NEWS ANALYSIS : Vote’s Clear, Canada’s Future Is Not : Factionalism: Anti-reform vote calls into question the careers of Mulroney and Quebec Premier Bourassa.

Now that Canadian voters have roundly defeated their government’s latest set of proposals for unifying the country--voting no in a rare and historic national referendum--important questions remain for America’s northern neighbor:

Will the French-speaking province of Quebec now move toward independence, making good on a decades-old threat and finally rupturing this often-fractious 125-year-old confederation? And what will become of Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, a staunch friend of Washington who staked his political career on national reconciliation but whose efforts succeeded in thoroughly antagonizing most Canadians?

The answers will become clear in the coming weeks and months. But some early indicators are already in place.

On Monday, Canadians were asked to vote on sweeping constitutional amendments, negotiated by the country’s political leaders over agonizing months. The measures were drawn up largely to satisfy Quebec, which has never ratified Canada’s constitution; Quebec contends the document fails to give it the powers it needs to protect its minority French language and culture.

But to win non-Quebecers’ support, the amendment-drafters included other unrelated and decidedly complicated provisions--for example, to reform Canada’s discredited Senate and to grant Indians and Inuit the right to govern themselves.

The politicians confidently announced last August that Canadians would get to vote on their work. On Monday, in a strong turnout, 54% said no in a vote that casts a long shadow over Quebec.

The vote calls into question the future of Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, a shrewd, seasoned federalist politician who for years has urged Quebecers to stay in Canada because they benefit economically from the union. His chief opposition has come from the sovereignty-supporting Parti Quebecois, which seeks independence from Canada.

But in recent months Bourassa has faced a strong challenge from Quebec nationalists within his own Liberal Party. Liberals don’t want outright independence but believe Bourassa’s federalist approach is too conciliatory. When the constitutional reforms were unveiled, and Liberal-nationalists realized it fell far short of their goals, they turned against Bourassa and joined sovereignty supporters in voting no.

Thus Bourassa’s longstanding party position lies in tatters. He now faces the daunting challenge of rebuilding his deeply divided party at a time when his old sovereignty-supporting foes have gone on a new offensive.

“The clear message (from the referendum) was that we can’t go on tinkering with the constitution,” said a buoyant Parti Quebecois leader, Jacques Parizeau, in a Tuesday news conference here. “The detour is finished. We’re back on the highway (to sovereignty).”

Parizeau then laid out his strategy for achieving Quebec’s independence:

* Fight Quebec’s next provincial election--which must be called by 1994--on the issue of sovereignty.

* Draw up a new national constitution and create other governmental institutions once elected.

* Conduct a referendum on sovereignty for Quebec eight to 10 months after taking office.

“I am convinced that there is a growing sentiment in Canada that the Canadians want to reorganize their own country,” Parizeau said.

But all is not lost for supporters of a united Canada. Although Bourassa’s forces lost in Monday’s referendum, they will not necessarily lose the next provincial election.

And even if Parti Quebecois does form Quebec’s next government, there is no guarantee that Quebecers would then vote to secede.

If observers must wait until 1994 and beyond to see what happens to Quebec, they may not have to wait much past Christmas to see what happens to their beleaguered prime minister. For Mulroney, there are two key questions--Can he hold his party caucus together? And, should he stay as party leader to participate in the national election, which must be called by the fall of 1993?

On the first count, the danger to Mulroney comes, again, from Quebec, particularly from Lucien Bouchard, an ambitious separatist. Until two years ago, Mulroney and Bouchard were friends. Mulroney campaigned enthusiastically when Bouchard ran for Parliament on the Progressive Conservative ticket and named him a Cabinet minister once elected.

But in return Bouchard announced in 1990 that he was a separatist, left the Progressive Conservatives but kept his Parliament seat and formed Bloc Quebecois, a new party dedicated to working for Quebec’s independence at the federal level. Since then, Bouchard’s popularity has soared in his home province and he has succeeded in recruiting other Quebecer Progressive Conservatives away from Mulroney. His strategy in the wake of the referendum will be to step up efforts to woo more Quebecer Progressive Conservatives from Mulroney.

The other looming question is whether Mulroney will now choose to stay as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Many analysts expect him to stay and fight, despite overwhelming odds. The reasoning? Mulroney has a pugnacious personality and can’t resist a good fight. He also knows that the other main parties in Canada are almost as reviled as the Progressive Conservatives.