WI: 1995 Quebec referundem, YES succeeds?

I suspect the federal government would have been under some pressure from portions of the remaining population to drive a hard bargain.
Maybe at first, but their own provinces will quickly remind their populations that further strengthening of one province's powers is precedent setting for the rest, meaning less Federal meddling in Alberta, more indigenous power in the NWT, etc... A weakened Federal gov't relative to the provinces would be the biggest result of all this.

Economically it would be a disaster for Quebec, at least in short or medium term, as capital and investment flees to the perceived safety of Upper Canada. The fears would be that the BQ gov't tries to nationalize companies, likely under the boots of the QPP.
 
Last edited:
Have a POD to put the OUI vote on top that I used in a Sports What if.

No 1994 Baseball Strike

The Montreal Expos had the best record when the strike ended the season

So with no strike and the Expos winning the World Series maybe Quebecois pride gets a bit of a boost

Enough for the Oui vote to succeeed
 
The economic backlash in the short term will be devastating. The TSX gets pounded and falls like a stone along with the dollar. There might be rioting in some quarters of Montreal over their now uncertain future. A huge, HUGE backlash against the Liberal Party takes place throughout the rest of the country.

The negotiations would be interesting to see though. Parizeau wouldn't go for anything but independence but with his economy in free fall he might change his tune.
 
I believe @True Grit has done some scenarios and TLs dealing with this idea. Basically IOTL no one had a plan. Parizeau and Bouchard deeply distrusted one another and the Premier planned to make Bouchard a figurehead in the negotiations with Canada. Liberal ministers were questioning whether or not Chretien could stay on if he lost. The consensus was that if the Prime Minister couldn't reach a deal that kept Quebec or if he became a hindrance to the negotiations, the Liberal Party would force him out. My guess is that there would be a mini civil war within the party, with one side calling for another Quebec leader to help negotiations and prove to Quebec Canada still cared (Probably led by Paul Martin) and another wing representing English Canada and their interests (I'm thinking Brian Tobin).

Let's assume Quebec separates, which is no guarantee. Another referendum on either accepting Canada's new deal or going independent would probably be held. But let's say Quebec leaves confederation. Charest, Chretien, Martin, and all the other prominent Quebec politicians are gone. Martin might try for a seat in Ontario in an attempt to save the country or something, but my money is on Tobin as the new PM. Heck caucus might pick him as an interim Prime Minister and make sure there are no challengers for his coronation.

The clear winner from all this is Preston Manning and the Reform Party. They still got the west and probably parts of Ontario now since they're the main "Anti-Quebec" Party, and post-Independent Quebec there's probably some bad blood. Without Quebec Preston Manning could easily become Prime Minister, which is a death-blow to the PCs. But that's an assumption. Maybe in the midst of all this chaos Canada might be willing to give Joe Clark another go. Experienced, from the west but not hostile to building a relationship with Quebec, but who knows.

So a potential list could go...

Canadian Prime Ministers
Brian Mulroney (Progressive Conservative) 1984-1993
Kim Campbell (Progressive Conservative) 1993
Jean Chretien (Liberal) 1993-1996
Brian Tobin (Liberal) 1996-1999
Preston Manning (Reform) 1999-2003
John Manley (Liberal) 2003-2011
Stephen Harper (Reform) 2011-

Geez think of that, Harper versus Manley. Now that's a boring election.
 
But let's say Quebec leaves confederation. ...my money is on Tobin as the new PM. Heck caucus might pick him as an interim Prime Minister and make sure there are no challengers for his coronation.
And his #1 objective on day one of diplomatic relations with the RoQ is to rip up this POS agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station#Legal_challenge_and_controversy

Next move, will be the need to have land route between Atlantic Canada and Upper Canada. The indigenous peoples will demand to stay in Canada, so Quebec will likely be forced to its 1867 borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

566px-Canada_and_partitioned_Quebec_%28preferences%29.png


If wonder if NB will break-up, with the northern French bit joining the RoQ?
 
Last edited:
Obviously a long shot, but in a particularly chaotic separation (which I agree isn't as likely as it might seem), I could see Newfoundland or perhaps a Western Province splitting off and joining the U.S., or at least being submerged in American influence economically and politically.
 
I don't think 85,000 ballots that weren't counted qualify as a "conspiracy theory"

It was a conspiracy theory. Check out this chart. http://www.liquisearch.com/quebec_referendum_1995/controversy/rejected_ballots

:
Vote Year Rejected ballots Party nominating the scrutineers
2003 General Elections 1.25% Parti Québécois
1998 General Elections 1.13% Parti Québécois
1995 Referendum 1.82% Parti Québécois
1994 General Elections 1.96% Liberal Party of Quebec
1992 Referendum 2.18% Liberal Party of Quebec
1989 General Elections 2.63% Liberal Party of Quebec
1985 General Elections 1.52% Parti Québécois
1981 General Elections 1.06% Parti Québécois
1980 Referendum 1.74% Parti Québécois
1976 General Elections 2.05% Liberal Party of Quebec
1973 General Elections 1.81% Liberal Party of Quebec
1970 General Elections 1.95% Union nationale


This shows that more ballots were rejected in elections/referendums when the Liberals were in power than when the PQ were in power. Notice especially that the 1992 Charlottetown referendum held under the Liberals had more rejected ballots than the 1995 referendum held under the sovereignists only a few years later. The guy who started this rumour was Thomas Mulcair who was a member of the notorious Liberal "Rat Pack" clan of delegates designed to bring down Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives using any dirty tactic possible. This was before he decided to clean up his act in a bid to be Prime Minister.
 
And his #1 objective on day one of diplomatic relations with the RoQ is to rip up this POS agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station#Legal_challenge_and_controversy

Next move, will be the need to have land route between Atlantic Canada and Upper Canada. The indigenous peoples will demand to stay in Canada, so Quebec will likely be forced to its 1867 borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

566px-Canada_and_partitioned_Quebec_%28preferences%29.png


If wonder if NB will break-up, with the northern French bit joining the RoQ?

Ridiculous. The Partition Plan was a non-starter, similar to the Project Fear that tried to prevent Brexit. How exactly can Montreal stay in Canada whereas it had train links to and depended on the suburbs to go to the island to work; the suburbs who voted OUI? Ridiculous. Furthermore, your link states clearly that International Law recognizes that Quebec had the right to leave with the territory intact because the border that it shares with ROC and the States were clearly defined. The Natives of Quebec were not loyal to Canada as you think. They tried to garner concessions from both sides; during to the 1995 referendum campaign they tried to wrestle concessions from the sovereignists by threatening to vote NO. But it did not mean that they were unreservedly loyal to Canada. If they sovereignists had tried to negotiate and made concessions to the natives, it is likely that many of them would have voted OUI.
 
An interesting and oft neglected aspect of the aftermath of a "Oui" vote in the 1995 Referendum is how the Americans would react:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eact-if-quebec-had-separated/article17499442/

The official pan on the books seems to be to stall for time and make it clear to Quebec that if they chose independence, the continuation of their previous relationship with the US (eg. NAFTA) was not guaranteed.

As a bonus: here is an interesting article reviewing a book that details some of the plans discussed by the government in Saskatchewan at the time in response to a "Yes" vote up to and including following Quebec to independence:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-have-come-after-a-yes/


Ultimately, it is easy to imagine that the Americans would not look to happily on the prospect of having to share a border with a bunch of fracturing and squabbling former Canadian provinces, all of which would be more dependent than ever on the US. I would expect their long term policy would be based around trying to prop-up Canada (preferably with Quebec attached via some sort of Sovereignty association or further devolved powers) as much as they possibly could to avoid the turmoil of the collapse of a neighbour country.



Also a good report here on the stance of the Aboriginal people in Quebec to the referendum: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp412-e.htm
 
An interesting and oft neglected aspect of the aftermath of a "Oui" vote in the 1995 Referendum is how the Americans would react:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eact-if-quebec-had-separated/article17499442/

The official pan on the books seems to be to stall for time and make it clear to Quebec that if they chose independence, the continuation of their previous relationship with the US (eg. NAFTA) was not guaranteed.

As a bonus: here is an interesting article reviewing a book that details some of the plans discussed by the government in Saskatchewan at the time in response to a "Yes" vote up to and including following Quebec to independence:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-would-have-come-after-a-yes/


Ultimately, it is easy to imagine that the Americans would not look to happily on the prospect of having to share a border with a bunch of fracturing and squabbling former Canadian provinces, all of which would be more dependent than ever on the US. I would expect their long term policy would be based around trying to prop-up Canada (preferably with Quebec attached via some sort of Sovereignty association or further devolved powers) as much as they possibly could to avoid the turmoil of the collapse of a neighbour country.



Also a good report here on the stance of the Aboriginal people in Quebec to the referendum: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp412-e.htm
There is a fringe group called partie 51, which sought to make Quebec a state within the us. Something tells me Alberta might long for greater association with the us if Quebec says Au revoir
 
And his #1 objective on day one of diplomatic relations with the RoQ is to rip up this POS agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station#Legal_challenge_and_controversy

Next move, will be the need to have land route between Atlantic Canada and Upper Canada. The indigenous peoples will demand to stay in Canada, so Quebec will likely be forced to its 1867 borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Quebec

566px-Canada_and_partitioned_Quebec_%28preferences%29.png


If wonder if NB will break-up, with the northern French bit joining the RoQ?

When Bouchard was premier, he went on a visit to the Acadian regions of New Brunswick. He was met with a sea of bumper stickers and signs that said (in French) "Bouchard is a traitor". So no, I don't see why Acadians would be any more interested in being part of an independent Quebec than francophones in eastern Ontario would.

Also, I don't get all this talk about this or that province bolting for the US.

If anything, they may be happy to see Quebec go if only because it means the feds are no longer directing contracts to "undeserving" Quebec companies RE: Bristol losing the CF-18 maintenance contract to Bombardier.
 
Here is a good Article from the LA Times from back in August 1995 laying out the position of the res of Canada (particularly the Western Provinces) on how to treat Quebec in response to a "Yes" vote: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-12/news/mn-34215_1_western-canada

The statistics of their polls show Quebec separatists seemed to be favouring a soft separation (Sovereignty Association) whereas the rest of Canada wanted a hard exit and a hard-line approach to negotiations if Quebec left:
If Quebec votes for sovereignty, do you think there should be an economic and political association between a sovereign Quebec and Canada?

Should be:

Quebec: 75%

The rest of Canada: 28%

Should not be:

Quebec: 17%

The rest of Canada: 67%

How do you think the rest of Canada should approach negotiations on issues that need to be worked out if Quebec votes for independence?

Compromise/resolve:

Quebec: 71%

The rest of Canada: 36%

Hard-line approach:

Quebec: 22%

The rest of Canada: 59%

Source: Angus Reid Group Inc. Columns do not add up to 100% because "unsure" responses are not included.



PS: There is a great quote here from "Member of Parliament from Calgary" Stephen Harper:
"People say we've tried to make the country a better place for Quebec and . . . the question now is, 'Are you in or are you out?"
 
Ridiculous. The Partition Plan was a non-starter, similar to the Project Fear that tried to prevent Brexit. How exactly can Montreal stay in Canada whereas it had train links to and depended on the suburbs to go to the island to work; the suburbs who voted OUI? Ridiculous. Furthermore, your link states clearly that International Law recognizes that Quebec had the right to leave with the territory intact because the border that it shares with ROC and the States were clearly defined. The Natives of Quebec were not loyal to Canada as you think. They tried to garner concessions from both sides; during to the 1995 referendum campaign they tried to wrestle concessions from the sovereignists by threatening to vote NO. But it did not mean that they were unreservedly loyal to Canada. If they sovereignists had tried to negotiate and made concessions to the natives, it is likely that many of them would have voted OUI.

I think it's a goofy map, but there are going to be places who absolutely don't want to leave Canada so a border shift is probably going to happen (even if only at the insistence from the remaining Canadian people to play hard ball with Quebec.
 
Top