Since the first discussions of confederation, the diverse nature of our great nation has been both a concern and an opportunity. In the very beginning, the maritime colonies debated intensely as to whether confederation was in their best interest. Newfoundland and Labrador said no and waited until 1949 to join, and had the transcontinental railway not been completed British Columbia may have ended up quite different.
Yes, we are a diverse nation of many regions with different strengths and interests. This diversity has been—and is—our strength.
And yet it is also the source of many of our challenges.
The west has always felt used, and perhaps in some ways rightfully so. Initially the fertile plains and forests were seen as a bread basket to fill eastern coffers. In other words, farm the west to fill the bellies and pockets of Upper Canada. Easterners manoeuvred and schemed for wealth and influence with only a cursory regard for those who called the west home.
At various points in history, this diversity has ebbed and flowed from a subtle annoyance to outright defiance. From the United Farmers of Alberta, which still runs stores in the Wild Rose province, to the “Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze” campaigns of the 1970s, the west has pushed for their rightful place.
Much like Quebec has, or the Maritimes with their fishing resources, and as the north continues to do.
Simply put, basic economic and social principles dictate that our confederation of diverse parts is stronger in sum than it as individual parts. Our national portfolio is less vulnerable when we combine the manufacturers of the east, the resources of the west, the ports of the Maritimes, and the temperate climates and forests of British Columbia. As a confederation, labour has the ability to move freely through the nation, serving these various sectors as required at different times.
Is our confederation always equitable? Not at all, and don’t think it ever will be. There is no equitable system, short of anarchy, where we all take what is ours and service our own needs. Taxation, confederation, and association of any sort are about pooling resources for the common good.
Is separation the answer? This is just as ridiculous an argument as Quebec separation was. While initially there may be some benefits, these would be outweighed by the challenges to follow. Not to mention, some of the benefits I’ve seen touted by our Wexit friends involve holding the remaining confederation hostage. Separation, whether it be western, Quebec, or any other region, would ultimately produce two weaker nations with even more challenges than they face currently. The initial control over resources and trade negotiations would have some benefits, but the individual entities would be much more vulnerable, just as a lack of diversity in anyone’s investment portfolio increases their risk.
In the east, you have entire communities devoted to a single manufacturing facility. In the west and north, entire communities are dedicated to a single resource, and sometimes a single company. While this has caused pain in times of commodity downturns and plant closures, the pain would be even more pronounced without our collective diversity offsetting it.
Our politicians, both federal and provincial, know this. And our western premiers are leveraging the current anger for political purposes. While entirely appropriate to bring up the frustrations of the western population, to foster or even remain mute on movements of separation is inappropriate. Our western leaders should be encouraging us to seek a better seat at the confederation table, not allow people to muse about leaving the table altogether.
Do the resources of the west leave us supporting the rest of Canada? And if so, does the equalization formula require change? Canadians have conflicting views in regards to these questions, but global movements need to be considered as well. In other words, regardless of your stance on climate change, the world is preparing to transition away from oil—not only for carbon reasons, but also for the dangerous role that plastics (derived from oil and gas) play in breaking down within our environments.
What does this mean for the future of oil and gas and its impact on the Canadian economy? Quite simply, its role is changing.
When we buy insurance, we pay for stability. In years without claims, we get a “raw deal”; yet when we have to make a claim, insurance provides the cushion we need. Perhaps we need to view confederation for exactly what it is—and what it is not. It is not a perfectly balanced and fair system analyzed over the short term. But in the long term, it has and will provide stability that benefits everyone.
We are a motley collection of regions that are complementary and contradictory at the same time. Like a large family, we are bound to disagree and even fight, but as in any relationship, sacrifice and compromise must be undertaken by all parties involved.
