> The controversy over whether they were closet separatists arose while we
> were visiting Quebec. What's happened since?
You may have still been there on Wednesday when Michaelle Jean issued a statement that she is "proud to be Canadian" and "fully committed to Canada". This declaration of fealty will likely be enough to prevent the controversy from developing beyond the rednight right in the Western provinces and rural Canada, where alienation from Quebec and its political aspirations is strongest. The Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, who would be the beneficiary of a wider and deeper controversy, declared himself satisfied with Jean's statement, signalling that he is not inclined to devote more energy to it, except to score some propaganda points around it next election. Harper is holding back because you can't form a federal government without having a substantial chunk of support in Quebec, and he has been working hard to shore up the very weak Conservative presence there.
Paul Martin's choice of Jean was also made directly with Quebec politics in mind. On a partisan level, he is looking to stop the erosion of traditional Liberal support in Quebec in favour of the Bloc Quebecois (BQ), which sits in the federal parliament as an extension, in effect, of Quebec's sovereignist Parti Quebecois (PQ). In cities like Toronto, the appointment of an attractive youngish, black, hip GG is seen as cool, especially among younger people, and will not hurt the Liberals, especially within the immigrant communities which generally support them.
As head of the federal government, Martin is also very much aware that the PQ is widely expected to return to power at the provincial level next year, and that it is quite possible there will be another, early, referendum on sovereignty. His choice of Michelle Jean is therefore calculated to win the sizeable swing constituency of "soft" Quebecois nationalists who have oscillated between demanding more autonomy within Canada and outright independence.
> So what about Quebec separatism in general?
If the PQ regains power and follows through on its promise of a referendum, I think there is a good chance that the "yes" side will win it this time after failing twice before - in 1980 and 1995. In '95, the "no" side won by a razor-thin 50.5% to 49.5%. A majority of francophone Quebecers voted for sovereignty, but the far more monolithic "no" vote of the anglophone and allophone communities was (just barely) enough to tilt the balance the other way.
There would almost certainly be a tortuous and lengthy negotiation between the PQ and the feds and other provinces about the terms of secession if a referendum were successful. There might well be a lengthy delay before negotiations even got started. In 2000, the federal Parliament passed a so-called Clarity Act, which abragated to itself the right to determine if the referendum question and/or the results were sufficiently "clear" to accord it legitimacy. The Quebec parliament promptly rejected it. Clearly, the feds strategy would be to tie up and wear down the sovereignists while working inside Quebec to reverse the result. The uncertainty itself would probably discourage investment in Quebec, and the feds would be looking to exploit any resulting economic distress and joblessness. It is not clear how far the mass of Quebecers would be prepared to go down this road, if it got very bumpy. The PQ is a mild social democratic - some would call it a "bourgeois" - party which is not aiming at radical change. Quebec already has considerable powers to regulate the social and cultural sphere, and it is a matter of dispute as to whether it is a net fiscal beneficiary of the federation or not. Beyond a new flag, a small army and diplomatic corps, and more spending power, it is difficult to see what else of substance would change inside Quebec. The PQ's model is the EU; it wants to continue to share a common currency and trading space with Canada - hence it's hyphenated programmatic goal of "sovereignty-ASSOCIATION" (my emphasis). It is not a program, IMO, which will inspire the masses to great sacrifice.
In the final analysis, any negotiations between Quebec and Canada are ultimately and informally going to be mediated by the US, and the outcome will, above all, have to be consistent with US economic and foreign policy interests. Given the modest objectives of the PQ and that events will unfold in the US's backyard, I doubt Quebecers would experience the event as anything other than a "cold", mostly symbolic, independence. Barring a global economic collapse, which would create a radical new dynamic in Quebec as elsewhere, I think a breakup would unfold very much like the peaceful and orderly separation between the Czech republic and Slovakia, although probably at a much slower and more frustrating pace. Of course, you would then get Quebec and Canada vying for trade and investment, particularly in relation to the US, which is why the Canadian bourgeoisie and state are not happy at the prospect.
What's the analysis/position of the Anglo
> Canadian left on Quebec?
The English-speaking Canadian left has always been schizophrenic about Quebec. On the one hand, they feel a strong social and political kinship with the Quebecois intelligensia, which strongly favours some form of independence. On the other hand, except for elements of the far left which hope the process will result in an "independent, socialist Quebec", they don't want to see Quebec, the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada, leave the federation. But the Canadian left is itself strongly nationalist, including the left social democrats within the NDP, so they don't want to Canada broken up and the struggle for its own independence vis a vis the US weakened. Nevertheless, they support Quebec's right to secede, and would resist federal efforts to prevent it by from doing so in the event Quebecers democratically decided to do that. There would be, I expect, a struggle within the NDP over how vigorously to support self-determination for Quebec if this came to the forefront. Quebec has always been a crucial point of division within the Canadian social democratic party, with the leadership - always mindful of its electoral support, especially in Western Canada, where the party is strongest - leaning one way and the party activists, notably those from Ontario, leaning another. In the 60s and 70s, it was primarily differences of how to relate to Quebec's ""quiet revolution" which gave rise to the so-called Waffle wing of the NDP, the high point of the Canadian left in the postwar period. The NDP leadership's reluctance to champion more autonomy for Quebec is why it has never been able to sink roots there, and why its natural constituency of trade unionists and intellectuals gravitated instead to the social democratic PQ.