Every so often, one hears the
argument that Quebec receives more money from Canada than it gives, and
therefore independence for Quebec would be catastrophic. This argument usually comes from
freedom-hating francophobes or colonized but well-paid francophones spouting
this nonsense in various right-wing media outlets. The argument is also quite simplistic as it
merely compares the sum total of money given to Ottawa from Quebec with the
total amount spent by Ottawa in Quebec, or on Quebec's behalf. It is also problematic in several ways.
First and foremost, it reduces Canada to an annual paycheck. If they were self-consistent, Canadians who invoke it should ask Quebec to leave as this would save Canada a lot of money and that apparently is what Canada is all about. Conversely if it could be shown, as Stéphane Gobeil does in his book Un Gouvernement de Trop (vlb éditeur, 2012), that Quebec wastes about two billion dollars every year just by staying in Canada, then federalists living in Quebec who make that argument should logically advocate independence. If the people making the money argument were motivated by principle, then they should reverse their position on Quebec independence. However, since they are clearly motivated by a self-serving desire to maintain the status quo, the illogic of their position is lost on them.
First and foremost, it reduces Canada to an annual paycheck. If they were self-consistent, Canadians who invoke it should ask Quebec to leave as this would save Canada a lot of money and that apparently is what Canada is all about. Conversely if it could be shown, as Stéphane Gobeil does in his book Un Gouvernement de Trop (vlb éditeur, 2012), that Quebec wastes about two billion dollars every year just by staying in Canada, then federalists living in Quebec who make that argument should logically advocate independence. If the people making the money argument were motivated by principle, then they should reverse their position on Quebec independence. However, since they are clearly motivated by a self-serving desire to maintain the status quo, the illogic of their position is lost on them.
Nevertheless,
I will persist in outlining the problems with the monetary argument, one of
which is that it fails to distinguish between money spent and money wasted. As it happens, the Federal government is a
very wasteful institution and in many different ways. It wastes money by duplicating many
provincial services, and in Quebec’s case it does so in a way that frequently
undermines Quebec government policy. Not
only that, but when the Federal government provides services in a provincial
domain, it usually does so far less efficiently than the provincial government. In fact, it cannot even properly do things in
Quebec that are its responsibility, as the deplorable state of the Champlain
Bridge attests.
Furthermore,
the monetary argument does not take into consideration transfers between Quebec
and Canada that don’t show up on official government statistics. For instance, it probably does not consider
hidden taxes and transfers imposed by the Federal government, the most
egregious being the ongoing scandal that is the unemployment insurance. It’s no secret that the Federal government has
long been tightening the eligibility to the insurance such that only 40% or
less of the unemployed have access to it. All the while, the premiums stay as high as ever so that the program
produces a huge surplus, which disappears into the Federal coffers. This is both a tax and a transfer, because
those who don’t qualify go on welfare which is provincial. This type of passing
the buck (not the bucks) is how Paul Martin "balanced the budget" in the 1990’s, by unloading services
once paid for by the federal government onto the provinces, thereby saddling
provinces with increased costs and forcing provinces to further unload
services on to the municipalities.
The monetary
argument also neglects all the Federal decisions over the years meant to favor
Ontario’s economy to the detriment of everyone else’s. Indeed, Ottawa has always done whatever it can to boost Upper Canada’s then Ontario’s economy, everything from the
offloading of half of Upper Canada’s debt onto Lower Canada with the Union of
1841, to the opening of the St Lawrence waterway to the Great Lakes in 1959, to
the support of Ontario’s auto industry with Federal money (paid for by Quebec
and the rest of Canada). In 2009, $13 billion federal dollars were handed over to this industry. Add to this the
concentration of the Federal bureaucracy and financial institutions in Ontario
and you get a commercial services surplus for Ontario of over $30 billion, while
Quebec gets a deficit of $4.7 billion.
According to
Stéphane Gobeil's rummaging through the public accounts to check line by line
to see where federal spending went, we discover that the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission, with total expenditures of $138 million in 2009, spent less
than 10% of its budget in Quebec. We also discover that the Department of
Human Resources and Skills Development spends only 12% in Quebec in goods and
services on a total of over $500 million across Canada. We even learn that subsidies
are included in the portfolio of some departments, such as a check for $108
million to "The initiative to revitalize the Toronto waterfront” by the
Ministry of Finance. Another example is the portfolio of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, which amounted to $7.4 billion in 2010. It should be
noted that in a period of twelve years the bureaucratic costs of this ministry
increased by 140% while transfers to Aboriginal people only grew by 50%. Quebecers
finance 19.5% of this portfolio but receive less than half of that from Ottawa
since Quebec has only 9.2% of Canada’s Aboriginal people. Despite this, Quebec
does not receive the necessary resources from Ottawa to properly develop the
North.
The result:
23.2% of spending is attributed to Quebec when in reality, both in terms of
services received as actual expenditures, Quebec does not get its fair share in
most cases, despite the explosion of spending ($30 billion federal deficit in
2009 and $55 billion in 2010). And this does not even take into account contracts
for the construction of vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy: $33 billion to build boats in Halifax and Vancouver while Quebec will receive absolutely nothing. There are many examples of how Quebec gets short-changed on federal
schemes that Quebec must pay into but hold little value for us, financially or otherwise. We never really
hear about all of those programs, we only ever hear about equalization payments
and we're endlessly told by the media that Quebec gets $7 billons dollars from
Alberta!?!. First of all we pay about $3 billion into that scheme so the amount
endlessly repeated should $4 billion. An important point, however, is the fact
that Ottawa does not invest in economic development equally. Ontario and
Alberta get the lion's share and the reality is that investing in Albertan oil
enriches Alberta but also increases the value of the Canadian dollar which, in
turn, hurts Quebec's exports. Equalization can be seen as a kind of
compensation for this.
In any case,
by establishing the actual share received by Quebec, the expenses that would be
incurred by becoming an independent country (embassies, old age pensions, etc.)
and the savings that eliminating a tier of government would bring in public
administration, Gobeil estimates that Quebec would save about $2 billion. To my knowledge, the only person who has attempted
to challenge Stéphane Gobeil's study was Professor Martin Coiteux, a member of the
federalist think tank "The Federal Idea". The latter, who by his own
admission has not verified public accounts, believes Gobeil underestimated some
costs that would have to be assumed by an independent Quebec. He mentions
national defense (Gobeil believes that Quebec could have an army and an air
force for the equivalent to 0.93% of Quebec's GDP). Coiteux believes this
impossible even though Canada spent only 1.1 % of its GDP on defense in 2005 while
engaged in Afghanistan. Coiteux’s critique does not seem available on the web
anymore but you can read Gobeil’s rebuttal here.