For all our supposed civility, in Canada, as in no other democracy, it has become an accepted campaign tactic not merely to question your opponents' patriotism, but to accuse them of out and out treason: remember John Turner's claim that Brian Mulroney had "sold out" the country?

But nothing, and no one, could top Tuesday's amazing outburst from Alexa McDonough. In charging that Preston Manning would lead Canada straight to "civil war," the NDP leader achieved a place unique in Canadian history.

It is, without a doubt, the most asinine statement to escape the lips of any party leader in any Canadian election, ever. It is so shockingly ill-judged that it calls in question not only her fitness to be prime minister, but to lead a party with any claims to electoral respectability.

It's not clear what caused her, in the middle of a characteristically aimless rant connecting unemployment to Lucien Bouchard to the Americanization of Canada, to drop this immense brick -- among other charges, she accused the Reform leader of "hate-mongering" -- or whom she has cast as the combatants in her fantasies of "armed conflict." McDonough's personal dislike of Manning is ill-concealed enough, and fits nicely with the easy aspersions on other's motives with which the far left has always felt entitled to pursue its ends.

But "civil war"? Tanks rolling up and down the Boulevard de Maisonneuve?

Squadrons of bombers in tight formation laying waste to the Outaouais?

What exactly does she mean? The potential for violence in Quebec is real enough if the secessionists ever succeed in their desire to overthrow the constitution, as Jacques Parizeau was several thousand spoiled ballots from attempting.

But what is there in Reform's policies that could possibly justify such militaristic scenarios? What has Manning said or done that might lend credence to McDonough's accusation? What is this "hard line" he is said to stand for?

It consists of two things. One, a promise of radical devolution of powers to the provinces, including all power over language and culture, with the explicit aim of satisfying the demands of Quebec nationalists: Manning's so-called "troisieme voie" between separation and the status quo. Two, a promise to negotiate secession at the request of 50 per cent plus one of Quebecers voting in a fair referendum. That's some hard line: give 'em what they want before the referendum, and give 'em what they want after. Heh, heh -- that'll show them.

There is nothing anywhere in this that is even faintly out of line with the policies of the other main parties. Devolution, sometimes to Quebec, sometimes to every province, has been the preferred strategy under the present Liberal regime, as it was under the Tories before them, as indeed it has been under every government since the 1960s. On secession negotiations, Manning has in fact taken a weaker line than the other two party leaders, neither of whom has said he would accept a simple majority of Quebecers as sufficient mandate to destroy the country.

What seems to have so upset McDonough is that when Manning says he would negotiate secession, he actually means to bring something to the table: to place conditions, that is, on Canada's acceptance of its own mutilation, including the division of the debt, the partition of those parts of the province that wish to remain Canadian, the suspension of Quebecers' Canadian citizenship, and many other unpleasant matters. Reform would insist on strict adherence to the law throughout, as well as a national referendum on any final agreement.

This is to be distinguished, apparently, from McDonough's preferred approach to negotiations, which is to swallow whatever outrageous proposal the secessionists toss in her face. Or what else are we to conclude from such jittery rhetoric? I don't wish to single her out in this regard. It was, after all, only very lately that any member of the Canadian political class summoned the nerve to challenge the secessionists' presumed right to secede unilaterally, on whatever terms they choose -- without which condition any negotiations would be pointless.

There are legitimate criticisms that can be made of Reform's approach. It is fine to say that you would impose terms on any secession -- but that is still to accept the principle that Quebec has a right to secede; that the minority may decide the fate of the majority; that Quebecers, by the mere ritual of a plebiscite, may help themselves to something that doesn't belong to them -- namely, the territory of Quebec. That truly would mean the death of the country, and no candidate for prime minister should endorse it.