Volume XI, Numbers 1 & 2, January/February 1993
To begin this new year, I would like to pay tribute to the group of people who have since 1983, enabled this little newsletter to get out (more or less) monthly for almost ten years.
It's a group of about 20 people who gather each month to work labeling envelopes, folding, stuffing and sealing them. The work is made easier by such division, but sometimes lasts several hours and is sometimes quite tedious.
Members of the group usually bring food and refreshments are served, following the work party, while Doug Christie brings the group up to date with current events in the party and in the realm of politics and law, generally.
It is a diverse group, consisting of old and young, those going to school, those working in many different occupations, and those who are retired. The common denominator is a vital concern for Western Canada's future, in all its aspects.
That this concern is important is shown by the manner in which this faithful group of people have consistently turned out over years, sometimes at a few hours' notice, not always at the most convenient times, and have worked congenially (for the most part!) together, putting aside many differences to achieve a common end.
These are the type of people and in similar situations, who have brought about great change in the world, through gradual effort, effort that seems immeasurably small at the time, but in such increments has made the difference to many causes throughout history.
It is the kind of effort that stymied and infuriated the elite of this country during the referendum debate, when they found individuals and small groups spending their time and money to try and inform fellow citizens, and thus bring about a No vote. They succeeded, too, didn't they?
It is these types of people and groups who deserve the encouragement most often given to those who have a "high profile" and government funding, and that is why I wanted to say a big thank you to my loyal friends of the Separatist papers work parties. I really appreciate all your help, over so many years.
P.S. Anyone living in the greater Victoria area, who would like to join our work party, is welcome to call 479-6270 for details!
Keltie Zubko
To the Editor:
The manure pile is rotting the foundations of the barn while our confused "Elite" Colonial Masters in Ottawa are planning on building a brand new hayloft -- while at the same time they blindly spend millions of dollars on bilingualism, much hated bilingualism!
In a way, we're all to blame for the indifference, and selfish, cowardly approach to our western heritage since the great depression.
The depression of the thirties shook the confidence of the optimistic pioneers that had come west to make a new home. The pioneers viewed Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as a golden opportunity to develop a stable economy in order to support their families. These early pioneers had a vision of communities growing in an environment of religious freedom, peace, dignity, and respect. Communities where homogeneous groups were free to practise their traditions and customs without harassment and government interference.
The sudden plunge from the exciting and vibrant affluence of the twenties into the terrorizing poverty of the thirties produced "economic cowards" by the droves. Some hardy pioneers escaped being psychologically damaged, but not many.
For example, a government administrator was appointed to conduct a benevolent dictatorship over the township of Melville, Saskatchewan, when the citizens were declared irresponsible and not capable of managing local affairs. It was during this period the administrator declared a 9:00 p.m. curfew for local youths to be off the streets. The curfew was enforced by an extremely large detachment of R.C.M.P. constables who would round up the violators and lock them up in the jail cells below the town hall.
In 1939, a volunteer army was recruited out of this economic rubble. Soldiers were paid $40.00 a month, clothed, fed and given a bed with two grey wool blankets and a pillow. The Western Canadian soldiers were trained to fight other dictators in Europe and Japan.
It was during this period our Colonial Masters in Ottawa wove an economic web which has resulted in the rape of Western Canada, an economic rape which persists to this day.
In 1939 to 1945 men were very important to fight a war, but in 1992-3, the most discriminated against group in all of Canada are men between 20 years of age to 65 years of age. Observe t.v. programming, news commentators, t.v. panels, federal and provincial staffing, bank staffing, teacher staffing, etc. At no time in the history of Canada has there been such a wide separation between men and women.
Building a new hayloft won't fix anything! Clean the manure from the foundations, then rebuild...if there is a will to do it!
Robert L Henshaw
Victoria, B.C.
The Western Separatist Papers welcomes your letters to the editor. They should be short, d'*e to our space limitations, and relate to Western Canadian politics, history, culture, current events, etc. Send them to: The Editor, Western Separatist Papers, P.O. Box 1133, Sooke, B.C., Western Canada, VOS 1NO.
by Dacre Cole
(The following article is reprinted with the permission of the author. It appeared in abbreviated form in the Victoria Times Colonist of January 14 1993.)
The striking alienation between electors and elected shown by last October's referendum clearly revealed how out of touch all our political leaders (except Reform's Preston Manning) were with the views and interests of the majority of Canadians.
How could this operating elite -prime minister, every premier, the leaders of all mainline p arties, chambers of commerce a 5 and even labor leaders - have strayed so far form the path of responsible government?
Public opinion soundings taken in four major and 24 specialized polls after the rejection of the Meech I-ake straitjacket 2 and 112 years earlier, had certainly revealed the unpopularity of a largely Quebec agenda.
Why else would Ottawa have refused to make public,over 700 pages of poll data without being forced in court action by Information Commissioner John Grace who suggested that there was no legitimate reason for withholding such information?
A Times-Colonist editorial as early as Feb.1992 questioned the bizarre conduct of a government asserting the desire to "ascertain the views of Canadians" by spending multi-millions of dollars in cleverly manipulated forums, cleverly manipulated conferences - designed to give the impression of public participation and consultation - and a series of costly Joint Parliamentary Committee hearings with only selected witnesses, unless it was determined to impose its unacceptable programs and policies on the country, regardless.
It is understandable that these misguided leaders, in spite of the hundreds of millions of dollars, precious time and effort spent on a Yes campaign to convince or scare electors into acceptance of such a disastrous, unchangeable blueprint for a future Canada, would like to turn their backs on this catastrophic response by the electorate.
They are back again preparing for the next election as though nothing had happened, having learned nothing and advocating the same rejected policies.
This rejection was not confined to the simplistic Yes blank cheque, sought to give them a free hand to implement the omnibus package deal on which a consensus was stampeded by an artificial deadline.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney continues to extol the merits of Meech Lake and Charlottetown as admirable models for a Canadian union. A professional negotiator, his primary concern was to get an agreement, even if by "a roll of the dice," rather than one based on widely accepted principles with the interests of the nation as top priority, to ensure a workable and lasting settlement based on all-Canadian values, not regional, ethnic claims.
Such an "all or nothing" approach instead of the basic democratic "the greatest good for the greatest nun~ber" philosophy , also makes it easier to turn their backs on all change, including obviously desirable and beneficial proposals.
It is absurd to suggest, as the PM has done, that rejection of the "deal" constitutes rejection of an elected senate or of the recognition of First Nations' claims for a hearing and at least as great a prior claim to "distinctness" as francophones in Quebec.
This reduces serious constitutional negotiation to the level of horse-trading and sanctions former PM Trudeau's categorizing of the 31 concessions as gains extracted by separatist blackmail.
That these were obtained with the help of only one federal Quebec Minister, Benoit Bouchard, and Joe Clark, without even Quebec Premier Bourassa being at the negotiating table, does not say much for the capacity of the other premiers to defend the interest of Canada or of their own provinces.
Nor did the government's record low public support (12%) or the fact that its head (as for 33 of the past 44 years) was himself a Quebecker, establish its legitimacy or provide a mandate to speak or negotiate on behalf of the rest of Canada. Only an election could ensure such representation. It would actually have cost no more than the Referendum and both could have been held together for the same cost, a $300 million dollar saving, a smaller deficit and less added to our national debt. This Quebec deadline was certainly a costly one.
Aggressive Yes campaigners warned that a No vote would destroy Canada and implied that only those who had not read the text or because they had complete distrust of the PM, would dare to vote No.
So great was the pressure to conform that a UBC Political Science professor, risking being branded an enemy of Canada by daring to stand outside the consensus, prefaced his article, "Saying a Pro-Canadian No." Even Conservative party guru Dalton Camp began his confession of being unwilling to jump on the bandwagon, after reading the Charlottetown document and deciding not to support provisions he considered ill-conceived and ill-considered, with an apology. He warned that one of the risks of dissent was loneliness as a social outcast on the fringes of political respectibility. Without believing that illustrious Yes worthies had all lost their senses, he could not believe that all these good Canadians on the committee had really read what they were saying Yes to.
Many convinced opponents had, on the other hand, carefully studied the series of texts over a period of years including the final legal text. They objected specifically to the right of any one province to veto future amendment (unanimity as it was more comfortably referred to toward the end of the consensus).
Premiers reassured their constituencies that this involved no special treatment, since every province would have a veto. No mention was made of the fact that the veto of one province alone had nine times already prevented the patriation of our constitution, the BNA Act.
Making it virtually impossible to change even a good constitution, let alone one unlikely to satisfy the English speaking majority, was hardly a choice likely to appeal to thinking voters, especially since it would also not put a stop to separatist demands.
The addition of 42 MPs (mainly for Ontario and Quebec) in an already over-represented House of Commons had little appeal. The guarantee to Quebec of 25 per cent of all seats in perpetuity seemed at odds with the continuing anachronism of "at least three" Quebec Supreme Court justices, fixed back when Quebec's population was a third not a quarter of the total. Given the present fourth francophone Judge (N.B.) to interpret rights of a distinct society on matters of French language and culture in all of Canada, a francophone Senate double majority appeared an undesireable addition to existing French power in Ottawa. After 16 years in office, Trudeau added to his claim that French power would last forever, "Quebec is strong and can decide who is going to govern and how this country will be governed."
New Liberal leader Jean Chretien, in Shawinigan (December '91) promised even greater influence in Ottawa after PM Mulroney earlier in Quebec (February '91) had told his audience this, listing the powerful positions already held.
Federal cabinet ministers Marcel Masse and Benoit Bouchard continue to build up Quebec's industrial strength with hundreds of millions of our precious tax dollars. Head-quarters of national networks - Via Rail, CNR, CPR, Air Canada, CBC, NFB, a growing aerospace industry, the space agency itself, army and naval HQ - are all now in Quebec.
A $4.3-billion helicopter contract is added to the $4.2-billion transfer payments (to be "constitutionalized" along with other Ottawa/Quebec "clandestine" one-on-one deals like the rejected Meech immigration deal.)
Asymmetric (unequal) federalism is not an acceptable proposition since it contains many of the elements of the rejected accord. Tolerance and generosity have been exhausted in 24 years "progress" down the wrong road.
Recently announced federal spending cuts should have included the multi-billion dollar costs of CIDA aid to France's former colonies, contributions to francophone and Afro-Olympic duplication and to such sacred cows as Official Bilingualism's divisive and costly operations (including federal language police arbitrary acts, bilingual label and packaging), the costs of which have been ke Pt from public scrutiny. Less than half our MPs (only 129) voted for the 1988 extended Official Languages Act.
The finance minister's $22-million cuts are pitifully inadequate, but meanwhile 1.6 million are unemployed and thousands of lean food banks serve families with a million children below the poverty line.
Many Canadians are still angry over the killing of vital Economic, Science, Employment and Peace and Security Advisory Councils. Citizens' Forums warned government that loss of national symbols had led to their "losing their sense of country." Nor will continuing emphasis on differences restore shared values on which our common purposes are based.
Only last year, the 65th anniversary of recognition of Canada's sovereign national status was ignored, without even a commemorative stamp or official mention of this historic milestone to unite proud Canadians and advance their country's destiny. The drift must end.
by Dave Yager
(The following column appeared in the Calgary Sun, November 12, 1992.)
Unbelievably bad planning by an electrical utility in Canada's wealthiest province has given Westerners another reason to question the economic benefits of Confederation.
The problem is Ontario Hydro, and it is such a mess that it makes NovAtel look like a success story.
Ontario's main electricity supplier is a staggering $32 billion in debt and sinking fast. The Pickering nuclear plant is $10 billion over budget and the other aging nuclear reactors will require hundreds of millions more in the future to keep them operating safely.
Rest assured that the $32 billion debt will be generating principal and interest bills long after the nuclear plants quit generating electricity.
In the middle of the worst recession since the Second World War, Ontario Hydro's contribution to a struggling economy has been to raise electricity prices by 20% over two years.
As we know, "The government is here to help you."
For damage control, Ontario Hydro recently hired Maurice Strong, the financier environmentalist, as its chairman in a high profile attempt to persuade a nervous province that the situation is under control.
The utility's financial problems are so massive and far-reaching that they will be a drag on the entire Canadian economy. If you believe in calculator federalism, Ontario Hydro is one problem the West can do without.
Back in the 196Os, nuclear power became Ontario and Ottawa's pet industrial diversification project. Canada would become a leader in exporting safe and clean nuclear generating technology all over the world.
Rising oil prices and possible oil shortages in the 1970's made the nuclear mission even more important. It was amazing how much you could increase the retail price of electricity and still be cheaper than oil as an energy source.
Forecasts of continued indexed energy price hikes enabled the utility's planners to justi~, finance and build a massive, multi-billion dollar nuclear power infrastructure.
While oil prices were high, Ontario was advertised as the perfect industrial location. State health care for the workers. Safe and clean towns and cities. And, through the miracle of nuclear electricity and the genius of Ontario Hydro, low energy prices for years to come.
Unfortunately, the nuclear power story was only half correct. Although it was safe and clean, it wasn't economical. When oil prices collapsed in 1986, much of the world's nuclear industry was threatened because it depended upon high oil prices for its economic existence.
Low cost oil and gas hit Ontario Hydro like a locomotive. The intricate network of nuclear generating plants, multi-billion dollar loans, and indexed hydro price increased to customers began to unravel. As the price of electricity went up like clockwork, the cost of alternative energy sources went in the opposite direction.
In 1992 and 1993, Ontario Hydro will be forced to raise electricity prices by 20% to remain solvent. Consumers are desperate for alternatives, but Ontario Hydro is also a monopoly.
The utility can and will take its customers to court should they dare generate their own cheaper sources of electricity. This is a peculiar way to attract new industries to Ontario or prevent them from relocating in the U.S.
As our giant, energy-rich country struggles to recover from the recession, our industrial heartland, Ontario, will be hobbled by non-competitive electricity prices for the foreseeable future.
No wonder so many in the West question the value of Confederation.
by Kevin Avram, of the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation
In Canada, we're all getting poorer.
It's not an illusion. It's not made up. It's absolutely true.
Overall incomes are still rising, but after paying for all the taxes that are being levied by the various levels of government, the amount of money we Canadians have left to live on is getting smaller.
Our politicians spend on handouts to business, overpaid bureaucrats, and fat pensions for themselves. Add to this the interest on what they've borrowed over the years, and why we're all feeling financially strapped comes into clear focus.
Craig Docksteader, a senior operations officer with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, had an interesting observation. He said that because borrowing is such a significant part of government today, taxpayers should take some time to think about the difference between the size of government debt, and how much that debt will actually cost them.
He said most people realize the difference when they buy their first house.
"I had a $65,000 dollar mortgage when I bought my first house," he said, "but when I sat down and figured out how much interest I would have to pay to get the $65,000 paid off, I realized that the $65,000 I owed on my house would actually cost me about $200,000."
Because this is the case, Docksteader says that Canadians should wake up and realize that politicians are doing to us. He also says it's important for people to understand that the debt of our various governments, and how much they as taxpayers are going to have to pay for that debt has become a major factor in determining their standard of living.
At the national level, taxpayers shell out about $44 billion a year paying interest on debt. Docksteader says that amount is roughly how much is costs to run the entire governments of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and P.E.I.
Think about it: That includes all the highways departments, prisons, health systems, schools, universities, and bureaucrats in eight provinces!
The truth is that the best thing these guys could do for Canadians is to quit borrowing; then they should cut spending and reduce taxes.
There's no other way that Canadians, and our children, can have a fighting chance at a prosperous and stable lifestyle.
You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance and I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people - and, alas, their folly with it.
But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. it is the proof of man's kinship with God.
You say that freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice.
Peace is good. But if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion - that is to say, free utterance decently and in order - your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugarcoat it with expediency.
This state today is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because, in the end, suppression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression.
Whoever pleads for justice helps to keep the peace; and whoever tramples upon the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something fine in the heart of man which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.
So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold - by voice, by posted card, by letter or by press.
Reason never has failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world.
by William Allen White
(From Prose of Our Day, publisher and date unknown)
Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation; free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state and within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law.
Supreme Court of Canada, 1938
by Douglas Christie
The following message was contained in a Christmas card received from a friend and supporter in Manitoba, and really expresses what we are trying to achieve in the realm of freedom of speech, better than I could express it, so I wanted to share it with you:
"We have been cheering loudly over your successes in court this year. Freedom of speech doesn't come easily. The surprising thing is most people are not aware they have lost it because they are so well trained in just saying those things that have establishment approval. There is hardly a day goes by, but what I give thanks for the great work you people are doing for us. You provide a very bright spot in what would otherwise be a bleak, dark, ugly world of unchecked crime. It is comforting to know there is a way of wringing out some justice as yet without resorting to violence and you are the people that proved it to us and the world."
We greatly appreciate having our efforts seen, as we mean them to be seen.
It was Saturday, January 16th when Cadeyrn and I went over to Dacre Cole's house in Victoria to discuss and get a copy of his article which is reprinted above. It was a very pleasant chat on a bright sunny, cold day in his parlour, filled with beautiful antique furniture. What a diligent, sincere, kindly man I thought, as Cadeyrn became anxious to get to the park to fly his gliders.
We were going over the ample source material for his article and he said something that caught my mind. Here was a man fully aware of all the insoluble problems of Canada. He said he was worried about all the separatists in the CSIS.
I almost choked, but said nothing. "I hate to tell you this, Dacre, but I am a separatist," I thought to myself. But I thought better of it since I didn't want to offend a fine man who was generous enough to allow us to publish his excellent analysis.
This brings me to my central theme. Why do all these fine people, when confronted with Canada's insoluble and accelerating corruption and debt, why do they react against the word "separatist?"
Is it so hard to see that big isn't better? If it wasn't so, the Soviet Union would be the most prosperous nation in the world instead of an economic basket case, that has necessarily dissolved? Only the U.S. and only for a short time to come is a superpower as its debt and ethnic division become equally impossible.
Mr. Avram, another excellent critic of Canada's wasteful ways has no real solution. Reform is no longer realistic and separation is the constructive and only solution.
What an emotional barrier that word engenders! But so does the truth in a world more comfortable with lies. The truth is that small, ethnically homogeneous states are the way of the future. This solution eventually must be accepted.
Referendum, initiative and recall, a Triple E Senate, a debt-free money system, full and productive employment, national purpose, patriotism - these and many more can only be achieved in a new nation we create from the beginning. We need not labour in the debt-ridden shadows of a corrupt system created by mice posing as men. The grievances are insoluble without separation. Everyday without independence is a day wasted complaining. Let us get on with it!