Identity and national unity

On the difference between regionalism and Quebec nationalism

At some point, everyone who teaches an introductory course on Canadian politics is called upon to explain the difference between regionalism (or regional discontent) and Quebec nationalism.

Both are territorially-based challenges to the legitimacy of the federal system. We can agree that, historically, Quebec nationalism has posed a more immediate threat to national unity (the Quebec separatist party has won elections and almost won referendums). And most would agree that regionalism is based more on grievances over the distribution of the economic benefits of confederation, while Quebec nationalism is based more on the assertion of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness (or the principle of national self-determination for a minority nation within the federation).

But if I were giving these explanations to a classroom full of students, how many would be asleep already (or at the very least, scrolling on their smart phones)? Is it possible illustrate this difference in visually compelling way?

I think there is.

(Note: My purpose here is not to judge or rank forms of grievance. I’m not arguing that one needs to be taken more seriously than the other – I’m trying to illustrate how they differ.)

Let’s start by looking at the proportion that feel attached to both Canada and to their province – or, conversely, to only one and not the other (to see how this plays out across the country in general, see our new report here).

Here’s how this looks in Quebec, based on whether someone identifies as mainly a sovereigntist or mainly a federalist (or both, or neither). Not surprisingly, a significant proportion of sovereigntists feel attached to Quebec, but not to Canada (although the fact that this proportion is no higher than 47% explains why there won’t be another referendum on sovereignty any time soon).

The closest comparison we can make in the Prairies is based on the question that asks whether people there agree that “Western Canada gets so few benefits from being part of Canada that they might as well go it on their own.” Eight in ten Prairie residents who strongly agree with this statement nonetheless feel attached to both Canada and their province; only 14 percent feel attached to their province and not to Canada.

The same pattern emerges when we use other questions. In Quebec, people who disagree that “Canadian federalism has more advantages than disadvantages for my province” are a lot less likely (compared to those who agree) to feel attached to both Canada and to Quebec; in the Prairies, this is not the case (similar proportions feel attached to both Canada and to their province, regardless of whether they see the advantages of federalism or not).

In Quebec, 35 percent of those who disagree about the advantages of federalism are attached to their province but not to Canada; in the Prairies, this figure is 11 percent.

Same thing when we look at the differences between those who do and do not feel that their province is treated with respect. In the Prairies, these two groups are equally likely to feel attached to both Canada and to their province; much less so in Quebec.

And just for fun, let’s see how this looks when we shift from attachment to identity, using the question that asks whether you consider yourself to be a Canadian only, a Canadian first but also someone from your province, equally a Canadian and someone from your province, someone from your province first but also a Canadian, or someone from your province only. (Again, see our report for the full results across the country.)

Quebecers who are dissatisfied with federalism are much more likely to identify as someone from their province first or someone from their province only.

In fact, 90 percent of Quebecers who say they are mainly a sovereigntist identify themselves as someone from their province first or only; this compares to 29 percent of Prairie residents who strongly agree that Western Canada should go it on its own.

As I stated, my point is not that one form of discontent needs to be taken seriously while the other can be dismissed. It is certainly arguable that Western alienation has been more disruptive of the agenda of the federal government (or more of a strain on national unity) in recent years than Quebec nationalism.

My point is to illustrate the clear difference between the two concepts. Outside Quebec, dissatisfaction with the federation is not associated with much weaker attachment to or identification with Canada. But in Quebec, this is precisely what distinguishes sovereigntists from federalists.

If you need to give a lecture on this sometime soon, I hope you will find these charts helpful.

This post features data from the 2024 Confederation of Tomorrow Survey of Canadians. The author is solely responsible for any errors in presentation or interpretation.

The Confederation of Tomorrow surveys give voice to Canadians about the major issues shaping the future of the federation and their political communities. They are conducted annually by an association of the country’s leading public policy and socioeconomic research organizations: the Environics Institute for Survey Research, the Centre of Excellence on the Canadian Federation, the Canada West Foundation, the Centre D’Analyse Politique – Constitution et Fédéralisme, the Brian Mulroney Institute of Government and the First Nations Financial Management Board.

The 2024 study consists of a survey of 6,036 adults, conducted between January 13 and April 13, 2024 (82% of the responses were collected between January 17 and February 1); 94% of the responses were collected online. The remaining responses were collected by telephone from respondents living in the North or on First Nations reserves.