Fourteen years ago today, premier Jacques Parizeau, Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard, and Action démocratique leader Mario Dumont signed the agreement that would lead to a referendum on Oct. 30 1995. The rest, as they say, is history.
By 2009, Bouchard and Dumont have moved on to other things. Parizeau remains the only one of this triumvirate still involved in the sovereignty movement, to put it mildly.
On Wednesday, Parizeau's latest sortie turned into another controversy. Le Devoir's front page headlined: "Parizeau: There needs to be a political crisis. A sectorial referendum could serve the cause of sovereignty." (Pauline Marois tabled her "plan for sovereignty" last week, which includes the possibility of referendums on patriating certain powers from Ottawa.)
The predictable, almost Pavlovian reaction of Premier Jean Charest ensued. He accused the Parti Québécois of wanting to "hurt" Quebec. As for Marois and her MNAs - who are heading today to Rivière du Loup for a weekend party meeting - they turned the table on the Liberals by accusing them of having zero demands on the constitutional front.
In the shorter term, Marois's plan is mostly meant to help mobilize her troops by painting herself as the most forceful PQ leader on the national question since Parizeau. Which brings us back to Parizeau's controversial sortie of last Saturday.
The former premier gave a speech at a seminar by Intellectuels pour la souveraineté. It has been posted on www.vigile.net since last Sunday for all to see.
What's striking when you watch it is that his quote about needing a "crisis" was, in fact, quite a minor point that took up about a minute out of a 35-minute speech. His speech was more about this question: What can the PQ do in the next four years to rebuild its credibility as the main vehicle for sovereignty?
To make his point, Parizeau pulled out a poll done last March for the Bloc Québécois. It showed that of 1,003 respondents, only 34 per cent, including 38 per cent of francophones, still believe sovereignty will ever be achieved. But on the other hand, 56 per cent, including 62 per cent of francophones, believe it "could" be achieved.
These numbers were similar to those of an Angus Reid poll published Monday in La Presse. It showed that 74 per cent of respondents, be they sovereignists, federalists or undecided, also think it improbable that Quebec will ever separate.
Parizeau didn't mince words: "People are convinced sovereignty is possible, but they think it's not going to happen." He said this rendered a "very harsh judgment" on what he called the sovereignist elites.
"Why don't people believe in us anymore?" he asked. "What did we do wrong?" In other words, why do most Quebecers no longer trust the PQ to achieve its goal?
His overall diagnosis was that it had spread itself in too many directions, instead of focusing on its own option.
His prescription was for the PQ to change its ways of the past decade. Dramatically. To create a program entirely geared toward the people, prepare everything that pertains to a possible referendum, consult people to know what they want and make room for people from the right and the left, as long as sovereignty is their common goal.
Then he concluded that the way for the PQ to regain that trust is "to find again a taste for clear objectives, simple but generous ideas, and answer people when they ask "what is sovereignty for?" Finally, he said, the party should find the way "to be as comfortable within the people of Quebec as fish in water."
So his main message was for the PQ to go back to its raison d'être and try to become the kind of grassroots party it once was. Love him or hate him, it's really pretty hard to find anything shocking about those observations.
But now, the question becomes: Will Marois's plan, as much as it is bound to be modified over the next four years from within and without the PQ, be enough to get such a major process started?
In essence, what Parizeau was saying last Saturday is that the ball is now in Marois's court. But he'll be watching what she does in the next few years very, very closely.