Quebec separatists push for “collective” freedoms, but have little regard for personal ones

Jacques Parizeau, former leader of the Parti Québécois (PQ) and premier of Quebec from 1994 to 1996, reportedly summarized his disagreement with Pierre Elliott Trudeau by saying that, at bottom, they agreed on every issue save one: where to locate the national capital.

This remark has the merit of illuminating one essential fact: the Parti Québécois and Trudeau’s Liberals fundamentally shared the same statist, interventionist, dirigiste view of the world. The only thing they really disagreed on was how this power should be divided between Canada’s federal government and Quebec’s provincial government.

In other words, Quebec separatists were, and still are, interested in a “Québec libre,” but, it seems to me, are all too rarely interested in the individual freedom of Quebecers themselves. Worse still, one of Quebec’s two officially sovereigntist provincial parties explicitly disregards economic and individual freedoms in favour of a certain conception of “collective freedom.”

In practice, this means increasing the coercive and exploitative powers of politicians, civil servants, and various so-called “social” groups at the expense of the hard work and investments of the majority of Quebecers.

To be clear, this opinion piece does not, in itself, aim either to support or oppose Quebec’s accession to the status of an independent country, but rather to underscore that the ultimate goal and effect of this process should be to tangibly increase the level of individual freedom for Quebecers themselves.

After all, it makes little difference to their daily lives whether it is Quebec and Ottawa, or Quebec by itself, that siphons off large portions of their incomes. The same logic applies if they find themselves increasingly regimented in their daily lives by a multitude of laws and regulations passed by Quebec and Ottawa, or by Quebec alone.

Quebec separatists were, and still are, interested in a “Québec libre,” but, it seems to me, are all too rarely interested in the individual freedom of Quebecers themselves.

Of course, on a certain number of issues, the government of a sovereign Quebec would probably want to pursue a somewhat different legislative agenda than the one implemented in Ottawa.

This would have consequences, for better or for worse. Nevertheless, the unanimity that prevails on a wide range of issues among the elected officials on both sides of the Ottawa River makes this potential change in constitutional status less fundamental than it might at first appear.

We need only consider all the politicians, provincial and federal, who have felt the need over the past year to pledge allegiance to supply management, as if milking dairy consumers dry were a societal project.

Another example is the eagerness with which Quebec’s governments—regardless of party—have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize debacles such as Gaspésia, McInnis Cement, Northvolt, and Lion Electric. This enthusiasm has been matched only by that of the federal Liberals, who spent billions on the battery sector and several other projects.

While the Parti Québécois’ announcement regarding the replacement of subsidies from the Economic Development Fund with tax cuts for Quebec SMEs is encouraging on this specific point, we should not assume that this promise alone will suffice to reverse the interventionist tendencies so long and so deeply rooted in Quebec’s political establishment, for decades now, among both sovereigntists and federalists alike.

Indeed, as much in Quebec City as in Ottawa, economic dirigisme—the notion that politicians and civil servants are better placed than anyone else to discern the most promising sectors and funnel taxpayer resources into them—is still very much in fashion.

The goal here is not so much to debate the merits of these public policies—although I am quite certain that they are harmful. The fact remains that the quote often attributed to Jacques Parizeau about the similarity of the ideas emanating from the cabinets in Quebec City and Ottawa is still relevant today. Whether our lives are organized solely according to the dictates of Quebec, rather than of Quebec and Ottawa both, will not in itself make us any freer.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon is Founding President of the MEI. The views reflected in this opinion piece are his own.