The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec referendum and the day that almost was. 

Written By Kris Samraj

The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec referendum and the day that almost was. By Chantal Hebert with Jean Lapierre. 293 pp. 2014. 

This article is not about whether Alberta should leave Canada. This article is about unanswered procedural questions asked in the aftermath of the 1995 Quebec referendum on separating from Canada. Alberta is not the first province to work through a separatist movement. Quebec is the most recent and there are lessons to learn.  Since the majority of Albertans have already made up their minds which way to vote, let’s talk about process instead.

I read Chantal Hebert’s excellent book, The Morning After, a series of interviews with key leaders reflecting on the 1995 Quebec referendum 20 years later. What stood out was how differently each leader understood the process of breaking up Canada. 

These divergent views aren’t surprising because there is no clear cut process for breaking up Canada. When Canada was formed, the founders were focused on unifying our new nation. They weren’t considering how to deal with independence movements rising hundreds of years in the future. And so the constitution is silent on this subject. 

Canada began to work through this issue in earnest after 1995’s close call, but unanswered questions remain. There is a range of reasonable answers to these questions, but the more we talk the less chance there is for misunderstanding. 

Question 1: Is a simple majority, 50% + one vote, sufficient support for independence referendums? My opinion is no. For significant issues it’s common to require a higher standard, say 66% or 75%. 

Question 2: Does the level of voter turnout matter? What if Alberta’s referendum result is 51% in favour of leaving Canada, with only 40% turnout? My opinion is yes, turnout matters, but perhaps not in the way most people think.

Question 3: Is a single referendum vote sufficient? My opinion is no. We need two referendums.

  • The first referendum is necessary to demonstrate a desire to leave. A successful result initiates negotiations with the rest of Canada, through the federal government, on the terms of separation. 

  • The negotiated terms of separation would then be put to the voters for a second referendum.

  • In Alberta’s case, we’d need three referendums, since the question we’re asked on October 19 is a question of a question. 

Any separatist movement looking for a peaceful, democratic, and orderly breakup of Canada will have to meet several high bars. Assuming an amicable divorce is possible, the starting point must be a process which clearly demonstrates the will of Albertans in ways not subject to dispute. Since many promises Albertan separatists are making depend on an amicable divorce, separatists have incentive to consider these questions. 

As long as Canada lives there will be those seeking to break it up.

Countries bring diverse people together under a social contract. Whether each party upholds that contract is something we must constantly judge. Our treaties with indigenous people are the clearest example of these contracts. 

Throughout the history of Canada, different regions at different times have vigorously pushed to renegotiate the terms of national unity. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia, and various indigenous groups, have all seen independence movements wax and wane. Quebec grappled with the issue of separatism for over 50 years, including over two referendums. Even today in 2026, 30% of Quebecers favour independence.

The separatist movement in Alberta is nowhere as developed as Quebec at the height of Quebec’s separatism. Alberta’s separatists are powerful enough to disrupt and force a referendum, but that is a far cry from the widespread, disciplined, movement in Quebec in the 1990s. Albertan separatists don’t have a single MLA in Edmonton. Compare that to Quebec in 1995 which had a provincial majority government dedicated to independence with 77 out of 125 seats in the provincial legislature. 

Albertan separatism won’t be settled on October 19. It’ll never truly be settled. As long as Canada lives there will be those seeking to break it up. Alberta, like Quebec, like Canada, must learn to live with these tensions. 

Politics is about balance. It’s hard for federalism to perfectly balance the needs of regions in a country as geographically massive as Canada. Balance also isn't a static place. Balance means you're always adjusting. The terms of confederation will have to be constantly adjusted. 

Timeline

First, a review of the timeline to place Alberta’s 2026 referendum in context. 

November 1976

  • Parti Quebecois, the first Quebec majority provincial government dedicated to separatism is elected with 71 of 108 seats.

May 1980

  • First Quebec referendum on separation from Canada. 

  • Defeated 59.56% against. 40.44% for. 

  • Voter turnout 85.6%.

  • Question: The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada? 

October 1993

  • Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec-based federal party dedicated to separatism, becomes the official opposition in the House of Commons (the party with the second most elected seats).

September 1994

  • Quebec elects a majority provincial government promising a referendum on separation by 1995.

June 1995

September 1995

  • Bill 1 received first reading, but the bill is never passed.

October 1995

  • Second Quebec referendum on separation from Canada.

  • Defeated 50.58% to 49.42%. Separated by 1.16% and 54,288 votes.

  • Voter turnout 93.52%. 4,757,509 votes cast.

  • Question: 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? 

August 1998

June 2000

April 2001

October 2026

  • Alberta holds referendum on separation.

Remnant from one of the iterations of Western separatism.

The Supreme Court offers advice.

Following the Quebec referendum, there was a national debate about the confusing phrasing of the separatist question, the razor thin result, and what might have happened if the Quebec separatists had won. 

The Government of Canada asked the Supreme Court for advice on provincial separatist movements. The Supreme Court offered some guidance:

  1. The potential break up of Canada should be a political, not legal process.

  2. A province doesn’t have the power to unilaterally leave. 

  3. There isn’t a process for separation, but there is a process for constitutional amendments. Since a province leaving Canada would require a constitutional change we can use a similar process. The federal government has a duty to negotiate with any province who rejects the current form of federalism. That rejection could range from a desire to renegotiate the terms of confederation to a desire to leave confederation. This duty to negotiate only means the federal government should listen. It doesn’t mean provincial independence is assured at the end of this process.

  4. Lastly, this duty to negotiate depends on whether a province can clearly demonstrate the will of their citizens. 

Canada doesn’t have consensus on how a province can clearly demonstrate the will of their people. Since political processes aren’t black and white, but full of grey, there is a range of reasonable answers.

How to demonstrate the will of Albertans in clear ways that are not subject to dispute? 

Referendum question semantics, misinformation, disinformation, foreign interference may move the needle, but democracies know this and can build a process to safeguard against these factors. Higher threshold for voting results and turnout, along with a two-step process, creates a buffer to guard against fluke results and builds a clearer picture of the will of the people. 

Supermajority at minimum

When we think of democratic votes, we usually think of simple majority votes. 50% + 1. That’s sufficient for most issues. But constitutions, countries and organizations usually require a higher threshold for more consequential votes.

Quebec’s Bill 99, passed in response to the Supreme Court’s advice about clear majorities, outlined Quebec’s opinion that 50% + one vote was a clear majority. 

It’s tempting for separatists to argue for the lowest bar, but a 50% + 1 standard as the first step in a separation process is a recipe for civil unrest.

Considering the gravity of a referendum on Albertan separation, a simple majority is not enough. At minimum, a supermajority of two-thirds, 66%, should be the bar. My feeling is the bar should actually be higher, say 75%. 

Threshold for voter turnout

Voter turnout wasn’t an issue in the 1980 or 1995 Quebec referendums with both above 85%. But it’s likely Alberta will see a lower turnout. How would a low turnout impact our view of the result? 

Those of us who want Alberta to stay in Canada worry a low turnout might magnify separatist support. 

A lower turnout might not nullify the result, but it weakens the argument that the result reflects the will of Albertans. We will immediately argue about the views of those Albertans who didn’t vote. Separatists might argue low turnout confirms Alberta’s apathy for status quo politics. Alternatively, those who don’t vote might object to participating in a process they view as illegitimate. 

I would argue the onus is on separatists to turn out voters not the other way around. The burden of proof lies with separatists, not with those of us who want to stay. Again the goal is to create a picture of Alberta’s views not subject to dispute. The intent of a referendum is to provide the province with a clear mandate. A razor thin win coupled with low voter turnout is hardly a strong mandate. 

Two Referendums - One to begin negotiations, the second to ratify

Lucien Bouchard, former Premier of Quebec and a major figure through the 1995 referendum, believed provincial independence needed a two-step process. 

The first referendum would indicate the will of Quebecers to separate. That result would trigger negotiations with the federal government on the terms of separation. The result of those negotiations would then be put to Quebecers for a second vote. 

Mr. Bouchard was ahead of his time. 

Consider Brexit. The UK voted to leave the European Union, then endured years of painful negotiations. The terms of separation of Brexit at the end of this process was so unsatisfying there was no longer a majority who supported leaving. But there was no way to confirm if the negotiated settlement satisfied UK citizens’ original intent because there was no second referendum. 

Independence, to have your own country, is an intoxicating idea. It’s easy to have rose coloured glasses about an independent Alberta when no details have been finalized. Each week I hear of new ideas of how the Canada-Alberta relationship might look post-separation. It’s not clear how realistic any of those ideas are. Those ideas will only be tested when Alberta negotiates the terms of separation with the federal government across the table. During this time issues like indigenous rights must be settled.

Independence means different things to different people. It’s not clear how unified Albertan separatists are now on the details of separation. Even if separatists are unified on the details, the rest of Canada has influence on the terms of separation. People negotiate because they recognize both parties have power and influence in a situation. Even if 100% of Albertans wanted independence, they would still be a minority within Canada, with a more powerful partner to contend with. 

Sheila Copps, the deputy prime minister in 1995, remembered feeling helpless. She wanted to fight for her country, but could only watch from the sidelines, while Quebecers alone decided the fate of her country. The rest of Canada can’t vote in this provincial referendum. But the rest of Canada would get a say at the negotiating table on the terms of separation. 

In my view, Alberta would currently need three referendums. 

  1. The October 19 referendum is a question of a question. Should we hold a referendum on separation? 

  2. If Alberta says yes, we would get a ‘binding referendum.’ Binding in this case doesn’t mean automatic independence, it means the start of negotiations with the rest of Canada.

  3. If Alberta says yes a third time, to ratify the terms of separation, then presumably Alberta would leave Canada.

Separating soft nationalists from hard nationalists

In the 1990s some Quebecers were hard nationalists, some were soft nationalists. Soft nationalists didn’t want to leave, but wanted a new form of federalism. 

Many soft nationalists voted with hard nationalists in the 1995 Quebec referendum, not because they wanted to leave Canada, but because they wanted to give Quebec a stronger hand in the subsequent negotiation with the Government of Canada. At the end of these negotiations, Quebec soft nationalists would have been happy with a new relationship with Ottawa while still remaining in Canada. Voting for separation to give your province better leverage is a dangerous game, but another reason why Alberta separatists should be careful not to overplay their hand. 

These types of confusing votes are exactly why we need higher thresholds for results and turnout and a two step process.

In this regard, I agree with Premier Danielle Smith’s approach—to push hard for a new form of federalism right now. Preston Manning reflected years later the Quebec referendum period was a missed opportunity to rebalance the power between the federal government and the provinces. If political leaders in the 90s had been successful (they tried and failed many times), perhaps they might have averted the current situation in Alberta. 

Confederation is a marriage

Confederation is like a marriage. For some nothing can justify divorce from your partner. For others, a marriage is not an unconditional relationship. Just like in a marriage one person can unilaterally agree to torpedo the relationship.

It may not matter that the Confederation of Canada is one of the most successful nations, by any measure, in the history of the world. When your partner in a marriage tells you they are unhappy and are considering leaving, you must take them seriously. Regardless of whether you feel they have grounds or not. If my partner told me she wanted to leave, the last thing I should say to her is, ‘Baby, you don’t know how good you have it.’

Marriages break up for all kinds of reasons. Our reasons for and against leaving Canada will be a mix of rational and irrational, of fact and feeling. 

To participate in a democracy, just like to join a marriage, is to leave yourself vulnerable and open to hurt. This issue of separatism in Alberta is just getting started, if Quebec’s history is any indication. For those Albertans who don’t want to leave Canada I’m sure the thought of another few decades arguing about this issue is frustrating. But the reality of any partnership is that it can end at any time. We can never take our partners for granted. We have to live with this tension. 

An open heart is always the way forward. The foundation of democracy isn’t the vote, it’s trust among our fellow citizens. 

References

Governments

Government of Canada. The Clarity Act. 29 June 2000. This federal legislation passed in the aftermath of the 1995 Quebec referendum, asked similar questions. It articulated the importance of a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of a provincial population for independence referendums, but didn’t suggest what the thresholds should be for voting results and turnout. 

Government of Quebec. Bill 1, The Sovereignty Bill, An Act Respecting the Future of Quebec. 1995.

Government of Quebec. Bill 99, Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State. 1 April 2001.

Centre for Constitutional Studies. Reference re: Secession of Québec. 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta. 27 November 2025. 

Danielle Smith, Premier’s Address to the Province. 21 May 2026.

Reporting/Opinion

Chantal Hebert, Separation means different things to Alberta and Quebec. 27 November 2019.

Chantal Hebert, ‘Wexit’ supporters ignore lessons of history. 9 November 2019.

Andrew Coyne, How should Canada handle Alberta separatism? The Globe and Mail, 19 May 2026.

Andrew Coyne, Canada is one of history’s most successful countries. The Globe and Mail, 14 May 2026.

Andrew Coyne, It’s not the separatists who are the real threats to the country. It’s the federalists. The Globe and Mail, 11 June 2026.

Fraser Institute, Canadians should understand Alberta’s outsized contribution amid separatist sentiment. 04 February 2026.

Jen Gerson, Saddle up Alberta. We’re referendum-ing. Read the Line, 21 May 2026.

Jen Gerson, Some advice for the rest of you on talking to Alberta. Read the Line, 03 June 2026.

Royce Koop, The Liberals made this mess, don’t blame Danielle Smith. Winnipeg Free Press, 30 May 2026.

Trevor Tombe, A separate Alberta would be a poorer Alberta. MacDonald Laurier Institute, 24 July 2025. 

Jared Wesley, Adam Galovan, How to Engage Alberta, the Jilted Lover of Confederation. The Tyee. 2 October 2026. 

Kris Samraj
Next

Political mandates in close elections.