By Qamar Bashir

Canada is often celebrated as one of the most diverse, modern, and tolerant nations in the world, a country that welcomes millions of immigrants from South Asia, China, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Africa. These communities have enriched Canada’s social fabric, strengthened its workforce, and reshaped its major cities into multicultural hubs that symbolize coexistence and opportunity. Yet beneath this impressive surface lies a deep structural tension that has existed for decades but rarely receives global attention: the simmering animosity between Eastern and Western Canada. This divide is not merely a matter of geography. It touches politics, economics, identity, federal power, culture, and the question of who controls the future of the Canadian federation.

The tension often surprises new immigrants who see Canada as unified, peaceful, and predictable. But historically, the East–West divide has been one of the most persistent challenges to national cohesion. Eastern Canada—primarily Ontario and Quebec—has long been the political, financial, and demographic center of the country. Western Canada—Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Manitoba—has developed a parallel identity built on natural resources, self-reliance, and a deep suspicion that federal policies are shaped by Eastern priorities at the West’s expense.

At the center of this animosity is the sense of exploitation felt strongly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. These provinces have powered Canada’s economy for decades through oil and gas revenues, yet they argue that federal decisions consistently limit their growth while forcing them to shoulder financial burdens through equalization payments. Many Western Canadians believe that they “pay into a system run by the East that redistributes money back to the East,” and this sentiment has fueled movements like the Alberta independence campaign and the Wexit movement, which at one point gained significant public traction.

Economically, the divide is rooted in two competing visions of Canada. The East depends on manufacturing, technology, service industries, and global finance, particularly in the Ontario–Quebec corridor. These sectors naturally align with progressive environmental targets, carbon pricing, renewable energy strategies, and the climate agenda that Ottawa frequently pursues. Western Canada, by contrast, relies heavily on oil, gas, mining, forestry, and agriculture—industries that suffer whenever federal regulations tighten. The federal carbon tax, pipeline restrictions, and environmental review delays are not simply policy disagreements—they are viewed in the West as existential threats to the livelihood of entire communities. When the East pushes for rapid energy transition, the West hears a call to dismantle its economic engine.

Politically, the divide is equally stark. Ontario and Quebec are strongholds for the Liberal Party and the NDP, both of which promote centralized federal governance, climate policy, multiculturalism, and social spending. The western provinces overwhelmingly vote Conservative and emphasize lower taxes, deregulation, and provincial autonomy. Because federal governments are almost always elected through the population-heavy provinces of the East, the West often feels politically irrelevant. There have been national elections where Alberta and Saskatchewan voted nearly unanimously for one party, only to watch the opposite party form a government with limited representation from the West. The feeling of disenfranchisement grows deeper every electoral cycle.

Culturally, Eastern and Western Canada have grown in different directions as well. The East has experienced waves of immigration since the 1960s, reshaping Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa into diverse global cities. Western cities like Calgary and Vancouver are also highly multicultural but maintain a stronger frontier-style identity—independent, pragmatic, entrepreneurial, and often skeptical of federal narratives. French–English linguistic duality heavily influences Eastern political attitudes, while Western provinces tend to view national identity through an economic and practical lens rather than a historical or linguistic one.

Attempts by federal leadership to bridge the divide have been well-intentioned but largely unsuccessful. Ottawa has tried to modify equalization formulas, negotiate pipeline deals, expand interprovincial trade, or offer climate subsidies to resource provinces. But each attempt has run into structural limitations. When the federal government approves pipelines, environmental groups and Eastern provinces challenge them in courts. When Ottawa imposes carbon taxes, Western provinces challenge the federal government. When the East demands quicker climate action, the West accuses Ottawa of destroying the resource economy. The federal government sits between two visions of the country—one built on global environmental commitments and another built on natural resource prosperity—and any attempt to satisfy one fuels resentment from the other.

Moreover, the constitutional framework itself contributes to the problem. Natural resources belong to provinces, but environmental regulation belongs to Ottawa. Immigration belongs to Ottawa, but settlement services rely on provinces. Infrastructure crossing provincial borders must be approved federally, but land control remains local. The overlapping jurisdictions create an ongoing tug-of-war that keeps East and West locked in conflict, each side claiming to defend its constitutional rights.

The consequences of these unresolved tensions could shape Canada’s future in serious and unpredictable ways. If the divide continues to widen, Canada may face increasing regional polarization, weakened national unity, and growing separatist sentiment—not only from Quebec, but also from Alberta and Saskatchewan. A prolonged economic downturn in the West, combined with continued political dominance by Eastern provinces, could reignite separatist movements that previously seemed improbable in a country known for harmony. Already, polling in Alberta has shown surprisingly strong support for independence during moments of economic crisis or federal overreach. Such sentiment does not disappear; it lies dormant, waiting for another spark.

On the other hand, if federal leadership acts decisively and creatively, there is still room to heal the divide. Canada could redesign equalization to better reflect resource revenue volatility, treat interprovincial pipelines as strategic national infrastructure, decentralize certain federal powers, and build a more transparent framework for climate transition that does not punish resource provinces. A balanced approach could demonstrate that Canada’s unity is not based on uniformity but on partnership. A federation as geographically huge and economically diverse as Canada cannot function on a “one-size-fits-all” model; it must recognize the legitimacy of regional priorities and build national policy that respects them.

Canada’s future will depend on whether it sees its internal differences as threats or as sources of strength. The East and West each bring something vital to the national project—the economic engines of the West and the financial, educational, and cultural institutions of the East. Integration, cooperation, and mutual respect will determine whether Canada remains a stable, prosperous federation or drifts toward fragmentation in slow motion. The divide is real, the grievances are deep, but the potential for unity still exists—if leaders choose to build bridges instead of boundaries.

By Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former Press Attaché to Malaysia

Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA

by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

In the conduct of nations, reputation is not an ornament but a form of power. States that are trusted, respected, and taken seriously enjoy a diplomatic space unavailable to those who speak hesitantly or act apologetically. For Pakistan, a country positioned at the crossroads of regional turbulence and global scrutiny, reputation has never been a luxury—it has been a matter of stability, security, and, at times, survival. The events of May 2025 marked a turning point in this long and often complicated journey, for Pakistan demonstrated, both in the military and diplomatic arenas, that clarity of purpose can prevail over decades of misperception.

For years, India employed a strategy of provocation mixed with narrative warfare, seeking to cast Pakistan as a reckless actor, even when circumstances told a different story. Whether through ceasefire violations along the Line of Control or through orchestrated media campaigns, India repeatedly attempted to create conditions in which Pakistan could be cornered. In most of those episodes, Pakistan opted for restraint. Governments of the time believed that prudence would earn the world’s appreciation and that avoiding escalation was itself a contribution to regional peace. Yet restraint, when misread, becomes an invitation for further provocation. Silence can be mistaken for weakness, and caution for guilt.

In May 2025, India attempted once more to force Pakistan into a position from which it could either be diplomatically discredited or militarily pressured. The incursion—unprovoked and tactically unsound—was designed to test Pakistan’s response and to project India’s long-cherished illusion of regional supremacy. But this time the calculation failed. Pakistan responded with precision, demonstrating both capability and restraint. The operations were defensive, proportionate, and aimed solely at neutralising the immediate threat. Nothing more, nothing less.

What truly reshaped the regional and global narrative, however, was what followed. Intelligence shared with international partners, satellite imagery analysed by neutral observers, and testimony from independent experts all converged on a single conclusion; Pakistan had neither initiated nor escalated the crisis. The United States President—his words scrutinised globally—publicly affirmed this conclusion. A detailed report later presented to the US Congress further strengthened Pakistan’s position, noting that India’s actions were “inconsistent with its stated claims” and that Pakistan had acted in “legitimate self-defence under international law.”

This was unprecedented. For years, Pakistan had been compelled to explain its innocence; now India found itself explaining its conduct. The diplomatic embarrassment New Delhi faced was amplified by its own media, which, in the age of instant global verification, could not sustain the usual narrative of unilateral heroism.

Simultaneously, another long-standing issue reached a moment of international clarity; cross-border terrorism emanating from Afghan territory. Pakistan had warned repeatedly that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), sheltered and guided by hostile intelligence elements, was orchestrating attacks against Pakistani security forces. Despite providing evidence over the years, Islamabad found its voice muffled by geopolitical preferences and selective interpretations of regional realities.

But the pattern changed in 2025. When TTP militants, operating under Indian facilitation, launched renewed attacks from Afghan soil, Pakistan not only neutralised the perpetrators but also presented comprehensive evidence to key capitals and international bodies. For the first time, the evidence was accepted without hesitation. The United Nations acknowledged that the TTP constituted a serious threat to Pakistan’s security. The European Union followed suit, urging that the group be internationally proscribed. Several countries, which had previously offered vague statements, now spoke with directness; the TTP was a terrorist organisation, and Pakistan was its primary victim.

This global alignment with Pakistan’s long-affirmed position did more than validate its grievances. It restored Pakistan’s diplomatic dignity on an issue where it had been unfairly questioned for far too long. The world recognised that Pakistan was not merely reacting to threats—it was confronting a sustained campaign to destabilise it. The confirmation of these facts by respected international institutions elevated Pakistan’s stature and made its voice more authoritative in regional diplomacy.

These developments collectively signalled that Pakistan’s narrative had shifted from defensive explanations to principled assertions. They showed that the international community responds not to apologetic language but to confident, evidence-based diplomacy. The events also underscored that military preparedness and diplomatic clarity are not contradictory; rather, they reinforce each other when guided by responsibility.

Yet this moment is not an end but a beginning. Having restored its credibility, Pakistan must now sustain the momentum. Its responsibility extends beyond its borders; the region stands at the threshold of either renewed conflict or unprecedented cooperation. Pakistan’s role, therefore, is not merely to defend itself but to shape a stable, peaceful environment in South Asia and beyond.

The lessons of 2025 are crystal clear. A nation that speaks with conviction is heard. A nation that responds with discipline is respected. And a nation that stands firm on principle becomes a force for regional stability. Pakistan, having reclaimed its honoured standing in the community of nations, must now carry this confidence forward—steadily, wisely, and without ever surrendering the dignity it has so justly earned.