Real Third Party Option?

I discussed earlier about Canada not having a "libertatian principled or leaning" candidate. That wasn't entirely true. Of course, we have sites like Le Quebecois Libre and new political entities like the Coalition pour l'avenir du Quebec. And then there's Maxime Bernier and the Quebec Freedom Network.

Of the three, Le QL is staunchly libertarian while the other two, while advocating similar positions on some issues, remain in the conservative perimeter.

I have to admit, I agree with large parts of his speech.

Excerpt (from link provided):

"As Quebecers, we now have a choice between three national projects. One rests exclusively on Quebec nationalism and leads to independence; another rests on a dominant Canadian nationalism and promotes a centralized type of federalism.

These two options only get support from a minority of Quebecers. Despite that, they are the two main choices that we have been offered for decades.

To these two options, we can add a third, which proposes a more balanced coexistence between our two national identities: that of a more autonomous Quebec in a united Canada. Although it is supported by a large majority of Quebecers, this option never managed to get to the top.
Why is that? Why is it that the two most extreme national perspectives, the perspective of the separatists on the one hand and of the centralizing federalists on the other hand, of René Lévesque and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have been monopolizing our political debates for the past fifty years?

To understand what went on, I believe we have to set this debate within the larger context of political evolution in the 20th century.

There has been everywhere a significant growth of government. The role, size and powers of government have drastically increased. The portion of the overall economy controlled by government in most western countries has gone from
10% a century ago to more than 40% today.

Here at home, Canadian nationalism was reinforced by a centralizing and interventionist outlook on the role of the federal government. After the Second World War, federal politicians wanted to have their say on all sorts of social issues, despite the fact that these matters were the responsibility of the provinces in our Constitution.

Canada always had a relatively modest government, just like the United States. So, to distinguish Canada from the US, Canadian nationalists invented the myth of a social-democratic Canada, with its public health care system, its numerous social programs, its national norms and cultural protectionism.

Today, the federal government intervenes massively in areas of provincial jurisdictions, and in particular in health and education. Without Quebec nationalism acting as a counterweight, Canada would very likely be an even more centralized federation today..."

***

I agree with Bernier in that there's a growing segment of not just the Canadian population (myself included), but the American one as well - from what I observe - that are increasingly rejecting the two options he depicts.