No one defines a strong Canada

Because the separatist Bloc will hold the balance in any minority government, both potential governments will keep their support by dismantling national government

by Kevin Potvin <kpotvin@republic-news.org>

What are the possible scenarios following the January 23 rd Canadian national election? There are only two realistic outcomes: a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority. But inside each of these are a myriad of beguiling dynamics.

The previous Liberal regime, with a couple defections and additions, had just enough seats to manage a tie in the House so long as they garnered the support of the NDP. A Liberal minority this time will likely be diminished to the point where NDP support will not be sufficient to avoid defeat on a confidence motion.

In this case, the Conservatives and separatist Bloc Quebecois would together be in a position to topple the Liberals at any time without waiting for the NDP to join them. But the Conservatives would remain tied to the whims of the Bloc. And the Bloc’s agenda—setting the table for another separation referendum in Quebec—may not synchronize with the Conservative agenda, which would be to choose the right time to cause an election that will bring them victory.

A Conservative minority government, on the other hand, might not be as unstable as many observers predict. Many believe that while the Conservatives in the last mandate successfully deflected criticism for sidling up to the Bloc to bring the Liberal government down, they will be unable to get license to do the same to maintain themselves in power.

But the Conservatives may be able to serve the separatist cause in Quebec and get away with it more than most observers think. It depends on how much the Conservatives choose to focus down on their power base the way the US Republican Party learned to do.

For example, the Bloc would likely support a Conservative regime if it meant a further devolution of federal powers to the provinces—in particular, to Quebec. Ever since the watered-down referendum of 1976 conducted by revered Parti Quebecois founding leader Rene Levesque, the strategy for separatists has been two-pronged: work on the long-term dream of achieving absolute sovereignty, but in the meantime, consolidate smaller victories, bit by bit piecing together a growing de facto sovereignty. The two work hand-in-hand well. By the time of the next Quebec referendum, possibly a year after the next Quebec election maybe in 2007, the separatist Bloc will be able to show the benefits of partial sovereignty achieved by winning devolution of federal powers, and make therefore a good case for total sovereignty.

A Conservative regime might well enjoy devolving federal powers to Quebec since that would not conflict with their smaller national government agenda informed by American Republican rhetoric that has been so influential on the Canadian right. This is especially so in Alberta, which remains the base of support for the Conservative Party, and where antagonism toward Ottawa runs strongest second only to Quebec. The only challenge for a Conservative regime will be to portray such a devil’s deal with Quebec separatists as an enlightened national program aimed at uniting a more prosperous Canada—or however Conservative spinsters will put it, careful to avoid sounding exactly like Brian Mulroney.

Why this election will not make much difference whichever way it goes is because the Liberals in a minority government, no longer supported sufficiently by the NDP, will be forced into adopting the same solution to maintain power—devolving power to the provinces. It has been a long time coming, but for the first time in history, the Bloc Quebecois is almost assured of holding the balance of power in a minority regime of any stripe. It is certainly a more powerful position than that achieved in the early 1990s, when the Bloc formed the official opposition to a majority Liberal regime.

The problem for Canada is that globally, national governments are back with a vengeance. The resource-competition, post-ideological Cold War era the world is entering calls for increasingly strong national governments, not weaker ones, as had been the case for the previous two decades or so. And Canada, more than most countries, requires a very strong national government since it possesses in abundance the very resources whose global scarcity will be the root of a coming century of war: water, oil, natural gas, gold, copper, aluminum. Only national governments can approve or reject major corporate takeovers, only national governments can negotiate international trade and defense treaties, only national governments can appear at and argue within major global symposia like the IMF, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Without much power domestically over Canadian society and the economy, there is not much Canada can bring by way of negotiating chips to these big poker tables. Weak already because ours is a smaller economy and a smaller defense establishment, a federal regime bent on devolving remaining federal powers to the provinces risks becoming useless altogether at protecting Canadians on the global stage—at a time when Canadians need protection more than ever.

The Conservatives cannot make the case for stronger central government without losing Quebec and Alberta, their base. The Liberals can’t either, for fear of touching off real separatist movements in both places. But the NDP is not so bound. Lacking a base of support to nurture in both Alberta and Quebec, the NDP is alone free to make the case for a strong national government.

****