The Laurentian Consensus and Political Crises in Canada
Generally, Canadian politics are boring. Even our scandals are boring, twinged with legalese and French names we can’t pronounce. The most recent episode, the SNC-Lavalin affair, isn’t actually really worth addressing. It’s not something to be analyzed in isolation. It’s actually part of a trend, a trend that has existed formally since at least 1896 and informally since Confederation. It’s called the Laurentian Consensus.
The term was invented by the Political Scientist and Journalist John Ibbitson to describe the ruling elites of Canada. He initially used the term to help explain the shift in Canadian politics towards a more Conservative and Western outlook under Harper. The Laurentian Consensus is the view that Canada is best governed from the centre by a coalition of French and English speaking elites, ideally under the auspices of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, each elected leader of the Liberal Party since 1896 has alternated between a French speaker and an English speaker. I’m not kidding. Every single elected leader. Trudeau, Ignatieff, Dion, Martin, Chretien…. All the way to Laurier.
As Ibbitson noted: “from the time of Confederation until quite recently, the political, academic, cultural, media and business elites in the communities along the watershed of the St. Lawrence River ran this country.” Agreement between the French and English elites was essential and whenever it was not obtained things went badly.
The Laurentian Consensus has had an indelible hold over Canadian politics and culture for over a hundred years, but as John Ibbitson outlined in his book The Big Shift there are a couple factors that challenge this arrangement. Namely immigration. First the waves of Eastern European, Scottish and Irish migrants challenged the dominant Anglo-French narrative in the 19th century. And then Immigration to Canada from non-Western nations increased steadily since the 1960s. At the same time immigration from French speaking countries has steadily declined. The notion of Canada as a “bi-cultural” country has fallen by the wayside. Multiculturalism, the mosaic has predominated.
-------
When I moved back to Canada as a ten year old, my mum was insistent I learn French. I’d just spend the last few years living in England - and would you know it, the English still don’t like the French; when given the option of learning French or German as an eight year old I picked German. It wasn’t even a discussion. The French? Pah.
But back in Canada I was forced into French immersion, as mum was convinced I was meant to follow her into the civil service, and French is a prerequisite. And to be frank, I don’t regret it - especially those moments in Lyon and Nice a few years back on a trip through Europe. Or whenever I hear a French song and immediately understand it. There was a point after all.
When I moved to Southern Ontario from Ottawa in 2008 I was struck by how few people actually spoke French. It was seen as a joke, as a waste of time in Grade 8. And it was on all the cereal boxes! What joy. It’s even more jarring here in Toronto, where arguably Hindi and Mandarin are spoken more often than French. “Our” second language. But who are “we” according to this interpretation?
-------
So the Laurentian Consensus believes that Canada is best governed from the centre by a coalition of French and English elites. Let’s leave the elites out of this for now - rule by distant elites within the framework of a nation state is a whole other fish-kettle-thing. But the Laurentian view of Canada does not reflect its’ demographic reality. The country has changed. How many folks out West actually care about learning French? How many folks in Vancouver would rather learn Mandarin? I would hazard a guess that the Cree and Ojibwe are far more concerned with preserving their languages than Canadian “biculturalism”.
Yet - yet we are still governed by a political party that sees the country through this lens. It’s striking that every few decades there’s a new corruption scandal. Always with the Liberals. And always in Quebec. It’s equally striking that the Canadian Encyclopedia has an entry titled: “Quebec: the most Corrupt Province”, based on a Macleans article with full sermons on the Duplessis and Bourassa years. In fact, the historian Sam Huntington (he of the Clash of Civilizations fame) noted back in 1968 that Quebec was the most corrupt part of the Anglosphere (Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States).
To be clear, this is not an indictment of Quebec, of French or of Quebecois culture. In fact, without Quebec and “biculturalism” there would be no Canada. There would be no multiculturalism. We would just be another America. Another English-speaking settler colony ignoring it’s deep colonial legacy.
This is, however, an indictment of the Liberal party of Canada. They were caught with their pants down fifteen years ago with the Sponsorship Scandals - when they were caught funneling taxpayer money into the pockets of Quebecois companies. And they were chased from office and ended up in the political wilderness, getting crushed by the NDP in 2011.
The Liberals dusted off the old Laurentian playbook - and found the perfect candidate. Handsome, charming. Heck, he was born at 24 Sussex drive. Positioned him perfectly, and won an absolute landslide in 2015, a new dawn right?
And yet, here we are, just a few years later with another scandal. Involving political pressure to turn the other way and ignore financial improprieties with a Quebecois company. Because Canada is best governed by consensus between French and English elites. Right?
