Jeffrey T. Kuhner complains in the Washington Times that while Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a model for U.S. conservatives, he is also guilty of coddling “xenophobic, intolerant and irrational” radicals in his country — otherwise known as the Quebec separatists.
Since 1990, the Bloc Quebecois has held the majority of Quebec’s seats in Canada’s House of Commons. The Bloc promotes “Quebec sovereignty,” which according to Mr. Kuhner is simply unacceptable:
Mr. Harper’s one major mistake has been to woo Quebec’s nationalists. He expended precious political capital in a futile effort. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Quebec separatism is not dead; it is only hibernating, waiting for the opportune moment to rear its ugly head. The nationalist movement is based on mystical romanticism and ethnic tribalism. At its very heart, it is xenophobic, intolerant and irrational. Its goal is not to accommodate Quebec within the larger federal state; rather, it is to destroy Canada. Appeasement will not – cannot – work.
Mr. Harper should end his attempts at an alliance with Quebec nationalists. Instead, he should provide a viable conservative alternative. This means slashing taxes, reducing public spending, reforming the dysfunctional health-care system, forging an independent foreign policy and devolving more power to the provinces. He must put the Canadian national interest above all other regional or ethnic concerns.
There’s no doubt that the Bloc is a party devoted to socialist principles. But that’s equally true of Canada’s other major parties — the Liberals, New Democrats and Greens. But Mr. Kuhner blames the Bloc for depriving Mr. Harper of his God-given right to a Conservative Party majority — notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives simply failed enough Quebec voters to switch their allegiance from the Bloc.
But the question I have is more basic: Why is “Quebec nationalism” presumptively bad and “Canadian nationalism” presumptively good? Ilya Somin, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, argues that the best thing for Mr. Harper’s Conservatives would actually be to let Quebec go:
Canadian Conservatives prefer relatively pro-market policies. Quebec is the most statist province in the country and its political influence drives Canada’s economic policies well to the left of where they would be in a separate anglophone Canada. Canadian Conservatives hate paying for federal government subsidies to Quebec (Quebec is a major net recipient of transfer payments from the federal government). Obviously, there would be no such subsidies if Quebec were an independent nation. In the long run, secession might even lead to relatively more market-oriented policies within Quebec itself, since an independent Quebec government could no longer rely on Ottawa transfer payments to finance its statism. Finally, Quebec secession would be a major political boon for the Conservative Party. In the recent election, the Conservatives won 133 of 233 parliament seats in the anglophone provinces, but only 10 of 75 in Quebec. The Tories won’t necessarily do this well in the “rest of Canada” every time; but their odds of getting a majority would be greatly improved if Quebec were to secede.
But what about Mr. Kuhner’s charge that Quebec sovereignty would “destroy Canada”? Well, so what? Canadian sovereignty — like that of all nation-states — is built on violence. The British conquered New France and renamed it Quebec in 1763. And this makes Canadian sovereignty permanent and irrevocable?. Heck, “Canada” itself did not exist as a confederation until 1867.
More to the point: If Quebec politics is dominated by “xenophobic, intolerant and irrational” secessionists, why should the rest of Canada want anything to do with them? Why force such people to remain in your union and, presumably, drag you down to their level? (Of course, the same could have been asked of Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans: Why were they so desperate to keep rent-seeking slaveholders as their countrymen?)
The answer, of course, is that Mr. Kuhner cares less about the “Canadian national interest” — which is, as Rand would say, a floating abstraction — then he does about squelching the idea that secession is a legitimate political alternative for groups dissatisfied with centralized rule. Because if Canada were to allow such a thing, then it might also cease to be a taboo subject south of the border.
{ 18 comments }
I live in Quebec, more specifically Montreal, and I can vouch for the socialist nature of politics here. I just wanted to say that I agree completely with the message in this article and to wish that more Canadians would consider this line of reasoning. Cheers.
Actually the British conquered New France and called it Canada. It was known as Canada until the Confederation of Canada was established, defining a territory named after the city of Quebec as the Province of Quebec.
The idea of a Quebec nation makes no sense for that reason. Quebec was made from Canada.
It is a very strange thing how intense people can get over something that should really be uncontroversial: the right of a people to establish their own independent government structures. Think of the hysteria surrounding the idea of Alaskan independence and that place was only dragged into the union in 1959!
Actually, Imperialist, the Province of Quebec first existed under that name from 1763 to 1791, when it was divided and renamed Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
And it’s strange to argue “Quebec was made from Canada,” since “Canada” did not predate the original settlements in the region, including Quebec.
“The idea of a Quebec nation makes no sense for that reason. Quebec was made from Canada.”
Who gives a shit? Times change.
“Vive le Quebec libre!”: I love that De Gaulle quote.
I find canadian people very pleasant but obviously my sympathy goes to independance – not even for economical reasons – it would be better for other reasons too to allow the peaceful independance of Quebec as it would garantee the prevalence of some very old dying tradition. You are protecting endangered animal species? Don’t crush old french emigrant culture please! Certainly one problem is the French canadians living in rare french towns around Quebec and feeding on it that would be cut off culturally now, and would therefore vote against such proposal though cutting their own flesh.
I live in Quebec and I must say that it is the most statist province in all of North America. We control the offer and the prices of milk, groceries, produce. Our medicine and pharmacy is socialized. Daycare is socialized. A person making $30,000 a year pays 40% in taxes and income taxes and is left with an $18,000 a year net income.
But as a Quebec, I don’t want my province to become a country, it would turn into a Belarus or a North Korea. I want to remain a Canadian citizen so I can leave Quebec at will and go to Alberta if statism in Quebec gets any worse.
If Quebec would become a country, I would be stuck in Quebec and would have to beg for political asylum in Canada and that is difficult.
Now I know what East Germans felt like when they heard rumors of their part of the country would become soviet property.
The great wall of Berlin was meant to keep people IN.
Well, the sovereignty and nationalism of Quebec is meant to keep taxpayers INSIDE the province.
I absolutely DON’T want Quebec to become a country.
Jeffrey,
Individuals should have the right to be independent FROM government, period.
“the right of a people to establish their own independent government structures.”
Oliva, the part of New France that became the Province of Quebec was called Canada. The French nation called themselves “Canadiens.” The whole country is their country.
An independent Québéc would be good for les Québécois too, because their government will have to introduce free market measures in order for their country to survive.
This argument reminds me of Robert Frost’s classic poem “Mending Wall” where the narrator disconsolately accepts his neighbor’s traditional wisdom:
“Good fences make good neighbors.”
Would secession in America mean we would become less American? Maybe secession would foster a stronger, more genuine Americaness…
I think the deal in Quebec is that they create these socialist programs and then blame the rest of Canada for their failures. Only problem is that while the socialists love to stir up hatred against the “other guy”, they will never likely have the guts to go thru with separation because they leech so much off the rest of Canada.
In all truth, the rest of Canada should be openly supporting the separatists (who knows? maybe that’s what’s happening). Breaking off would do the rest of Canada a favor and force Quebec to face their own problems.
What separatists in Quebec have done is gotten the federal government to pass the ‘Clarity Act’ which specifies the exact procedure that must be followed for a province to peacefully secede.
This provides an amazing opportunity for libertarians. First, we gain power in a single province (a little one like PEI with a population of only 140,000 is perfect). Then, we have a referendum with a ‘clear’ question (meeting the requirements of the Clarity Act), negotiate secession (statists, get out now – that is our opening and final non-negotiable position) and run our new society according to the principles first articulated by Frederic Bastiat. When our economy explodes and there’s no blood running in the streets; the fear-mongers arguments will be exposed for the irrational, evil lies that they are. Then, libertarian philosophy can expand throughout the world. Except of course in the US, where secessionists will simply be shot, eh.
Did anyone else notice the contradictions in the argument? How can you both strengthen the provinces AND put the Canadian national interest first?
Isn’t it one or the other?
A good article. I would like to add however that the Conservative Party are not particularly conservative policy in either rhetoric or practice and the Bloc Quebecois party are not all that strong on independence, except in rhetoric. Both of these parties are run from the top down by the usual gaggle of political opportunists who make policy decisions based on polls, focus groups and on the express directions they are given by lobbyists representing powerful economic interest groups.
As a non-Quebecois Canadian I wish that they would separate – this would be better for Quebecois because they would be unable to depend on federal transfer payments to balance their budget any longer and they would probably end up economically stronger than they are today. It would be better for the rest of us because it would remove a major fiscal drain and source of political corruption from Canada.
But that is precisely why Quebec will not separate – it is better for the opportunists belonging to the so-called independence parties to use threats to milk the Rest of Canada for cash, and it is better for the opportunists running political parties in the Rest of Canada to have a constantly nagging sore spot like Quebec, in order to use the threat of Quebec separation as a lever to seize and control more wealth within Canada.
This last post (Oooh Henry) especially is a good description of the archetypal situation as it is very similar in Belgium. Funds are transferred every year from the rich conservative Flemish country to the poor socialist Wallonia… except in bilingual Belgium, the Flemish want to secede, while Wallonia… wants to get integrated to France (Pres. Sarkozy already approved) !!! Nothing could be better than the Wallonian independence though because socialism would be finally unsustainable then (as some people find it is already now with so many examples of repeated corruption). The trouble is the cumulated national debt (nearly 100% of GNP), that welds the country parts together like stinking glue!
Conservatives in Britain make a similar mistake by continuing to support Scotland and Wales staying in the Union, despite the fact that the conservatives have negligible numbers of MPs in Scotland and Wales and the citizens of those nations are generally more leftist than citizens of England.
“The idea of a Quebec nation makes no sense for that reason. Quebec was made from Canada.”
This mentality is of course tribal. The notion that a chunk of land named Quebec was “made” from another chunk of land called Canada is silly. Land is not made from land. Land just exists. People can give chunks of land any name they please. How does it follow that because Quebec is currently under Canadian jurisdiction that it is somehow not allowed to disassociate itself. You can get in, but you can’t get out. They call that jail last time I checked.
Comments on this entry are closed.