Talk of national unity is now just a distant memory

Nail-biting over the possibility of an era of Canadian disunity triggered by an inward-looking Wildrose government in Alberta was for naught.

Wildrose, for now, has been left in the opposition ranks of the legislature, to the relief of progressiveminded voters and those fretting about national unity.

The Wildrose wanted to revise the formula for equalization with a view to keeping more petroleum booty for itself. It was said to be scheming to establish a separate pension scheme and immigration services.

But Monday’s election showed Albertans are either more progressive than imagined or were turned off by the loose-lipped bozos within Wildrose’s ranks.

That, however, does not mean the forces of unity within Canada are now robust.

A Wildrose government indeed would have been problematic; Alberta is leading national growth and should lead national discussions.

Conservative Premier Alison Redford certainly has a broad-based perspective, promoting the idea that the oilsands should and will benefit every region of Canada. Still, a spirit of decentralization appears to be upon the country, with pub- lic discussion of national unity being confined to the memory bin.

Ottawa no longer conjures up feel-good programs aimed at bringing Canadians together, such as Katimavik or national scholarship funds. A federal-provincial conference attended by the PM and premiers hasn’t been held in ages.

Bilingualism and biculturalism, as policy themes, have grown cobwebs.

The Harper government, elected six years ago, has focused on areas of federal jurisdiction, withdrawing from provincial ones such as health care, leaving the door open to different programming in the various provinces.

Ottawa is cutting spending, making the federal government — itself a unifying body — less of a national force.

And worryingly, Quebec’s alienation is growing.

When separatism was a threat back in the ’70s and ’80s, Canadians were frustrated and exasperated — but also fully engaged in trying to keep the country whole.

These days, the words “constitution” and “separatism” are conversation killers. People are far more preoccupied with western resource development and trade with Asia, as well as health care and pensions.

Quebec’s isolation has been exacerbated by the Conservative government’s inability to gain support in the province. It won just 16.5 per cent of the vote in the recent election, translating into weak cabinet representation.

Industry Minister Christian Paradis was discredited recently by the federal ethics commissioner, while Maxime Bernier, minister of state for small business, carries the disgrace of previously being booted from cabinet.

The Harper government has not championed Quebecers’ priorities, knowing the province is not part of its political base. On gun control, climate change, promotion of the monarchy and militarism, Harper has not been particularly attentive to voter sentiment there.

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff raised eyebrows this week for telling a British interviewer that Quebec could one day separate.

“The problem here is that we don’t have anything to say to each other any more,” declared Ignatieff, now a University of Toronto academic. “There’s a kind of contract of mutual indifference . . . .”

His statement may have been impolitic and controversial, but it also was accurate. Quebecers these days don’t demand much from the rest of Canada beyond cheques. When there’s disagreement — as with a battle with Ottawa over preserving gun registry data or a national securities regulator — it pursues its case in the courts.

Had Alberta anointed a Wildrose government this week, the unity situation would have been aggravated — but not much more than it is already.