What do you think?
Rate this book
The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was
A sly, insightful and wonderfully original book from one of Canada's most popular political analysts, Chantal Hébert, and one of Quebec's top political broadcasters, Jean Lapierre.
Only the most fearless of political journalists would dare to open the old wounds of the 1995 Quebec referendum, a still-murky episode in Canadian history that continues to defy our understanding. The referendum brought one of the world's most successful democracies to the brink of the unknown, and yet Quebecers' attitudes toward sovereignty continue to baffle the country's political class. Interviewing 17 key political leaders from the duelling referendum camps, Hébert and Lapierre begin with a simple asking what were these political leaders' plans if the vote had gone the other way. Even 2 decades later, their answers may shock you. And in asking an unexpected question, these veteran political observers cleverly expose the fractures, tensions and fears that continue to shape Canada today.
Only the most fearless of political journalists would dare to open the old wounds of the 1995 Quebec referendum, a still-murky episode in Canadian history that continues to defy our understanding. The referendum brought one of the world's most successful democracies to the brink of the unknown, and yet Quebecers' attitudes toward sovereignty continue to baffle the country's political class. Interviewing 17 key political leaders from the duelling referendum camps, Hébert and Lapierre begin with a simple asking what were these political leaders' plans if the vote had gone the other way. Even 2 decades later, their answers may shock you. And in asking an unexpected question, these veteran political observers cleverly expose the fractures, tensions and fears that continue to shape Canada today.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
34 people are currently reading
686 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
June 6, 2018
Chantal Hebert and Jean LaPierre recount the 1995 Quebec Referendum and the night that nearly tore Canada apart Through indepth research and comprehensive interviews with many of the prominent players involved, the co-authors present both the “yes” and the “no” vote equally, shining a light on the many events that soured the relationship between Quebecers and the rest of the country leading to a vote for sovereignty.
This is a tough one for me to review; I’m not exactly the most astute scholar of politics. I was also eleven years old on October 30th, 1995, so you can imagine that this event, while covered widely, was the least of my worries. After reading Bastards & Boneheads last year (a book detailing Canada’s great and not-so-great leaders), a small spark of interest had developed in me for Canadian political history. However with The Morning After, it wasn’t so much the history of the event that drew me in, it was more so the theoretical fallout had the YES vote won – what would Canada look like?
Approaching a book of this nature was intimidating to say the least. I feared that either it would be too dryly presented or that it would be written in such a manner that it would be difficult for me to follow. Once I got the major players organized in my head alongside their political parties, the narrative flowed rather smoothly. I did find that as I got closer to the end of the book, a lot of the information felt repetitive making the final fifty or so pages a bit of a slog to get through. However, I think that had more to do with the fact that many of those interviewed expected a similar outcome had the YES vote won – further negotiations and no immediate secession by Quebec.
The Morning After is a deep dive into Canadian politics covering an event that threatened to change the face of Canada forever. I came away from this book having learned what led to the referendum, the immediate fallout, and further understanding just exactly how this country politically operates – what more could I have asked for?
This is a tough one for me to review; I’m not exactly the most astute scholar of politics. I was also eleven years old on October 30th, 1995, so you can imagine that this event, while covered widely, was the least of my worries. After reading Bastards & Boneheads last year (a book detailing Canada’s great and not-so-great leaders), a small spark of interest had developed in me for Canadian political history. However with The Morning After, it wasn’t so much the history of the event that drew me in, it was more so the theoretical fallout had the YES vote won – what would Canada look like?
Approaching a book of this nature was intimidating to say the least. I feared that either it would be too dryly presented or that it would be written in such a manner that it would be difficult for me to follow. Once I got the major players organized in my head alongside their political parties, the narrative flowed rather smoothly. I did find that as I got closer to the end of the book, a lot of the information felt repetitive making the final fifty or so pages a bit of a slog to get through. However, I think that had more to do with the fact that many of those interviewed expected a similar outcome had the YES vote won – further negotiations and no immediate secession by Quebec.
The Morning After is a deep dive into Canadian politics covering an event that threatened to change the face of Canada forever. I came away from this book having learned what led to the referendum, the immediate fallout, and further understanding just exactly how this country politically operates – what more could I have asked for?
January 23, 2015
It's the greatest what-if in modern Canadian political history. What if those sixty-odd-thousand votes had swung the other way? In interviews with the key players, the bit players, and the onlookers, Chantal Hébert and Jean Lapierre contemplate the morning that never was.
And they do it well. The chapter-interview scheme sometimes doesn't work but here the authors (or editor) pull it off. The tension of the night is all there and some of my earliest political memories came flooding back. I had to go watch Peter Mansbridge video. This is the story of a complacent federalist side; whose complacency led to confusion and division on the night and for plans afterwards; so much so that Jean Chrétien inconceivably felt he could remain Prime Minister. Had he not resigned, surely the Bloc, the Reformers, and a split Liberal party would have registered their no confidence.
This book lets you play out all those political scenarios in your mind. It's a rare English-language look at the referendum and another addition to a recent run of great Canadian political titles.
Follow me on Twitter: @Dr_A_Taubman
And they do it well. The chapter-interview scheme sometimes doesn't work but here the authors (or editor) pull it off. The tension of the night is all there and some of my earliest political memories came flooding back. I had to go watch Peter Mansbridge video. This is the story of a complacent federalist side; whose complacency led to confusion and division on the night and for plans afterwards; so much so that Jean Chrétien inconceivably felt he could remain Prime Minister. Had he not resigned, surely the Bloc, the Reformers, and a split Liberal party would have registered their no confidence.
This book lets you play out all those political scenarios in your mind. It's a rare English-language look at the referendum and another addition to a recent run of great Canadian political titles.
Follow me on Twitter: @Dr_A_Taubman
October 20, 2025
Très intéressant quand on discute des joueurs principaux, mais trop de temps est dedié à des personnages sommes toutes peu conséquents (comme le PM de la Saskatchewan).
September 17, 2014
I would highly recommend this book to any Canadian who values their vote. These two journalists, Hebert and Lapierre, are the two that I most read, watch and listen to, in both official languages. Over the years of getting my information from both the English and the French media, I have developed a great distaste of the spin which is often added according to the target audience. Lapierre and Hebert are my favorites for giving me spin-free political analysis, again in both languages.
I had no appetite for rehashing the painful referendum period but I chose to read this based only on the high esteem I have for the authors. I was not disappointed.
Their timing for this book seems to be just about perfect. The interviewees are no longer constrained by fear of political fallout but seem to want their role and perspective recorded for history. It makes for fascinating reading. Never would I have imagined the truth. It is not for the bedside table. It will not put you to sleep.
I had no appetite for rehashing the painful referendum period but I chose to read this based only on the high esteem I have for the authors. I was not disappointed.
Their timing for this book seems to be just about perfect. The interviewees are no longer constrained by fear of political fallout but seem to want their role and perspective recorded for history. It makes for fascinating reading. Never would I have imagined the truth. It is not for the bedside table. It will not put you to sleep.
February 7, 2016
I feel like a fraud even trying to rate this book because unless you are a political junkie or a history buff, this book may bore you. I did find the topic quite interesting; however, for me, this book was very hard to follow. Maybe it's because I was preoccupied with the fact that I now have to write a report on it for school, or maybe it was because I was missing a lot of the background knowledge required to understand it, but either way, I found it difficult to get through.
April 16, 2025
It's a very interesting report of what was happening on and after October 30, 1995. I was already in Canada at that time. The mood was highly charged and reactions were tumultuous. The other provinces were threatening that they will leave the country also. The consequences for Canadian dollar, economy and politics would be dire.
Some part of me, was looking for the answer to the question, what did Quebeckers want. I still am not sure. It would appear that at the writing of this book, the problems were neither understood clearly nor solved. The other possibility was that everybody knew what the problems were, just nobody wanted to solve them.
There was also somewhat funny issue with Natives, who voted overwhelmingly that if Quebec leaves Canada, Cree want to remain with the Confederation. It's very hard to imagine workable solution to this problem.
I had an opportunity to read profiles of most of the politicians whom I had already known (Sheila Cops, Jean Chretien, Jean Charest, Lucien Bouchard, etc.).
It is a well-written work, that I recommend to anybody interested in Canadian politics.
Some part of me, was looking for the answer to the question, what did Quebeckers want. I still am not sure. It would appear that at the writing of this book, the problems were neither understood clearly nor solved. The other possibility was that everybody knew what the problems were, just nobody wanted to solve them.
There was also somewhat funny issue with Natives, who voted overwhelmingly that if Quebec leaves Canada, Cree want to remain with the Confederation. It's very hard to imagine workable solution to this problem.
I had an opportunity to read profiles of most of the politicians whom I had already known (Sheila Cops, Jean Chretien, Jean Charest, Lucien Bouchard, etc.).
It is a well-written work, that I recommend to anybody interested in Canadian politics.
June 28, 2016
The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day That Almost Was, by Chantal Hérbert, is an interesting series of accounts of the mindset behind, and the next day contingencies, of 17 main figures during Quebec's 1995 referendum. For those unaware, the referendum was a close run thing, with just 50k votes separating the remain camp from the sovereignty camp.
These characters were:
Lucien Bouchard - the spokesperson and potential chief negotiator of the pro-independence side. He was in favour of shooting for a close association with Canada, with a EU style monetary union and close political and economic relationships. He was set up for a post referendum battle with Jacques Parizeau over the chance to declare Unilateral Independence from Canada.
Mario Dumont- Leader of the Action Démocratique du Québec and a reluctant Sovereigntist closely allied to Bouchard. He was also against a unilateral declaration of independence, and wanted a closer association with Canada.
Jacques Parizeau - the man behind the action, and leader of the Bloc Québecois. Was in favour of complete independence for Québec, and was spoiling for a fight with the lukewarm Sovereignty proposed by Bouchard and Dumont.
Lucienne Robillard - a pro-federation Liberal who moved in small circles in the pro-federation side. She was largely sidelined by the Chretien government for political reasons, but had her finger on the pulse of Québec at the time.
Jean Charest - a conservative from Québec, he was firmly against the Yes vote and critical of the Chrétien governments inability to plan contingencies for a post-referendum Canada.
Daniel Johnson - Leader of the Quebec Liberal party and a Montréal heavy, he was firmly against the Yes vote, but also critical of Chrétien's handling of the referendum. He wanted to go down fighting for the Federalist side.
Sheila Copps - She was a Federal MP and sat on the sidelines watching the action go down. Copps later became a controversial political figure in Canada for crossing party lines and was involved in a political scandal or two.
Brian Tobin - A Chrétien staff member and organizer, Tobin also criticized the Federal Liberals, and was instrumental in a planned coup by Ontario Liberals after the referendum, so as to try and take control of the Liberal Party during potential separatist negotiations.
Paul Martin - Liberal rival to Jean Chrétien and soon to be PM of Canada, Martin was in a politically awkward position during the referendum debate, and was critical of the government response to referendum talks.
Raymond Chrétien - Ambassador to the USA and nephew of Jean Chrétien, Raymond was close to the pulse of Chrétien's inner circle, and was aware, but will not speak of, Chrétien's post referendum plans for Canada.
André Oullet - Ambassador to France (the most likely nation to recognize Québecois independence) and friend of France's President at the time, he would have been instrumental in trying to persuade the French government to hold off recognition of a breakaway state.
Preston Manning - Alberta based Reform Party leader and interested in a political change in Ottawa. Manning was the staunchest "Let them go" advocate, and wanted tough negotiations to ensure territorial partitioning of Quebec or financial considerations.
Roy Romanov - Saskatchewan Premier, he was a close ally of Chrétien, but also explored separation for Saskatchewan if the Federation was in danger. Romanov was frustrated with the lack of a tough stance in Quebec, and wanted more say on the issue from the rest of Canada.
Mike Harris - Much maligned former Premier of Ontario, Harris was a new Premier and was wetting his heels in the political turbulence of the time. Harris felt his fate was closely tied to the issue, and his handling of the situation marked a split between the once friendly relations of Toronto and Ottawa.
Frank McKenna - New Brunswick Premier at the time, his position and Province were particularly precarious, as New Brunswick sports a large French minority, and would be cut off from Canada by an independent Quebec. He wanted to form an Atlantic union province, and was staunchly pro-federation.
Bob Rae - Premier of Ontario before Mike Harris, Rae was also a staunch federalist, and had close ties to the Chrétien government, eventually crossing the floor the Liberals after a stint with the Ontario NDP.
Jean Chrétien - the PM himself, Chrétien was at the front line of the issue, and was watching the sharks circling in on his position. To this day, he plays his cards close to his chest, and will give little detail to his plans post-referendum. Chrétien was always a man of action, famously throttling a journalist at one point, and was always a tough talker. He saw the referendum as the biggest threat to Canadian confederation, and was suitably against it.
Hérbert's book is a wonderful take on the characters of the crisis, and what they would have tried to do if the referendum had succeeded. The 17 characters interviewed offered fascinating perspectives on the issue, and a glimpse into the fragile camps of both the pro-independence and Pro-federalist camps. Canada, at the time, was embroiled in a battle of Quebec nationalists vs. Quebec nationalists, with a Quebecois PM and upper cabinet, and a Quebecois independence movement squaring off. This book was fascinating an remains relevant in terms of its political influence in Canada. Referendum talk may be quiet now, but it could rear its head at any time in the future. Highly recommended book for Canadian's interested in politics and how their country works.
These characters were:
Lucien Bouchard - the spokesperson and potential chief negotiator of the pro-independence side. He was in favour of shooting for a close association with Canada, with a EU style monetary union and close political and economic relationships. He was set up for a post referendum battle with Jacques Parizeau over the chance to declare Unilateral Independence from Canada.
Mario Dumont- Leader of the Action Démocratique du Québec and a reluctant Sovereigntist closely allied to Bouchard. He was also against a unilateral declaration of independence, and wanted a closer association with Canada.
Jacques Parizeau - the man behind the action, and leader of the Bloc Québecois. Was in favour of complete independence for Québec, and was spoiling for a fight with the lukewarm Sovereignty proposed by Bouchard and Dumont.
Lucienne Robillard - a pro-federation Liberal who moved in small circles in the pro-federation side. She was largely sidelined by the Chretien government for political reasons, but had her finger on the pulse of Québec at the time.
Jean Charest - a conservative from Québec, he was firmly against the Yes vote and critical of the Chrétien governments inability to plan contingencies for a post-referendum Canada.
Daniel Johnson - Leader of the Quebec Liberal party and a Montréal heavy, he was firmly against the Yes vote, but also critical of Chrétien's handling of the referendum. He wanted to go down fighting for the Federalist side.
Sheila Copps - She was a Federal MP and sat on the sidelines watching the action go down. Copps later became a controversial political figure in Canada for crossing party lines and was involved in a political scandal or two.
Brian Tobin - A Chrétien staff member and organizer, Tobin also criticized the Federal Liberals, and was instrumental in a planned coup by Ontario Liberals after the referendum, so as to try and take control of the Liberal Party during potential separatist negotiations.
Paul Martin - Liberal rival to Jean Chrétien and soon to be PM of Canada, Martin was in a politically awkward position during the referendum debate, and was critical of the government response to referendum talks.
Raymond Chrétien - Ambassador to the USA and nephew of Jean Chrétien, Raymond was close to the pulse of Chrétien's inner circle, and was aware, but will not speak of, Chrétien's post referendum plans for Canada.
André Oullet - Ambassador to France (the most likely nation to recognize Québecois independence) and friend of France's President at the time, he would have been instrumental in trying to persuade the French government to hold off recognition of a breakaway state.
Preston Manning - Alberta based Reform Party leader and interested in a political change in Ottawa. Manning was the staunchest "Let them go" advocate, and wanted tough negotiations to ensure territorial partitioning of Quebec or financial considerations.
Roy Romanov - Saskatchewan Premier, he was a close ally of Chrétien, but also explored separation for Saskatchewan if the Federation was in danger. Romanov was frustrated with the lack of a tough stance in Quebec, and wanted more say on the issue from the rest of Canada.
Mike Harris - Much maligned former Premier of Ontario, Harris was a new Premier and was wetting his heels in the political turbulence of the time. Harris felt his fate was closely tied to the issue, and his handling of the situation marked a split between the once friendly relations of Toronto and Ottawa.
Frank McKenna - New Brunswick Premier at the time, his position and Province were particularly precarious, as New Brunswick sports a large French minority, and would be cut off from Canada by an independent Quebec. He wanted to form an Atlantic union province, and was staunchly pro-federation.
Bob Rae - Premier of Ontario before Mike Harris, Rae was also a staunch federalist, and had close ties to the Chrétien government, eventually crossing the floor the Liberals after a stint with the Ontario NDP.
Jean Chrétien - the PM himself, Chrétien was at the front line of the issue, and was watching the sharks circling in on his position. To this day, he plays his cards close to his chest, and will give little detail to his plans post-referendum. Chrétien was always a man of action, famously throttling a journalist at one point, and was always a tough talker. He saw the referendum as the biggest threat to Canadian confederation, and was suitably against it.
Hérbert's book is a wonderful take on the characters of the crisis, and what they would have tried to do if the referendum had succeeded. The 17 characters interviewed offered fascinating perspectives on the issue, and a glimpse into the fragile camps of both the pro-independence and Pro-federalist camps. Canada, at the time, was embroiled in a battle of Quebec nationalists vs. Quebec nationalists, with a Quebecois PM and upper cabinet, and a Quebecois independence movement squaring off. This book was fascinating an remains relevant in terms of its political influence in Canada. Referendum talk may be quiet now, but it could rear its head at any time in the future. Highly recommended book for Canadian's interested in politics and how their country works.
January 4, 2016
I have always enjoyed Chantal Hébert’s political analyses during federal elections. Her insights are articulately fleshed out and level-headed and she channels this approach very nicely in her first book. Her book looks back at the ’95 referendum and its political aftermath with an exceptional, well rounded lineup of interviews and sound analysis. If you are politically inclined and want to have a better understanding of the major players and the existing dynamics back then, then this is the read for you. The anniversary marking (20 years) is timely.
December 6, 2014
About the day that could of been but thankfully never was. The major players take on the 95 referendum. Well written, and very insightful. I'm glad it played out the way that it did. As my Canada, the one I truly love, is a united Canada! Vive un Canada uni!
August 10, 2022
This had been on my to-read list for over a decade and I finally got around to it. I'm not sure if I regret reading it or if I'm glad I got around to it. It's certainly an eye-opener. If you're not an idiot, you'll be upset regardless of where you stand on the issue of Quebec sovereignty.
Here are a few things I got out of this:
1. Paul Martin was only worried about the economic fallout of a Yes win. He was also not only corrupt, but a moron.
2. Young Jean Charest was a great public speaker as he is today, but this book is proof that he has always been a sniveling career politician who cares little about Canadians (let alone Quebecers).
3. A certain federalist politician who shall not be named is quoted in this book as saying, “The thing that I found that was not resolved is that in the fight for a country, some of the partners in that country do not even have a right to be heard. I wanted to fight for my country and I was basically told to fuck off and go away. On the one hand we were told that it was a matter for Quebecers to resolve; on the other we were expected to know what to do if the Yes won.” So much of what was going on behind the curtains on the No side was a total shitshow.
4. Many of the politicians from back then on the No side still don't understand the reasons why so many people voted Yes in the referendum; they don't care, either. The only thing they care about is that things are (mostly) back to "normal" for them.
5. Stephen Harper was extremely vocal (and came across as an intellectual) at the time. When this book was published he was Prime Minister of Canada and was the only relevant person who refused to be interviewed.
6. American media ATE UP the referendum. They couldn't get enough coverage.
7. Both sides were riddled with dysfunctional relationships. No one was clear on what anyone else was doing.
8. Preston Manning was a bad faith actor and just a crummy human being. It makes me sad that so many Canadians believed in him, as he basically disregards the existence of an entire society and culture. Ironically he is the one person who is still way too pissed off about the referendum, despite winning.
9. Chrétien, as much as I don't like him, was right about a lot of things.
10. There was no debate in Parliament regarding the referendum. Everything was confused and weird. The only thing people knew was that if the Yes side won, they wouldn't want the negotiators to be Quebecers themselves. Which in my opinion would have only exacerbated the division of cultures in the long-run.
11. I hate Mike Harris. I can't believe he existed as a human.
12. Bob Rae is an alright guy.
13. 99.9999% of the reason for the referendum was because some of the premiers didn't want the words "Quebec is a distinct society" appearing on the Constitution. Something that Chrétien himself said would have been meaningless semantics anyway. So congrats, Harris and co., you got a referendum out of it.
14. A lot of Canadian politicians don't actually believe in democracy at all. Only when it serves their interests. This is probably the most upsetting realization of the book.
15. The thing that most surprised me: Thomas Mulcair came across as a not out-of-touch guy.
Anyway, if you want rage fuel, go ahead and read this. Thanks Chantal Hébert.
Here are a few things I got out of this:
1. Paul Martin was only worried about the economic fallout of a Yes win. He was also not only corrupt, but a moron.
2. Young Jean Charest was a great public speaker as he is today, but this book is proof that he has always been a sniveling career politician who cares little about Canadians (let alone Quebecers).
3. A certain federalist politician who shall not be named is quoted in this book as saying, “The thing that I found that was not resolved is that in the fight for a country, some of the partners in that country do not even have a right to be heard. I wanted to fight for my country and I was basically told to fuck off and go away. On the one hand we were told that it was a matter for Quebecers to resolve; on the other we were expected to know what to do if the Yes won.” So much of what was going on behind the curtains on the No side was a total shitshow.
4. Many of the politicians from back then on the No side still don't understand the reasons why so many people voted Yes in the referendum; they don't care, either. The only thing they care about is that things are (mostly) back to "normal" for them.
5. Stephen Harper was extremely vocal (and came across as an intellectual) at the time. When this book was published he was Prime Minister of Canada and was the only relevant person who refused to be interviewed.
6. American media ATE UP the referendum. They couldn't get enough coverage.
7. Both sides were riddled with dysfunctional relationships. No one was clear on what anyone else was doing.
8. Preston Manning was a bad faith actor and just a crummy human being. It makes me sad that so many Canadians believed in him, as he basically disregards the existence of an entire society and culture. Ironically he is the one person who is still way too pissed off about the referendum, despite winning.
9. Chrétien, as much as I don't like him, was right about a lot of things.
10. There was no debate in Parliament regarding the referendum. Everything was confused and weird. The only thing people knew was that if the Yes side won, they wouldn't want the negotiators to be Quebecers themselves. Which in my opinion would have only exacerbated the division of cultures in the long-run.
11. I hate Mike Harris. I can't believe he existed as a human.
12. Bob Rae is an alright guy.
13. 99.9999% of the reason for the referendum was because some of the premiers didn't want the words "Quebec is a distinct society" appearing on the Constitution. Something that Chrétien himself said would have been meaningless semantics anyway. So congrats, Harris and co., you got a referendum out of it.
14. A lot of Canadian politicians don't actually believe in democracy at all. Only when it serves their interests. This is probably the most upsetting realization of the book.
15. The thing that most surprised me: Thomas Mulcair came across as a not out-of-touch guy.
Anyway, if you want rage fuel, go ahead and read this. Thanks Chantal Hébert.
March 21, 2023
Good simple, easy to follow summary of various politicians' positionally after a Yes vote. The analytical depth didn't blow my mind, but I did learn a lot. A good work of Canadian politics non-fiction.
July 25, 2020
À la prochaine fois.
Read
August 2, 2020Back on my resolution to read more CND history and politics.
I was ten when the election happened but I have no specific memory of the event. Maybe I remember Charest giving a stump speech? But that could have been after, unsurprising that child me didn't pay to much attention to current politics. I think the closest I've come to thinking about it at all was reading Bottle Rocket Hearts by Zoe Whittal.
Hébert and Lapierre, almost two decades later, interview a number of the main players and what they think would have happened in the event of a Yes win. There were a number of terms I'd never heard before (federal mandarin, chattering class) and a realisation of how much I'd let Canadian politics happen in the background of my life. What a tense time! The various interviews highlight many of the tensions and fears around a potential yes vote (nevermind an actual separation) for both side of the campaign.
The "appendix" where each author talks about their interactions with each of the interview subjects is hilarious.
I was ten when the election happened but I have no specific memory of the event. Maybe I remember Charest giving a stump speech? But that could have been after, unsurprising that child me didn't pay to much attention to current politics. I think the closest I've come to thinking about it at all was reading Bottle Rocket Hearts by Zoe Whittal.
Hébert and Lapierre, almost two decades later, interview a number of the main players and what they think would have happened in the event of a Yes win. There were a number of terms I'd never heard before (federal mandarin, chattering class) and a realisation of how much I'd let Canadian politics happen in the background of my life. What a tense time! The various interviews highlight many of the tensions and fears around a potential yes vote (nevermind an actual separation) for both side of the campaign.
The "appendix" where each author talks about their interactions with each of the interview subjects is hilarious.
March 7, 2019
I imagine it’s impossible in 2019 to read this book — published in 2014 — and not draw fascinating, excruciating, even guilty, schadenfreude-like parallels to 2016’s EU referendum in the UK and the ensuing Brexit... hubbub. Maybe it’s not impossible, but I spent the whole book finding myself making parallels anyways. They’re everywhere, and knowing the chaotic outcome of Brexit, it makes me very thankful that the good people of Montreal — er, the money and the ethnic vote — prevailed here in Canada.
A brilliant little volume in conception, and one I suspect that future historians will adore, but not quite as brilliant in its execution as a singular book. By necessity, it covers a lot of events and themes over and over again, but it makes for a tedious read.
A brilliant little volume in conception, and one I suspect that future historians will adore, but not quite as brilliant in its execution as a singular book. By necessity, it covers a lot of events and themes over and over again, but it makes for a tedious read.
February 4, 2015
This is a very important book concerning the 1995 Quebec referendum and Canadian politics. Hebert has interviewed fifteen important players involved in the referendum and chapter by chapter we read each of their reflections on the lead up to the night of the vote. However, this tends to provide some of the same information in a repetitive manner and I feel the book would have been a more entertaining read if it had been written as a narrative. It is still a very insightful document of Canadian history.
July 19, 2023
J'ai lu ce livre parce qu'il figure sur la liste de lecture du programme universitaire que je vais commencer à l'automne, mais aussi parce que j'aime beaucoup Chantal Hébert. Le contenu porte sur une époque de la politique où je ne m'y intéressais point encore — j'avais une vraie aversion à la politique, auparavant — et bien que j'aie reconnu des noms, je n'aurais pas pu les placer sans avoir lu ce livre.
Le texte est (évidemment) très bien écrit. Ce n'est pas une lecture sèche ou ennuyante, mais une lecture assez rapide et divertissante.
Le texte est (évidemment) très bien écrit. Ce n'est pas une lecture sèche ou ennuyante, mais une lecture assez rapide et divertissante.
August 18, 2014
As someone who remembers this time has her first introduction to politics in Canada I loved this book.
The authors take you back to that night with breathless anticipation and answer the question "what if"
Definitely a must read for anyone with an interest in politics - no matter which country they hail from.
*Disclaimer: I received this book from GoodReads First Reads in exchange for my honest review.
The authors take you back to that night with breathless anticipation and answer the question "what if"
Definitely a must read for anyone with an interest in politics - no matter which country they hail from.
*Disclaimer: I received this book from GoodReads First Reads in exchange for my honest review.
June 20, 2015
This book looks back on the 1995 Québec Referendum and examines the thinking of the major political figures. I was surprised by how interesting and readable it was. It was also very well written. It's a must-read for all Canadians, and especially Quebecers. We got very close to breaking up the country without really understanding the consequences. Fascinating. Sometimes chilling. A peak into the minds of politicians...
December 26, 2014
A superb book, giving us the participants' memories of the nail-biting referendum on the separation of Quebec from Canada. By Canada's best (no holds barred!) political journalist, Chantal Hébert. Stayed up late to finish it in one reading.
February 14, 2015
I love reading about Canadian history.
November 14, 2017
An interesting set of interviews with major players in the 1995 Quebec sovereignty referendum, which almost went to the "Yes" side. Politicians on the Yes and No sides include those from Quebec, Ottawa, and provincial premiers from the rest of Canada (ROC). The questions were on what would they would have done if Yes won. The divisions on the Yes side (Bouchard and Dumont vs. Parizeau) and the No side (many and various) are quite revealing. The only holdout from interviews was Steve Harper, which is unfortunate.
I have a personal memory of that time. I was in Montreal in August, a couple of months before the vote, and asked a Montrealer for directions. He was a member of the local intelligentsia, and smugly began to rave on about how the Yes side would win, and how great it was going to be. I was with an American girlfriend who had no concept of this forever battle, and didn't want to get into a urinary olympics with this guy in the street in front of her, so I said "Good luck", and withheld my real feelings. The matter had been on my mind, though, as it was large in the news. I was one of those who had developed "Quebec fatigue" from the first referendum, through Meech and Charlottetown and the run-up to this vote, and wanted to say, "Fine, go and good riddance, if it will shut you all up". And then to add that it would isolate Quebec in a completely English-dominated North America, the ROC public would demand that bilingualism would die a quick death in the ROC (so no more French on corn flakes or signs), without which market forces in the US and ROC wouldn't bother with the expense. The language and culture of French minorities outside of Quebec would be relegated to the same status as, say, those of eastern European immigrants, good for an annual festival day. Much of the Quebec territory was in first nations' hands, under treaties with the Crown, and Parizeau did not at all have their support. And, the ROC population would demand that Quebec be negotiated with very toughly. A very ugly divorce for sure. But I didn't say any of that, just smiled and wished him "Good luck".
I have a personal memory of that time. I was in Montreal in August, a couple of months before the vote, and asked a Montrealer for directions. He was a member of the local intelligentsia, and smugly began to rave on about how the Yes side would win, and how great it was going to be. I was with an American girlfriend who had no concept of this forever battle, and didn't want to get into a urinary olympics with this guy in the street in front of her, so I said "Good luck", and withheld my real feelings. The matter had been on my mind, though, as it was large in the news. I was one of those who had developed "Quebec fatigue" from the first referendum, through Meech and Charlottetown and the run-up to this vote, and wanted to say, "Fine, go and good riddance, if it will shut you all up". And then to add that it would isolate Quebec in a completely English-dominated North America, the ROC public would demand that bilingualism would die a quick death in the ROC (so no more French on corn flakes or signs), without which market forces in the US and ROC wouldn't bother with the expense. The language and culture of French minorities outside of Quebec would be relegated to the same status as, say, those of eastern European immigrants, good for an annual festival day. Much of the Quebec territory was in first nations' hands, under treaties with the Crown, and Parizeau did not at all have their support. And, the ROC population would demand that Quebec be negotiated with very toughly. A very ugly divorce for sure. But I didn't say any of that, just smiled and wished him "Good luck".
November 23, 2021
This book is made with the expectation that you are somewhat familiar with the referendum campaign and the run up to it. For that I'd recommend the 2005 documentary "Breaking Point" or the book of the same name.
"The Morning After" is a book which interviews many of the players of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum and asks them about what their plans were in the event of a Yes result. It also shows just how close the federation came to splitting us. The result is very interesting, although a little disappointing.
Of course, many of these men were politicians, who have (or will have) legacies to consider, and so they aren't very forthcoming with how they would deal with the breakup of Canada. There's also the fact that many high level officials did not want to plan for this kind of scenario in the first place, so all the details of their plans are missing. The biggest exception to this is Jacques Parizeau, who had a meticulous plan to ensure Quebec's independence.
To make a long story short. This book is a little disappointing, I was hoping for some juicer details and information about how bad things could have become. Details are a little sparse and everything is spoken about in vague terms. What is there is fascinating but this book wouldn't be worth it if it weren't so short. If you're interested in this topic and know a bit about the referendum, then it is probably worth your time, otherwise don't bother.
"The Morning After" is a book which interviews many of the players of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum and asks them about what their plans were in the event of a Yes result. It also shows just how close the federation came to splitting us. The result is very interesting, although a little disappointing.
Of course, many of these men were politicians, who have (or will have) legacies to consider, and so they aren't very forthcoming with how they would deal with the breakup of Canada. There's also the fact that many high level officials did not want to plan for this kind of scenario in the first place, so all the details of their plans are missing. The biggest exception to this is Jacques Parizeau, who had a meticulous plan to ensure Quebec's independence.
To make a long story short. This book is a little disappointing, I was hoping for some juicer details and information about how bad things could have become. Details are a little sparse and everything is spoken about in vague terms. What is there is fascinating but this book wouldn't be worth it if it weren't so short. If you're interested in this topic and know a bit about the referendum, then it is probably worth your time, otherwise don't bother.
April 18, 2022
As a young Quebec history teacher I was looking forward to understanding more about the referendum. My father is from Alberta and my mom from Quebec. The issue of sovereignty has always been some thing I think about and have been asked about. It was really cool to understand more about the referendum through this book.
This book is separated into the yes camp and then the no camp. It interviews them and talks about their thought processes and what would happen if the yes side prevailed.
I learned that it wasn’t simply a win for the US side would immediately separate Quebec from Canada. It was a little more complicated than that. What is the question enough to make a mandate to separate from Canada? Is 51% enough to separate Quebec from Canada? And with a yes win mean Jean Chrétien removal from Prime Minister’s office? No matter the uncertainties after the possibility yes vote, it was very interesting to see the different possible scenarios if the Yes side had won the referendum.
Overall it was an entertaining book about Canadian and Quebec history and the biggest what if in Canadian history.
This book is separated into the yes camp and then the no camp. It interviews them and talks about their thought processes and what would happen if the yes side prevailed.
I learned that it wasn’t simply a win for the US side would immediately separate Quebec from Canada. It was a little more complicated than that. What is the question enough to make a mandate to separate from Canada? Is 51% enough to separate Quebec from Canada? And with a yes win mean Jean Chrétien removal from Prime Minister’s office? No matter the uncertainties after the possibility yes vote, it was very interesting to see the different possible scenarios if the Yes side had won the referendum.
Overall it was an entertaining book about Canadian and Quebec history and the biggest what if in Canadian history.
June 24, 2017
My goodness, this book. Chantal Hébert and Jean Lapierre set out to interview all of the major figures in the 1995 referendum, 20 years later, and ask: had Yes won, what would the next day have been like?
I really did not expect the answer that built as the book went on, which is: absolute chaos. Basically no two people on either side could agree, and even accounting for the passage of time and people's changing thoughts (which Hébert does a great job of reminding the reader to consider), it's clear that neither the Yes nor No sides had a coherent plan with what to do the morning after.
It's an incredibly specific topic, but if it's of interest to you, this book is wonderful -- very well-written (as Hébert always is) and incredibly thorough--everyone, from Perizeau to Harris to Chrétien himself gave an interview. It feels like a political thriller, except one that was less than 55,000 votes away from reality.
I really did not expect the answer that built as the book went on, which is: absolute chaos. Basically no two people on either side could agree, and even accounting for the passage of time and people's changing thoughts (which Hébert does a great job of reminding the reader to consider), it's clear that neither the Yes nor No sides had a coherent plan with what to do the morning after.
It's an incredibly specific topic, but if it's of interest to you, this book is wonderful -- very well-written (as Hébert always is) and incredibly thorough--everyone, from Perizeau to Harris to Chrétien himself gave an interview. It feels like a political thriller, except one that was less than 55,000 votes away from reality.
May 18, 2017
If you like Canadian politics and or were either not born yet or were far too young to understand what happened in Canada during 1995, then this book is a must read. Chantel is not only a great reporter and astute observer, but a national treasure and combined with Jean Lapierre's the book is fascinating. It takes you face to face with the biggest players from the 1995 Québec referendum: Lucien Bouchard, Jacque Parizeau, Jean Chrétien, Mario Dupont, Jean Charest, Brian Tobin, Roy Romanow and many others are directly interviewed and offer a window into the turmoil that surrounded the question that nearly tore apart the country. Do yourself a favour and read this book. It's easy to get into and it is an enjoyable read, and you'll discover what was going on behind the scenes.
March 16, 2022
What the book lacks in the quality of the writing or interesting analysis, it more than compensates in the quality of its sources. The book is a series of profiles on 17 figures that played a role during the 1995 referendum. All of them were interviewed by Hebert.
I would only recommend this for people that already have a good background on the 1995 referendum and want to have a better idea of what was going on in everyone's head at the time. There is also a lot of fascinating commentary on what would have happened if the Yes had won the referendum.
I would only recommend this for people that already have a good background on the 1995 referendum and want to have a better idea of what was going on in everyone's head at the time. There is also a lot of fascinating commentary on what would have happened if the Yes had won the referendum.
February 5, 2023
Very well written! I have watched CBC's At Issue political panel featuring Chantal Hèbert. She often saw what no one else observed. This book is a riveting flashback for those who lived through the drama of the 1995 Quebec referendum. Although not mentioned by name, the anti poverty demonstrator who was choked (news at that time referred to it as the "Shawinigan Handshake") by P.M. Chretien was my friend Bill Clennett. I had forgotten all about that incident. Look it up - the picture and articles are on the internet.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 25, 2024
Shows the separatist party as being fractured by Jacques Parizeau who wanted a Unilateral Declaration of Independence if there was a yes victory. This was seen as more fringe and many were voting along the lines of Lucien Bouchard who wanted negotiations, another referendum and military and economic union with Canada.
Absolutely fascinating to read how this political struggle played out and how it came so close to destroying Canada.
Absolutely fascinating to read how this political struggle played out and how it came so close to destroying Canada.
December 1, 2025
It is indeed for political junkies - junkies who are filled with glee just reading the names of Ministers of old.
There is a sort of awe that comes with reading about the Movers of History, of course, but unfortunately the question of “what would have happened had Yes won” stopped being interesting after about Chapter 3, once the sovereigntists are interviewed and basically get most of the way there in terms of providing the answer.
There is a sort of awe that comes with reading about the Movers of History, of course, but unfortunately the question of “what would have happened had Yes won” stopped being interesting after about Chapter 3, once the sovereigntists are interviewed and basically get most of the way there in terms of providing the answer.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews