On the Record takes a narrative approach to the issues of the day. Bouchard obviously believes that if he can relate his own personal journey from the family farm at Lac-Saint-Jean through his collaboration and break with the Conservatives and to his leadership of the Bloc, then others will come to understand the necessity of arriving at the same conclusion.
Presented below are some quotations from the book that touch on key points in relation to Bouchard and the Bloc and that complement lecture material.
An unconscious process of maturation led me to the idea of independence. I can't remember the day or the week, because there was no critical turning point. I did not call a press conference to spread the good news or lead an assault on federalism. It was a private matter.Quebec had made enormous progress since 1960. After setting up an educational system, social programs, a modern public service, a state organization with the proper tools for economic development, many thought it would make sense to raise anchor. It seemed logical for the revolution to find its quiet accomplishment in sovereignty. From June 22, 1960, to May 20, 1980, it had been a beautiful trip.
Unlike others who noticed the growth of the no side, I believed right to the end that the yes side would win. . . . I was stupified by the results of the referendum [of 1980]. For people of my generation, who had, throughout the 1960s, spoken and written solely in terms of hope and pride, it was the end of an era. . . . In any case, for me May 20, 1980, marked a break with the past.
The prime minister [Mulroney] would have to take the turn he had planned by himself and he would have to be happy with his new fellow traveller, Chretien. The turn was too sharp; centrifugal force was ejecting me from the vehicle. I persisted in thinking that the best policy would be to stay the course, brandishing the signed [Meech Lake] accord. . . . Our disagreement touched on the interests and the honour of Quebec, the respect for one's commitments and for oneself. . . . I called the prime minister to confirm that I was leaving both the cabinet and the caucus.
I have the profound conviction we must rethink this country. It is necessary to stop trying to fit Quebec into the mould of a province like the others. . . . Quebecois, in particular, must redefine the degree, the structures, and the conditions of their participation in the Canadian system.
English-speaking Canadians condemned Meech because it threatened the idea they had of their country. The country they carry in their minds and hearts is the present Canada, in which English is clearly predominant and which admires and is nostalgic for the British Crown. . . . Quebecois see the same country, but reflected in a mirror. Their real state is Quebec. . . . They feel they form a nation, one that is predominantly francophone, to which they pledge their primary loyalty. . . . It is, in fact, a country that is being artificially kept within the Canadian country. By rejecting Meech, English-speaking Canadians had sent the message that they do not want two countries in one and that, if they had to choose, they would choose their own. This gave Quebecois the idea of doing the same thing.
By having two levels of representation, the federal system created two groups of elected Quebecois, one in Ottawa and the other in Quebec. . . . The fact that Quebecois MPs are usually members of pan-Canadian parties within which they are but a minority only makes the problem worse. . . . We decided to attack this evil and to do so as a block. . . . Thus was born the Bloc Quebecois.
I have come to the following conclusions: federal structures hinder Quebec's development and deprive it of an opening on the world. The converse is also true: the presence of Quebec--always in conflict, demanding, and unhappy--compromises English Canada's own development. . . . If they fail to cut the Gordian knot, Canada and Quebec will stagnate and exhaust themselves in navel-gazing discussions.
Quebec is an unfinished country, one that needs to be completed.