Stories

The Two Solitudes Make a Comeback

Brendan Steven
December 12, 2011
Is Quebec’s province-wide embrace of the NDP just more evidence that the two solitudes are as alienated from each as ever, or merely a fluke? Brendan Steven worries that language issues and the Quebec vs. the Rest of Canada divide will play a more prominent role in the next few years of Canadian politics.
Stories

The Two Solitudes Make a Comeback

Brendan Steven
December 12, 2011
Is Quebec’s province-wide embrace of the NDP just more evidence that the two solitudes are as alienated from each as ever, or merely a fluke? Brendan Steven worries that language issues and the Quebec vs. the Rest of Canada divide will play a more prominent role in the next few years of Canadian politics.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

Canadian nationhood is an unhappy marriage of two historic solitudes: English and French Canada. In the last federal election, the Conservative government received a majority mandate with 161 seats in English Canada. The NDP were propelled to official opposition on the back of 59 seats from Quebec. The early days of our new parliament have been dominated by issues sharply divided on English-French lines. These issues, pitting Quebec against the rest of Canada, will undoubtedly continue to emerge. Will our unhappy marriage only get worse under the political conditions afforded by the last federal election?”

In 2007, Scott Gardiner published a groundbreaking work of political fiction called King John of Canada. It is easily one of the most thought-provoking novels in Canadian fiction. It reminds readers that Canada is formed from a workable, if unhappy relationship between English and French Canada. It is a relationship that always veers toward conflict and sits on the edge of disaster. If Canada’s new parliament continues on its current course, disaster might not be an unlikely scenario.

The novel supposes that a new referendum on Quebec sovereignty takes place. The country anticipates that Quebec will finally secede. In a moment of clarity, King John offers a revolutionary concept:

On the same day Quebec held its referendum, proposed the King, the Rest of Canada ought to organize a referendum of its own – advancing the self-same question …. [I]t seemed only reasonable that the Rest of Canada should be consulted about its wishes with respect to Quebec.

So they hold a referendum. Both English Canada and Quebec vote to separate, and Canada splits in two. It is a happy divorce.

Gardiner may be cynical about the nature of the two solitudes today, but is his cynicism justified?

Gardiner is right to point out that Canada’s founding peoples are in an unhappy marriage. No one is signing divorce papers but that does not mean the couple is taking long walks on the beach. English and French Canada face a gulf between them that each is willing to let simmer and stew.

No further evidence is needed than to look at the recent results of the federal election. On the backs of 59 parliamentary seats from Quebec, the NDP rocketed into Official Opposition. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are perched in the majority with 145 seats from English Canada. A few Conservative ridings remain in Quebec, and there are NDP parliamentarians who come from English Canada, but each party’s success came from one-half of the two solitudes. English Canada handed Harper his majority, and Quebec handed the NDP their Official Opposition status.

English Canada picked one direction, Quebec another. The sharpness of this divide may be quiet now, but that will not last long.

Many of the major issues that have emerged in this Parliament have divided sharply on English and French lines. The NDP briefly fought to require that Supreme Court justices be bilingual. NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel, in a recent statement criticizing Quebec’s shutout from a multi-billion-dollar shipbuilding contract, slammed the Conservatives for “picking winners and losers.”

NDP leadership candidate Thomas Mulcair lambasted the Harper plan to afford new seats to English provinces as an attack against Quebec. Mulcair also introduced a bill that would subject Quebec businesses under federal jurisdiction to similar language requirements as those enforced under Bill 101.

The NDP offer a different type of Quebec advocacy than that spearheaded by the Bloc Québécois. With only 49 members in the House of Commons, the BQ was on the fringe of Parliament, its issues relegated behind the agenda of the Conservatives and their Liberal opposition.

Now, the role of Quebec advocate has shifted from the Bloc Québécois to the NDP. The difference, of course, is that the Quebec advocate is now the government-in-waiting. The English-French divide is at the forefront of the national dialogue.

History gives us another example of a Parliament divided along English-French lines. Canada’s 35th Parliament featured an English Canadian government and a Quebec advocate as the Official Opposition. Then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Opposition Leader Lucien Bouchard spent an egregious amount of time debating the minutiae of national unity. English-French tensions sprung to the fore, a PQ government was elected in Quebec City and the province plunged into its second referendum.

Now, by no means is it 1993. There is little chance the PQ will retake the National Assembly, and there is even less chance of a new referendum. Canadian unity has never benefited from a Parliament divided, English against Quebecer.

It has only been a few months since the first sitting of Canada’s 41st Parliament. These issues, pitting Quebec against the “Rest of Canada,” will undoubtedly continue to emerge.

Will our unhappy marriage only get worse under the political conditions afforded by the last federal election, with English Canada as government and Quebec as Official Opposition?

Maybe someday we will find a happy middle ground, but until that day comes, I can only anticipate that the situation will get worse. If our national dialogue continues to bring out these old quarrels, then tensions will continue to rise. We have not yet signed the divorce papers, but unless we chart a new course, one day we might.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Ottawa is Playing a Game of Charter Chicken with the Provinces

The federal government has long objected to provinces using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding” clause, arguing it lets them trample over the rights of Canadians. But that view, flawed as it is, is nothing compared to Ottawa’s latest gambit on this issue, writes Andrew Roman. Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s recent intervention in the case of Quebec’s Bill 21 asks the Supreme Court of Canada to declare limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would amount to a backdoor amendment of the Constitution by the court, one that would give judges even more power and leave elected representatives even less scope to avoid or undo their harmful decisions. More than just an attack on provincial autonomy, writes Roman, it threatens to upset the balance at the heart of Canada’s federal democracy.

What if October 7 Had Happened Not in Israel but in Canada?

It is probably beyond the imagination of most Canadians that they would ever face the kind of evil atrocity Israelis suffered on October 7, 2023. Or that we would find ourselves living next door to savage terrorists bent on our annihilation. But as Gwyn Morgan points out, it is critical to understand that reality as Israel’s struggle for existence carries on. The history of Israel is nothing short of miraculous. As Morgan personally observed on a tour of the world’s only Jewish state, Israelis have with determination and heart built a free, tolerant, prosperous and technologically-advanced democracy while surrounded by enemies. In the face of ruthless attacks by Hamas and the craven behaviour of supposed friends and allies who now lean in favour of the terrorists, Israel has reminded the rest of the world what real courage is.

One Country, Two Markets: The Shaky Promise and Unfair Burden of “Decarbonized” Oil

“Decarbonized” oil is being touted as a way to bridge the policy chasm separating energy-rich Alberta and the climate-change-obsessed Mark Carney government. Take the carbon dioxide normally emitted during the production and processing of crude oil and store it underground, the thinking goes, and Canada can have it all: plentiful jobs, a thriving industry, burgeoning exports and falling greenhouse gas emissions. But is “decarbonized” oil really a potential panacea – or an oxymoron that makes no more sense than “dehydrated” water? In this original analysis, former National Energy Board member Ron Wallace evaluates whether a massive push for carbon capture and storage can transform Alberta into a “clean energy superpower” – or will merely saddle its industry and government with a technical boondoggle and unbearable costs while Eastern Canada’s refiners remain free to import dirty oil from abroad.

More from this author