MUSINGS ABOUT A GIANT, PT. 3

If a person joins a club, or an organization, and discovers that the club doesn't meet the person's requirements or expectations, the person undoubtedly will choose to leave the club. Hopefully, he/she will explore every possible way to make the club fit into the expectations. And equally hopefully, the club will recognize that there are issues and will make reasonable accommodations to encourage the person to remain. Only when all possibilities are exhausted will the person leave, and most other people would say that the person has done the right thing and the parting of the ways was necessary.

The same concept applies to families, although here the possibility of some type of split is far more serious. Spouses, siblings, parents and children …. there are often situations when things get so toxic, so stressful, so potentially violent and harmful that family members must part ways. Again, others would say that, if all other avenues of reconciliation have been exhausted, separation and estrangement and divorce are sad but necessary outcomes.

In the previous two parts of this series of blogs, I've attempted to explain how the Canadian experiment has evolved historically and politically. The Canadian family has existed for more than 150 years now. It is no longer a "young" country: in fact, in terms of political unions and consistent government structures, it is one of the oldest countries. It is older, for example, than Germany, France, Italy and Russia. Eyebrows may be raised by that statement, but if one looks up the dates of origin of the current political structure of those countries, Canada's 1867 outdates them all. ( Italy was unified in 1867, but subsequent wars have altered its structure. )

I point this out in order to give some context to what I'm about to propose in order to arrive at a final thesis about this country. We have seen the country grow, evolve and develop. We have seen it struggle with self-identity often, and we have come to the brink of disaster on a few occasions. We have come to the proverbial fork in the road many times. In fact, it seems that we stand at a perpetual fork in the road, and are frozen, not knowing what path to take. Such paralysis is not healthy for anyone. It seems reasonable, therefore, to conclude that Canada is a difficult country to govern, and that there are more things that divide us than unite us. In fact it is reasonable to conclude that Canada is a failure, and that the experiment needs to end. But how? How best to bring about the much needed divorce? How do we reconcile ourselves to the certainty that all that we have been taught, all that we have been encouraged to believe, all the mythology that has been built up about this country has been false? How do we mend broken hearts and dry weepy eyes when people are confronted with these unpleasant truths?

There have been break-ups of countries before. Most have been violent, fraught with crises and uncertainty. The breakup of the former Soviet Union comes to mind. So, too the breakup of Pakistan from West and East Pakistan to the creation of the new entity of Bangladesh. But there have been peaceful breakups as well. The best example is that of the former Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, headed by the playwrite and intellectual Vaclav Havel. I believe that Canada, given its history, would fall into the latter example. And here's how it could be done.

The two provinces that have, in modern times, shown a vocal and marked propensity for separation are Quebec and Alberta. Quebec, being linguistically and culturally unique, and also being an original province ( arguable the oldest entity in Canada: Newfoundland could argue a good case for being "oldest", too ) has attempted to separate twice, through referenda. Close results have kept it in Canada. Theoretically, it could separate any time it wanted to, although it has never been fully put to the test, but few would argue that it couldn't do so if it passed a definite referendum on the plain question of separating.

What might drive Quebec out this time is the recently approved policy of outlawing any symbols of religion worn by public servants. This has been done in order to move Quebec further into secularism, which is thought to be the marker of a truly modern society. That would be scanned. Throughout its modern history, there has been a rather unpleasant thread of racism woven into its scheme of things. Mordecai Richler wrote about it extensively, mocking the "pur laine" belief of what constitutes a "real" Quebecer, and, really, nobody is fooled that the targets of this policy are those who wear head scarfs or cover themselves completely, in other words, Muslims. Catholic Quebec had previously targeted  Montreal's orthodox Jews and their yarmulkes and phylacteries: now Muslims have come under the gaze of Richler's "Pure Woolies."

Are these the beliefs of the rest of Canada? Do they line up with the long-held notions of acceptance, tolerance and multiculturalism ? Of course not. Does this put the federal government in a difficult position with Quebec vis-à-vis the Charter of Rights? Of course it does. Does the federal government have a moral and legal obligation to intervene if it can proven that Quebec's policy is discriminatory? Yes, it does. Will Quebec invoke the "notwithstanding" clause of the constitution to override any federal intervention? Undoubtedly it will. So, where does this put the federal government? Should the federal government choose to intervene, it would have to do so using the long-dormant option of "disallowance", which is still in the constitution, and which gives the federal government the right to override any provincial statute or regulation. It has not been used in more than 70 years and there are all kinds of concerns as to what it might actually mean to disallow Quebec's secularist policies.

It could indeed precipitate a crisis with Quebec. And Quebec, as an original colonial entrant into Confederation, would be perfectly within its rights to say that the federal government has no right to intervene into an "internal" matter, and begin the process, once again, of legitimizing its withdrawal from Canada.

Then, there is the curious case of Alberta. As discussed previously, Alberta's problems with the federal government come from three main sources: oil, distance from Ottawa, and ideology. Alberta is constantly at odds with the federal government on so many issues, it would be difficult and time-consuming to mention them here. Alberta is a relatively small province: 4 million out of the 36 million in Canada as a whole, which is less than 1/7th the size of the country. Yet, politically, Alberta punches above its weight. It's "natural" conservatism means that it sends nothing but Conservatives to the federal parliament ( there have been some exceptions ). This means that Alberta is almost perpetually in Opposition to the federal government, or, when Conservatives form a government, it means that a province of only 4 million sets a national agenda for the other 32 million of us. It is the classic case of the "tail wagging the dog."

The federal government, when it is Liberal, has registered frustration with Alberta many times. Quebec, which has much federal influence, has had it with Alberta. Alberta has had enough of Quebec. Ontario has swung back and forth on these feelings. Urban Ontarians tend to side with the federal government on most issues: rural Ontarians tend to side with Alberta in their distrust of both Quebec and the federal government. Atlantic Canada tends to be federalist, but only because their economic survival largely depends on federal transfer payments from … well, mostly from Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. Manitoba ? Again the urban/rural divide works here too, but it is in the west, so it tends to side with Alberta. Saskatchewan ? Increasingly more conservative and anti-federal than Alberta.

Dysfunctional ? This is the very definition of dysfunction. What to do ? The prospect of a new Conservative federal government, based largely on Alberta support, is looming. With it, any positive action on climate change or gun reform would be lost. Clearly, we have reached a tipping point in our country's history.

The time has come for the federal government to be proactive. I insist that, since Alberta is a creation of the federal government, the federal government has the right to "uncreate" it. In other words, to remove Alberta from Confederation. Indeed, this is a radical and extreme step. But the past events and possible future recriminations make it feasible and, in my view, desireable to do it. And if Saskatchewan makes lots of noise about this, then out with them too. Same goes for Manitoba, if it lines up with Alberta.

What will come out of this chaos ? What comes out of any divorce? It will be difficult, it will lead to anger and accusations.

But it is necessary. Canada is a dinosaur. Time to put it in a museum.

Some possible future outcomes of the divorces will be explored in part 4 of this series.