Matt Gurney on Ignatieff’s remarks: Quebec will leave when Canada kicks it out

Michael Ignatieff is not entirely right when he claims his now infamous remarks on the inevitability of Quebec’s independence, made during a BBC interview discussing Scotland’s possible exit from the United Kingdom, were taken out of context. He is correct that the sound bites that aroused so much media interest in Canada did not do justice to the full interview. But, in the final analysis, he did indeed say, in clear terms, that Canada and Quebec are essentially two countries, that they have little to say to each other and that Quebec is at a “way station” on its inevitable road to full sovereignty. Ignatieff, a brilliant man whose political instincts remain as faulty as ever, may regret saying what he did, but he did say it.

Separatist politicians welcomed his comments, as it “confirms” that Quebec’s independence is inevitable. Federalist politicians, particularly those unkindly disposed toward the Liberals, slammed Ignatieff, and the party he led for good measure. It was all premised upon the idea, whether sincerely believed by Ignatieff’s critics or not, that his comments may in some way encourage Quebec to leave.

That’s unlikely. But it might — just might — hasten along the day when the Rest of Canada (the ROC, as it’s called) decides to rid itself of Quebec.

Ignatieff described the situation we face as Quebec and Canada having nothing to say to each other. That’s not exactly it. It’s not that we don’t have anything to say, it’s just that we don’t have anything in common. And the more we talk to each other, the clearer that becomes. But that growing distance between Quebec and the ROC is not, as Ignatieff described it, a “contract of mutual indifference.” If it was, that would be fine. But that isn’t the system we built. Quebec’s indifference to the ROC comes at a cost — almost $7.4-billion in transfers from other Canadian provinces a year. That’s effectively half of the total sum dispersed through the equalization process. That’s not indifference, that’s bribery. And the price Quebec is willing to settle for is not necessarily the price the ROC will be willing to pay indefinitely.

Today, it would be a safe bet that most English Canadians spare little thought to the money sent via Ottawa to Quebec. And that’s because, in the grand scheme of Canada’s economy, the sum isn’t a particularly big deal. Sure, seven-billion bucks is a pretty penny, but we can afford it. Or at least we have traditionally been able to. But tough times are ahead for Canada, and particularly its provinces. This isn’t about being alarmist, just recognizing reality — the global economy is becoming more competitive, our petroleum assets are vulnerable to both the natural swings in commodity prices and eco-driven political pressure, our manufacturing base (particularly in Ontario, the one-time engine of Canada’s economy) has evaporated, and our population is aging rapidly, consuming more social services as it does so.

None of these problems are insurmountable. Canada will get through them. But it won’t be easy or pleasant to make some of the needed adjustments, especially not when the baby boomers begin hitting their retirement years largely without personal savings, and begin to realize that governments may not be able to deliver all that they had promised. Pennies are going to get pinched, priorities reassessed. The ultimate solution will probably reflect a blend of tax hikes and service cuts. No one is going to be at all happy about any of this, and in that climate of dwindling resources, equalization is going to come in for some long, hard thinking.

Fundamentally, Canadians won’t object too much about making another Canadian’s life a bit easier through equalization. They may grumble about it, but it won’t be a deal breaker. Will that benevolence still apply to Quebec, however? Ignatieff is entirely right — we are already almost two separate countries, and we don’t have much in common, and we are generally indifferent. Given all that, what reason will a politician in Toronto, Victoria or Edmonton have to continue forking over cash to Quebec City when it could be better spent in their own hospitals?

I’ve long considered the Quebec sovereignty movement to be, essentially, a bluff. I know there are die-hard Quebec nationalists who sincerely believe that Quebec should be its own sovereign country, and God bless ‘em. But most rumblings about independence are more about giving the old Canadian money tree another shake to see what comes out. They may have been all too successful. In winning concession after concession from the ROC, they’ve given English Canada not only damn little reason to want to keep them around, but have also more than demonstrated that the other nine provinces and territories can get along just fine without Quebec.

It’s not that Canada isn’t better off with Quebec. It is. But in making their continued place in our federation a matter of money, Quebec has unintentionally put itself in a situation where the ROC is entirely justified in asking what it’s getting out of the bargain. The answer isn’t nothing. But I’m not sure it adds up to $7-billion, either.

That’s why Ignatieff was right. Quebec likely is at a way station to independence — full independence. But it won’t be Quebec that decides to get up and leave, thus ruining its good deal. It’ll be the other provinces deciding that they’ve had enough. What a change it would make to see Quebec voters trying to explain to the rest of us why Canada needs them, and what they’re willing to give back in order to stay. It’s entirely possible they couldn’t make an offer good enough, or, stunned by the sudden role reversal, wouldn’t even try.

Quebec would then leave Confederation, or at least chunks of it would, and on terms set by Canada. That’d be a sad day. But if it comes, it’ll be because Canada decides it no longer includes Quebec, and few outside it would mourn its exit.

Original Article
Source: national post
Author:  Matt Gurney