Volume IV, Number 1, January 1986 -- Editorial (The West's position in Canada in 1986); letters to the editor re: Alberta Gas Deal; The Cost of Canada (tariffs); Western Canada, a Study in Subservience; Quote by H.L. Mencken; Alex Macdonald B.C. MLA on freedom of speech; 101 reasons for Independence #22 (the powers of judges under the new constitution)
Volume IV, Number 8, August 1986 -- Pat Burns speaking on how BC could get a fair deal; Ron Collister column (Will separatism rise again?)
Volume IV, Number 1, January 1986
Predictions for 1986 are sallying forth from every talk show and newspaper these days, and many are based on the readings of psychics or horoscopes. But we don’t need a crystal ball, nor anything close to omniscience, even, to foretell the future of Western Canada in the coming year. It’s so simple, we can even use the laws of logic (albeit much scorned in today’s society) to do it.
We have the following basic premises:
(1) All the seats allotted to Western Canada cannot even balance those of Ontbec in the House of Commons; this pattern holds true within each political party as well.
(2) The Senate, appointed for life, does not disagree with the Commons, and has no real power.
(3) The judiciary is appointed by the ruling party and the Supreme Court has representation that is weighted 2/3rds in favour of Ontbec. This is particularly significant in view of the great powers given to the Supreme Court to interpret all laws in light of the new Charter of Rights.
(4) Canada has always been divided upon economic grounds, with the Central core deriving its power from industry while the West is resource-based. The two interests have never been reconciled.
(5) The Canadian political system gets its motive power from patronage.
(6) A large concern within the Canadian system is not the country’s defense, or other mundane concerns, but rather how to nurture artificial bilingualism and metrication.
(7) The whole country is tributary to Central Canada, and the financial interests firmly located there.
Add to these premises a few examples of Canadian archetypes:
The price of flour just increased by 16%, with no benefit going to the farmer, in fact the price of wheat having dropped. The increase in the price of gasoline so large even the metric system can’t hide it anymore, while the world price falls. The indignation of Madame Blais-Grenier over the shutdown of a Montreal refinery, contrasted with the dead silence over similar events in Western Canada. The taxpayers paying more taxes, while the MPs and the P.M. paid more of our taxes. A stewardess on Air Canada persistently offering the French version of Chatelaine magazine to a plane-load of English-speaking women. The hypocrisy of a government that applies its word-control laws with great selectivity, charging Ernst Zundel, but establishing a costly, divisive government Inquiry on the word of Sol Littman.
These are only a few examples, a few basic principles, but enough to predict the future for the West: separation, or more of the same, as enumerated above. I’m no seer, just another Western Canadian who has seen enough.
Keltie Zubko
To the Editor:
On CBC radio I heard an Ottawa Citizen reporter say "ha-ha" those Alberta "ha-ha" cowboy politicians "ha-ha" as might be expected had their "ha-ha" western banks collapse "ha-ha" but not so the Continental Bank which is worth preserving. So is, I suppose the National (Quebec’s) now saved by the Mercantile give-under.
When the Western Accord (which did absolutely nothing to rectify the unjust rape of Alberta under the Liberals) was touted as ending the NEP, the Maritimes and Ontario were on the radio full of outrage, demanding reinstatement of the NEP forthwith and "for shame on Alberta, rapacious as usual and always."
Now Pat Carney has said her gas deregulation is a wonderful deal for Alberta as well as the ever-loving east. In it, Ontario is first of all assured of all it wanted: (1) it will get cheaper than the already low-priced gas it has always gotten at Alberta expense with no change for the present year, (2) that new pipeline costs money Alberta previously had said it could and would not pay on behalf of and insistence of Ontario, but which Alberta now necessarily agrees to do, and with pleasure. (So would I if I had Napoleon Carney standing in front of me and talking to me.)
So what is the greatness of the gas deal for Alberta? It is permission for Albertans to work harder, harder, harder to sell more, more, more at less, less, less -- not only to Ontario now, but to the U.S. (not previously allowed, but still under federal watch-care.) But the U.S. won’t buy any unless it is cheaper than its own ever-dropping price. This is what Ontario of course hopes for since the cheaper to the U.S. the cheaper it must be to eastern Canada, to make its exports competitive.
What a great deal, and what new independence and freedom to trade for Alberta! This is de-regulation? This is free trade? This is world price? Yet the media (correctly) said that the oil companies and the energy MLA are all elated at the wonderful "deregulation." They must be drunk on the champagne left over from the Trudeau/Lalonde/Lougheed NEP signing.
Carney ended her gas comments by saying this latest agreement kissed the very last vestige of the NEP good-bye. It kisses the NEP alright, but not good-bye. Why doesn’t anyone in the ever-vocal media (I don’t expect a word from the ever-defeated Albertans under the thumb of the federal PC mafia) know or want to mention that the NEP is going strong in Alberta for yet another four years? The new PC Ottawa said it needed the Alberta rape-money so desperately, they just couldn’t drop all that gravy at once. One year has already stripped Alberta of goodness-knows how many billions of what is rightfully ours, and the next four are to take smaller bites in order to end the NEP theft eventually... all of which making no more impression on the federal deficit-cutting than it if were 25 cents. But by that time there will be no money to be made in Alberta oil, and maybe no oil either. That will put Alberta where it belongs! Maybe all the NEP windfall is going to communist African foreign aid, or to bring in Flora Macdonald’s 5 million new welfarites and unemployables.
The Gas Deal looks like nothing but more dirty tricks. Alberta is celebrating the birth of NEP 2 and pretending the federal PCs gave it powers and rights long overdue. What a fraud! Why can’t we find an Alberta leader and Party that will be separatist and thus achieve for us the Quebec kind of clout, or else? If none exists, Alberta deserves what it gets, and I am sorry.
--N. H.
Edmonton, Alberta
To the Editor:
I think that Western Canada has seen the truth in the words that Abraham Lincoln once said:
"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."
We need a party in the West that won’t be afraid to challenge this power.
G. Korkisky,
Regina, Saskatchewan
(1) In time for the mounting debate on Free Trade, we bring you the following little chart to demonstrate one reason for the wide divergence in opinion between Ontario and the West:
1983 Benefits and Costs of Canadian Tariffs
| Atlantic Provinces | -$138 million |
| Quebec | +$ 80 million |
| Ontario | +$494 million |
| Manitoba | -$ 39 million |
| Saskatchewan | -$ 92 million |
| Alberta | -$167 million |
| British Columbia | -$119 million |
(Source: Bill Kurchak, "Why the West Wants Free Trade, Banff Life, Summer, 1985)
2) The External Affairs Department has been revealed to have paid $773,500 buying memberships for 34 staff members of the Canadian High Commissioner’s Office, in the Aberdeen Marina Club in Hong Kong, to ease their difficult burden of life in that posting. That amounts to $22,750 per membership.
3) Befitting a country that is already divided along lines of language and culture, we notice that Jean Chretien’s recently published book has two titles:
ENGLISH: "Straight from the Heart"
and
FRENCH: "Dans la Fosse aux Lions" (In the Lion’s Den)
by Max Macfarlane and George Swann
Since the inception of Confederation one hundred and sixteen years ago, the entire area West of the Ontario/Manitoba border has been subjected to merciless economic and political exploitation, at the hands of the Central and Eastern Regional Governments. This undesirable state of affairs was created by the so-called "Fathers of Confederation," and has continued to forestall any hopes of Western Canadians ever reaching a point at which the West could have any significant influence in determining its own political and economic well-being. The existing form of Central Government, or any of the traditional political bodies, has and will continue to ignore the weak ineffective voice of Western Canada.
There has hitherto been no concentrated effort made by any Western Provincial Government, to highlight the inequities that have plagued Western Canadian society for more than a century. A few mild representations have been made on rare occasions by those politicians who have aspired to greatness, but support from their colleagues has been all but non-existent.
Let us briefly examine the ramifications of the present form of Federal Government, and note their subversive use of power to maintain the status quo.
Western Canada, with its abundant availability of natural resources, holds the key to the nation’s economic strength. However, through the medium of conspiracy between the Ottawa regime and the powerful Eastern Canadian business giants, Western Canada has been effectively prevented from progressing toward self-sufficiency. Our present role in the general scheme of the Canadian economy can well be compared with the master/servant concept, which dates back to the feudal lords of Europe. At not inconsiderable expense, we gather the raw materials, ship them to Eastern Canada where they are processed, and are then required to pay exorbitant prices for the finished products which include inflated transportation costs, manufacturing taxes and Federal Sales Tax.
Given the opportunity, Western Canada could quite conceivably progress rapidly toward developing secondary industries which would serve to eliminate the monumental burden of bolstering the Eastern economy to our own detriment. This could only be achieved if the way were paved to attract outside investors, preferably from foreign countries.
Ottawa has traditionally dictated terms to the Western Provinces. Any and all forms of opposition to their continuing dominance of the Western economy has been ruthlessly squashed, and where dictatorial methods have failed, the dissident factions in the Western political hierarchy have been coerced into joining forces with the ruling government of the day.
Ottawa is not alone in the conspiracy to maintain Western subservience. Successive Western governments have failed lamentably to pursue any line of reasoning that would have resulted in the acquisition of secondary industries. In the interests of political expediency we have been assailed with worthless rhetoric, given firm undertakings that Ottawa’s power would be challenged; but contrary to election promises, we have witnessed capitulation at every turn.
The Conservative Party in Alberta, under the leadership of Peter Lougheed, may well be used as a prime example of moral decadence. During their tenure of more than a decade in office, the Alberta Tories have achieved virtually nothing that could be described as substantial progress. We have witnessed an unprecedented growth of more than twenty percent in the Alberta public service, a drastic decline in productivity, scandalous misuse of public funds, political patronization in its most pernicious form, devastating unemployment, rapid depletion of non-renewable resources, and a succession of government Ministers who have demonstrated their incompetence to discharge their duties effectively.
The discovery and public disclosure of a loss of sixty million dollars from the Alberta Heritage Savings and Trust Fund was never investigated and has hitherto never been resolved. Peter Lougheed, when taken to task on this important matter, appeared on television to announce with no small measure of arrogance, that the matter was not of public concern. Nobody has taken the time to pursue the question, but suffice it to say, that the disappearance of such a huge sum of public money without trace will remain a contentious point with people who have seen Mr. Lougheed becoming increasingly dictatorial in his daily progress toward establishing a repressive regime to compliment that already in existence in Ottawa.
The standards applicable to health, education, and social services have been drastically reduced, yet conversely, the Lougheed and Central Governments continue to bolster the fortunes of the multi-national corporations by granting billions of dollars annually in the form of tax incentives and various other grants. At the other end of the scale, we see the long-suffering average working citizen upon whom the burden of responsibility is thrust; he is the victim of government mismanagement at all levels, or more appropriately, the subject destined for slaughter on the altar of political expediency.
Albertans can find consolation in the fact that we now have, at the cost of $64 millions, the most attractive legislation building in Canada, not to mention more prisons and penitentiaries pro-rata to population, than any other province.
At the federal level, we have been casually informed of monumental financial losses incurred by Crown Corporations, for example, the fact that Canadair and de Havilland Corporation are directly responsible for the loss of $1.5 billion. The Foreign Investment Review Agency, and the National Energy Program have cost taxpayers countless billions of dollars in lost markets, investment, jobs and credibility in the Western world. This constitutes irrefutable evidence that governments have no place in the business world.
Ottawa in collusion with the provincial governments is pursuing a course which if successful would result in Canada becoming, albeit unwittingly, a unitarian socialist state.
Western Canada is bearing the brunt of the economic rape that is being perpetrated on the country. With our relatively sparse population, geographic isolation and servile politicians, we have no voice, no representation, and certainly no choice. Westerners are the recipients of the proverbial crumbs, which are doled out from time to time by the Federal government, but they are oblivious of the reasons behind such "largesse." It is nothing more than a thinly-disguised form of patronization, which would never stand up in the face of close scrutiny.
The 1980 federal election bore out the full significance of Western Canada’s minor role in electing the central government. At the polls, the Western Provinces voted almost 100% in favour of the Conservative Party, and yet, the Liberal government was elected on the strength of votes gathered in Ontario and Quebec alone. Are we not justified in a claim to victimization, at the hands of Eastern Canada? After all, we are faced with burdensome taxation without representation.
Western Canada’s only hope of ever obtaining full recognition, regaining her economic strength, and re-establishing her credibility lies in securing separation from Eastern Canada, through utilization of the basic requirements spelled out in the rules for a democratic form of government. This may be achieved quite simply by severance of economic and political ties with Eastern Canada.
SEPARATION -- THE CONCEPT
In ordinary circumstances, the word "separation" conjures up visions of total social disorder, closely followed by mass confusion and the attendant hardship suffered by the proponents of this form of action.
It’s a simple matter of establishing a Western Canadian order, administered by Westerners, for the ultimate benefit of Westerners. There is no need for any form of unilateral action.
The federal constitution contains no provision for succession from Confederation, however this has never been put to the test, and it is therefore quite conceivable that the unqualified desire of the people to exercise a fundamental democratic right to determine their own destiny would be championed by all freedom-loving peoples of the world. Quebec could well have achieved Sovereignty Association, but for the fact that, unlike Western Canada, it was prohibited from so doing by its weak economy, and continuing dependency on Ottawa for handouts and subsidies.
We in Western Canada hold numerous advantages over our Eastern counterparts; we have the resources, and the means whereby to develop them. Our geographical location is ideal for trading purposes. Our seaports, railroads, highways and airports are among the most modern and efficient in the world. They have been developed by Westerners, with Western money, but up to now, have only served in the main to further the aims and aspirations of the Ottawa regime.
Economic studies have proven that Western Canada can succeed, if separate from Eastern Canada, and become a debt-free, self-sufficient nation of which to be proud.
QUOTES OF INTEREST
By H.L. Mencken
"The state in all kinds of countries, and in all kinds of forms, is setting up shop as a universal savior. Its qualifications for that office, at first glance look very impressive. It has power of an extremely palpable and overt variety, flowing from the end of the policeman’s truncheon. It penetrates to every nook and fissure of the national life, and so takes on an appearance of omniscience. It is staffed by men who are, by definition eminent, and in that character are heard politely, even when they talk nonsense. Most of all, there is something mystical about it, something transcendental and even supernatural, so that simple people, thinking of it, slip naturally into the moony ways of thought that they enjoy in thinking about the awful enigmas of Heaven and Hell. Its real nature thus tends to be concealed and, in the long run, forgotten. That real nature may be described briefly.
"The state consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of 10 that promise is worth nothing. The 10th time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
(Was he referring to Canada?)
The following wise words were spoken in the British Columbia legislature, by NDP member Alex Macdonald, on May 24, 1985:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement pursuant to the rules on the subject of censorship, because we live in a censorious age.
Canadians, in my opinion, are going down the dangerous road to censorship. There are too many Canadians who want laws to impose their own morals or opinions on other people. We have angry, self-righteous groups that denounce alternative lifestyles. We have economic pressure groups that try to make dissenters conform, or try to suppress their fight to speak out.
There should be only one limit -- one limit only -- to the right of individuals to express and conduct themselves freely. No democratic society is justified in suppressing opinion or censoring conduct unless there is a clear and present danger of breach of the laws. That limit was defined by former Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court. Of course, he was simply echoing the ringing words of John Stuart Mill in the same tradition.
Toward the end of last century, John Stuart Mill put it this way:
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized society against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
My statement deals only with democratic societies and rules, Mr. Speaker. I’m not talking about totalitarian states where art is tongue-tied by authority, because to me those states are beneath contempt. I give some illustrations among many in our anxious paranoiac society.
There is a lot of pressure today for more show trials, even under the infamous section 177 of the Criminal Code, the spreading-false-news section. The accused that we have seen may be simply, for the time being -- but maybe not in the future --fanatics, psychopaths, eccentrics.
Nevertheless, free speech is the victim. Moreover, show trials and investigations reopen old wounds rather than heal them. Even the Code sections against inciting hatred against an identifiable group should be used with restraint, and only when there is a clear and present danger of harm to others.
The Keegstra case gives him a national forum in which to expound his twisted views. Better he had been tried for incompetency as a teacher by a school board, which must have known about his kinky teachings over that many years. We have forgotten the words of John Stuart Mill:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
People and papers can also be silenced or intimidated because of the spiralling costs of libel suits. They may well settle up or retract when faced with heavy legal costs, with the right or wrong of what was said not coming into it. After that they weigh their words too carefully, and there is less candid speaking out. The multimillion dollar libel suits of General Westmoreland and Sharon have the effect of muzzling investigative reporting. Of course, each of them should have had a fair opportunity to present his version of the truth in the media, with an appeal to a press council if necessary. Press councils, if they must err, should err on the side of free speech. Libel judges should do the same.
Mr. Speaker, if we can be told what we can read or see, it follows that we can be told what we can say and think. There are new puritans today who would restrict what others find harmless or entertaining. The old Puritans, wrote Macaulay, banned bear-baiting not because of the pain inflicted upon the bears, but because of the pleasure given to the spectators. In the Victorian Age there were condign laws against blasphemy, obscenity and sedition, but Victorian morality rested upon the exploitation of two million prostitutes. Should we ban Agatha Christie for fear someone might act out one of the ingenious murders depicted in her books? Life without fantasy is like a meal without wine.
I have to hurry, Mr. Speaker. Some inoffensive souls want great books removed from libraries and schools be-cause they are now held to be racist or immoral. That’s posthumous censorship. The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn are common targets. Those who try to obliterate history are obliged to repeat it.
Others want to purge the rich English language of words that they find chauvinistic. Politically powerful interest groups check free speech in parliaments and legislatures, because politicians do not want to affront powerful voting blocks or powerful economic interests. Everyone can think of the examples that I shirk from naming. Money can make us conform, as well as laws.
I conclude by saying that our Charter of Rights has a right for everyone, except the right to be left alone, and no charter can imbue us with tolerance. That’s up to us. Without tolerance, we tie freedom of expression to the stake."
A major change in Canadian life that has been wrought by the new Charter of Rights, has become increasingly obvious during the past year to observant Canadians. However, as Bruce Hutchison wrote in the Vancouver Sun on July 27, 1985:
"Preoccupied by their own private affairs, most Canadians have yet to understand that a constitutional and social revolution, or evolution, is quietly underway and that it will touch every citizen, with results unknown to Parliament, the 11 governments, the courts, or anyone else. In typical native fashion we are flying blind.... All these consequences will flow from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its unforeseeable interpretation by the Supreme Court. Already one gaping lacuna in the charter is obvious. It guarantees many rights but ignores the rights of property as if they were unimportant when, in fact, no real freedom is possible without them."
Mr. Hutchison goes on further to describe the problem in clear (and frightening) terms:
"As a layman sees it, Canada has transferred from Parliament to the Supreme Court the power, and the duty, to make ultimately political decisions. The members of the court, however they dress their decisions in judicial languages, are becoming unelected legislators, appointed by the prime minister alone for reasons wise or unwise.... the Supreme Court must decide what rights the citizen has, or does not have in "a free and democratic society." The amorphous, overriding clause of the new constitution means whatever the court decides that it should mean for the general public welfare. The cheque in the judges’ hands is blank."
Ted Byfield writing in Alberta Report recently described the metric situation in Canada at present:
"Consider, too, the implications of the current metric fiasco. A few sleepy MPs, on a late-night sitting of the House no doubt, adopt some white paper on metrification. Suddenly a typhonic reform is unleashed on the entire country. Everything begins to change -- speed limits, gasoline quantities, the temperature, distances. People are being fined, or even jailed, for failure to conform. Then, just as suddenly, it all stops in midstream. We are neither metric nor English. We wanted to march with mankind, rather than remain behind with the Americans. We have done neither. We are on the Metric System, meaning that almost no one who goes into a grocery has a secure idea of how much he’s likely to wind up with when he orders hamburger, and how much it will cost. The kind of people who planned Mirabel airport also planned metrification. Since they are accountable to no one, why should they care?"
(Alberta Report, November 18, 1985)
by Douglas Christie
The future of Western Canada has always been decided elsewhere. The realization of this creates an impelling responsibility to do something about it. That something requires political action and a common understanding of the problems by Western Canadians. It is going to take real dedication to Independence for it to be achieved, but it is only through Independence that our fishery, forestry, mining, agriculture and other resources will be free of the exploitation of Central Canada. This is a realization that has to be driven home time and time again to everyone who lives in Western Canada and who is concerned about the depletion of our wealth given to us by an abundant Providence.
Why should we be taxed so heavily? ‘The answer is simple -- to fatten the parasite of Ottawa which eats up good men, turning their backbone into jelly, first. This government which destroys freedom in the name of security, eats up prosperity in the name of Canadian ownership and takes the resources of the West mercilessly to support their Bay Street Banking towers. The only time the wealthy came West was to take the oil revenues back to Ontario where they belong. They have done it and left every mortgaged, over-priced house in Calgary with some poor Western dreamer paying the interest on a debt he will never repay.
At the height of the Canadian cultural mosaic totem pole sits Brian Mulroney, a typical example of all that Conservatives have said wouldn’t happen when they’re in power. He fawns on the Quebec and Ontario MPs. Canadian cultural sovereignty translates into Ontario’s protected media industries and all that is really sacred about Canada can be found there.
The Western Canada Concept was the first new vision in Western Canada with a fresh direction for those who really love this land, but it has been misdirected by "politicians" who don’t understand vision. The Western Canada Concept should be incorporated federally and registered as a political party to campaign in all of Western Canada and nowhere else. This would enable us to be heard in the forum where the grievance lies and would enable the W.C.C. to leap across provincial boundaries, over the petty bickering and lack of vision beyond provincialism. We might even revitalize the provincial parties and reaffirm that Western Canada’s place is as a nation, a free-trading, resource-rich Pacific Rim nation.
Volume IV, Number 8, August 1986
(The following is transcribed from the editorial of Pat Burns, popular talk show host on CJOR radio Vancouver. It was given on August 9, 1986.)
It took the best part of five years, but it has finally dawned on Jamie Lamb, the Sun’s Ottawa Correspondent, that the only way for British Columbia to get a fair deal is to get out of Confederation and join the United States or at least make noises and threats as though we fully intended to pursue that goal.
The Western separatists, now apparently in total disarray have been saying the same thing for some years and when they weren’t ignored by Mr. Lamb’s employer the Vancouver Sun, they were characterized as a bunch of half-crazed malcontents.
But the separatists are right, and now belatedly, so is Mr. Jamie Lamb.
In our lifetime and perhaps in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, British Columbia will never get a fair deal from Ottawa because politicians are not interested in fairness. They are interested solely in self-preservation - getting themselves re-elected with their fat salaries and expense allowances and their obscene pensions.
It is a simple case of mathematics, there are 282 seats in the House of Commons. Ontario has 95 of them; Quebec has 75. Combined, that makes a total of 170 seats of way more than half the total representation in the House of Commons. And so if a political party wants to get itself elected or re-elected, it must cater to Ontario and Quebec. It really does not matter if the Conservatives, or the Liberals or the New Democrats are in power, the name of the game remains the same, and anyone who thinks differently is deluding himself.
We in British Columbia, or for that matter, all of Western Canada are nothing more than milk cows for the East.
When Jamie Lamb suggests that the new Premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, discuss union with the United States with a number of state Governors to get Ottawa’s attention he is on the right track. He does not go far enough.
Western separatists, whose thinking is way ahead of Lamb’s, or most other persons, for that matter, are not really interested in joining the United States. They prefer to secede from Canada and be an independent country able to fashion its own destiny.
There is not the slightest doubt that we would survive. Indeed our standard of living would be higher once we got the Ottawa bandits out of our wallets and bank accounts.
If Alberta were to join in such a secession plan, the combined natural resources of the two provinces would make us the wealthiest area in all of North America.
Some people think it is heresy to speak this way. Obviously, they prefer to think that being robbed blind is one of Nature’s immutable laws which we should accept without question.
I am not of that train of thought, nor do I think it heretical ceasing to be a Canadian and being just a plain British Columbian with complete control over my destiny. I see no virtue in being a permanent mugging victim, just to be able to say I am a Canadian.
(The following column by Ron Collister, who also hosts Talkback on CJCA radio, appeared in the July 2, 1986 edition of The Edmonton Sun.)
Once again, I am hearing the rising whisper of Western separatism. It is a crushing, unpleasant sound, not new, shaped by the frustration that is part of the Alberta psyche. This time, however, it sounds more ominous. The last round of Western separatism, you’ll recall, elected a separatist MLA and filled halls.
It went into decline (or, at least, out of view) in the hopes of a Tory victory in Ottawa. That, it was argued then, would put things right in Alberta.
Well, two years after that electoral change, despite a new energy deal and the best efforts of Tories here and in Ottawa, Alberta, once again, looks like the poor cousin in Confederation. And once again, I hear resentful people ask: "Is it worth staying in the family?"
The report card on the nation’s health says the economy is booming: Ontario, around which all political life revolves, has almost full employment, soaring real estate prices, a glowing future. Familiar? Not at all. Not here in Alberta.
ARE THE GOOD TIMES PASSING US BY?
Here, the good times are passing us by and we could be back into the next recession (it could be as close as 18 months) without seeing even a hint of better times, according to the gloomier scenarios. So, why should this produce a more ominous kind of separatism? Isn’t it just a replay of the Trudeau Years? It is not, and that is why we should all be aware of the dangers.
The new script I hear is this: Anyone who puts any trust. in public opinion polls must be asking, right now if the Mulroney government is a one-term government. And, if so, what next? Objectively, the question must be asked.
Simply, it would mean a return to Liberal days, when Alberta did not exist, politically, and it was bled dry of billions of dollars in lost energy revenues and was used, like a milch-cow, to maintain the appearance of robust good times in Central Canada, the base of Liberal power.
The prospect of returning to those days boggles the mind and depresses the spirit. The Liberals are now wooing the West, but it is hard to see, in the battle at the polls about two years from now, how Central Canadian interests will not once again drown the unheeded pleas of Alberta.
Alberta’s frustration must grow even faster when one stops to think about the limitations on the Mulroney government’s capacity to help the West in the pre-election buildup. His focus, too, must be Ontario and Quebec, where he is in deep trouble, if he can realistically hope for a second term.
SIPHONING OFF THE PROFITS
Where does that leave Alberta? On our knees, praying for an increase in energy prices? And, if they ever soar again, Ottawa again, presumably, will be standing by to siphon off the profits.
Those who have started talking again about Western separatism express a new helplessness: truly a no-win situation. So separatism rears its ugly head again as Albertans question what benefits, if any, exist for them in Confederation, at any time.
There are many, of course, but they are hard to spot in the current mix of labor violence, unemployment, continuing recession, the human outflow from the province, depressed real estate and, worst of all, deep-rooted fear about the future.
Once again, it is up to Ottawa -- and I mean all political parties to reassure Albertans about their place in Confederation. Mulroney and Turner should spend time here this summer and not just ignore the patient because it is sick. And Don Getty should speak out forcefully, as Peter Lougheed did in the Trudeau years, so that Ottawa listens.
The message is the same: Don’t take Alberta, in Confederation, for granted!
Back to Western Separatist Papers Index