Module 2: Context of Canadian Politics

While for most Canadians, most of the time, Canada is not a contested concept. Its borders with the US and three oceans are uncontested. The rights of its citizenry seem well established in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (If these are unfamiliar, don’t worry, we deal with them in great detail in Module Three). Elections are rarely controversial, and its international reputation is generally quite good. However, the narrative, or story, of what Canada ‘is’ and ‘means’ can be divergent between the different groups that constitute contemporary Canada. Some see the idea of Canada as a model to be respected and emulated, perhaps even exported. Others look to Canada’s colonial roots and the ongoing legacy of colonialism to criticize this often an overly rosy picture of what Canada means. And many sit somewhere in-between. Take the two following excerpts from speeches given during the Canadian Centenary in 1967:

As we enter our centennial year we are still a young nation, very much in the formative stages. Our national condition is still flexible enough that we can make almost anything we wish of our nation. No other country is in a better position than Canada to go ahead with the evolution of a national purpose devoted to all that is good and noble and excellent in the human spirit.

– PM Lester B. Pearson

Oh Canada, how can I celebrate with you this Centenary, this hundred years? Shall I thank you for the reserves that are left to me of my beautiful forests? For the canned fish of my rivers? For the loss of my pride and authority, even among my own people? For the lack of my will to fight back? No! I must forget what’s past and gone.

– Chief Dan George.

Is it possible that PM Pearson and Chief Dan George are talking about the same country? In the same year? About the same event? They were. Both were speaking at Canada’s 1967 Centennial celebration. Each speaks to a very divergent narrative of Canada. As we have passed the 150^th Celebration of Canada, it is worth taking a moment to assess your narrative of Canada.

So what is Canada? There are a few undisputed things. Politically, Canada is a constitutional monarchy. This means the British Monarch, currently under the leadership of Queen Elizabeth II, is the titular head of state, albeit in a role that is very restricted by the constitution. The constitution is the basis of political authority in Canada. Beyond setting out the role of the monarchy, it details the powers of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government as well as the jurisdictional division of competency between the federal and provincial governments. It also details the rights and obligations of the citizens, particularly through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This political system has been relatively stable over time and lacks the revolutionary violence found among the independence narratives of many former colonies. That isn’t to say that Canadian politics have been devoid of violence. In fact, the colonization of the land we now call Canada came at a great price for the First Nations already living here. But the attainment of independence from the United Kingdom was largely peaceful.

Geography has played a big part in defining Canada. Canada is the second-largest state in the world at nearly 10 million square kilometres. It is over 5000 kilometres wide, bordered by the US to the south, the Arctic Ocean to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the West, and the Atlantic Ocean to the East. While Canada is the second-largest state in the world, it is thirty-fifth in terms of population at roughly 35 million. Canada has an average fertility rate of 1.1 births per woman, but the problem of a declining population is offset by immigration and the increased life expectancy of Canadians. Immigration has led to Canada’s diversity, with one in five Canadians being foreign-born in 2011. Yet much of the country is still uninhabited, with 90% of the country’s population living within 160 km of the US border. Moreover, 81% of Canadians live in metropolitan areas, and an amazingly high percentage of Canadians, 62%, live in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor. When the population density of Canada is mapped, this concentration of the population in city centers and central Canada is striking. Visually comparing Canada to the United States heightens the perception of Canada as an uninhabited land.

The contrast is stark, with much of the Canadian map indicating no significant population. The distinction is even starker if you look at the keys used to decipher the maps. The densest measurement (the darkest red dots) measure 102,000 people for Canada. In the US, this number is only deep pink, approximately three-quarters the way up the scale of population density.

While much of those white areas are uninhabited, they are rich in natural resources, including oil, gold, uranium, hydroelectricity and timber. This is reflected in the vital role of resource extraction in the Canadian economy, particularly in Western Canada and the Maritimes. The natural resource industry accounted for 1.74 million jobs and 16% of Canadian GDP in 2016. Beyond the natural resource sector, the Canadian economy has a strong manufacturing sector, especially in automobiles, and is supported by an educated workforce and a stable banking system. This has led to a strong export-orientated economy. At the same time, the Canadian economy has experienced significant challenges. When the resource sector is booming, the Canadian dollar is inflated, making manufacturing less competitive. When the resource sector declines, the dollar follows, but the lag time in ramping up manufacturing can cause further economic pain. Other factors such as free trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement (now the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement or CUSMA) create challenges for a relatively expensive workforce compared to places like our CUSMA partner Mexico. Further, the concentration of particular types of economic activity in different parts of Canada can lead to conflicting interests. The West and the Maritimes economy are focused mainly on resource extraction, while manufacturing and services have played a more prominent role in Central Canada. Finally, Canadian overreliance on the US as an export market makes the economy vulnerable to American economic health and governmental policy. Overall, political structures, geography, demographics, and economic interests sketch the broad outlines of what Canada ‘is’ but not what it ‘means.’

To understand Canadian politics’s contemporary structure and the debates that shape it, we need to fill in the broad strokes drawn by Canadian political structures, geography, demographics, and economic activity. At the broadest level, Canadians are united by the common human impulse to live in a free and prosperous society. However, what this exactly means and how best to obtain it is more controversial and deeply political. Questions of freedom are contrasted with concerns of security. Questions of prosperity are fraught with the issues of regional economic differences, wealth redistribution, gender, class, and even generational differences. The answers to these narrower questions are debated in the political culture of Canada. Political culture is constituted by the fundamental political values, beliefs, and orientations that are widely held within a political community. They are often contested and can change over time. For example, Canadians often cite universal health care as something that defines Canada. However, before 1947, there was no medical insurance and the universal health care system that Canadians are proud of didn’t exist before 1966. Another example is the franchise, or right to vote. Until 1960, it was deemed appropriate to deny Canada’s Indigenous population the right to vote. Today, such a belief would be called out for the blatant racism that it is. Moreover, while a broad political culture does exist in Canada, it is not uniform across the country. Saskatchewan certainly has a different political culture from that of Ontario or Quebec. And even in Saskatchewan itself, the political culture varies between the north and south, rural and urban, or amongst particular ethnic groups such as its large Indigenous population. Yet, while a state’s political culture may be contested and contain variance, it is possible to identify a broad arc of a political community’s development by identifying dominant ideological perspectives. These dominant ideological perspectives largely define what citizens demand of their government and the responses generated by particular government policy.

If we want to understand a state’s political culture, in this case, Canada’s, we need to identify the values that have shaped it. Values are shared beliefs that provide standards of judgement about what is right, important, and desirable in society. While often operating unconsciously, they are the bedrock of a state’s dominant ideological perspective. Some of them are shared across the country and others are contested by differing views within the country. Values that are generally shared across Canada include traditions of individual freedom, protection of civil liberties, respect for the law, and multiculturalism. These values are enshrined in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They include the four fundamental individual freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including the freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. Other values include equality before the law, universal suffrage, and meaningful democratic elections. In Canada, meaningful democratic elections imply a real choice in voting and the need of the government to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. Less explicit values include support for multiculturalism, wealth redistribution both at a personal level and between provinces, and the welfare state: a social system by which the government has primary responsibility for its citizens’ individual and social welfare. This includes providing things like basic health care, primary/secondary education, and pensions.

Political culture, dominant ideological perspectives and values do not emerge naturally. Rather they evolve through the history of a political community and are constituted by shared ideas, customs, traditions, and symbols. Canada is strongly influenced by the ideas imported by its European settler communities. In European settler states, like Canada, the dominant part of the mother culture is imported. This means a strong representation of British liberalism in Canada, especially the importance of the individual in society, defending individual rights, and free enterprise. However, this classical liberalism has been diluted by a conservative element in its political culture. An important source of conservativism came via the immigration of American loyalists who fled during the American Revolution. The conservative element in Canada can also be found in the French settlements, where the Catholic Church exerted a strong influence, and French nationalism reinforced traditional practices. Canada has also been influenced by socialist values, especially via the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF was formed by progressives, socialists, and the labour movement to help address the hardships of the great depression. The CCF put Canada on the path to universal health care. Much like contemporary European states and in contrast to our American neighbour to the south, Canada has definitive liberal, conservative, and socialist elements in its political culture.

Canadian political customs have evolved as well. Political customs are the conventional and accepted practices that are part of the political system. In Canada, these conventions are largely rooted in British parliamentary practices but contain distinctly Canadian elements as well. For example, the role of the Prime Minister is not specified in the Canadian Constitution and follows uncodified British conventions. Other political customs, like the appointment of the Governor General have evolved. Until 1952, the Governor General had always been a British Citizen instead of the current practice of appointing a Canadian citizen. There is also a political custom that the Senate shall not block a bill passed by the House of Commons. While this custom largely remains, it has been broken several times. For example, in 1989, it was a bill to regulate abortions and in 1990 to block the Goods and Services Tax. These political customs shape the way that politics plays out in Canada.

For many states, unity and identity are reinforced through symbols. These include the national anthem that we sing before sporting events, the mythologizing of national leaders such as Lester B. Pearson and national celebrations such as Canada Day and Canada 150. However, in Canada, symbols have also been quite divisive. For example, the Queen or Monarch is prominently showcased on Canadian currency, as we see in the case of the twenty-dollar bill and all coins – hence the term ‘heads’ in a coin toss.

Figure 2-1: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_$20_note_specimen_-_face.png Permission: Fair Use, Courtesy of Bank of Canada.

Portraits of the Queen are visible in Canadian Embassies and courtrooms.

Figure 2-2: Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/royal-portraits/order-download-portraits.html#a1 Permission: Courtesy of the Government of Canada Publications, Non-Commercial Reproduction. This is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada.

The monarchy is meant to symbolize allegiance, unity, and authority. However, in a state founded by two European colonial powers, the portrait of one Monarch is bound to be contentious. For recent immigrants to Canada, there is little allegiance to the Crown. For Indigenous peoples, however, it is different. They view their treaty relationship as being with the Crown, not the government in power. The monarchy, therefore, is a contentious symbol in Canada.

Similarly, the constitution is a source of pride in many states. In the US, for example, the constitution is not only the supreme law, it is also a symbol of legitimacy. Interpretations of the constitution are contested both politically and legally. The constitution is less central to Canadian narratives for several reasons. First, the basis of the Canadian Constitution is the British North American Act (BNA). The BNA was not passed in a Canadian institution but rather by the British Parliament in 1867, albeit agreed to by the Canadian leadership at the 1864 conferences in Charlottetown and Québec City.

Figure 2-3: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation Permission: Public Domain. Courtesy of Photographer: James Ashfield.

Second, the BNA could not be amended without British approval, and therefore many Canadians felt the umbilical cord with the UK had not been completely severed. In fact, Canadian legislative independence and autonomy in foreign policy didn’t occur until the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Finally, the BNA did not define nor provide for the rights of Canadian citizens. However, this all changed with the difficult repatriation of the constitution in 1982 and with the establishment of the Canada Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To highlight the contentious symbolism of the Constitution in Canada, Quebec never approved the Canada Act and two subsequent efforts to bring Quebec into the Canada Act, via the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, failed.

The symbol that most people associate with Canada is its flag.

Figure 2-4: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Canada#/media/File:Flag_of_Canada_(Pantone).svg Permission: Public Domain. Courtesy of George F.G. Stanley.

Yet, this flag was only adopted in 1965, and itself was contentious. Until 1946, CaCanada’sfficial flag was the Royal Union Flag, although this was not used much, especially in Canada’s francophone communities.

Figure 2-5: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack#/media/File:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg Permission: Public Domain.

Rather, between 1867 and 1965 three versions of what is known as the ‘Red Ensign” were employed as the symbol of Canada.

1871-1921

Figure 2-6: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Red_Ensign#/media/File:Canadian_Red_Ensign_1868-1921.svg Permission: Public Domain.

1921-1957

Figure 2-7: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Red_Ensign#/media/File:Canadian_Red_Ensign_(1921-1957).svg Permission: Public Domain.

1957-1965

Figure 2-8: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Red_Ensign#/media/File:Flag_of_the_Lieutenant_Governor_of_Ontario_(1959-1965).svg Permission: Public Domain.

The 1871-1921 version of the Red Ensign contained the coat of arms of the four founding provinces of Confederation, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. As new provinces joined Canada, their arms were unofficially added to the design. However, this became unwieldy, especially for maritime navigation and the earlier version bearing the arms of the four founding provinces was common. In 1921 a Canadian coat of arms was authorized and placed on the official design of the Red Ensign. This version of the flag was used until 1965 until the current maple leaf design was adopted. However, this wasn’t the first attempt to adopt a Canadian National Flag. PM William Lyon Mackenzie King had tried in 1925 and again in 1945. Both times, those loyal to the Union Jack blocked the adoption of a Canadian Flag. In the 1963 election, Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson campaigned on introducing a national flag for Canada. The Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker fought to retain the Red Ensign. Quebec sought a flag that did not contain British symbolism. In the end, a cross-party committee was tasked with choosing the new flag and did so unanimously by choosing the current maple leaf design.

These divisions are symbolic of the tensions in the Canadian body politic. As in most states, ideology has played a divisive role in politics. Before proceeding, it must be noted that ideology and political parties are distinct. Liberalism as an ideology and the Liberal Party of Canada are not the same thing. In fact, some have argued Canadian parties lack a firm ideology and rather sail by the current political winds or according to electoral calculations. For example, the Liberals were traditionally the party of free trade but it was the Progressive Conservatives led by Brian Mulroney that successfully negotiated NAFTA. The evolution and contemporary form of Canadian political parties will be dealt with in detail in Module 8. However, the basic ideological alignment of the parties is an important aspect of what divides Canadians, as the parties do align more closely with certain ideologies. For example, the Liberal Party of Canada has aligned most closely with reform liberalism. The basic tenets of reform liberalism privilege individual rights and freedoms, political equality, limited government in citizens’ private lives, the rule of law, and acceptable government intervention to mitigate economic hardship. This appeals to a narrative of Canada as a progressive state but one that also seeks to preserve individual rights. Alternatively, the Conservative Party of Canada blends a mix of classical liberalism that emphasizes the right of individual freedom from state regulation with a European conservatism that emphasizes protecting traditional moral values and traditional authority. This appeals to a narrative of Canada as a proud independent state that also stresses individual freedom but a freedom that is informed by Canadian history and culture. Finally, the New Democratic Party is arguably the most ideologically grounded of the three main national parties, adhering to socialist values. The predecessor of the NDP, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, emerged out of the Great Depression. They sought to mitigate the hardship experienced by labourers, farmers, and at-risk populations under capitalism, especially during the hardships of the 1930s. The NDP maintains its socialist lineage but, to become more electorally successful, its socialist language has softened. This appeals to a narrative of Canada as an inclusive society that seeks a group approach to achieving equity in social outcomes. Again, while some might argue Canadian political parties lack much ideological conviction, the narratives that they associate with tend to divide Canadians.

More contentious is the role of identity in Canadian political culture. This is due to the colonial history of the Canadian state, the size of the Canadian territory, the degree of immigration, as well as broader societal cleavages along the lines of age, class, gender, religion and ethnicity. These all constitute identity groups: people who share characteristics that define them and set them apart from others. Ethnic groups form important identity divisions in Canada. Ethnicity describes groups of people who share customs, language, and sometimes distinct physical/racial characteristics. As a country where one in five people were born outside of its borders, Canada has a lot of ethnic groups. In fact, almost 23% of Canadians have a mother tongue other than English or French. But in terms of Canadian narratives, three hold a privileged position: French Canada, English Canada, and the Indigenous Peoples.

French is one of the two official languages in Canada. The 2011 Census revealed 21% of the Canadian public are native French speakers. However, nearly 80% of Québec residents speak French as their mother tongue. This is a historical legacy of CaCanada’solonial history. Both France and Britain had colonized parts of what is now Canada. In 1763 the French Colonies were lost to the British, but they retained important cultural, religious, and legal practices. Québec leaders, such as George-Étienne Cartier, played a strong role in negotiating Confederation and retaining cultural rights. This is the root of the Québécois narrative of Canada, a country of two founding nations. This is the compact theory of Confederation: the notion of ‘t’o founding nations’,’ which provides French Canadians with a collective claim to equality rather than a simple minority status within Canada. It is reinforced by laws around the French language, a unique legal system based on the civil law code, as well as strong conscious mythologization of French traditions and heroes. This culminated in the two unsuccessful referendums for Quebec sovereignty in 1980 and 1985. It is even expressed on every license plate in Québec, where it states ‘Je me souviens’.’ Figure 2-9: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je_me_souviens#/media/File:Quebec_1992_license_plate.jpg Permission: CC BY-SA 2.0.

However, the Québec narrative of Canada not only excludes the many minority groups in Canada, it expressly excludes the other founding nation of Canada: the Indigenous Peoples. Canadians with Indigenous ancestry include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis, with First Nations accounting for 65% of these numbers. Indigenous Peoples in Canada constitute 4.3% of the total population and live in every province and territory. In absolute numbers, the largest populations of Indigenous Peoples are in Ontario, BC, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. However, Indigenous Peoples have a relatively large population vis-à-vis the non-indigenous populations in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The Indigenous narrative of Canada is that of a colonizer and the source of historical mistreatment, with little respect or attention paid to Indigenous cultural, political, and economic practices. Take a minute to go back and listen to the full text of Chief Dan George’s ‘Lament for Confederation.’ The legal basis of the relationship between the Indigenous People and the British Crown was established in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which defined Indian rights. However, this was a high point in the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples even though, once signed, the Proclamation was quickly ignored. While important allies in the War of 1812, the Indian Tribes were excluded from the peace settlement. After Confederation, the Government of Canada became responsible for “Indians and the lands’ reserved” for them, leading to extensive land grabs. In 1876, the Indian Act was passed setting the Canadian government on the path of assimilationist policies like establishing the residential school system; a system maintained for over a hundred years that forced children out of their homes in order to ‘civilize’ them. Approximately 150,000 children went through a system characterized by physical, mental, and sexual abuse. It is estimated, very conservatively, that at least 6,000 children died in residential schools. This legacy of the Residential School System has made front-page news as a growing number of unmarked graves have been discovered on the grounds of these schools.

Figure 2-10: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system#/media/File:Stpauls-middlechurch-man.jpg Permission: Public Domain.

Today, many First Nations communities lack basic amenities like drinkable water and inhabitable homes. Half of the foster children under the age of 14 in Canada are Indigenous, less than 50% of Indigenous children graduate high school, and Indigenous Peoples are grossly overrepresented in Canada’s jails. We will discuss contemporary issues in Indigenous communities and relations with Canada/the Canadian government in Module 11. But for the purposes of this module, the narrative of the relationship between Canada and its Indigenous Peoples is one of colonization, deceit, neglect and degradation, as well as one of the resilience of the Indigenous Peoples.

Of Canada’s three dominant ethnic narratives, English Canada has evolved the most. In the early years of post-Confederation Canada, English Canadians were mainly constituted by the British and the United Empire Loyalist who had fled the US during the revolutionary war. However, today this group is composed of over 200 ethnic groups. This has led to a general acceptance of multiculturalism: a policy that assumes that ethnic customs and cultures should be valued, preserved, and shared within the context of citizenship and economic and political integration. This became official policy with the 1988 Canadian Multicultural Act. This has led to Canada being called a tapestry where separate ethnic identities remain distinct but merge to create the whole of Canada. While there is general acceptance of Canada as a multicultural state, there is some disquiet among some groups, including English Canada. These were emphasized in the 2015 federal election when issues like wearing the niqab in public and the promise of establishing a ‘barbaric cultural practices’ tip line, demonstrated the perception that a significant proportion, or at least an electorally significant population, of Canadians, were less satisfied with multicultural policies. Moreover, there is significant evidence of racism in Canadian, both contemporarily and historically, first and foremost with Indigenous Peoples but also with the Chinese, Japanese, Sikhs, and Dukhobors, to name a few. For these groups, their rights were restricted, and they were even placed in internment camps. However, the dominant narrative in English-speaking Canada largely suffers from historical amnesia on these counts. Instead, it focuses on Canada as a progressive, multicultural state that does have problems but nothing that cannot be overcome.

For visible minorities, Canada has a mixed narrative. It is a destination for many who wish to leave their home country, as evidenced by the 6 million Canadians who identify as members of a visible minority. However, visible minorities have a harder time integrating into Canadian society than do white immigrants. This is partly due to personal/institutional racism and the tendency of visible minorities to concentrate in specific areas. These two phenomena are linked. Racial discrimination is the imposition of handicaps, barriers, and different treatment of individuals because of their race. Such discrimination is based on prejudice and produces fear in mainstream society, which often leads to visible minority groups withdrawing and seeking safety amongst their own ethnic enclaves. Therefore, the narrative of Canada for visible minorities is mixed; it is both a land of opportunity and racial discrimination.

Other issues that divide Canadians run along traditional cleavages of age, class, gender, and regional issues. Canada has an ageing population, especially of baby boomers, and this is even more acute if you take out Indigenous Peoples and immigrants. In 2014, 15.7% of the population was over 65 and this percentage is expected to grow to between 24% and 28% by 2063. This is significant because this group has different interests, such as health care and pensions for example, and tends to be overrepresented electorally. Further, it also means there will be greater financial pressure on comparatively fewer working Canadians. This will feed a variety of narratives on what ‘is owed’ to our pensioners and what burden ‘working Canadians’ should legitimately bear.

Class is a strong narrative in Canadian politics. Most political parties pitch their campaign promises towards helping a beleaguered ‘middle class’. The problem is that the middle is not well defined. In 2015, the median individual income was nearly 27,000$, meaning half of Canadians earned more and half less; in other words, the middle. But the middle class to whom politicians are speaking are those with much higher income but who still consider themselves middle class. However, there are general tendencies that can be documented. For example, the higher the education, the higher the median income. The higher the median income, the greater participation in politics. The greater participation in politics, the more representation of one’s interests in the legislative agenda.

Gender informs narratives of Canada as well. Canada was the 4^th country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2005. The right of people to change their gender designation is increasingly protected under legal decisions using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, women are still underrepresented in politics, political issues, and positions of importance in other areas, including business and governmental institutions. Women gained the right to vote in 1918, and the first female MP was elected in 1921. The first female cabinet member was chosen in 1957. In 1984, Canada appointed its first female governor general. In 1991, Canada saw its first female premier. In 1993, Canada had its first female PM. In 2000, there was the first female chief justice. In 2015, Canada had 6 female premiers. The 2017 Cabinet of PM Justin Trudeau had gender equity, yet women only represent 26% of sitting MPs. Compare that to Rwanda with 63% and Bolivia at 53%. For all of these firsts, women’s issues such as poverty and child care, employment, equality, as well as abortion, sexuality, and abuse are still underrepresented. From a gendered perspective, the narrative of Canada is mixed at best with some important victories but also some serious deficiencies as well.

Figure 2-11: Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/06/canada-feminism_n_15195382.html Permission: This material has been reproduced in accordance with the University of Saskatchewan interpretation of Sec.30.04 of the Copyright Act.

Regionalism refers to the territorial tensions brought about by certain groups that demand a change in the political, economic, and cultural relations between regions and central powers within the existing state. Due to Canada’s geographic size and its diversity, regionalism plays a very important role in framing the different narratives of Canada. Regionalism becomes very divisive when a group begins to identify more with their region, or province, than with the state as a whole. According to a poll conducted by the Mowat Center for Policy Innovation in 2010, for the most part, Canadians identify with Canada more than their provinces. The exception was Quebec, where about half identified with the province. Another important regional divide is ‘the West’, especially regarding energy policy, which peaked in the protests against Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Plan. This is also exacerbated at times by a sense of political marginalization, particularly when the West votes Conservative and Central Canada primarily votes Liberal. Atlantic Canada as well has a tradition of independence and strong group identity. However, the depth of this division has been lessened by economic hardship and dependency on federal money. One of the largest factors in all regional divisions is the density of population in Ontario and Quebec, which sits at over 50% and the inevitable centring of economic and political power in these two provinces. However, regionalism can dissipate through funding, particularly provincial transfer payments, and balancing political representation by population with territorial representation. Federal funding and provincial transfer payments seek to ensure a degree of equality of social services in Canada. In contrast, territorial representation in politics seeks to ensure smaller provinces have greater representation than their population alone would support. The regional narratives do play an important role in defining Canada, especially in times of conflict. The wild card here is Quebec. While another referendum on sovereignty is not anticipated, it always seems to be simmering beneath the surface.

As we have discussed, the idea of Canada is a social construct. It is created, changed, and reaffirmed by the beliefs and actions of the citizens that constitute Canada. Some things are relatively uncontested, like CaCanada’sorders, its political system, varied geography, and demographics. Some things unite Canadians, like our hopes and aspirations to live the good life in peace. There is a general acceptance of the benefits of the welfare state, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and multiculturalism. However, there have also been significant divisions on everything from the national flag to regionalism and the tension between the founding English, French, and Indigenous nations. So what should we take away from this? It is important to use our critical thinking skills to be self-reflective on what Canada means. What are the dark parts of the Canadian narrative? What are the better parts of the narrative? And how can we reconcile the past and build for the future?