Opinion: Western separatists should heed lessons from Quebec

Montreal Gazette

12-05-2025

By
Those contemplating Western separatism should listen to Quebec separatists.
In fact, everyone should. It might help us better understand why recent Western separatist rumblings out of Alberta and Saskatchewan are so ludicrous.
Asked if he had any tips for Western separatists, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchett provided the following:
'The first idea is to define oneself as a nation,' Blanchett replied, after modestly admitting he hasn't had much separation success. '(A nation) requires a culture of their own.
'I am not certain oil and gas qualify to define a culture.'
Similarly in Saskatchewan, potash, wheat, canola and beef are what is produced. It's not who Saskatchewanians are. So if the only arguments for Western separation are economic considerations, is it a valid cause?
And shouldn't Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe be the one making that point — especially to Western separatists who seem hell-bent on taking others down this road at great costs?
Of course, there's the issue as to whether Western economic grievances are as bad as they are made out to be. Suncor just recorded record quarter profit in Alberta. In Saskatchewan, farmland is more valuable than ever and keeps on increasing.
And if one is inclined to believe the ceaseless flow of propaganda from the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments, we are enjoying unparalleled success in the nation and even the world.
Heck, the Saskatchewan Party caucus sponsored a debate in the legislature last week over whether this province has ever enjoyed more prosperity.
So why should this be put at risk? Hasn't anyone noticed what happened to the Quebec economy since the first referendum 45 years ago?
This is not to suggest that none of the Western grievances are legitimate or that Western alienation is something new just conjured up.
It is frustrating to be taxed on prosperity. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith makes a fine point that it's patently ridiculous to have an equalization formula subsidizing the country's biggest provincial economies — Quebec and Ontario.
Moe might have been right when he said, while stumping for Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives in their recent election bid, that Ottawa seems a million miles away. There remains a long grocery list of grievances that the new federal Liberal minority government under Prime Minister Mark Carney needs to address.
But grievances over Ottawa polices hardly makes Saskatchewan and Alberta distinct societies. And they are surely not grounds for separation — even if it's thought political gains are to be made by the mere threat.
The problem is the political gamesmanship tied to the recent Western separation threats — threats now being aided and/or abetted by Smith and Moe to different degrees.
Smith is being more proactive of the two, changing provincial legislation on referendums to make the threat of one more viable.
Somewhat to his credit, Moe hasn't gone that far. But what he has (or hasn't) said is certainly aiding those pushing a potentially costly separation vote.
Moe has repeatedly told the NDP Opposition in his province that this is not an either/or choice between separation and the status quo with Ottawa. He further argues it's wrong to stifle voices of discontent by changing the referendum law.
But how are voices being stifled by simply shoring up this law to ensure a substantive number of signatures — say 30 per cent of eligible voters, as suggested by the NDP — are required to hold a referendum on becoming a separate country, instead of 15 per cent?
What about the vast majority who don't want to deal with the instability and economic consequences that referendum talk will create? Don't they get to have a say?
And why isn't the premier the first to take up this cause for a Saskatchewan in a united Canada? Isn't that the premier's job? The one to which he swore an oath?
The best lesson to learn from Quebec separatists? Don't be like Quebec separatists.