The bracing clarity of the question -- does the law allow Quebec to secede unilaterally, or perhaps more to the point, does it matter what the law says? - - does not permit the usual evasions and ambiguities. The language laws, you can fudge. Distinct society, you can fudge. But you either defend the Constitution of Canada, or you don't. You either uphold the rule of law, or you don't. There is no middle ground.

The reference has acted as a razor, slicing through the thirty years of official dissembling that has enveloped and obscured the Quebec question. So it was perhaps inevitable that some pols, accustomed to straddling the centre, would jump the wrong way. Daniel Johnson was one. Jean Charest was another.

Indeed, for all the evident enthusiasm across the country at the prospect of Charest replacing Johnson as leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, it is hard to see what real difference it would make. Like Johnson, Charest opposed the reference from the start. Like Johnson, he attacked the federal government for daring to defend the Constitution and the territorial integrity of Canada. Like Johnson, he has formally and repeatedly asserted that Quebec has a right to secede unilaterally. At the very moment when federalist unity was most essential, in the hour of their country's maximum peril, both he and Johnson chose to side with the separatists. And this is the man we are now to anoint as our saviour?

If the Quebec Liberals, under Johnson or under Charest, cannot be counted on to defend the federal position in such a fundamental matter as the rule of law, how can federalists have any assurance they will not line up alongside the Parti Quebecois in the confrontations to come before the next referendum -- over the wording of the question, over the size of the majority required, or any other matter?

For federalists in Quebec -- genuine, committed Canadians, I mean, not calculating Bourassa-style conditional federalists or their frightened hand- maids -- the ambivalence of the Liberals is no longer merely an annoyance: it is potentially fatal. It is dangerous enough that the party should still be peddling the delusion known as Plan A, by which Confederation will somehow be redrawn to Quebec-nationalist designs. But on the critical tactical questions surrounding the next referendum, it is vital that the Liberals fall in with the federal side.

But how can federalists have any trust in the Liberals, a party that has so consistently disappointed them in the past? The question is inseparable from the federalists' waning influence in the party. Just as the Liberals are habitually too frightened to deviate from the nationalist line in any dispute with Ottawa, so federalists, whatever their complaints about the party, can generally be corraled into the Liberal ring at election time, for fear of "splitting the vote." This is not an inconsequential concern. But federalists, whatever their minority status in the party, can sometimes exert a leverage beyond their numbers. The coming leadership race is just such a time. Granted, a Charest coronation would leave less opening for a federalist insurgency. But whether he runs or not, now is the time for party federalists to make themselves heard.

The great mistake would be to line up behind one of the "mainstream" candidates, a Paradis or a Frulla. With federalists safely in their pocket, they can be counted upon to spend the rest of the campaign sucking up to the nationalist wing of the party. What federalists need, rather, is a stalking horse: a candidate who can take a bloc of federalist delegates to the convention, and force the leading candidates to come a-courting.

I think you know who I'm talking about. There is only one person in Quebec politics with enough passion for Canada, enough disdain for mainstream opinion, enough public profile and, let's face it, enough sheer nerve to do the job: Guy Bertrand. He wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning, of course.

But, especially in a close convention, he might succeed in pushing the eventual winner to take a firmer line on secession. The Supreme Court reference offers a ready-made "wedge issue." Either you believe in the rule of law, after all, or you don't.

Bertrand has lately let it be known that he is willing to run, with enough encouragement. He should be encouraged.