The 2011 census results are in, and it’s no surprise that Quebec’s share of the national population has declined over the past fifty years from 28.8% to 23.6%. What is more remarkable is that the province’s GDP per capita rate is now merely eighty-five percent of the national average. In 1995, it was nearly double the national rate. Quebec is clearly in relative decline and many are quick to pounce on the province for allegedly taking more in federal funds than it contributes to the nation.
Decline, however, does not equal irrelevance. For instance, the Charest government’s Plan Nord is expected to deliver further results for the province on the natural resources front — particularly in hydroelectricity. At a time when Iran’s bellicose tone puts Western energy interests in the Middle East at risk, Quebec’s hydro power will be just as valuable as Ontario’s renewables or Alberta’s oil when it comes to Canadian energy security.
The question at hand should not be whether Quebec remains relevant to the federation, but rather what the consequences are of a shifting Canadian economy for the future of the country.
The answer is relatively clear: as the gap between them widens, a battle over equalization rates pitting west against east will emerge. In particular, western provinces will argue two points: first, that equalization represents a bailout for bad policy on the part of eastern provinces and hence provides them with little incentive to engage in a much-needed economic introspection; and second, that equalization is fundamentally flawed in that it evaluates a province’s taxation power but not the cost of the services it needs to provide.
Put simply: from the western point of view, Quebec is getting too much money.
Any debate needs a good moderator, and that’s where the federal government comes in. Unfortunately, Ottawa may not be up to the task.
Stephen Harper demonstrated last spring that he’s capable of winning a majority government without Quebec. No majority government has been formed with such little support from la belle province since the conscription crisis of 1917. The result has been legislation antithetical to the values and interests of Quebeckers, such as Harper’s “tough on crime” agenda and the abolition of both the long gun registry and its records.
If history is any indication, crises in the confidence of Quebeckers in Canada do not emanate from Quebec’s provincial politics. For instance, it was the failure of Meech Lake that brought the country to near breakup and it was the Liberal sponsorship scandal that prevented Paul Martin from wiping the Bloc Québécois off the electoral map in 2004.
At some point this decade, Quebec may well have a premier — former Parti Québécois cabinet minister François Legault — bent on bringing about a twenty-first-century projet de société of sorts simultaneously with a federal government that — due to its electoral success in Ontario and the West — may see no reason not to act in a manner biased against Quebec. If the federal government’s perceived abuses pile up and if a bias is evident when it comes to equalization requests meant to fund his plans, Legault – whom many believe has not abandoned his sovereignist roots — could well respond with another referendum.
Wilfrid Laurier once said that there is no cause — no matter how noble — greater than preserving the unity of the nation. Prime Minister Harper has a responsibility to demonstrate that Quebec’s interests and Canada’s are one and the same. An important test of his time in office will be whether he can go beyond his “watertight compartments” view of federalism and work with Quebec City to help reverse the province’s relative decline.
Original Article
Source: iPolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
Decline, however, does not equal irrelevance. For instance, the Charest government’s Plan Nord is expected to deliver further results for the province on the natural resources front — particularly in hydroelectricity. At a time when Iran’s bellicose tone puts Western energy interests in the Middle East at risk, Quebec’s hydro power will be just as valuable as Ontario’s renewables or Alberta’s oil when it comes to Canadian energy security.
The question at hand should not be whether Quebec remains relevant to the federation, but rather what the consequences are of a shifting Canadian economy for the future of the country.
The answer is relatively clear: as the gap between them widens, a battle over equalization rates pitting west against east will emerge. In particular, western provinces will argue two points: first, that equalization represents a bailout for bad policy on the part of eastern provinces and hence provides them with little incentive to engage in a much-needed economic introspection; and second, that equalization is fundamentally flawed in that it evaluates a province’s taxation power but not the cost of the services it needs to provide.
Put simply: from the western point of view, Quebec is getting too much money.
Any debate needs a good moderator, and that’s where the federal government comes in. Unfortunately, Ottawa may not be up to the task.
Stephen Harper demonstrated last spring that he’s capable of winning a majority government without Quebec. No majority government has been formed with such little support from la belle province since the conscription crisis of 1917. The result has been legislation antithetical to the values and interests of Quebeckers, such as Harper’s “tough on crime” agenda and the abolition of both the long gun registry and its records.
If history is any indication, crises in the confidence of Quebeckers in Canada do not emanate from Quebec’s provincial politics. For instance, it was the failure of Meech Lake that brought the country to near breakup and it was the Liberal sponsorship scandal that prevented Paul Martin from wiping the Bloc Québécois off the electoral map in 2004.
At some point this decade, Quebec may well have a premier — former Parti Québécois cabinet minister François Legault — bent on bringing about a twenty-first-century projet de société of sorts simultaneously with a federal government that — due to its electoral success in Ontario and the West — may see no reason not to act in a manner biased against Quebec. If the federal government’s perceived abuses pile up and if a bias is evident when it comes to equalization requests meant to fund his plans, Legault – whom many believe has not abandoned his sovereignist roots — could well respond with another referendum.
Wilfrid Laurier once said that there is no cause — no matter how noble — greater than preserving the unity of the nation. Prime Minister Harper has a responsibility to demonstrate that Quebec’s interests and Canada’s are one and the same. An important test of his time in office will be whether he can go beyond his “watertight compartments” view of federalism and work with Quebec City to help reverse the province’s relative decline.
Original Article
Source: iPolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
No comments:
Post a Comment