Next Step : Canada’s Dilemma: A Nation Divided? : Tempers are flaring over a referendum designed to keep Quebec in the fold. It may be the vote of a lifetime.

High in his 36th-floor executive suite, overlooking the neat line where the trees and houses of this city greet the vast, tawny expanse of Alberta prairie, oilman Kent Jespersen is girding for the political battle of his life.

“I think this vote is the most important vote that Canadians will have to cast, at least in my lifetime,” says Jesperson, senior vice president of Nova Corp.

Jespersen means the referendum scheduled for Oct. 26, in which all adult Canadians will be asked to approve a set of constitutional amendments designed to keep Quebec in Canada. It is Canada’s first national referendum since 1942, when voters went to the polls to say yes or no to conscription at the height of World War II.

That balloting was highly divisive, with virtually the entire French-speaking population of Quebec voting against a draft--and against the rest of the country. And the upcoming referendum promises to be no less fractious.

Already, tempers are flaring as national politicians warn that a vote against the amendments could lead to the breakup of the country, and opponents accuse the politicians of outright scaremongering.

Across Canada, all manner of peculiar things are happening as the referendum date approaches. Key civil servants have found their private telephone conversations taped and transcripts of them leaked to the media. One Quebec women’s group says the government threatened to pull its funding if it didn’t declare support for the constitutional amendments. A top bank economist is predicting a major recession, with 15% unemployment, if “No” wins and--as some suggest it will--Quebec then secedes from the confederation.

Even former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who has largely tried to avoid the political spotlight, has jumped in, writing anti-amendment essays and delivering an eloquent speech at a Montreal restaurant with the less-than-uplifting name of La Maison du Egg Roll.

Pollsters are upon the land, in search of hints of how the vote will go. Early nationwide samples suggested a close count, but opposition to the amendments appears to be gathering force, especially in Quebec, British Columbia and here in Alberta. The French-speaking Quebecers generally think the proposed amendments don’t go far enough; the English-speaking British Columbians and Albertans tend to say the changes would give too many special privileges to Quebec.

The polls also show that large numbers of Canadians are having an exceptionally difficult time making up their minds.

Throughout all the commotion, the Canadian dollar has fallen sharply. Economists have complained for several years that the currency was substantially overvalued, hurting this country’s ability to export. But now that it has dropped in value against the U.S. dollar, few are cheering. Canada’s political uncertainty is widely blamed for the decline.

It is economic woes like the weakening dollar that have convinced Jespersen, who says he doesn’t ordinarily get involved in politics, to become co-chairman of the Yes for Canada Committee in Alberta.

“If there is a ‘No’ vote, for sure there will be political instability, and that will have economic consequences,” he warns. “Investors just don’t like political instability.”

This month’s referendum is the latest chapter in a constitutional saga that has been running in Canada for decades. Of Canada’s ten provinces, only nine have ratified the national constitution. Quebec has held out, arguing that the document does not enshrine the autonomy it needs to protect its unique French language and culture.

Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, himself a Quebecer, though an English-speaking one, took office in 1984 promising to “bring Quebec into the constitutional family” by amending the constitution to the province’s satisfaction.

His first attempt, a brace of amendments called the Meech Lake Accord, died a humiliating death two years ago when the provincial legislature in Manitoba refused to ratify it, and the one in Newfoundland threatened not to.

Now, the new package may be Mulroney’s last chance, since he has to call an election next year and is faring poorly in the polls. Many Canadians thus think the stakes this time are much higher.

“It took weeks and weeks for the politicians to come to a consensus (on the new amendments),” says John Currie, a former oilman, president of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, and another “Yes” activist. “If we found a compromise (this time) and it’s not accepted, how are we going to find another one?”

In addition, Currie and other “Yes” activists worry that a “No” vote from English-speaking Canada will be taken as an insult--and perhaps the last straw--by proud French-speaking Quebecers. Even though many Quebecers plan to vote “No” themselves, a “No” from English-speaking Canada would be taken differently than a “Non” from Quebec. Francophones perceive an Anglo’s “No” not just as a rejection of the amendments, Currie says, but as a personal rejection of their whole society.

But Currie’s analysis is met with contempt by political scientist Tom Flanagan, the top political strategist for the Alberta-based, populist Reform Party and a proponent of the “No” side in the referendum. Across town, on the pleasant, leafy campus of the University of Calgary, Flanagan argues that the independence-minded young Francophones of Quebec will press for more autonomy no matter what the vote is.

“This package won’t stop the separatists from going into the streets, if that’s what they choose to do,” he says. “A showdown (on Quebec sovereignty) is coming, whether there is a ‘Yes’ vote or a ‘No’ vote.”

Meanwhile, he argues, if the amendments are ratified, they will do great damage to principles he believes in as a Canadian. He cites as particularly objectionable an amendment that would give Canada’s Indians and Inuit (as the Eskimos prefer to be called) the right to govern themselves, noting that there is nothing in the pact to ensure that the forthcoming native governments would be democratic.

“This will introduce a really obnoxious racial principle,” he warns.

Those favoring the amendments constitute a well-established network of business leaders, big-union activists and the chiefs of all three main political parties, while the “No” side is composed of an assortment of aggrieved groups that have almost nothing in common except their dislike of the proposed constitutional changes.

Besides the Reform Party, there are organized feminists, some Indians, Quebec sovereigntists and the Quebecers who don’t seek outright independence but still think their province deserves more freedom of action. There are also some legal experts--Trudeau is one of these--who say the pact jeopardizes the rights of the individual and creates an unsavory national hierarchy, with Quebec at the top.

Many voters in the westernmost province of British Columbia oppose the amendments for the simple reason that their province is growing faster than Quebec, and its delegation to the House of Commons would be permanently much smaller than Quebec’s if the amendments go through. With so many diverse, even conflicting voices favoring a “No” vote on the referendum, for so many different reasons, defeat of the proposed amendments on Oct. 26 would be hard to interpret accurately--and easy to misconstrue.

To Flanagan, pitting the disparate interest groups against the bottomless resources of the government and the pillars of the private sector “is really a David and Goliath situation.”

But Flanagan is optimistic nevertheless, because most Canadians agree that if the “No” side wins in just one province, it will scuttle the entire accord. “The ‘Yes’ side has to win ten times,” he says.

(The referendum is not binding on the federal government, but it would be virtually impossible, from a political standpoint, for Mulroney to overlook a “No” from one of the larger provinces. Furthermore, provincial ratification is a part of the amending process here, and three key provincial legislatures--those of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec--are required by law to respect the vote of their citizens.)

With tensions mounting, the Royal Bank of Canada recently calculated the costs of Quebec’s departure from the confederation. It concluded that Canada’s standard of living would fall 16% by the year 2000, that the cost to the average family would be about $8,000 per year, that unemployment would rise as high as 15% and that 1.2 million Canadians would emigrate, mostly to the United States.

The bank maintains that it isn’t electioneering and that the report is intended to inform Canadians about the economy, not sway their votes. But that hasn’t stopped angry Quebec sovereigntists from plastering Royal Bank branch windows with Non stickers, and even closing out some accounts.

The same week, Trudeau published impassioned, if not intemperate, essays in “Maclean’s” and “L’Actualite” magazines, deriding Quebec separatists as “a sleazy bunch of master blackmailers” whose endless quests for more goodies had prompted Ottawa to take the misstep of amending the constitution. Trudeau believes the existing constitution is good enough and is therefore urging a “No” vote--just like the sovereigntists he so despises.

Though Trudeau has been out of power for eight years, he still commands the hearts and minds of countless Canadians. “Maclean’s” said the issue carrying his essay was sold out just hours after it appeared on the newsstands.

Yet another controversy broke out when someone surreptitiously leaked a tape-recorded telephone discussion of the proposed amendments between two senior Quebec constitutional advisers. Not suspecting they were being taped, the two complained bitterly that Quebec had “caved in” during the negotiations and hadn’t won enough new constitutional powers. One of the callers--later identified as the government’s principal constitutional adviser--also called the constitutional negotiators from English-speaking Ontario “the worst sons of bitches you can imagine.”

The emotional nature of the debate is doing little to help University of Calgary graduate-studies dean David Bercuson make up his mind. Bercuson is famous for his outspokenness on Canadian linguistic politics; not long ago, he co-authored a controversial book advocating that Quebec and English-speaking Canada simply call it a day and split up.

But with the national witching hour approaching, Bercuson has joined the large body of Canadians who don’t know what to do.

“The problem is, I think the agreement stinks, but I’m worried about the consequences of voting against it,” he says.

Bercuson says that if a “No” vote this fall did lead to Canada’s breakup, the fissure would come at a most inopportune moment in world history. The stability of the international financial system preoccupies him, particularly at a time of political and monetary uncertainty and even outright civil war in parts of Europe.

“My guts tell me to vote ‘No’ on this,” he says, “but my head keeps telling me, ‘Hey, wait a minute.’ ”

HOW CANADIANS FEEL ABOUT THE REFERENDUM National:

Yes: 41%

No: 41%

Undecided: 18% British Columbia:

Yes: 30%

No: 53%

Undecided: 17%

Prairie region

Yes: 36%

No: 51%

Undecided: 13% Ontario:

Yes: 50%

No: 33%

Undecided: 17% Quebec:

Yes: 32%

No: 46%

Undecided: 22% Atlantic region

Yes: 53%

No: 30%

Undecided: 17% SOURCE: Gallup Canada Inc. poll taken Oct. 5

The Debaters

Facing high stakes, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has chosen to campaign for the referendum by telling Canadians that if they vote no on revising the constitution, they should prepare for the end of Canada as they know it:

“It is clear: A vote for the no means a direct contribution to the separation of Quebec. We have to see things as they are, because separation would have very serious consequences for all Quebecers and all Canadians. It is not psychological terrorism to say that dismantling a country also turns its economy upside down, and often irreparably; it is the truth, but it’s a truth that separatists would rather hide . . .

“You don’t have to hold your nose to vote yes; you can hold your head up high.”

Though he has not governed for eight years, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is still admired and remembered by many Canadians. This fall, he emerged from his relative seclusion to denounce the constitutional pact and the upcoming referendum’s “Yes” side:

“Unfortunately, politicians--and politicians in high places, and even bankers in high places--are trying to make us think, make us believe, that a Yes is a yes to Canada, and a No is a no to Canada.

“This is a lie, which must be denounced . . .

“You think you’ll have peace if you vote yes? You’ll have peace if you vote no! Because no means we’ve had enough of the constitution, we don’t want to hear talk about it any more.”

The Accord

Here are some major provisions of the constitutional accord that Canadians will be voting on:

* Indians and the Inuit would have the right to govern themselves, to better safeguard their languages, cultures and traditions.

* Quebec would be a “distinct society” under law in Canada. The role of its government in protecting its French-speaking majority, “unique” culture and civil-law tradition would be affirmed.

* Members of the national Senate would be elected, instead of appointed by the government. Each province would get an equal number of senate seats.

* To compensate them for losing the large senate delegations they now have, Quebec and Ontario would get a greater proportion of seats in the House of Commons.