1867, the official date in which the Dominion of Canada was established between New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Province of Canada (modern-day Quebec and Ontario). With the other provinces joining the confederation in the years ahead, the bulk of western Canada (Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan) joined the dominion in 1905. And the latest two additions were Nunavut in 1999 and Newfoundland in 1949. Canada has come far to include all of these provinces to be part of one national sovereignty. The vast landscapes of the forests, lakes, and mountains that the Indigenous occupied and people from diverse backgrounds all came together to form one Canada. The country continues to grow in diversity, with more and more people mixing into the Canadian identity. To be Canadian is a forever changing but nonetheless single identity. While the federation had submitted the provinces to be of one sovereignty, the Constitution had cemented Canadians to have the same rights as any other inhabitant from coast to coast to coast. Thus forming the Canadian.
But since the Canadian Confederation, there has always been a slight split in the interests between provinces and the federal government. As a direct challenge to this discrepancy, Pierre Trudeau had fought hard for a single united Canada through the efforts of his Constitution and his resistance against Quebec sovereignty. And so far, his legacy has come to fruition. But with Quebec, Alberta, and now Saskatchewan pushing towards the idea of increasing provincial “autonomy”. Is a united Canada now at risk?
For context, Quebec has always pushed for greater autonomy for its provinces since the inception of Canada. Greater powers for immigration, greater powers for benefits, greater powers for social legislation, etc. At both the provincial and federal levels, the Coalition Avenir Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois both push for more autonomy for Quebec. The Quebec government has even passed legislation to officially consider Quebec a “nation” within Canada. Outside of optics, the categorization of “nation” has no bearing within the Constitution or sovereignty that Quebec upholds to. Thus, autonomy and greater powers for Quebec have always been an issue brought up by Quebec politicians, but it has never been born to fruition in the form of secession or increased powers for the province.
In Alberta, Premier Kenney as of late has put on this rhetoric that everything his government does is against the federal boogeyman, Justin Trudeau. Alberta and the federal government are likely the two entities that are the most at odds with one another. Mostly due to the UPC using the LPC as a political wedge issue to lure in conservative voters who loathe Trudeau and the LPC. The latest political stunt was the equalization referendum that the UPC pulled, with the majority of Albertans voting ‘against’ equalization. Essentially, the UPC is claiming that the tax dollars Alberta generates are not fairly distributed to Alberta and instead given to other provinces that do not do as well economically compared to Alberta. Thus for the UPC, this transaction is inherently unfair. But the referendum has no bearing constitutionally and will not change the equalization law as Premier Kenney so desires. As a result, the UPC will continue to fight at odds with the feds forevermore.
The latest pundit has been pulled by the Saskatchewan Premier, Scott Moe. Stating that Saskatchewan is a “nation within a nation”. Further stating that he wants more powers for his province in regards to policing and regulations in the fossil fuel industry. Interesting to note, many analysts have labelled this move by Moe to be of direct retaliation against Trudeau’s commitments at COP26. Trudeau said he would cap emissions in the old and gas sector and bring oil and gas production emissions down. A move that both Premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan denounced right away. As a result, this political move by Scott Moe is an attempt by him to create a wedge issue against the LPC to potentially transfer more power from the feds to the provinces in regards to fossil fuel regulations. For Moe, more fossil fuels appease his backdoor friends so he will do anything to make climate change commitments an issue for his province. An Alberta 2.0, if I may say.
Unfortunately, none of these provinces have any interest to secede from Canada. They all depend on federal funds for many social programs such as healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure, and now child care. The federal government and the provinces have become intertwined more than ever in providing social services to its citizens. Seceding from the country would mean abandoning federal funds on key social programs that run the province. This is why all the premiers I’ve mentioned use the words “autonomy” rather than “separate” or “independence”.
Not to mention the economic fallout that would ensue with a province seceding. Hypothetically, if Quebec were to become a fully independent country, they would have abysmal leverage in regards to signing and negotiating trade deals with not only Canada but the US and the rest of the world. Right now, international trade deals are done solely by the federal government. And even now, Canada does not have much leverage compared to more powerful economies like the US and China. With a province seceding, international economic leverage would go down proportionally for both Canada and the seceded province. Would Quebec want to go through the hassle of negotiating trade deals with the US, China, and the EU; probably not. Now the obvious rebuttal to this argument would be that a province that wishes to secede must inherit the current trades deals that Canada has signed. For that, the province in consideration must negotiate with the rest of Canada for those deals, which would obviously result in a suboptimal deal for the new province. Thus, from an economic perspective; secession would end badly for all nation entities in question.
For evidence of economic disaster after leaving an economic union, look no further than our mother country - the UK. After leaving the EU, the UK has faced reduced competition, food shortages, labour shortages in the form of workers and delivery drivers, historic inflation, reduced revenue for small businesses in key industries like fishery and agriculture, a lack of migrant workers willing to work in the UK, etc. The list could go on, a quick google search of the word “Brexit” will instantly turn up 10 articles stating the abysmal economic fallout of the deal. The UK conservatives were warned by economists, a secession from the EU would have long-term consequences on the economy of the UK (mostly due to trade uncertainties). Interesting how Brexit supporters become surprised when experts who spend their entire lives studying a field end up being correct on a key issue like economics that directly affects everyone in a country. Wow, no way, could it be that economists actually know what they're talking about when it comes to economics?
A similar story could be said if any province would secede from Canada. An attempt to secession, a warning by economists, a successful secession, and finally mass economic fallout affecting the province’s citizens for years. The PM, premiers, and pretty much every analyst knows this reality. Politicians are not willing to secede due to economic reasons.
So is Canada as a whole at risk of becoming fragmented? Most likely not within the next little while. Current polling even supports this claim, a majority of Canadians do not want to secede from Canada in their respective provinces including Quebecers. If Quebecers don’t want to secede, then how will the rest of Canada measure up. Not well as anybody would guess.
However, I will say that the polarization of Canadian provinces against the federal government is as strong as it has ever been. Maybe not as much as 1995 during the Quebec referendum, but strong and present nonetheless. It is not fair to say that an attempt to secession will never happen again, Canadians made the unfortunate assumption that secession was dead in the 80s and early 90s before being surprised during the ‘95 referenda. Polling data can change and people can change significantly in a short period of time. The fleur-de-lis of fragmentation is withered but still barely alive. Giving it a little bit of attention can bring the fleur-de-lis to absolute ripeness. Ready to face the maple leaf.