Western Alienation

[Cartman]

Amazing to me how Quebec gets so much attention to its concerns while the West is virtually ignored (despite its substantial CPC block vote). The only attention given to Alberta is when Klein announces changes to health care services. Martin does not announce more funding possibilities, he just exploits the issue for votes. At the same time, we are expected to remain silent on the BQ issue. Well, I resent the very existence of the BQ as its only purpose is to make federalism unworkable for the rest of us. Western alienation should be given more attention as even us "Ontario transplants" feel it strongly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Despite frequent attempts, I have yet to comprehend 'western alienation'? Whenever I ask what the problem is, I can't ever seem to grasp the explanation. Often, I don't see why it's a 'western' issue, other things I can't see why they're an issue at all.

Three solitudes?

[Cartman]

Western alienation is so commonplace that it is often difficult to define but easy to identify. I would define it as persistent social, political and economic inequality based upon region. For example, Ontario Liberals recently implemented health care premiums and people are hopping mad (don't blame them). But we in Alberta have been paying such fees for years because of a lack of federal government funding (and perhaps provincial political will). This is not new for us. There have been few tears for us on this issue but it is a big deal when people in Ontario have to pay up. It also has to do with a preconceived notion that we are just dumb rednecks. Be honest, would anyone disagree that this sentiment is not uncommon in Central Canada?

[kungfusion]

When one talks about Western Canada Alienation, one should not forget to mention the problems existing in British Columbia.

[Michael Hardner]

It also has to do with a preconceived notion that we are just dumb rednecks. Be honest, would anyone disagree that this sentiment is not uncommon in Central Canada?

I have had this argument many times on these boards and others.

I'm an Ontarian and I have never heard a single person here make a diparaging remark about westerners. You have a preconceived notion about preconceived notions.

Or maybe it's just projection. I've read a couple of comments from westerners calling easterners sheep, lazy, etc.

Ontario is mostly small towns and wilderness. And most Torontonians I know came from elsewhere. So what kind of sense would it make for someone from North Bay, living in Toronto to call a westerner a 'hick' ?

[kungfusion]

I have had this argument many times on these boards and others.

I'm an Ontarian and I have never heard a single person here make a diparaging remark about westerners. You have a preconceived notion about preconceived notions.

In Quebec and Ontario alone, the seats elected for Liberals or Bloc Quebecois have a total of 150 seats.

(ON: 75 Lib, PQ: 54 BQ +21 Lib)

Which almost puts them into the majority of the house. With 7 NDP elected from Ontario, they can work together to make sure the Western or the Conservatives can be alienated despite the Conservatives have the majority in the West. Why the alienation? If the Tories can only occupy the role of opposition, then we can be sure the Alberta residents will be forgotten, and to a less extent, the British Columbia residents.

[The Terrible Sweal]

For example, Ontario Liberals recently implemented health care premiums and people are hopping mad (don't blame them). But we in Alberta have been paying such fees for years because of a lack of federal government funding (and perhaps provincial political will). This is not new for us. There have been few tears for us on this issue but it is a big deal when people in Ontario have to pay up.

I think you're missunderstanding that issue a little bit: Federal health care funding is not dished out differently based on provinces. Whether you pay a separate premium for it in your province depends solely on how the province chooses to structure its revenue stream(s).

It also has to do with a preconceived notion that we are just dumb rednecks.  Be honest, would anyone disagree that this sentiment is not uncommon in Central Canada?

The perception of Westerners among Eastern Canadians is definately not predominantly, or even substantially, that you are dumb rednecks. Eastern Canada is also so rife with dumb rednecks that we cannot apply that as a regionally distinquishing feature. Honestly.

I think western alienationists regionalize everything too much, when region is not the true basis of the matter.

And btw, Eastern Canada is not the CBC, or Toronto alone.

[Remus]

The combined population of B.C. and Alberta is roughly 7,300,000, the combined seat total is 64 MPs and I think 12 senators(not selected by some one from the west) while Quebec with a population of 7,500,000 has 75 MPs and 24 senators.

(Correct me if I am wrong on the senator count.)

[The Terrible Sweal]

Now what about Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

[idealisttotheend]

Apparently (as this forum is evidence of) the "west" wants out. Not in. The "west" is of course Alberta. BC has always been estranged from Ottawa but it knows that things like the CPP aren't really reasons to seperate. Alberta though has forgotten about how it used to be the poorest province in this federation now that it is the richest. The middle class cry babies (Black Dog's phrase but I couldn't agree more) now want to seperate so they can can have their conservative paradise. Saskatchewan and Manitoba want nothing to do with it (though Saskatchewan did elect 13 Cons).

I think the West can get in. But it has to try harder to make common ground with the larger population bases in the East and stop trying to emulate the seperatists in Quebec. It is easier to get out then in (as with most things) but that is only for the intellectually lazy and the weak at the knees. If Alberta wants more representation it should look at becoming a 'swing' province instead of just voting Con all the time.

Notice that the CPC never really brought up Western issues either. They are not the saviours of the West. Where were mad cow and softwood during the campaign? What about real senate reform (to more equally distribute senate seats not just elect senators)? And if the Cons want to win they are going to have to pay even more attention to eastern issues. The solution is to make common ground with other people in the east and to accept that sometimes the West (ie Alberta) has a minority position that it just has to accept is not the will of the majority.

The majority of Canada cannot afford the conservative "reforms" on their power bills and car insurance and at the hospital. The idealogues must be opposed by the more level headed and seperation must not be an option.

[August1991]

I'm an Ontarian and I have never heard a single person here make a diparaging remark about westerners. You have a preconceived notion about preconceived notions.

Onatrio is the only part of Canada where people identify themselves as Canadian rather than Ontarian. Ontarians are a bit like Americans who have usurped a word to describe themselves when in fact it properly covers two continents.

IME, Ontarians know much less about the other parts of Canada than the other parts know about Onatrio. Within Ontario, the same sort of relationship applies to Toronto, hogtown.

The Liberal fear campaign worked because Harper was an unknown in Ontario. QED.

The combined population of B.C. and Alberta is roughly 7,300,000, the combined seat total is 64 MPs and I think 12 senators(not selected by some one from the west) while Quebec with a population of 7,500,000 has 75 MPs and 24 senators.

The Constitution dictates that 24 senators must come from each of four regions: Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the West and 6 for Nfld. (I believe there are even ridings.) In addition, the PM gets 8 freebie senators if he wants. (Mulroney did this to get the GST through.)

The Constitution also dictates that there must be a minimum of 75 MPs from Quebec.

[Stoker]

The idealogues must be opposed by the more level headed and seperation must not be an option.

Why should speration not be an option? I'm the first to admit that one year ago, I thought the Bloc/PQ were a bunch of "cry babies ", but I'm now starting to feel empathy towards the people of Quebec........Perhaps the best this for the West would be a Quebec vote on sovereignty, for the simple reason as it could be the catalyst the West needs to go our own way.

I understand why you don't want it as an option........Ontario and the Atlantic provinces would lose a major chunk of revenue.

[willy]

The majority of Canada cannot afford the conservative "reforms" on their power bills and car insurance and at the hospital. The idealogues must be opposed by the more level headed and seperation must not be an option.

The Fiberals won. They will be shifted to the left by the NDP and the Bloc. I don't want to afford this new focus, but I have not choice.

You can save the Conservative rhetoric for the next election, you won we concede.

Handle the win with some decorum, responsibility and respect for the 1/3 of the population that will not be represented by this agenda. Have just a little bit of humility.

The only guarantees in life, death and taxes.

[idealisttotheend]

You can save the Conservative rhetoric for the next election, you won we concede.

Alright maybe that was a bit rhetorical but I think it was true.

In any case it is not the Cons that have my back up here, it is the seperatist sentiment that seems to have popped up. That is what must not be allowed to flourish.

And I won nothing, I wanted PR so everyone's vote would count and I didn't get it. I got nothing but some time with Martin trying to do who knows what until the next election which may well be another minority.

The Fiberals won. They will be shifted to the left by the NDP and the Bloc. I don't want to afford this new focus, but I have not choice.

Since the NDP/Liberal numbers don't equal the magic number I don't believe they will come left. If the Liberals want a majority for the next election they are going to need seats in Quebec and that means they can't work too closely with the BQ even if they have gone soft on seperation in Quebec. Of course, Quebec politics being what it is the Liberals couldn't oppose the BQ too much either or that piss Quebec off and they'll elect more BQ next time. It will be interesting times.

I understand why you don't want it as an option........Ontario and the Atlantic provinces would lose a major chunk of revenue.

Ontario is a "have" province and doesn't complain about sending money to the West (Saskatchewan, Manitoba and even BC) I worked in Alberta for seven years and paid my taxes and didn't mind some of it going to provinces with less oil. Did that make me less of an Albertan?

August had an interesting point that I would like to expand on. if the Ontarians have usurped the term "Canadian" then certain Albertans have usurped the term "West."

Handle the win with some decorum, responsibility and respect for the 1/3 of the population that will not be represented by this agenda. Have just a little bit of humility.

I apologize if I am being arrogant but state again that I won nothing. But I am not going to threaten to seperate simply because I didn't get what I want and will probably not get it next time unless something major changes.

I won't sink that low and IMHO neither should anyone else.

[Stoker]

In any case it is not the Cons that have my back up here, it is the seperatist sentiment that seems to have popped up. That is what must not be allowed to flourish.

Why? The East doesn't mind taking our money, but when it comes to respecting our values and views, we our made out to be some sort of combination of Archie Bunker/Hitler/Bush, religious nuts.........so again, why do we need the East?

Ontario is a "have" province and doesn't complain about sending money to the West (Saskatchewan, Manitoba and even BC) I worked in Alberta for seven years and paid my taxes and didn't mind some of it going to provinces with less oil. Did that make me less of an Albertan?

August had an interesting point that I would like to expand on. if the Ontarians have usurped the term "Canadian" then certain Albertans have usurped the term "West."

Tell you what, you stop sending money west, and we will stop sending it east...........this furthers my point that the West, East and Quebec should all go Dutch.......

I apologize if I am being arrogant but state again that I won nothing. But I am not going to threaten to seperate simply because I didn't get what I want and will probably not get it next time unless something major changes.

Why should the West continue to sit idle and allow the East to walk all over us? Actions speak louder then words......the East has proven nothing but their disdain to us, but when it comes to us wanting to leave, they call us childish....why is that?

[willy]

Why should the West continue to sit idle and allow the East to walk all over us? Actions speak louder then words......the East has proven nothing but their disdain to us, but when it comes to us wanting to leave, they call us childish....why is that

The talk of separation is never serious, it is more just an extreme frustration with the lack of influence the west seems to have on the outcome.

Can Harper be the populist the West needs? From now until the next election we need an organization and ground troops in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. If The Conservatives can better represent those areas, they will be in a better position to represent the west. The answer is to have two clear national choices in all provinces.

Yes, we need

A center right and center left party system. Both brokerage parties with wide appeal.

In French and English.

Address the democratic deficit.

Address trust in politics.

These are not western issues but issues all regions would benefit from.

[Stoker]

These are not western issues but issues all regions would benefit from.

According to the election last night, two of the three "regions" within Canada disagree.

[takeanumber]

The West is 'in'.

It's Alberta that leaves itself in the cold because they're so unwilling to consider voting for anybody else, that everybody takes them for granted, and ignores them.

[Boydfish]

It's interesting hearing the Canadian sentiments and opinions on what it will take to "fix" Western Alienation.

First, any option that includes or suggests that British Columbians and Albertans should change who they are and what they believe to be more like the Canadians is unfair: Why should we change? It's supposed to be a confederation of ten equal provinces. That means that my culture and heritage as a British Columbian is just as valid as your Canadian one. Would you suggest to the French Canadians in Quebec that the only way to eliminate seperatism is to act more like the English Canadians in Ontario? We are who we are and will never be "Canadians", either in your eyes or our own. We're British Columbians and Albertans first.

Second, the concept of the "regions" in the Senate is offensive and obsolete. An Albertan can no more represent British Columbia than a Canadian can. Lumping "The West" into one region like that was reasonable 100 years ago.

The painfully obvious time for this to have been corrected was in 1982, but it was more important to Upper and Lower Canadians to entrench their position and Trudeau's personal political agenda in the CCRF than treat us as the equals that we are. The set up grows less reasonable and fair every day. One hundred years ago, it was semi-reasonable for Lower Canada to have a large voice in confederal affairs. The ratio has shifted however and BC and Alberta are their equal in population. In less than 25 years, we'll dwarf Quebec. But there is no effort on the part of Canadians to accept that is no longer 1871 or even 1905.

The historical aspects aside, there is also an utter lack of regard by Canadians for western affairs. I have yet to hear a single political party or leader worry after "How will it play in Vancouver?". I hear lots of concern about Toronto, Montreal and Quebec, but nothing for British Columbians.

In the final analysis, Upper and Lower Canada have a choice: They can adopt a true confederal government or accept that BC and then Alberta will leave. The status quo is not going to cut it.

[August1991]

The painfully obvious time for this to have been corrected was in 1982, but it was more important to Upper and Lower Canadians to entrench their position and Trudeau's personal political agenda in the CCRF than treat us as the equals that we are.

Nine of the ten provincial legislatures approved the Constitution Act of 1982. Quebec's National Assembly alone rejected it, unanimously.

[idealisttotheend]

What rubbish.

First, any option that includes or suggests that British Columbians and Albertans should change who they are and what they believe to be more like the Canadians is unfair: Why should we change?

Comprimise is part of living in a democracy, on both sides. Not already easy and sometimes you lose but it can be done.

You are a Canadian. That's what it says on your passport and on the money. If you are unhappy being Canadian then you can leave and go live somewhere else. America is quite conservative these days, and Yugoslavia has recently decided to divide itself up by ethnicity and region. Leaving is one of the benefits of being Canadian and you are welcome to excersise it if you are unwilling to work to get your particular perspective accepted by the majority of Canadians.

That means that my culture and heritage as a British Columbian is just as valid as your Canadian one.

Really. So Canada is not a legitimate demarcation but British Columbia is? Someone living in downtown Vancouver has more in common with someone in the rural North than a fellow urbanite in Toronto or Calgary? The urbanites certainly vote along more similiar lines than a person from rural BC and Vancouver do. Interesting that. That's the problem with dividing you can never quite tell when to stop.

We are who we are and will never be "Canadians", either in your eyes or our own. We're British Columbians and Albertans first.

We, we, we. The first step towards this kind of bullshit is to pretend your selected group is homogeneous and minimize differences of opinion among your artificially created group. That's how it always done, you just need a favourable media (already done in Alberta except for the 1 o'clock program on Radio One) and you are all set.

Do ALL Albertans and British Columbians think this, none of them are proud Canadians? I've seen alot of Canadian flags out in small town Alberta, heard a lot of students in Edmonton say they are damn proud to be Canadian. Are you going to take their heritage simply because it is inconvienant to your little plans. Will you become that which you purport to hate as long as things are done on your terms?

An Albertan can no more represent British Columbia than a Canadian can. Lumping "The West" into one region like that was reasonable 100 years ago.

But a Calgarian can represent an Edmontonian? People who live 10 feet across the border in BC are somehow vastly different from the people on the Alberta side? Beware drawing too many lines or you'll find one down the middle of your house and your family. Just like Quebec.

The painfully obvious time for this to have been corrected was in 1982, but it was more important to Upper and Lower Canadians to entrench their position and Trudeau's personal political agenda in the CCRF than treat us as the equals that we are.

August has correctly pointed out the utter insanity of this position. Upper and Lower Canadians agreed on nothing in the end and the provinces signed the damn thing even though Quebec hated it and it's passage finally drove Levesque mad.

In the final analysis, Upper and Lower Canada have a choice: They can adopt a true confederal government or accept that BC and then Alberta will leave. The status quo is not going to cut it.

We have the second most 'federal' government in the whole wide bloody world. The only reason anyone cares all that much about the federal government these days is because the national media covers it and the provinces blame it for their own problems (which is the real problem isn't it, why this separatist bullshit is getting stronger out west, among the more impressionable Cons, horray for the Alberta PCs and Steve West). Name one thing the Feds do to interfer with your, 'culture'.

We have in this fine country a democracy. More people live in the East than the West. So the East gets more votes but we westerners (oh wait, I'm in Saskatchewan can I still call myself a Westerner, am I allowed) still have a say and when we can get Altantic Canada, Quebec or Ontario to agree with a given position it will pass.

And if you think that all the proud Canadians in Alberta and BC will stand by and let you take their country, their homes and their cultures from them then you'd better be ready to fight them for it. Be ready to fight.

(This sort of seperatist crap may be not all that serious but it is getting more, if not serious, than at least more common. It could turn into a serious issue if we let it IMO).

[caesar]

We do like to complain and play spin the bottle in electing political parties here in BC but I know no one who wants to separate from Canada. We just like to whine and complain. We have a tendency not to vote for anything that the party stands for; just vote to replace the ruling party. Most people don't care enough to learn anything about the parties. It is not the different governments fault; it is our own for not getting involved.

[Boydfish]

Comprimise is part of living in a democracy, on both sides. Not already easy and sometimes you lose but it can be done.

So where is Canada willing to compromise? Which parts of your culture are you willing to "compromise" on? Both Stockwell Day and Steven Harper have represented a large compromise on the part of westerners, being far more Central leaning than Preston Manning and the original Reformers.

You are a Canadian. That's what it says on your passport and on the money. If you are unhappy being Canadian then you can leave and go live somewhere else. America is quite conservative these days, and Yugoslavia has recently decided to divide itself up by ethnicity and region. Leaving is one of the benefits of being Canadian and you are welcome to excersise it if you are unwilling to work to get your particular perspective accepted by the majority of Canadians.

Ah, so I should leave my home because you don't like my belief that British Columbia should have the same right of self-determination that Ottawa got from London?

Less than 100 years ago, the commonly held opinion of people in Upper and Lower Canada was not that they were "Canadian", in as much as they were British people living in North America. I suspect that you were born after 1976, but for those of who weren't, if you were born in Canada, you were born a British subject.

In many ways, this is also an accurate description of British Columbians in the context of Canada. It is also is showing the same trends in BC that Canada showed in relation to Westminster. It makes sense; the distance, including political, cultural and financially is almost the same in comparing Upper and Lower Canada's relationship with Westminster and BC's relationship with Ottawa.

So Canada is not a legitimate demarcation but British Columbia is?

I'm curious why you seem to think that Canada is not a legitimate demarcation.

Someone living in downtown Vancouver has more in common with someone in the rural North than a fellow urbanite in Toronto or Calgary? The urbanites certainly vote along more similiar lines than a person from rural BC and Vancouver do. Interesting that. That's the problem with dividing you can never quite tell when to stop.

Actually, I support the concept that the more local a government, the more powerful it should be. A politician's power should be directly proportional to the proximity of that politician's electorate. That way, we don't have distant governments dictating to people how they should live.

Oddly, John A. MacDonald had the exact same position.

We, we, we.

Either you learned french via "Hooked on Phonics" and agree with me or you're whining.

The first step towards this kind of bullshit is to pretend your selected group is homogeneous and minimize differences of opinion among your artificially created group.

Never said that there wasn't diversity in BC. But aren't you saying exactly what you're accusing me of about "Canada"? I mean, aren't you saying that the citizens of all ten provinces are exactly like each other?

Do ALL Albertans and British Columbians think this, none of them are proud Canadians?

So we're only going to accept policies that all people agree with? That's gonna make it real difficult to run a country.

But a Calgarian can represent an Edmontonian? People who live 10 feet across the border in BC are somehow vastly different from the people on the Alberta side?

And how would you feel if the senators for Ontario and Quebec were selected by Calgarians?

So if anybody can represent any part of the confederation, why haven't any Albertans been appointed to represent Quebec?

Surely it must work both ways. I see little difference between Ontario and Quebec, especially along the border regions? Why not drop 24 of the senators and have those two provinces share too?

Upper and Lower Canadians agreed on nothing in the end and the provinces signed the damn thing even though Quebec hated it and it's passage finally drove Levesque mad.

Let me get this right: You don't think that ensuring that a vote is worth the exact same across the confederation is worth putting in the constitution over clauses that dictate what is government approved speech?

We have the second most 'federal' government in the whole wide bloody world.

Then explain the Canadian government disregarding it's own constitution on numerous topics and intruding on provincial areas?

We have in this fine country a democracy. More people live in the East than the West. So the East gets more votes but we westerners (oh wait, I'm in Saskatchewan can I still call myself a Westerner, am I allowed) still have a say and when we can get Altantic Canada, Quebec or Ontario to agree with a given position it will pass.

Absolute democracy is simply mob rule. You need to have controls in place to prevent any one area having too much of a sway over the others.

And if you think that all the proud Canadians in Alberta and BC will stand by and let you take their country, their homes and their cultures from them then you'd better be ready to fight them for it. Be ready to fight.

Fight?

First, Canada doesn't have one combat capable Army, let alone two, so you can forget any notions of a civil war. As a wise old farmer called my Dad was fond of saying, "It takes two to fight".

Second, you're assuming a Quebec approach to exiting confederation. This may shock you, but we're not Quebeckers. I doubt you'll see a FLQ type uprising, instead you'll see an evolution much like the same one that lead to the British Statuate of Westminster in 1931.

Third, you're attempting to bait the conversation in an absolutely silly direction: You're trying to provoke a response that you can then hold up as proof of the "dangerous" British Columbian gun toting redneck. It has failed absolutely and you should be ashamed of such a pathetic attempt.

This sort of seperatist crap may be not all that serious but it is getting more, if not serious, than at least more common. It could turn into a serious issue if we let it IMO

So your choice is to try and figure out a way to solve it that is going to work for the aggrieved parties or accept that the confederation is done. Just a suggestion, but your approach of "Floggings will continue until morale improves" seems to be a non-starter.

[Michael Hardner]

So where is Canada willing to compromise? Which parts of your culture are you willing to "compromise" on? Both Stockwell Day and Steven Harper have represented a large compromise on the part of westerners, being far more Central leaning than Preston Manning and the original Reformers.

If you're talking about social issues here, I think it's a fallacy to associate social conservatism with the west. Small town Ontario shares many of the same values, and they will lean towards the CPC.

It's more of an urban-rural split, I think, and your argument is with Toronto and it's 45-odd seats.

Actually, I support the concept that the more local a government, the more powerful it should be. A politician's power should be directly proportional to the proximity of that politician's electorate. That way, we don't have distant governments dictating to people how they should live.

This makes sense, I think.

Toronto exports $2B a year in tax money, according to Craig Read's website.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Liberal fear campaign worked because Harper was an unknown in Ontario. QED.

No. The Liberal negative campaign worked because it informed people about the truth about the Con Party.