Michael Ignatieff make a gaffe? Stop the presses. In a recent interview with the BBC in Scotland, the former Liberal leader opined of Quebec and Canada, “Effectively, we’re almost two separate countries.” Of Ottawa’s strategy of keeping Quebec in the federation by devolving more powers, Mr. Ignatieff remarked: “It’s kind of a waystation. You stop there for a while. But I think the logic eventually is independence.”
Cue the cheering at Parti Québécois headquarters, and the outrage among federalists. How could Mr. Ignatieff betray Canada like this? In Wednesday’s edition, my fellow Post columnist Barbara Kay colourfully lamented the ex-politician’s failure to learn from experience: “How many years did Ignatieff spend in active politics? How many times has he seen a mushroom cloud of media mania erupting from a firecracker sized remark?”
Actually Barbara, that explains the brevity of Mr. Ignatieff’s political career. Politics is a nasty, bruising game where speaking the truth can lose you an election … and lying convincingly can get you into government. A failure to appreciate this leads to problems, such as reducing your party to 34 seats.
Related
Barbara Kay : Michael Ignatieff hands Quebec separatists an unexpected gift
John Ivison: Michael Ignatieff has a point about Quebec separation
Kelly McParland: Liberal leaders find their voice in retirement
Wayne K. Spear: What difference does it make what Michael Ignatieff says?
In the present case, Mr. Ignatieff is being punished for saying the truth, at least in part.
He is right that there exists a vast cleavage between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Quebec’s university-student protests perfectly illustrate this divide. While students demonstrate peacefully in the rest of Canada, in Quebec they riot and smash buildings. The sense of entitlement is deeply ingrained in the province — not surprising when you consider that post-secondary tuitions have been frozen for 33 of the past 43 years, daycare costs $7 a day, and the state will pay for your in vitro fertilization.
From social issues, to language, to the economy, Quebec is distinct. On the gun registry, provincial courts have ordered the federal government to keep registering long guns in the province. A greater percentage of Quebecers consistently support the right to abortion than in the rest of the country. English-speaking CEOs of major Quebec companies make headlines for, well, speaking English. Quebec also labours under the highest debt-to-GDP ratio of all Canadian provinces.
And yet, somewhat paradoxically, this is why Mr. Ignatieff’s conclusion about full independence is wrong.
Quebec doesn’t have to become independent to govern its own affairs. On matters from immigration to taxes to pensions, Quebec is distinct, so much so that its powers were openly coveted by Wildrose leader Danielle Smith during the recent Alberta election. Meanwhile, the other issues Quebec holds dear — expensive social programs, working and living in French — depend on financial support they already get from Ottawa, including $7-billion in annual equalization payments.
In fact, many Quebecers are realizing that their quest for independence has resulted in increasing dependence on the rest of the country. The province’s economy took a series of hits in the late ’70’s, early ’80’s and mid-90’s, periods when separatist zeal reached its zenith amidst the first election of the PQ to government and the holding of referenda on separation. Political uncertainty spooks investors, as does heavy-handed bureaucracy and language police. High taxes and strong labour unions, which generally ally themselves with the PQ, round out the not-open-for-business climate, making separation an even more expensive venture.
Across the pond, it should be noted that Scotland’s quest for independence is also economically risky. The Economist magazine recently ran a controversial cover feature entitled “It’ll cost you: The Price of Scottish Independence,” featuring a map renaming the country “Skintland” and its capital “Edinborrow (Twinned with Athens).” While the map provoked outrage, the article made several important points, including highlighting the volatility of a resource-based economy and critiquing the argument that Scotland would join “small, thriving countries” such as Iceland and Ireland, which have now experienced economic collapse.
Mr. Ignatieff has backpedalled in recent days, saying that his remarks were taken out of context, and can’t be reduced to sound bites. Instead, he should have apologized only for his flawed conclusion. Quebec isn’t Scotland, and the separation of one country has no bearing on that of another a continent away. Unless, of course, you’re a politician looking toward the next election.
National Post