect of themselves, in a thoroughly modern intellectual, a very naive perhaps, but with enthusiasm and faith can raise the moun-tains: the reform of education, the first attempts to plan-ning to the French, the major economic policy instruments that the introduction of social security measures, always keeping his eyes fixed the unemployment rate, at a time when the term "full employment" was not laughing. "Who learns enriched," we read on billboards along the roads.
For me as for others, the coming to power of Daniel Johnson in 1966, he, the successor of Maurice Duplessis, is a real disaster. Right is back. But after one month, there is not. The momentum is too powerful. It will continue.
But here I am in October 1967. I'll say a conference in Banff. I had so much work in the weeks before that I have not had time to write my text or even thinking about it. So I took the train to the West, saying that, over the three days of the trip, I will have peace and all the time necessary to prepare.
I boarded the train. I remember ... as the background with the endless forests of northern Ontario. Will scroll in my head all the projects completed during the Quiet Revolution: the emergence of the State of Quebec, the phases of expansion, the as-delivered against Ottawa jumps back to the central government, thanks World War II, seized all the true power and most of the tax, the establishment of direct relations with abroad, and, thanks to General de Gaulle, particu-larly with the countries of the Francophonie .
A few months before this trip to Banff, I presented at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, a project to participate in the launch communications satellites called Franco-German Symphonie. They would be launched from Russian rockets (until the French Ariane rocket is ready). At that time, Canada was negotiating its participation in the launch of satellites-tions, primarily with the United States but also with Great Britain and Japan.
I was pretty proud of myself. At the same time, I was uncomfortable. Quebecers were really afford two systems of communication satellite? Quebec has probably then the dynamism and financial resources to engage in new ways, creative, exciting. The fact remains that we are, all Federal ralistes we are, undermining the ability of Ottawa to be a real government.
One way to maintain some consistency in government-ment policies of the federations is to use joint ventures. The central government agrees to bear, say, 50% of the cost of construction of a highway as long as states or provinces that make up the country accept the road map defined by the central government and minimum standards of construction. There are of course in the country, states or provinces are richer than others. Equalization is used for central government to balance the costs based on the wealth of the respective states or provinces. To return to my example of highway, the central government may decide that its contribution will be lower for states so-called rich and higher for poorer states said.
No doubt, states or provinces do they have their own way of taxa-tion, but it must find ways to coordinate their use of the money collected. If the central government lowers the tax rate to promote economic recovery, should not the other level of government the opportunity to increase his own.
In some federations, only the central government may be in deficit with respect to current operations. The governments of the provinces can not borrow for fixed assets. It also happens that only the central government can borrow abroad. We search everywhere to coordinate the large public investment, so that, in times of inflation, everyone invest-woven together.
In Canada, under the repeated assaults of Quebec, almost all coordination mechanisms jumped. Jean Lesage of Quebec withdrew 29 joint programs at once full compen-sation against tax and financial. Equalization is generous and unconditional. Each province, in the field of direct taxation, tax-based hand as she wants. Each borrows at will. The large in-vestors (the hydro and transport companies, for example) never speak.
All this will end badly. I have not understood, then, how such a disorder is likely to cause a gross waste of public funds, as and as the escalation of both levels of government to the electorate even brings a sense of duplication programs and services and thus an increase in expenditure.
I did not expected that the federal government to stiffen so quickly after the election of Pierre Trudeau as Minister Premiere. But I feel that sooner or later, each government of Quebec will be able to hinder if not em-fishing work of the other.
One people, one nation, a country must have a government, a real one. And in a federation, it is necessary that the Central Government may establish guidelines, policies, based on specific objectives, and ensures that it has the means to implement its policies. In all federations, we understood that.
When drawing up the list of powers that Quebec would agree to return to Ottawa to enable it to effectively fight against unemployment, against poverty, against inflation, I think that we never found a political party in Quebec that will agree to that. And we will continue to denounce Ottawa, to attack, to complain.
If so, for Quebecers, it is unthinkable that their true govern-ment is in Ottawa, so it is in Quebec!
The first paragraphs of my lecture in Banff reflected in a core-federalist viewpoint. The long technical analysis that I write across the Prairies me out of the intellectual straightjacket has been mine for so many years. Arriving in the Rockies, the conclusion falls inevitable: at the bottom, Quebec may become an independent country.
I became sovereignty to ensure that a true govern-ment moves into a real country, a country where people are responsi-ble for themselves and where leaders can not unload on each other their responsibilities.
I became sovereignty because I saw that the sovereignty of Quebec was one of two avenues available, but the only possible to ensure employment growth and the economy, equal opportunities for citizens, a good social safety net pro-tecting true, lies against the vagaries of life, without these protections, however, make the subject of a ruinous bidding war between two governments who are courting the same voters.
Sovereignty does not automatically smart. But it does not automatically stupid either. In an industrialized country, modern, cost of sovereignty is the cost of ill-policies that are adopted and that is applied. If policies are well suited to the needs, sovereignty, free, and it allows the economy to progress and growth to occur, because the ves-entered fewer.
And language? And culture? For many people, it's language and French culture that is after the long march of the Quebec people to his country. It took me a long time before they can see the fervor in Communion. In one respect intellectual, I understood the crucial importance of language and French culture, that is not the question. But having done almost all my studies in French and British institutions, being bilingual and having any kind of "complex" language, I had so many reluctant to insert myself in the movement that many Quebec francophones were in the immigrant have in the fifties and sixties.
It is understandable that by his poverty, a population can eventually come to accept being led in a different language than his own. It is understandable that the few who has the money and control the movement to get all the constitu-tional guarantees to preserve their language rights. However, I have never admitted that one of institutional bilingualism makes an ideal, a moral purpose, a kind of civic virtue. You know what, Belgium, led one such attempt: a clear division between the country's cultural and linguistic communities. And Switzerland, do we find the German public schools in the canton of Geneva and the French public schools in the canton of Zurich? No!
Best of all, to preserve the right to display in English in Quebec, it has even been invoking the argument of freedom of expression from the charters of rights. What freedom of expression? That of com-panies? The commercial companies? What about freedom of religion or conscience business? These fundamental freedoms belong in the natural world, the individual, man or woman, not to companies that, unlike people, are creatures of the state.
The weight of history, the constraints of political or peace of the souls lead us to accept situations that are not habitual or normal is! But the people of Quebec, a French-speaking people, must first protect their language and culture to flourish, which are neither English nor Canadian culture. Cel-the latter, other caregivers.
That is why the Charter of the French language, known as Bill 101, passed in 1977, was for me as a real breath of fresh air. The popularity of the law was good to see. As if, finally, a feasible way appeared in the linguistic mess.
But waste is still part of the resistance of a large number of Quebecers to recognize that if the institutional bilingualism is an aberration, individual bilingualism is, cons, necessary when one is so isolated in North America . And children are ap-more easily speak English and even better they have learned young. It can be said of a third lan-gauge, that the student can choose from a list of the languages most in-Lees.
Again there misdeal. Multiculturalism is an aberration, as well as constitutional and institutional bilingualism, but be multilingual for someone who belongs to a small nation like ours is useful, even necessary, in the world of-hand.
Is also part of the wave of linguistic mess glorification of slang that has swept for some time among many Quebec intellectuals. What damage it caused! The worst thing that happen to us Vaienti-louse happened: the glorification of the ghetto language. The temptation of patois is also much stronger than the disappearance of history as a compulsory subject in school students cut points of reference to Western civilization to which they belong. ("Sir, what that means, BC?")
It will be understood, for me, unlike many others, the lan-gauge and culture are the main elements that inspired my desire for independence for Quebec. However, I understand its importance. I know that without the language and culture, the chances of achieving sovereignty would be lower. I know it's the French who are going to sovereignty!
That said, for me, language is the rock of Sisyphus, and the development of Quebec culture is influenced by its ability to carve out a place outside the borders of Quebec. It is probably very reassuring for Quebecers to know that 47 of their 50 French television programs most popular are your produi-Quebec, and very upsetting for English Canadians of his 47-see 50 of their most popular shows are produced in the United States. But it is in the world that culture québécoise will manifest its inherent vitality. Nothing should be spared in this regard.
Nor should we worked hard to advance quickly on the information highway. This is a new language in which Quebecers feel at home, where, in terms of technology, it fully participates in the movement of things and give free rein to his creativity-ness. No doubt, this new language does not seem necessary for people who have over forty. Nevertheless it is interesting, convenient, useful, very useful even intellectually and culturally rewarding. Young people, themselves, will live in a world where this new language is required, where his mastery in part will determine success. In fact, for today's children, access to the information highway is part of equal opportunities.
We can see, I am a little conformist sovereignty and initiative-tion, at least, not very emotional. Only little by little I learned to love Quebec for what it is. Basically, I chose a government before choosing a country.
This rubbed off on all my political activity and all the speeches I had to say in my political career. The policy should be used to accomplish something, to complete a project. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. We have better things to do in life.
Returning to the Banff conference. Once past the scandal that caused my speech, calm returns. I can extend my involvement in the world of policy, policy. I chair at that time a study commission on financial institutions, I continue in the office of prime minister, to take care of wage policy in the public sector, I attend, in the conflict between federal and pro -vincial, in the late cavalry charges and the beginning of trench warfare.
In September 1969, I commend the Government of Quebec the ratio of the Study Commission on Financial Institutions and the following month, I enter the PQ. A few weeks later, I am elected president of the National Executive Committee of the party. I dove! The Parti Quebecois is very young. We seek, we brainstorm, we redo the world. But first and foremost, we seek a scenario that allows access to sovereignty.
The scenario began with the publication of the book Option Quebec René Lévesque in 1968. This is the birth of the Movement sovereignty-association (MSA) that Rene Levesque created after crashing out of the Liberal Party. It is a starting point, Option Québec, but also an end point.
This is the starting point of the first movement sovereignist-bécois able to take power and thus achieve the sovereignty of Quebec. And it is the culmination of the Quiet Revolution. All Quebecers who have contributed to a complete revolution of the education system, which created what became a series of instruments of economic decisions of the first order, which have completely transformed the health care system and so-cial services, which have implemented Québec diplomacy abroad and have done all this by winning almost every battle against the federal government, making him disgorge a tie-in of what he had removed the Quebec during the Second World War, the Quebecers, I say, are quite proud of the results, they include little wind do even great things, provided the political and constitutional straitjacket relaxes. They are all federalists, they are also Latin Cartesian reasoners. They are not content to act in fits and starts.
Quebec, like the Quiet Revolution has shown, is not a province like the others. It needs a special status, that is to say the powers of a legal nature, nature-tional constitution itself, of its own. Of two founding peoples, who had fallen asleep finally woke up: he demands the recognition of its political status. It is not enough, some would say, gathered around the minister of education at the time, Paul Gerin Lajoie, one of the two major architects of the educational reform (the other being Arthur Smith) and this we really need is not a special status for Quebec, two associated states, one consisting of Quebec, the other the rest of Canada.
While the Liberals are still looking for forms of autonomy within the federal framework, new political parties are beginning to tackle head the issue of Quebec independence. In the elections of 1966, this will be the foundation programs of the Rally for National Independence (INR) of Pierre Bourgault and the Métis National (RN) Gre-Gilles Grégoire. They will not win many votes, but the idea is taking hand-launched and the slogan of Pierre Bourgault, "We are able," while expressing a wish than a statement, will never be forgotten.
The election of 1966 brought to power the National Union, led by Daniel Johnson, the father, has a great idea because it fits so well that many people would like, "Equality or Independence".
After a few months, we will travel well aware that this is neither the one nor the other. We will see a little further, to what pressure the govern-ment Johnson was submitted. We can not hold it against him for not having achieved his goal. He did not have the means to his goal. The idea, however, that "you get what should be federal or we leave" will remain to this day the right way to wait for Godot. Or, to speak like Marius, "Hold me back or I'm a misfortune. "
In any case, the start of the new constitutional government is overwhelming. Daniel Johnson, barely settled in his chair Premiere minister, places the order to counsel that he kept from the time of demand to justify Lesage of Quebec in Ottawa to get all three so-called direct taxes: the income tax, tax on corporate profits and taxes on succession.
The exercise of justification, wonderfully successful in terms listique-sty, is unconvincing. Would have whole fields of expenses previously paid by the federal government came under the jurisdiction of Quebec is not only a special status, but a very special status. It's actually a status unimaginable.
The three doves - Jean Marchand, Gérard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau - come to perch in Ottawa to save Canada Quebec nationalism.
In the first federal-provincial conference of the first Minis-ters, Pierre Trudeau, then minister of justice, once and for all clarify the issue of special status: it can not be at Parliament Hill in Ottawa MPs elected in Quebec who vote laws and applicable taxes for all Canadians, except for Quebecers. As for hand-held Parliament in the same two classes of MPs, some, ac-cording their origin, have the right to vote for certain laws or cer-tain taxes, other voting all laws and all taxes, This would be a perversion-parliamentary system.
In short, we are in the system or it is outside the system. Alternatively, it is Canadian or Quebec we are. It makes sense.
Daniel Johnson for a while seek some consolation in the inter-relations. Quebec Liberals, meanwhile, will not know where to turn to, at least until Robert Bourassa finally found the philosopher's stone: Quebec would be recognized as a distinct society in Canada, but this recognition n would not have legal consequences.
René Lévesque, who was the most popular minister of the cabinet of Jean Lesage, will take roughly the same lesson as Pierre Trudeau and Quebec separatist tendencies. But his conclusion is the in-verse. While Trudeau is that Quebec remains a province of the same status as other, Levesque concludes that the particularities that make Quebec so different from the rest of Canada does little more wind to be respected, even by the statehood partner. The culmination of sovereignty would be normal.
The definition of sovereignty will be given in Quebec Op-tion leads directly to the more explicit, that the Party québécoise will gradually accept it. The Quebec people should have the right to pass laws that apply to him. It should have the right to vote the taxes that taxpayers have to pay. And treaties that bind Quebec to other countries must be approved by his government or Parliament.
It is curious that for a quarter of a century that this definition exists, it has taken so long for it to be understood. Ment not only in areas where we do not particularly interested in politics, but by people who should, as we say in English beautifully, know better.
Part of the explanation lies in the resonance of words. Sovereignty is independence, and independence is the separation of tion with Canada.
Subjectively, that's another story. The word "sovereignty" is less fear that the word "independence" and the word "separation" shakes. Together they dream of one day being responsible for ourselves, we want to maintain a link, a special relationship with Canada. In this sense, psychologically, thirty years ago, it was a "sovereignty-association" in the same way that today we look for a "sovereignty-partnership".
And it is important not to believe that the search for the second face of Janus affects only public fragile and frightened by definition. On the contrary! Many leaders are aware of access to in-peace, a lack of confidence that the public perceives periodically. It is not wrong.
Propaganda plays an important role in the persistence of this climate of anxiety. It stems from control over the media of a small number of individuals and the federal government. When most of these "decision makers" have the same views on a fundamental political issue, all-pervasive propaganda. And you can not do anything about it. It's like rain or hail, it is expected to calm down.
It is not necessary to go back far in time to find examples of misinformation. Here is a very recent: the separation of Slovakia from the Czech Republic in 1992. She posed a serious challenge to Canadian federalists.
This is a country that became independent on a simple vote of its Parliament, in agreement with the Czechs are exceeded. The division of assets and liabilities is done quickly. There is no violence. "And with us," say the Slovaks. "Good riddance," say the Chih-questions.
A few months before our 1995 referendum, Slovakia forth suddenly be a voracious curiosity on the part of the biggest names in Canadian media and Quebec. The Globe and Mail editorial page publishes some caveats well felt. Radio-Canada sends to Le Point, one of its leaders to investigate on site. For some time, commentators in our media manifest in relation to Slovakia a nice tee-unanimous. Is not that the Slovak economy is smaller than the Czech economy, and therefore more fragile, unemployment is higher in Slova-quie, that monetary union collapsed dear to the Slovaks, the Czech market will close for Slovak products? All that to say to Quebecers. Be wary, look into what abyss is to train yourself.
Subsequently, Slovakia disappears from our media such as in chant. Its useful life to the federalist cause is finished. What-a few months later, I received a long analysis by the ser-vice Research Morgan Guaranty Trust, published in London and called Slovakia: Is Rapid Growth Sustainable?, That is to say, "Slovakia: rapid growth can be maintained? "A subtitle reads: Slovak Economy Continues to Impress (" Slovak economic performance continues to impress ").
I understand that one is impressed! In 1995, the growth rate of Slovakia, in real terms was 7%, one of the highest, if not the highest of all countries in Europe. Already in 1994, the growth rate was 6%. Export and domestic consump-tion are very strong and Slovakia sells more of products to the Czech Republic than it buys him.
In short, everything we suggested is wrong. But this, after all, does not matter ... What matters essentially is that the majority rejects the 1995 referendum ...
The story of the last thirty years is marked by propaganda operations of this kind. I will give two examples below, past those, which relate to capital flight, good old propaganda theme absolutely indestructible.
Fortunately, all is not just a matter of psychology and propaganda. The facts are there: the risk must be calculated. A political cien responsible can not be content to brew images and slogans. It is in this context that has shown the intuitive genius of Rene Levesque and what became the concept of "sovereignty-association."
In 1967, sovereignty-association was not only useful to reassure Quebecers cautious. She was responding to a re-alist reading of the situation. In fact, it reflected a need for absolute. And even if, later, in 1980, it will become a real trap, in retrospect, I do not see how we could avoid it.
This is the demonstration of this need that the next pages are devoted. Be better understood with the emergence and meaning of the new concept of "partnership". Is it the same? The con-straints, obstacles to sovereignty would they now what they were yesterday?
Beyond the words, questioning motives, accusations of dog-matic and symbols reassuring or exciting, you must look at the facts, the stubborn facts.
In 1967, a Quebec that wants to become independent may have to overcome formidable obstacles. The most important of these barriers is commercial in nature.
In fact, tariffs are still very high in the western world. Of course, successive meetings of the GATT contributed since 1947 to lower trade barriers. But the rates remain high. In addition, quotas and embargoes are commonplace. This is true of Canada and the United States. For Quebec, the Canadian market is much larger than the U.S. market, which is really open for raw materials. The free trade on the car then comes just been signed.
If a hostile Canada had decided to treat the products of a Que-bec sovereign as it treats those of foreign countries, we would have been caught between the tariff and quota walls of our two major markets. We went to the break-pipe.
Thirty years later, one does the degree of over-saved Gerie that still prevailed in trade relations. We judge by this episode is contemporaneous with the appearance of the idea of sovereignty-association.
In 1961, following the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry Borden, the federal government decided to reserve the Ontario market in the Alberta oil in order to encourage the expansion of production. Montreal is at that time the largest refining center in Canada and a major petrochemical industry developed there. For several years, sharing the market will be amicably between large companies and governments. The raf-fineries will expand in Ontario, Quebec farm, the petrochemical industry will spin to Sarnia and Edmonton, despite the protests of Quebecers can not help it.
When, however, independent companies will refuse the discipline of the cartel and start selling petroleum products from Montreal to Ontario, the National Energy ordered a halt to such transfers, the Borden line (along the Ottawa River) will de-sealed and police patrol the roads to prevent tank cars to move! Within the same country!
Faced with such a gesture, can we blame those who sought to make Quebec a sovereign country to have so wanted a contract of economic association with Canada? Can they repro-dear for giving such importance to the link placed between the words "sovereignty" and "association", so much so that one has come to believe that, without association, no sovereignty is possi-ble?
Lack of insurance separatists in the late sixties is all the more understandable that the economic institutions and financial Quebec has, and which are optionally to provide effective protection and levers, have not really been proven.
The relative ease with which had been overthrown all obstacle raised against the nationalization of private companies for electricity in 1962 should not be misled. How the building was fragile, he was seen well, shortly after coming to power of Daniel Johnson. The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec had just been created and had not yet learned to use it.
To mark the danger of flirting with the Prime Minister Johnson independence, capital flight was organized in 1967. The presidency of the Montreal Exchange Advisors of the major banks, to financial analysts newspapers and other media, all say that capital is fleeing Quebec. Da-niel Johnson is now recovering in Hawaii. There is visited by Marcel Faribault, then president of General Trust of Canada, Marc Carriere and Paul Desmarais has just bought La Presse. The three visitors ensure that capital flight will stop if the first few Minister signing the declaration it received from and by which it agrees to give up independence, his pomps and his works.
Daniel Johnson called Paul Dozois, his finance minister, who can only confirm to him that everyone he emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. Daniel Johnson sign. The statement is pub-lished on the front page of La Presse. The so-called crisis ends soon after.
The Prime Minister's office where I work, I ask the Caisse de depot to give me a daily record of transactions and prices in the bond market in Quebec. The titles of the most fair SES period of capital flight are bonds issued by the Quebec government and Hydro-Quebec. From these obligations then that the investor wants to get rid nervous: they are those with the highest risk.
The results of my investigation are clear: throughout this alleged crisis, the market is actually very calm, no panic has hit Quebec titles. We got rolling. It was not even necessary to move the capital. The only fear different rocket by the media was enough.
How were we to be aware of? Ten, not more. For all of Quebec, a prime minister was elected with a mandate to achieve equality or independence. But it was scary to investors, he put in their jobs at risk. But Thankfully, the "big businessmen" were watching the grain. The prime minister apologized and pledged to properly administer Quebec now.
And it continues like this since. Paul Desmarais has yet tried to make the coup in 1995, with the help of other leading businessmen, including Laurent Beaudoin and Michel Bélanger. How-ever, it is not as easy to scare. After thirty years, the arguments are worn. We must change, adapt.
It took time and taking power in 1976 by the Party that bécois-so that we learn how to protect themselves against this kind of pressure. It was also the PQ rule the question of money. Otherwise, the perceived crisis in relation to a Quebec currency consistently poison the political climate and economical.
Naturally, for me, must have an independent central bank, currency and monetary policy. In fact, over the danger is great on the commercial side, the greater the risk of financial pressure, the higher it is important to have a good degree of monetary autonomy.
For René Lévesque, the maintenance of the Canadian dollar was fundamental to the project by the sovereignty of Quebec. The reasoning was political. Rene Levesque is that which was right.
That this issue of the currency was able to do any harm! The first campaign that led the Parti Quebecois in 1970, was an opportunity for his opponents to launch "the dollar to Levesque," which also predicted the collapse to 65 cents, in pen-health what happened since the Canadian dollar, can smile.
The 1970 election was also recalled, during another stunt by the federalists. A few days before the election, at dawn, several of the Brinks armored car stop in front of the Royal Trust, Montreal, and a swarm of guards carry the main gate for trucks dozens of large bags. The trucks, then tries to Toronto. Journalists and press photographers - we got out of bed for the occasion - are on the scene.
The blow was great. For many people, dollars fleeing Quebec. A Quebec currency would collapse so necessarily. With what money would be able to pay his mortgage? Votes slip through our fingers. The Parti Quebecois won 23% in spite of all the votes and seven seats.
In the 1973 election, the question of the currency remained unresolved at the Parti Quebecois. Despite the fear-mongering, the PQ ob-held 31% of the vote, but took only six seats.
From there, caution became de rigueur. The link between sovereignty and association will be set in stone and the associa-tion will be expanded far beyond what relates to commer-cial currents. Obviously, the Canadian dollar will be one of the essential elements.
The Parti Québécois take power, as we know, in 1976, with only 41% of the vote and not surprisingly really. Finally, this is it! There is a moment of truth. The separatists, for the first time, do not have to apologize to exist or to defend themselves from harm employment and development. What they can do, we shall see.
For the Federalists, too, the time is crucial. If they want to be is-the new government to its knees, they must now do so. All were false capital flight experiences, trial balloons for what just happened.
Except that the economic and financial levers which Quebec has in the sixties are now lapped. They be waiting for the federalists.
The English language media in Quebec and Canada spreading across North America as the new Quebec government is the "Northern Cuba". And Cuba is the plague. Both socialist and separation ratiste, Quebec is a threat to the capitalists, the true democrats and the English. That's a lot of people!
The Caisse de depot et placement has several hundreds of millions of dollars in short-term liquidity. During the days following the 1976 election, tens of millions of dollars in obligations of Quebec and Hydro Quebec are launched on the market. The Fund leaves a little down the course, just to lose the ar-gent to those who sell and buy it. In fact, two days after the election, it is clear that the Fund is not "cross".
But the financial markets of Montreal, Toronto and New York so close to the new bond of govern-ment of Quebec. What is surprising from New York, because the competition is usually fierce. It is thanks to this competition we were able to secure funding for the na-nationalization of utilities. But the constant evocation of socialism and Cuba has unfortunately taken its toll. As Minister of Finance, I get to make some private investments in 1977, but overall, the boycott is.
The Caisse probably buy huge amounts of government securities, but it is insufficient. So I will take away from the epicenter ... with the greatest ease. It must be said that the abundance of petrodollars at this time favors the operation.
So I'll take everything we have in Switzerland, Britain, Germany, Japan and Belgium. The Canadian and U.S. financial communities begin to realize that the only effect of their boycott was to make them lose lucrative commissions.
Thus we become honorable people. The markets open again through the action of our new finan-cial unions in Canada, led by Levesque Beaubien. This is the first time in the history of Quebec that French home runs the place-ment and marketing of government bonds of Que-bec. We are not hiding anything: each prospectus makes clear that the government's main policy objective is to achieve Quebec sovereignty.
And what about the economy now? The uncertainty, the federal-provincial wrangling, social democracy, all that he has not flowed in-deep on the economy? All this he has certainly not scared away foreign capital?
Judge for yourself! The more volatile capital are those invested in the manufacturing industry. Not those who are invested in natural resources. There is no question, for example, al-can give up to produce the raw aluminum, electricity derived from its own dams at a cost equivalent to the real-sixth the price at which Hydro-Québec sells own electricity industry. But the manufacture of pans or aluminum beams can be done anywhere.
For three consecutive years, in 1977, 1978 and 1979, manufacturing investment rose in Quebec more quickly than in Ontario. Vive political uncertainty!
Some successful operations such as OSE program, the nationalization of the auto and agricultural zoning, are not only demonstrate that the new government has resisted the first assaults Federalists, but he knows about it.
Caution remains terribly appropriate. Party québécoise committed to its Congress in 1974 to hold a referendum before taking anything in terms of sovereignty. I per-sonally led the fight against the very idea of a referendum. To me, Quebec entered the Confederation by a vote of its members, why could he not leave the same way? But the principle of a referendum was adopted by the congress of the Parti Quebecois, a good soldier, I accepted the new situation.
Many years later, seeing how easily the Slovak quie separated peacefully from the Czech Republic with a simple vote of its parliament, I like a blow to the heart. But it's too late now. Voluntarily give up the commitment not to separate from Canada after a referendum won the mandate would be to betray the people of Quebec told its leaders. Unless we can not force, of course. If, in Ottawa, wants to make an illegal referendum in Quebec ... "Those that Jupiter wants to lose, it drives them mad," they said in the past.
Anyway, as time passes, the problem becomes more complex rendaire reference. In 1976, the PQ has promised to for-mer good government and to seek, later, by way of reference only dum, to obtain a warrant on sovereignty.
No doubt the government formed it is very good. We should be happy, but the years pass and it does not happen much on the referendum question, nor, consequently, on the question of sovereignty. The survey results are hardly excitatory aunt which is normal since it is impossible to see an idea grow in public opinion if we do not talk about, is the rule in a democracy. Above all, we can not ask voters to have the insurance for the future if we do not ourselves as a member or minister of good government.
However, as time passes, the perils of the hyphen is manifestly-tent. Using memoirs, studies, consultations, it says, it polishes the content and prospects of the association, saying that one day all this will serve. But what was designed to reassure Quebecers is with Ottawa and English Canada that he'll have to negotiate.
And if they refused to negotiate? Not after the referendum ... but before? What we would have to say to those that should be reassuring-operate? And while some are already established in Hull, the seat of the future common central bank, or commune Supreme Court, we must ask the question: Why do Canadians accept to reassure customers of their opponents ?
In this logic, we must demonstrate that we are not adversaries, basically, it is in the interest of the two "associated states" to find common ground, we will live better if we are two different countries if we act, in the words of Rene Levesque, as "two scorpions in a button-Teil". In short, it is as much for the good of Canadians. In sum, too, we like them. I exaggerate, of course, thinking about other events that will occur five years later.
The 1980 referendum question will ultimately be a long, soft and complicated: the most reassuring as possible for French and least offensive as possible for English speakers. A second reference dum is expected to relieve each other.
Here is the wording of the question:
The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to come up with the rest of Canada, a new agreement based on the principle of equality of peoples;
this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the ex-clusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad, what is sovereignty - and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association involving the use of the same currency;
any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be conducted without the consent of the people through another referendum;
therefore, give yourself to the Government of Que-bec mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?
This is clearly seen, an application for a mandate to negotiate. The population, however, make no mistake: those who answer yes are in favor of sovereignty and those who will vote against.
The response of the Federalists organized around three themes. First, the response to the request for negotiation: No thank you! Several premiers of other provinces will join their voices to that of Ottawa: No thank you!
Second, we have the right arguments federalists classic old-age pensions will not be paid, the uncertainty study will continue to prevail, unemployment will intensify, not to mention that gas prices will rise. Note that the national energy policy is in effect, it will cost 50 or 60 billion dollars to the western provinces, which must provide the Ontario oil at a price below the international price. Quebec, which s'approvi session on international markets, receives grants from the federation to maintain prices in Ontario. It is completely absurd, this program is unsustainable and it will not last. But it came at the right time. The current Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, then minister in the Trudeau government, fighting the campaign on the theme: "If you separate, gas prices will rise. "We do not lace!
And then, as the third theme, Pierre Trudeau committed solemn-tion, during a large meeting at the Paul Sauvé, to amend the Constitution if the majority of Quebecers vote no. Everyone understands that it would be in line to expand the powers of Quebec. We will see a year later that the opposite is true he had in mind. It will remove power in Quebec. We were rolled again.
The results of the 1980 referendum, 40% for Yes, 60% for NO, show that the French are divided into two groups of equal importance. This result can be daunting. The question was meant soft, just to get a mandate to negotiate, re-forth like a boomerang. That Quebecers have rejected their government, not to the sovereignty, after all, they could resume later on the grounds that the spirits were not sufficiently prepared, the opponent was unfair, and who knows what else. No, that Quebecers have rejected their government, the mandate to go and see what it is.
A kind of psychological breakdown among separatists will follow 1980, the new breakdown of the Parti Quebecois election victory in 1981 will fail to really address. The constitutional reform unilateral Ottawa, treason committed against the Quebec province with which he had temporarily ally (we will never forget the "night of long knives") and the recession that began leading a deep discouragement.
Yet Quebec is not doing so bad. It will emerge from recession faster than any other province. The spring line of business by wonders.
But why put so much effort when the dream is broken? In 1984, with the advent of the "beau risque" the Prime Minister of Quebec agrees to take the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, we understand that a page has been turned. The text to be published by René Lévesque November 20 of that year for me marks the end of an era. I resign as both Minister of Finance and as a member. Several other MPs and ministers leave the Parti Quebecois, which Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101.
In 1988, I return to my business as a candidate pre-Ala Presidency of the Parti Quebecois. During the four years of my retirement, I often reflected on these fifteen years (1969-1984) during which the thought and action separatists have developed. With hindsight, I have come to the conclusion that it would go no further in the direction of our goal by using the same formulas, the same means, the same path.
In addition, the economic environment has changed dramatically in the last quarter century. Apprehensions are justified, we have seen, in the sixties, are no longer today. There are risks in all, life is like that, but they are not the same, and otherwise protect themselves against these new risks.
Nothing in what I will now present should, even implicitly, be seen as a criticism of any aspect of thought or the political evolution of René Lévesque. I tried to show what I think they were. Agree or disagree with him from event to event, I was supportive. And when I have been supportive, I left. Renier Levesque would disown me myself.
The first lesson I learned during the 1980 referendum, is that if we want to achieve sovereignty, it must be said, bluntly. God knows how, in the path that goes from the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in the 1995 referendum, many proposals were an attempt to make Quebec a sovereign country without it being quite the real thing, seeking various means to reassure independent cis, claiming inspiration from the European Union but not by the ser-state sovereignty, or by offering choices mul-tiple in the same referendum question.
I do not think the confusion as a political tool to get things done. And I no longer believe those for whom time is never good.
I broke up with repeated these hesitations, these constitu-tional quirky constructions, these delaying tactics, relying on two simple formulas. First, the PQ is sovereignty before, during and after the elections, sovereignty is its main purpose. Secondly, a referendum must be held ob-hold the mandate to achieve Quebec sovereignty, after taking power, we will quickly referendum.
All that will follow is based on two ideas there. They guide me in all the constitutional debates that begin with the negotiation of the Meech Lake Accord.
Without going into the whole litany of high masses the constitutional-that took place year after year, it is true that I am not distracted from my purpose and I used up my mind to the same rigor. I've been accused of being the man responsible for the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. There is truth in this statement. May have been as futile the provisions of this agreement, I was profoundly convinced, perhaps because I often have long, that English Canadians would not accept the agreement proposed by their leaders . They would find that it was still too general for Quebec-gerous. So I spent months begging in the National Assem-bly and outside the National Assembly, "my" Premier Robert Bourassa do not back down even one inch, compared to the five conditions that 'he asked.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission was, paradoxically, a mo-ment of great peril. Never the sovereignty option had been as strong in public opinion. But there was still a threat, you hope that it should be given one last chance to fed-eral system. Would be a last chance in Canada before proposing a referendum on sovereignty? And who would judge the quality of this last chance?
Without going into the minutiae of the negotiations between members of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, let's just say my stubbornness did not come to grips with the hope that continued to raise the idea of a last chance. But at least the recom-mendation was made to hold a referendum on sovereignty and to keep it no later than October 1992.
Government officials signed the Bélanger-Campeau report. The government introduced a bill (Act 150) which reproduced verbatim the recommendations of the Commission Bé-lang-Campeau, but by preceding the recitals often raised serious doubts as to the true intent to hold férendum re-established by law. After the two parliamentarians commissions created by law 150 had sat for months (one dealing with the consequences of statehood, the other focusing on the beacon of a federal offer acceptable), the Government an-nounced that there would be no referendum. Quebecers were in-core rolls.
In Ottawa, meanwhile, is still looking for a solution. Commissions of Inquiry into television shows, we finally arrived to an agreement between Canadian Prime Minister, the premiers and aboriginal leaders on a draft comprehensive constitutional reform project to be submitted for voter approval in the part of a national referendum. This will be the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. Not what I wanted. No matter. There is an opportunity to get off this duck in the last cord, last chance of Canadian federalism.
Quebecers voted overwhelmingly against the project, the Ca-nadian provinces English is also most pronounced against-larly, as the natives. The circus ended constitutional so by voting against all three electorates The leaders of Canada. Unheard of!
From there, my program became clear. In 1992 we won the Charlottetown referendum. In 1993, the majority of the members from Quebec in Ottawa is made up of separatists. In 1994, the Parti Québécois returned to power in Quebec. And in 1995, the referendum on sovereignty will take place.
How would you access this sovereignty? On what ba-its? It is clear that for several years, I was talking about more than sovereignty. The link had waned. You could, I was convinced achieve sovereignty while Canadians were intractable for a while. I wanted more than ever we are faced with a "No thank you! "Also, I was convinced that the vast majority of anglophones and allophones in Canada and Quebec would in any case against any form of sovereignty as long as Quebecers would not democratically voted in favor of it .
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire