Front Burner - For Albertan separatists, is Quebec a model or a warning?

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

A common refrain among those who support Albertan separatism is that they would like a deal similar to what Quebec earned through its decades-long fight for greater autonomy.So as Alberta heads towards its own referendum on a separation, we wanted to try and answer the question: What did Quebec actually get?Chantal Hébert is a longtime political reporter, commentator and panellist on CBC’s At Issue. She also wrote the book, “The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was”. She’s our guide.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Let's see if Toronto advisors know their group insurance providers. Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Beneva. Beneva. It looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. This is a CBC podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson.

October 30, 1995. The day when 4.5 million Quebecers, more than 93% of eligible voters, cast their ballots to decide whether or not the province would separate. Obviously, the separatists lost, but it was a razor-thin margin of just 54,000 votes. The referendum was really the culmination of a decades-long fight for greater autonomy. The demands, recognition, and concessions made in that time had become a kind of model for separatists in Alberta. A year ago, when we went to cover separatism in rural parts of the province,

One message that we heard a lot was, We want what Quebec got. So as Alberta heads towards its own referendum on separation, we wanted to try and answer that question. What did Quebec actually get? Chantelle Ibert is a longtime political reporter and commentator. She's on CBC's at-issue panel every week. She also wrote the book The Morning After,

the 1995 Quebec referendum and the day that almost was. Chantel, welcome to Frontford, and it's great to have you. Nice to be there. Before we talk about the long-term impact of Quebec separatism, let's talk about the last time the issue went to a referendum. And here's the question that people voted on. Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having formally offered Canada a new economic and political partnership under the bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? There's been a lot of questioning of the question in the years after and just remind us about the debate around that. This was the second referendum. The initial plan that Premier Jacques Paiso had was to ask a clearer question.

It became apparent in the two years leading up to the referendum, that it would be very difficult to win a referendum on straight sovereignty, i.e., do you want to separate from Canada or the positive wording, do you want Quebec to become a country? And so Mr. Paiso was convinced to add, at the urging of his main ally, the Quebecoa leader Lucien Bouchard, to add an offer of partnership with the rest of Canada. And here you vote yes to separate, but in the months that follow, you start negotiating a different relationship with the rest of Canada.

And when you look at that question, it's kind of interesting. thing because you would need to Google two sections of it to actually get its entire meaning. One, Google the bill, then Google the agreement between the three main leaders of the No Party, the Black Quebecoa, the ADQ, and Jacques-Pagel. So as a clear question, it clearly doesn't qualify. Yeah. I think there's general agreement on that. But let me add that when Quebecers voted in 1995, they knew what they knew what they

were voting for or against. And it wasn't because they didn't understand the question that the result for the yes side was that high. It was because people who voted yes had been told in particular by Jean-Fritzine, but not exclusively, that a yes vote would lead to separation and a no vote would lead to remaining in Canada. Five million Quebecers are choosing between yes and no between Quebec and Canada. The fact is that behind a murky question is a very clear option.

It is the separation of Quebec, a Quebec that will no longer be part of Canada, where Quebecers will no longer enjoy the rights and privilege associated with Canadian citizenship. And that is basically how people voted. I have not met in all of the time that I covered this issue leading up to on the day of and afterwards anyone who was confused by the question. But its main fault was, or its main asset, depending if you're a sorrentist or a federalist, that many voted because it opened the door to a negotiation with Canada

for a relationship of some kind. And there is no guarantee that anything of that nature would have resulted from a yes vote, especially not a narrow yes vote. We are ready to make now that final projection on the evening. CBC decision desk calling for a no victory numerically tonight. It's going to be a squeaker, maybe as much as one percentage point separating the two sides by the end of the evening. But no more than that.

96.4% of the polls. Let's talk about the two campaigns for a minute, starting with the yes side. So led by then Quebec Premier Jacques Perrezo. I would like for it to have gone through. I would really have loved as you would for it to go through. We were so close to having our own country. Well, it's just put off for a short while, not for a long time. Not for a long time.

And then Black, Quebec war leader Lucien Bouchard. When he took over as leader of the sovereignist forces, Bouchard was greeted as a Messiah wherever he went in Quebec. People would reach out just to touch his clothing. Under his leadership, support for sovereignty surge. You pointed in your book that they had

different ideas of what a yes vote would lead to, and can you walk me through that? What would you mean by that? For Jacques-Belé-Zoh, throughout his entire career, achieving sovereignty for Quebec was a goal. Nothing short of that was what he had in mind. I would say in hindsight that he was probably the best or the only leader who was actually prepared to follow through on making Quebec a country.

And that is what he had devoted this career to. For Lucien Bouchard, sovereignty was a means to achieving a different relationship with Canada. Remember that Lucien Bouchard sat in a federal cabinet as a minister of Brian Mulroney and created the Black Quebecuer after the failure, the president. of the Meach Lake Accord. It's a sad day for Canada. This was all about Canada, but the unity of our country.

And this is obviously a sad day for me as Prime Minister. Mulroney has often talked about how important the accord was to Canada's future, and he's often painted the picture of the crisis that would occur if it failed. But today he may try to calm any fears about the country breaking up in the wake of the death of Meach Lake. Because that was the first to ratify the accord exactly three years. years ago today, and now the time for all the other provinces to do so has expired, leaving Quebec out of the Constitution and with an uncertain future in the Federation. Once he became convinced that it was impossible to arrive at a relationship that worked for Quebec

within the constitutional framework of Canada. Jacques Pagisot, with a yes vote, was ready to go full speed ahead. he explained that once he had a yes vote, even if it didn't work out, the negotiations didn't work out to the satisfaction of some of the yes voters, it would be too late to back out of it. That was his sense of what a yes vote would do and a yes vote. Jean-Gin Boucher had a different take on that.

He believed that a yes vote would trigger change, but he was not convinced that a very small, majority vote for sovereignty would result in a sovereign country. But you did believe that it would give Quebec some leverage to negotiate a different relationship with the rest of Canada. I think there is general agreement in Quebec that a majority is 50% plus one. That is the number that the UK agreed to, with Scotland, to trigger negotiations for secession when Scotland held a referendum, a few.

years ago. But there is disagreement as to whether that's the end of the story in the sense that if you're going to go negotiate and your mandate to negotiate is 52%. You do not have a very strong hand compared to a 62% yes vote. And the outcome of those negotiations may not be what you are hoping for. There's no absolutes. When all those people were, voting back in 95. Of the people who voted yes, like the majority were in which camp? A lot of

Quebecers, after the Meach Lake Accord failed in 1990, wanted to send Canada a message of frustration and anger over the fact that what is obvious to most Francophone Quebecers is that

Quebec is a different place. It speaks a different language. It has a different relationship to culture, the culture is also different. In Quebec, rejection of Meach Lake is being taken as proof English Canadians don't understand Quebec and very probably don't care to. Paul André Comot is editor-in-chief of the Montreal newspaper Le Des Moire. I think that Canada, as we know it in its political institution and the kind of federalism under which we have been living for a century and 25 years, I think that, Yes, we will have to invent a new Canada.

Will it be? And the fact that that was part and parcel at the core of the Meach Lake Accord, and that that seemed to trigger this notion that distinct or different means superior and Quebec is not, et cetera, or open the door to all kinds of, frankly, weird takes on what distinct society meant. I attended some parliamentary hearings in Manitoba at the tail end of the Meish Lake debate, where a group seriously came to explain that a distinct society in the Constitution was meant to give the Quebec government the power to lock women up in kitchens

and force them to have more children. So hearing all that, a majority of Quebecers were deeply angry over what they'd heard and the fate of the accord. In the last week of the campaign, about a week to the vote, the polls showed that if the vote had taken place a week before the actual day of the vote,

a majority of Quebecers would have voted yes. And a majority as in 53, 52, 54%, but a real majority in terms of 50% plus one. Once those polls came out, a lot of people who wanted to vote yes to send a message, but did not necessarily want to separate, backed off,

decided, whoa, this is going a bit too far. And so what you saw over the last week was a softening of the yes vote and the strengthening of the no vote. There are those who believe that this, what's it called, Leifest from the rest of Canada that took place a few days before the vote made the difference. It was a day of symbols like this spontaneous national anthem or symbols like a Quebec flag in the hands of a man from Saskatchewan.

I think Canadians everywhere are in support of Quebec. They're part of the family. Thousands of Canadians, members of the family, is the reassurance Marie-Turrez Dundandelow needs. She leans against a fence, exhausted by the emotions of the referendum debate and fearing Monday's vote. This is immoral to break one whole country for 25%.

of the population and expect respect from the rest of the world. This is wrong. This is wrong. We have... Others, the Zhang Chetin's speeches made the difference. Tonight in particular, I want to speak to my fellow Quebecers because at this moment, the future of our old country is in their hands. But I also want to speak to all Canadians because this issue concerned them deeply.

It is not only the future of Quebec, that will be decided on Monday, it is the future of all Canada. In truth, Quebecers spoke themselves, and the category that said we want to send a message. So this is going too far. There are limits to what message we want to send. One of my colleagues was driving back to Ottawa the day after the referendum, and he stopped at a gas solution on the Quebec side.

And back then there were still people pumping gas at gas stations. So the person who worked at the gas station said, well, that was a great night last night. And so my colleague said, so are you, you voted no? And he said, no, no, no, no. I voted yes. I'm happy with the result. Basically, what this person was saying was, I voted yes, the yes, lost, but we sent a message loud and clear. And we're not going to have to follow up by separating.

Okay. That's really interesting. One of the main takeaways from your book is that there wasn't a whole lot of planning that went into the morning after for the different parties in the case of a yes vote. And just take me through that. Like what were the most significant examples of that? It's I'm always interested these days when I hear people think that the so-called Clarity Act that the federal government passed after the Quebec referendum. will offer much of a roadmap to what happens on the day after a yes vote in any province. For one, if you're met with a majority vote on a clear question,

one that doesn't necessitate Googling to figure out, you already have a problem on your hand. But there is no roadmap in the Clarity Act or anywhere for what happens afterwards. And what we found, for instance, was that Jean-Fritain was a prime minister from Quebec, Back then, the finance minister was also from Quebec. The foreign affairs minister was from Quebec. A group of ministers not from Quebec believed that if the yes prevailed, it didn't make sense that a team of ministers and a prime minister from Quebec

would be negotiating with Quebecers on behalf of the rest of Canada. So that's one issue. The other issue was the official opposition was the Reform Party. It only had candidates outside Quebec, obviously, but it also was the only Canadian opposition party, official opposition party in the House of Commons. The bloc had the title, but the Canadian opposition, once you take Quebec out of the mix,

was the Reform Party. Preston Manning, who was the leader then, was going to wreak parliamentary havoc until he obtained an election call from Jean-Critzine, because he believed that Canadians needed to have an election to decide who they wanted to negotiate with Quebec. What I was trying to challenge him to do, everyone seems to agree that what Quebecers were demanding

is fundamental change, and that has to be responded to, not just because of Quebec, but other parts of the country. and he makes these vague general statements about being committed in some way, shape, or form to change. But when you try to pin him down, there's nothing there. Then there is no guarantee that today, as there was no guarantee back then, that all provinces would agree on a negotiating strategy. How do you tell provinces that they're represented at a negotiation like that? by the federal government.

Would they not have wanted also a seat at the table or at least a seat in the next room? What about Ontario that sits right next door to Quebec and for whom consequences are real having a shared border? Then there is the indigenous question, which back then nobody really worried about, but over the past decades has become a major factor. There is enough now jurisprudence, court decisions, many of them from the Supreme Court, that all go in the same direction, and i.e. to give not only a duty to anyone who wants to succeed to consult, but probably to secure some level of consensus or agreement as to the way forward from the First Nations. So anyone who thinks that the story ends after a yes vote, and there is a clear path forward, There was not then and there is not now. Let's see if Toronto advisors know their group insurance providers.

Who has extensive expertise in both traditional group benefits and special risk solutions? Beneva! Beneva! Looks like people are starting to know Beneva pretty well. You're stronger with the right partner, Beneva. If you sold somebody a loaded gun who you knew was in a vulnerable. state and they shot themselves. I think it is murder.

Just because you're using the internet doesn't mean you get away with murder. I'm Damon Fairless, host of Hunting Warhead. This season, I take you inside the business of suicide and the places desperate people go when they can't find what they need in the real world. Hunting the Suicide Salesman. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. You know, I mentioned in the intro that I traveled to, Alberta last year. We spent some time in towns like Olds and Three Hills, kind of in rural Alberta.

But the way you're talking now is kind of more towards separation than where you started, right? Not separation, but it would be very similar to what Quebec does. They want to do their own thing. They do it. I don't see any reason why every province shouldn't be responsible for themselves. You want to say to the federal government, I'm not, Alberta is not paying this level of income tax. No, I would just assume Alberta do what Quebec is doing and just determine their own future. But within Canada. There was this kind of constant refrain that we got that this all worked for Quebec. This was good, right?

That they kind of pushed the country to the brink and that they've gotten all of this stuff. Like what? Well, you know, I hear people. Like what? Because I don't see anything that Quebec got that is of particular interest to people in Alberta or anywhere as a result of the last referendum. Separate pension plan. Okay. You hear people talk about control over immigration. You hear people talk about their separate pension plan. You hear people talk. Yeah. Let me go down. I'm sure you heard it. Yeah, please. Separate pension plan. Actually, in the I think it was the 60s, when the Canada pension plan. plan was put together. Provinces had a choice. They could have their own pension plan or they could join the CPP. Quebec did not opt out of the CPP. It did not join the CPP and it kept its pension plan. The reason why Quebec didn't opt in was to keep control over the pension funds of Quebecers so that it could invest in its economy with them, which it did. But it still has to

maintain returns that ensure that it can pay off pensions. So that's the pension plan. It does not stem from a referendum. It stems from a government decision. Oh, we have two income tax reports to file. Same reason it allows Quebec to put in some taxes or some deductions that are different from just having a percentage if you're the other provinces and you're filing your income tax.

You file the federal income tax form. And a percentage of that is the provincial income tax. tax. I don't know about Albertans. I suspect if you ask Quebecers today how they feel about having to file two income tax reports with somewhat different rules every year, they would probably say it's not a really compelling thing, but if a province wants to go there and convince it citizens that the hassle of filing two income tax reports is worth it. Sure. It's open to anyone. Immigration. Quebec has had a say on immigration since the Trudeau government in the early 80s. And why is that? Because Quebec is a Francophone province and it gives more points to immigrants who are able to speak French. Why? Because if you go to a doctor in Alberta, for instance, and your doctor cannot speak English, you as a patient will have a problem. It is the same when an elder person goes to a doctor or a nurse in Quebec, you need someone who speaks French. That is also true

of school teachers. The workplace in Quebec operates in French, as do public services, and 85% of Quebecers are francophones, and a good section of them, like a good section of Albertans, do not speak the other official language. So the control over immigration, that is related to the fact that you need to be able to recruit and give more points to French speakers who want to settle in the province. Equalization. I was just going to ask if you could fact-check that one. This is another grape, right?

Alberta is sending all their money to Quebec via equalization. Well, actually, it's not. But when I filed that income tax, the federal one, I paid the same income tax on the same income as the Albertan, who has the same income as mine, and pays. income tax to the federal government. True where formula and the principle of this is enshrined in the Constitution.

So to get rid of equalization, not to change the formula, you would need a constitutional amendment. But Quebec, yes, gets the largest share of equalization payments.

Why is that? Because it's based on a per capita payment. People in Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P-E-I, per capita, get more equalization money. It goes to the Treasury, not to individuals. But there are more Quebecers than there are people in those three provinces. So at the end of the day, there is more money coming to Quebec. Now, if you want to change the formula, you can, the federal government can. It's a federal program. It has got nothing to do with Quebec negotiating the formula. The formula that is currently in place for the

record was modified last by someone called Stephen Harper, a friend of Alberta, I believe. Yeah. But to do away with it in the Constitution, you would require the agreement at least of seven provinces accounting for 50% of Canada's population. I somehow doubt that the Atlantic provinces would support not having equalization payments. Do you think there's any merit to the kind of complaint that, I don't know if it's, or the argument that Quebec has gotten special treatment over the years because of this threat that they could break up the country from Ottawa, special treatment from Ottawa? I'm not particularly convinced by the argument, but I do believe, sadly, that Quebec is an easy target because it speaks different language. and operates on different rules.

But there is a reason why we have something called Quebec bashing, but we don't have something called Ontario bashing except in jest. And I have found very little merit to the claims that it was just the threat of sovereignty that accounts for something that is, I don't know, terribly more advantageous. I mean, yes, we have more social programs, but I don't think any Albertan wants to trade his provincial tax bill with mine. Those are different societal choices. We don't only pay for them with equalization payment. We also pay for them through our taxes.

And they're much higher than anything that any Albertan will ever see over the course of his or her lifetime. But provincial grievances against each other are not a new thing under the sun. In Quebec, you will often hear that the federal governments of the past ensured that Ontario got the auto industry at Quebec's expense. It's all part of the rationale. Me, I tend to look at those issues, not as a Quebec versus Alberta thing, But if you're in Alberta and you really want to create a country, fine. Go right ahead.

Get yourself a mandate to do so. But explain to voters before you go ahead with that how it will make Alberta work better. And if you can do that, me, I haven't seen anyone making that case successfully. But if you want, and one of the arguments you did hear from even. sovereign test in the last Quebec referendum is you should not leave on the basis of anger. Because if that's just a product of grievances rather than a product of we can do better and here is how, then probably you shouldn't be going anywhere. What was the ultimate cost, you think, of Quebec going down this separation road?

What did it lose? Well, probably economic cost in the sense that, you know, when you're uncertain about the political stability of a given area, you're less inclined, or its capacity to have relationships that work economically. A spokesman for the seventh largest financial institution in the country announced that the Sun Life Assurance Company was pulling up stakes and heading to where they'd feel more at home. We do not believe that the separation of Quebec from Canada is likely. However, since it is now evident that the language of the province of Quebec is by law to become very largely French, we can no longer envisage our ability to recruit or retain in Montreal or to bring to Montreal from outside Quebec, sufficient people with the necessary qualifications and competence in the English language to transact the daily business of the company. And if you think that a particular region is going to be headed into years of instability and turmoil,

you're probably likely to take your money and invest it elsewhere, or at least push paws on projects because you do not want to take a hit as a result of lack of stability. I think one of the things that I find a bit difficult is this notion that just because there is a sovereignty movement, be it in Quebec or in Alberta, the federal government has in its power to create a land of rainbows and unicorns for you. And that under the fear that the province will leave, everything will become possible, it's something you hear on. in both provinces, I find that it tends to overestimate the capacity of the federal government on any given day to make our lives immensely better. But then that may be just me. But I think if you want to create a country, you need to know that it's going to cost, that it's worth it, that you have a sense of nationhood that is so strong that you believe

the only way to express it is by becoming a separate country. And this province, Having many of those elements, the feeling was still not strong enough, and to this day is not strong enough to warrant a yes vote. You hear people argue that this vote on separation in Alberta should go ahead to kind of put the issue to bed. But looking at Quebec as an example, and I know that there are differences between the two provinces. is, do you think that it's possible that it actually has the opposite effect, right? That there's a chance that going through this exercise in Alberta could kind of enshrine or permanently validate this option rather than putting into bed. I think that horses, in the case of Alberta, has already left the barn.

I don't know what the outcome of the referendum, October referendum, will be in Alberta. I suspect there will not be enough votes to put the actual question to Albertans, that the referendum to have a referendum will ultimately fail for those who want a referendum on separation. But will it come back as an issue? Possibly, I think the main question looking at Alberta in October is, how real versus marginal movement is it. In Quebec, when you look at the numbers in 1995, a majority of Francophone Quebecers voted to separate.

And that sense of we could try something else. We would be viable as a country. It's based on more than grievances. It's based on language and culture. I'm not sure that the glue around the separation movement in Alberta is as strong or as resilient as the glue that keeps this idea alive in Quebec. And I'm not sure that, I don't know, I mean, we're talking decades here. The first referendum in Quebec was in 1980.

Then we revisited the issue. I have always believed only because Meach failed and because of a major constitutional accident, but it still took 15 years, and here we are 30 years later. So there are those who say, well, once you start this, open this box, it keeps coming back. Maybe it keeps coming back, but it doesn't come back like winter. It comes back over the course of decades. I'm not sure that we will have another referendum in Quebec soon, and I'm not sure that those who want to have one have a shot at winning in any way, shape, or form.

But I believe that it is totally possible, 20 years or 30 years on, in that different context, the question will be asked again. Now, Albertans can decide how they want to go about the before and after of this. It doesn't really work in a society to castigate people who have a different view of the future than your own. If we had done that after 1995 in Quebec, half of us would not be speaking to the other half. and we would be treating people who voted on a site that is not ours as people who should not be anywhere near a public office and have nothing else to contribute to Quebec.

That would make for a very poor society. If you're going to have referendums, you have to accept the outcome, and once you've accepted the outcome, you need to move on. The Quebec government, for all its fault, the one that we have had over the past decade, is made up of people who, if they were asked again, would vote yes or would vote no.

They're not unanimous. No one asked yes voters who joined it to say, I would never vote yes again. And no one is asked no voters to say, if it comes to that, I will vote yes next time. That's not what happened. But just because you have a different view of the best path for the future does not make you a pariah to the other side or it shouldn't. that's really even less healthy for a society than having a referendum that is divisive. That feels like a good place for us and a particularly insightful place for us. And Shantel, thank you so much for this. It was such a pleasure.

Good luck with that. It's going to be an interesting fall. Yes, definitely. All right, that is all for today. I'm J.B. Poisson. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.