Danielle Smith’s bombshell announcement about a referendum on a referendum has made it almost certain that the Canada we grew up in is a thing of the past. Regardless of the results of the referendum on the referendum, and then an independence referendum, if most Albertans vote to hold one, it will end in a result that no one can predict. Because Alberta isn’t the only province on the cusp of an independence referendum, and Albertans and Quebecers are at odds on the most important issues..Smith orders referendum on whether to begin pursuing a binding independence vote.Most Albertans, for example, see an equalization formula that is unfair to Alberta and far too generous to Quebec. Quebecers don’t see it that way. Alberta's critique of the equalization program targets the billions in net federal transfers that help fund Quebec’s public services. Rising anti-equalization rhetoric from Western Canada forces Quebec nationalists to defend their financial autonomy and state model. Quebec separatists can leverage this hostility to argue that the Canadian federal system is inherently unstable and resentful of Quebec. And on fossil fuels, the two provinces are miles apart. The mood in Quebec is distinctly anti-fossil fuels. Albertans, by and large, want their incredibly rich fossil fuel industry to flourish, and deeply resent eastern Canada’s efforts to keep that from happening. Alberta’s opposition to federal net zero mandates clashes directly with Quebec's broad political consensus supporting aggressive climate action. Alberta seeks more freedom for oil and gas development, while Quebec emphasizes hydroelectricity and green transitions. This ideological gap highlights the fundamental differences in economic priorities, fueling the argument that the two regions cannot be governed effectively under one federal framework..So there will be a fundamental clash when both provinces begin to actively debate their place in Canada or their place outside of Canada.On the other hand, there are common concerns that both sides share. Their complaint that the federal government is preventing them from reaching their full potential is one of them.Alberta’s push for provincial autonomy (such as the Sovereignty Act) creates a blueprint for decentralized power that Quebec nationalists welcome. If Alberta forces a renegotiation of the federal structure, it opens the door for Quebec to legally demand its own distinct constitutional recognition or exit strategy. And while their economic goals conflict, both see Ottawa’s stranglehold over their respective aspirations as something that must come to an end.So, is it possible that after a few years of angst and feverish debate, a new Canada will emerge that will bear a strong resemblance to a concept first proposed by Joe Clark half a century ago?Remember Joe Clarke and his “Community of Communities” proposal that he first outlined to Canadians in his 1976 campaign. Remember how it was ridiculed by Pierre Trudeau, who mockingly asked if he, as Prime Minister, would be expected to act as a “head waiter” to the provinces?.But Clark’s idea of a more decentralized Canada, in which individual provinces would have jurisdiction over their own needs, sounds remarkably like Premier Smith's and Monsieur Plamandon’s respective visions for their own provinces.Clark’s “Community of Communities” vision of Canada served as a foundational framework for his approach to Canadian federalism, cultural identity, and governance. What was “Community of Communities”?Clark believed that the federal government in Ottawa should not oversee and control every aspect of Canadian life. His philosophy dictated that provinces and local regions should play a much larger role in governing, with Ottawa sharing and devolving powers to local authorities.In a famous 1979 speech to Toronto's Empire Club, Clark argued that Canada was "too big for simple symbols.” He posited that focusing obsessively on a singular, uniform national identity obscured the real nature of the country, which was inherently diverse and formed by its distinct parts. The vision accommodated multiple ways of being Canadian. It allowed citizens to simultaneously celebrate their specific heritage (such as British, French, or indigenous roots) while maintaining a shared allegiance to the country as a whole..Rooted in his own upbringing in rural Alberta, Clark’s philosophy recognized that Canadians experience life, government, and identity on a local scale. He famously summarized this by stating, "The nation is more than the central government.”“Community of Communities” could accommodate both Smith’s demands for more control over resource development and sale, immigration, and the appointment of federal judges, while also accommodating Quebec’s need for more control over language and culture. Whether Ottawa could adjust to these different visions remains to be seen. But if the alternative is the breakup of the country, Ottawa might decide to accede to the premiers’ demands. The debate between all premiers and Ottawa would obviously be fractious and filled with drama. The required opening of the Constitution might also be an opportunity to once and for all rid the country of the indigenous apartheid system that is currently wrecking British Columbia. It would also give Canadians a chance to fully debate issues like immigration, a judiciary that now seems to be out of control, and other highly fraught topics. In fact, it would force into the open many issues that Ottawa now prefers to deal with behind closed doors.We never found out if Clark’s “Community of Communities” vision for Canada would work, because Clark’s government didn’t last. As a visionary, Clark had his qualities, but as someone able to count votes, he was a failure. His brief stint as prime minister came to a sudden end in 1979 when basic accounting did him in. He didn’t have the votes to win a confidence vote. So, Joe Clark will not go down in history as a great accountant.But his vision of Canada as a “Community of Communities” might eventually prevail.
