Preparing for a "Yes:" Quebec, 1995

MacCaulay · Aug 3, 2009

I have a severe lack of sources due to moving, and as such only have Wikipedia to access right now. Oddly enough, it's come through.

I don't want to talk about whether or not an independent Quebec would be good or bad. That's not what I'm pitching here: I'm pitching a "Yes" vote in the referendum, by the same size that it was voted down.

And here's what I'm adding to the mix, from Wikipedia:

Preparing for a "Yes" victory

Sovereignists

In the event of a "Yes" victory, Parizeau had said he intended to return to the Quebec National Assembly within two days of the result and seek support for the Sovereignty Bill, which had already been tabled.[10]
In a speech[11] he had prepared in the event of a "Yes" victory, he said a sovereign Quebec's first move would be to "extend a hand to its Canadian neighbor (sic)" in partnership. Parizeau said that he would then expect to negotiate with the federal government after a "Yes" vote. That negotiation failing, he would declare an independent Quebec.[12]
On October 27, Bloc Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard's office sent a press release to all military bases in Quebec, calling for creation of a Quebec military and the beginning of a new defence staff in the event of Quebec's independence.[13] Bouchard declared that Quebec would take possession of Canadian air force jet fighters based in the province.[14]

Federalists

Little planning was made for the possibility of a "Yes" vote by the Canadian federal government. Some members of the federal cabinet met to discuss several possible scenarios, including referring the issue of Quebec's independence to the Supreme Court. Senior civil servants met to consider the impact of a vote for secession on issues such as territorial boundaries, the federal debt and whether or not Jean Chrétien could remain the Prime Minister of Canada, as he was elected in a riding in Quebec.[15]
When asked about the possibility of Canada negotiating an economic partnership with an independent Quebec, then-Reform Party Intergovernmental Affairs Critic and future Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters "There is zero support outside of Quebec for this kind of thinking," and "The sooner that Quebeckers know this, the better".[16]
Minister of National Defence David Collenette made preparations to increase security at some federal institutions. He also ordered the military's CF-18 aircraft out of Quebec, to prevent them from being used as pawns in any negotiating process.[15]

First Nations

Traditional Cree and Inuit lands in Northern Quebec

In preparation for a "Yes" victory, aboriginal peoples in Quebec strongly affirmed their own right to self-determination. First Nations Chiefs all articulated that forcing them to join an independent Quebec would violate international law. In the final week of the referendum campaign, they demanded to be full participants in any new constitutional negotiations resulting from the referendum.[17]
The Grand Council of the Crees in Northern Quebec was particularly vocal in its resistance to the idea of being included in an independent Quebec. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come issued a legal paper titled Sovereign Injustice[18] that sought to affirm the Cree right to self-determination in keeping their territories in Canada.
On October 24, 1995 they organized their own referendum asking the question: "Do you consent, as a people, that the Government of Quebec separate the James Bay Crees and Cree traditional territory from Canada in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum?" 96.3% of the 77% of Crees who cast ballots voted to stay in Canada. The Inuit of Nunavik held a similar local vote asking "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?", with 96% voting No.[17] First Nations communities were an important contribution to the tense debate on a hypothetical partition of Quebec.

So...we have the Canadian government actually having moved it's CF-18s out of Quebec to make sure they couldn't be used against them in any shape or form.
The Cree obviously not happy with their situation in a "hypothetical partition of Quebec."
And the Bloc was the only one apparently actually putting together serious plans for an actual independent Quebec.

But mostly, I'd like to know what you Canadians would have felt had you woken up that morning in 1995 to know that a majority, however slight, of the people of Quebec had voted in favour of the referendum.

Sachyriel · Aug 3, 2009

I would have been 5 or 6 and in Manitoba. However Rump Quebec would have been invaded.

TheMann · Aug 3, 2009

I won't mince words. I HATE the separatists. They only got as far as they did in 1995 because they lied like a sieve and deliberately convoluted a question to try and pull off a victory. And as Harper pointed out, the chances of the West allowing Ottawa to negotiate a "sovereignty-association" deal are close to zero.

Chretien would have had to face up to the idea of him needing all of Ontario and the Maritimes to back him in such a deal, and with Mike Harris in Queen's Park and Ontario at the time loathing such deals, he wouldn't get it. Chretien would have to take a hard line by neccessity, because no Quebec MPs would make the Reform Party's 52 seats a lot more valuable. One political bit of that would be simple - Ontario would be the win or lose province, whoever won there won the election - Ontario's seat total was almost equal to that of all four Western provinces in 1993.

The separation process would have been long and convoluted, and exceedingly nasty (by Canuck standards). The Cree sure as hell weren't buying into an independent Quebec - the devil you know versus the devil you don't is a fair way to put it - and that fact would have likely forced a problem in itself. If they seceede, they'd likely takes the James Bay project with them, which in itself in a hostile Canada would damn Quebec economically right off the blocks. Quebec would have to negotiate free trade deals with Canada (iffy) and the US (almost certain). Chretien himself would have to move, as his riding is in Quebec.

One aspect I can also see is resurrection city coming out of it. The NDP will probably want to get some of its old guard back to help in the new Canada (read: Broadbent) and the Reform will focus everything they have in Ontario, because they have almost a lock out West. The Liberals would have to start getting more results, especially in BC.

The Marritimes have a problem of having to have all communications routed through Quebec. I doubt that would be much of an issue, but the MPs from out East would fight to get such links quite hard.

Bouchard would have to figure out the actual business of governing, and fast. They won't be using Canadian currency - Chretien would have many reasons to stop that idea, not the least of which being if Quebec screws up it hurts everyone in Canada - and the idea of the Canadian military being used to defend Quebec would make Preston Manning flip out, big time.

If Chretien and the Liberals are not unseated in 1997-98, and it would be entirely possible, he'll have to focus on just how to rejuvenate Canada without Quebec, and he'll have his own reputation to salvage. He'll keep much of the pre-referendum agenda going, but he'll have to modify it just to keep it going. The Reform Party will now have gained a huge growth in popularity, and their virtual lock on the West means the Liberals have got to well in Ontario at all costs.

Franz Josef II · Aug 3, 2009

Chretienne's career will be over. Toast. He will be hated and reviled by the rest of the country; the Liberals may need to jetison him in order to save the Party from extinction in the next election: memories of the near - annihilation of the Conservative party (they were reduced to 2 seats in the House of Commons at one time) will be in the minds of cabinet ministers.

Also, even if Chretienne wants to go along w/the Bloc and let Quebec go, he may find the rest of the country won't stand for it. During this time nationalist sentiment was high through most of the country b/c we didn't want to see Confederation destroyed. There might be an attempt at a coup in the senior cabinet to force Chretienne out to stop recognition of the totally farcical and illegal "vote" to leave Canada.

Chretienne in any case will need the 24/7 protection of the RCMP and after he leaves government may well be forced to leave Canada. He will have been responsible for: 1.) political recognition of separatist sentiments in Canada, causing grave internal turmoil and a lack of national self - confidence.
2.) Canada's economy will tank. Severely. As will the Canadian currency.

The only sensible thing for the government to do would be to have the Bloc politicians arrested as traitors, the party officially banned from politics and martial law declared to deal with the Quebecois.

Fletch · Aug 3, 2009

Franz Josef II said:
The only sensible thing for the government to do would be to have the Bloc politicians arrested as traitors, the party officially banned from politics and martial law declared to deal with the Quebecois.

Wow, just wow.

The only way to save the nation is to destroy democracy. Actually, there is no guarantee that any of that would happen, if you want an example look at the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

That being said, it would be an extremely tricky situation. Should a yes vote occur, Quebec would have to leave Canada sooner or later. I am of the opinion that a majority of one suffices, and there was no clauses on the referendum. Should the Canadian Government say no, then nationalist sentiment would be raised and another referendum may have an increased mandate.

The negotiations would be interesting.

Franz Josef II · Aug 3, 2009

Prior to the referendum the Government made it clear that the "yes vote" was to be a clear, defined majority. The Bloc cannot get a "clear, defined majority" because although there are lots of separatists, there are also lots of people that don't want to leave Canada. Also, the separatists are themselves divided on the issue.

Politically I don't see how Ottaw CAN permit Quebec to leave, because in doing so they open the doors to any other separatist group trying to part ways. Also, as I said, the economy and currency would suffer tremendously; then there is the will of the rest of Canada to take into consideration: many of whom do not want Quebec to remove itself from confederation.

Miserism · Aug 3, 2009

The Sovereignity Bill in question really didn't offer much sovereignity in the first place. Even if the separatists went out and called for an independent Quebec, economically the country would be as integrated to Canada as it was as a province:

...the treaty will ensure that the Partnership has the authority to act in the following areas:

- Customs union;
- Free movement of goods;
- Free movement of individuals;
- Free movement of services;
- Free movement of capital;
- Monetary policy;
- Labour mobility;
- Citizenship.

Basically being in Canada but not really in Canada. The government would refuse this without question, thus:

If the negotiations prove to be fruitless, the National Assembly will be empowered to declare the sovereignty of Québec without further delay.

A Transnistria-like scenario would most likely occur, with no country recognizing Quebec's independence. Canada would suffer economically, but not as hard as Quebec, who will have no trading partners and will find themselves right into a recession. Moderates would migrate immediately into Ontario/Maritimes, taking a significant percent of the population away. With the country crippled, Quebec wouldn't survive more than a year before a new government rejoins federation.

That doesn't take into matter if the government sends in the troops right away per FLQ and seizes Montreal and the St. Lawrence. The regime would be toppled within weeks in that case.

I wouldn't say that Chretien's career would be over immediately, considering if the referendum won it would've been due to Lucien Bouchard's miracle leg-healing. The government would fall if it decides to try to appease Quebec and call it a "distinct society" or something, and once Quebec rejoins federation reform will be issued to redistribute their large chunk of parliamentary power.

bm79 · Aug 3, 2009

No matter what, Jean Chrétien was a federalist to the core. Should the situation denegrate so far that Québec declares independence, I think he'd still remain PM. I could easily see him proudly standing up before the country in a speech and saying (cue gravely Chicoutimi accent): "Though Hi may have been born in Québec, Hi am now, and always have been, a proud Canadien, and a Canadien Hi will remain until the day Hi die!"

I imagine most if not all of the Grit MPs from QC will also remain in the Commons, serving as MPs in exile, so to speak. Chrétien and the QC Grits would also be great for PR on the international scene. Québec wouldn't be totally isolated in this scenario, since France and quite a few of her former colonies in Africa are likely to recognise her. You might also get recognition from places like Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Myanmar! Quel soutien!

Oh, and just so's you guys know, I am actually a sovereigntist at heart, and I voted PQ/BQ when I lived in la belle province. That doesn't mean that my brain doesn't realize that Québec sovereignty in the late 20th or early 21st centuries is pretty much ASB...

bm79 · Aug 3, 2009

TheMann said:
I won't mince words. I HATE the separatists. They only got as far as they did in 1995 because they lied like a sieve and deliberately convoluted a question to try and pull off a victory. And as Harper pointed out, the chances of the West allowing Ottawa to negotiate a "sovereignty-association" deal are close to zero.

You have that right, but I hope your hatred is directed towards the advocates of sovereignty and not those of us who actually voted for it. We idiots only made up 49.42% of the vote...

The separation process would have been long and convoluted, and exceedingly nasty (by Canuck standards). The Cree sure as hell weren't buying into an independent Quebec - the devil you know versus the devil you don't is a fair way to put it - and that fact would have likely forced a problem in itself. If they seceede, they'd likely takes the James Bay project with them, which in itself in a hostile Canada would damn Quebec economically right off the blocks.

That would be hard to explain on the int'l stage, since the James Bay project was paid for by the taxpayers of Québec and is owned by HydroQuébec. I don't think that US will like the disruption to the power supply to New England and upstate NY should a fight develop over those installations...

TheMann · Aug 3, 2009

I think Franz Josef is thinking the result will be a bit too much of a break. Chretien wouldn't be toast but he would have a major mess on his hands, no question about that. Preston Manning would be all over him in a big hurry, and the Liberals would by political necessity have to take a very line in negotiations. Stephen Harper got it right when he said that the idea of sovereignty-association was ridiculous and would not be accepted by Canada. He was right on that front, and the big protests of 1995 prove how right that was.

If Quebec did choose to break away, they will have to solve the question of the Cree - they weren't going, period, and Ottawa would use them as a tool to beat Quebec City into submission. If the Cree stay in Canada, the James Bay project hydro dams stay in Canada. This may or may not make for a political problem for Quebec, depending on how nasty Ottawa decides to play.

If they break away and an election comes as a result, Chretien will have to fight mighty hard to hang on - and Quebec had better hope he can. Lots of Quebecers hate Chretien, but believe me, they will hate Preston Manning far, far more than him. Manning as PM means Quebec can forget about NAFTA, trade deals, the James Bay project and any protection from Ottawa.

I know that Quebec lined up a stack of cash in 1995 to support the Canadian dollar if it went into free-fall post-referendum. I don't think that would happen - too much of Canada's wealth is in the West and Ontario. If anything, a slumped American dollar would help Canadian industry that works with Canada, especially the car companies in Ontario. That's good news for Ontario.

TheMann · Aug 3, 2009

bm79 said:
You have that right, but I hope your hatred is directed towards the advocates of sovereignty and not those of us who actually voted for it. We idiots only made up 49.42% of the vote...

You are correct. I do nto understand the appeal of the Quebec sovereigntists in modern Canada. There are people from 150 different nationalities just in Toronto. Much of the country's multicultural policies over the last half century have largely been drawn up with Quebec in mind, and that started long before the first referendum in 1980. French Canadians are now one piece of the many in modern Canada. What cultural reason is there to run all of the risks of independence?

bm79 said:

That would be hard to explain on the int'l stage, since the James Bay project was paid for by the taxpayers of Québec and is owned by HydroQuébec. I don't think that US will like the disruption to the power supply to New England and upstate NY should a fight develop over those installations...

Click to expand...

But it was within the area owned by the Cree, who overhwlemingly wanted no part of an independent Quebec. The only way to settle that debate would be to pay them off, and that may or may not work. I don't disagree about who paid for them, but the fact is that the Cree were the owners of the lands in the area under both Quebec and Canadian law, which means if they go they could, fairly easily, take the James Bay project with them. Now, I don't think anything that would disrupt power would happen for a variety of reasons, but Quebec may or may not get those dams, and if they don't they have a big economic problem right from the get go.

Franz Josef II · Aug 3, 2009

Well it is an interesting question as to what exactly would happen with the Liberal seats in Quebec. Initially the PM and his cohorts would not encounter any problem - maybe they would still be riding high with patriotic support.
However: the legal ramifications are serious - an MP must be elected by a constitutional riding in order to sit in the House. As the Quebec MPs have lost their seats, they will find themselves in a very ambiguous situation.

With no Bloc and a fewer percentage of Liberal seats this makes the Reform Party much more signifcant for Canadian politics.

Susano · Aug 3, 2009

I half remember that France in fact WAS willing to immidiatly regognice Quebec as soon as it would declare independance and even was ready to move some troops as a symbolic gesture. So, no, independant Quebec would not be without international support, which makes the whole thing... even moe interesting.

TheMann · Aug 3, 2009

Franz Josef II said:
Well it is an interesting question as to what exactly would happen with the Liberal seats in Quebec. Initially the PM and his cohorts would not encounter any problem - maybe they would still be riding high with patriotic support.
However: the legal ramifications are serious - an MP must be elected by a constitutional riding in order to sit in the House. As the Quebec MPs have lost their seats, they will find themselves in a very ambiguous situation.

With no Bloc and a fewer percentage of Liberal seats this makes the Reform Party much more signifcant for Canadian politics.

But as the Canadian electoral map will have to be redrawn out of necessity, Chretien would immediately starting looking for a good Ontario seat to run in, probably in the Northern Ottawa Valley area. The others would have to fan out, too. The government would probably allow Chretien and the Quebec MPs to stay until the map is redrawn and the 301 seats of the new Canadian Parliament are decided by election. If anybody tried to fight that for legal reasons, there will likely be mud slung at them from everybody. Manning wouldn't try that unless he wanted to dramatically alienate himself.

And yes, the Reform Party would now have a major growth in influence in Canadian politics. Whether this is good or bad is an open question. It's good for the West in any way you can see, but Ontario may or may not support the idea. But then again, they did elect Mike Harris in 1995, so who knows. maybe they would support it. All the parties will be very unhappy with Quebec post-independence. I can also see the NDP dumping McLaughlin and looking to get Broadbent back (he's very well known in Ontario, and in this new era Ontario's center-left votes will be more likely to go to NDP because of distaste directed at Chretien), and both Manning and Chretien will have new efforts - Manning trying to get support in Ontario, Chretien trying to break the lock the Reform Party had out West.

I can see a 1997-98 election being fought by:

Liberal Party of Canada - Jean Chretien (with a new seat in Ontario)
Reform Party of Canada - Preston Manning
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada - Jean Charest (another transplant to Ontario or New Brunswick)
New Democratic Party of Canada - Ed Broadbent

Charest would be the one in the hard to find position, though he'd probably do well in the Maritimes and would fight to kick in the doors in Ontario and British Columbia. Manning would be carrying the flag for the right, but his focus would be Ontario, because if he can't win there he won't win, period.

Chretien will still be leader of the Liberals, he fought separatism bitterly and since the hate will be directed at Bouchard and the PQ, Chretien won't have much to worry about in terms of leadership. He won't have a prayer of a majority unless he can get something out West, which would make guys like Ralph Goodale much more important in his party, especially if Charest focuses his efforts in the Maritimes and Broadbent is working in Ontario.

The biggest single area that would gain seats in a new Canadian map is the Greater Toronto Area, which with parts of it like Hamilton, Oshawa, parts of downtown Toronto, Oakville and Brampton being fertile NDP ground, The NDP will recover dramatically from its 9 seats it won in 1993. He won't topple Manning or Chretien, but as neither is gonna get a majority here him and Charest will be able to be kingmakers, a position the NDP has traditionally played very well.

The results of a 301 seat parliament would probably be:

Liberals - 118
Reform - 98
NDP - 55
PC - 30

NDP does well in parts of BC and the Toronto area, as well as Yukon and Saskatchewan. PC does well in the Maritimes, particularly Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Manning is the big winner, going from 52 seats to almost 100. But Chretien would hang on, but his minority would require NDP support. Hence, Broadbent is the kingmaker, which is a good deal for Chretien because Broadbent is fairly centrist anyways and the NDP would be focused on having the new Canada pay a little more attention to their concerns. (With Manning in the game, Broadbent has reason to push hard, too.) Charest is back in it, and what he can reasonably expect to hope for is for Manning to play hardball on government policies, which gives Charest an opening to cast him as a hard-right politician, giving a change for him to gain ground and put the PCs back into a real political position after their 1993 demolition.

TheMann · Aug 3, 2009

Susano said:
I half remember that France in fact WAS willing to immidiatly regognice Quebec as soon as it would declare independance and even was ready to move some troops as a symbolic gesture. So, no, independant Quebec would not be without international support, which makes the whole thing... even moe interesting.

And if France did that, you can bet Ottawa would be far beyond enraged, to the point that the French Ambassador would be advised to pack for home. That fact would get felt in the EU, I imagine - I can't imagine either Tony Blair or John Major will be all that impressed with one of their former colonies' breakup being aided and abetted by France, and would probably vocally say so. (An EU fight that started in Canada. Go figure.)

Susano · Aug 4, 2009

I dont think it would come quite as far. This is the civilised, European("Western") world after all. So there wont eb shooting wars, and to ensure that there wont be abrupt dismissals of ambassadors, either. But it would make negotiations about "Outer Quebec" (the First Nation territories, Montreal) very much more.... tense.

Franz Josef II · Aug 4, 2009

It is not beyond unthinkable for the Canadian government to dismiss respresentatives of foreign governments, be they from the third world or the civilized, western world. In point of fact, Canada and France have had a stormy relationship anyway, what with President DeGaulle giving his unofficial support to the separatists whilsts on an official visit to Canada.

I believe the US and Britain would very sharply reprimand France or any other country that tried to take advantage of the situation in Canada. It may not appear to be so, but Canada is determined to defend her interests (ie, Grand Banks, arctic islands) in whatever way she can.

Susano · Aug 4, 2009

I think it was pretty much obvious that Canada would let Quebec go, and whatever arrangments a souvereign Quebec and France do wouldve been, well, the business of two souvereign states. The problems as said would probably come in determining how many Quebec lands will stay with Canada... and while sending troops makes for a good political gesture, neither France nor Quebec nor Canada fo rthat matter would actually use violence over that matter.

Readman · Aug 4, 2009

Would the US even recognize a seperated Quebec?

MacCaulay · Aug 4, 2009

Readman said:
Would the US even recognize a seperated Quebec?

No. Clinton made that pretty clear in the 90s. It was one of those things that was "unofficially official."

I talked to a guy once at the University of Iowa who used to be in the Clinton State Department, and he said the thought at the time was that they would give Quebec the really cold shoulder since it "messed up the really good party for no good reason."

Not saying whether that's right or wrong, that's just what one guy who worked for State told me. And I've read concurring reports from Lloyd Axworthy and a few others.