For a time, Quebec attracted the attention of the Basque pro-independence movement, just as Scotland and Catalonia did years later. In this French-speaking nation, which is part of Canada, two referenda on self-determination were held, and in the second one (1995), the independence movement came very close to victory (49.4% of the vote; among French speakers, 60% voted in favour of independence). However, the euphoria was followed by disappointment. And that disappointment also reached us: shortly afterwards, we forgot about Quebec and began to look for other international references.
The decline of Quebec separatism has been steady since 1995. The main pro-independence party, the Parti Québécois, hit rock bottom in 2022, when it won only 7 seats out of 125 in the Quebec parliament. Gone are the results of the 1980s, when it won an absolute majority and was the main party in Quebec. The Québec Solidaire party, representing left-wing separatism, surpassed the Parti Quebecois by winning 11 seats in the 2022 elections. Nevertheless, Quebec separatism as a whole now only has 18 parliamentary seats.
In recent years, most political analysts considered the independence project in Quebec as having lost its steam. The hangover following the failure of the second referendum seemed like it would last forever. However, things have changed. According to every poll, the Parti Québécois is set for a significant rise and could win the next election. This rise has been reflected in the by-elections held in 2025. If it wins the 2026 elections and comes to power, the third referendum on self-determination could be closer.
NAZIOGINTZA spoke to Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, a former Quebec politician and president of its parliament, to learn more about the current political situation in that nation.
You began your political career in the 1970s, when nationalist sentiment strongly surged in Quebec when René Lévesque had just founded the Parti Québécois (1968). Lévesque was undoubtedly the emblematic figure of Quebec independence movement and the main driving force behind the first referendum on self-determination in 1980. How do you remember Lévesque? What qualities would you highlight in his political personality?
I would say that René Lévesque has been the most charismatic figure in Quebec’s history. With a degree in law, he was a journalist by profession, a war correspondent and a star reporter on public television. He developed a special bond with the people, winning the sympathy of the public.
In the 1960s, he became involved in politics, first in the Parti Libéral du Québec (Quebec Liberal Party), holding various ministerial positions between 1960 and 1966.
In 1967, he founded the Mouvement Souveraineté-Association, which, in the following year, became the Parti Québécois (PQ), a party he led until 1985.
As an independence supporter myself, I joined the party when I was 18. In 1976, the PQ won the elections, and I was appointed Member of Parliament, after having worked as an investigative journalist covering organised crime and corruption.
Lévesque was Premier of Quebec between 1976 and 1985. In 1980, he organised the first referendum on independence, which was won by the “no” vote with 60% of the vote.
To sum up, I would say that, in the process towards Quebec independence, René Lévesque was a pioneer and an undisputed leader, a “driving force” who worked tirelessly for 20 years.
What impact has Trump’s aggressive behaviour towards Canada (i.e. promoting trade war and suggesting its annexation by the US) had on Quebec? Has it strengthened pro-independence sentiment or, on the contrary, has it stimulated unionist positions favourable to Canada?
From 2015 to the present, Canada’s federal government has been in the hands of the Liberal Party. It also won the last election (2025), because the majority preferred to elect Mark Carney as Donald Trump’s counterpart.
In those elections, part of the Bloc Québécois‘ pro-independence electorate chose to vote for the Liberal federalists to prevent the far-right Trump from coming to power. The leader of the Conservative Party, for his part, did not and still does not have enough credibility to stand up to the American emperor’s threats to turn Canada into the 51st state of the United States.
Trump’s policies may have harmed the Quebec independence movement. We have observed a decline in support for independence in recent months. The last polls indicate a drop of this support, from 37% to 30%.
Quebec separatism, which entered a phase of decline after losing the 1995 referendum, has been going through a long journey through the political wilderness over the last three decades. Now, however, it has recovered, especially among young people. And according to all the polls, it could easily win the next election. What, in your opinion, is behind this unexpected resurgence?
I believe that there are two factors behind this resurgence:
On the one hand, the PQ is led by a young MP (Paul St-Pierre Plamondon) with clear and firm ideas about the need to achieve an independent Quebec as soon as possible.
On the other hand, St-Pierre Plamondon himself refused to swear allegiance to the British Crown, along with the other two PQ members, in October 2022, when he took his seat in the Quebec National Assembly. He was therefore the first to reject this parliamentary rule following the adaptation of the Quebec National Assembly’s rules of procedure, although, since 1970 , Quebec separatist members have routinely complied with it. I myself swore it, thinking it was impossible to do otherwise!
This courageous stance deeply moved the people. Since then, it has not been necessary to swear allegiance to the British Crown, and pro-independence sentiment has resurfaced with force.
Plamondon wants citizens to realise that efforts to reform the Canadian federation have failed, and that the cultural identity and prosperity of the Quebec nation are urgent matters.
Three or four years ago, young people had a rather lukewarm attitude towards independence. In recent years, however, a lot of groundwork has been laid to instil in today’s youth the same passion that our generation (the 1960s and 1970s) had – I, for example, became an independence supporter at the age of 18. I suppose that this work and the audacity of St Pierre Plamondon in parliament to sever ties with the British crown have had an enormous influence on young people, and they have realised this reality. We must bear in mind that since the Conquest of 1760, the coins we use every day bear the faces of kings or queens of England. And that, up to now, every law in Quebec must be approved by the British Crown. It may be symbolic, but in the collective imagination, we are still a British colony. I suppose St-Pierre Plamondon’s transgressive attitude has given young people food for thought.
The Mouvement Oui Québec (https://www.ouiquebec.org/https://www.ouiquebec.org/les-oui-cest-quoi) also stands out in this resurgence of national consciousness. It is a cross-party movement for independence that operates outside of political parties and alliances.
Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon, the young leader of the Parti Québécois, has said that if he wins the 2026 election and comes to power, he will organise a third referendum on self-determination. However, not everyone within the party shares his opinion. His party colleague Lucien Bouchard, who was Prime Minister of Quebec, has spoken out against the referendum. Is there a division within the Parti Québécois? How do you yourself view the possibility of a third referendum?
That’s right, within the PQ and within the independence movement in general, there has always been debate on this issue: as early as 1995, many believed that before holding a new referendum, solid public support had to be secured.
Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau was responsible for organising the second independence referendum. In fact, the ‘yes’ vote won by a very narrow margin, but the “no” vote prevailed due to the Ottawa government’s tricks: it spent more money than it should have on the ‘no’ campaign and distributed thousands of citizenship documents to migrants.
It was difficult to accept defeat given how close the result was. Parizeau resigned and the moral and political leader of the ‘yes’ campaign, Lucien Bouchard, replaced the leader of the Bloc Québécois. The latter then decided that a change of strategy was needed and, over the years, they rejected the idea of a referendum. Since then, no one has been able to hold a referendum, whether it be the leaders or the parties.
Mr Bouchard, who has become a cautious old man, thinks it would be dramatic to hold another referendum, based on the results of current polls in which 36-37% are in favour of independence.
However, I believe that not holding a referendum after Plamondon’s promise would be considered cowardly, a betrayal, and would lead to widespread demobilisation.
Yes, we may doubt victory in a third referendum, but what risk do we run if we do it? Not doing so could spell the end of the independence movement.
Not every old militant agrees with Bouchard, for example, Figurese, former minister under René Lévesque, or Claude Charron, leader of the youth movement in the 1970s and television star for many years, who has just said in an interview, in response to Bouchard’s statements: “Even if we lost the third referendum, the loss would be less than if we gave up and continued to suffer the dire consequences of Canadian federalism.”
Do you also support the St-Pierre Plamandon project?
Yes, absolutely, although I have my doubts about the possibility of a yes victory. The interview with Claude Charron has given me food for thought. I think he’s right. If we lose, we’ll remain in the current situation. And if we achieve a respectable result, our people, our nation, could become more cohesive and the younger generations will be more motivated on the path to independence.
Nevertheless, we cannot dream; today, we cannot say that 80%, 70%, or 60% of young people are in favor of the yes vote. However, if we look at the polls, support for independence has grown, especially among young people. That is undeniable.
Why do you think Plamondon, from the Parti Québécois, has come out in favor of a third referendum? What led him to make that decision?
In addition to the reasons I have mentioned, it seems to me that Plamondón wants to break with the policy that has been pursued over the last 30 years. In other words, following the failure of the latest referendum, the same policy of waiting for better conditions before organizing a new referendum has been applied. So why would we want a new leader if he has to repeat the same old outdated discourse?
If young people were to mobilize now, older people like me, who said yes to independence in 1980 and 1995, might ask ourselves: Do I want to die renouncing my convictions, with young people wanting to follow the same path that I defended when I was 25, 30, 45 years old?
Incidentally, I now see a great opportunity to strengthen intergenerational ties.
After Quebec’s second referendum (1995), there was a dispute between the Canadian federal government and the Quebec government, with the former introducing the “Clarity Act,” which placed limits on a possible new referendum. For example, the federal government would intervene in the question and the majority required to pass. Do you think the Canadian government would accept a third referendum by Quebec?
It has no other option in the eyes of the international community, because there are already two precedents. In the first referendum, Ottawa participated and became heavily involved, investing a lot of money to ensure that the ‘no’ vote would win, which it did. In the second referendum, it also spent a lot of money, more than in the previous one, and also failed to comply with the approved rules, and won. However, in both cases, Quebec’s right to self-determination was recognized. The same would happen in the third. Furthermore, no one at the international level would understand why, after two referendums organized democratically and peacefully, a third one could not be held, especially in consideration of the fact that, since 1995 , there has been a sharp increase in the number of voters.
As for the “Clarity Act,” we Quebeckers have already said that the majority needed to win is 50%+1. Quebec’s federalist parties also voted in favor. Therefore, it is not a question of having to obtain 2/3 or 60%. Obviously, if we got 55% or 60%, that would be much better. But 50%+1 represents 66% of Quebec’s French-speaking population, the historical and identity-based foundation of the Quebec people.
The Supreme Court has also ruled on this matter, and the Canadian government will have to negotiate. Thus the “Clarity Act” cannot be an obstacle to holding a new referendum.
You mention that international opinion would not understand the rejection of a third referendum, yet that is precisely what has just happened in the United Kingdom in the case of Scotland.
The situation is different because the Scots negotiated the referendum, but we never negotiated, we never asked for permission. We held the referenda, and that was that! We exercised our right to self-determination.
The Catalans, for their part, are in a worse situation than the Scots and Quebeckers. The conquering nature of the Spanish probably has something to do with it. Spain suffered a long dictatorship for 40 years, and, in the Spanish mindset, the Catalans and you, the Basques, are Spanish. For many people, Spain is sacred and indivisible.
However, that does not mean that the Canadian central government will not raise objections. Even so, it does not operate like the British, let alone the Spanish, who did not hesitate to violently prevent the Catalan referendum. In our case, such an attitude would have been unacceptable.
Language is undoubtedly the central pillar of Quebec’s national identity, giving the nation its own identity. Recently, Denis Trudel, former member of the Parti Québécois and the Bloc Québécois, said that if Quebec does not become independent, French will disappear in 50 years. Do you agree with this assessment? What is the current situation of French in your country? (We should remind our readers that since 1977, French has been the only official language in Quebec).
I think Trudel is exaggerating, because, in my opinion, French will still be the language of Quebec 50 years from now, perhaps not as strongly as we would like it to be, but that is another issue.
On the other hand, the most serious problem we have in Quebec with regard to language is that of immigration, of foreigners settling here. In fact, we have two host societies, so foreigners can choose between integrating into the English-speaking Canadian society living in Quebec or integrating into the French-speaking Quebec host society.
It is true that we have a law requiring immigrant children to attend primary and secondary school in French. But after those levels of education, they can choose to study in English (high school or university).
Our problem, then, is to promote the appeal of French among immigrants, because they have to choose between two host societies, one English and one French. If there were only one, the French one, we would not have that problem.
In recent years, nationalist and federalist parties have also strengthened the French language at the legal level.
Linguistically, we are still a solid majority, and I suppose we will remain so for a long time to come.
In the Basque Country, the issue of cultural diversity is very much on the political agenda and in society. How does the Parti Québécois approach this issue, and what implications does it have for the political landscape in Quebec?
A very interesting question, following on from the previous one. Cultural diversity comes to us from immigration. There are two trends on this issue, with which I can agree. On the one hand, there is an open nationalist trend that promotes the immersion and integration of newcomers into our culture. This was precisely the attitude of René Lévesque, which has been successful for years. On the other hand, seeing that many immigrants refuse to integrate into French-speaking Quebec in the face of English supremacy and Quebec’s strict secularism, there is another tendency, a firmer tendency for these people to integrate into our ways of life.
The PQ considers both trends. It uses the discourse of openness, but also that of firmness, trying to reassure its supporters, because both its supporters and the majority of the population want immigrants to integrate into French-speaking Quebec. It is true that René Lévesque had a much more open discourse on cultural diversity compared to today, but, of course, that was before the avalanche of immigrants we have today.
In other words, since 2015, the policies implemented by Justin Trudeau’s federal government have opened the door to uncontrolled immigration. As a result, in a short period of time, the population has grown considerably, and we are finding it difficult to manage the issue of integration in an appropriate and balanced manner. This has given rise to a heated debate in which the most left-wing separatists (Québec Solidaire) have a discourse that demonizes the positions of the PQ and the CAQ.
On the other hand, what will happen if we are not firm enough? We are stuck in a kind of “zugzwang”, because whichever way we turn, we always lose out on something. And if we want independence, we should get the new Quebecers to join our cause, to join the history and struggles of their new home.
Beyond language, we have another problem with foreigners: that of religion. Quebec society is generally secular, but people from Africa, Central America, and South America bring their religious customs with them, which sometimes creates tensions because they want to take them beyond the private sphere.
We have the same problem in the Basque Country because here immigration policy is also managed by the Spanish central government.
In your case, immigrants who go to the Basque Country believe they are going to Spain, and in our case, to Canada. Obviously, we have majorities in our territory, and unlike you, we can legislate on this matter; we have instruments to protect ourselves.
It would be cruel to close the door to immigrants. We must welcome them, yes, but most of them know nothing about our history and culture. In reality, Canada welcomes them, and most of Canada is English-speaking. In your case too, in the Basque Country, immigrants believe they are going to a Spanish-speaking country where they don’t need to know Basque to live.
In addition to French and English, indigenous communities also speak other languages in Quebec. Does the Quebec government guarantee the cultural and linguistic rights of these communities?
There have been 11 indigenous nations in Quebec since ancient times. Each one of them has its own languages, customs, and socio-political structures. Since the time of René Lévesque, these peoples have not only been recognized but also taken into consideration, policies have been developed in their favor, and measures have been adopted to redress the injustice they have suffered for centuries.
The linguistic and cultural rights of the so-called First Nations are part of a complex legal and political framework, protected by the 1982 Canadian Constitution and the United Nations Declaration.
In Quebec, various initiatives have been launched to promote the teaching of indigenous languages within the communities themselves and managed by them. However, as the situation of each nation is different, decisions and policies also differ. The lack of political unity among these nations is the main obstacle to implementing these language policies, with their cultural and political development posing a challenge.
Furthermore, Canada’s indigenous peoples are few in number and scattered across a vast territory. Some nations are better organized than others, but they are not united, although their political leaders are part of a large association called the Assembly of First Nations. On the other hand, there is also the issue of the occupation of ancestral territories, which the indigenous peoples themselves want to manage politically. Our desire is for these peoples to be taken into consideration, their rights, their colonial wounds, and their legitimate aspirations to live their own way. It is not easy. It is an impressive political gamble. Moreover, it must be understood that many of them do not want to be considered Quebeckers or Canadians. However, there are those who run for election to the National Assembly and are deputies, some of whom have become ministers.
What has been the position of these indigenous peoples in previous referendums and what is their current importance in Quebec politics?
In the two previous referendums, the position of these peoples was not uniform. Some opted for yes, others opted for no while many did not vote. Unlike the Italian, Greek, and Jewish communities, which were publicly urged by their leaders to vote no, the indigenous communities did not receive any voting instructions. It should be noted that the number of inhabitants in these three communities is much higher than that of the indigenous communities.
In any case, the importance of First Nations is not measured solely by their population size. Their unique legal status, recognized collective rights, influence on territorial, environmental, and economic issues, as well as their capacity to intervene in the political, judicial, and international spheres are also very important.
Are you familiar with the Basque Country? Have you had any contact with our country or with people from the Basque political or cultural sphere?
Unfortunately not. You are the first Basque independence representatives I have met.
However, I have had contact with Catalans.
That being the case, we invite you to discover our country. Come visit us!
Thank you very much.
INTERVIEW CONDUCTED BY NAZIOGINTZA
JANUARY 2026
APPENDIX: COMPOSITION OF THE QUEBEC PARLIAMENT (in 2025)
COALITION AVENIR QUÉBEC (CAQ): 79 SEATS
PARTIT LIBERAL DU QUÉBEC (PLQ): 18 SEATS
QUÉBEC SOLIDAIRE (QS): 11 SEATS
PARTIT QUÉBÉCOIS (PQ): 7 SEATS
INDEPENDENTS: 10 SEATS
DATA ON POLITICAL PARTIES:
COALITION AVENIR QUÉBEC (CAQ): Nationalist, but not pro-independence. Governs Quebec. Center-right.
PARTIT LIBERAL DU QUÉBEC (PLQ): Liberal and unionist
QUÉBEC SOLIDAIRE (QS): Pro-independence and left-wing
PARTIT QUÉBÉCOIS (PQ): Center-left and pro-independence. It was the main party in Quebec in the 1980s and 1990s. It organized the two referenda on self-determination.