Whether people like it or not, sovereigntists control Quebec's political agenda and fully intend to make use of this situation. This was eloquently demonstrated on December 6, 1994, when the prime minster of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, in close consultation with the Bloc québécois, tabled a draft bill called An Act Respecting the Sovereignty of Quebec, that presents a blueprint for Quebec's political future and unveils the process that allows all Quebeckers input into the finalizing of the text.

As might have been expected, the main thrust of this agenda is sovereignty, an option that Quebeckers have been debating in one form or another since 1960 and that has come to centre stage since the demise of the Meech Lake accord in 1990. The seventeen articles of the draft bill are, in this respect, a very able synthesis of positions taken by key actors in the recent debate relating to the sovereigntist option, as well as of studies conducted under the auspices of both the Bélanger-Campeau Commission (1991) and the Commission of the National Assembly established to examine matters relating to Quebec's accession to sovereignty (1992). The proposed process of consultation of the draft bill resembles that which was used for Bélanger-Campeau, and reflects a sincere desire to have Quebeckers of all regions partake in the définition of a sovereign Quebec. This will be accomplished through the drafting of a solemn déclaration of sovereignty that will serve as a preamble to the Act and a review of the blueprint for Quebec's political future contained in the body of the draft bill.

The draft bill comes as no surprise to those who have followed the contemporary process of deterrnination of Quebec's political and constitutional future. This process has led Quebeckers to believe that "should a final attempt to renew federalism fail, sovereignty would be the only course remaining" (Bélanger-Campeau Commission Report, p. 73). For Quebeckers, the failure of the Charlottetown accord now justifies a focus on sovereignty and its définition, rather than on federalism and its renewal.

Yet, such a course of action seems to have provoked an emotional response among the federalists in Quebec and the rest of Canada. They obviously have been shaken by the firm commitment of the Parizeau government to have the debate centre principally on its option, and have expressed great frustration at the fact that the main emphasis will be put on sovereignty rather than on federalism during the forthcoming
consultations on Quebec's political future. This reaction is somewhat puzzling because the same voices a few short rnonths ago refused to define a new federalist option for Quebec, saying simply that the burden of proof lies with the sovereigntists. The leader of the official opposition in Quebec and the prime minister of Canada have been very much on the defensive and have used loaded words such as "illegitimate" and "undemocratic" to qualify both the substance and the process of the Quebec government's plan. It seems, however, that these arguments have not had any significant effect on the Quebec electorate. Three consecutive polls recently have indicated a great deal of support for the Quebec government's initiative.

The federalists' great discomfort has led them to a hastily hatched plan to boycott the consultations that the government will be holding this year in February and March. For many sovereigntists, as recent polls show, this attitude is neither constructive nor wise and most probably underlies the fact that federalists in Quebec have very little to say about the political future of Quebec. As Mr. Parizeau put it in the National Assembly, their boycott is a pretext, a "faux-fuyant" for not participating and for preferring to hide their heads in the sand on this issue and promote the status quo as they have been doing since the rejection of the Charlottetown accord in October 1992. The Quebec Liberal party would also find itself in the embarrassing position of having to object to many components of the draft bill on sovereignty that they have, in recent history, endorsed. For example, its leaders signed the Bélanger-Campeau Report and voted
on the ensuing act, both of which constitute large components of the sovereigntist agenda of the new Quebec government.Promoters of the status quo may sit on the sidelines and continue to question the legitimacy of the process or contemplate a parallel process to denigrate the sovereigntist option. Meanwhile, the Quebec government will be calling on the common sense of Quebeckers, confident of their
capacity to debate positively the main features of a future sovereign Quebec and involving them in a truly democratic process. This process will certainly lead to a better understanding of all the dimensions of sovereignty; will shed light on the economic, social, and cultural aspects of the sovereigntist agenda; and prepare Quebeckers to make an informed choice on Quebec's accession to sovereignty. Quebeckers will participate fully and, one can predict, enthusiastically in a very significant debate that the democratically elected government of Quebec has a clear mandate and responsibility to initiate before calling on the people to make the fondamental choice in a referendum on sovereignty.

And, moreover, Quebeckers will witness the solidarity of the sovereigntist forces, of the Parti québécois and the Bloc québécois, who have closely linked their organizations, and that together with their other partners outside the partisan political sphere will propose a clear sense of direction to Quebeckers. Together they will show that the sovereiantist option is not only legitimate and feasible, but also the best
choice for Quebec's future, an option that will incorporate all the most positive aspects of modern democratic values, as we will see during the upcoming debate on the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.