Two Potential Upcoming Canadian Secession Referenda and the Broader Issues they Raise

Two Canadian provinces - Alberta and Quebec - may hold secession referenda in the near future. The issues at stake have broader implications for the morality of secession and other matters.

Illustration: Lex Villena

Few Americans have taken much notice, given the vast amount of other political news. But two Canadian provinces - Alberta and Quebec - may be holding referendums on secession in the near future. If the votes are held, the secessionists are likely to lose in both cases. But these events are still of interest to students of federalism and secession, and to anyone who cares about the future of America's northern neighbor and one of our most important allies. And history shows that secession movements often persist even after defeat in a referendum.

In Quebec, the separatist Parti Quebecois (PQ) is leading in the polls and favored to take power in the upcoming October provincial election. They promise to hold a secession referendum if they prevail. Their victory is far from completely certain, given Quebec's complex five party system, and the closeness of the polls. The PQ, the Quebec Liberal Party and the current ruling party - the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) - are all within a few points of each other in recent polls.

If the PQ wins, they may only get a minority government (one that has a plurality of seats in the legislature, but not a majority), which will make it difficult for them to pass a law to hold the referendum. Nonetheless, a PQ majority government could well happen - about a 35% chance according to data compiled by prominent Canadian polling analyst Philippe Fournier at his Canada 338 site.

If the PQ does manage to win the election and hold a secession referendum, the "no" side is highly likely to win, as happened with two previous PQ-led secession votes in 1980 and 1995. Recent polls indicate "no" leads by about a 2-1 margin. Nonetheless, holding a referendum would bring the issue of Quebec secession back to the center of Canadian politics, and increase tension between the provincial and federal governments.

In Alberta, the United Conservative Party (UCP) government of Premier Danielle Smith has approved a voter petition to place a secession-related referendum question on the ballot this fall, scheduled for a vote on October 19. However, the question at issue is not a straightforward up-or-down vote on secession. It actually asks voters to opine on the following: "Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada." This is essentially a referendum on whether to hold a referendum!

A recent Angus Reid Institute poll finds that Albertans would reject the above question by a 60-35 majority, while they would reject an unequivocal secession vote by a larger 67-30 vote. Some other polls find even larger majorities opposed to straightforward secession. Evidently, some voters either find the official question confusing or (less likely) want to have a vote on secession even though they plan to vote "no."

The motives behind the two secession movements are very different. Quebec secessionism is a classic ethno-nationalist movement motivated by a desire to create a majority-Francophone nation (Quebec is Canada's only majority-Francophone province). The CAQ government in power for the last eight years (which favors promoting Francophone nationalism without secession) has enacted repressive laws restricting the use of the English language in public and commercial spaces, and constraining religious freedom for many types of public employees and professionals. These laws likely violate the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms; but the Quebec government has invoked the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to block judicial review. American critics of judicial review would do well to take a good look at the history of the Notwithstanding Clause, and think about what kinds of repressive policies might be established in this country if we had something similar. Quebec secessionists believe these measures are insufficient and that only independence will enable their government to do everything needed to promote Francophone dominance.

By contrast, the Alberta secession movement is almost entirely based on ideological and economic concerns. There is little or no ethnic or cultural difference between Albertans (who are overwhelmingly English-speakers) and the people of other Anglophone-majority provinces. But Alberta is Canada's most conservative province, and secessionists argue an independent nation would be able to institute more conservative policies, especially on economic issues. In addition, secessionists are angry that the Canadian government imposes substantial net fiscal transfers on Alberta, taking out more in tax revenue than it gives back (Alberta is Canada's wealthiest province), and that the federal government is often unwilling to authorize construction of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to facilitate export of Alberta's oil and mineral wealth (the province is a major oil producer).

Not surprisingly, Alberta secessionists are overwhelmingly UCP supporters (and supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada in federal elections). This is an ideological movement, not one based on language and ethnicity.

Regular VC readers will not be surprised to learn that I have more sympathy for Alberta secessionism than the Quebec version. Elsewhere, I have explained why ethno-nationalism is a terrible ideology and a menace to liberty and prosperity. Quebec nationalism is no exception. Quebec's laws on language and religion are repressive, illiberal, and deeply unjust. Secession would likely make the situation worse. Bad as it is, the Notwithstanding Clause does not allow the provincial government to get around all constitutional constraints (it only applies to some constitutional rights, but not others). An independent Quebec would be free of such inhibitions.

Ethnic secession movements can potentially be justified in situations where the group in question is a victim of systematic oppression by the central government of the country it seeks to leave. But, at least in recent decades, Francophone Canadians have not been systematically oppressed by the Canadian federal government. The government does not prevent them from speaking their language, practicing their culture and religious beliefs, and so on. Nor does it subject them to anything remotely resembling systematic discrimination (e.g. - in hiring for government jobs or provision of public services). The main goal of Quebec secessionists is not to escape oppression at the hands of Canada, but to be more free to oppress ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities within Quebec.

I used to think that, free of fear of domination Canada's Anglophone majority, an independent Quebec might be more tolerant of minority groups than the provincial government is currently. But the more I learn about nationalist movements, the more implausible that conjecture seems. Giving them greater power is unlikely to foster restraint. Much the contrary.

In addition, while Quebec separatists differ among themselves on many issues, they tend to be economic statists (this is a general tendency of nationalist movements). Thus, an independent Quebec is likely to restrict economic liberty as well as freedom of speech and religion more than is currently the case.

By contrast, I believe there is at least some merit to Alberta secessionists grievances about fiscal transfers and pipelines. In addition, an independent Alberta might pursue more free-market economic policies than it has currently, as part of Canada. Western Canadian conservatism is more libertarian than the US version, and has much less of the social conservatism and ethnic nationalism that has - especially in recent years - deformed the political right in the US. Nor does it seem likely that an independent Alberta would oppress ethnic and religious minorities in the way an independent Quebec probably would. Thus, it is possible that an independent Alberta would be freer and more prosperous than it is currently. Obviously, "freer" here means "freer" in libertarian terms. Left-liberals and socialists might see this potential shift as a negative rather than a positive.

In previous writings (e.g. here and here), I outlined some criteria for assessing the morality of secession movements. As a general rule,  secession is defensible if a regional majority (or perhaps a supermajority) supports it, the new government will respect basic human rights (or at least violates them less than the previous rulers), and the new regime is overall no worse than the old central government. Quebec secessionism clearly flunks this test. Alberta secessionism - if it were to get majority support - might be able to pass.

Nonetheless, I have various reservations about Alberta secessionism, as well. I am skeptical that independence would alleviate the fiscal and pipeline issues; it might even make them worse. If the Canadian federal government is often unwilling to authorize pipelines and other infrastructure for Alberta now, they are likely to be even less accommodating if Alberta becomes an independent state. And landlocked Alberta cannot export its goods except through Canada or the US. While independent Alberta would save on fiscal transfers to other provinces, establishing a fully independent state would likely result in various new expenditures to the extent that the province's current Conservative government (which opposes secession) estimates there would be $400 billion Canadian in transition costs and $25 to $50 billion Canadian in ongoing annual expenses (at current exchange rates a Canadian dollar is about $0.70-0.75 US dollars). Even if the true costs are only a third or a half this much, that's still a lot. The Alberta government's current total annual budget is about $79.3 billion.

In addition, both Albertans and other Canadians would suffer if there is no longer free trade and free migration between Alberta and the "rump" Canadian state. And, given the bitterness likely to be engendered by a successful secession, there is no guarantee that free trade and freedom of movement will continue.

From a US perspective, I worry that a successful secession movement would make Canada a weaker and less effective ally. Unlike our current president, I think a strong Western alliance is essential.

Unless polls are wildly wrong, neither Alberta nor Quebec secession is likely to prevail anytime soon. But, even if both movements lose their respective upcoming referenda (or the Quebec one doesn't get held), the movements themselves might well persist. Quebec secessionists have continued as a significant movement, despite two previous referendum defeats. Scottish secessionism persists despite defeat in the 2014 independence referendum. And there are many similar examples in other countries. Once the secessionist genie is out of the bottle, often only crushing military defeat (as with the US Confederate secession movement) seems able to definitively guarantee its elimination. For that reason, these two Canadian movements could continue to have a significant political impact, even if they don't actually succeed anytime soon.

In sum, Canada's two secession movements raise a variety of important issues, with implications beyond these specific cases. And Americans and other non-Canadians interested in federalism, secession, and the future of the Western alliance would do well to pay them some attention.

NOTE: Some might find it inappropriate for an American to comment on Canadian politics. I disagree. Canadians and other non-Americans often express views on US politics. And they have every right to do so. Political analysis should be judged on its substance, not on the background of the author. In addition, for reasons noted above, Canadian secessionism potentially impacts the US in various ways, and raises broader issues about the morality of secession movements that Americans and others have reason to take an interest in. FWIW, I am a longtime academic expert on federalism and secession-related issues, and I know French, as well as English. Thus, I think have the necessary qualifications to write about these issues. Whether the commentary is any good or not, is for others to judge.