Diane: Some historians have claimed that the lack of positive action after the 1967 world fair may have had something to do with the so-called Quebec problem taking center-stage. I don’t agree.

Johnny: Why the disagreement?

Diane: Newspapers and reporting by the electronic media of the period does suggest that the country had become pre-occupied with the province, now the country of Quebec. During this time, this province, this country seemed to have had an awakening. It appeared to have become aware that it was special within the Canadian Confederation. This was an awakening that its partners in the Confederation had difficulty accepting. Other provinces within the Canadian Confederation maintained that all provinces were created equal, endowed with the same rights under the then British North America Act and later the Canadian Constitution, and no province could claim any special status within the Confederation. As the rest of the country’s position hardened, this special province became more arrogant, more demanding, claiming that the rest of the country was stifling its development, its culture, threatening its language. It wanted out.

Johnny: Do you believe that the then province of Quebec’s complaints were legitimate and why do you believe that the province’s dissatisfaction with the rest of Canada had nothing to do with The Fracture?

Diane:We now know that the province was acting out of frustration because its partners in Confederation would not accept that it was special. The expression used at the time I believe was “distinct”.

Johnny: Distinct. Yes I remember. Perhaps you could provide our viewers with your insights into the debate that took place about allowing the then Province of Quebec to claim it was “distinct” within the Canadian Confederation.

Diane: Honestly, Johnny, I would rather not go into this any further since I don’t agree that Quebec’s frustration with its place in Confederation contributed in any significant way to The Fracture. If the country had remained prosperous Quebec would have been a fool to leave. It was bad economics pure and simple. I understand that the Vice-President of Quebec has agreed to appear on Friday to explain how he views Quebec’s role in The Fracture and I am sure he can do a much better job than me in explaining the role, if any, that the province, the country of Quebec played in the country’ dismemberment.

Johnny: Yes, while it took a lot of convincing, the Vice-President of Quebec, Jean Joseph Souviens, has agreed to be our last guest. Getting back to your premise that The Fracture was made inevitable by three key economic decision. What was the second key economic decision?

Diane: Political decision. Sorry to be picky, but economic decisions made by politicians are for historians and economists political decisions.

Johnny: Sorry, I didn’t know that.

Diane: Before answering your question on what was the second key political decision I would like to comment on Canada’s post Arrow accomplishments which you so eloquently described.

Johnny: Eloquent. You’re to kind. Go ahead. I would love, and I’m sure our viewers would love to hear your comments on Canada’s post Arrow accomplishments.

Diane: I do not want to minimise these accomplishments by suggesting that some of these were just leading edge social engineering decisions whose cost would be spread over time and did not require an initial large capital investment like building a railway or a jet fighter or other types of major undertakings that would have been expected from a modern country like Canada. The Canadian model for national health insurance was a wonderful example to the world on how to provide universal health care – especially when compared to that barbaric system of the country on its southern border where profiting from your neighbours afflictions and misfortunes was seen as a good thing. But, it was an insurance base program intended to pay for itself, not a large capital investment. In fact, when large capital investment was required to build new hospitals or acquire new medical technologies the federal and provincial governments had to be threatened by the electorate before they would provide even a modicum of funding. Getting your own flag required a lot of political courage and perhaps a lot of political capital but no large commitment of financial resources.

Johnny: That is quite a perceptive observation. Thank you. So what was the second key political/economic decision that made The Fracture, in your view, inevitable?

Diane: The cancellation of the Arrow meant that Canada was re-defining itself as mainly a supplier of raw materials. I know some will argue that it was also a supplier of “brain power", if I can call it that, beginning with all those former Arrow engineers leaving for the United States to help that country put a man on the moon. Canadian universities and colleges would, for a time, continue supplying a steady stream of highly qualified engineers and technicians. However, a scarcity of large or medium scale high technology industries or large engineering projects or a complex manufacturing sector, that a resource based economy made unnecessary, meant that these highly qualified builders and innovators had no choice but to leave for a country which still valued innovation and risk-taking on a national scale.

Johnny:The middle-east oil exporting countries, while they squandered their oil revenues, had it pretty good living off the sale of just one resource. With a country the size of Canada, with the immense natural resources at its disposal, why couldn’t it make it as a resource exporting country?