Editing Jean Chrétien (section)

=== Quebec ===

==== 1995 Quebec referendum ====

{{main|1995 Quebec referendum}}

One of Chrétien's main concerns in office was separation of the province of Quebec, which was governed by the [[Quebec sovereignty movement|sovereigntist]] [[Parti Québécois]] for nearly the entirety of his term. When the [[1995 Quebec referendum|1995 Quebec independence referendum]] began in September, Chrétien was relaxed and confident of victory as polls showed federalist forces were leading by a wide margin.<ref>Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, p. 278.</ref> On October 8, 1995, [[Lucien Bouchard]] replaced the separatist [[premier of Quebec]], [[Jacques Parizeau]], as the ''de facto'' chair of the ''oui'' committee and, at that point, the support for the {{Lang|fr|oui}} side started to dramatically increase, aided by the {{Lang|fr|non}} committee's complacency.<ref name="Jeffrey, Brooke 2010, pp. 278-279">Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, pp. 278–279.</ref> In the weeks leading to the referendum on October 30, 1995, the federal government was seized with fear and panic as polls showing that, under the leadership of Bouchard, the ''oui'' side was going to win.<ref>Martin, Lawrence ''Iron Man'', Toronto: Viking, 2003 pp. 126–128.</ref> On October 30, 1995, the federalist ''non'' side won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.58%.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2021-05-17 |title=1995 referendum on Québec’s accession to sovereignty |url=https://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/en/results-and-statistics/1995-referendum-on-quebecs-accession-to-sovereignty/#anchor2 |access-date=2025-04-23 |website=Élections Québec |language=en-CA}}</ref>

==== Aftermath of referendum ====

On November 5, 1995, six days after the referendum, Chrétien and his wife escaped injury when [[André Dallaire]], armed with a knife, broke in the prime minister's official residence at [[24 Sussex Drive]]. Aline Chrétien shut and locked the bedroom door until security came, while Chrétien held a stone Inuit carving in readiness.<ref name="CE">{{cite news|url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chretien-attacker-found-guilty/|title=Chrétien Attacker Found Guilty|last=Fisher|first=Luke|date=July 8, 1996|work=Maclean's|access-date=June 6, 2015}}</ref> Dallaire was 
a separatist who was angered by the result of the referendum.<ref name="CE">{{cite news|url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/chretien-attacker-found-guilty/|title=Chrétien Attacker Found Guilty|last=Fisher|first=Luke|date=July 8, 1996|work=Maclean's|access-date=June 6, 2015}}</ref>

In the aftermath of the narrow victory in the referendum, Chrétien started in late 1995 a new policy of "tough love", also known as "Plan B", where the federal government sought to discredit Quebec separatism by making it clear to the people of Quebec how difficult it would be to leave Canada.<ref>Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, pp. 284–286.</ref> Though Chrétien had promised to enshrine recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" in the constitution in order to win the referendum, this promise was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of victory with Chrétien arguing that the very vocal opposition of Ontario Premier [[Mike Harris]] to amending the constitution to recognize Quebec as a "distinct society" made that impossible.<ref name="Jeffrey, Brooke 2010, p. 284">Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, p. 284.</ref> Instead, Chrétien had Parliament pass a resolution recognizing Quebec as a "distinct society", which had no constitutional force and was only a symbolic step.<ref name="Jeffrey, Brooke 2010, p. 284"/> Though Harris's promise to veto any sort of "distinct society" clause in the constitution made fulfilling Chrétien's commitment to put such a clause into the constitution impossible, Chrétien did not seem to champion the idea of a "distinct society" clause with any great conviction.<ref name="Jeffrey, Brooke 2010, p. 284"/>

In early 1996, the federal government launched an advertising program to increase the presence of Canada in Quebec, a policy that Chrétien believed would avoid a repeat of the near-defeat of 1995, and was to lead eventually to the [[Sponsorship scandal]].<ref name="Jeffrey, Brooke 2010, p. 287">Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, p. 287.</ref> As part of his "Plan B" for combatting Quebec separatism, in a speech in January 1996, Chrétien endorsed the idea of partitioning Quebec in the event of a ''oui'' vote in another referendum, stating all of the regions of Quebec that voted ''non'' would remain part of Canada, regardless of what the Quebec separatists thought.<ref>Martin, Lawrence ''Iron Man'', Toronto: Viking, 2003 p. 143</ref> On February 15, 1996, Chrétien was confronted by a protester, Bill Clennett, during a walkabout in Hull, Quebec. Chrétien responded with a choke-hold. The press referred to it as the "[[Shawinigan Handshake|Shawinigan handshake]]" (from the name of his home town).<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/17/politics.fights/ |title=Prescott not the first to pack a punch |publisher=CNN |date=May 18, 2001 |access-date=June 6, 2015}}</ref>

==== ''Clarity Act'' ====

After the 1995 referendum very narrowly defeated a proposal on Quebec sovereignty, Chrétien started to champion what eventually become the ''[[Clarity Act]]'' as part of his "Plan B". In August 1996, the lawyer [[Guy Bertrand (lawyer)|Guy Bertrand]] won a ruling in a Quebec court declaring that the sovereignty question was not just a political matter between the federal and Quebec governments, but also a legal matter subject to court rulings.<ref name="Martin, Lawrence p. 165">Martin, Lawrence ''Iron Man'', Toronto: Viking, 2003 p. 165.</ref> Following that ruling, Chrétien decided that here was a means of defeating the Quebec sovereignty movement and, in September 1996, ordered the Justice Minister [[Allan Rock]] to take the question of the legality of Quebec separating to the Supreme Court.<ref name="Martin, Lawrence p. 165"/> [[Stéphane Dion]] advised Chrétien that, if the federal government won the reference to the Supreme Court as expected, the government should draft a bill stating the precise rules for Quebec to leave—telling Chrétien if the people of Quebec could be shown how difficult it would be to leave, then support for separatism would fall.<ref>Martin, Lawrence ''Iron Man'', Toronto: Viking, 2003 p. 166.</ref> Along the same lines, Dion started to send much-publicised open letters to Quebec ministers questioning the assumptions behind the separatist case.<ref>Martin, Lawrence ''Iron Man'', Toronto: Viking, 2003 p. 167.</ref>

In December 1999 the Chrétien government tabled the ''Clarity Act'', which passed Parliament in June 2000. The ''Clarity Act'', which was Chrétien's response to his narrow victory in the 1995 referendum requires that no Canadian government may acknowledge any province's declaration of independence unless a "clear majority" supports a "clear question" about sovereignty in a referendum, as defined by the [[Parliament of Canada]], and a constitutional amendment is passed. The size of a "clear majority" is not specified in the Act. After the ''Clarity Act'' had passed by the House of Commons in February 2000, a poll showed that the federalist forces enjoyed a 15 percent lead in the polls on the question if Quebec should become independent, which Chrétien argued meant that the sovereignty option was now effectively off the table as Bouchard had always said he would only call another referendum if he could obtain "winning conditions", which he plainly did not possess at the moment.<ref>Jeffrey, Brooke ''Divided Loyalties'' Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, p. 322.</ref>