Article content continued

No one in Quebec today, least of all Marois herself, can believe the vote was anything but a reflection of popular disenchantment with former Liberal premier Jean Charest. There will be no sovereignty referendum during the life of this government, we now know, because such a measure would have to pass the National Assembly. The Liberals are federalist. The Coalition Avenir Quebec, led by Francois Legault, is stubbornly non-sovereignist. Even a citizen-initiated referendum cannot happen without a law first allowing it. The law would have to pass the legislature.

That means separation is off the table – perhaps permanently, given Quebec’s changing demographics and aging population. This is, as per the Harper government’s new talking points, an “old battle.” Most Quebecers, especially those who’ve grown up in the post-Levesque era, simply don’t care. In all practical respects they have nationhood de facto, the long-sought-after dream, which used to be a punch line: An independent Quebec within a strong and united Canada.

The “nationhood” of the Quebec people was formally recognized by Parliament in 2006. Canadians in the rest of Canada weren’t happy about it, but there was no furor, as there would have been 15 years prior. Quebecers meantime take the new status quo for granted.

Given this, how could a serious Canadian national unity crisis emerge?

One way, given the current dynamic, would be for francophone and anglophone Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere to get caught up in tit-for-tat battle of symbols, driven by emotion. Another would be for the federal government, already deeply unpopular in Quebec (The Conservatives hold only five Quebec seats), to begin throwing its weight around, or aggressively engaging Marois and Co., on a host of small issues, thereby gradually building them into heroes of the downtrodden Quebecois nation. That might conceivably result in Marois winning a majority next time out.

The thing to remember, here, is that time is not on the separatist side: The more time passes without a national unity conflagration, the less likely one becomes.

Sometimes the proper response to a provocation is simply to say nothing and watch placidly as it passes you by. In what appears to be a rare moment of unanimity, the Conservatives and New Democrats have drawn that conclusion here. They’re not wrong.