WAGNER: Liberal-friendly American interference in the 1995 Quebec referendum

American interference in Canadian political affairs must be a really bad thing. Just look at the concern expressed when leaders from the Alberta Prosperity Project met with some American officials in Washington, and when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made public comments about Alberta and its independence referendum early this year.In both cases, media outlets and politicians accused the Americans of interfering, and that was uniformly seen as a bad thing for them to do. Americans should stay out of Canadian politics.Unless, that is, they can help the Liberal Party of Canada. That’s a different matter altogether. And we can see this difference in the lack of criticism of American interference in the 1995 Quebec independence referendum.In 2005, the CBC released a documentary about that referendum entitled Breaking Point. In the second part of the documentary, there is an account of American interference in the campaign, without any negative judgment given. It’s presented as a positive rather than a negative contribution from the Americans.As the documentary recounts, one week before the referendum, the guest on Larry King Live (an American television talk show) was the president of France, Jacques Chirac. A caller from Montreal asked Chirac, “Mr. President, would the government of France be prepared to recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec?”Chirac tried to avoid answering the question by saying that his government did not want to interfere in Canadian affairs. However, Larry King wanted an answer and pressed Chirac: “His question was, will you recognize that new government?”.Chirac replied, “If the referendum is positive, the government will recognize the fact.”The American ambassador to Canada, James Blanchard, considered Chirac’s answer to amount to meddling in Canadian affairs, and so he wanted president Bill Clinton to also get involved. The referendum result was going to be very close, so anything Clinton could do might sway the vote against independence. As Blanchard says in the interview, “Our polling showed [Bill Clinton] was very popular in Quebec, popular in Canada, more so in Quebec, and that doing a positive message, not lecturing anyone, could be very helpful.”The White House quickly devised a plan. As the CBC narrator states, “Bill Clinton is going to give his friend Jean Chretien a little help.”At that point, CBC Washington correspondent Henry Champ received a call from a member of the US National Security Council, telling him that Clinton would be in the briefing room later that day. The president wanted someone to ask him a question about the Quebec issue. As Champ states, “This was being televised, and the president clearly wanted to make a statement on Quebec.”Champ dutifully attended the briefing and asked Clinton the desired question about the Quebec referendum.Clinton answered as follows: “Let me give you a careful answer. When I was in Canada last year, I said that I thought Canada had served as a model to the United States and to the entire world about how people of different cultures could live together in harmony, respecting their differences but working together. This vote is a Canadian internal issue for the Canadian people to decide, and I would not presume to interfere with that. I can tell you that a strong and united Canada has been a wonderful partner for the United States and an incredibly important and constructive citizen throughout the entire world.”.The narrator then notes Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau had tried to prevent Clinton from making a statement of this kind, but he failed.As Parizeau told the interviewer, “Look, it’s not particularly surprising under these conditions that Mr. Clinton, two days before the referendum, intervened in the debate saying, ‘look, remember we prefer a united Canada.’ And he said it quite nicely.”That is, in an intentional effort to help Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien and influence the outcome of Quebec’s referendum, president Bill Clinton publicly stated he wanted Canada to remain united. His widespread popularity in Quebec was being leveraged to swing votes in favour of the province remaining in Canada.It is, of course, impossible to measure the impact of Clinton’s statement. Whether or not it had an impact, the intent was clearly to influence a major Canadian political campaign.Where are the condemnations of Clinton’s interference? Isn’t American interference in Canadian affairs always a bad thing?Perhaps it’s not so much whether the Americans interfere, but whose side the interference is perceived as helping that matters. That seems to be the conclusion any reasonable person would reach when comparing the Quebec and Alberta situations. In the former, open American interference is seen as good, whereas in the latter, even the mildest comments are condemned. It sure looks like a double standard.

WAGNER: Liberal-friendly American interference in the 1995 Quebec referendum

Related Stories

Referendum TPA donation roundup: Independence groups rebound while Forever Canadian continues reporting zero contributions

LYTLE: The Kenney-Notley alliance is dangerous political theatre

ANALYSIS: What to expect from the upcoming Quebec provincial election

Parti Québécois vows no referendum while Trump remains president