The internal conundrum of the True North

The internal conundrum of the True North

The fact that there are a number of questions that have sprung to mind with increasing regularity recently. There has been ample material and inspiration to work diligently at assessing and analysing the genuine makeup and nature of Canada. Making some sense of the diversity of the confusion should help answer the following questions:

How “strong and free” is Canada, in its entirety?

Does being Canadian mean the same meaning throughout the federation?

Does each province celebrate the first of July differently each year, because it means something different to each of them?

 

Worldwide, there is a plethora of divided nations. Many are of an occasionally vastly different nature from each other, and can be found on each continent. Some have always been, and still are, extremely severe, in particular the two Koreas which are still officially at war as the 27 July 1953 agreement is merely a ceasefire. While the only battles in Canada were between the British and French during the 18^th century as part of the competition between their two respective empires, there is quite a long history of regional discontent which has continued to evolve since Canada was formed in 1867.

 

When the Alberta government set the Canadian Energy Centre up in October 2019, the nickname “Energy War Room” seemed highly appropriate. It had been created due to long-standing necessity. The Alberta energy industry had long had to endure a landlocked status. Within the province, this had long been blamed on the popularly titled “Notley-Trudeau alliance.”

The replacement of the provincial government resulted in dissolving widespread dissatisfaction throughout Alberta. There still remains a large degree of discontent with the current federal government, as that part of the “alliance” is still intact. Therefore, the desire for full sovereignty has become a demand of many. If and when that comes close to taking place, it is more likely that there would be federal resistance to it. Other provinces would be tempted to follow suit, probably whether or not it does indeed take place. A large proportion of the national dilemma / potential calamity revolves around energy production.

There is also an international component that is a factor in the domestic situation of Canada. Saudi Arabia, which at times appears to be OPEC in its entirety, exports over half a million barrels to Canada per day. There are vested interests within eastern Canada whose prime source for their refineries are tankers which import Saudi crude. The kingdom has long had the aim of dominating the entire global marketplace, viewing any competitor as a rival. That could be especially true of a competitor that is much closer to a particular market, while concurrently being extremely distant in many other paradigms.

 

During last year’s provincial election campaign, I took issue with my MLA by observing that while diversification was a fine aim, it is not wise to attempt to achieve it through destroying the province’s primary industry. The observation I made to my then recently elected MLA to whom he had recently lost his seat could hold a greater degree of truth than it used to have. The federal government seems to be doing the same thing to both the national economy and national unity: sabotage. Therefore, the current obstacles within Canada could stay in place or even be aggravated. Diversifying the economy had been a slogan of the prior provincial government.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly claimed that frustrations did not mean that national unity was under threat. Complaints have been frequently heard, usually accompanied by individuals harshly grunting “Ottawa” to emphasize where the target of such strong disgruntlement is. Furthermore, there seems to be relative lawlessness in terms of dealing with somewhat extreme protesters. There is a flood of conspiracy theories as to the organization and funding of these seemingly radical groups.

The government of Alberta faces the sizeable task of geopolitical juggling. Not only does it regard their interaction with many parties, but it is also about the interaction of these parties with each other. This has the potential to morph the situation with which Alberta has to deal. Caution could be a key watchword when dealing with any, especially all of the following: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Vladimir Putin, Justin Trudeau and Bill Morneau, or Donald Trump. It is difficult to determine which of those individuals is most problematic to deal with. Logically, a part of a nation should have less difficulty when dealing other parts of the same nation, rather than internationally. In the case of Canada, that appears to not be the case at all. The main source of the primary division has been omnipresent for decades, while some may allege that it has existed for an even longer period, maybe even always.

 

Québec is a mystery to some, and charming to others. To a few, Québec is a law unto itself. Québec has long been, and still is extremely complex within itself. The premier, François Legault, had made a comment about the social acceptability of an additional pipeline, in addition to having criticized Alberta for producing “dirty” energy. At the Global Petroleum Show in Calgary shortly after the “social acceptability” comment had been made, the mayor of Québec City, Régis Labeaume received a warm reception, after having contradicted premier Legault completely.

Beyond energy production and consumption, Québec has a complex and turbulent history and culture.

A timely reminder was delivered by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, during a brief speech after the last year’s federal election. Noteworthily, he praised the late Québec premier, René Lévesque. During his time as premier from 1976 until 1985, he had been something of a nightmare for the prime minister Pierre Trudeau, also father of the current prime minister. The government of Québec at that time was of the Parti Québécois, which had been founded by René Lévesque. The Parti Québécois had the goal of complete independence and separation from Canada.

 

The famous motto of Québec is “Je me souviens” (I remember). The catchphrase originated in 1883 and became official in 1939. Furthermore, it became even better known when it started appearing on Québec license plates in 1978 during the premiership of René Lévesque. There are multiple interpretations due to many factors from past centuries, possibly accentuated by René Lévesque.

During the 60s and 70s, there were disturbing acts of violence by radical separatists of the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Québec) such as bombings, kidnapping the British trade commissioner and the killing of a Québec cabinet minister.

The trade commissioner and the British government had probably been reminded of its own ongoing domestic crisis with the Irish Republican Army which in fact then got worse (with two attempted assassinations of the British prime minister) before it was partially solved.

Although René Lévesque passed away in 1987, he could well still be present within the mindset of many Quebecers, hence the praise from Yves-François Blanchet which may have had the effect of slightly intimidating the current prime minister, just as René Lévesque’s main aim and efforts for independence used to intimidate his father. One frequent comment on the general subject of unity issues by the prime minister was viewed by him as a riposte, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” That appeared to have hollow meaning and significance nationwide as the various forms of discontent continued, distinct from one region to another. That includes a noteworthy comment via Twitter which is still a somewhat farcical virtual platform. There is one surreal personality with the pen-name “Rene Lévesque” who regularly criticizes Justin Trudeau, such as claiming that the prime minister grew up having been inspired by a book that he alleges his father bought him: “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff.

 

In terms of the overall status of Québec within Canada, the population is divided into three sections: those who want full independence, to firmly remain within Canada, and roughly in between both - those who wish to have more sovereignty and autonomy. Aside from the mainstream political parties, representation was shared between the Parti and its federal counterpart, the Bloc Québécois which originated in 1991.

The Québec Independence referendum of 1980 brought Canada to particular international attention. Such attention became more intense during the second referendum in 1995. The result of that was much closer than that of 1980. Thereafter, it seemed that the (political) situation within Québec evolved. The Parti Québécois did badly in the 2014 provincial election, no longer being the party of government. 2018 was even worse for the Bloc, while the new party of provincial government was the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) headed by François Legault. Incumbent since 2018, as premier he is a reflection of the desire of the general majority of the population Québec to maintain a significant amount of autonomy. It appears that for now, the desire for full independence is significantly diminished, given that the Parti Québécois is in its worst state since its was founded in 1968.

 

The potential for the desire for full independence still exists in the background, and could revive if the current autonomy is perceived as being hampered by federal powers. The prophetically titled CAQ and the Bloc are very forceful in speaking in favour of Québec in particular, rather than Canada and Québec’s place within it. Canada has long been officially and legally bilingual since 1963, whereas it has been functionally bilingual since before confederation in 1867, during the era when colonization by the British and French was taking place simultaneously, occasionally interrupted by a skirmish. Overwhelmingly, the majority in Québec is francophone. The will to preserve it persists along with the potential for a renewed desire for independence, due to paranoia that English could be made to supplant French.

 

Québec is the world’s 44^th largest economy, just behind Norway. Québec contains 19.65% of Canada’s GDP, with ¾ of its exports going to the US, with the remainder to Europe. Furthermore, Québec seems to be prominent within both NAFTA and the WTO of its own accord.

Within Canada, Québec is a leading province in terms of the carbon tax. Forestry, agriculture and waster industries are exempt from the tax. In terms of energy, Québec has more emphasis on renewables while having been something of a pioneer with its carbon tax regime. Hydro-Québec is state-owned and has a virtual monopoly when it comes to electricity in Québec.

 

Natural resources in their non-renewable form, otherwise known as fossil fuels, are primarily found in the west and the small eastern fringe of Canada. Specifically, oil is produced in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, while gas is produced in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia.

In terms of the oil and gas industry and the way in which it is supported or opposed, there seems to be something of an East versus West confrontation. This sticky state of affairs between the provinces seems to separate Manitoba to British Columbia and Ontario to the Atlantic coast (with the vaguely possible exception of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia). The confrontation has given new life to historical mutual mistrust, which goes much of the way towards the Wexit phenomenon. Wexit Canada advocates for the secession of MB to BC, to form a separate nation state.

 

There is a vast array of factors that contributed to the formation of Wexit, which could / should be given the title “gripe list”.

First of all, there is the population distribution combined with the mechanics of the political system itself. The combined population of Ontario and Quebec is more than double that of the Wexit provinces (Manitoba to British Columbia). There is a strong general perception that politicians prefer areas with larger populations where they can win more seats and form a government. The more populous provinces also require fewer voters to elect an MP or a Senator. Therefore, many feel that the political system is “rigged” in order to favour the east.

 

This naturally bridges towards the next item on the gripe list which could most be suitably named the “Québec Factor”. It is a metaphorical magnet for attention, due to concern about Québec wishing to separate from Canada. The concern has at times been so severe that it could match the definition paranoia. Outside Québec, emphasis on ensuring and even strengthening bilingualism are by and large regarded as excessive. The infamous sponsorship scandal during the 1995 referendum campaign exacerbated bitterness given the illegal use of federal money in Québec in order to improve pro-Canadian feeling. Even though the Parti Québécois has almost ceased to exist, the Bloc Québécois has well and truly taken its place since its formation four years prior to the referendum. The distinctly nationalist policies are widely viewed as harmful to the west, while also being perceived as aided and abetted by CAQ since its relatively recent founding in 2011.

 

Possibly at the top of Wexit’s gripe list is equalization payments. Alberta tends to provide a lower total contribution than Ontario, however it is higher on a per capita basis. Meanwhile, how the funds are spent is completely unrestricted. Although it is a matter of debate, Québec is probably the largest beneficiary, and may have been since the equalization program began in 1957. Furthermore, Hydro-Québec undoubtedly raises suspicions elsewhere of harming other parts of Canada with socialist policies while spending the money of other provinces which was earned from taxes on free enterprise. Foremost in Alberta, it is highly likely that there is a perception that Québec is wasting Alberta’s money.

 

The current prime minister accentuates the combined regional and ideological divide within the Canadian federation. In terms of international interaction, perceptions vary nationwide. Recently, there was an increase in funding for the World Health Organization which is viewed as a vehicle for PRC dominance from where Covid19 originated, whereas the funds were domestically required to deal with it. That, in combination with relatively long-term praise for dictatorships has aroused widespread distaste in western Canada. Having praised the PRC government and Fidel Castro was relatively elegantly fused with criticism of opposing parties during the recent federal election campaign. In the west, he has long been widely perceived as strongly pro- Québec. Multiple claims were made that the Bloc Québécois was ineffective in many policy areas. That especially included multiple occasions of claiming to be able to stop his ideological opponent, and by implication also that of the nation, represented by conservatives Doug Ford and Jason Kenney.

Partially through that, in certain regions of the country (primarily the east) there is no conversation about how the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be playing Justin Trudeau as a means of weakening the Canadian oil and gas industry. He also inherited a wealth fund from his father, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, which has investments in refineries, mining and gas stations. In the eastern provinces, the issue of potential/probable corruption has been neatly skirted around, while in the west it is heard of and read on a far more regular basis.

 

Nationwide, this combination of division seems to have become second-nature. With roots from an era before Canada came into existence, the regional differences which are also ideological in nature became engrained after 1867. The blessing of modern communications could have recently evolved into a curse, with greater ease to communicate without requiring face-to-face interaction. Thereby, there are highly polarized positions which are expressed clearly with the use of confrontational language, a reflection of the prevailing attitude of the individual and the group to which he or she belongs. When referring to a different and opposing opinion, the region of that individual is increasingly used against him, or her, or even a whole group. That amounts to an inconvenient substitute for actual debate.

 

Unity: what price does it have? It clearly is an endangered species. Furthermore, although some may deny it, national unity could already be extinct. It may have always been by the nature of the various parts of Canada, however it had long been maintained because the alternative of one province separating or the entire nation breaking up was simply unaffordable. If it really happened in some form, it would leave Québec short of funds as many, especially Albertans, would insist on cancelling equalization payments. Doing so would lead to the equalization program ceasing to exist, thereby the federal government would no longer have a tool with which to strengthen national unity. Staying together could end up having to be forced to occur: It is painfully obvious that the many parts of Canada (or just the main two) firmly believe that they should look after themselves first, as the other parts simply do not care and are actively trying to harm them. In the field of relations, external relations have been and are still challenging to maintain for every nation. Canada faces a more challenging conundrum of maintaining and above all rebuilding internal relations which are severely damaged.