Separatism Threat : Canada--Splintering of a Nation?

Four thousand fans rose to their feet before a recent baseball game between the Calgary Cannons and the Albuquerque Dukes, but not to sing “O Canada,” the national anthem. They sang “The Maple Leaf Forever,” an old song extolling Canada as part of the British Empire.

Two thousand miles to the east, Pierre Marc Johnson, former premier of Quebec and one of the nation’s most prominent politicians, told a reporter: “I’m not a Canadian, I’m not even a French-Canadian. I am a Quebecois.”

And in the Atlantic Maritime province of New Brunswick, the flag that flies over many towns is not the red-and-white Maple Leaf of Canada, not the lion-crested provincial banner, but a unique French tricolor decorated with a gold star. This is the emblem of the Acadians, a centuries-old group that, if not exactly separatist, certainly does not think in terms of Canada first.

Balkanization Threat

Driven by old but heightened regional rivalries, increasing economic disparities, a heavy political imbalance and a new constitutional accord that seriously weakens the power of the federal government, the Balkanization of Canada--even the ultimate failure of Canada as a nation with a central voice--seems a real possibility.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former prime minister and proponent of a unified Canada with a strong central government, observed recently that if the trend continues, “those Canadians who fought for a single Canada, bilingual and multicultural, can say goodby to their dream.”

Regional alienation, threats of separation--it is an old story in Canada, which was formed more than 200 years ago by the forced union of warring interests that are still distant and distrustful.

Heavily Felt Today

Still, though it has been ever thus in this huge and wildly diverse country, it seems more thus than ever now, just five years after Canada finally drafted its own constitution and only seven years after the threat of separation by French-speaking Quebec seemed to be dispatched forever.

‘A Distinct Society’

And although the idea of Quebec independence lies prostrate for the time being, it still lives, if only as a dream for many, and is strong enough for provincial leaders to insist that Quebec be officially recognized in the constitution as “a distinct society” with privileges not extended to other provinces.

But it is in the West where bitterness and frustration, ignited by recent federal government decisions that seem to favor the population centers in Ontario and Quebec, have reached a depth that many observers feel can only be eased by near-revolutionary political and economic reform.

If not, according to Robert Mansell, an economist at the University of Calgary, “the main likelihood could be rebellion.”

That is an extreme position, but all sorts of people are talking seriously about separation--established, otherwise conservative businessmen, liberal academics, politicians of every stripe. Some talk of forming a new nation, others of joining the United States.

Other Provinces Angered

And although discontent is strongest now in the western provinces, particularly Alberta, new federal policies combined with ancient abuses have angered the people of the Maritimes and Newfoundland.

Douglas May, an economist at Newfoundland’s Memorial University, said: “Publicly, people say they like it here and want to stay, but privately they want to move, particularly to the United States. The young, especially, don’t feel they are Canadians.”

This discontent goes all the way back to Sept. 13, 1759, on the Plains of Abraham below the walls of Quebec City. It was there that British troops defeated the French and established English domination over most of North America. But in order to avoid a guerrilla war and political instability, the British permitted the people of Quebec to keep their language, their culture and their political and social institutions--in other words, the essentials of a separate nation.

It was not until 1867 that Canada became anything resembling a nation. In that year, four British colonies formed a confederation, a process that was not completed until Newfoundland joined in 1949 as the 10th province.

Ontario, Quebec Dominate

A key characteristic of this evolution was a weakened central government. This was to the benefit of the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, which also enjoyed political and economic domination over the smaller and newer provinces.

These tendencies were and continue to be reinforced by a political system that provides for a House of Commons elected solely on the basis of population--more than 60% of Canada’s 25.7 million people live in Ontario and Quebec--and marked by the strictest party discipline of any British-style parliament.

In practice, this means that even members of Parliament from the Maritimes or the West vote for policies harmful to their regions if this is the wish of the national party leader.

“It’s a tyranny of the majority,” Calgary’s Mansell said in an interview. “They don’t give a damn, and there are no checks and balances.”

‘Can’t Influence Policy’

James D. Horsman, the minister of federal and intergovernmental affairs for Alberta, said that “no matter what we do in the West, we can’t influence policy in Ottawa.”

Horsman’s view is noteworthy because he is one of the most powerful leaders of the province’s ruling Progressive Conservative Party, the same party that controls the federal government in Ottawa.

As might be expected, the loudest complaints are about economic policy. In the Maritimes, the complaints are about Ottawa’s inability to reduce unemployment, which is chronically in double digits, and the refusal to implement programs to shift industrial facilities from the Toronto and Montreal areas.

In the West, the frustrations deal with those issues too, but go beyond them to claims of discriminatory freight rates on grain shipments and inadequate support when agriculture and other such prices are low, an inequitable distribution of federal tax revenues and, most important in Alberta, restrictions on profits from the extraction of oil and gas.

‘Milking of Alberta’

“It’s the milking of Alberta,” Mansell charged.

There is some basis for the complaints. When Trudeau was prime minister, he outraged the West, responding to farmers’ pleas for help by saying, “Why should I sell your wheat?”

But what almost sparked a rebellion was his 1980 National Energy Policy (NEP), which was designed to slow foreign ownership of Canada’s energy industries. It forced producers to sell oil and gas in Canada at less than world prices. Since 85% of Canada’s oil and gas comes from Alberta and is the foundation of the province’s economy, Trudeau was bitterly hated there.

“The NEP was a rape,” Horsman said.

An Ottawa formula for distributing tax revenues made a bad situation almost unbearable to westerners. According to Mansell, since 1969 the federal government has extracted $90 billion more from Alberta than has been returned.

Not a Two-Way Street

Albertans say they recognize that wealthy regions must contribute to the welfare of less-advantaged areas of the country, but they say the sentiment is never returned when the West, especially Alberta, is in trouble.

They point out that in the years since 1969, Alberta has been the only province that has sent more to the federal government than it has received. This has been true, they say, even in the years since 1984, a period in which Alberta has been devastated by the oil recession.

Even Ontario, the wealthiest and most industrially successful of all the provinces, has continued to receive more in these so-called equalization payments than it has contributed.

“In bad times, the money does not flow back,” said Brian Scarfe, chairman of the economics department at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

The reason for this discrimination and disparity is easy to explain, according to Ted Byfield, an Edmonton publisher.

Colonial System Prevails

“The outer regions,” he said, “are viewed by Toronto and Ottawa as a source of economic wealth. It is a colonial system where the power center exploits the colonies.”

Others, including Horsman, think that the reason is emotional, not the result of any conspiracy.

“We shouldn’t have bragged so much about the Heritage Fund,” Horsman said, referring to a special fund that Alberta set up during the oil boom years. “It made others envious.”

It was more than bragging. In the 1970s, when the province was making money at an unprecedented rate, Albertans reacted to eastern complaints about high energy prices by displaying stickers reading, “Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark.”

This was matched in the 1984 bad times by signs in Toronto suggesting that Albertans should “drink their oil.”

The resentment includes even the programming of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the government-financed radio and television network.

‘Scorn for Us in West’

“The so-called intellectuals in Toronto decide what we will hear and see, and they do it without regard or with scorn for us in the West,” said Stephen Hume, general manager and former publisher of the Edmonton Journal.

Although ultimately Trudeau backed off somewhat, the animosity remained, and when he retired from office in 1984, not one western provincial legislature contained a member of his Liberal Party and there were only two western Liberals in the federal Parliament.

In Trudeau’s place, Canada got Brian Mulroney, who led the Progressive Conservatives to the biggest electoral victory in Canadian history, partly on the expectation that he would redress the ills plaguing the West and the Maritimes.

And it seemed he would. First, he abolished the National Energy Policy and signed energy accords with Alberta and Newfoundland, which expects great dividends from suspected offshore oil reserves. Mulroney also promised incentives to establish more diversified industries in the natural-resources provinces and aid to struggling farmers. And he appointed Maritimers and Westerners to key ministries.

Political Imperatives

But Mulroney also did what every other national leader has done, and what the political imperatives of Canada and its electoral system apparently demand: He shaved his policies to favor Ontario and Quebec at the expense of the rest.

He continued programs concentrating industries and financial institutions in Toronto and Montreal, and he took steps that Maritimers see as damaging to the fishing sector. To the dismay of Alberta, he delayed carrying out a promise to eliminate some energy taxes at a time when oil prices were at a 15-year low.

But what led to the disillusionment that many westerners say they now feel was a Mulroney decision to give a multimillion-dollar contract for servicing new Canadian Air Force planes to a Montreal firm, even though a Manitoba company had submitted a lower bid and was considered better able to do the work.

“That contract led to alienation which never existed before, not just on the part of the oil people but others who thought it was only the Liberals who were at fault,” the University of Alberta’s Scarfe said. “It forced a cohesiveness that never existed.”

Disparities in Other Countries

There is still a certain confusion about all this. Even with all the discrimination and imbalance, Canada’s regional disparities are not unique. Other countries, including the United States, have similar problems, yet there is no serious talk of secession, let alone rebellion. Why in Canada?

Part of the answer is rooted in Canadian history, which has not only not emphasized nationalism but has often disparaged it. Also, according to Roger Simmons, leader of Newfoundland’s opposition Liberal Party, “no national leaders with the possible exception of (former Conservative Prime Minister John) Diefenbaker and Trudeau has had a national vision.”

Even the immigration patterns in settling the West contributed to a lack of national consciousness, a lack of national loyalty.

“Instead of the steady westward movement by Easterners as in the United States, Canadian Westerners mostly came directly from East Europe and the United States,” said David Bercuson, a historian at the University of Calgary. “There was no connection to the rest of the country. This just worsened the regionalism that is natural in a country as large and underpopulated as Canada.”

‘Westerners Want In’

Nonetheless, Bercuson said in an interview, “Westerners want in. People really feel they are outsiders, and there is danger that some demagogue will convince them that there is a conspiracy against them and they will follow him.”

The before-it-is-too-late answer, according to Mansell, Scarfe, Horsman, Bercuson and many others, east and west, is reform of Parliament, especially the Senate, a patronage-ridden, appointive body with no real power.

Alberta Premier Don Getty has proposed what he calls a Triple-E Senate: elected, equal and effective. It would give every province, even tiny Prince Edward Island, with its 80,000 people, equal representation in a body that has equal power with the House of Commons.

Mulroney has given vague support to the concept and has won the promise of all 10 provincial governments to have meetings on the idea for at least five years. Yet while most western leaders support the idea, there is widespread skepticism about whether it can succeed.

‘It Ain’t Going to Happen’

“It ain’t going to happen,” Burcuson said, “for obvious reasons.”

The reasons are Ontario and Quebec, neither of which is likely to give up the power it has, along with the highest standards of living in the country. And it will take unanimous consent by all the provinces to make any change in the present system.

What happens, then, if the reform effort fails? Mansell, Burcuson and many others think separation, by one means or another, is likely.

Byfield, on the other hand, while not dismissing separation as a possibility, thinks there is an alternative.

“If (reform) fails, the trend toward separation or union with the United States may force the rest of the country, especially in Toronto, to re-evaluate the situation and to make changes,” he said.

Perhaps so, but until Canadians start thinking of themselves as Canadians and not Quebecers or Westerners or Acadians or Maritimers, the words of the late Quebec politician and journalist Henri Bourassa will continue to be true.

“We have here in our country,” he said, “the patriotism of Ontarians, the patriotism of Quebecers and the patriotism of Westerners; but there is no Canadian patriotism, and there will not be a Canadian nation as long as we do not have a Canadian patriotism.”