Is Western Independence Necessary ??

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
This is not my article, it is a Copy/Paste article.
I thought is was worthy of thought, so I'm Posting it here.
-------------------------------------------------

WHY WESTERN INDEPENDENCE IS NECESSARY

Introduction

To someone who has lived in Western Canada all their life, the answers are so self-evident that the question seems almost an insult to one's intelligence. The reasons for Western Canadian Independence have been enumerated since the very creation of Canada, prior to the four Western provinces even being brought into Confederation. They date from the days of "Upper" and "Lower" Canada. Still, we need to be precise in our thinking and communicate these reasons to others who may not have approached the question analytically. Since words and thoughts are the arrows of arguments, we will give them to those who may be our allies and fellow citizens, clear and bright and sharply pointed.


Political Reasons for Western Independence

Once the Liberals under Trudeau in 1980 demonstrated the West (from the Lakehead, west, actually) doesn't count. They governed the whole country from Quebec and Ontario with only two seats west of the Lakehead. They plundered Alberta's resource of oil at the time because they didn't need a single seat in the west to stay in power.

This pattern of power was even repeated by the Liberals under Chretien. There was only one province in all of Canada where they won a majority in the 1997 election, and that was Ontario where they won 101 out of 103 seats. They didn't even need a majority in Quebec!

These two examples, that this situation should even be possible, should be enough for any thinking person (especially if they actually live in the West!), but if not, a simply seat analysis of provinces and the House of Commons seats should indicate that Ontario and Quebec comprise almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons and hence elect the government. This political reality has been so throughout Confederation since 1867. Although some people try to justify this with reference to "representation by population", it is also clear that each federal riding is not equal in population and hence this argument is not strictly true. Quebec has a certain guaranteed percentage, as do small provinces like P.E.I., but even if it were strictly representation by population, another balance would be necessary for a fair and equal distribution of political power.

A regionally-elected Senate with regional equality and power is what makes the United States a more unified country in many ways. Without this balance and check, New York and California would control the legislative agenda as Ontario and Quebec have done in Canada. The people of smaller, more sparsely-populated states would never tolerate this situation and internal conflict would more readily result. But Canada has no such balance.

The power of the President of the United States is balanced by the Senate which is balanced by the House of Representatives. Each has a share in power. Canada has only the Prime Minister, elected in one province, and who picks his cabinet and runs the Parliament as if it were the House of Representatives.

The Senate of Canada, meanwhile, is appointed by the Prime Minister, for life and has no real power to initiate or oppose legislation. The Senate of the United Sates is elected with two senators from each state, regardless of size or population. The U.S. Senate has real power to set and control the legislative agenda, along with the House of Representatives and the President, who is separately elected.

For these reasons in its early states, the Reform Party wanted a "Triple E Senate", that is "equal" from each province, "elected" in each province and "effective" legislatively. Soon after shifting from a western regional party to a "national" party as Reform became more concerned with becoming the government, they realized this idea could not be made popular in Ontario, which had all the seats they needed to win the government. Hence, as one can see in the experience of the Reform Party, a "national" party cannot establish a "Triple E Senate" because it will not be accepted in Ontario and Quebec.

This experience parallels the history of political reform movements that have originated in Western Canada since Confederation, such as the Progressives, Social Credit, the United Farmers of Alberta and the CCF.

Such a constitutional amendment as a Triple E Senate would require two-thirds of the House of Commons and Senate, and a majority similar in the legislature of all provinces including Ontario and Quebec. It is impossible. Political power, concentrated as it is in the hands of Quebec and Ontario will never be voluntarily surrendered. Separation is really the only solution other than surrender forever to the political dictates of Ontario and Quebec. This latter course more and more Western Canadians are not willing to take.

From the concentration of legislative power in two provinces, flows the concentration of all rewards, favours, appointment patronage and naturally concentration of media focus. A forest fire or flood in Ontario is national news. If it happens in the west, it is a "regional story." In patronage, we have appointments to the federal courts, federal boards, commissions, ambassadorships, and all manner of tribunals from human rights to transport safety boards. Political affiliation to one of the "national" parties is a passport to paradise in one of these lucrative posts. The people who desire money and power know this, and are controlled by such considerations in either the Liberal or Conservative parties.

No regional party, without hope of forming a government can offer these reward with any hope of success. More people are in politics for purely selfish reasons than most people realize. The small regional parties cannot discipline their members by offering or threatening to withhold such patronage and hence have endless internal dissension. The major media of Canada are silent partners in this conspiracy. They never mention the origin of the appointment, but tacitly support it by lending unquestioned credibility to the "authorities" so appointed. There is a niceness to the presentation of a "national" party representative or appointee and a cranky reticence to recognize anyone who represents a block or region outside of Ontario. They are not really "Canadian."

A disastrous flood of epic proportions was not a reason of enough importance to delay a general election if it occurred in Manitoba, but a flood of similar magnitude in Ontario would inevitably have resulted in a six-month delay when it was clear the election was not necessary or specifically required by law.

The political reality has never changed. Many Western political leaders have become "bought off" by the system. They think they represent the enlightened among us, as their personal futures are secured by some post of appointment or they become Members of Parliament from the West in Ontario. Doug Christie was the first to say, but now it has become often repeated that they become Ottawa's representatives in the West.

The major reason the political power of Ontario and Quebec has never been challenged in Ottawa is simply because the west has never considered the option of Independence. Until we do, they will offer us nothing better. When we do, they have nothing better to offer. The bankrupt, multicultural, bilingual chaos which Ottawa represents with its patronage appointments of mediocre political opportunists and brutal laws of censorship, political control and unworkable bureaucracy are a pale shadow of the bright future we could have with Independence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Reasons for Independence

The West produces 52% of the Gross National Product in fishery, forestry, mining and agriculture and 90% of the petroleum production with a mere 27% of the population. The west pays more to Ottawa in taxes than it receives back from Ottawa for all services, schools, roads, health care, including pensions, etc., than it receives back, by billions every year. Alberta particularly, and British Columbia, secondarily, have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in equalization and intergovernmental transfers of funds. The west has more than enough to prosper in self-government.

In addition, the West is a competitive producer on the international market. There are only three provinces in Canada who year after year produce more foreign exports than they do foreign imports, by a massive amount. Those are B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is contrasted with Ontario and Quebec where 80% of all Canadian manufacturing occurs. They are major net importers on the international markets, but they are major net exporters to the domestic market of other provinces. To simplify this, the West gets the favourable balance of trade internationally and Ontario and Quebec skim off the wealth by monetary, trade and tariff barriers to force the West to buy from Ontario and Quebec where all the money ends up in the manufacturing sector which also keeps the majority of the population in those provinces for electoral purposes happy, Liberal (or P.C.) voters. It's a vicious circle.

Historically, the economic bias against the west has been exploited carefully and systematically over a long time. This has proceeded sector by sector with a caution to avoid irritating more than one sector at a time. For a time in the early 1980's Ottawa attacked the oil sector. The farmers said very little as did the B.C. forest or fishing industries. Soon after, Ottawa attacked the farmers by revoking the historical Crow Freight Rate. They offered some short-term perks and all other sectors were quiet. Then they attacked B.C.'s fishing industry and created a stir but the loggers were quiet. So, sector by sector, they play one against the other and exploit them all. It is a game as old as Confederation.

The west remains a colonial economy. Ontario and Quebec are the imperial power and there has never been a Boston Tea Party. The West has yet to wake up in a massive way to the rip-off of the Canadian economy and political system and let's face it, the CBC aren't going to tell them, in either language! As usual, Quebec is the wild card in this equation, as they keep raising the stakes. At some point, at some patronage contract to Quebec, the West could balk. This may occur over special status for Quebec itself. If Reform surrenders on this position, they will lose the West, and never gain the East. Time will tell.

In conclusion, economically Confederation has been a drain and an impediment to development of wealth and industry, jobs or population in the West. Ottawa prefers to view western resources, be they oil, r fish or forest or grain, as a cash cow to exploit and reallocate to voters in the populated areas of Ontario and Quebec where that wealth translates into political power for them in Ottawa. It was always this way, from the beginning of Confederation. Until Independence, it will thus ever be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural Reasons for Independence

Culture is the essence of a nation. The cultural reasons for Western Independence are deeper and harder to define, but even more important. Very few people have the courage to broach this subject because this is where Canada is weakest. The elite has therefore made this a taboo topic. A "Canadian consensus" has developed without debate that as usually is the case, anyone who claims to represent a culture that is not multicultural, bilingual and "open" to any immigration of foreign culture is a "racist, redneck, or bigot." The usual result is to be shut out of serious discussion by the "intellectuals" and because most people fear rejection, very few will ever proceed further. This is true, for example, of many in the Reform party.

What is Canada's culture? What was it? Where is it going? What is the end result of government enforced bilingualism and government enforced multiculturalism? These are questions which are never being publicly asked and without addressing them, the culture of Canada, indeed its very identity is sleep-walking toward a precipice.

Official bilingualism has been a long-standing irritant in the West. It was a Trudeau bribe to the voters of Quebec: "Stay in Canada, and I'll get you a high-paying job in the federal government, anywhere in Canada!" Call any government office in Ottawa and you will see how 25% of the population have 75% of the jobs, influence and power in Ottawa. The same is true in other federal institutions in Canada.

Similarly with government enforced multiculturalism. The euphemism "multiculturalism" was sugar-coated to get the average Westerner and indeed Canadian to accept what in effect was a cyanide pill of cultural suicide of historic proportions. Since the Trudeau changes to the Immigration Act favouring applicants from anywhere but Europe, the demographic make-up of Canada has been radically shifted. We are witnessing in Canada the planned genocide of European Christian culture along with our history, values, language, and inherent rights. These are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and selfish political interests. New Canadians generally appreciate the government who brought them here and vote loyally Liberal, the "national" party that gave us a new ethnic makeup. Where can we of European heritage go when our culture has been destroyed here? We can't go to India, China, Africa or South America. We won't be welcome there; they don't have the same government-enforced multiculturalism that Canada has! But why should we have to leave our homes, families and countries. Many of us were born here. Why should our culture, language and identity be placed in competition with others in our own land? Why should "affirmative action" a euphemism for disadvantage to white males, be imposed upon us?

It's simple: the politicians have created block-voting ghettoes whose demands they must satisfy to get elected. These ghettoes are primarily in Ontario, but any large city in the West will show you similar areas where English is not spoken.

In real terms, Canada is too big, too remote and too corrupt to survive as a nation much longer. A famous writer, once wrote:

"Governments are made to be bribed. The bigger they get, the more surely they will become corrupt. Power has a market value and concentrating power increases the pressure, usually through the medium of money, on any leak. Nature finds the human flaws in any system."

This can surely be said of Canada. Unless a common language, common cultural norms and values create standards of self-discipline, which are rewarded by cultural myths and legends, no external discipline can keep a society or its leaders from corruption and decadence. Canada has systematically dismantled its European Christian cultural heritage and substituted multicultural tolerance for any and all corruption. To object is to be a bigot. Canada hence becomes culturally, politically and morally more and more corrupt. Nobody says anything except when they have to pay their taxes. They they try to find ways to hid and avoid at best. They don't believe in the system. They didn't create it and they don't control it. This is Western alienation, at its heart.
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
The same argument has been going on since before the American Revolution. Back then, it was the British who were destroying Canada, bringing in the Non-Catholics, and non-French speakers. Then, it was the Loyalists, who came by the thousands, and brought an "Americanization" of the Canadian culture.

This has gone on for centuries, and it will signify absolutely nothing. The people in power in the Western Provinces are NOT going to try to upset the apple cart. they get their power, and their prestige, from the government.

If the Western Provinces ever did leave Canada, they are too sparsely populated to make it on their own. Their industries are "foreign owned" (meaning they are NOT controlled by Westerners), who would simply buy the new government.

Virtually every study ever done has shown that if this ever occurred, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would become a part of the USA within 25 years, and BC in about another 25. Is that what you want?
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
As someone who has always seen himself as an Albertan/Western Nationalist more than a Canadian, I'll say this is not the worst argument I have seen for Western Seperatism in some ways but definately not the best. It doesn't do a bad job of describing a lot of the political and economic resentment but it fails on the cultural side. It also doesn't go into the drawbacks of independence for the West, thus has to be categorized more as "seperatist propaganda" than a balanced examination of the issue.

I've said before, and I'll agree now that the way power is concentrated in this country makes it too easy for a central Canadian power block to form and dictate to the rest of the nation. Its not healthy and its what leads to regional alienation that give rise to seperatist movements. The OP does post a valid observation in that regard and its comparison to the US Congressional set up is equally valid. Its the reason that I am not overly optimistic on the future of the country. Old Medic asked if westerners wanted to be part of the USA, and while there is reluctance to say "yes", I don't think there is the same reluctance now that there was 20 years ago, as fatigue in dealing with the Ontario & Quebec mandated governments continues and grows. I also believe the one thing that could be done to rectify many of the issues (reformation fo the senate to a triple E format) will not be done, just as the author of the article states, because Quebec and southern Ontario are so jealous of their power/control.

I'm not a seperatist, but I am not optimistic whenI look at Canada's future with the regional divides so deeply entrenched.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
All things considered, Canada is the best country in the world. Somebody is going to have to explain to me how things are going to get much better before I would ever support separation.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
I find that as soon as they trot out the 'I didn't like Trudeau, and it scarred me for life' song and dance, there's no point in going further.

It's like any discussion that brings up Nazis, it loses all relevance to reality.

If anyone can discuss western politics without blaming everything on Trudeau, good luck to them.

Note - for those who have trouble with reading comprehension, I'm not saying Trudeau was good or bad. Simply that blaming all of the woes of the west on him is stupid.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I find that as soon as they trot out the 'I didn't like Trudeau, and it scarred me for life' song and dance, there's no point in going further.

It's like any discussion that brings up Nazis, it loses all relevance to reality.

If anyone can discuss western politics without blaming everything on Trudeau, good luck to them.

Note - for those who have trouble with reading comprehension, I'm not saying Trudeau was good or bad. Simply that blaming all of the woes of the west on him is stupid.
History and politics are inextrictably intertwined: Quebec shows us that, the First Nations issues show that and western alienation shows that.You can't ignore the sitting PMs in all this, as they have a major role in how policy was shaped and implemented.

Trudeau wasn't the root cause, rather he and his governments provided some of the most blatant examples of how the system works for Ontario and Quebec and against the other regions of the country, without any balance. There has been western dissatisfaction for decades: that how we got the CCF/NDP and then the Reform/Alliance. That said, the dissatisfaction grew by leaps and bounds under Trudeau and his protege, Chretien, to the point where particularly Alberta did question its place in Confederation (even King Ralph made remarks on that subject on occasion). The fires died down under Mulroney a bit, until he ignored the deficit and debt to a point where our bonds where downgraded (something the fiscally conservative West was incensed by) and then he introduced the most hated tax in decades, if not in our history, the GST. Martin didn't really affect things much, save that his elections showed how fragmentedand defined the regions are, and Harper's elections have shown the same, although with his majority, Harper has more of a chance to dampen the fires... but everyone in Ottawa and the media seem to be more preoccupied with Quebec.

Few of them realize it was Truedeau who kick started the oil sands.

Thats not even close to accurate. Trudeau wasn't elected PM until April of 1968. The Suncor project started in 1964 and came on line in 1967 The Oil Sands Story (1960s, 1970s & 1980s) - Suncor The Feds, did contribute to Syncrude. Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Oil Sands History can give you a little better understanding but if you don't want to go there,
In 1962, the Government of Alberta announced an oil sands policy to provide for the orderly development of oil sands in such a manner that it would supplement, but not displace, conventional crude oil policy.

...the Syncrude consortium was formed in 1964. Syncrude's initial objective was research on the economic and technical feasibility of mining oil from the Athabasca oil sands. Syncrude's proposal for a production facility was finally approved in 1969.

All Trudeau would have been doing at that point was approving something that had been worked out and proposed before he was elected. He did buy into the idea of oil sands production and tried to get Petro-Canada bigger stakes in Syncrude but he was late to the party, not the man with the idea.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Whine about Trudeau all you want, take a look at today. We have a Prime Minister
from Calgary for Pete's sake and still the west is not satisfied. The reason we find
ourselves continually having this discussion is because we all spend our time thinking
regionally instead of nationally. In the Maritimes they think in terms of Atlantic
Canada. there is the old upper/lower Canada being the Ontario and Quebec region.
Or the St Lawrence Region being the North Shore of Quebec and New Brunswick.
Coming West, we couldn't for a western separation either. Manitoba and Saskatchewan
are different in outlook from Alberta. Alberta and BC are as different as night and day.

What has to happen is we need to have a strong central, or Federalist Government that
looks out for the interests of the country as a whole instead of the selfish interests of
one region or another. I for one do not subscribe to a western separation movement,
how could you guess from my comments. I think we have to start thinking what is good
for all of us or there won't be an us we will be gobbled up by the United States and our
way of life will pass into history.
No this is not fear mongering or anything else. Look around you. The Arctic is coming
under more question, because there are deposits of oil, gas, diamonds and all the things
those energy starved people want. They want our wealth, not our interests. In addition
I watched several TV commercials, that they slightly changed now but in the beginning
they went something like this.
The area was one big region and they referred to the oil in the oil sands as American oil
and the development would provide American Jobs. Now of course they refer to the
area as North America and the oil from Canada with provide jobs, they even toned that
down a bit. As I have said before America is a business partner and we even have
relatives on either side of that imaginary line, but when it comes to nationhood they are
not our friends. In history they are the only nation that ever invaded or attacked us.
Canada is the beacon of hope for much of the third world, all those people are hoping
one day their nation can rise to the same level of development and compassion and
here we are arguing over things that divide us instead of embracing the things that
unite us. Sorry but I get a little ticked when people suggest breaking up my country
because the didn't like some policy of a former government and back then they didn't
care so we should leave confederation. Well personally I get upset when I think of
Dief the Chief, he was a western Prime Minister who scrapped the Avro Arrow and
set our aviation industry back a century costing us jobs across the country. He did it
because he had resentment toward Eastern Canada, and he didn't like CD Howe.
It cuts both ways, and we can't do anything about yesterday, so lets go build a better
country in the present day learning from the mistakes of the past instead of just
creating new ones. And no the concept of western separation is not self evident
its merely self centered and selfish.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,916
11,195
113
Low Earth Orbit
Thats not even close to accurate. Trudeau wasn't elected PM until April of 1968. The Suncor project started in 1964 and came on line in 1967 The Oil Sands Story (1960s, 1970s & 1980s) - Suncor The Feds, did contribute to Syncrude. Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Oil Sands History can give you a little better understanding but if you don't want to go there,


All Trudeau would have been doing at that point was approving something that had been worked out and proposed before he was elected. He did buy into the idea of oil sands production and tried to get Petro-Canada bigger stakes in Syncrude but he was late to the party, not the man with the idea.
What were they doing before PetroCan? Sitting there useless and going broke?
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Thats not even close to accurate. Trudeau wasn't elected PM until April of 1968. The Suncor project started in 1964 and came on line in 1967 The Oil Sands Story (1960s, 1970s & 1980s) - Suncor The Feds, did contribute to Syncrude. Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Oil Sands History can give you a little better understanding but if you don't want to go there,

Funny, I thought it was gospel to the Alberta crew on here that governments in general, and the federal government in particular, had nothing to do with the development of the oild sands.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Suncor Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suncor was founded in 1919 in Montreal as Sun Company of Canada, a subsidiary of Sun Oil (now Sunoco). Sun merged its Canadian interests, including Great Canadian Oil Sands (the developer of Canada's Athabasca oil sands) to form Suncor in the 1970s. In 1981, the Government of Ontario purchased a 25% stake in Suncor before divesting in 1993. In the mid-1990s Sun Oil, now Sunoco, Inc. also divested its interest in Suncor, although Suncor maintains the Sunoco retail brand in Canada. Suncor is now an independent, widely-held company.
On March 23, 2009, Suncor announced the acquisition of Petro-Canada.[4] This merger created a company with a combined market capitalization of C$43.3 billion. On 4 June 2009, a 98% approval rate was reached by Suncor's shareholders for the acquisition of Petro-Canada and the competition bureau approved the merger on June 21, 2009.[5][6] The merger with Canada's 11th largest company was completed on August 1, 2009 [7] in a 21 billion dollar deal to form the second largest company in Canada.[8]
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
I am not one of those who believes that if the west separated, it would get swallowed up by the US. There is absolutely no reason for this to happen. There are many smaller countries that exist and do very well for themselves, Singapore is just one example.

I think western independence is worthy of discussion and consideration. I think we have to look to the future to make these decisions rather than dwelling on the past, but we should use the history of the past to guide us in making decisions for the future.

My main reason to consider western independence is that I feel the west would be better off in dealing with the rest of Canada on a BUSINESS basis rather than on a POLITICAL basis. The west has never been successful in dealing with central Canada on a Political basis, it just doesn't have the population to do so.
The west, on its own, would have a more common interest and would be stronger and richer for it.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
My main reason to consider western independence is that I feel the west would be better off in dealing with the rest of Canada on a BUSINESS basis rather than on a POLITICAL basis. The west has never been successful in dealing with central Canada on a Political basis, it just doesn't have the population to do so.
The west, on its own, would have a more common interest and would be stronger and richer for it.

You're sounding like a Quebec Separatist, regurgitating all the same reasons.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
Without some colossal infrastructure improvement (cash required) it will never happen.

Well the West just gave Ont and Quebec over $ 10 billion in equalization payments, and this was for this year only, seems to me, keeping this in the west is a good start..
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
Did we pay the railway money back yet?
Yep, many times over, it has even paid for the highway.
AB for instance has paid over $ 50 billion over the yrs to the federation. Any idea what AB would look like if it kept all this money??

Besides the emotional aspect of independence, and if one only looked at the financial aspect of independence, there is no reason the west should not gain its own independence.