As if to underline the significance of Jean Charest's declaration that he would accept -- er, seek -- the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party, it is reported that he wrote his own speech. No kidding.

He leaves the Conservative party with "a heavy heart," but not with "a deaf ear" to the pleas of Quebecers "from all walks of life" who want an end to the bitter debates over separation that "sap our strength." This was no less desirable for Canadians in general. For (big finish) "we are destined to be a shining light in the family of nations, and we shall soon reach the commanding heights if we ... stand side by side." Yikes!

But Charest's performance is best judged not by what he said, but by what he didn't say -- or perhaps by what he said without saying it. Notably absent from his remarks was any suggestion that the remedy to Quebec's ills was to confer upon the province greater powers under the constitution, which is merely the position of every Quebec Liberal leader since Jean Lesage.

Indeed, Charest seemed to imply that the "national question" was not a dispute between Quebec and the rest of Canada at all, but rather between rival camps of Quebecers.

At least, that's what I think he was implying. "If we are to promote Canadian unity," he said in one characteristically opaque passage, "we must begin by rebuilding solidarity here in Quebec." And what has undermined that solidarity? Not the federal government, not les autres, but the separatists, "those who have preached the same rhetoric for over 20 years," with their "old grievances and endless bickering." Canada is not the problem, it turns out. Separatism is the problem. Imagine that.

But Charest's message, if I read it rightly, is more radical even than that. The divisions within Quebec have not only weakened Canada, but also Quebec -- and not just economically, though that will get plenty of emphasis, but politically, in its dealings with the rest of Canada: "Divided," he warned, "Quebec is vulnerable." Charest's aim seems to be to turn Quebec nationalism on its head: to make it a point of pride for Quebecers to send the separatists packing.

Thus is synthesized the Trudeauiste notion of "French power" in Ottawa and the traditional nationalist demands for more powers in Quebec City.

In the more decentralized Canada of today, Charest seems to be saying, Quebecers can best serve their interests -- and shape the country to their designs -- by throwing their weight around in interprovincial councils.

They have, in short, all the powers and all the protections they need. The thirty-year quest for more, the endless invocation of Quebec's "traditional demands" by premiers of all parties is, viewed in this light, almost demeaning. Perhaps that was what was meant by this extraordinary bit of Charestian doublespeak: "Quebec does not need anyone's permission to be what it is." A rebuff to Plan B, or the final resting place of distinct society?

Only a politician as gifted with obscurity as Charest could make the renunciation of Quebec's historic claim to special status sound like a gesture of defiance.

It's early days yet, obviously. Even if this initial reading of Charest's message is correct, there is plenty of time for the Liberals to revert to their old habits. If sustained, however, it would mark a radical -- and surprising -- break with the QLP's past. Rather than engaging the sovereignists on their own terms -- who can best defend Quebec against the encircling enemy -- the Charest Liberals have seized the opportunity of his arrival, and changed the subject.

So long as the debate is measured on the old axis -- Quebec versus Ottawa; more than Meech, less than Meech -- the Liberals cannot win. At best, they set up expectations that they cannot fulfill; at worst, they split the party. So instead Charest will hit the Pequistes on the economy, and Quebec's tattered public services. He will present himself as the spokesman of an ambitious new generation, weary of ancient battles. He will emphasize hope, and solidarity, and prosperity, and he will wrap all of this up in a single, concrete commitment: no more referendums.

As for the rest, it will be shrouded in Charest's special brand of nebulousness, the doublesided rhetoric that says one thing while seeming to say another. If not quite the full-throated defense of Canada one might wish, it will at least not hint at a preference for independence. Give thanks for small mercies.