In all the post-election hand-wringing, angst and analysis about western alienation these days, the most surprising thing is some people are genuinely surprised it has come to this. At least they seem that way in Ontario and Quebec. It kind of tells you all you need to know about how we find ourselves in this situation.

There has been a phalanx of people venturing west from Ottawa on “listening missions” to hear about what is fuelling the anger. They are seized with tackling several pertinent questions. How did it come to this? What can be done about it? Are people really serious about this Wexit succession from Canada “thing”? Is it real or just a passing fad and will cooler heads prevail? How do Saskatchewan and Alberta voices get heard in the federal government and cabinet? No one actually puts it this way, but you can’t help but sense a subtext of “what’s wrong with you people, anyway?”

They’re all good questions. But the fact they’re being asked should give you a hint about the separate worlds people live in. Forget the two solitudes of Canada. There are three, and always have been.

As with any existential issue, if in a federation one group feels alienated from the rest to the point that people believe the costs outweigh the benefits of the relationship, then you’ve got trouble. It’s been that way in Canada, to varying degrees, since the beginning. The sentiment ebbs and flows. Today the mood in much of the West has the feel of a rising tide. But at the same time, the very nature of federalism is to deal with these pressures. By definition it allows the governing flexibility at the national level and more local autonomy necessary to ease regional divisions and tensions. For the most part, it has worked well for Canada, a massive, thinly populated country that is divided by region, economics, culture, history and language. It’s a tough country to govern. In spite of those structural realities, Canada is seen around the world as one of the great successes of federalism.

To a point that’s true. But then again has Canadian federalism really been tested? It’s had its moments, specifically with the two Quebec secessionist referendums that took Canada to the brink, the conscription crises of 1917 and 1944, and the FLQ October crisis of 1970, which all had French-English origins. There has also been a succession of Eastern and Western protests. But as a peaceable kingdom, Canada certainly hasn’t faced the stress tests of other federations, such as the former Yugoslavia or Spain. Or, for that matter, the greatest challenge federalism has ever faced, the U.S. civil war. Somehow federalism in the U.S. was able to withstand one of the bloodiest internal conflicts in modern history, and more than 150 years later remains a united, sort of, nation.

As the engagement with the West proceeds in an effort to defuse the emotions laid bare in the federal election results, the focus inevitably shifts to the policy solutions. There are clearly layers of significant irritants, many of them deeply embedded in the psychology of the Prairie West. The questions are: is there a policy fix, and, is it feasible?

The short answer to the first question is perhaps. The answer to the second is it’s political, and probably not.

That rather pessimistic view should not be interpreted that western alienation will turn into a full-blown secession from Canada movement. In the cold light of day, any objective analysis will unequivocally demonstrate that separation and the union of Alberta and Saskatchewan in a new nation will be poorer and weaker economically than as a part of Canada.

But emotions stirred by politics aren’t always rational. So the powerful feelings of alienation in the West need to be acknowledged, taken seriously and addressed as much as possible. As the graph below of public opinion in Canada done by Ipsos Research in the wake of the federal election shows, there is a deep fault line between the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the rest of Canada.

Chart 1: Views on Unity – by Province/Region