A sign in support of separatism sits in front of the Parlour in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, on October 19, 2026. Photo by Megan Albu / AFP via Getty Images

Article content

I’m not an absolutist on Canadian indivisibility. The Americans’ pledge of allegiance, which dates from the 1880s, not the 1780s, is to “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” But they had a civil war about divisibility.

Article content

I don’t know how many of the Fathers of Confederation, if any at all, felt they were building a country that would last forever. Or even for a thousand years, like the one many of them came from. Good for Canada if it lasts that long! But if it doesn’t, that won’t be especially surprising. The history of populated spaces is crammed with changing constitutional arrangements. Canadians are free and they’re democrats. If free, democratic people decide in sufficient numbers they want different arrangements, I can’t imagine many good arguments for stopping them, assuming they follow a deliberate, open, democratic process.

Article content

Article content

Article content

But serial secessionism is no way to live. In our household, we are watching season four of a Netflix political melodrama called “The Diplomat.” So far in this new season the two protagonists, an American power couple, are re-evaluating their marriage. Constantly. Much of their conversation concerns asking each other how we’re doing now. And now? And this current minute, too? It is an awful way to live.

Article content

Article content

Abraham Lincoln said “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At the time (1858) the U.S. was divided, as he said, “half slave and half free.” He believed this could not persist, though many of his fellow Americans evidently did, as he lost the Illinois Senate race whose kickoff his House Divided speech marked.

Article content

Our divisions in Canada are much less serious than freedom versus slavery. (On that question humans are now about 100 per cent agreed, which marks clear progress from two centuries ago.) But it’s also probably true that “a house constantly considering secession requests” cannot stand.

Article content

We’ve just finished one referendum on whether Alberta should set processes in motion to have a binding referendum on continuing in Canada or going its own way. And there may well be another in a couple of years asking Quebecers something similar — though it is telling how the separatist party that is so confident of Quebec’s ability to make its own way in a dangerous world will wait until an unusually obstreperous and outspoken U.S. president (my Lord, all he does is speak out!) has left office before putting its toe timorously back into secession waters.

Article content

Article content

A third Quebec referendum would mark four times since 1980 that serious attempts to undo Confederation had been made.

Article content

Article content

In each case, federal politicians paid close attention. After 1980, Pierre Trudeau initiated constitutional changes, as he had promised during the referendum campaign to do, though what changes came were not, to say the least, what separatists wanted. After 1995, some minor federal powers were transferred, ones Quebec proved no more competent at exercising than Ottawa had, but there was also a “Clarity Act” designed to formalize exit procedures (“a clear majority on a clear question,” as the clarifying phrase went).

Article content

Before this most recent referendum there was prime ministerial solicitude to Alberta’s concerns, as well as mumblings about the possibility of constitutional changes. But there are limits to responding sympathetically to serial requests for devolution. Eventually there won’t be much of a Confederation left to save. Despite what many people who work in Ottawa seem to think, Canada is not its central government. But is there really a Canada without a central government?