Looking Around for Ideas

Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa talked with TIME senior editor George Russell and Ottawa bureau chief James Graff in Bourassa’s 17th-floor offices in Montreal’s Quebec Hydro building. Excerpts:

Q. Are you angry about the fate of the Meech Lake accord?

A. I fought for it for three years because my judgment was that it was a good deal for Quebec. Finally, it did not work. I was sad, but I had to turn around and say there is another challenge ahead.

Q. The mood in Montreal this week was buoyant. Nobody seemed to be mourning the agreement.

A. The silent majority of Quebeckers approved Meech Lake. For them it was a chance for constitutional peace, so we could tackle more directly problems of international economics, demography and the environment. No agreement can be 100% satisfactory, but it was a pragmatic approach.

Q. Why did you need the “distinct society” clause in the constitution?

A. The distinct society exists de facto, and we thought it should be recognized de jure in the constitution. It was symbolic to some extent. We were not saying we need additional powers.

Q. One thing English Canada seems to hold against you is the 1988 law allowing only French wording on outdoor commercial signs. Right after it passed, Manitoba pulled back from the Meech Lake accord.

A. That’s totally different. It has nothing to do with the accord.

Q. It has a lot to do with it psychologically.

A. Ah, yes. In Montreal in the next few years, the majority of the schoolchildren will be non-Francophone. The attraction of English in North America is unlimited. So we needed to send new immigrants a message saying this is a French-speaking province. We were not enthusiastic about that, but we thought it was justified. In English Canada, they overreacted.

Q. Where does Quebec stand now?

A. The Canadian constitution was modified substantially in 1982 without the consent of Quebec. The constitution is applicable to Quebec, and we have to respect it. But we are not part of the constitution. We are not part of the Canadian family.

Q. One of your ministers has characterized Canada as a sick country. Is that fair?

A. The situation clearly is critical. The constitutional process has no more credibility. So now we have to find a new model.

Q. How?

A. We want to start the process this fall and involve the Quebec people, in a very civilized and peaceful way. The leader of the opposition offered me la main tendue, an outstretched hand. That alone is exceptional. My own party has to replace its constitutional program, which has been rejected by English Canada. Work on that has already started, and it will be submitted to the party convention in March 1991.

Q. Do you care anymore whether the rest of Canada accepts your proposals?

A. As Napoleon said, Each state has the politics of its geography. So in our policy we will have to take account of our geography: western neighbors, eastern, southern.

Q. Only geography?

A. There will be parameters. The first is that nothing will be done to harm our economic stability. Second, the English-speaking community in Quebec has a fundamental role to play here, an irreplaceable role.

Q. Will your program leave Quebec inside Canada or outside?

A. Well, there are many ideas. But one thing is sure: in no way can we accept the present constitutional process. There is no way any Quebec premier could go to Ottawa and say, “I will agree to have eleven governments involved, as we have had in the past three years.”

Q. Where will your own new ideas come from?

A. Look at Europe. When I was defeated in 1976, I went to Brussels and studied the Common Market. My political idol is Jean Monnet ((intellectual author of the European Community)). Now they are talking about political union and a common currency.

Q. But the countries of the E.C. are giving up sovereignty, not gaining it back.

A. Yes, but they’re discussing a common foreign policy. Many Quebeckers say they want sovereignty in association with Canada, but they would prefer to have members in the Canadian Parliament. How could that work? Let’s say that ((the E.C.)) is an interesting and probably appropriate reference.

Q. Is a common market of North America part of your calculations?

A. The aim of most Quebeckers is to have economic ties with the U.S., which we have with free trade. But I don’t think Quebeckers would choose anything beyond that.

Q. In the long haul, can anybody guarantee the linguistic and cultural survival of Quebec? The provincial birthrate is very low.

A. We want Quebec to have the necessary powers to address our demographic situation. Since we started giving bonuses to families for having a third child, things have improved, but not enough. We have a substantial number of new immigrants, and we will soon have the power to integrate them into the French-speaking majority, economically as well as culturally. So, we lost Meech Lake, but we are getting a key instrument for our cultural security.

Q. What will happen to Canada’s official bilingualism?

A. A majority of Canadians, and certainly the intellectual establishment, agree that Canada is a unique country because it is bilingual.