Quirky Canada has own government, laws

Speaking of separatists, why is it that Canada has a robust, and rising, separatist movement, while America doesn't? It's not just Quebec. Newfoundland, which has always been suspicious of fraud in the referendum that propelled it into the union, now has a separatist party (although to be sure, it's clearly not a very successful one.) Alberta's Separatist candidates don't get much of the provincial vote, but they seem to be gaining sympathy and support. And I've now met several people from British Columbia who say that if Alberta broke off, they'd like to join them.

Perhaps my vision is just skewed by the fact that I've actually met multiple English-speaking Canadian separatists, but the Canadian union seems to be much more fragile than the American one, and not just because we know what to do with hotheads who try to leave the union. Why would this be?

My working theory is that it is the wild population asymmetry in Canada; given the parliamentary structure, the Liberal Party just needs to run up the vote total in Toronto, and not do too badly in Quebec, and it gets to run things. (A nasty corruption scandal propelled the re-formed Conservatives into a minority government last election, but it looks like they'll be out of power again soon.) That is just what it has been doing for the last decade or so, and as a result, the people in the other 3.4 million square miles are getting a mite restless. Can my readers offer a better explanation?

Comments

Well, there's no such thing as an Ontario separatist movement, so there may be something to that.

Posted by Stephen Gordon | September 23, 2007 4:45 PM

Canada doesn't have to worry about the national defense consequences of a breakup. The U.S. would.

Posted by James D. Miller | September 23, 2007 4:50 PM

As a BC resident, it is a mite depressing to come home from the polls and discover it's all over anyway - my vote is pretty much meaningless. The country goes the way Ontario does.

But the larger part of the problem is that the federal government is fairly weak anyway, and getting weaker by the year. The vaunted health care system that Americans talk about is run by the provinces, with some large differences. Provincial governments are free to set intra-provincial trade barriers - and do. The BC and Alberta governments have recently put in place a historic free-trade agreement, and are inviting other provincial governments to join.

Other than doling out cash, the only areas for which the Feds have complete responsibility are Foreign Affairs and Defence. (And here in BC, the last Army base closed years ago...)

Finally, the definition of "Canadian" is fairly weak as well. Culturally, I have little in common with folks in Quebec, the Maritimes or even Ontario.

Posted by Ginna | September 23, 2007 5:18 PM

I very much disagree with your views. First off, I disagree that the Conservative government is on it's way out. Quebec USED to be a strong liberal area, and a large reason why the Liberals lost the election was due to the fact that the Conservatives stole many seats from Quebec. You can also consider that a recent by-election in Quebec garnered more support for the Conservative and have the Liberals very worried as the plan in having Mr. Dion as the new Liberal leader was SUPPOSED to garner more Quebec support.

Quebec also holds the balance of power in Parliament as the Bloc is currently supporting the Conservatives. For now.

I wouldn't think it would be a fair statement to say that Canada is on shakey ground and that there is some kind of common seperatist movement running through the Country.

Quebec has always had this seperatist sentiment largely due to their alienation from Canada as they do things completely differently. Alberta has it's own issues, mainly due to the fact that they are filthy rich and would like to deal with their own affairs. All that being said, you can expect none of these seperatist movements to gain any ground any time soon.

Posted by S | September 23, 2007 5:19 PM

I question your assertion that Quebec separatism is on the rise; it's also important to understand the nature of that separatist movement.

First, since losing the 1995 referendum in as close a call as is electorally imaginable (49.5% to 50.5%), support for another referendum has dropped off to the point that the separatist party, the PQ, that used to win on the promise to hold another referendum, has removed that plank from their platform. When asked about it, they still air the doctrinaire line that they're all for Quebec independence; but when asked about plans to hold another referendum, they're cagey about committing themselves to one in the near future. Everyone seems to recognize that a third referendum can't win anytime soon, and the PQ don't want to commit themselves to losing a third referendum because that would really kill the whole movement.

Second, among separatists, there's a hard core who want unilateral indendence, a soft core who imagine 'sovereignty association' with Canada, and a third, very significant portion who see separatism as just a valuable negotiating position in the endless jockeying for federal money and other handouts. The last referendum scared a lot of those last kind, who don't actually want independence, just the continuation of the special treatment Quebec often receives. It's among that segment that support for separation has fallen off most strongly.

As for the supposed fragility of the Canadian union, only Quebec separatism is taken seriously by anyone. Western separatism has been a crank position as long as I've been a Westerner, and Newfoundland is too dependent upon federal aid to consider actually separating. The most realistic appraisal of english speaking separatist movements is that they're trying to replicate what they view Quebec as doing: blackmailing Ottawa.

Remember, our parliamentary system supports fringe political parties far better than the U.S. does. The N.D.P. has no hope of forming a federal government, even as a minority government, yet they still take enough seats every election to retain official party status; likewise the Bloc Quebecois. Even the greens hope for a seat or two. This gives totally unrealistic policy proposals a veneer of credibility that they don't really have.

Posted by Justin JJ | September 23, 2007 5:27 PM

The 1995 referendum also demonstrated a lot of ambiguity about Quebec separatism. Internal PQ polls showed that a majority of 'yes' voters thought that, after separation, they'd still use Canadian money, share in common defense, use Canadian embassies, and send members to Parliament in Ottawa. In other words, not many thought it was true independence, just more independence within the Canadian framework, and that following negotiations with Ottawa armed with a successful referendum.

What scared off a lot of those people was the revelation after the vote that, prior to the referendum, Jacques Parizeau (Quebec premiere) had obtained guarantees from France to immediately recognize an independent Quebec as a sovereign nation, and had planned to unilaterally announce secession immediately following a win. While politically, that might have been the soundest strategy following a win in order to negotiate the association they wanted, it frightened away many soft and strategic supporters.

Posted by Justin JJ | September 23, 2007 5:39 PM

I can't speak knowledgeably about Canada, but I think the reason why there's no active separatist movements in America is that every American knows what happened the last time that was tried...

Posted by SG | September 23, 2007 6:14 PM

I would absolutely love it if Texas and Oklahoma left the Union and became the Republic of Footballandjesustan. It would improve the US immeasurably.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 6:19 PM

The commentator was warm when he referred to the distribution of seats in parliment... win southern Ontario and Quebec and you're in.

And this is the paradigm of that exists in Canada today... the centrists pandering to the Quebecois to keep the seat of finance and power where they believe it belongs... in the centre.

But they need the resources of the hinterlands to maintain the status quo. So provinces like Newfoundland & Labrador have essentially been extorted of their natural resources such as fisheries and hydro-electricity to maintain the centrists' vision of Canada.

A state based on such a flawed system of representation and insular, centrist philosophy is inherently weak. The rise of the separatists are merely the chickens fianlly coming home to roost.

Posted by Tom | September 23, 2007 6:49 PM

I believe Megan's answer to the question is valid. But there is something more to it all than that.

what cements diverse populations together: War.

(Italian and German unification are the obvious examples.)

Canada lacks this unifying force.

Posted by thehova | September 23, 2007 7:58 PM

you might have an easier time seeing the scene in Canada if you compared it to States in the U.S. that would love to see their major cities (i.e. New York) succede/jettisoned

and, as Tom alludes

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 23, 2007 8:41 PM

Mark E. Mark types: "you might have an easier time seeing the scene in Canada if you compared it to States in the U.S. that would love to see their major cities (i.e. New York) succede/jettisoned

and, as Tom alludes"

Is that supposed to make sense or is a fragmentary document?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 9:48 PM

That should be "is it a fragmentary document."

See how it works, Marky?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 9:49 PM

How about "Americans are incredibly nationalistic"? Maybe if Canadians had 150 years of tub-thumping about the exceptional and world-enlightening superiority of the unique Canadian experiment, the Canadian duty to bring Canada civilization to every corner of the globe, God made Canada special, Canada: the Promised Land, How Canada Conquered Nazism and Communism and Made the World Safe for Democracy, Canada: World's Highest Standard of Living, Canada #1!, and so forth, they too might find themselves so deeply invested from childhood in the national ideology and identity that thoughts of secession would carry too high a psychological cost to be contemplated.

I mean, what really holds the US together is that anybody who thinks secession is a good idea generally wants those other guys to secede -- we being the real America.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 23, 2007 10:25 PM

ML&J,

succede=secede would have been more helpful

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | September 23, 2007 10:38 PM

Mark E. Mark writes: "ML&J,

succede=secede would have been more helpful"

Now why should I help you? And you know what New York would be without NYC? It would be a disaster area.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 11:01 PM

This comment has been deleted for trolling

Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 11:05 PM

Harry the Klansman writes: "We'd be better off if those two states stayed and we lost a couple of states with super-high black populations, e.g., South Carolina and Mississippi. Don't hold your breath waiting for blacks to secede though. They know what Haiti looks like after 200 years of independence."

South Carolina and Mississippi regularly elect Repiglicans to the Senate, so their electorates are apparently brain-damaged as well. But you can run your plan by Steve Sailer and see if he'll get behind it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 23, 2007 11:29 PM

This comment has been deleted for trolling.

Posted by Harry | September 23, 2007 11:56 PM

I think, MoeLarryAndJesus, that were we to secede, we'd like to take Alaska and New Mexico with us. You know, another state of "Repiglicans", and something to keep El Paso from sticking out there on the end of a thin wedge. Deal?

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | September 24, 2007 12:35 AM

This comment has been deleted because it refers to an earlier deleted comment

Posted by boldface | September 24, 2007 12:36 AM

The objective truth is that we would be better off with more white Okies and Texans and fewer blacks.

But how could we call the Democrats n***er-lovers if we didn't have any n***ers? I dunno, sounds like a risky plan to me.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 24, 2007 12:36 AM

Re : what cements diverse populations together: War.
Australia has as dispersed population as Canada, without the civil wars that racked the USA, yet it does not have separatist movements in any real sense. It helps that the Constitution eliminated state trade barriers and that the Constitution was established by a referendum which required a majority of voters in each state, and subsequent changes require an Australia-wide majority of voters with a majority of states.
Also an Australian cricket team existed before Federation!

Posted by The Doctor | September 24, 2007 12:45 AM

Boldface,

It's Megan's blog, so she can do as she wishes, but I hope she'll leave it up because what I wrote happens to be true, and it's also relevant to broader policy discussions.

Brooksfoe,

I have trouble thinking of the party whose longest serving Senator is a former Klansman (Robert Byrd) as one that especially loves African Americans. It's more accurate to say that the Democratic Party has a useful relationship with them: government largess for certain community leaders in exchange for votes. Democrats are already grooming another ethnic group for a similar relationship, Latino immigrants.

Posted by Harry | September 24, 2007 12:45 AM

This comment has been deleted because it responds to an earlier deleted comment

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 24, 2007 1:01 AM

Australia has as dispersed population as Canada, without the civil wars that racked the USA, yet it does not have separatist movements in any real sense.

Australia also wasn't settled competitively by two nations, one of which eventually conquered the other in the new nation, to be followed by a couple centuries of uneasy subjugation and gradual equalization.

This sounds like an irreparable rift in Canada's ethnic makeup, but Quebec separatism in its modern form only goes back to the sixties and the Quiet Revolution, which was more of a populist response to class issues that fell too neatly along linquistic lines. Quebec's current state is far better for francophones than it ever was, and that recognition is a constant brake on separatists.

Posted by Justin JJ | September 24, 2007 1:25 AM

Jeez Louise, Megan, can I adk you to please please PLEASE move back to your old site? The comment threads here are just amazingly bad, and this one is a case in point. Kossacks? Check. Racists? Check. People who didn't even read the post? Oh lordy, check.

Posted by Townleybomb | September 24, 2007 2:35 AM

While I don't actually want to secede, I live in Houston and have the port through which most oil enters the US and the largest single concentration of oil refineries in the US. Not to mention a chunk of offshore (and onshore) oil production. You'd miss us more than you think...

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | September 24, 2007 2:53 AM

Earnest says: "While I don't actually want to secede, I live in Houston and have the port through which most oil enters the US and the largest single concentration of oil refineries in the US. Not to mention a chunk of offshore (and onshore) oil production. You'd miss us more than you think."

There are other ports and we could always pay fees to the refineries until we got others going. I'm not saying I'd kick Jesusandfootballstan out immediately, either, so there'd be time for planning. Who knows, maybe the interim period would shock the Jesoids and the yahoos into sanity and make the whole plan unnecessary.

Or it could shock the 40% of Texlahomans who aren't worthless wingnuts into running guerilla operations on the 60% who are crazed Bushpig fanatics and chasing enough of them into the Gulf to make a difference.

I can dream, can't I?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 24, 2007 3:04 AM

William Tecumseh Sherman.

I suggest a Canadian Broadcasting Company special on his life.

Posted by irishpirate | September 24, 2007 3:18 AM

Is there a full moon out tonight? The regular moonbats are barking more than usual.

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 24, 2007 3:33 AM

ML+J,

Wait, I'm confused, who are the dangerous ones? For a second there it looked like you just hoped for the death ("chasing enough of them into the Gulf") of up to 40% of OK and TX to satisfy your political desires....

I guess we should just go around purging non-leftists for their own sake...

Posted by Skullberg | September 24, 2007 9:12 AM

It might have something to do with that incredibly bloody war to crush a secessionist movement.

More than that, however, I think that the relatively higher level of control by the central government in Canada provides more reason at the margin, for separatist groups.

Posted by TW Andrews | September 24, 2007 9:51 AM

Townleybomb: "Jeez Louise, Megan, can I ask you to please please PLEASE move back to your old site? The comment threads here are just amazingly bad, and this one is a case in point. Kossacks? Check. Racists? Check. People who didn't even read the post? Oh lordy, check."

I'm inclined to agree. I suppose that didn't pay as well.

I'd be satisfied with something like a killfile, that would allow my browser to give me an abridged version of the comments — without the commenters I currently have to waste time scrolling past.

Posted by Bill Woods | September 24, 2007 11:03 AM

ML&J,

If you think Upstate would be a disaster area without NYC, think again. True, the vast majority of state income comes from NYC, but an even vaster majority of state expenditures go to NYC. Not to mention all the nanny-state laws that are passed because the NYC types overwhelmingly control the state assembly.

Believe me, NY would be a nicer place to live without NYC in the same state.

p.s. We would get to keep Nassau & Suffolk Counties, too. Then maybe we'd finally get a bridge built across Long Island Sound.

Posted by Rex | September 24, 2007 12:13 PM

Rex writes: "If you think Upstate would be a disaster area without NYC, think again."

I've been to Rochester and Syracuse and Jamestown often, and without NYC, New York would be a bigger Maine - with less charm.

And Nassau and Suffolk would secede to Jersey rather than hook up with the boonies.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 24, 2007 12:19 PM

The U.S. has it's population centers more widely dispersed. CA, TX, FL, NY are all in separate regions of the country, the government center is in another, a common language, no trade barriers between states, etc.

In Canada, as mentioned, Quebec is the issue. Since the Quiet Revolution (look it up in Wikipedia), Quebec has been a pain in the ***. I'd second Justin JJ's analysis on the types of Quebecers who want to secede.

Mark Steyn has called the Quebec nationalist movement the most incompetent in history when you look at what has happened in the Baltic and Balkan nations. With an emerging non-francophone population (it's like the fear of the rise of Spanish, but with a French attitude and official language status), I think that the window on a Republic of Quebec is closing. But they'll be able to make enough noise to get concessions.

Posted by Half Canadian | September 24, 2007 12:43 PM

With an emerging non-francophone population... I think that the window on a Republic of Quebec is closing.

In a way, separatism has been a victim of its own success. Trudeau made the country officially bilingual in response to francophone concerns about their disappearing culture, and with french immersion schools in the rest of Canada, french is now a far more widely spoken language outside of Quebec. The language laws, idiotic and offensive as they are, have succeeded in making non-francophone immigrants learn french instead of english in Quebec (though immigrants still voted overwhelmingly against separation). And when the English businesses fled after the first referendum, it opened up the top tier for francophone businesses to prosper, alleviating one of the biggest factors in the Quiet Revolution.

So, Steyn can insult them all they want, but the soft and strategic separatists have pretty much gotten everything they wanted without the hardships of actually seceding.

Posted by Justin JJ | September 24, 2007 1:29 PM

The language laws ARE crazy. Bi-lingual signs in Ontario, but single language signs (French) in Quebec!

Posted by Rex | September 24, 2007 3:46 PM

No, sorry, ML&J. The offer to secede only goes through if the schedule is three months or less. You don't get any time to cushion yourself to the shocks; it's you that wants us to leave, after all.

We'll be willing to accept a per-capita ratio of the national debt, but only if we get a per-capita share of the military hardware. Yes, including nuclear weapons, thank you, or else you can keep all of the national debt yourselves.

And, again, I'm assuming we also get New Mexico, because otherwise no deal; it's necessary to consolidate El Paso properly, and most of the state was carved out of the Republic of Texas anyway.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | September 24, 2007 4:01 PM

I don't think there's rising Quebec seperatism. In a recent by-election the Bloc Quebecois got shanked. They lost two-thirds of their vote in Outremont, dropped 18 points in Roberval, and 14 points in St.-Hyacinthe-Bagot. In total their votes dropped about 40%. Forty percent. That is not the hallmark of a "robust, and rising, separatist movement.

Also, it's "Perky Canada" not "Quirky Canada" :P

Posted by Jacob | September 24, 2007 4:19 PM

That's a good point Jacob--in the 2007 provincial election, the PQ took third place, losing nine seats. It was seen as a crushing blow to the party, and Action Democratique, soft sovereigntists at best, improved their standing to turn a Liberal majority into a minority government.

The results were seen as a tacit acceptance that hard sovereignty was a dead letter in Quebec politics (for now, at least).

Posted by Justin JJ | September 24, 2007 4:50 PM

Nobody else has thrown religion into the discussion, so let me:
One of the other forces negating the formerly strong Quebec separatist movement has been the dearth of RC personel; the loss of Catholic clergy and Religious is not as "bad" as in the US, but has been very large. Without the constant emphasis of "us vs them" occuring in the parish institutions that in many cases were more powerful than those of formal government, even the hinterlands have moved away from separatism.

Posted by bud | September 24, 2007 5:52 PM

Oildrilling Lunatic replies: "We'll be willing to accept a per-capita ratio of the national debt, but only if we get a per-capita share of the military hardware. Yes, including nuclear weapons, thank you, or else you can keep all of the national debt yourselves."

No nuclear weapons for you, sorry. We have to consider that the arguments for keeping them out of the hands of warmongering religious fanatics in Iran also apply to Jesusandfootballstan. You'd probably just hurt yourselves with them, anyway.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 24, 2007 9:49 PM

The problem is that Canada doesn't really exist as an economic entity. Vancouver is naturally part of the Seattle economic orbit; Calgary/Edmonton go with Denver/Houston, Winnipeg goes with Minneapolis/ Chicago, und so weiter. For most practical purposes, Canada is 200 miles wide and 4,000 miles long. In addition, the Federal system in Canada gives far more power to the provinces than US states have. I think the only thing holding Canada together is fear of being assimilated by the US.

Posted by Robert Levine | September 25, 2007 12:55 AM

Finally, the definition of "Canadian" is fairly weak as well. Culturally, I have little in common with folks in Quebec, the Maritimes or even Ontario.

And

The problem is that Canada doesn't really exist as an economic entity. Vancouver is naturally part of the Seattle economic orbit; Calgary/Edmonton go with Denver/Houston, Winnipeg goes with Minneapolis/ Chicago, und so weiter. ... I think the only thing holding Canada together is fear of being assimilated by the US.

Yep. Can't speak for BC, but I've worked with a lot of Albertans -- most of whom seem to be down here working in the oil patch -- and they have a lot in common with us. They're more western than northern. Oh, and they have tons of oil & gas, they speak English with less accent than your average Bostonian, they know how to rodeo, and they're just generally really nice people. And did I mention that they have tons of oil & gas? Perhaps we should work on that fear of assimilation..

If the whole Rocky Mountain west were to succede -- $30 gas just might make our memories of the war between the states a little foggy -- we in Wyoming would have all the nuclear weapons and the uranium, and the oil & natural gas, except what's in Alberta & Texas. And God on our side of course.

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 10:45 PM

[Oops, hit the wrong button.]

... because this is God's Country after all.

But we wouldn't have to succede, just go on strike for a couple weeks around mid-January. When the lights go out and the heat goes off you might rethink your cruel, cruel treatment of us flyoverians.

Posted by Swen Swenson | September 25, 2007 10:54 PM

Canadian (con)federalism is much looser in the first place, so there's less to hold them together. But the same phenomenon probably stops them right at the brink of consummating the break-up, because they realize it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference.

Posted by Rich | September 26, 2007 2:04 PM

buy entry this url viagra

Posted by buy cheap in uk viagra | November 12, 2007 9:11 PM