Stories

The Future of Free Trade in Québec

Bradley Doucet
December 12, 2011
Support for free trade has tended to be high in Quebec: federalists supported it for economic reasons and sovereignists because it would allow the province to be less economically dependent on the rest of Canada. Will this change with the rise of the NDP? Bradley Doucet and Jasmin Guénette believe it could…
Stories

The Future of Free Trade in Québec

Bradley Doucet
December 12, 2011
Support for free trade has tended to be high in Quebec: federalists supported it for economic reasons and sovereignists because it would allow the province to be less economically dependent on the rest of Canada. Will this change with the rise of the NDP? Bradley Doucet and Jasmin Guénette believe it could…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter


Free trade has divided Canadians since the days of Confederation, with one side worrying about falling under the influence of our large southern neighbour and the other side trumpeting the benefits for economic growth. In Quebec, even the separatist Parti Québécois has tended to support free trade, if only because it makes the province less dependent on the rest of Canada. That might change, however, now that the federal NDP has made such significant inroads in la belle province.

When the Mulroney government ran for re-election in 1988, the main focus of the campaign was the signing of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. It was an issue that sharply divided the country. In the red corner stood the provinces and political parties that were against free trade, and in the blue corner, those who were in favour.

Those in the red corner believed in protectionism because they were afraid of the economic and cultural power of the United States. During the federal campaign’s English debate on October 25, 1988, Liberal leader John Turner worried aloud about “the north-south influence of the United States,” and he was convinced free trade would reduce Canada “to a colony of the United States.” Sir John A. Macdonald had expounded similar annexationist fears in 1891 in his contest against free trade advocate Wilfrid Laurier.

In the blue corner with Brian Mulroney were two provinces: Québec and Alberta. Like Laurier before them, the blue corner saw the free trade agreement as it was and is: an incredible opportunity for business and an engine for economic growth.

Québec and Alberta had different reasons for being in the blue corner. As the Montreal Economic Institute explained in a recent research paper titled “A Plea for a Quebec-Alberta Dialogue”: “Albertans … have long been in favour of free trade with the United States, particularly in reaction to Canadian protectionism that was perceived as having favoured the country’s Eastern provinces since the end of the 19th century.” (p. 14)

Politicians in Québec stood for free trade for a variety of reasons. The provincial Liberal Party, the perceived right-wing political formation with a business agenda, favoured free trade mainly for economic reasons. However, the Parti Québécois (PQ), the separatist party, also favoured free trade, one reason being that “a free trade agreement with the United States had the advantage of making the Québec economy less dependent on the rest of Canada, therefore facilitating the road to political independence.” (p. 14) So, in Québec, most political leaders understand the benefits of free trade, and whether they want economic growth or to move on politically, the U.S. market (and now the European market) was and is seen in a positive light.

This might change in the coming years, however, if the NDP increases its political influence in la belle province. As we wrote in the Washington Examiner a few months ago, the last federal election was a political tsunami, especially in Québec. Before the last federal election, the NDP had only one seat in Québec, held by Thomas Mulcair. When the winner was declared on the evening of May 2, the NDP had catapulted to 59 seats in the province (and 102 across the country). If this election was just an aberration, the NDP will not have gained much more influence than it had before the last election. But if the NDP remains a strong political voice in the province, Québec might move to the red corner of the free trade debate before long.

The NDP promotes more of a radical left political agenda than many other left-leaning parties we have seen in this province, at either the federal or the provincial level. In many provinces, the NDP has formed the provincial government or the Official Opposition and it has fared relatively well in federal elections, too. In Québec, this was never the case before May 2, 2011. Not only was this a first in Canadian history, but now the majority of NDP MPs are from la belle province.

One possibility is that the policies that will be promoted by the Québec delegation of the NDP will follow in the footsteps of other well-known left-leaning political figures who, like former Québec premier and PQ leader Bernard Landry, believe in government intervention yet also understand the benefits of free trade. The overall anti-free trade position of the NDP might soften as a result.

But there are cultural and political reasons to doubt that this will be the case. Culturally speaking, the NDP has no deep roots in Québec, and the intellectual influence behind many of the decisions backed by Québec NDP MPs will therefore not come from years of NDP presence in the province but rather from the NDP’s political tradition that was set outside of Québec. And outside of Québec, the left is against free trade. As International Trade Minister Ed Fast argued in a speech to a Montreal business audience this past September, the NDP usually flies under the banner of “fair trade,” but the result is always NDP opposition to Canada’s trade agreements, as when the party filibustered the ratification of the Canada-Columbia Free Trade Agreement in 2009.

Politically speaking, given the sheer number of NDP MPs elected in May, it is impossible for their decision-makers not to listen to Québec’s demands. And Québec does want free trade. An April 2009 Harris-Decima poll found that 73 per cent of Quebeckers thought Canada “should pursue the establishment of more free trade agreements,” tied for first place among the provinces and slightly ahead of the Canadian average of 70 per cent. (Ontario brought up the rear at 65 per cent.)

But what will this political influence amount to when the vast majority of the Québec delegation is made up of people with little to no political experience? Of course, there are a few in the bunch with more experience, such as Thomas Mulcair. But will Mulcair be promoting free trade with the European Union now that he is seeking the NDP’s national leadership? We will see in the coming weeks, but NDP supporters in the rest of the country would not look kindly on the party’s Québec wing advocating freer trade and less regulation of economic activities.

Supporters of the federal Bloc Quebecois were also very likely to support free trade. As the Harris-Decima poll mentioned above showed, they supported free trade as much as Conservative supporters (76%), and far more than NDP supporters (64%).

Given the NDP’s historic surge in May, however, the province’s political landscape has changed. With 59 seats, the NDP has five more Québec seats than the Bloc ever had and 10 more than the Bloc had in the last parliament. If the NDP influences the left in Québec more than vice versa – through efforts to oppose a trade deal with the EU, for example – the province’s tradition of solid support for free trade, which dates back to Quebecer Wilfrid Laurier, might wind up being outdated.

The opinions expressed in this text do not represent those of anybody except the authors themselves.

 

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Give This Idea an F: The Problematic Push to Eliminate Letter Grades

B.C.’s decision to abandon letter grades in favour of four vague “proficiency” categories is the latest example of the move to do away with objective standards throughout Canada’s public education system. Traditional grading methods are too hard on the tender egos of young students, the logic goes. And the possibility of failure is outdated, if not downright racist. Christina Park reveals how this new system is failing parents, who have a right to know how their child is doing, and harming students, who may be denied the help they need. She also uncovers some “gritty optimism” about the possible return of coherent educational standards.

The Price of Foolish Pride: What Germany’s Social and Economic Decline Can Teach Canada

Germany was postwar Europe’s most successful nation – until it was seized by an arrogant leftist ideology that led it down a ruinous path. Its government abandoned safe, zero-emission nuclear power for inefficient wind and solar plus natural gas from Vladmir Putin. It threw open its borders to millions of asylum-seekers with barely a thought to the enormous costs or the difficulties of social integration. Today, at the 11th hour, Germany is at last struggling to turn around its decade of economic decline and social disintegration. In this cautionary tale, Gwyn Morgan sees a profound warning for Canada.

What’s Yours is Ours: Why Canada’s Charter Ignores Property Rights and What That Means for Everything You Own

“The whole meaning of life,” famed comedian George Carlin once observed, “is trying to find a place for all your stuff. That’s what your house is, it’s a place for your stuff with a cover on it.” If so, then Canadians should be very concerned about their stuff. Unlike nearly every other modern nation, Canada lacks constitutional affirmation of the right to own property and as protection against its unjust seizure. With a recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling putting the very notion of home ownership at risk, Peter Shawn Taylor seeks out legal opinions on Canada’s surprisingly lax attitude towards property rights, how it differs from other countries and what that means for everyone’s possessions. If Canadians really want to protect their homes, belongings and personal finances, Taylor concludes, now’s the time to get loud.

More from this author