Letting Quebec Go: Would It Matter to Alberta?
By Roger Gibbins
April 1998

There has never been significant feeling outside Quebec that Quebec should leave Canada. However, many Canadians have come to the conclusion that Quebec's departure would not adversely affect their personal lives. A few have come to the even more radical conclusion that Quebec's departure might solve not only the national unity impasse but other problems that bedevil Canadian federalism. For example, those who fear excessive decentralization might see Quebec's departure as regrettable but nonetheless instrumental for warding off decentralization.

These troubling conclusions may shape how Canadians respond to specific national unity initiatives, such as the possible constitutionalization of the Calgary Declaration. At the very least they foster a sense of indifference to Quebec's potential departure. It is imperative, therefore, that they be held up to close scrutiny to ensure that all costs are taken into account, and important ways in which Quebec's inclusion has a positive effect on our lives are recognized.

This article examines the costs of Quebec's departure within a particularly challenging environment where conventional national unity arguments are met with measured scepticism. If an argument for serious damage can be made in Alberta, it can probably be generalized to other parts of Canada.

Alberta is physically remote from Quebec, and Albertans have long been uneasy with the prominence of Quebec in national political life. Albertans have also played a leading role in articulating federal visions which emphasize the equality of provinces and reject dualistic formulations of Canada, visions which rest uneasily with even federalists in Quebec. Many Albertans believe, moreover, that they are paying a significant financial price to keep Quebec in Canada.

Albertans, therefore, may be more likely than other Canadians to display indifference to Quebec's potential departure, to believe it will not affect their lives, and even to see it as a solution to regional angst rather than as a national tragedy. Given all this, Alberta is a suitably challenging case for making the argument that Quebec's departure would have a real and negative impact.

Economic perspectives

The Council for Canadian Unity asked Albertans, in a fall 1997 Environics survey, about the potential consequences of an independent Quebec. 73% saw a negative impact on the dollar, 73% a negative impact on the Canadian economy, 68% a negative impact on Canada's role and influence in the world, and 63% a negative impact on Canada's bargaining power vis-à-vis the United States.

Yet despite these assumptions about Canada, only 45% thought an independent Quebec would have a negative impact on the Alberta economy. Even more strikingly, 60% thought an independent Quebec would have no impact on their personal standard of living. Albertans apparently believe their provincial economy and personal fortunes are sheltered from national economic effects.

To some degree, this belief reflects economic reality: the importance of interprovincial trade is declining relative to international trade. In 1994, Canadians exported $1.62 for every dollar of interprovincial trade, rising to $1.81 in 1995 and $1.83 in 1996. Alberta fits this national pattern of declining interprovincial and increasing international trade.

More specifically, Alberta markets accounted for 10.1% of Quebec's interprovincial exports in 1996, but only 3.8% of Quebec's combined interprovincial and international trade. Conversely, Quebec markets accounted for 12.8% of Alberta's interprovincial trade, but only 5.2% of Alberta's combined interprovincial and international trade. If Alberta's total production of goods and services is taken into account, including those consumed within the province, Quebec markets account for only 2.2%.

Admittedly, the dollars lying behind these percentages are not insignificant - Albertans sold almost $3.5 billion of goods and services to Quebec markets in 1996. Disruptions to trade could therefore have a significant impact on particular sectors of the economy. Overall, however, neither provincial economy is dependent on the other.

Thus the perception that Quebec would not be a serious loss as a trading partner reflects current economic realities. Quebec's departure, moreover, would more likely disrupt and diminish rather than end trade with Alberta. For example, because there are no immediate indigenous Quebec alternatives to the natural gas now "imported" from western Canada, the Quebec market would continue at least until additional hydro-electric power was brought on stream.

Playing on the international stage

The declining role of interprovincial trade can foster the belief that Alberta, if necessary, could act alone on the international stage, that a united Canada is not an essential platform from which to promote provincial interests. This reflects a long tradition of international involvement grounded in agricultural trade, the oil and natural gas industries, the international promotion of the Calgary Stampede, and hosting the 1988 Winter Olympics. To their credit, Albertans have a great deal of community pride, and from this comes the belief that the province could "go it alone."

However, the importance of international trade should give Albertans, and indeed all Canadians, pause. When Albertans move to the world stage, even to the North American stage, provincial attributes fade and national attributes come to the fore. Albertans participate internationally as Canadians, not as Albertans, because this is how they are perceived by non-Canadians.

Albertans are seen by non-Canadians through a Canadian lens. While many people around the world have sharp and positive images of Canada, individual provinces have less profile. Canada, not its constituent parts, has an international profile based on national accomplishments such as UN peacekeeping, our contribution in the Second World War, and our Olympic athletes. To quote Therese Brisson, a member of Canada's women's hockey team at the Nagano Olympics: "The Maple Leaf is your passport to the world. Any time you wear that Maple Leaf, a lot of people from different countries, not only the Japanese, are so happy to see you, shake your hand, take your picture." Wearing Alberta's Wild Rose would not have the same effect.

When non-Canadians do perceive a regionally-differentiated Canada, it is not to our advantage. In a major Angus Reid survey of 4,700 non-Canadian respondents in 19 countries, the two negative characteristics of Canada named most often were the weather and the national unity dispute. Recent American congressional attacks on Canada have drawn heavily from national unity discord. To bring Alberta to the fore may evoke negative rather than positive images in an international community attuned first and almost exclusively to Canada.

Anecdotal evidence from recent Team Canada trade missions confirms the importance of the "Canadian lens." Alberta business persons report that the province has little profile in the context of international meetings and negotiations. They were seen as Canadians, not Albertans. Admittedly, the provincial context may come into play once a decision is made to invest in Canada, and the choice is between Edmonton or Regina, Vancouver or Toronto. However, the first and most important decision will be driven by national attractions rather than provincial perceptions.

If Canada's image in the international community suffers from our inability to resolve the national unity impasse, Alberta's image will also suffer. The international reception of future Team Canada trade missions would be blunted, and membership in the G-7 would be at risk: Canada without Quebec would have a smaller economy than Korea or Spain. It is therefore difficult to conclude that Quebec's departure would not affect individual lives, particularly in an export-based economy. Albertans participate in a booming export economy as Canadians.

If Quebec's departure provides the United States with the opportunity to reopen NAFTA, Canada may not do as well the second time around. To date we have been quite successful in bilateral negotiations with the United States, particularly given the ten to one population disparity. This could change if protectionists within the U.S. Congress seize the opportunity to re-negotiate the exemptions Canadian cultural industries presently enjoy. Recall that 63% of Albertans expect that Quebec's independence would have a negative impact on Canada's bargaining power vis-à-vis the United States.

There is also a need to take into account the general impact Quebec's departure might have on the Canadian and provincial economies. Albertans are naive to expect that the anticipated negative impact on the strength of the Canadian dollar and national economy will not ripple through to their own standard of living. In all likelihood there will be waves, not just ripples, and they will result in higher interest rates and reduced purchasing power for imported goods such as Californian fruits and vegetables.

Finally we should note the potential flight of capital and the likelihood of reduced credit ratings in the wake of the political instability that would follow Quebec's departure. Again, it would be naive to expect Alberta to be immune. Neither Canadian nor foreign investors are attracted by political instability. Given the importance of foreign investment for the continued vitality of the Alberta economy, this is a serious matter indeed.

Beyond the economy

Quebec's departure could also have problematic non-economic effects for Alberta. Attempts to accommodate linguistic and cultural diversity stemming from Quebec have created a relatively supportive environment for multiculturalism and Aboriginal peoples. For example, Canada's official adoption of multiculturalism was originally designed as a counterweight to official bilingualism, and Aboriginal peoples have used the ongoing constitutional debate to advance their own interests.

Here it is worth noting that both Calgary and Edmonton have a higher proportion of immigrants than does the country at large. Calgary ranks fifth nationally among major metropolitan areas with respect to the proportion of immigrants and Edmonton ranks ninth, ahead of Montreal (11th), Ottawa-Hull (14th), and Quebec City (23rd). If Quebec were to leave Canada, one of the umbrellas under which toleration of diversity has been fostered would be removed.

The cultural diversity of Canada, along with our track record on bilingualism, have helped position Canada on the world stage, and the provinces have shone in the reflected light of this national reputation. If Canada's reputation becomes framed by failure and national dismemberment, this reflected light will also shine on the provinces.

And what about the assumption that Quebec's departure would enhance western Canadian representation within the new national government, assuming that one could be created? (In the above-mentioned Environics survey, 61% of Alberta respondents thought Quebec's independence would have a negative impact on ROC's ability to stay together.) Western Canada's share of the national population would increase from 29.5% (including Quebec) to 39.1% (excluding Quebec); Alberta's share would rise modestly from 9.3% to 12.4%.

However, the largest increase would be in Ontario, whose share of the national population would jump from 37.6% to 49.8%. Indeed, it would increase even more with the inevitable anglophone out-migration from Quebec into neighbouring Ontario. How, then, would Alberta fare with this new population distribution? The province's share of the national population would still be relatively small, and the gargantuan size of Ontario would preclude any possibility of a reformed Senate based on equal provincial representation. The federal system would be even more unbalanced than before, with a single province, Ontario, having not only more than 50% of the country's population and manufacturing base but also its national capital and more than a majority share of its cultural and media industries.

In addition, Alberta would lose the Quebec counterweight to Ontario's influence. In the past Quebec has often been an important intergovernmental ally as Alberta has tried to ward off federal intrusions or has sought greater decentralization. Premiers René Lévesque and Peter Lougheed often found common ground in their opposition to federal intrusions, and Ralph Klein's goal of a rebalanced federation has been supported by Lucien Bouchard even though the two differ profoundly about Quebec sovereignty. Alberta, then, would be left to go mano a mano against a province more than four times its size.

Finally, we should note the impact of Quebec's departure on the national identities held by western Canadians in general, and Albertans in particularly. The West has always been associated with strong Canadian identities. Indeed, even western alienation is primarily a frustrated sense of Canadian nationalism. Western Canadians want to play more rather than less of a role in Canadian life. Polls consistently show that when Albertans are asked if they consider themselves first as Albertans, or first as Canadians, they choose a Canadian identity. Strong provincial loyalties have been compatible with, indeed have reinforced, a strong attachment to Canada. Albertans should recognize that for most Quebecers a deep love for Quebec is not incompatible with an enduring attachment to Canada.

The point, then, is that the departure of Quebec will hurt because of the very strength of national identities. To assume that Albertans would shrug off Quebec's departure is to misread seriously how Albertans see their own province and country. A Canada sans Quebec would not be the Canada that so many have come to love.

Short-term pain for long-term gain?

Some readers may accept the costs identified above but argue that they are best seen as short-term pain for long-term gain, that when the dust settles Albertans and perhaps Canadians at large will be better off for the departure of Quebec. As the saying goes, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. This argument is not one that should be rejected outright for there would be considerable excitement in escaping the national unity impasse and building a new country.

However, much of the pain would not be short-term. A Canada-Quebec divorce would be neither quick nor tidy, and it would not bring closure to the constitutional debate. Instead, it would open up an entirely new and more complex debate as Canadians tried to design new institutional and constitutional arrangements for a Quebec-less Canada. The election of a new national government would be the beginning and not the end of political turmoil. Nor would the negative economic effects be short-lived. And, as Canadians sorted through the long and difficult process of putting new political arrangements in place, financial investments would go elsewhere.

At the same time, the long-term gains are far from certain. The very survival of Canada cannot be assured, although I am convinced that Canadians would do everything in their power to make it work. We simply don't know what regional dynamics would be unleashed, nor do we know if we could harness those dynamics through new political institutions.

It should also be stressed that if the institutional structures of the "new Canada" are in doubt, so too are the public policies associated with the institutional status quo. It would be foolish to assume that the same policy mix would prevail, that policies such as medicare and regional equalization are immutable in the face of Quebec's departure. It is not only Canada's territorial integrity that is at risk; so too are the public policies through which we have come to define our national community and international profile.

Conclusions

I have tried to argue that Quebec's departure would have a real and negative impact on the lives of Albertans, and that this reality should temper how we react to the national unity debate. I would also argue that the Alberta case can be made with equal force, and perhaps even greater force, for other provinces. Now, this is not to recommend a national unity strategy guided by visions of Canada animated exclusively by nationalist discourse within Quebec; western visions must also be brought into play. Rather, the point is that Albertans, like other provincial communities across the land, have not only real interests that need to be advanced and defended within the national unity debate, but also real costs that must be taken into account. Assumptions by Albertans and by Canadians at large that Quebec's departure would be cost-free must be discouraged.

As I noted at the outset, although the vast majority of Canadians have never felt that Quebec should leave Canada, many believe that the battle to keep Quebec in is a battle no longer worth fighting. Yet if the battle is lost it could cost Canadians dearly in both the short and long terms.