The Captain Canada act - en francais?

With a Quebec lieutenant who helped found the BQ and who now refers to the Clarity Act as "tricks", it's no wonder that Martin plays up the saviour of Canada act in English Canada and downplays it when speaking in French. I think Harper had it right when he said that the Liberals need the Bloc to paint themselves as the only ones who can possibly hold Canada together. Mario Dumont said the same thing a couple of months back.

An op/ed from today's Globe and Mail, titled "Tell Quebec la vraie question":

Paul Martin plays the nationalist in English. Why, when talking to francophones, does he underplay the threat to this country's survival? demands WILLIAM JOHNSON

After Friday's English language leaders' debate in Vancouver, Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a truly Churchillian challenge to Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, saying he was "ready to meet him on every street corner, in every city and in every town and village in Quebec." No Mr. Dithers, he. Oddly, however, just the evening before, the French language debate had offered Mr. Martin precisely the opportunity to fight the separatist leader on the beaches, on the hills, fields, streets and landing grounds of Quebec, courtesy of the television networks. But Captain Canada was strangely restrained when addressing the country's French-speaking population.

He did say, "Monsieur Duceppe wants to set in motion a process leading to another referendum, and put an end to this Canada that generations of Quebeckers built with other Canadians, and which is the envy of the world." He also, later in the debate, accused the secessionist leader of "wanting to divide Quebec's families." And he added this fighting defence of Canada: "Our competitors are not within our frontiers. Together, Canada can take on the Chinese, can take on the Indians. And we will do it, as a country."

Later, he accused Mr. Duceppe of causing national instability by making a pact with Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair to start the process for a new referendum, and by "putting sand in the gears so that Parliament would not function." Mr. Duceppe parried that "on the 60 bills that were adopted in Ottawa, the Bloc voted with the Liberals 82 per cent of the time."

In his final statement in the French debate, Mr. Martin warned that Mr. Duceppe "wants to set us on the path to a referendum. He wants to waste our energies while our competitors take advantage of our divisions. My choice is to build Canada, a country that has everything to succeed."

And that was it.

Oddly enough, Mr. Martin turned far more articulate, flamboyant and patriotic the next night when he spoke in English. Then, he bared his teeth and raised his voice. "Mr. Duceppe, let me say to you that the Supreme Court, the Constitution of Canada and international law all make it very, very clear that you cannot have a unilateral declaration of independence. Let me say, also, that I am a Quebecker and you are not going to take my country away from me with some trick, with some ambiguous question . . . This is my country. And my children were born and raised in Quebec."

That one burst of patriotic rhetoric, far too long for me to quote in full, said far, far more than the sum of what he had said in French.

Why the difference? Especially when only French Quebec threatens Canada's existence?

And there was more: "Sovereignty is a question of international recognition. You're not going to get international recognition if what you do is violate the Constitution of Canada, if you violate international law . . . And certainly, and as Prime Minister of this country, I will defend the unity of our land."

In June, the Parti Quebecois committed itself to holding an early referendum on secession -- and, with a Yes majority, to a unilateral declaration of independence. The PQ is going for broke, and Mr. Boisclair endorsed the revolutionary plan. But neither the Prime Minister, his minister of justice nor any other federal party leader attacked a plan that clearly meant the overthrow of the Constitution.

That silence was maintained over the six months since.

Quebeckers, as a result, are totally misinformed about the implications of the secessionist plan. It is significant that not one question was raised about it in the French debate. It is now taken for granted.

Mr. Duceppe spoke the truth when he said in the English debate: "The Clarity Bill was unanimously denounced at the National Assembly in Quebec, not only by the PQ -- the sovereigntists -- but also by Mario Dumont's ADQ. Jean Charest also denounced the Clarity Bill."

A would-be prime minister has an obligation to set the people straight on the meaning of the Supreme Court's decision, and hence the strict obligations of the federal government to satisfy the fundamental principles governing secession.

Most people -- even journalists -- think that clarity in the referendum question and its answer is the main issue in determining whether Quebec can secede. But that deals only with the first of four principles that must be satisfied, according to the court. Clarity is a condition for the democratic principle to come into play. A trick question or an unclear answer would violate democratic legitimacy.

But the three other principles, equally important, must be brought into play: the federal principle, meaning the consent to secession by the provincial legislatures and the Houses of Parliament; the rule of law and the constitutional order, meaning that secession requires an amendment to the Constitution; and the rights of minorities, meaning that the boundaries of a new Quebec would be set by negotiations as part of the settlement preceding the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Martin has turned the defence of national unity into a partisan issue, a personal duel of champions between himself and Mr. Duceppe. That undermines Canada, weakening the real case for federalism.

He must, instead, instruct all Canadians about the real implications of a vote for secession -- above all, he must do so in French.