Table of Contents

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

February 2001News in Review — 5 —

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?Introduction

Canada was less than two weeks into the newyear of 2001 when the nation’s politicalscene was rocked by an unanticipated devel-opment; Lucien Bouchard, the premier ofQuebec, announced that he was resigningand leaving public life. The man who hadplayed a key role in federal and provincialpolitics for over a decade, and under whoseleadership the sovereignist movement hadcome within a hair’s breadth of victory in the1995 referendum, was stepping down forgood. Bouchard gave the reasons for hissudden and unexpected departure in anemotional farewell speech to stunned andvisibly distraught members of the PartiQuébécois and government officials whogathered in the ornate Red Chamber of theQuebec National Assembly to say goodbyeto their leader. Despite his continuing popu-larity as Quebec’s premier, Bouchard hadbecome increasingly frustrated at the con-stant bickering and divisiveness plaguing hisparty. He was also deeply disappointed bythe poor showing of the pro-sovereignistBloc Québécois in the November 2000federal election, which had seen its level ofvoter support dip below that of JeanChrétien’s Liberals. But the determiningfactors in his difficult decision, he said, hadbeen personal. After a brush with death in1994, which had cost him a leg, he hadbecome more aware of his mortality. How-ever many years remained to him, he in-tended to spend them with his wife andyoung sons, to whom he had previouslymade and then broken a promise to leavepublic life after the 1995 referendum defeat.

Reaction to Bouchard’s resignation fromthe rest of Canada was not slow in coming.Political foes like Prime Minister Chrétienand other provincial premiers, who hadconsistently opposed his sovereignist agenda,nonetheless paid tribute to their old adversary

as a remarkable political leader. They com-mended Bouchard for his intelligence,dynamism, and considerable talents ingoverning Quebec. During his tenure aspremier, he brought the province’s balloon-ing government deficits under control,restored the province’s economy to health,and demonstrated a clear-sighted vision andsteady administrative hand that he wasconvinced would eventually persuade amajority of Quebecers to follow hissovereignist dream. By creating what hereferred to as the “winning conditions” ofprosperity and fiscal stability, Bouchardthought he was setting the stage for aninevitable referendum victory within the nextfew years. But, as he reluctantly confessed tohis followers, he no longer believed that thiswas going to be possible in the immediatefuture under his leadership. For this, hestated, he took full responsibility. Despitewhat he justly regarded as his government’smany achievements, it was this failure thatrepresented his greatest political disappoint-ment.

Within hours of Bouchard’s announce-ment, political speculation was rife regardingits likely impact on the future of thesovereignist movement in Quebec. Manyfederalists rejoiced at his departure, confidentthat it would represent a major setback fortheir opponents’ cause. If a majority ofQuebecers had not been persuaded to votefor independence with a personable, elo-quent, and inspiring leader like LucienBouchard at the helm, they argued, then howlikely were they to rally en masse behind hismost likely successor, the remarkablyuncharismatic finance minister, BernardLandry? A number of sovereignists alsoshared this view, and regretted the problemstheir party had created for Bouchard while heled it. Some commentators even went so far

— 6 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

as to pronounce the Quebec sovereigntymovement “dead,” as had been done somany times in recent Canadian history. Butothers were not so hasty in their postmor-tems. It was noted that the sovereignists hadrevived from equally devastating setbacksbefore, and this time might be no exception.

In any case, Bouchard’s resignation wasseen as a victory for the hardlinesovereignists within the Parti Québécois whohad long distrusted their leader’s commit-ment to the cause. Their hero was formerpremier Jacques Parizeau, whose stock in theparty was expected to rise under Landry’sleadership. Despite what may be waningvoter support for the sovereignty option atpresent, the fact remains that Quebec is stillgoverned by a party committed to that ulti-mate goal. And the province’s new premieris likely to pursue it with a far more zealous,uncompromising stance than his predecessor,a man who was admired and respected by bothfriend and foe, in Quebec and Canada, alike.

Excerpts from notes for a speech byLucien Bouchard announcing hisresignation

“I have devoted the Christmas holidays to aprofound reflection on my commitment topublic life. This respite has allowed me,above all, to take stock of the effectiveness ofmy contribution to the promotion of sover-eignty.

I have decided to end my participation inpublic affairs and resign from my position asPrime Minister of Quebec.

It is with pride that I have performed myduties over the past five years. Despite whatthe task demands in terms of energy, open-mindedness and endurance, assuming thisrole has given me a great deal of satisfaction.It is not my intention today to review thegovernment’s achievements. Suffice it to saythat my government has set Quebec on a new

course as regards public finances, theeconomy, taxation, health care, education,social progress, and municipal organization. Ithink you will admit that I have never hesi-tated to face problems squarely and that Ihave always sought to advance Quebec’sinterests, with a constant concern to be thePrime Minister of all Quebecers. I said that Iwould accept the challenge and I believe thatI have done so to the best of my abilities.

For more than 10 years, I have wagedthrough elective office the struggle forsovereignty. I must acknowledge that theoutcome of my efforts is less convincing assuccesses have alternated with setbacks. . . .[I]n addition to his obligations as PrimeMinister, a party leader is bound by thepolitical commitments he shares with hisparty. In the case of the Parti Québécois, thefirst commitment is to achieve Quebec’ssovereignty. . . .

I set myself the same goal when I assumedthe party leadership in 1996. We had justcome out of a referendum campaign thatbrought us to the threshold of a new country.It is true that bitter disappointment followedon referendum night the exaltation that thenear certainty of victory had instilled in us.Nonetheless, the sovereignist advance wassuch that it justified our hope of soon reach-ing our objective. . . .

This is not the time for lengthy analyses,but the fact is these hopes have not yet beenfulfilled.

We were undoubtedly faced immediatelythereafter with pressing problems. We nodoubt succeeded in reaching the consensusesthat enabled us to curb Quebec’s chronicdeficit, revitalize Montreal’s and the regions’economies, and create jobs that, among otherthings, have allowed many welfare recipientsto rejoin the labour market.

However, as has been rightly noted, we didnot succeed for all that in bolsteringsovereignist fervour.”

February 2001News in Review — 7 —

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?A Coup de théâtre

The sudden resignation of Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard caught Canadians completelyoff-guard. While Bouchard’s frustration with what he regarded as extremist, disruptive ele-ments within his own party was mounting during the weeks before his announcement, almostno one expected he would quit. As the comments of other politicians across Canada madeclear, Lucien Bouchard was a leader who could arouse strong passions, both positive andnegative. To most Quebec sovereignists, he represented their best hope for the eventualrealization of their dream of an independent state. To federalists, whether in Quebec, Ottawa,or other regions of Canada, Bouchard was their worst nightmare, the charismatic, inspiringchampion of the sovereignist cause who had nearly succeeded in winning the 1995 referen-dum. But when one examines his public career, from his earliest forays into Quebec politics inthe 1960s, through his years as a federal Cabinet minister in the government of BrianMulroney, to his leadership of the sovereignist movement, both in Ottawa and later in QuebecCity, it becomes clear that Lucien Bouchard is a remarkably complex and dramatic figure, infact a man of many contradictions.

As you watch this News in Review report, focus on the dramatic elements of Bouchard’ssudden resignation and of images of his career. How does this recent development on theCanadian political stage suggest a climax in the social and political drama in which LucienBouchard has played a central role? Use the following questions as a focus for viewing whatmay prove to be Bouchard’s political dénouement. (The images depict an entire historicalperiod in Canadian political history and in Bouchard’s political career.)

1. What impression did Bouchard’s resignation speech make on you?

2. In what ways does Lucien Bouchard’s public persona seem to have changed from1988 to 2001?

3. Describe the dramatic impact of Bouchard’s brush with death in terms of thisnews story.

4. How is the sovereignty referendum of 1995 seen as the high point of Bouchard’spolitical career?

5. From Bouchard’s resignation speech, what can you gather about his relationshipwith his family?

6. Referring to the images and information in the video, write down the adjectivesand descriptive phrases you would use to characterize Bouchard as a politicalleader.

Follow-up DiscussionIn your opinion, what dramatic personnage does Lucien Bouchard represent? For example, ishe a tragic hero with a tragic flaw? Is he a classic hero representing high principles and truths?Has he played some other role?

— 8 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?For the Record

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

1. What international position did Bouchard hold before entering federal politics in1988?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2001News in Review — 9 —

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?The Significance of Being Bouchard

Now, examine the answers to your questions and formulate additional answers in order toassess the significance of these events.

1. Before entering federal politics, Lucien Bouchard was Canada’s ambassador toFrance. Suggest the importance of this posting.

2. Mulroney needed strong representation from Quebec in his Cabinet, in order toachieve his goal of constitutional reform. Why would he need this strong repre-sentation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

— 10 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

Bouchard’s dynamic leadership, the pro-sovereignty forces came within a percent-age point of winning a majority YES vote for independence. Only a vast majorityof NO votes from the Montreal area ensured the victory of the federalist side, andQuebec remained in Canada. In your opinion, what lessons can we learn from thisreferendum?

9. Bitter at the narrow loss in the referendum for the sovereignty side, QuebecPremier Jacques Parizeau lashed out at “money and the ethnic vote” as the reasonsbehind the result. Parizeau’s remarks were taken as offensive and even racisttoward Quebec’s minority groups of neither English nor French background, mostof whom had voted NO. A day after his controversial speech, Jacques Parizeauresigned as premier of Quebec. The stage was set for Bouchard to leave federalpolitics and assume that position. Why, politically, was Parizeau’s statement socounterproductive?

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

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

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

February 2001News in Review — 11 —

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?Et je dirais même plus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— 12 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?Maître chez lui

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

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

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

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

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

February 2001News in Review — 13 —

In 1988, Bouchard was named federal secretary of state in the Mulroney government and in1989 federal environment minister. But on May 22, 1990, angry over proposed changes to theMeech Lake Accord, which he feared undermined Quebec’s distinct society status, he re-signed from the Mulroney Cabinet to sit as an independent. The May 1987 Meech LakeAccord had to be formally approved by the federal Parliament and all 10 provincial legisla-tures within three years, or it would not pass. Many English-speaking Canadians opposedgranting Quebec the status of a “distinct society,” and aboriginal groups were against the dealbecause it offered them no similar recognition. By late June 1990, the Newfoundland andManitoba legislatures had not ratified the accord, and it was declared officially dead. Reactionto the failure of Meech inside Quebec was swift and dramatic. Support for sovereignty soared,as it appeared to many francophones that their last hopes for change within Canada had beendashed. Capitalizing on this mood of discontent, Bouchard formed the Bloc Québécois, asmall group of former Conservative and Liberal MPs from Quebec who were angry over thefailure of Meech and now decided to support sovereignty. Bouchard was chosen leader.

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

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

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

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

— 14 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

nomic and fiscal health had been restored. PQ militants recognized that despite their strategicdifferences, Bouchard was the party’s best hope for sovereignty. Another dip occurred whenin the November 27, 2000, federal election the Bloc slipped below the Liberals when theChrétien government won re-election, a clear indication to Bouchard that support for sover-eignty in Quebec was declining. On December 20, 2000, Bouchard informed the PQ that hecould not support it if it endorsed member Yves Michaud’s comments on the Holocaust andQuebec’s immigrant population. Michaud’s remarks revealed a serious tension within theQuebec sovereignty movement that had previously appeared in 1995 when Parizeau lashedout at “the ethnic vote” and finance minister Bernard Landry berated a Mexican-Canadianhotel receptionist on referendum night. While the PQ’s official position, endorsed byBouchard, stated that anyone living in the province was considered a Quebecer, there werestrong suspicions among anglophones and other non-francophone residents that some peoplewithin the PQ considered only French-speakers to be “true” Quebecers. Bouchard made itclear that he could not lead a party where these views were expressed or endorsed. On January11, 2001, he announced his resignation as premier of Quebec and member of the NationalAssembly for Jonquière.

What They SaidExamine the following selection of reactions to Lucien Bouchard’s resignation. Suggest howeach assesses Bouchard’s career and political role in the history of Canada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2001News in Review — 15 —

“I have to say he was a very destructive influence on Canadian politics. He’s one of thoselargely responsible for the state the Progressive Conservative national party finds itself intoday. He betrayed the Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney) and also the party and he’s been adestructive influence in supporting separation in Quebec—although not as destructive as someof the hardliners he’s now leaving behind him.” — Former federal Cabinet minister JohnCrosbie

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

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

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

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

— 16 — News in ReviewFebruary 2001

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?Heir Apparent?

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

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

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

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

February 2001News in Review — 17 —

BOUCHARD QUITS: A BLOW FOR SOVEREIGNTY?Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Using recent newspaper and magazine articles, prepare a visual display represent-ing the important events in Lucien Bouchard’s political career. Your display couldinclude articles, photos, and cartoons.

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

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

4. As a class, debate the following resolution: “The departure of Lucien Bouchardfrom politics signifies the beginning of the end of the sovereignty movement inQuebec.”

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

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

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