The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; Quebec Election

(Montreal. Monday November 15.)

MAN IN STREET: It`s the beginning of a good neighborhood with English people and French people.

SECOND MAN: In the months to come it will really end up with big problems, like big business which has started to move out...

THIRD MAN: I think that the English people should not fear what has happened; I think they should try and live with it because French, English or whatever, this is Quebec and Quebec c`est au Quebecois!

ROBERT MacNEIL: Rene Levesque, Premier-elect of Canada`s Quebec Province. Scenes of wild jubilation and the deepest fears about the future of the Canadian nation followed his startling election victory Monday. Today Canada is sobering up and looking for explanations. Good evening from Montreal, the commercial and political heart of French Canada whose provincial politics suddenly burst into world news on Monday. The small Parti Quebecois, or Quebec Party, has suddenly become the government of the province. Since the party is committed in its platform to separating Quebec from the rest of Canada but downplayed that during the election, the election itself raised grave questions. Put at its simplest, will the United States in a few years from now find itself living with not one neighbor to the north but two? How likely is that and what would it mean?

Romantically speaking, Quebec is the part of Canada that most makes Americans think they`re in a foreign country. Heavily overlaid with British and American culture though it is, Quebec has preserved just enough of its history and language to give it some claim to be considered differently from the rest of Canada. Quebec`s recent nationalism was born from a desire to stop the French culture from being completely submerged by the economic forces of English North America. Britain conquered French Canada shortly before the American Revolution. Those French settlers who stayed were granted the right to keep their languages and customs, in part to keep them from joining the Revolution. But over the next two centuries English Canada so dominated the economic and political life of the nation that French Canadians felt like second-class citizens -- "the white Negroes of North America., " one radical writer called them. Some small terrorist incidents in the mid-1960s shocked Canada into trying to give the French equal opportunity in their own country. But for many in Quebec the efforts haven`t been enough; they want more. They want to be, as they say, "masters in their own house." The most distinctive visual part of Quebec are the rural villages with the steep-roofed architecture derived from Normandy. The huge Catholic churches symbolize a force both spiritual and political that kept Quebec anchored to rural values, .while English Canada was developing mines, railroads, banks and industries. Quebec City, the provincial capital, still has quaint sections that look like 17th-century towns in France.

But the economic and political heart of French Canada is in Montreal, Canada`s second largest city, and after Paris, the largest French speaking city in the world. Much of Montreal`s older charm has been pushed aside by architecture familiar in any American city, but there are enough quiet squares and streets of the unique townhouses with their graceful stairways to make a tourist think of the Old World.

But it`s not chiefly the physical appearance that makes Quebec different; it is a difference of the heart, in enough of its people to make them feel unlike other North Americans in the U.S. or Canada. But how unlike? That`s the question. Is there enough force in that difference of language and background to make Quebec a nationality, or merely part of a nation?

The man who invented that phrase, "maitres chez nous," "masters in our own house," is Rene Levesque, the new star of Canadian politics at 51 years of age. He`s a former journalist and broadcaster. He entered politics in 1960 and served as a minister in previous Liberal Party governments. He founded the Parti Quebecois in the `60`s, when separatism was a dirty word. I spoke with Levesque in Montreal earlier today:

MacNEIL: Monsieur Levesque, to an American, who probably doesn`t pay all that much attention to Canadian affairs, what difference does your election make?

RENE LEVESQUE: Well, I think it would make a sort .of difference over the next few years in the sense of seeing, I hope, a more stimulating small society emerging next door. We`ve always been different from the rest of North American sense of culture, of language -- after all, this is a predominantly French part, or we call it a province in our sense or a state in your sense, of Canada; and since we`re, I think, moving towards -- certainly, even right now -- more autonomy as a provincial or state government, and eventually, if the people in Quebec accept it through a referendum, to self-government over the next few years, well, it might mean, I think, something-rather more vibrant, in a sense, of a neighbor with an identity and affirming its personality. As far as relations with the United States are concerned, one. thing is sure: it might make Quebec much more interesting for tourists. There`s a continuous exchange; you know, on account of our climate we like to go down -- some as far as Miami -- every year, and during summer months and during the skiing season a lot of Americans come here. And that should make it more interesting on both sides.

MacNEIL: Because you will want to reinforce the French identity of Quebec.

LEVESQUE: That`s for sure. As far as investments and major interests here that are American -- and most of them from outside are American -- we don`t see any reason why anyone should freak about it, because our program calls for -- again -- much more,. let`s say, self-determination and development; but we`re not crazy. We know the elephant next door, if you don`t mind the cliche, and the mouse here have to have good relationships. The mouse will insist on being respected in its identity -- you know, in American enterprise and things like that -- but as long as it`s mutually profitable, advantages, there`s no reason why not only should it go on, but it should develop...you know, this kind of exchange, including investment..

MacNEIL: But the extent of self-determination, or autonomy -- how likely is it that we in the United States will be dealing with two countries on our northern border and not one?

LEVESQUE: You`ll have to wait, just like we have to wait, until the people are consulted. One of our basic planks was that November 15, a couple of days ago, if we got the confidence of the voters we`d become -- and that is the only mandate that is completely definite, and it is definite -- we`d become as much as possible an honest, e7ficient, provincial government, or state government, as . you`d say, but in a province or state which is, after all, one major trunk of Canada. Out of the ten provinces Quebec represents 27 percent of the overall population and` does represent the homeland of this different identity from the rest of Canada, which is French. We`ve made a commitment that we`d be the best possible provincial government until such time, which is another commitment, the people are consulted on a yes or no basis by referendum about what they want for the future in a sense of political institutions. Do they want to stay in the federal system? Do they want to opt out -- which doesn`t mean new associations, new links; we don`t want to Pakistanize Canada --but on the other hand if it is self-government then we`ll push for it and we`ll push very hard in a political way, because if it`s the majority consensus of our people in Quebec then it`s their God-given right to have their set of institutions.

MacNEIL: Right. Now, you will begin -- as soon as you form the government and get yourselves together you will begin, as I understand, making requests or demands on Ottawa. You want one by one things which are now federal concerns or part federal concerns shifted to the province.

LEVESQUE: Yes.

MacNEIL: Could you enumerate some of those, putting them in terms that Americans can understand?

LEVESQUE: Yes, well, I was-reading a couple of years ago, I think -- not even that -- that even the Americans, even the United States, with its huge population of over 225 or 250 million people, "was becoming a little worried -- it was a sort of front-page art1cle -- about immigration because the birth rate . everywhere has been falling, here as elsewhere, and immigration can eventually change the balance in population and demography. If there is, let`s say, a small worry among experts in the United States, can you imagine our case, with six million people in Quebec? But that 81 percent of Quebec which is French -- which is our family in a way -- is being literally menaced because it`s a small population, menaced by the same phenomenon. We don`t control immigration, it`s controlled outside us. So things like immigration and a few other, very basic things that have to do with identity and the continuation of the population are basic requirements that have not already been spelled out by former provincial governments; so we could start with that, and then find out, with the objective remaining that we get the normal full-fledged set of institutions that are called self-government, or sovereignty.

MacNEIL: How far does that go; I mean, does that go to conducting your own foreign affairs? Immigration is part of foreign affairs, to a degree.

LEVESQUE: Yes, it does, because after all, self government would mean for us -- if our people agree and they accept they accept the option -- would mean that a Francophone, or French-speaking, independent, small country appears in the world with as many joint ventures, I repeat, and as many new associations and links as between equals with our, until further notice, fellow citizens in Canada, but with its own set of priorities especially in things like that. We want rapport with Canada, with the United States, but also -- and that`s a priority for us -- with French-speaking countries outside because culturally they`re part of our necessary links.

MacNEIL: The first time you make one of these requests, like having Quebec control its own immigration, surely Ottawa -- if it wants to preserve the federal structure of Canada -- is going to have to say no. And what happens at that moment?

LEVESQUE: I guess you`re probably right. I always said, we have a snowball`s chance in hell to get some of our major requirements before there is a clear decision by the population in Quebec. So that`s why, one way or the other the scenario -- it isn`t a scenario of trying to, let`s say, break down the federal government; we want to hang on and stand on that commitment that we will go on as a provincial government. Immigration, things like that are old requirements, or old demands, let`s say, of the Quebec governments before ours for years now because that question and a few others have been hampering our own development. So probably we`ll end up with a sort of deadlock, which is more or less traditional. But the one thing which is clear is that there will be a definite referendum process on a yes or no basis in the sense of getting out of this maquis which has been going on; federal-provincial, for something like 30 years.

MacNEIL: I understand. That referendum you will be preparing for and these various confrontations -- part of the dialogue with Ottawa -- will make the public record towards that referendum, presumably. Will you be designing a series of frustrations, if you like, so that you can point to them and say, "That`s why we are pushed over the edge of independence"?

LEVESQUE: I-guess unfortunately we won`t have to design them; they`re there. But we`re sure...

MaCNEIL: But you anticipate that that series of frustrations will occur?

LEVESQUE: Yes. Inevitably, more or less, in the kind of status quo we`re in, which is more or less also paralyzed or sterilized by an over centralized bureaucracy in Ottawa, plus the political postures that have been taken over the years, from Mr. Trudeau to anyone in this cabinet.

MacNEIL: And would you expect that that series of frustrations, if they occur, would condition the Quebec population who don`t appear in the polls to be in favor of independence now to be more in favor of it by the time the referendum comes?

LEVESQUE: Look, let`s put it this way. We know there is going to be a federal government, with or with-, out Mr. Trudeau -- maybe Mr. Clark, I don`t know -- a Liberal opposition, which is the same party, all staunchly fighting for their way of seeing things, which would be "Stay in the federal system," which we think is obsolete. At least for once -- which is new- there will one government, the one in Quebec, our state government, saying, "No, we`re for the other option and here are the facts the way we see them." We haven`t ever had complete facts about the pros and cons, the input and output of the present system as compared to another one.

MacNEIL: Just one final quick question. It would be wise, therefore, for the American government and the American people, to look at you and your government rather closely because it might evolve into an independent nation with whom they would be dealing.

LEVESQUE: That`s for sure. Look, I think a rather well-known publication in the United States is Foreign Affairs -- I think, up to a point, tied to public broadcasting and things like that. Well, I had an article there which just happened to be, in a small way, prophetic last July in the bicentennial issue which says exactly that.

MacNEIL: Recommend people to read it.

MacNEIL: That is how Rene` Levesque sees it. I also spoke with three other French Canadians: Claude Ryan, editor and publisher of the French-language newspaper, Le Devoir; Daniel Latouche political science professor at Montreal University and on the editorial board of another newspaper, Montreal Matin; and Robert Demers, president of the Montreal Stock Exchange and former chairman of the Quebec Securities-Commission.

I`d like to know from each of you -- obviously, looking at it very simply from the United States, one is interested in knowing, are we going to have one nation above us there or two -- how do you see these steps going in .the next couple of years? You`ve suggested, Mr. Latouche, that the smallest area of discussion could lead to an initial clash, and so on; do you agree with that, Mr. Ryan?

CLAUDE RYAN: The Parti Quebecois will run into the normal difficulties that all governments encounter in these difficult times. There will be economic strains; there will be social strains, too, and they will be very naturally tempted to lay the blame at Ottawa`s door. They will say, "If we had full authority in this or that area we could deal with the situation with much greater vigor." And I think this will lead them towards the referendum which they`ve been talking about. I don`t think they will open full-fire on Ottawa on the matter of distribution of powers, but they will pick up in their daily actions all kinds of reasons for putting to the people of Quebec their position regarding the present constitutional situation; I think that`s how we`re going to be led into a...

MacNEIL: I see.

RYAN: There will be a formality -- they will have to go to Ottawa as a formality to ask for the patriation of all powers back to Quebec; Ottawa will have to refuse. But then Ottawa can come up with proposals of its own, and it can decide to put these proposals not to the Quebec government but to the people of Quebec, or the people of Canada; and it could then become a very intricate situation.

MacNEIL: You and others have pointed out that in the polls before the election, while it looked as though Mr. Levesque and his Parti Quebecois might be getting a majority there was clearly no majority-- less than a fifth of the people -- for independence right now. Will Mr. L6vesque, in making these little requests and these confrontations, be looking to create a mandate towards that referendum on independence?

DANIEL LATOUCHE: He will surely try to.

MacNEIL: Because he is personally committed?

LATOUCHE:. Yes. You have to be careful about the polls; all of us know that depends a great deal on how you phrase the question. If you phrase the question, "Are you in favor of total separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada?" you`ll get 18 percent of the people saying yes. If you phrase the question, ,"Are you in favor of Quebec`s independence?` you`ll get, maybe, 35 or 40 percent of the question. I`ve been involved in polls and found that 35 percent of the French Canadian Quebec were in favor of independence. But that`s not the important issue. The question of independence is not going to be decided in the polls and how many people are in favor or not in favor. It`s got to be decided purely on what kind of dossier the Parti Quebecois government will be able to build to justify its claim that people should vote yes on the referendum. Whatever the outcome of` that, it is obvious that it is not going to be exactly the same kind of political set-up in this Nord-American subsystem which, until-now, had. only two major actors. It is going to be -- I hate to use the word "fragmentation" -- but Canada is not exactly going to be speaking with only one voice in the future,

MacNEIL: Does that suggest that Mr. Levesque, who has been in the past not so keen on independence but in favor of a larger amount of autonomy for Quebec, may be looking for little frustrations from Ottawa that he can point to and say, I am building my dossier," as you put it; will he be looking for these frustrations in order to build up a record?

ROBERT DEMERS : I think it`s quite clear that the Parti Quebecois has shown, a) that it has been able, over the years, to develop a very strong organization with some -- in this election -- very good strategies. I think we can expect that the Parti Quebecois, and particularly not only Mr. Levesque but the grass roots of that party will apply-a. lot of pressure to ensure that this party and this government will have-as a policy to take means and measures necessary to cause and create situations which will ensure that eventually the idea of independence will have more adherents and that the referendum is going to be won.

MacNEIL: It becomes a more attractive idea as people who might be frightened of it now or dubious about it now feel increasingly frustrated by the refusal of Ottawa to give what Quebec wants -- do you agree with that?

RYAN: Oh, yes. And a thing must be made clear: the leaders of the Parti Quebecois did not lose their freedom of speech when they were elected; they will keep speaking freely to the people of Quebec and I`m sure they will try to put this point across to the people whenever an opportunity arises.

MacNEIL: I see. Suppose it went the route, that there was not a compromise that kept Quebec in the federation -- the confederation -- but Quebec did become so autonomous as to be virtually, or in effect, independent. What difference would that make from an American point of view? How should an American, again, looking up at this northern border, think about having two nations instead of one there? .

RYAN: Well, I think the strategists in the State Department . in Washington have begun thinking about this problem. For the United States, having to deal with two countries north of the border rather than one would not be a major complication, but I think they would be extremely attentive to the situation of liberty in that new country if it were to become a new Cuba, for instance, or a country where totalitarian tendencies were going to be strong; I think they would keep a very close eye on the situation, and I would not guarantee what kind of action would follow.

MacNEIL: Are you suggesting...

RYAN: I`m not suggesting that it would go that far. But we`ve had streaks of authoritarianism in the province of Quebec in the last few years of which we must be aware. In the labor movement and other areas there have been examples of totalitarian conduct which, if they were transposed into the political arena, could rapidly become dangerous.

MacNEIL: Do you see any hint of that sort of thing in one aspect or other - - the Parti Quebecois is not monolithic, is it; it`s a coalition of a range of views.

LATOUCHE: A good example is if, like, George McGovern had won the Presidency of the United States and wanted to impose his program, George McGovern could not have moved very, very fast; he would have had to move very slowly, trying to convince the people, wanting to be re-elected four years later. So it`s some kind of same situation in Quebec. We`ve mentioned one streak of authoritarianism; another one, Quebec could become some sort of a Switzerland, a haven for foreign capital, to some extent. Don`t forget that if Quebec even after independence has a Common Market agreement with the rest of Canada then it will be a very good way for American capital to get in Quebec, not, maybe, to stay in Quebec but to get into Canada. Because the attitude right now of the Parti Quebecois towards the United States, which is maybe very naive, is much more open and positive than the attitudes of English Canadians towards Americans. The English Canadians toward Americans have to be more suspicious, because they need the cultural differentiation. If you look at the literature of the people in the Parti Quebecois they all speak very good English, they all go to the States very often, they have a very positive image of the United States. Like, if the U.S. can do business in the Middle East it surely can do business right here; this is not going to be more. complicated and more complex. This is, right or wrong, a naive thing.

RYAN: Let`s not forget there`s a strong anti-foreign streak in the Parti Quebecois and the unions in Quebec at the moment, and they will certainly try to impress their point of view upon the Party.

LATOUCHE: It will be a political game, everybody trying to make his point. Just like it was before, but now in a somewhat different context.

DEMERS: I think what will be even more important to see is, actually, what type of policies will this government bring forward. I think a process of independence if -- and it`s a big "if" -- if it ever occurs will be a very slow process and likely will be over a long period of years and that investors will have time to adjust to this reality and will have time to realize that there are changes in that area and that you have to maybe look a little more closely at Canada and at Quebec that you did in the past. But I think what will be far more important is what type of policies are going to be adopted; are they going to be right or left, and I think I would agree with Mr. Ryan, that there is an element of uncertainty and I think the investors today, even, still have a sort of policy of "wait and see." And they`re really looking forward more on hearing what type of fiscal and budgetary policy this government is going to bring forward and any other aspect.

RYAN: The thing that can be stressed right-now is that the first` cabinet of Mr. Levesque will very probably be a rather moderate cabinet. He has a very strong front bench, we don`t know much about the rest of the team at the moment, you know, but the front bench he will come up with will be a competent one...

MacNEIL: The front bench being the senior members of his party around him who stick with him...

RYAN:...and a cabinet made up of rather moderate people.

MacNEIL: Could I just ask each of you, in conclusion, if you had to take a guess now, would you expect, as Quebeckers yourselves, that say in ten years time your passport would read "Citizen of Quebec" or "Citizen of Canada"?. Can you see that far?

RYAN:I have always expected that we would find an intermediary solution between complete separation and the status quo of to day. I don`t know what it will be exactly, but it will be something that is of a joint nature with the existing -- the rest of Canada.

MacNEIL: What would you bet, Mr. Latouche?

LATOUCHE: My bet would be a passport would be valid for both countries -- but still, countries.

MaCNEIL: What would it say for citizenship?

LATOUCHE: Don`t forget that now a Canadian passport says a Canadian citizen is a British subject.

MacNEIL: I know.

LATOUCHE: So, nobody has minded that formula; so it could very well say, "Citizens of-the Nord-American Federation."

MacNEIL: What would you bet.?

DEMERS: My bet is that we will still be Canadian citizens. I think a lot of things will have changed in Canada, I feel, particularly in the powers of Quebec to deal into a number of areas, whether it be social, education, but I believe in the economic portion of policy that there won`t be that many changes.

MacNEIL: Well, thank you all very much, indeed; and Jim Lehrer and I will be back tomorrow night. From Montreal, I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.