Western Alienation

[idealisttotheend]

So why don't we eliminate the confederal government and return power to Westminster? We'd save billions.

It is an interesting analogy but not really valid. Canada in 1867 had no real responsible representation in Britian. Britian made the rules from the UK without elected representatives from Canada involved in the decisions made from Britian. BC in 2004 sends a number of MPs to Ottawa equal to it's democratic weight. BC is intimately involved in the Federal government wheras Canadians had no say in the decisions of the legislature or monarchy in Britian. The two are apples and oranges.

I wouldn't fear him in the slightest. If it makes more sense for BC to split back down to British Columbia, Vancouver Island and New Caledonia, then have at 'er. That's one of the beauties of the Westminster System of government: You can get a whole new country without once being a traitor to the Crown.

Yes but where do you stop? Look at megacities, suburbanites and downtown dwellers in any given city have different agendas and needs. The two hate having to share even a municipal government, should they get their own country? What if two sections of BC agree on something but then one day have a fundamnetal disagreement on something like resources royalties. They would immediately seperate from each other. Any region of BC with oil would immediately isolate itself from the rest of the province so that that region could keep the highest proportion of their oil revenues and not have to share them.

Yours is a recipe for chaos, the line must be drawn somewhere.

I own guns. As such, lad, I can rest certain that there is a high degree of Canadian government interference in my life.

If the federal law that you bring up to support your position that Ottawa interfers with your life is gun control, you must be an anarchist. The requirement to register your firearm on some beauricratic registry is a very small imposition on your life given the things that happen in the rest of the world. The State can't look for firearms in your home without evidence, you are allowed to have the things if you register them, you have the right to vote for a party that would repeal the gun control law or change it.

I don't want to get into the gun control debate here, but you register you kids with the government, your car your house. This is part of a modern society, anything less verges on every person for themselves anarchy.

QUOTE

BTW, the rights to abortion and gay rights actually give all people more freedom on how to live lives though I doubt you'll agree.

You have no idea on my positions on either topic, so what you're doing is applying a stereotype onto me.

I apologize but grudgingly. In my experience the seperation movement out west is all about frustrated conservatives who can't get their policies into Ottawa because they can't get enough of the rest of the country to agree with these policies. I have never met, heard or seen anything by a centre or left wing person argue for western seperation or anything resembling it.

QUOTE

You are trying to claim that "the west" is homogenous enough to have a culture and values so distinct from the rest of Canada's that it ought to be a seperate entity.

You know, perhaps we should both stop posting: You seem to want to speak for both your side and mine.

I am not claiming that the west is homogenous. In fact, I'd say that British Columbians are as different from Albertans as we are from Canadians.

Next, we're seperate from Australia, Britain and even the US, but that doesn't seem to hamper us in any way. Explain why it is important for Ontario to even have a little say into BC's affairs or vice versa.

You use the pronoun "we" to describe British Columbians and suggest they are different from "Canadians" and "Albertas." Now you admitted the British Columbians are different from each other earlier, I'll give you that. But you are still claiming some sort of identity for people who live in BC simply by virtue of them living in BC. And you are claiming that there is enough of that identity there that BCers are different enough from Albertans that they should have completly seperate political systems. Either there is something similiar about BCers and only BCers that they ought to form their own political system seperate from Canada and elements thereof or there is not. You can't have it both ways.

Ontario has no say into the affairs of BC nor vise versa. However both have a say into the affairs of Canada. There are many differences between Canadians but there are certainaly enough similiarities that the union of Canadians remains profitable economically, politically and culturally, (profitable vs. no union).

[caesar]

Western separation is dumb and is just sour grapes because they didn't get the conservatives ("Our Western Party") elected. Perhaps part of the reason the Conservatives don't get elected is because their vision is more regionalized instead of for the good of the whole country. BC usually votes one way provincially and another way provincially.

The Liberals may have got more votes here in if it were not the disenchantment of the people with our "Liberal" BC government. A Liberal government that closely resembles the Harper Conservatives.

Canadians did not like to say that we do not want to seek too close of ties with the USA at this time. We would like the economic benefits for many industires but we do not like the way we have been treated by the USA in trade issues since GW Bush has been in office. Many of us do not want our morals corrupted by the dubious actions of the USA government invading Iraq and its disdain for International agreements such as the Geneva Conventions. The USA wants this agreement to protect its citizens but does not feel compelled to give others the same respect.

I get tired of being labelled "anti- American" when I do not have any ill feeling to the general American people; my distrust is their present government.

[Boydfish]

Canada in 1867 had no real responsible representation in Britian.

Nor does British Columbia within Canada.

BC in 2004 sends a number of MPs to Ottawa equal to it's democratic weight.

That might be a myth that is commonly held, but PEI sends four MP's to Ottawa with a population that is less than half the lone British Columbian riding I live in.

There are 7 million people in BC and Alberta. There are 7 million people in Quebec. There are 60 seats in BC and Alberta combined. There are 75 seats in Quebec.

The simple fact is that Ontario and Quebec are dead set against to the elections being held on democratic weight.

BC is intimately involved in the Federal government wheras Canadians had no say in the decisions of the legislature or monarchy in Britian.

Actually, there was no such thing as a "Canadian" in 1867, at least beyond the sense that there were British citizens living in Canada.

They also did have a degree of input that appears to be greater than you're implying. You'll note that John A. MacDonald was able to push the British Colonial Secretary to appoint the pro-confederation extremist Andrew Musgrave to the job of Governor of British Columbia upon the death of Andrew Seymour in office. In comparible terms, if BC could influence Ottawa on who to appoint as LG of Ontario today, you might be right. I doubt it, however.

The two are apples and oranges.

The comparison has differences, granted, but no comparison is going to be exact.

Yes but where do you stop?

Where I stop isn't important, where the community feels comfortable is.

Look at megacities, suburbanites and downtown dwellers in any given city have different agendas and needs. The two hate having to share even a municipal government, should they get their own country?

Why not? Even setting aside the truism of carrying a point to an illogical, absurd extreme, you make the point yourself: They have different needs and agendas. Why can't they have their needs be the priority of their government?

What if two sections of BC agree on something but then one day have a fundamnetal disagreement on something like resources royalties.

If the disagreement is truly fundamental, isn't it better for those two regions to find their own solutions? Instead of having both regions unhappy with a compromise solution, both regions adopt plans that work for them.

They would immediately seperate from each other.

The BNA was passed in 1867, with further updates and additions happening all the way up to 1949. The Westminster Act happened in 1931. The BNA was seriously amended in 1982. I'm curious what portions of this process stike you as "immediate".

Any region of BC with oil would immediately isolate itself from the rest of the province so that that region could keep the highest proportion of their oil revenues and not have to share them.

Or the hydroelectric resources. Or the forestry. Or the port facilities. I think that you'll find that oil is not quite as divisive as you're implying.

Yours is a recipe for chaos, the line must be drawn somewhere.

OK, I'll agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm curious by what fiat you and Upper/Lower Canada in general feel qualified to be the final arbiters of that line?

If the federal law that you bring up to support your position that Ottawa interfers with your life is gun control, you must be an anarchist.

Actually, I'm far more of a law and order type than would be acceptable to an anarchist.

The requirement to register your firearm on some beauricratic registry is a very small imposition on your life given the things that happen in the rest of the world.

I think that until sexual offenders are registered as opposed to duck hunters, the question of degree of imposition is quite secondary.

The State can't look for firearms in your home without evidence,

Actually, the entire point of the Liberal's legislation on it is that they can do exactly that.

you are allowed to have the things if you register them

Untrue. Even if I register a 17 round magazine for my Glock, I am not allowed to have it.

you have the right to vote for a party that would repeal the gun control law or change it.

So unless the majority agrees, there is no protection for a minority group's rights? If we get enough English speakers to vote to outlaw french, does that make it right?

I apologize but grudgingly.

Grudgingly accepted then. I think that once you've strapped on anti-rifle ballistic armour in the height of summer to guard an abortion clinic by standing out front to act as a warning shot or stormed a room backed by a pair of openly gay co-workers, you'll have a footing to debate my thoughts and feelings on abortion or gay rights.

In my experience the seperation movement out west is all about frustrated conservatives who can't get their policies into Ottawa because they can't get enough of the rest of the country to agree with these policies.

Then perhaps you have a very small amount of experience on this topic.

I have never met, heard or seen anything by a centre or left wing person argue for western seperation or anything resembling it.

That leads to two thoughts in my mind.

First, if the main body of support for exiting confederation is from "the right", then considering the overwhelming right lean of the western provinces, doesn't that indicate a large support for it?

Second, I'm not so sure that people fall as neatly into the categories of left, centre and right as you're implying. I think that most people have varying elements of all parts of the spectrum in their beliefs.

But you are still claiming some sort of identity for people who live in BC simply by virtue of them living in BC.

I think that you're looking for a mathematical number where none exists. You can't quantify people and cultures in the manner that you're trying to.

And you are claiming that there is enough of that identity there that BCers are different enough from Albertans that they should have completly seperate political systems.

We do have seperate political systems. In fact, British Columbia's pre-dates it's inclusion in the Canadian confederation.

Either there is something similiar about BCers and only BCers that they ought to form their own political system seperate from Canada and elements thereof or there is not. You can't have it both ways.

This is not a discussion of absolutes. We'll once again flip the mirror back at Canada on your question: Is the cultural difference between Britain and Canada in 1867 greater or lesser than the ones between BC and Canada today?

Ontario has no say into the affairs of BC nor vise versa.

Depends on how you look at it: If you look at the confederal government as being merely an expression of Ontario and Quebec, yes, Ontario has a big say in BC affairs.

There are many differences between Canadians but there are certainaly enough similiarities that the union of Canadians remains profitable economically, politically and culturally,

Profitable for whom?

I have yet to hear of a Canadian politician worrying after how a major decision will play in BC.

The US has been openly and brazenly violating NAFTA with softwood lumber tarrifs to BC's economic detriment, but there has been at best a limp reaction from Canada.

I also find that there is little effort by the Canadian government to preserve or enhance the cultural aspects that BC brings to confederation. In fact, it is generally the reverse: Be like Ontario and Quebec and forget that you have your own history.

[August1991]

Western separation is dumb and is just sour grapes because they didn't get the conservatives ("Our Western Party") elected.

Sour grapes?

Quebec defends its interests. So does Newfoundland (and Labrador too). The Maritimes vote Liberal. And Ontario seems to get what it wants (while pretending it is Canada).

Play the game, or astonish the rest of us by changing the rules of the game.

[maplesyrup]

Dear Hothead

How are you? Some of your cowboy pals out there in Ranchland seem pretty peed about the election, even talking the S word -- separation, as opposed to Syncrude or Stampede. Seeing how you've ripped out your CBC and cancelled your free subscription to the National Post since your boy Stephen Harper lost, I thought I'd write and tell you how my personal election went here in Ontario.

This fit of post-election separation pique some of you Westerners are acting out? It makes you look like a kid who threatens to take his soccer ball and go home, just because the game didn't go his way.

I mention soccer intentionally. The wrenching fallout of the election lasted exactly four minutes at the café where I stop each morning. A young bike courier held up a front-page picture of a doleful Stephen Harper contemplating resignation. "Aw," the courier mocked. "He's sad. I feel so sorry for him."

This article just about sums it up, don't you think?

[takeanumber]

I think so.

And I think it's true.

I can see alot of National Post subscriptions being thrown out, and people instead keeping their Calgary Sun's and the rag that passes for a newspaper: the Calgary Herald.

If Alberta tries to seperate, I can see a lot of their human wealth leaving Alberta.

Sooo many people in Alberta are really from other provinces. (I think most of Calgary wasn't actually born in Calgary).

And Alberta relies on eastern work forces as a hedge against wage inflation.

So yeh. When the oil runs out, Alberta will be calling back, cap in hand, the same have-not province that it was before it found oil and then believed that they were better than everybody else in Canada.

[Alliance Fanatic]

I think that Alberta should cut off all of the money we send to Ottawa. Alberta should become more independant of Canada, the fact is if you asked your average Albertan is they considered themselves more Canadian or Albertan, Albertan would always win. Most Albertan's don't share Ceaser's, Maplesyrups, and BD's, utopian socialist visions of Canada. Albertan's believe in a

-stronger military

-stronger community foundations

-stronger families for a stronger country

-stronger economy

-charity through personal means rather than governmental

-tolerance through experience rather than government forced BS

So Albertan's are'nt Canadian's, we don't hate our neighbours to the south, and we have half a brain.

[caesar]

So Albertan's are'nt Canadian's, we don't hate our neighbours to the south, and we have half a brain

My condolences. That may be your problem. The rest of us use our whole brain and look at the whole picture.

We don't hate the American people; but we do disagree with a country that invades another country by using fraud and lies; that ignores Geneva convention ; holding prisoners illegally without their Geneva convention rights; that believes GW Bush is some sort of God and can allow American soldiers to torture prisoners. We do not agree with a foreign government that ignores decisions of NAFTA whenever they lose.

We do not agree with their government and its aggression and favoritism shown to Israel without just cause.

Anyhow, the American people and courts are beginning to see the light. They are seeing through the propaganda they have been fed.

[Stoker]

If Alberta tries to seperate, I can see a lot of their human wealth leaving Alberta.

Why's that? People still go to the Middle East to work in the Oil industry, and look at the $hithole that place is.......are you saying that Alberta is going to be worse then Iraq

And Alberta relies on eastern work forces as a hedge against wage inflation.

Or could it be said that many people from back east rely on Alberta for work? Regardless, would you move your family from a good job to nothing, because Alberta wants to better itself?

So yeh. When the oil runs out, Alberta will be calling back, cap in hand, the same have-not province that it was before it found oil and then believed that they were better than everybody else in Canada.

The rest of Canada will have long since "run out" as a nation long before Alberta "runs out of oil".......

[takeanumber]

Typical Alberta Arrogance, Stoker.

I suppose you're going to claim that it was Albertan hard work that put the oil in the ground, too?

1. If Alberta seperates, most Easterners will actually return to their home region, or, move to Toronto/Montreal or Vancouver. Why? Because they move where the jobs are. They tend to be extremely mobile, and they'll want to keep their options open.

Somehow I doubt that Alberta Citizenship or Canadian Citizenship will be very interchangeable.

2. Easterners most certainly do not 'depend' on Alberta for work. Alberta enjoys having the best and brightest from the other regions to come out and work, and many leave when they bored, tired of the climate, or tired of the people.

3. Oil reserves in Alberta are depleting. They got the sands, but the cost per barrel for extraction is quite high, and there will be a heavy reliance on CANDU technology in the future. Moreover, where will the water come from to run the reactors? etc...

Alberta won't be rich forever.

You know that. You're from Canada. Anybody with even a basic understanding of Canadian history knows of the natural cycles.

[idealisttotheend]

Canada in 1867 had no real responsible representation in Britain.

Nor does British Columbia within Canada.

BC may not have the amount of representation you want but it has some representation you must admit. BC especially since it sends all three parties to Ottawa so it always has someone on every side of the debate.

That might be a myth that is commonly held, but PEI sends four MP's to Ottawa with a population that is less than half the lone British Columbian riding I live in.

There are 7 million people in BC and Alberta.  There are 7 million people in Quebec.  There are 60 seats in BC and Alberta combined.  There are 75 seats in Quebec.

You yourself are arguing that certain regions are underrepresented in Ottawa, PEI has a few more seats to try to provide a little balance. This is not ideal but it is practical.

The Quebec example is different. The 75 seats is a constitutional quirk put in many many years ago. The Quebec debate in this day and age seems silly because it is obvious that Quebec is not the only unique group of Canadians, and in fact may have more of a majority culture within it's borders than the 'ROC' has. But taken in context, that was put in when it was still obvious there actually were two solitudes and that the Quebecois had been recently conquered. Constitutions and religious texts should probably be thrown out every fifty years, or so the saying goes, but they're not so there will be quirks.

The simple fact is that Ontario and Quebec are dead set against to the elections being held on democratic weight.

Each province tends to act in what it regards as it's best interests, so Quebec might not give up it's 75 seats easily. Eventually the population in the west will grow though and render it irrelevant.

I still think that you are very wrong about the two being in cahoots though. The last time the constitution was opened Davis and Levesque weren't exactly on the same side.

Where I stop isn't important, where the community feels comfortable is.

But now you have to define the community, that‘s where the line is really drawn. Who is the community, how far do we divide to find it and will it feel comfortable with anything less than a lowest common denominator on any given issue.

Even setting aside the truism of carrying a point to an illogical, absurd extreme, you make the point yourself:  They have different needs and agendas.  Why can't [the suburbanites and the downtowners]  have their needs be the priority of their government?

Herein lies the problem, I have not carried the point to an illogical nor absurd extreme. All across the country, cities are having this discussion. Edmonton has this problem and they are (or have) voting to undo the megacities in Quebec very shortly.

The problem, in short, is that suburbanites 'freeload' on the cities proper. They commute to work on city roads and use services in the city but do not contribute to the tax base. Furthermore, social 'costs' are almost exclusive to the city proper because of the need for transit, homeless shelters, major crime and such stays out of the suburbs. So suburbs can collect significantly lower taxes while the competitive advantage this gives them erodes the city's tax base and increases the need for services on a per capita basis.

Now I stated that the two groups have different agendas and they do. But they also have a similar agenda. It is in both their long term interests that the area as a whole succeeds. In the short term the surbanities save a few dollars on taxes so more and more move. But as the city can afford fewer roads and the demands increase on those roads the system breaks down. Soon the surbanities have trouble getting to work and the downtowners see companies moving out of downtown negatively affecting them as well. It is also morally and in the long term practically necessary for all people in the region to pay the social costs of the poorer people or again the area as a whole will fail and everyone (suburbanites and downtowners) will lose.

Therefore even though the surbanities and downtowners seem to have different agendas in the short term they require some sort of common government in the long term to ensure the collective success of the area in question. Not only will this government moderate the competing interests to the combined benefit of all it will also provide significant efficiencies as certain common services (say transit and police) are combined increasing available resources.

This is a economic analogy and has nothing to do with the political or cultural elements but it might cover one element.

If the disagreement is truly fundamental, isn't it better for those two regions to find their own solutions?  Instead of having both regions unhappy with a compromise solution, both regions adopt plans that work for them.

As the divorce rate attests, compromise is something we have forgotten how to do as a society, to our detriment. Any group of more than one person will require compromise at some time or another. Therefore we might as well start off compromising at the higher levels than let things break down and then start compromising.

What is fundamental is subjective and will change from person to person so it really is of little help.

I’m curious what portions of this process strike you as "immediate".

A stone rolling downhill gains momentum rather quickly (doesn't that sound Oriental ). If you throw the BNA out by separating parts of Canada it gets much easier to further subdivide, in fact it would be part of any negotiation. Both culturally and legally.

Or the hydroelectric resources.  Or the forestry.  Or the port facilities.  I think that you'll find that oil is not quite as divisive as you're implying.

Agreed. But my point is areas with resources of any type would be reluctant to share them with the larger group especially if there was a significant amount of poverty. This creates divisions and if separation is allowed willy nilly will cause problems. Furthermore the divisions are temporary as take number points out, who is rich today is poor some years down the road regionally at least.

OK, I'll agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm curious by what fiat you and Upper/Lower Canada in general feel qualified to be the final arbiters of that line?

By what right do you claim the right for yourself and BC? Or for Vancouver? Or for the Shiners of the Sunshine Valley. At least Canada has a constitution, laws, convention, history, tradition, international recognition. Canada has four million of it's citizens living in BC and you can't take away their rights to be Canadian on your whim.

It is always easier to enter into an agreement than break that agreement.

As the biggest and most far reaching division Canada is by far the one most worth fighting for and the one worth trying to make work.

By agreeing the a line must be drawn we now must get into an argument of legitimacy. Whoever has the right to draw that line must claim to be the most legitimate group of all possible groups. It is not a fun discussion and almost impossible for anyone to ever agree on.

First, if the main body of support for exiting confederation is from "the right", then considering the overwhelming right lean of the western provinces, doesn't that indicate a large support for it?

There is no evidence to suggest that the west overwhelming leans to the right. This is another thread but I believe it to be a myth. The Cons did not take a majority of the vote in the west last election. The BC Campbell government may be right now but there is little doubt the next government will be NDP and possibly left leaning NDP. Saskatchewan has had four straight NDP governments and Manitoba has a NDP government now. Alberta has a reputation but Klien really isn't the right wing demagogue he's made out to be (though there are seriously disturbing elements in his party that are always pushing him in certain directions). And before Klien, Lougheed and Getty built more hospitals and engaged in more government run 'ventures' than most NDP governments. In fact I would argue that the west -- by circumstance and economic circumstance -- is less right wing than Central Canada historically and even currently but again that's another thread.

I agree left and right aren't so clear nowadays but people (though never MapleLeafWeb posters ) tend to go for all encompassing ideologies instead of shades of grey. Unfortunate but true.

But you are still claiming some sort of identity for people who live in BC simply by virtue of them living in BC.

I think that you're looking for a mathematical number where none exists. You can't quantify people and cultures in the manner that you're trying to.

In fact I think that identity is anti-mathematical. It gets into ethnicity and identities and has everything to do with base passions and perceptions and little to do with calm rationality. That is why quasi-ethnic identity is so dangerous (or so useful) and why I get annoyed when people use the term "we" to describe a group of people as if they all agreed with the position of the speaker. Especially when issues of "values" and historical "injustice" come up as well.

In other parts of the world it has led to some very very ugly situations, like Rwanda or Yugoslavia. I don't think that would happen here but you can see weaker versions of the same trends in some areas already. People with weaker minds buy the new ethnicity and do all sorts of things to defend it without really thinking through the consequences.

This is not a discussion of absolutes.  We'll once again flip the mirror back at Canada on your question:  Is the cultural difference between Britain and Canada in 1867 greater or lesser than the ones between BC and Canada today?

Britain and Canada had many cultural similarities, more than BC and NB might nowadays I admit (which is a problem in Canada). On the other hand rural people in BC probably have a lot in common with rural people in Ontario, city dwellers with other city dwellers. The key is not to define things in term of regions but in terms of the myriad of other factors (economic situation, rural/urban etc.)

In any case that was not a federal situation in was a colonial situation. You have admitted that they are different. Moving away from Britain was necessary because it was a situation of colonial control without representation. Combining the colonies at that point was evolution because it created a larger and stronger whole. Splitting the apart would be devolution without strong cause and vast majority demand for it.

I have yet to hear of a Canadian politician worrying after how a major decision will play in BC. 

Neither do they talk about how it plays in Brampton or the east side of Thunder Bay. We have to depend on individual Mps to represent their areas.

[idealisttotheend]

Albertan's believe in a

-stronger military

-stronger community foundations

-stronger families for a stronger country

-stronger economy

-charity through personal means rather than governmental

-tolerance through experience rather than government forced BS

So Albertan's are'nt Canadian's, we don't hate our neighbours to the south, and we have half a brain.

Here we go. Such generalities are evidence of a weak argument.

Do all Albertans believe in such things? All of the points on this list are agreed to by all members of the province of Alberta? I lived in Alberta up to four or five months ago and these are not my beliefs. Did that make me less of an Albertan or not an Albertan at all?

My points are not useless hyperbole. There is a feeling growing in certain parts of Alberta that only people with certain political beliefs are "good Albertans" and this is dangerous to a democratic state.

[Boydfish]

BC may not have the amount of representation you want but it has some representation you must admit.

Yes, but Canada also had representation within Westminster prior to and after 1867. Not in the form of MPs, but they did indeed have a large degree of influence.

You yourself are arguing that certain regions are underrepresented in Ottawa, PEI has a few more seats to try to provide a little balance. This is not ideal but it is practical.

You sound as if you're describing a person catching a cold rather than depriving them of their democratic rights. It may be easy to say "It's not ideal, but it's practical." when your rights are not being trampled.

The Quebec example is different.

No, it's not. Quebec is one of ten provinces. No greater and no lesser than the others, but it is one of ten. That's it.

The 75 seats is a constitutional quirk put in many many years ago.

Why do Canadians have a problem accepting that making one vote worth the same across the confederation? It's so bloody simple as to be absurd that Canadians can argue with a straight face that votes shouldn't be worth exactly the same across the confederation.

Each province tends to act in what it regards as it's best interests, so Quebec might not give up it's 75 seats easily. Eventually the population in the west will grow though and render it irrelevant.

Which is why we need things like a EEE senate to avoid tyranny of the majority and that we need to remove the "constiutional quirks" that make votes worth more in certain provinces. Because with them still there, even when BC and Alberta outnumber Ontario and Quebec, we'll still be run from there.

But now you have to define the community, that‘s where the line is really drawn. Who is the community, how far do we divide to find it and will it feel comfortable with anything less than a lowest common denominator on any given issue.

You seem hell bent to only see this in the franco-socialist republican mindset, that of "seperatism". The problem is that it's not relevant to the discussion. When Australia, Canada and New Zealand became Dominions as opposed to colonies, did this "division" cause them to pull apart from each other? No, actually, they became tighter friends. Seperatism is a fraco-republican concept that has no relevance to BC or Alberta, which are Westminster nations.

Herein lies the problem, I have not carried the point to an illogical nor absurd extreme. All across the country, cities are having this discussion. Edmonton has this problem and they are (or have) voting to undo the megacities in Quebec very shortly.

So where are the discussions of building giant walls around the Edmonton city core to keep out the rurals? There isn't?

As the divorce rate attests, compromise is something we have forgotten how to do as a society, to our detriment. Any group of more than one person will require compromise at some time or another. Therefore we might as well start off compromising at the higher levels than let things break down and then start compromising.

What is fundamental is subjective and will change from person to person so it really is of little help.

But since we're using a democratic model, as long as a majority agree with the division, isn't that OK? Or will we only use a democratic method when it gets results that a small group wants it to get?

If you throw the BNA out by separating parts of Canada it gets much easier to further subdivide, in fact it would be part of any negotiation. Both culturally and legally.

You still haven't proven that sub-division is a bad thing, but I don't see how the BNA keeps the Kootenays in BC or the Gaspe in Quebec.

But my point is areas with resources of any type would be reluctant to share them with the larger group especially if there was a significant amount of poverty. This creates divisions and if separation is allowed willy nilly will cause problems. Furthermore the divisions are temporary as take number points out, who is rich today is poor some years down the road regionally at least.

So unless the larger whole can show the benefit of sharing those resources, why should a small group be forced to support the larger group?

By what right do you claim the right for yourself and BC?

The right of self-determination. The exact same one that the Canadians played to get the BNA and Westminster Act passed.

At least Canada has a constitution,

So does BC.

laws

So does BC.

convention,

Ditto.

history, tradition

BC does as well.

international recognition.

For several decades after confederation, few nations outside of the British Empire recognized Canada as a soveriegn nation.

Canada has four million of it's citizens living in BC and you can't take away their rights to be Canadian on your whim.

Nope, sorry, but Canada already played that card, several times. When they brought in the BNA and then again when they took away our status as British subjects in the 1970's. Nobody in Ottawa consulted any of the provinces, including British Columbians if they wanted to lose that. If our citizenship doesn't matter, then neither does yours.

The Cons did not take a majority of the vote in the west last election.

Nearly two-thirds of the MPs from BC are CPC. Alberta is a sea of blue. You gotta admit, it seems that British Columbians and Albertans seem to have a pretty substantial lean towards the right.

The BC Campbell government may be right now but there is little doubt the next government will be NDP

I'd hardly say that seems likely.

Moving away from Britain was necessary because it was a situation of colonial control without representation.

So the bottom line is not that the circumstance is important, but the necessity of it? So if BC says it's necessary, then if it's a confederal withdrawl or a colonial retreat from Empire is kind of irrelevant, isn't it?

In other parts of the world it has led to some very very ugly situations, like Rwanda or Yugoslavia. I don't think that would happen here but you can see weaker versions of the same trends in some areas already. People with weaker minds buy the new ethnicity and do all sorts of things to defend it without really thinking through the consequences.

It's also created places like Australia and the Canadian confederation. Considering that history, I'd say that we're more likely to see a peaceful withdraw rather than a Yugoslavian meltdown.

Neither do they talk about how it plays in Brampton or the east side of Thunder Bay. We have to depend on individual Mps to represent their areas.

When Brampton has over 2 million people, I would hope that they would.

As well, since you admitted earlier that the MP system is flawed due to little "quirks", aren't you asking to have your cake and eat it too?

[Michael Hardner]

Why do Canadians have a problem accepting that making one vote worth the same across the confederation? It's so bloody simple as to be absurd that Canadians can argue with a straight face that votes shouldn't be worth exactly the same across the confederation.

...

Which is why we need things like a EEE senate to avoid tyranny of the majority and that we need to remove the "constiutional quirks" that make votes worth more in certain provinces. Because with them still there, even when BC and Alberta outnumber Ontario and Quebec, we'll still be run from there.

There are other threads on the forum making the same arguments for PR.

Let's leave Senate reform (unless you want to abolish it, as it isn't used currently) and PR alone and recognize that, right or left, we've developed a system which has created an admirable balance of left and right.

[Boydfish]

Let's leave Senate reform (unless you want to abolish it, as it isn't used currently) and PR alone and recognize that, right or left, we've developed a system which has created an admirable balance of left and right.

You can't discuss western alienation without the subject of the profound flaws in the democratic process in the confederation. That's one of the major points of friction on the subject.

As well, why is a left-right balance more important than a democratic balance? Or even important at all? If we want a left-right balance, why not just appoint one leftie and one rightie from each province and be done with it?

[Michael Hardner]

You can't discuss western alienation without the subject of the profound flaws in the democratic process in the confederation. That's one of the major points of friction on the subject.

As well, why is a left-right balance more important than a democratic balance? Or even important at all? If we want a left-right balance, why not just appoint one leftie and one rightie from each province and be done with it?

The PR argument (as heard on this forum) is that PR is "fairer" and "one person, one vote" etc. etc. It says nothing about under-representation of any particular viewpoint.

We've also heard that referrenda are "fair".

As Jeffrey Simpson pointed out last week, it's not enough to argue the abstract fairness of a particular system. You have to look at the effect it would have on the whole.

I for one don't want permanent minority governments (PR) or constant horse-trading with the Senate (EEE) to get bills passed. Either system will increase wasteful spending.

[Black Dog]

The PR argument (as heard on this forum) is that PR is "fairer" and "one person, one vote" etc. etc. It says nothing about under-representation of any particular viewpoint.

There's nothing in PR that would lend itself to the underrepresentation of any political viewpoint. It certainly could not be less representative than the current setup.

I for one don't want permanent minority governments (PR) or constant horse-trading with the Senate (EEE) to get bills passed. Either system will increase wasteful spending.

As 8 years of Liberal government have shown, majority government's don't lend themselves to fiscal responsibility, simply because there's no checks on what the party in power can do.

So, how would PR increase waste?

[Michael Hardner]

As 8 years of Liberal government have shown, majority government's don't lend themselves to fiscal responsibility, simply because there's no checks on what the party in power can do.

Everything is relative. I contend that there would be more waste under PR...

So, how would PR increase waste?

Glad you asked.

In order to garner enough support for votes, the government would have to include concessions to the supporting parties in every bill. (This would also happen if the government had to get PEI's support to get every bill through the senate, by the way. )

It would slow down the process of governing, and add costs as well.

[BigGunner]

As a westerner, I accept the fact that since Ontario has over 10 million people, it has 106 seats...more than all of western Canada. What I cannot accept is the radical decrepencies between the population-per-seat ratio in other provinces.

BC is the most oppressed province in that department. It takes 108,548 citizens to define a seat in BC, but it takes 72,950 to define a seat in New Brunswick. If all provinces had one ratio (pick the lowest one so that no province loses any seats) then there is at least some equality to the process. If BC had the same ratio as NB, then we'd gain 18 federal seats...and would complain a lot less.

In America, a federal congressional district is approximately 500,000 people - and they seldom deviate from line.

[idealisttotheend]

Boydfish said:

Why do Canadians have a problem accepting that making one vote worth the same across the confederation? It's so bloody simple as to be absurd that Canadians can argue with a straight face that votes shouldn't be worth exactly the same across the confederation.

Which is why we need things like a EEE senate to avoid tyranny of the majority

These two are arguments are diametrically opposed. One one hand you argue for one person one vote and then with your next breath you argue for equal rep among the provinces and avoiding the tyranny of the majority (which I asume is this Ontario-Quebec axis you persist in blaming for all your problems.)

Which is it? It sounds like you want one when it gets you more votes (like one person one vore over PEI) and the other when it gets you more votes (re: triple EEE sentate and Ontario and Quebec). Your idealogy here is unclear.

Having said that, I agree with BG that HOC should be elected by fairly equally represented ridings and that the senate should promote some form of effective equality among the five regions, in a perfect world. Since it is not a perfect world I don't intend to seperate but to work for change.

Seperatism is a fraco-republican concept that has no relevance to BC or Alberta, which are Westminster nations.

Alberta is an arbitrary line drawn across the map of the old NWT, it is not a nation anymore than Uranium city is a nation. BC as a former colony has more claim to nationhood but not much more. Whether you admit it or not you are basing your argument for nationhood on shared political beliefs (that BC and ALberta "lean right") and therefore it makes considerably more sense for Vancouver to be it's own nation. Let's see BC survive without Vancouver.

So where are the discussions of building giant walls around the Edmonton city core to keep out the rurals? There isn't?

You obviously didn't read that part of my post. Edmonton constantly pushes for some sort of almagamation and is constantly rebuffed. The situation gets worse every year as Edmontonians get tired of paying taxes for people who live in the suburbs. No one wants more walls they want fewer walls which why it is relevant to the topic at hand.

You still haven't proven that sub-division is a bad thing, but I don't see how the BNA keeps the Kootenays in BC or the Gaspe in Quebec.

The BNA keeps the Gspe and the Kootnaneys part of Canada. Further subdivision is potentially unlimited as you could find a majority to agree with any given division simply by defining specific areas you want to divide. I will work on a seperate to prove sub division is a bad thing.

So unless the larger whole can show the benefit of sharing those resources, why should a small group be forced to support the larger group?

A) these things tend to cycle and one region that is rich now will later be poor.

if the market falls out for one resource, the resources that the market didn't fall out of can pick up some of the slack and economic chaos and poverty is mitigated by the diversity.

C) it is morally wrong to buy leather seats for your SUV while people in another region are starving simply because you are sitting on the biggest deposit of "X."

Nearly two-thirds of the MPs from BC are CPC. Alberta is a sea of blue. You gotta admit, it seems that British Columbians and Albertans seem to have a pretty substantial lean towards the right.

The number of MPs are skewed by the 'quirks' of the FTP system as you are aware. If you can't even get a majority to vote CPC (with the Liberals in such disarray) then you cannot claim that "British Columbians" and "Albertans" are right wing.

Vancouver is known as a city where you can walk down the street smoking a joint and not be hasseled, not exactly a conservative bastion. Edmonton is stubbornly Liberal even as the provincial government threatens to move the whole damn show to Calgary. Ft. McMurray is populated mostly by easterners who aren't going to want to be in a seperate 'nation' than their former homes. Aboriginal bands in BC are not going to give up their constitutional protections under the Charter by leaving Canada and joining the "nation" of BC.

All these groups have claims to nationhood by your argument, why don't we just go back to the city state model of old?

When they brought in the BNA and then again when they took away our status as British subjects in the 1970's. Nobody in Ottawa consulted any of the provinces, including British Columbians if they wanted to lose that. If our citizenship doesn't matter, then neither does yours.

That's nice. Kindly name the BC MPs who opposed these actions (bringing in the BNA was done before BC joined in 1871 I believe anyway). If they did not oppose it then either they were not representing their constituents and should not have been elected or their constituents agreed with these actions.

The BC provincial government signed off and participated in the drafting of the 1982 constitution to say nothing of their federal representatives.

When Brampton has over 2 million people, I would hope that they would.

When Brampton has two million people than the people from the NE corner will complain that the people who live downtown and on the S side always speak for Brampton and their voices don't recieve enough weight. Or some such combination. This is a problem of the modern world and not easily dealt with. It is constant though in that it always happens.

As well, since you admitted earlier that the MP system is flawed due to little "quirks", aren't you asking to have your cake and eat it too?

My computer has some problems staring up and shutting down sometimes. These are 'quirks' of it that cause it not to run as well as it ought to. But I still use the computer. I just work around the quirks and try to fix them in time.

[Boydfish]

These two are arguments are diametrically opposed.

That's because the HoC should be elected based on population, while the EEE Senate should be aimed at ensuring that each province has a fair voice in the confederation. That way one balances out the other.

...that the senate should promote some form of effective equality among the five regions

Let's get that topic sorted out right here: The "five regions" concept is bunk. You can't lump BC in with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Each has vastly different interests and cultures.

Alberta is an arbitrary line drawn across the map of the old NWT, it is not a nation anymore than Uranium city is a nation.

As is the arbitrary line between Scotland and England. Or countless other lines drawn in as borders(Including every province in the confederation, bar none.).

Of course, Alberta's western frontier existed prior to it's creation from the NWT, so perhaps it's not as arbitrary as you're implying.

BC as a former colony has more claim to nationhood but not much more.

Australia, NZ and the colony of Canada all had the same status. In fact, you'll note that NZ's past shares a large degree of commonality with BC's relationship with Australia.

Let's see BC survive without Vancouver.

There are three ways that I can answer that.

The first way would be to abuse your typical Canadian ignorance of British Columbia and point out that the City of Vancouver leaving BC would be a small problem, but the surrounding cities of North and West Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, Delta and Abbotsford, among others, would retain a large degree of viability to BC.

The second way would be to force you to answer the question reflected back at Canada and the other provinces: Could Ontario survive without Toronto? Quebec without Montreal? Alberta without Calgary?

The third way would be to point out that Vancouver is part of BC and is only viable in and of itself due to the shipping that flows out from the rest of BC.

The BNA keeps the Gaspe and the Kootnaneys part of Canada.

But there is no indication that if BC were to withdraw from confederation that the Kootenay's would then immediately exit BC.

You're overstating the importance and relevance of the Canadian confederation to British Columbia, both in general and in terms of it's cohesion.

these things tend to cycle and one region that is rich now will later be poor.

And then they will cycle up again too. Thus is the nature of economies.

if the market falls out for one resource, the resources that the market didn't fall out of can pick up some of the slack and economic chaos and poverty is mitigated by the diversity.

But resource based economies don't work like that. Alberta having petro-dollars only translates into an economic boom in one of two ways: Either Alberta has to pay a much higher share, creating a trend that removes reward for productivity or oil has to be trucked to PEI to be planted in the ground so they can drill it back up. Both ideas are equally stupid.

it is morally wrong to buy leather seats for your SUV while people in another region are starving simply because you are sitting on the biggest deposit of "X."

First, spare me the histronics of the poor and starving, especially in the Canadian confederation. There is no part of the confederation that has any reasonable excuse to be anything less than incredibly wealthy compared to the rest of the world. The only reason that we have failing economies in most of the provinces is due to extreme mismanagement at the confederal level of government(For the most part, with a few notable exceptions).

Second, you can't import wealth like you're implying, you can only export their misfortune to the wealthy region. Using your example, you won't end up with everybody driving SUV's with leather seats, you end up with everybody driving Yugos, when they can afford to run them.

Vancouver is known as a city where you can walk down the street smoking a joint and not be hasseled, not exactly a conservative bastion.

Actually, the BC Marijuana Party is extremely right wing. They tend to hold what is called a Libertarian agenda.

Aboriginal bands in BC are not going to give up their constitutional protections under the Charter by leaving Canada and joining the "nation" of BC.

Actually, the pro-native independence movement in BC is heavily integrated with "European" origin British Columbians. If you look at the people that holed up at Gustafsen Lake, whole lotta white faces there.

All these groups have claims to nationhood by your argument, why don't we just go back to the city state model of old?

It wouldn't be a bad idea. Imagine your local government, the one that you can access the easiest, being the most powerful.

That's nice. Kindly name the BC MPs who opposed these actions (bringing in the BNA was done before BC joined in 1871 I believe anyway). If they did not oppose it then either they were not representing their constituents and should not have been elected or their constituents agreed with these actions.

I'll answer your question after you answer mine: What was the exact percentage breakdown of Yes/No on the referendum that brought BC into confederation?

The BC provincial government signed off and participated in the drafting of the 1982 constitution to say nothing of their federal representatives.

And you'll note that since then, the people of British Columbia have determined that it is vital that any constitutional question in relation to confederation should have a referendum(It's a law). Any guesses as to why?

My computer has some problems staring up and shutting down sometimes. These are 'quirks' of it that cause it not to run as well as it ought to. But I still use the computer. I just work around the quirks and try to fix them in time.

As this particular computer is now obsolete and built in a vastly different time with different needs(The only reason for BC to be in confederation was to present a common front against US military expansion; since the Canadian Army cannot get to BC without US aid, I don't think that they'll be much help in an unlikely invasion), isn't it time to look at something smaller, faster and less "buggy"?

[Hawk]

Ok here is my personal opinion on Western Alienation:

Firstly I know it exists, to deny the fact shows you know nothing of the issue at hand. However I do know its the fault of both the east AND the west, but the Eastern provinces are the aggressors.

I heard earlier in this topic a snippy little comment about Alberta being the 'poor province' and you saved us and now that we are rich we simply want to be greedy, perhaps you would like to go into more detail with this... because you seem to not know one damnable bit of Canadian history, the great depression destroyed Western Canada. We had been almost giving away our oil to the East, helping other provinces, we were the rich guys, then the depression hit us and it hit us hard. We nearly didn't survive, and did the East come to our aid after all the help we gave out when we were rich? Heck no, they sat and watched as the West died. That, I believe, was the start of Western Alienation. We recovered and through conservative reforms managed to build our province into the rich and prosperous place it now is. You Liberals cry about how Alberta is lucky and we have and you have not, guess WHY we have. Its because we reject your morally degrading principles and policies, you encouragement of laziness and political correction, your support of centralization and the destruction of individualism. We are humans, we have a right to life, and we in the West intend to live ours without losing all our hard earned cash to some bum who is too lazy to get off his couch and get a job.

Basicaly it boils down to the fact the West is sick of giving so much to Canada, only to have our views and beliefs trodden on by both our Liberal government and our Liberal media. All the while Liberals everywhere condemn us for our wealth, claiming the West is full of greedy conservatives who horde all the wealth... guess what, the wealth isn't just sitting in the West, the Westerners are creating the wealth. Our policies promote SURPLUS rather than deficit, they promote personal improvement, individuality, de-centralization/privatization, lower taxes, stronger economies..

We enjoy MAKING our dreams come true, we dont like sitting around screaming for people to make them for us.

[Michael Hardner]

We are humans, we have a right to life, and we in the West intend to live ours without losing all our hard earned cash to some bum who is too lazy to get off his couch and get a job.

Again, it's inferred here that the east is 'lazy'.

Basicaly it boils down to the fact the West is sick of giving so much to Canada, only to have our views and beliefs trodden on by both our Liberal government and our Liberal media. All the while Liberals everywhere condemn us for our wealth, claiming the West is full of greedy conservatives who horde all the wealth... guess what, the wealth isn't just sitting in the West, the Westerners are creating the wealth. Our policies promote SURPLUS rather than deficit, they promote personal improvement, individuality, de-centralization/privatization, lower taxes, stronger economies..

Is the West 'Alberta' only ? Is Saskatchewan a 'have' province ? Is Ontario to blame for a net revenue loss from the Maritimes ? What about Toronto ?

Toronto pays out a net plus of $2B in tax revenue to Canada per year, according to Craig Read's website.

I'm beginning to wonder if all of this is just another myth.

[kimmy]

Hi! I'm new here! I've read through this thread and wanted to say a few things.

I am an Albertan, and I only know a few people who seriously support separation, but lots of people talk about it. It is an idea that people don't support right now, but people don't write it off either. They are starting to think about the possibilities instead of just the negative parts.

Nobody is really getting into separation yet, but everybody thinks elections in Canada are a joke. People here voted for Conservatives because they want things to change. I think that if you look at the election results the biggest % that comes out of the results is not what party got what % of the votes, the biggest % is that 40% of voters didn't even bother. It is the 2nd straight election with record low voter turnout! I think that this proves that Canadians all over, not just in Alberta, are unsatisfied with politics in Canada.

But most Canadians elected Liberal MPs who are against change! That is the strange part.

Some comments that were made earlier on about stereotypes. I lived in Ontario for a while, and went to highschool there for a year. And I don't think that the Ontario people here who said there aren't negative stereotypes about Albertans are not telling the whole story.

Often my classmates asked me things and expressed opinions that showed they didn't have a very good picture of what Alberta is really like. Did my dad work on an oil rig? Were we farmers? Do I listen to country music? Or have a cowboy hat or cowboy booties? Do I own a gun? Ride horses? Were there people who weren't white back home?

I don't think anybody meant any harm, but I think the sorts of things people asked me come from an image that Alberta is a rural, white, Christian place that hasn't been touched by immigration or anything modern.

I also heard a radio personality use "Alberta public school education" to describe somebody who wasn't very smart, and I once saw a TV show where somebody said "hey, go back to Alberta" as a response to somebody who was being culturally insensitive. It was just a couple of isolated comments, but to me it seems like remarks like that wouldn't have been made if there wasn't some underlying assumption that an "Alberta public school education" is a poor education, or that somebody who is culturally insensitive probably came from Alberta.

I am not whining or trying to make a big deal about it, but I am pointing this out because from my experience, I disagree with the people who said that people in Ontario don't have stereotypes about Albertans.

-kimmy

[August1991]

I don't think anybody meant any harm, but I think the sorts of things people asked me come from an image that Alberta is a rural, white, Christian place that hasn't been touched by immigration or anything modern.

What you say is true, kimmy. But bear in mind there is alot of ignorance in Canada about different parts of the country.