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

The First-Past-the-Post Way of Voting is Better-than-the-Rest

To hear proponents tell it, proportional representation is the cure for all that ails Canadian democracy. It’s fairer, less divisive, more diverse, makes voters happier and is less prone to “strategic” voting. About the only thing it apparently can’t do is make childbirth painless. But could replacing our traditional first-past-the-post voting system really improve how Canada is governed – and how Canadians feel about their government? In his grand-prize-winning entry to the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest, Nolan Albert weighs the arguments for and against replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation, and in doing so uncovers the real cause of voter dissatisfaction.

The Runaway Costs of Government Construction Projects

Ottawa’s post-pandemic $300 billion spending orgy was coupled with the pompous claim to “Build Back Better”. As it happened, most of that spending was recklessly borrowed – stoking inflation – while Build Back Better was a dud, was discarded in embarrassment and, if recalled at all today, is told as a sick joke. Far too many planned projects now sink into a quicksand of political haggling, regulatory overkill, mission creep, design complexity and, if built at all, bungled execution. Looking at specific examples, Gwyn Morgan presents the lamentable results: far less is actually getting built across Canada, nearly everything takes forever and – worst of all – costs routinely soar to ludicrous levels. Added to that, Morgan notes, are woke-based criteria being imposed by the Trudeau government that are worsening the vicious cycle.

Adam Smith’s “Saline Solution” for Canada’s Health Care System

That Canada’s health care system is ailing is no longer news. That it is not only victim but perpetrator – killing patients through indifference and neglect – is also increasingly understood. But is Canada’s publicly funded and operated monopoly health care system an economy of sorts, a set of relationships that can be understood in economic terms, and one that might lend itself to reform by applying economic principles? In the second of three prize-winning entries from the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest to be published by C2C Journal, Alicia Kardos answers a resounding “Yes”. Drawing on key ideas and principles of the genius from Kirkcaldy, Scotland, Kardos envisions an overhauled health care system in which incentives are rational, self-interest is rewarded and the consumer – the patient – is king.

More from this author

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.