Quebec 1980 to today

Review The FLQ and the October Crisis Bill 22 and 101

“Strange Bedfellows” What is a strange bedfellow? Today a common extension is ,  meaning that politicians form peculiar associations so as to win more votes.  Trudeau and Levesque – both want what is best for Quebec, but have differing views on how to achieve it

1980 Referendum In 1980, Premier Rene Levesque proposes that Quebec become a sovereign nation This pits the Premier against the opposition leader Robert Bourassa, a federalist Levesque: wanted Quebecois to agree that he could start negotiating political sovereignty within an economic association with Canada Debate across the province was fierce English-speakers voted no, french vote divided between old and young This defeat caused great disillusionment with nationalists

1980 Referendum Late into the campaign, PM Trudeau promises Quebec a new constitution The results of the vote: 40% “oui”, 60% “non” 6 weeks before the vote the Oui side was ahead in the polls by three points In a speech in Quebec City, Trudeau complained that Lévesque did not "have the courage to ask a simple question, do you want to separate from Canada, YES or NO?“ Trudeau promied Quebec changes to the constitution to recognize french culture

1980 Referendum Votes Francophones = Oui 60% Non 40% Anglophones = Oui 9% Non 91% Immigrants = Oui 16% Non 84%

1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms Part of the “Canada Act” Guaranteed Rights and Freedoms to the people of Canada including: Fundamental freedoms Democratic rights Mobility rights Legal rights Equality rights Language rights Act that allows Canada to amend its own constitution, without asking for permission from Britain All filmed on TV – the debates, the items put forward, etc Same sex marriage added to the charter in 2005

1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms Quebec unhappy with the outcome Opposed mobility and minority language rights Because they were still a part of Canada, it was made into law in Quebec Accused of wanting sovereignty more than to participate in making Canada more inclusive Quebec leaders said that they felt left out of negotiations

1987 – Bourassa’s demands “Distinct society” status. A veto for Quebec on any future constitutional amendments. More power over immigration to Quebec. The right to opt out of cost sharing programs with the federal government. The right to nominate Supreme Court judges.

“Distinct Society” What did this term mean? Was Quebec to be considered different or special? If Quebec was to be special did this mean that additional powers would be given to the Quebec government? Discuss in groups and we will share as a class "Distinct society" refers to the uniqueness of the province of Quebec within Canada, although here the meaning of "unique" is vague and controversial. Term coined by Jean Lesage (Premier 1960 – 66)

1987 - Meech Lake Accord Meech Lake was an effort to complete the constitutional process and meet some of Quebec’s demands. It included The confirmation of “distinct society” status for Quebec in order to bring the province into the constitution. The right to allow provinces to nominate Supreme Court judges. The accord was not ratified by all ten provinces and failed. This was the government trying to uphold the equality status of all provinces Initially, Bourassa put forwar his demands and the other provinces agreed. However, as time passed and the Accord went unsigned, it ended up failing It was seen by Quebec as a rejection by the rest of Canada. Revived the separatist movement

The Bloc Quebecois Formed in 1991 This party attracted support only in Quebec but won enough seats in 1993 to become the official opposition party in Ottawa. The first leader of the “Bloc” was Lucien Bouchard. The failure of the Meech Lake Accord resulted in the formation of a new federal political party - the”Bloc Quebecois.” Quebec has 75 of 308 seats, won 54 seats in 1993. Opposition was so split that they were able to form the opposition

1992 – The Charlottetown Accord This was the second attempt to amend the constitution. It promised - 1. “Distinct society” status for Quebec. 2. Aboriginal self-government. 3. Senate reform. It failed to pass a national referendum in October 1992 when a large majority of Canadians voted no. While most politicians supported this accord, Trudeau was not keen on distinct society status Accord was so long and had so many factors that many Canadians could find fault with it

Results Jurisdiction Yes No Turnout Alberta 39.8 60.2 72.6 British Columbia 31.7 68.3 76.7 Manitoba 38.4 61.6 70.6 New Brunswick 61.8 38.2 72.2 Newfoundland 63.2 36.8 53.3 Nova Scotia 48.8 51.2 67.8 Ontario 50.1 49.9 71.9 Prince Edward Island 73.9 26.2 70.5 Quebec1 43.3 56.7 82.8 Saskatchewan 44.7 55.3 68.7 Northwest Territories 61.3 38.7 70.4 Yukon Territory 43.7 56.3 70.0 Nation total 45.7 54.3 71.8 Since both french and english canada rejected it, canada thought that this would help sovereignty

1995 Referendum In 1995 the people of Quebec voted on the question of sovereignty. Jacques Parizeau, the premier, led the “Yes” forces in Quebec but the question was defeated by a narrow margin. The “No” side won by 50.6% to 49.4% There was shock in the rest of Canada but no immediate solution. Caused concern across Canada, but also a surge of patriotism

1998 Supreme Court Ruling The federal government asked the Supreme Court three questions in 1996: 1. Can Quebec secede unilaterally from Canada under the constitution? 2. Does it have the right to secede unilaterally under international law? 3. If there is a conflict between Canadian and international law, which takes precedence? Nine justices!

The Constitutional Right to Secede (Question 1) “The Constitution (guarantees) order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province ‘under the Constitution’ could not be achieved unilaterally…” Negotiation with the other provinces within the terms of the constitution would be required for Quebec to secede.

International Law and the Right to Secede (Question 2) The court decided that the right to secede exists but not at the expense of the stability and integrity of Canada. Only if a people were colonized or oppressed would the court consider unilateral secession acceptable. This, clearly, does not apply to Quebec.

General Conclusions of the Supreme Court (Question 3) The court ruled that there was no conflict between Canadian and International law. The Supreme Court’s ruling was open to interpretation by both sides but offered little comfort to the separatist movement in Quebec. Quebec can hold another referendum on a “clear” question and if it wins this referendum Canada and Quebec must negotiate the terms of secession.

Problems Associated with Quebec Separation What happens to the large French speaking population outside of Quebec? What happens to the anglophone population inside of Quebec? How do we divide the economic resources and the national debt of the country? How does the rest of Canada remain united?

The Clarity Act Question from the 1995 referendum: Is this very clear? "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?“ Is this very clear?

The Clarity Act Passed in 2000 Created in response to the judgments from the Supreme Court and to calls from federalists in Quebec. It said: House of Commons ensures the referendum question is clear The majority for separation has to be clear Provinces and aboriginal groups would be a part of the separation negotiations House of Commons could override referendum results if they violated the Clarity Act Secession would require an amendment to the Constitution Trying to protect separation in case there isn’t a clear majority of votes or of voters 50 + 1 – NDP

A 2009 Angus Reid Poll Asked: "Do you believe that Quebec should become a country separate from Canada?" 34% replied yes, 54% said no, and 13% were unsure. To the less clear question of "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within a scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec?" support for separation increased to 40% yes, the no vote still led with 41%, and the unsure increased to 19%. 

A Nation in a Nation? Liberal leadership candidates and a Conservative Prime Minister both supported public statements to this effect. In late 2006 a number of people suggested that the circle could be squared by declaring Quebec a “nation within a nation.” Similar to distinct society

A Nation in a Nation? In a Parliamentary motion, only 16 voted against the motion (21 were absent and 2 seats were vacant). Is anything really changed? What does this mean for Canadian nationhood? The prime minister has said he is using the word “nation” in a "cultural-sociological" rather than in a legal sense

Quebec today Still strong separatist sentiment Low post-secondary tuition costs High political activism Increased bilingualism The modern Québécois identity is secular and based on a social democratic ideal of the Quebec State promoting Quebec French culture and language in the arts, education, and business within the province.

Political Cartoon