Former premier Jason Kenney has claimed that the sovereignty debate in Quebec has left it weaker and poorer. However, the political clout and economic figures don’t bear that out.

A common claim made by independence opponents is that businesses had fled Quebec due to the sovereignty referenda held in the 1980s and the 1990s. There were some significant businesses that left Quebec over the years, and BMO is often cited as one. The fact is, though, BMO and other large companies such as Sun Life Assurance moved their headquarters from Quebec in the 1970s. Well before any referendum was held.

The primary driver of capital flight from Quebec was and remains its strict language laws. Bill 101 imposed costly and complicated language requirements upon private businesses, and many left rather than complied. That bill was passed in 1978 and remains in force today.

Go Ad Free

As far as general economic well-being, Quebec is doing well, and it has been due to using years of sovereignty efforts as leverage for concessions from Ottawa.

The preferential equalization treatment is most striking. Quebec has been the largest single recipient of equalization for decades. In recent years it has routinely collected more than half of all equalization dollars in Canada. This isn’t due to a dearth of economic activities or opportunities in Quebec. It’s because the equalization formula has been rigged to exempt Quebec’s primary industries such as hydroelectric generation to ensure they are treated as if they have a third-world economy. This was done in hopes of calming independence sentiment.

Policies such as dairy supply management have become political sacred cows because they shore up Quebec’s industries and protect them from competition. Maple syrup is similarly managed. Despite these policies costing Canadians untold billions over the decades and wreaking havoc with international trade agreements, the federal government won’t touch them for fear of upsetting sovereigntists in Quebec. Does this sound like a politically weak province?

Subsidies from aerospace grants to shipbuilding to preferred contracts for federal procurement in general have poured into Quebec for decades. The province’s ability to extract or defend these arrangements has been enhanced, not diminished, by the persistent presence of a credible independence movement.

On the political front, Quebec has a disproportionately high number of senators, has a guaranteed third of Supreme Court seats, and even has its House of Commons seat count protected from shifts in population. Despite holding only 22% of Canada’s population, 50% of Canada’s prime ministers since 1980 have held seats in Quebec.

Quebec punches well above its weight in the federation, and the constant threat of a successful referendum vote for independence is directly responsible for much of that.

A case in principle can be made against Quebec using the constant threat of secession to strongarm concessions from the rest of Canada. But the efficacy of the tactic is undeniable despite what Kenney tries to claim.

While serving in a majority federal government in Ottawa, Kenney was silent on supply management policies and was part of writing the equalization formula that benefits Quebec today. Kenney is more than well aware of the political strength and economic benefits Quebec has garnered due to its independence movement. He took part in entrenching them.