Those of you outside Quebec who are inclined to reduce the sponsorship scandal to a meretempest in a teacup have a short-sighted and highly imprudent grasp of thepolitical situation in Canada. If it were only a question of dollars andcents, the sponsorship scandal would no doubt appear almost insignificantcompared to that of the firearms registry. However, this is above all a political scandal.

Judging from the English-Canadian press, it appears that the wake-up hasbeen brutal for those who believed that the issue of Quebec separation hadbeen laid to rest on October 30, 1995. Nightmare scenarios were evoked: alandslide win by the Bloc in the next election, followed by a victory bythe Parti Québécois and the holding of a new referendum.

Seen from Quebec, we get the distinct impression that “a spectre is hauntingCanada” — to paraphrase a famous expression — but rather than communism,that spectre is separatism. English-speaking Canada did not take the 1995 referendumtoo seriously, but that will never happen again now that it knows it couldlose. So, the editorialists and columnists wheel out the heavy artillery:Plan B, the Clarity Act. The only thing they haven’t done is brandish thethreat of the partition of Quebec’s territory, but that shouldn’t be long incoming.

For those of you unable to closely follow the Quebec political scene, we canassure you that the sovereignty movement is once again on the march.Quebeckers are gleefully tuning in to RDI (Radio-Canada) — a televisionchannel whose mandate is to “promote Canadian unity” — to hear therevelations of the Gomery Commission on the dirty sponsorship money that wasintended to combat the “separatists.” Not even all the imagination in theworld could have invented such a boomerang effect.

But that is only one aspect — the least important — of what is going on inQuebec. Half-way through its term, the Charest government is already one ofthe most unpopular in history. Its neo-liberal platform set out to weakenlabour and social organizations and to dismantle the Quebec State throughprivatizations, thus crushing the backbone of the sovereignty movement.

But instead, the Charest government has succeeded in reinvigorating socialmovements in Quebec. One year ago, 100,000 workers took to the streets ofMontreal to mark May 1. This year, the confrontation increased a notchwith the holding of a series of day-long strikes by public sector employeesseeking the renewal of their collective agreements. On May 6, over 35,000teachers marched in the streets of Quebec City.

This spring, nearly 200,000 CEGEP and university students held a strike toprotest against the government’s reform of the loans and bursaries program.It was the largest student strike in the history of Quebec, and this in aprovince with a rich history of student unrest.

The political character of these movements confirms Quebec’s need to haveits own social project, a project that can only be realized within anindependent Quebec. Quebec sovereignty constitutes the most profounddemocratic demand of the Quebec populace and stands at the forefront of allits aspirations and struggles. This explains why, in a recent poll, 54 per cent ofQuebeckers pronounced themselves in favour of sovereignty.

The social situation in Quebec against the backdrop of the current politicalcrisis in Canada heralds a major confrontation, with all the risks thatimplies.

Canada has been rendered ungovernable

Since its creation in 1867, Canada has always been torn between powerfulconflicting forces, both internal and external. While other federations haveevolved toward greater centralization, Canada has always been toocentralized for Quebec and not enough for Ontario. Great Britain, and laterthe United States, supported the provinces’ demands to weaken Canada, acompetitor nation.

Historically, federal political parties have played a fundamental unifyingrole. This has been the case of the Liberal Party, which has traditionallydominated Canadian politics. Whenever the wearing effects of being in powerbecame too obvious, the Conservatives moved in, giving the Liberal Partytime to reinvent itself.

In order to move into power, the Conservatives had to ally themselves withQuebec nationalists. John Diefenbaker’s Conservatives sought the support ofMaurice Duplessis, while Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives benefitted from RenéLévesque’s policy of “beau risque” (worthwhile risk).

But ever since the creation of the Bloc Québécois in 1990, following thefailure of Meech Lake, whose aim was to repair Pierre Trudeau’s 1982constitutional coup de force by bringing Quebec into the Confederation “withhonour and enthusiasm,” there has no longer been the possibility of analternative to the Liberals in the form of a majority Conservativegovernment with a base in Quebec.

The struggle between Conservatives and Liberals — and the financial groupsthey represent — is now being waged within the Liberal Party, with theconsequences we all know. The Liberal Party is in tatters and will becrushed in Quebec ridings with a francophone majority in the next election.

Consequently, Canada is at risk of winding up with an Italian-stylegovernment — that is, a succession of minority governments without a solidbase in Quebec, that are prepared to sell out the country in order to stayin power — as Paul Martin is currently doing — thus feeding the centrifugalforces that are tearing this country apart.

Canada has been rendered ungovernable and only a major reform based on thehypothesis of the accession of Quebec to sovereignty can provide a possibleway out of the current crisis. Canadian progressives outside Quebec must abandonall hope of satisfying Quebec’s aspirations with vague constitutionalreforms modelled on the Meech or Charlottetown accords. Instead, they shouldstart reflecting on the possible shape of a Canada without Quebec and on thepossible relations between the two countries.

Quebec and Canada vs. the United States — Same struggle!

Of course, we are well aware that this approach is not presently on the rest of Canada’s agenda, and it is with great concern that we apprehend a rise in“Quebec bashing” on the part of federal parties in a desperate bid to win amajority of seats in English-speaking Canada.

No one will be surprised if the Liberals decide to make the question of“national unity” a central issue in the next federal election, and we inQuebec recall very well that the Reform Party was the first to brandish thethreat of Quebec partition.

However, we have watched with some stupefaction as Jack Layton has climbedup on the Liberal battle horse and accused the Conservatives of allyingthemselves with the separatists. Is it because Buzz Hargrove recommendedthat he leave Quebec to the Bloc Quebecois that Mr. Layton now feelsauthorized to campaign in English Canada on the back of Quebec? TheEnglish-Canadian left should call Mr. Layton to order before his remarkspoison relations between progressives in both nations.

We understand the complexity of the situation facing Canadianprogressives outside Quebec and their concerns at the possibility of a Conservative win. Wehad the same concerns regarding the ADQ in Quebec. But we do not believethat the Liberals constitute an alternative, either directly or through theNDP.

We understand your desire to defend Canadian progressive values against therise of the American-inspired right and to safeguard the independence ofCanada against its absorption by the United States. In these timesof globalization, the protection of Canadian identity is a justcause.

We know that progressives in English-speaking Canada still harbour a lot ofresentment towards Quebec nationalists, whom they hold responsible forCanada’s adherence to the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. It is true that thisagreement would not have been possible without the Parti Québécois’ supportof the Mulroney government and that it subsequently rallied Quebec’snationalist elites.

But English-speaking Canada too easily forgets that this position was adopted out ofvexation following the failure of the 1980 referendum. We must rememberthat, during this referendum, the government of René Lévesque had proposed“a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations,”in order to stand up to the United States. English-speaking Canada fought thissovereignty-association proposal tooth and nail, preferring to maintainQuebec in the same state of subjection it has been in since the conquest of1760.

Today, Quebec is not pro-American, and it is certainly not pro-Bush. Themassive demonstrations held in the streets of Montreal to protest againstthe war in Iraq made this clear in a spectacular way. On three occasions, inthe dead of winter, over 150,000 people took to the streets of Montrealwhile tens of thousands more demonstrated elsewhere in Québec. In proportionto the population, these were the largest protests in the world.

Some day, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s memoirs will no doubt reveal thatthese protests played a crucial role in his decision not to participate inthe war. Mr. Chrétien feared that the government of Bernard Landry wouldtake advantage of the opportunity to bring the issue of Quebec independenceto the table. Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Landry could not have been unaware thatthe first motion in favour of independence was tabled in the Quebec NationalAssembly by J. N. Francoeur during the conscription crisis in 1917.

Towards a federalist coup de force?

We invite progressives in English-speaking Canada to undertake a careful analysis ofthe current political situation. Faced with the present impasse, we cannotexclude a federal coup de force. But this will only accelerate the course ofhistory and raise the issue of Quebec independence with even greaterintensity.

The hour of truth is near. And the crucial question is: what willthe reaction of progressives in English-speaking Canada be if Quebec opts fornational independence? Will they take the side of the repressive forces inEnglish-speaking Canada or will they support the inalienable right of the people ofQuebec to choose their future?

A progressive alternative is inconceivable without the sovereignty ofQuebec, and the sovereignty of Quebec opens the door to this alternative.