Posted on 12/07/2005 11:01:09 AM PST by Publius
That booming thunderclap you heard the Monday after Thanksgiving was the sound of a neighboring country's government collapse.
What, you didn't notice? That's because Canadian news travels at frequencies Americans can't quite hear. Though Ottawa is only 50 miles from the New York border, the vote that signaled the end of Prime Minister Paul Martin's tumultuous 17-month term barely made a wave on this side. Beneath the surface of this seemingly mundane internal matter, however, lies a story worthy of our attention.
To be sure, the end of the Martin government's brief rule was no surprise to anyone. It follows the first official report on a corruption case known as the sponsorship scandal, which has been under investigation for more than a year. Without a parliamentary majority, the Liberals lack the power to block new elections, and this step has been a foregone conclusion.
Nor is the result of the election, set for January 23, likely to be earthshaking. Martin, who served as minister of finance when the scandal took place, has emerged from the investigation unscathed. Several politicians face indictments and the Liberal party's reputation is tarnished, but the damage appears to be contained. Polls suggest the party has lost only modest ground and still leads its two major competitors, the Conservative and New Democratic parties, both of which have struggled to find broad support. With a budget surplus at its disposal, the government has announced a shrewdly, if crudely, timed package of tax cuts and spending, all of which implies a yawning anticlimax on the horizon.
But keep reading.
Underlying this tale is the drama of Quebec separatism, which is to Canada what slavery was to the 19th-century United States -- a fundamental conflict that won't go away and could tip dominoes in unexpected directions. The sponsorship scandal is a little about petty thievery, and a lot about separatism. It started after the sovereignty referendum of 1995, in which Quebecers opted to maintain the status quo by a margin of 1 percentage point. The Liberal government, seeking to build on that narrow victory, allocated funds to promote Canadian national identity in Quebec. The plan backfired. Millions were misspent, and some of the money wound up in the pockets of party hacks. While the rest of Canada may react ambiguously at the polls, the separatist Parti Quebecois has capitalized on outrage within the province, bleeding support away from the Liberals and positioning itself to bring a new referendum in the near-term.
Canadian pollster Michael Adams believes that if a referendum were held in Quebec today, it would pass comfortably. While this would not necessarily mean outright independence for Quebec -- the more popular versions of sovereignty maintain some association with Canada -- any separation of its second-largest province could wreak havoc in the dominion and weaken the tenuous hold Ottawa has over the lightly populated, 5,000 mile-wide nation.
Americans take most things about Canada, including its existence, for granted. Most have viewed the Quebec sovereignty battle as little more than a curious ethnic-linguistic sideshow. In his 1998 book, An Empire Wilderness, however, Robert Kaplan suggests that withdrawal of Quebec will result in other regions -- notably British Columbia and Alberta -- asserting independence from a distant imperial capital, and further disintegration of the Canadian federation as we know it. Kaplan further points out that without a stable and unified entity to its north, the United States could face unexpected stresses of its own. Regional ties in North America run north-south rather than east-west, as the map implies. Washington and Oregon are more closely linked socioeconomically with BC than with DC, and a similar pattern is true across the continent. Kaplan foreshadows eventual weakening of both national governments' influence within their current borders, and the breakup of one may well hasten that process in the other. This future may be much closer than we suspect, and Quebec could be the catalyst.
What would a new North America based on regional interests look like? Some US nationalists have assumed the United States inevitably will absorb Anglophone Canada, but Canadians have a long history of declining such integration. An intriguing alternate possibility is decentralization of the current nation-states, which could ultimately merge into a single confederacy with characteristics of the European Union and Canada: regional autonomy, a common currency, open trade relationships and a multilateral foreign policy.
Should such changes come to pass, future historians may note with irony how they were triggered by a little-noticed scandal that failed even to remove the offending party from power.
However, the author seems to be reaching for the United States of Canada versus Jesusland argument that erupted after the 2004 election.
Canada can just join France. I don't think we need anymore liberals down here.
Ping for a Starbucks-drenched view from the Emerald City!
We'd take the western provinces..but refuse Ontario..
You could just do as mytagline begs, and once you're done, ship all the lefty Canadians to France and keep guys like me, no?
Heck, the ROC (Rest of Canada) is about ready to refuse Ontario. : )
I wouldn't sweat it. America if anything will only get stronger. Canada if it breaks up will be in a lose lose situation. A North American union founded similar (in arrangement) as the European one will inevitably occur (whether canad splits up or not) Manifest destiny!
Go to school for journalism. Put pot in the pipe. Smoke it. Then reveal your dreams to the press. Modern society has too much money and time on its hands.
You must never have been to western Canada. Some parts are very conservative. In fact, I saw confederate flags up there.
Quebec should secede and the capital of Anglo Canada should move to Calgary.
I've traveled from Vancouver BC to St. Johns NF. I maintain contact with Canadians on a daily basis. I read 2-3 Canadian newspapers (web edition) each day. And, I own a copy of "Canadian History for Dummies."
1. They won't join the USA. The Canadian govt has spend Billions making sure that the average Canadian prefers death over American citizenship.
2. PQ (Provence Quebecois) won't separate. PQ has tons of non-Francophone immigrants have moved in from Korea, China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, India, etc. Those people don't see themselves as "French" or "French-Canadians" etc. They see themselves as Canadians. There are now enough of these immigrants to control the election, and in fact, they were the difference in the previous "Oui" separation vote.
3. The odds makers there are saying that there will be a minority party installed, but it won't be the Libs. Right now it's an "Anyone but the Libs" election.
Canada? Isn't that kind of like North Dakota, but a separate country.....
I remember discussing this in the early 90's. If Quebec won independence, it was not extremely unimaginable for a 51st U.S. state called British Columbia.
bflr...
we should take the more conservative western provinces and trade them with Mass and VT
Canada Ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.
"If Quebec won independence, it was not extremely unimaginable for a 51st U.S. state called British Columbia."
We'd also take Alberta, with its huge oil reserves, world-class resorts (Calgary Olympics Village, Banff, etc) and 2 major cities. However, Alberta comes with a fair number of entitlement peoples, such as Metis and Natives.
"we should take the more conservative western provinces and trade them with Mass and VT"
Maine. Don't forget Maine.
Yes, isn't it just the French in Canada causing trouble, nothing new here.
oh yeah well about half of Maine there are still conservative parts of it believe it or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.