Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
When I talk to foreigners about Canadian politics, I notice there’s often some surprise when I mention how Quebec is the most left-wing part of our country.
“Quebec?” they say, “but I thought they were so nationalistic?” To many, the notion of strong, European-derived nationalist movements still conjures images of right-wing ethnocentrism and reactionary traditionalism. By definition, what could be more conservative than trying to conserve the sovereignty of the homeland in the face of corrupting foreign influences?
And there was a time when Quebec nationalism was, in fact, very conservative. From Confederation to the early decades of the 20th Century, when French-Canadians were still likely to define their identify through their Ultramontanist brand of Catholicism, nationalist scholars and rabble-rousers were usually those who believed their province to be far more godly and moral than the heathen Protestant bloc to which it was attached. For much of Canadian history, Quebec was thus the place where progressive reform movements, such as female suffrage and secular education, went to die after sweeping the rest of the country, and a place whose voters were notoriously suspicious of all but the most ostentatiously religious and chauvinistic politicians. As a popular French expression of the time went, le ciel est bleu, l’enfer est rouge, or, “heaven is blue (Conservative) and hell is red (Liberal).”
After World War II, Quebec ditched its religiosity with great speed, but not its distrust of the Canadian state. As Quebecers became more secular and socialist in outlook, the source of Canada-scepticism merely shifted. Rather than resent the Anglo community beyond their borders for its decadence and sin, the new narrative began to argue that capitalism was Canada’s true corruptor, and a new oppressive, taunting danger for the province to avoid.
The radical Quebec separatist terrorists of the 1960s were all Marxist in outlook, angry men who saw common cause in the Soviet-backed nationalist libertarian movements of Algeria and Angola, whose tactics, style, and rhetoric they deliberately emulated. In true leftist fashion, they viewed Quebec’s prior embrace of the Church as merely a prolonged period of drowsiness under the opiate of the masses, and one which had been deliberately encouraged by Anglo-Canadian imperialism in order to keep their French subjects poor and stupid. A truly free Quebec would be independent of all reactionary systems of oppression, both economic and cultural. Vive la revolution!
We’ve obviously come a long way from the 1960s, and even the most ardent Quebec separatist is nowhere near as uncompromising or militant as they were in the era of the October Crisis. Yet the idea that separatism should be a primarily left-wing movement remains strong. The country’s two establishment separatist parties, the federal Bloc Quebecois and its provincial ally, the Parti Quebecois, are both proudly social democratic in ideology, and usually campaign (and in the PQ’s case, rule) in a manner to the considerable left of the Canadian mainstream. I’d argue that the legacy of all this hasn’t been that great: since Quebec politicians rarely meet a social welfare project they don’t like, but still feel someone else should pay for, the province has the dubious distinction of being both the country’s most indebted and most subsidized province, with an economy buckling under the weight of endless programs seeking to give its citizenry the cheapest and most expansive state-run schools, electricity, daycare, and medicine in North America.
Regardless, it’s in this context that the NDP has long remained so frustrated with Quebec. As the most far-left of the country’s three major parties, they felt themselves to be the obvious no-brainer choice for French-Canadians, though the French-Canadians themselves seemed to disagree, supporting every party but the NDP in successive election cycles.
Until now, that is. The New Democrats’ unprecedented sweep of Quebec in this month’s federal election caught everyone by surprise,including the NDP itself. If anything, the victory has raised all sorts of unease over as to whether the sweep was too much of a good thing, considering the historically nationalist predilections of Quebec voters. Since there’s no real evidence to suggest separatism has disappeared from the political conversation in the province — the PQ is still the odds-on favourite to win the next provincial election — the unavoidable conclusion is that the NDP victory was hoisted on the shoulders of many sovereignist voters, who, for once, were looking for a non-Bloc, social-democratic alternative. Non-Bloc, but, critically, not necessarily non-separatist.
Since Jack Layton wants to become prime minister someday, he’s thus in a bit of a bind. Either appease his new, soft-on-separatism base with token gestures and friendly talk, or take the hardline stance in the opposite direction, as he’s always claimed to favor.
This week we received the first glimpse that Layton has the former approach in mind when he stated that he believed a “50% plus one” majority vote in a separation referendum would be a sufficient pretext for Quebec to leave Canada. This is an attitude that has traditionally been long opposed by all “federalist” parties in the country, who have argued that, at best, only a much more clear majority vote will suffice. This was the logic behind the so-called 2000 “Clarity Act” of the Jean Chretien administration, which stated that only once a “clear majority” of Quebecers vote on a “clear question” of separation will the federal government even begin the discussion as to what happens next.
By taking a contrary stance on this once proudly settled issue facing the Canadian political establishment, Layton has chosen to position himself in an ideological space unclaimed since the departure of Lucien Bouchard, a fellow cane-wielding opposition leader who, from 1993 to 1996, served as the first openly separatist politician to hold that office.
Which is not to say it’s necessarily a political blunder on Layton’s part. Many far-left, NDP-friendly groups in English Canada already tend to support Quebec’s “right to decide” with similarly low standards, so the chances of the old base being scandalized at this open courtship of the new base seems low.
But there’s a reason the NDP has never formed government in Canada, and none of the explanations include the phrases “not left-wing enough” or “too hard on separatism.” Jack has doubtlessly formed himself a nice little coalition, but whether it’s one that has a chance to rule Canada I will leave up to the reader.
May 30th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I don't see Quebec separating under today's conditions, where would Quebec get the handouts from? Unless they're prepared to axe their social programs and raise taxes (thus chasing away business.)
I could see it separating if something were to cause, or force the redrawing of national borders in North America along cultural, language and religious lines, or some kind of "EU-Like" North American States, but that's even less likely than jesusland.
May 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Left wing nationalism seems much more common in regions of larger entities. The biggest example of this would be the SNP and Scotland in general.
The country is dominated by the left wing on a national level, with the Tories having but a single MP. In addition, the SNP, a left wing nationalist party have the first ever majority government in the Scottish parliament.
Indeed the nationalist parties in all the regions of the UK, England aside, are left wing. Plaid Cymry and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
So to be honest, Quebec being left wing is no surprise.
May 30th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Quebec has natural resources out the wazoo, and a separate Quebec would probably make moves to nationalize these industries, or at the very least buy minority shares in the companies that win development rights.
Newfoundland and Labrador has taken this approach towards offshore oil drilling, and it has worked very well in fattening our public purse (at the expense of tightly tying government revenue to commodity prices).
May 30th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Honestly, people are getting themselves tied up in knots on hypotheticals as far as the NDP's stance on Quebec is concerned.
1) While the PQ are the favourite to win the next Quebec provincial, we're not there yet and a lot can happen between now and then.
2) Even if (when?) the Parti Quebecois do form the next government of Quebec, they still have five whole years in which to hold a referendum.
Conceivably, therefore, the next sovereignty referendum might not even happen until after the next federal election, and who knows what the NDP will be up to then.
At the end of the day, none of this matters at this point, so people should focus on the NDP Official Opposition as a whole, instead of dwelling on one minute point of their plan.
In conclusion, I'm Anglo-Canadian, originally from Quebec, and I'm completely fine with Jack's stance. Quebec SHOULD be given the right to decide what to do with itself if 50%+1 of voters decide to support sovereignty.
May 30th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
In opposition, the goal is to show that you can be a government in waiting. This means unexpected questions and events, with accompanying media focus.
To think that 23% of the population should be given an instant right to destabilize and dismantle an entire country upon getting 50% +1 in a referendum is nonsense, even the EU required Montenegro (which had a clause allowing seperation from Serbia) to get 55%.. Layton knows this, he's playing the same game Joe Clark and others played to suck up in good times and try and make the government seem obtuse.
The essence of letting the SCC decide the grounds of Canadian federalism was nonsense, but they came to the correct conclusion (and at least there's a statute). Sovereignty is a constitutional amendment, full stop. Those need the approval of a set amount of provinces and the Feds
.I would, and I believe a lot of other Canadians would, accept a separatist/ sovereignty association project if it achieved a broad consensus of Quebec society. Aside from a few weeks after Meech Lake, it never has. To crumple the country based on Bouchard-mania, as well as a bullshit question, getting a few apathetic persons into the ballot box would mean Canada shouldn't exist at all.
May 30th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
There is a common sentiment in Anglo-Canada that the federal constitution has too high a requirement for amendment and, thus, needed political reforms are prevented. A federal amendment that eased the amendment requirements and explicitly declared them the necessary standard for Quebec independence might find joint Anglo/Franco support. It could be sold as a step toward sovereignty in Quebec and a step toward political self-control to Anglos, and quite honestly in either case.
May 30th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
1) Become a Republic. or
2) Quasi once and for all Quebec nationalism. It's not fair to other provinces that Quebec has autonomy and the rest don't. Quebec is being reward for rebelling against/being unpatriotic to Canada.
May 31st, 2011 at 7:00 am
With the 50+1 position Layton is simply reaffirming what has been offical NDP policy for EIGHT years (since the 2003 Sherbrooke Declaration).
There was alot of federalist bruahaha when Harper did his Quebecois as a Nation declaration but that is now accepted as a fait accompli in the most Anglo papers (some unthinkable during those Liberal Party days in the 90s). It is easy to see 50+1 being accepted by English Canada esp. since it is an actual number whereas the Clarity Act states a "clear majority" which could mean alot of things.
I am always fascinated that Westerns with such a viscral haterd of bilingualism, the French language, and equalization payments to Quebec ( even if they are from a province that also recieves payments); can have such an aversion to seperatism and any expression of Quebec's nationalism. You would think if one hated Quebec so much that they would be happy to see it leave.
As long as Quebec remains in Canada, Westerners will complain and whine whenever a Quebec policitian opens their mouth.
May 31st, 2011 at 8:49 am
Nobody in quebec wants seperation except a bunch of nationalistic douchebags who want to take away the rights of Anglo-Canadians! I consider myself a canadian, not a Quebecer and I'm not letting a bunch of nationalistic farts in power take away my country from me because they think they can run their own club based on their retarded as fuck arrogance about their superior language!
Jack Layton wants my vote? He tells the seperatists to fuck off! Simple as that!
May 31st, 2011 at 12:51 pm
"the Soviet-backed nationalist libertarian movements of Algeria and Anglo"
Unintentionally amusing! ("Angola" is probably meant).
May 31st, 2011 at 1:20 pm
The sad fact is that Seperatism isn't limited to Quebec, they just generally are the most vocal.
My own personal belief falls along the line that a successful Quebec seperation would be the first deathknell for Canada, as it would show a weakening of the Canadian Federal Government, create a massive division between the maritime territories and the rest of Canada by what should be (but what some would argue isn't) a sovereign state, and a precident that (at least some of) the other provinces would probably follow as each province has it's own perceived slights against itself from the Canadian Federal Government.
May 31st, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Westerners complain when any non-Westerner opens their mouth, so Quebec isn't alone…
May 31st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Devan brings up a good point. Personally, I'd support Quebec leaving because I'd like to see what happens when a welfare state loses its funding. Maybe it'll shock people here in the states into realizing that "free healthcare" isn't free– someone pays for it.
However, Devan pointed out that it could cause many other provinces to leave, and this would be a very, very bad thing for America. I work for an MNC that's based in Toronto but is spread across most of Canada– I can only imagine what business would be like if all of a sudden I needed to learn about laws in 20 countries instead of 2, just to stay abreast of my peers.
Could you imagine what would happen to trade in North America? I mean, the EU was created for a reason, right?
May 31st, 2011 at 5:57 pm
If something like that were to happen, what are the odds on some provinces attempting to join the states as opposed to becoming independent? I don't think that Ontario would want to but what about the western provinces? Or would joining the US be completely off the table?
May 31st, 2011 at 6:16 pm
You know, a part of me is starting to wonder whether the rest of Canada shouldn't invite Quebec not to let the door hit them on the way out. Between Senate reform and a lot of other things, excising Quebec (or at least the vast majority of the province) from Canada would relieve a lot of stress in the system.
I don't see the rest of Canada blowing apart. The /most/ I could see is the Maritimes doing their own "thing"…but I think the equalization payment gravy train is enough to nip that in the bud, and I don't see an independent Quebec actually wanting out of a trade union with Canada, anyway (the shock would be too bad for the system, I suspect). Rather, I see devolution at its extreme, with perhaps a pegged currency that is nominally independent of the CAD and more-or-less open borders with the rest of Canada (think pre-9/11 US/Canada) and a customs union.
If anything, given how much equalization money goes to Quebec (something like 55-60% of the net goes to Quebec), if another referendum starts up…I do have to wonder what the reaction would be if Ralph Klein (or someone else from Alberta) started up a "Please leave, we're sick of subsidizing you" campaign when the referendum came up and/or started a "kick them out" drive. Knowing how much "the West" and Quebec seem to love eachother (i.e. not at all), though I find this to be unlikely, it does /not/ seem so far beyond the realm of possibility.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Well, in fact there are quite a few of us who would be happy to see Quebec go. I've often said the Bloq should try to run MPs in Western Canada. Might not win any seats, but I guarantee you they'd get some votes and headlines.
June 1st, 2011 at 12:16 pm
And I don't see how either of those movements were "libertarian" at all.
June 2nd, 2011 at 8:38 am
John Buchanan, the old premier of Nova Scotia, once suggested that he thought his province should consider joining the States if Quebec left, so it's not an unheard of preposition. Canadians are very righteous about not wanting to be Americans at present (though not from universally so), but I think things could change if Quebec left, and the country was plunged into turmoil as a result. Though I also don't think the country WOULD be plunged into turmoil. People speak as if the only way for Maritimers to get into non-Quebec Canada is via driving, but that's obviously not true, and even then, it's not like Quebec is going to erect some sort of Berlin Wall around itself.
June 3rd, 2011 at 6:36 am
Hmm, and Canadian Medicare is mostly provincial-run, right? So my usual snark of “but there’s no universal health care in America” doesn’t actually apply; provinces as new states could just keep their systems. Modulo sick Americans moving there for the health care… Wonder if there’d be other shocks, like labor regulations.
June 5th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Amazing! Your article has a bunch comments. How did you get all of these bloggers to see your site I’m jealous! I’m still learning all about posting information on the web. I’m going to view pages on your website to get a better understanding how to achieve success. Thanks for the assistance!
June 25th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Have you ever considered creating an e-book or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog based on the same theme if you’re interested.
June 27th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I was just looking for this information for quite a while. Almost one and a half hours of continuous surfing, luckily I saw that in your blog. I dont understand why Bing never display this sort of good websites in the first page. Usually the top web sites are full of junks. Perhaps it is time to use other search engine.
August 8th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Your article has a bunch comments. How did you get all of these bloggers to see your site I'm jealous! I'm still learning all about posting information on the web. I'm going to view pages on your website to get a better understanding how to achieve success. Thanks for the assistance!
October 5th, 2011 at 11:40 am
It is in point of fact a nice and useful piece of info. I'm glad that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
October 8th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Do you know the rs gold sell game.It is a good game. This is no blood or extreme violence, but there are some issues. One is that there are sexual issues in gameplay. Partial nudity posses a problem in the game. I'm a Runescape player myself and I have seen or read about details in the fast runescape gold game.Love runescape and get runescape money. The review is not up to date by saying that bad language is bleeped. Now you can have filter on or off. On violent content topic the review says Player vs. Monster. There is also runescape accounts.