Of Brian Tobin, however, there is little doubt: he really is without shame.

The Premier of Newfoundland has made something of a career out of breaking the law. It was one thing, however, to send ships out to enforce Canadian fishing rules on the high seas, or to sponsor a rally of patriotic Canadians in Montreal during the referendum: the relevant laws in those cases were either hazy, bordering on obtuse (the international law of the sea) or of dubious constitutionality (Quebec's absurdly restrictive electoral law).

But with his threats to turn off the turbines at the Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant unless Quebec agrees to renegotiate the terms of the infamous 1969 deal, under which Newfoundland agreed to supply Hydro- Quebec for 65 years at prices that are now a tenth of what the utility receives for reselling the power in the United States, Tobin has strayed into direct contravention not only of the law of contract, but of the Supreme Court itself, which has upheld the deal not once but twice.

If he thinks he has put Bouchard in a ticklish position, he has done far worse to the federal government. The Parti Quebecois has never been troubled by blatant inconsistency. Indeed, their whole platform depends upon it: Canada is divisible, but Quebec is not; Canadians can have no say in the future of Quebec, but Quebecers may unilaterally decide the future of Canada; etc.

etc. Bouchard's latest backflip -- "I'm in favour of the rule of law.... The contract has been affirmed by the high courts of this country... Ottawa would have to intervene through its institutions in order to stop Newfoundland from violating the law." -- is notable only for its degree of difficulty.

But federal strategy in Quebec depends crucially on maintaining a principled approach based on the rule of law, and appealing to Quebecers' better judgment. If Quebec looks bad insisting that the law should be enforced in Newfoundland even as it rejects its application in Quebec, think how wretched the feds will look should they turn a blind eye to Tobin's lawlessness after insisting on the primacy of the law as it applies to secession. The Prime Minister's instinctive reponse in most matters -- do nothing, and hope the media lose interest -- will not serve him well here.

Not that Bouchard should get off so lightly. Indeed, if Tobin really wanted to turn up the heat, he would do well to hold a referendum on the issue, this being the approved pretext for illegality in PQ circles. Would Bouchard deny the people of Newfoundland the right to decide their own hydroelectric destiny? If the federal government refuses to intervene, will the PQ appeal to international law to hold Newfoundland to its contract? Perhaps the good offices of the government of France? Bouchard is certainly right to say that "this contract was willingly signed between consenting adults." But then, so was Confederation.

It is time for an all-party climbdown, before this matter takes us down paths we should never wish to pursue. Tobin can hardly contribute to a civilized settling of disputes in this country if he persists in threats of blackmail.

Bouchard, for his part, may have the common law on his side, but he hardly has common decency. To insist that a contract is a contract, no matter how outrageous the terms, is to stand on the morals of Shylock. As for the Prime Minister, Chretien may wish to pretend, as he said over the weekend, that "this is a problem between two provincial governments. We are not involved." But the legitimacy of federal institutions most certainly is involved in this dispute, as Bouchard has been good enough to point out.

Perhaps the best contribution the feds could make -- not to beat a dead horse -- is to get serious about enforcing the economic union. Newfoundland would not be quite so captive to Quebec were it free to sell its power directly to U.S. customers -- if, that is, it had open access to Quebec's power grid, as now it has not. It may go against the Prime Minister's risk-averse nature, but at this point we have less and less to lose.