Should Bc Seperate From Canada

[The-Poet]

Dear readers.. I am to attend a debate in the near future and I need some help for reasons. I do not know whether i shall be supporting or against this argument. The topic is: "British Columbia shoudl seperate from the rest of Canada". British Columbia is a province in Canada. I have some ideas of my own, but i would sincerely appreciate any input on this. Please reply with reasons for why BC should seperate, or why it should NOT sepreate.

**P.S. The debate is parlimentary style, so if anyone has any tips, please psot them also.

Sincerely,

The-Poet

[Lost in Manitoba]

What is the logic behind BC seperating? Is there some driving argument that the seperatists have? Give some background maybe so we can actually give some input/opinion on the matter.

[Schilly]

What is the logic behind BC seperating? Is there some driving argument that the seperatists have? Give some background maybe so we can actually give some input/opinion on the matter.

I want to know where the "sepertists" are in the first place, seeing as how I live fairly close to Vancouver and the attitude overall is more of a federal neglect than anything, pardon me, "Western Alienation."

[Communist_boy]

Well before an argument can be formed we really must see what the current situation is. The Premiers and the PM have agread to meet once a year. That may not mean much but at least its a start.

ABout the issue of seperating, every province has a group who feel seperation is the only way. However many groups don't outline what they would do when it was finished.

[sir_springer]

If BC and Alberta split, we would fast become the richest nation on the planet, with the highest standards of living, bar none.

Everytime I've challenged anyone on a forum to give a good arguement as to why we should stay in Canada, I get the same answer: No answer whatsoever, nothing, zilch, nada.

I think of it this way...and this could be the basis of your arguement:

Were BC and Alberta already a separate entity...

Would Canada offer them the current terms of our place in confederation in order to get us to join Canada???

If they did, we'd tell them to go to hell, and how to get there damn fast, too.

In fact, they wouldn't have the nerve to make such a sorry-ass offer, would they?

"Hey, if you join us, we will syphon off billions out of your economy for decades to come...but it will be worth it."

Will it?

How?

Will Canada supply us with excellent national defense?

Will Canada's state of relations with the US benefit BC and Alberta?

Will BC and Alberta benefit from enhanced markets for our products?

Will BC and Alberta receive proportional numbers of MPs and Senators in Ottawa?

Will BC and Alberta get bang for our bucks we send to Ottawa in taxes, etc.?

Will we be subject to Canada's asinine ideas of firearms controls?

I obviously could go on and on...but I don't want to upset anyone too much...sorta.

Nevertheless...

Because we're already part and parcel of it, we're stuck with all the above crap, and a whole lot more.

And it's only cost BC and Alberta a couple of hundred billion for the privilege, too.

So...

There's my suggestion to you.

Set up a premise in which BC and Alberta are already a separate entity...

And then look at the terms of confederation with which we are currently strapped...

And consider whether BC and Alberta would accept those terms to enter confederation with Canada.

Which, of course, no one but a duck's ass would ever think likely.

Therein is defined the pathetic nature of our role within this country.

[Communist_boy]

Of course when viewing this issue, if u r from the west u must overlook the fact that canada took over their debt, built a railroad, and also gave the provinces so much money per year. and about the senators, they r baised on the population of the area. so b4 1 criticizes evry thing then 1 must view all pertinent info

[Alliance Fanatic]

Alberta and BC could ultimately see seperation as a last alternative, unless the Canadian electorate gets their act together. While I supported the merger, I will resign from the board, and will tear up my membership if the party is only for tax cuts and nothing else.

Seperation is happening in most parts of the world right now, in Britain, taxi cab drivers have replaced the union jack, with flags of their home provinces. The same goes in every other country, such as Italy where a northern province wants special status, and recognition of its distinct culture.

Seperation in countries usually occurs when multiculturalism occurs, for example in Canada, it seems that we have given up the idea of having a national identity, so the people in provicnes make their own identity. In Alberta, approximately 55%-75% of Albertans consider themselves more Albertan than Canadian. The west has developed a different culture than the rest of Canada, Western Canadian's are different from Eastern Canadians due to social, cultural, political, issues. Most Westerners tend to support Traditional Values, oppose Multiculturalism, and have a belief that the family is the building block of this society.

Western Canadian's also strongly believe in democracy, when compared to eastern Canadians. While some small steps have been made provincially in some provinces towards democratic reform, no steps have been made federally. The reason no steps have been made federally is because Ontario, tends to be a bit power hungry. Most people in Ontario, I believe would reject an elected senate if it were divided as such.

Western Canada-40 Seats

Central Canada-40 seats

Atlantic- 20 seats [Atlantic Canada would still have lots of power, due to the fact that they can decide who will pass a bill]

But I doubt that would ever happen, unless Central Canada got this for representation

Central Canada- 90 seats

Western Canada- 5 seats

Atlantic Canada- 5 seats

One good reason for the west seperating is because most people in Central Canada always make stupid decisions, for example, after the provincial election in Ontario, the media blamed the fall of the PC's on the Canadian Alliance, and said that Ontario will always reject any party that supports the Alliance. [Even though Ernie Eves was a federal PC, supported gay marriage, and was a red tory]

Most people in central Canada also tend to agree with the Alliance on most issues, for example in the east, nearly 50%-60% of people agreed with the Alliance, yet they would still vote for a liberal landslide.

On seperation, I'm not sure if BC is that conservative, they seem to be a bit left wing, but if BC, Saskatchewan, Alberta, [Maybe Manitoba] seperated than this new country would be more powerful, and more respectul than Canada under the socialist governments from 1968-2004.

Perhaps the west should consider joining the US, after all most easterners attack us, for being to "American", so why not become Americans.

[SirRiff]

all this seperation talk is stupid. you cant leave canada. there. if its so unbearable move to the US. else you are stuck here just like everyone else. if everybody seperated because they didnt feel loved nothing would function at all.

no BC shouldnt leave. or alberta or quebec or whoever else thinks they are getting a raw deal.

Sirriff

[sir_springer]

Of course when viewing this issue, if u r from the west u must overlook the fact that canada took over their debt, built a railroad, and also gave the provinces so much money per year. and about the senators, they r baised on the population of the area. so b4 1 criticizes evry thing then 1 must view all pertinent info

Canada took over BC and Alberta's debt?

Please explain.

And while you're at, please indicate whether or not you think the $160 billion it has cost Alberta for the privilege of waving the Maple Leaf over the last 30 years was good value for the buck. Don't forget to factor in just what that $160 billion would have meant to Albertans if it stayed within the province.

Up until the NDP got done savaging BC's economy, we, too, paid a hefty price to be Canadian.

I do not ever, ever recall one of those stinking Liberal snots back east so much as even once acknowledge our contribution to this country. Especially considering that they've been robbing us blind out here in order to buy Liberal votes in Quebec and the Maritimes for decades.

And the very instant anyone out here even says one word about it, the lousy bastards out there line up to call us all greedy sons of bitches.

#^%^@%*#^&$^#%^#%^#^%#!!!!!!

:angry:

[Communist_boy]

wen alberta and bc joined canada took over there debt and paid for a railway. that railway gave increased trade and also unification of the nation.

[The-Poet]

umm guys.. i';m the oen whos tart this tpoic.. if you please, don't have a fight over it.. I need reasons why BC should or should NOT stay part of canada. Please don't give me what you personally think, but rather, facts, numbers, and ideas that i can work with... Some of yuou have realised this and have listed the ideas out for me... thanks and please continue on doing so.... I would especially appreciate numbers directly related to whether the seperation should occur.

Thanks Again,

The-Poet

[sir_springer]

Poet...

Rightly or wrongly, the reality of governing is that it involves taking in money (taxes and revenue) from the populace, and then spending it on behalf of them to supply infrastructure and services.

Therefore, more than anything else, your arguement is going to come down to primarily economics.

WAC Bennett, attending a federal/provincial conference early on in Trudeau's reign, ripped the concept of equalization to pieces and then left the meeting to return home disgusted. Trudeau immediately branded him a "bigot", and all hell broke loose in BC against Trudeau and his Liberal government.

WAC led BC out of economic depression to build this province into the single fastest growing and most dynamic economy in the entire world. This man knew of what he was speaking; he was a brilliant and visionary leader the likes of whom this country has not seen since.

I remember him once commenting to a reported on TV in regard to equalization:

(to paraphrase)

"Ah, yes. Equalization. Bennett writes the cheques in British Columbia, and Smallwood cashes them in Newfoundland."

He maintained that there was absolutely no reason that provinces like Quebec, with every bit as much a rich resourse base and capable population as BC's, should need a handout from BC.

In essense...and I firmly believe this to be the truth of the matter...because the people of BC have the good sense to elect a good government like Bennett's Socreds, which results in BC becoming prosperous and relatively wealthy, we are then penalized for our success. And thus billions of British Columbian's tax dollars are syphoned out of our economy...read, our pockets...to the federal government to be redisbursed to provinces in which the people elect lousy governments.

IOW, BC is subsidizing incompetancy.

That was almost 40 years ago when Bennett said that this system of subsidy pretty much would become entrenched in Canada.

Well over three decades later, equalization is an assumed reality, making up for as much as 50% of the budgets of some provinces.

It is estimated that each Albertan family kicks in roughly $3,000 per year into the federal pot that in turn is sent to other regions of the country.

I would assume that everyone here can appreciate what $3,000 per year would mean to each your own household budgets.

Alberta oil will not last forever. I would argue that this moeny belongs to the people of Alberta with which to prepare for this eventuality...primarily in order that Alberta does not become a "have not" province when the taps run dry.

BC provides a classic example of what happens when people...the electorate...become lazy and stupid regarding their franchise to vote. We end up with a bunch of absolute clowns and idiots running our provincial government, and the province goes in the crapper. Next thing you know, we now qualify for equalization.

This leaves only two provinces paying into that udder...Alberta and Ontario...and eight provinces sucking on its teats.

Thus, we get to behold such facinating paradoxes, from leadership in provinces collecting equalization, courtesy of Albertans and Ontarians, as:

Jean Charest promising tax cuts totalling $5 billion dollars if he gets elected.

And Bernard Lord bragging about balanced budgets in order to get elected.

Now, what business does Charest have in promising tax breaks to Quebecers at the same time he's sucking money out of Alberta and Ontario in order to pay his bills?

And how can Lord brag about a "balanced" budget if a huge chunk of that budget is paid for by Albertans?

It's a bloody farce.

Equalization is touted as some sort of "Canadian" symbol of unity and identity, and politicians wrap the flag around it in order to make it somehow holy a la apple pie.

Anyhoo...

You want some very interesting information on what British Columbians get for bang for their bucks in Canada?

I suggest you get your hands on the book, "Tax Me, I'm Canadian", put out by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. It's chock full of fact and figures that should depress the absolute hell out of anyone with more than three functioning braincells.

Like I said, the best way to approach your case is highlighted by what one person noted in an Albertan newspaper recently:

"We should vote ourselves out of Canada, and then renegotiate the terms of rejoining."

EXACTLY!

Were the current conditions of confederation to be offered to an independant BC in order to entice us to join Canada, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we would tell Canada to jam such a ridiculous proposition up their collective arses sideways...with a jackhammer.

This is the true litmus test of what confederation has to offer BC...which is pretty much jackshit.

[sir_springer]

Oh, and BTW, Commie Boy...

You want to know what the railway is all about?

I used to live in Lloydminster, and often would have to wait at a railway crossing for trains on the way to work.

Watching those trains, it became apparent to me what Canada is primarily about:

The trains head east loaded with grain, lumber, coal, oil...read "wealth"...

And, for the most part, short of the odd load of Fords and Chevy's, they come back empty.

That is what the railways were all about, kiddo. Your school books...the State's greatest and most insidious means of propaganda...will tell you it was all about unifying and building a great nation.

The reality was that it was all about tapping the wealth of the west in order to feed the factories of Ontario and Quebec.

It was pointed out in a study back in the '80s that western Canada's 27% of the population was in fact producing 51% of the real wealth of this country.

I could live with sharing the wealth...

IF central Canada at least had the decency to throw in some political equality our way in return for what we kick into this country.

But instead, we get a constitution that is almost literally inalterable, and that thoroughly entrenches in stone the suprmecy and hegemony of central Canada over the rest of the colonies.

And thus we get treated like second rate citizens in our own nation.

Ontario and Quebec can elect Liberal-leftist governments until hell won't have any more of that crap, and we get stuffed with the results of it, like it or lump it.

And the very idea of an actual EEE Senate that would put a cork in this ongoing farce is nothing more than a pipe dream at best.

Even more insulting, our own political expressions get treated like GD Nazis in Ottawa and by their liberal snot mutts in the eastern media.

If they had a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote for separation in a heartbeat.

Because, all things considered, we simply just don't need this crap, period!

And the suggestion that we need to replace it with American crap instead is just plain garbage.

We, unlike almost every other province in Canada, save for Alberta, could go it alone...

And never look back.

[sir_springer]

Just came across this on another forum. Excellent read, and relevant to the question posed in this thread.

Enjoy!

______________________________________________

Blaming The Victim

The Genesis of the Breakup of Canada

Paul McKeever

The "break-up of Canada"? It's a possibility that the federal government frequently blames on secessionist leanings in Quebec and the West. But are these movements the cause of what ails Canada, or are they symptoms? For an answer, one need only look at the genesis of secessionist sentiments.

Arguably, the genesis of Quebec and Western secessionist sentiments lies in the history of the so-called "Rule of Law". In theory, our constitution is our supreme ruler, and all --- including politicians and monarchs --- are bound to obey it.

In 1867, the British North America Act (part of our constitution) ended a 27 year attempt to wash-out French culture by uniting Upper and Lower Canada. The BNA Act (now properly called the Constitution Act, 1867) returned a jurisdiction and undiluted vote to Lower Canada (therein re-named Quebec). It created the federal Parliament, which was given some of the legislative power previously held by the individual colonies. But, to the exclusion of the federal Parliament, it reserved to the provinces the power to make certain types of laws. Even today, our federal Parliament and provincial Legislatures have only the law-making powers given to them by the BNA Act.

The BNA Act gives only to the provincial Legislatures the power to make laws relating to education and health care. And, until World War I, it was not contested that only the provincial Legislatures have the power to make laws that impose a direct tax (e.g., income tax, GST). But, in 1917, the federal government made a law that imposed a "temporary" income tax, purportedly to raise revenues for the war.

In response, a Quebec civil servant named Caron argued that the federal Parliament lacked the power to make such a law. The result, in 1924, was a decision by our then highest court (see www.ownlife.com/tax/caron1.htm) that the federal government can impose a direct tax if it raises "a revenue for federal purposes" (like the military) , but not if it raises "a revenue for provincial purposes" (like education or health care). At the time, federal revenues were not spent on provincial purposes, so the income tax was held to be enforceable. However, subsequent federal spending on provincial purposes has put the enforceability of some federal taxes into doubt (see, for example, www.ownlife.com/tax/dmcsherm.htm or, in Consent #24, "Is the Federal Income Tax Act Unconstitutional?")

In 1929, the stock market crashed. A great economic depression followed. As the U.S. Federal Reserve's Alan Greenspan explained in Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, the crash appears to have been caused primarily by inflation of the supply of government-issued force-backed (fiat) paper money. But, at the time, Keynesians, socialists and other authoritarians --- arguably for political reasons --- blamed the crash upon the free market. Promising to protect the poor with taxes on the "rich" and government spending programs, authoritarians in the industrialized world were voted into power: a welfare state was an easy sell during the depression. Authoritarian governments (in Canada, Liberals and Progressive Conservatives) essentially took away from individuals the freedom to make economic decisions for themselves, and transferred their power to a single, centralized government.

In Canada, the division of taxing powers between the federal and provincial legislatures was seen as an obstacle to effectively centralized control of the economy. Moreover, with only the power to impose an indirect tax (e.g. a retail sales tax), it would have been difficult for a federal government to impose higher rates of taxation on those with higher incomes (as was eventually done). So, promising to pay off the debts of the provinces and to pay them a "rent", the federal government persuaded most of the provinces to relinquish their jurisdiction over direct taxation.

The way was thereby paved for effectively centralized, authoritarian control of the Canadian economy.

The constitution posed another pesky obstacle to centralized economic control. Specifically, until the rise of the authoritarians in the 1930s, governments had interpreted the constitution as allowing a government to spend only upon those things respecting which it could pass laws (e.g., the federal government could spend on criminal law, but not on exclusively provincial matters such as education; the provinces could spend on health care, but not on the military). Thus, the federal government literally invented the idea that its spending powers were unlimited. Making this bald assertion (an unlimited spending power is set out nowhere in the constitution), the federal government gradually circumvented the division of legislative powers set out in the Act by making so-called "conditional grants" of money to the provinces: provinces who dared not to make certain laws according to federal specifications would be denied their share of the grant.

The federal centralization of economic decision-making powers posed an obvious threat to French culture in Quebec. The BNA Act had been designed, in part, to protect French culture by limiting federal power.

Thus, almost from the outset of the authoritarians' attempts to circumvent constitutional limits on federal power via taxing and spending, Quebec protested loudly. It refused after the second World War to enter into tax rental and tax collection agreements. In the 1950s, Premier Duplessis struck a Royal Commission (the Tremblay Commission), the primary purpose of which was to demonstrate that only the provinces had the constitutionally-conferred power to make a law which imposes a direct tax. And, in 1957 (before he became a federal politician), Pierre Trudeau, addressing the issue of federal spending on universities, demonstrated the supposedly unlimited spending power to be a myth (see his 1968 Federalism and the French Canadians, p. 79: "Federal Grants to Universities").

But federal authoritarians continued their attack and dug deep trenches. In The Allocation of Taxing Power Under the Canadian Constitution (Canadian Tax Foundation, Canadian Tax Paper No. 65), then law professor Gerard La Forest recognized the limits placed on the federal Parliament's taxation powers but suggested that "the [words] of the [judges in the Caron decision] should probably be ignored. They were made when the device of transfer payments might still have been considered doubtful." He was later appointed by the federal Prime Minister to the Supreme Court of Canada, where he decided that, as a matter of policy, taxpayers should not be refunded money which is taken from them by means of an unconstitutional tax.

On the spending side, federally appointed judges have stated that conditional grants to provinces are not under-handed attempts to circumvent the jurisdictional limits set out in the constitution. And, despite his earlier writings, Pierre Trudeau did not hesitate to engage in such spending as federal Liberal Prime Minister. The centralization of economic decision-making power was, and remains, extended and secured.

Over the decades since the rise of federal authoritarianism, Quebec's struggle to have the federal government respect the limits of its own power bore little fruit. Many Quebecers, having lost much provincial power, fearing the loss of their heritage and culture, and losing faith in the idea that the federal government would once again respect the terms of union set out in the BNA Act, turned their gaze to the only alternative: taking back the legislative powers it had given up to the federal Parliament in 1867 (i.e., secession). If the federal government was unwilling to respect the stated terms of the provincial partnership, the partnership would have to end.

The secession of Quebec could be very costly for the rest of Canada. And so it became the practice of the federal government to bribe Quebecers not to secede by giving Quebec relatively high shares of the federal spoils: by making the federal government seem indispensable to Quebecers despite federal violations of the terms of union. But that could not be done without providing the rest of Canada with a reason. So, rather than accepting any blame for separatist sentiment in Quebec, rather than telling the rest of Canada that federal hand-outs to Quebec were to quell the separatist feelings caused by federal circumvention of the constitution, Quebec was blamed. All of Quebec separatism was characterized as a movement born not of reaction to federal usurpation of provincial power, but merely of French bigotry and hatred toward English-speaking Canada.

And the rest of Canada was duped.

Today, most Canadians (including lawyers) know little or nothing about federal circumvention of the constitutional limits of federal power, but many people think of Quebec as a province of spoiled extortionists. A victim of federal authoritarianism has been successfully blamed, and Canada's biggest champion for the rule of law slandered.

And, of course, federal strong-arm tactics in the West have added steam to Western secessionist sentiments. For example, any provincial talk of providing Albertans with quicker, better medical care through free market medical clinics is met with federal threats to Alberta's share of (arguably illegal) federal health funds. But Alberta, by taking such steps as decoupling its income tax regime from that of the federal government, is working steadily toward a more autonomous state of affairs.

Whereas the secession of some provinces from federal jurisdiction (usually called the "Break up of Canada") is a clear and undesirable possibility, Canadians must not allow the federal government to make scapegoats out of the provinces. Clearly, secessionist sentiments in Quebec and the West are the result of federal Liberal and PC centralization of the economy (and the Canadian Alliance is following suit with calls for more federal funding for health care).

Money, and the power to interfere with the free market, is the lifeblood of authoritarianism. In Canada, the federal government must continue to circumvent the constitution and usurp provincial power if it is to maintain its power to interfere with the free market. Such circumvention is --- to any intellectually honest person --- anti-democratic.

Democracy is the process by which the governed determine the laws of the land: law is the only direct product of democracy. So, when a government refuses to let its actions be governed by law --- when, for example, it skirts constitutional limits on its legislative power and exercises unlimited force by virtue of an unlimited spending power --- the country ceases to be governed in a democratic way. Democracy is replaced with tyranny. That we vote our tyrants into power does not mean that we live in a democracy.

What does this mean for the voter? It means that we must recognize that the survival of Canada depends upon democracy (by which, I am not implying majority rule). It means that, to regain and preserve democracy, we must elect only those persons and parties that are committed to respecting the constitutional limits of federal power. And, because an authoritarian federal government cannot meet its objective in Canada if the constitution is respected, democracy demands that we vote out of power our authoritarian politicians in the federal Parliament. Democracy and the abatement of secessionist sentiments require that we vote in favour of federal politicians and parties that will discontinue the practice of using direct taxation and unlimited spending to usurp provincial economic decision-making power.

The break-up of Canada? If we continue to vote for authoritarian party members (especially in Ontario), we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

[Boydfish]

"Should BC seperate from Canada?"

I think a more accurate question is "When should BC leave the Canadian confederation?". The entire premise of the Canadian confederation was that local government in Ottawa was superior to a distant government in London. The simple fact is that the Canadian government in Ottawa is just as distant and foreign to British Columbians. This is the arguement that Canadians trip over, fall over, ignore and try to deflect: You cannot make a rational arguement for BC to be in the Canadian confedertion without disproving the premise of Canadian independence from Great Britain.

In terms of British Columbia's recent flip-flop into a "have-not" province, that was perhaps the most brilliant move on the part of the British Columbian government in over 100 years: We beat the Canadians with better accountants. The Campbell government did something that the NDP government was too proud to do: They simply did the books in such a manner to make it look like BC was running at a loss rather than a profit. This strategy is used by businesses both big and small, often to avoid taxation. The Campbell government avoids giving money to the Canadians and even sees a tiny return in getting a "transfer payment" of a couple million dollars. In simple terms, BC is doing quite well thank you, we've just figured out a way to keep the Canadians out of our pockets.

This is why the Canadians are madly scrambling to try and re-do the way that they calculate transfer payments: They want it done via property value averages.

In terms of cultural differences, British Columbia is perhaps the only province in the Canadian confederation that can be truly described as "distinct". We don't even have weather like the other provinces.

Another discussion point as to BC in the confederation is to go back to the roots: Why did the British government allow the Canadians to administratively annex British Columbia*? The main and primary reason was to provide common defence against the USA. As the Canadian Army cannot reach BC without the aid of the US, this reason has gone much the way of the dodo bird.

As well, the Canadians need to prove to BC that there is a pressing need to share a common political community, rather than simply develop treaties and agreements that neighbouring states can enjoy(Trade, defence, disaster response, cultural).

*Look into it, draw your own conclusions.

[shamus11]

Click here... This might improve your education

BC lacks the leadership and therefore the guts to pull off separation.

It is a graphic illustration of how the socialists took over Ottawa and Victoria.

Canadians, like Californians need recall of stupid politicians. Canadians need binding referendums. Canadians need set election dates.

Click here for how to fix Canada

[Alliance Fanatic]

Is'nt it interesting that communist boy, can only come up with stuff that Canada did good for us in the west, that are more than 100 years old. So Canada has not done anything good for the west in 100 years. By the way, in 1965 Western Canadian's where proud of this country, and would never think of seperating, now those bastard liberals, Trudeau, and Chretien, have destroyed the Canada that many western Canadian's loved, and died for.