People Don’t Get Quebec Separatism

From foreign policy analysts to alternate historians, people really want to see Quebec separate from Canada. Often defined as a perenniel problem in Canada, the idea of Quebec seperation and independence is floated in foreign policy speculation and fiction to a startling degree. Indeed, I think in the last ten years I’ve heard more about Quebec separatism from people outside of Canada than from anyone who lives here!

Canada is a confederation, which means more or less a loose collection of provinces bound up by foundational agreements and identity. That identity was overwhelmingly Anglo-European, represented by English immigration and ties to the United Kingdom. That was though, an imposed identity which began in the late 1600s as British politicians attempted to conquer New France in their various wars with the Kingdom of France. Finally, in 1763, that struggle came to an end as the British defeated France in the Seven Years War (or the French and Indian War), first through the defining Battle of the Plains of Abraham and then at the Treaty of Paris. This put almost all of France’s North American possessions in British hands, but also caused many of the problems which would lead to the American Revolution.

Though the seized territory would suffer invasions in 1775 and 1812 the area which would become Canada would remain British. Creeping attempts to assimilate the French people would lead to rebellions in 1837-38 and finally Lord Durham’s Report describing the land as “two nations warring within the bosom of a single state.” This was the context in which the two disparate provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were forged into the United Province of Canada in 1840, and finally in 1867 the many provinces of British North America would be formed into Canada. Ontario and Quebec being the most populous to this day, and arguably the most politically important for it.

In that time there has always been an undercurrent of Quebec nationalism, in various flavors from ultramonitism, to French supremacy, and it has played out in various forms across the existence of Canada. The most recent incarnation of Quebecois nationalism came after the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s in which Quebec society secularized. In this period of changing identity René Lévesque emerged as a leader of a new political force in Quebec politics, the Parti Québécois which advocated for a sovereign and independent Quebec. It began its push in the 1970s, leading to electoral victory and the first referendum of 1980. For reasons which are still disputed, the 1980 referendum was a dismal failure, with 59% of the population voting against independence. Despite this defeat, the Parti Québécois hung on to power, but were more interested in local government. It was, truthfully, canny leadership by Pierre Trudeau which managed to briefly cripple the independence movement, followed by the constitutional struggles of Canada in the 1980s which would bring the issue to the fore once again.

The most well known referendum outside Canada is the 1995 referendum under the leadership of Jaques Parizeau, a much more committed nationalist than perhaps even Lévesque. In 1994 he brought the PQ back to power and, despite many objections, promised a new referendum within a year. He delivered in 1995 and seemed to have come tantalizingly close, with the motion only failing by 50,000 votes. Parizeau, upon seeing the failure, resigned the next day.

Since then there has not (yet) been another attempt at separation in Quebec. The reasons why are hard to say, but increasing immigration, disinterest from younger Quebec voters, and the very public failure of the referendums are all possible interpretations. That in the years since no concrete plans for how Quebec would proceed in the case of a “Yes” victory in independence have developed most likely have not helped. Polling for independence has fallen to historic lows across the last decade, and it remains to be seen whether they can be revived.

This all raises the question though, what would have happened had “Yes” succeeded?

Well what would not have immediately happened would have been Quebec independence. It needs to be emphasized that Canada was under no obligation to consider the referendum as binding, and even many of the supporters of the referendum did not consider it a true independence project. Parizeau’s whole plan would have depended on recognition by a foreign power, namely France. Absent that he had no real means of gaining legitimacy outside negotiations with Canada, and struggle in Quebec politics between Mario Dumont and Lucien Bouchard who were Parizeau’s rivals, meant that there would be no unified government to approach negotiations from the beginning. The other sticking point would be the vast swathes of land claimed by Indigenous Canadians and their own likely refusal to even consider being apart of an independent Quebec.

Instead of a new nation, what would most likely have taken place is a series of grinding and demoralizing negotiations which would see Quebec not gain independence and instead broader autonomy in the Canadian system.

Though for the sake of argument, what happens if against all the odds, Quebec moved unilaterally towards independence in 1995? Somehow the governing coalition agrees that independence is the best option and France recognizes Quebec as an independent nation, putting pressure on Canada to recognize them as an independent nation. Both sides sit down at the negotiating table.

First off there’s the issue of the Indigenous peoples, who especially with the Oka Crisis fresh in the national conscious, would no doubt reject joining any independent Quebec. Even if they did want to, that would mean negotiations with Canada, as many aspects of Indigenous rights fall under Federal purview, and renegotiated treaties would be under the aegis of the Canadian government unless they related to rights outlined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Some may wish to remain in Quebec, but this would be a thorny problem going well beyond even the independence negotiations.

Next of course, would be the question of what to do about the areas with a “No” majority? Many of them would naturally not want to be part of an independent Quebec, and so be rightly worried about what comes next. Canada would no doubt fight to keep them, which is problematic especially in the case of Montreal. Looking at the map below you can see why:

From wikipedia user DrRandomFactor

South Quebec, and much of Montreal, voted overwhelmingly to reject independence. Being the largest and most economically vital city in the province Quebec would certainly not want to let it go, but neither would Canada. Considering the people of the city voted against independence, the outcome might well be that the city remains in Canada. With so much of the surrounding countryside dead set against independence as well, this becomes more viable. The northern side of the city may go for independence, but that would be a compromise Quebec would have to make.

Then much of the territory bordering Ontario would also remain in Canada, as would northern Quebec unless the Indigenous peoples there chose not to. Indeed, almost all the periphery of Quebec from the borders with Maine to near New England and New Brunswick would reject leaving based in the referendum results, and Canada would have little urge to let them go. Some may choose otherwise, but with the future of Quebec so uncertain I am skeptical.

In most maps I have seen depicting a new nation it simply assumes that the whole province will leave, but with the information above and the very clear desire to not leave Canada by some, this is unviable. That would leave the new “Republic of Quebec” as a nation locked along the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence, with a tenuous overland connection to the US and almost all its other services, infrastructure, and economic engines tied irrevocably to Canada. How that would be sorted out, the functioning of the Quebec economy, and the ability of Quebec to exist on the international stage are open questions. This perhaps explains why support for independence has waned in the last few decades as the proponents of Quebec independence are unable to answer these very important and very pressing questions.

It is interesting to see then, that these questions and issues are never really addressed by the foreign proponents of Quebec separatism either. There are very real political and economic reasons that Quebec independence remains extremely unlikely. In staying apart of Canada it has gained, functionally, many of the same advantages of independence without risking the severe economic and territorial dislocation separation would bring. Indeed other than linguistic or nationalistic reasons, very few people can point to any concrete advantages that an independent Quebec would gain from this arrangement.

Does that mean it is impossible for Canada to face another referendum in the future? Of course not. The future of Quebec separatism is hard to gauge. The support has barely crested the high 40% at its height, and even now has simmered to a low 20%. This is hardly a viable model to rebuild a separatist movement, and the clear geographic divides have not changed, and one can only wonder whether the desire to leave has waned even further in the last 20 years. Some event may come along and bolster the movement again, but absent the ability to function as an independent nation, one struggles to see how the people of Quebec will arrive at the conclusion that they will be better off outside of Canada than in it.

While a very quick and dirty analysis, it does highlight many of the problems those who propose the breakup of Canada along these lines face. Canada as many nations within a nation seems to be a status quo for the conceivable future.