Volume XVI, Number 10, October 1998
The Western Separatist Papers are published
monthly by W.S.P. Ltd.
Address all correspondence to WSP, Box 143, 255 Menzies Street,
Victoria, B.C. Western Canada V8V 2G6.
A one-year subscription is $15.00. Our e-mail address is:
wcc@islandnet.com.
Visit the WCC on the web at: http://www.westcan.org/
Phone us at: 250-727-3438 or fax us at: 250-479-3294
Hello!
I have been living in Manitoba for a few years now, but I am originally from Quebec, and a true separatist. I voted yes in the last referendum.
I find it very interesting that such a movement as yours exists. I am not saying that I disapprove; on the contrary, I find your ideas to make common sense. I think what we, Quebec separatists, and you have understood is that 2 separate nations cannot live together fairly and peacefully, and that they should live free from each other's "oppression" so to speak.
It is also interesting to see that you wish to separate not only from Quebec, or from French-speaking Canada, but also from the Maritimes and from Ontario. This idea which makes perfect sense to you, shows how fundamental the idea of the Independence of Quebec really is, where the cohesion of the population and its isolation from the rest of the country is all the more obvious.
I hope that one day, the quest for Independence and Self-determination of both Quebec and Western Canada (and maybe of other parts of the country as well) will allow our different groups to work together towards an mutual understanding rather than against each other.
Good luck to you all!
Alexandre Coutu
Please send your letters to the editor to: WSP, Box 143, 255 Menzies Street, Victoria, B.C. V8V 2G6, by e-mail to wcc@islandnet.com or by fax to 250-479-3294.
(The following is an excerpt from an article by Jack Aubry, Ottawa Citizen, Sept. 18, 1998.)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien slammed the door on Alberta's Senate election in October by making a rare non-Liberal upper chamber appointment -- a move critics are calling "cynical and mischievous."
Along with three Liberal appointments to the Senate yesterday, Mr. Chretien chose Douglas Roche, a 69-year-old former Tory MP, to sit as an Independent senator for Alberta.
Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, speaking to an audience of developers, said: "The prime minister of this country is saying that democracy is a joke." He vowed to go ahead with the $3.3-million election Oct. 19 and submit the winners' names to Mr. Chretien.
Mr. Klein, who had already written Mr. Chretien telling him that ignoring the October election would be seen as a "provocation" by Albertans, whipped off another letter to the prime minister.
"I think you have underestimated the depth of feeling on this issue in Alberta and believe that you may have seriously set back the cause of national renewal," wrote Mr. Klein. He said it reflected Mr. Chretien's "reluctance to pursue change across the country."
Mr. Klein reminded the prime minister of his election pledge that the country needs "a new Senate whose distribution of seats, methods of selection and powers will allow it to play an effective role within the Parliament."
Ralph Klein is also quoted as saying: "To me, the issue is simple. Who should decide who represents Alberta in Parliament? The people of Alberta, or the Prime Minister? . . . Clearly, it is the people who should decide," and that "Albertans will remember."
[Source: Brian Laghi and Daniel Leblanc, September 18, 1998,
(Excerpted from a column by Graham Hicks, published in the Edmonton Sun, on September 18, 1998):
Yesterday was a sickening day in Canadian politics, with yet another once-principled, once-distinguished Albertan stooping to accept a Senate appointment. Why Doug Roche would take the position, knowing the sentiment in this province for an elected Senate, is beyond understanding.
Nick Taylor, once one of Alberta's most popular provincial politicians, lost much stature when he too accepted a senatorship, with a job until he's 75, plenty of perks and no need to bother with elections.
Just the other day, we were talking with Nick about the Senate. "It's not much fun, he said glumly. "In fact, it's not nearly as much fun as the provincial legislature." The joint Canadian-U.S. Senate committees have become a highlight of his senatorial (yawn) life. "The American senators are something else," said Nick. "They're not bound by party policy, so they're amazingly individualistic. They trade votes with each other (I'll vote for your cause, you vote for mine) like you wouldn't believe. "One called me. `Nick, you'll read something in the papers just the opposite to what we agreed. It's for the media. Don't worry, it won't happen.' "
There's one vast difference between American and Canadian senators, Nick. They got to their Senate by kissing babies. What did you kiss?"
(end of excerpt)
(The following is excerpted from the Edmonton Sun Editorial of September 18, 1998:)
Jean Chretien has spit in the face of every Albertan. And Albertans better be very concerned about the PM's attitude towards us, because the worst is yet to come.
The appointment of former Conservative MP Douglas Roche to the Senate yesterday means the prime minister does not care about Alberta's wants in Confederation.
Chretien is obviously not the prime minister of Canada any more. He's the prime minister of Quebec. Just hours before installing Roche in the upper chamber, the PM gave an incredibly arrogant interview which proved how narrow his thinking has become.
He called our Senate election "ridiculous" and agreed it was a joke. He said that you can't elect senators in one place but not another. Gee, Jean, you have no trouble at all recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, despite none of the other provinces having that moniker.
Indeed, one of the great lines the Chretien camp likes to use to dismiss our Senate election is that Alberta is trying to change the Constitution through the back door.
Except that this is the very same government, which in December 1995 passed two parliamentary resolutions - one recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, and the other instituting a convoluted system of regional "vetoes" over constitutional change. Ottawa promised to lend its absolute authority to veto any constitutional change to Quebec.
Given that both things - distinct society and a veto for Quebec - had been previously rejected twice by Canadians during constitutional negotiations, there was no other conclusion to reach than that Chretien was getting constitutional change through the back door.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Except Quebec gets everything it wants because it has a separatist party that plays nasty. Alberta tries to play nice and look where it gets us.
More so than the fact that Chretien has given the metaphorical middle finger to Alberta's Senate election, Albertans should be quite concerned about the PM's apparent hate-on for us.
Ottawa still has to implement the Kyoto agreement on climate change, a document which will devastate our provincial economy unless Ottawa backs down from the treaty's foolish agenda.
Now, do you think the Liberals' promises that the treaty will be implemented fairly are worth any more than a Canadian dollar in Montana? Chretien's out to get us. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
[end of excerpt]
(The following is an excerpt from Jack Tennant's column in the Calgary Sun of Sept. 18, 1998:)
Yesterday's senate appointment has nothing to do with representation.
It has nothing to do with Alberta's voice. It has nothing to do with fairness.
It has everything to do with power and there will be no senate reform as long as political power is to be gained or maintained with the status quo.
No prime minister of any political party is likely to relinquish that power in the name of fairness and better representation or any form of Senate reform.
[end of excerpt]
(The following is an excerpt from an article by Sydney Sharpe, that appeared in the Calgary Sun, September 18, 1998:)
Prime Minister Jean Chretien has thumbed his nose at Alberta's upcoming election by appointing a senator. This is outrageous, undemocratic, arrogant, obtuse -- and expected.
Short of insurrection or threat of separation, Ottawa will never change its view of the Senate.
In Breakup, Why the West Feels Left out of Canada, Don Braid and I traced the history of the Senate and the systematic devaluing of the West. The need for each province to elect an equal number of senators was obvious to us, but so were the reasons why the feds are so thick-headed about it. Their attitude goes right back to the ancient sludge from which Canada was born in a fit of primal elitism. The Fathers of Confederation, much honoured to this day in schoolbooks published in Ontario, had a specific purpose for the Senate. They wanted it to be a barrier to democracy."
Canadians are forever noticing that this federation doesn't work. One reason is surely the archaic Senate, which can't possibly function as a democratic voice for regional interests. I don't exactly admire the Reform Party these days, but Reformers have always been bang on when they call for an elected Senate. The screw-you response from Ottawa is predictable - and as contemptible as it's been for nearly 140 years."
[end of excerpt]
Klein sent a gently worded letter to Chretien. "I think you have underestimated the depth of feeling on this issue in Alberta and I believe that you may have seriously set back the cause of national renewal," Klein scolded. On the very week when Klein should have been celebrating the first anniversary of the signing of the Calgary declaration (but has been curiously silent on what was supposed to be the key to renewing the troubled Canadian federation), Chretien chose to demonstrate in the crudest of ways the bullying power of the Ottawa government."
[Neil Waugh, Edmonton Sun, September 18, 1998]
"[Ted] Morton, a University of Alberta political scientist, said Chretien's actions fuel western alienation. "To measure what's going on here, you simply have to ask yourself the following question: If Quebec was having a Senate election, would he be doing this? And the answer is clearly no," said Morton."
[Calgary Herald, September 18, 1998]
(The following is excerpted from David Frum's article of October 3, 1998, entitled "Concentration of power in Ottawa is cause for concern," that appeared in The Financial Post.)
What's in it for us?
That's the question people in Ontario ask when Westerners grumble about Senate reform, and it's a reasonable one. Ontario is home to one third of Canada's people and produces 40% of Canada's wealth. But in the equal-elected-effective Senate Westerners dream of, the province would get only 10% of the votes. Why should anybody in Ontario support that?
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appears to believe nobody in Ontario really does. . . . Albertans are incensed, as Chrétien knew they would be. What he is expecting, though, is that Ontarians will be indifferent.
Ontarians have two reasons for yawning at western talk of Senate reform. The first is economic. Sixty per cent of the senators in a Triple-E Senate would come from the have-not provinces. The danger is real that an elected Senate would look at Ontario the way a hungry family looks at a fat roasted turkey: "No pushing: there's plenty of meat here for everyone!" Westerners look enviously at the elected Senate of the U.S. What they seldom mention, however, is how blatantly the Senate has tilted the economic balance away from states like New York and Ohio in favor of Texas and Florida. The federal government, for example, pays 80% of the cost of Texas' Medicaid program, but only 50% of the cost of New York's. New York is richer than Texas, but it's not that much richer.
The second qualm Ontarians have is national unity. Quebecers hate and fear the prospect of an elected Senate. Under the present rules, Quebec has dominated national politics since 1945; under new rules, it probably would not. Naturally, Quebec therefore doesn't want the rules changed. And what Quebec doesn't want, Ontario, which has a great deal more to lose from the separation of Quebec than Alberta does, also does not want. Or, at any rate, historically has not wanted.
But it may be time for Ontarians to rethink. This country has been governed for almost 40 years over the virtually permanent opposition of four of its 10 provinces. In a democracy, of course, somebody must always lose, but it's dangerous to the stability of the country when the same people go on losing year in and year out. Polite opinion in Ontario recoiled from the Reform party advertisement in the last election that made the point Quebecers have held the prime ministership for all but one of the past 30 years. But really: Does anyone imagine Westerners can be hushed into ceasing to notice things like that? Or convinced that it doesn't matter?
Ontarians should rethink not just to please the West, but for their own sakes too. A government that puts as much unaccountable power into the hands of an unchecked executive as ours does is a reproach to the principles of liberal democracy. The prime minister passes laws and issues orders in council at his pleasure; he chooses the entire upper judiciary entirely on his own; the bureaucracy answers to him; so do the army and the national police. Even in Britain, the one country where the executive is almost as powerful as ours, the party system has evolved in ways that tend to check the prime minister's power. In Britain, a prime minister who loses an important cabinet minister is in real political trouble. When Geoffrey Howe resigned from Margaret Thatcher's government, he took her down with him; Paul Martin could quit tomorrow and it would be a one-day newspaper story.
But if a single- or double-E Senate might not be as bad for Ontario as we've always thought, it does remain as offensive to Quebec as ever. Not so long ago, we tried to solve this problem with a deal: an elected Senate for the West in exchange for distinct society status for Quebec. The deal floundered in 1992. But a good idea is never dead.
In case politicians from any region of Canada thought they had power in this country, here's news for them, if it hasn't already dawned on them the futility of achieving say Western Canadian interests in Canada:
"They would like to run the federal government, of course," Mr. Chrétien said of the premiers. "If you want to run Canada, you know, you become prime minister."
[Source: Globe & Mail, "A low key anniversary," September 18, 1998]
(from Raif Mair, A Voice from the West, Financial Post, September 18, 1998
"The Nisga'a deal is a classic case of "them against us." Ottawa only has to pay money (and 13% of that is ours), while B.C. must live with the consequences of this treaty which, in the premier's own words, is the template for 50 or 60 more to come. There is deep resentment in B.C. we've not been consulted in any meaningful way and there won't be a referendum."
(The following is excerpted from an article by Neil Waugh, Edmonton Sun, Oct. 4/98:)
With Alberta Court of Appeal Chief Justice Catherine Fraser's legal gymnastics to support the feds' case in the gun-registry court challenge - even though she ruled it's a clear-cut raid of the province's constitutional jurisdiction - Alberta now appears to have a semi-official separatist party.
And Alberta/Ottawa relations are only going to go downhill from here.
Alberta Social Credit Leader Randy Thorsteinson has been searching for a political theme since showing up in a cameo performance during the 1997 election leaders' debate as a pretty effective right-wing thorn in Premier Ralph Klein's side.
Now, with repeated assaults by Ottawa on Alberta's economic and constitutional integrity, Thorsteinson believes he's got a political constituency. . . . Klein is vulnerable when it comes to his spotty record of standing up to Ottawa.
His government's confused response to Prime Minister Jean Chretien's provocative appointment of disarmament bore, Doug Roche to the Senate in the middle of Alberta's senator-in-waiting elections was yet another example of the Tories' reluctance to mix it up with the Ottawa Grits.
While Klein was complaining publicly about Chretien's "slap in the face," his Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dave Hancock was reportedly on the phone to Roche, gushing about how "delighted" he was Chretien gave him the senator's job.
"With Ralph Klein's feeble court challenge to the federal firearms registration, he has lit a fuse on a powder keg," Thorsteinson snapped. He warned that the gun-registry decision and other anti-Alberta federal moves in recent months "will ignite a separatist movement in Alberta."
Thorsteinson didn't actually place himself at the head of the Republic of Alberta party, but he did confirm that the Social Credit party's platform for a new Alberta deal in Confederation will inevitably lead in that direction if Ottawa ignores it.
Considering the way they treat Klein, it's clear that they will.
"What I'm hearing is quite startling," Thorsteinson said about the anti-Ottawa mood in the province. "I haven't heard it for 20 years since the Western Canada Concept won Olds," he said about the by-election victory of quasi-separatist Gord Kessler in the terrible wake of the national energy program.
"The significant difference in Alberta compared to Quebec: you're very hard-pressed to find Albertans who don't think economically we would be better off," Thorsteinson said about going it alone. "I believe in Canada and I want to save it," the Socred leader pointed out, "but it has no future under the present Constitution. There has to be a new deal that's fair for Albertans where we quit being treated like second-class citizens."
The Socred plan is to hold a constituent assembly of Albertans to draw up the new pact with Canada and submit it to Albertans for approval in a referendum.
Then ask Ottawa to come to the table. He pointed out the recent court reference about Quebec separation ruled that the feds must negotiate if one province proposed to split.
But what if Ottawa continues to treat Alberta the way they have been ignoring Klein?
"If it's no, no, no all the way along and if the East is telling us they don't want a fair deal for Alberta, then we would have to look at our options," Thorsteinson spat.
"I know I'm going to get in trouble, but, what the heck, it's the truth.
"I would have no problem if Albertans went to a referendum," he continued. "If we continue to lose, Albertans aren't going to put up with it any longer.
"We either change the rules of the game or we look for other options."
And one of those clear-cut options is, we're outta here. Finally, the Socreds may have found something to grow on.
(end of excerpt)
by Fred Williamson
(We continue our series of articles by Mr. Williamson, a history graduate of the University of Alberta, which analyzes the position of the West in Canada, and gives intellectual ammunition for the arguments for Western separation.)
What benefits does the West in general and Alberta in particular receive for being in Canada? What benefits are derived from being under the rule of the federal government in Ottawa? Do such benefits outweigh the liabilities? Any honest examination will show that the West not only derives no benefits whatever from Confederation, but that continuing membership in this "federation" will prove economically, financially, morally, and spiritually disastrous. Listed below are a number of subject areas which show this:
1. Health Care: provincial responsibility; federal interference leading to greater waste, longer waiting lists, increasing inefficiency
2. Currency: decreasing in value for more than 20 years; decline in value accelerating in recent years; acts as a desired tariff replacement for Central Canada
3. Property Rights: inherent under the old Canadian common law; non-existent under the new Canadian statue law of the 1982 Charter of Rights
4. Equalization Payments: massive net loss of revenue for Western Canada
5. Economic Security: Western economies threatened repeatedly by federal government; most recent example the Kyoto Summit agreement
6. Pension Plan: Canada Pension Plan financially unsound and unsustainable even with massive payroll tax increases; Quebec wisely opted out of the CPP in 1966. Special Pension Plan for MPs by contrast very generous.
7. Taxes: highest in the world among G-7 nations and among highest anywhere in the world; federal tax monies spent primarily for the benefit of Eastern Canada
8. Democracy: never more than minimal; largely illusory; parliament undemocratic in basic structure; most important decisions made by the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, or by orders in council; functional democracy exists only during election campaigns once every four or five years.
9. Direct Democracy: non-existent in Canada; in 130 years only 3 non-binding referenda (plebiscites) have been held.
10. MP representation: under current Canadian system, MPs represent their party and party leader; MP cannot be recalled between elections
11. Prime Minister: has virtual dictatorial powers between elections; usually from Eastern Canada, especially Quebec; opposed to Western Canadian interests
12. Regional representation and fairness: federal government represents the interest of Ontario and Quebec
13. Senate: undemocratic; appointed by the Prime Minister; cannot defend Western Canadian interests; Central Canada opposed to real Senate reform for 130 years
14. Supreme Court: given supreme legislative powers in 1982 with imposition of the Charter; makes all the important social policies, laws and decisions; appointed by the Prime Minister; West normally has 2 of the 9 Supreme Court justices; Quebec by law must have a minimum of 3; Court an oligarchy, unaccountable to the electorate despite having supreme legislative powers.
15. Constitution: never approved by the Canadian people in a democratic referendum
16. Interprovincial Free Trade: non-existent, Ottawa unable to monitor impartially
17. Children in the Womb: have no legal status, no rights at all at any time during pregnancy; now at the mercy of a hostile Supreme Court; Canada the only country in the world to have no law protecting the unborn at any time in the womb; electorate has no say
18. Abortion: criminal act in Canada prior to Trudeau; currently no law on the books on this subject; Supreme court has final say on this subject; electorate has no say
19. Homosexual behaviour: criminal act in Canada prior to Trudeau; now perfectly legal; increasingly favoured by recent Supreme Court decisions; Supreme Court has final say on status of such behaviour; electorate has no say
20. Freedom of Speech: increasingly dubious; Canadian "hate crimes laws" upheld by Supreme Court; electorate has no say
21. Freedom of Religion: declining; under assault by homosexuals, feminists, government agencies and special interest groups; Christian tv networks banned in Canada; electorate has no say
22. British Heritage and History: largely repudiated by Ottawa government so as not to offend Quebec and special interest groups; these changes not subject to ratification of electorate
23. Traditional Family: under attack by Ottawa government, Supreme Court and from federally-funded special interest groups
24. Traditional Morality: declining rapidly; looked upon with hostility by the Supreme Court and federal government; higher standards from the past have lingering influence
25. National Defence: a joke; Canada relies upon the USA for its defence.
26. Immigration: run by federal government; Ottawa unwilling to take measures to bar foreign criminals from entering Canada and remaining; subject to Supreme Court rulings since 1982; since Trudeau, immigrants overwhelmingly from Third World countries.
27. Bilingualism: imposed by Ottawa to keep Quebec in Canada; does not apply to Quebec; reflects Eastern Canada history and ethnic mix; favorable to those who speak both "official" languages (i.e. Quebecers); actual cost of policy unknown due to federal government secrecy
28. Private Utilities Tax: imposed by Ottawa; another Ottawa way to suck money out of Alberta (all other provinces have public utilities)
29. Canadian Flag: imposed by Ottawa in 1965; two colours represent Canada's "two founding nations"; old symbol of Upper Canada (Ontario) found in the middle of this flag
30. Natural Resources: theoretically belong to provinces; West under constant threat from Ottawa legislation; revenue from non-renewable resources subject to Ottawa taxation schemes (e.g.: equalization calculations) revenue from hydro-electric energy (located primarily in Quebec) not subject to federal interference
31. Protected Dairy Market: protects primarily Quebec; federal government allocates 48% of dairy market to Quebec, which has 24% of the population
32. Metrification: imposed by Ottawa under Trudeau; more than 80% of Canadian trade with the US which does not have metric system
33. Marriage: subjected to increasing hostility from Supreme Court, Ottawa government, lobby groups funded by federal government, subjected to a special tax known as the "marriage tax" (upheld by the Supreme Court)
34. Discrimination in Employment: upheld by Supreme Court in 1989 Andrews decision; enshrined in Charter under Section 15.2 (for "historically disadvantaged groups")
35. Freedom of Association and Conscience: subject since 1982 to Supreme Court interpretation
36. Fundamental Freedoms: inherent in Canada prior to 1982; since 1982, subject to Supreme Court interpretation
37. Criminal Justice: Canadian system favours criminals over victims
38. Pay Equity: an idea of totalitarian socialism and feminism; "equal value" determined by panel of feminist bureaucrats, not the market
39. National Debt: created by Eastern Canada politicians; 25% of federal tax used to pay interest on this debt; West morally responsible only for debt incurred by 1988-1993 federal government (West voted against the federal government in office all other times: 1972, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1993, 1997. (West voted in favour of Ottawa government in 1980, but Eastern Canada re-elected Trudeau government.)
40. Native Land Treaties: subject to Supreme Court rulings; only natives currently allowed to vote on any new agreements
41. Interest Rates: at favourably low rates currently; unsustainable in the long run due to weak currency and foreign competition
42. Export Earnings: Net positive export earnings are due to Western Canada
43. Agriculture: Western agriculture subject to federal government control and interference; Canadian Wheat Board imposed only on Western Canadian farmers (If the Wheat Board is so wonderful, why aren't farmers in Eastern Canada clamouring to join?) Western agriculture is a major source of revenue for Canada
44. National Parks: 90% of national park land area in Western Canada but run and operated by Eastern Canada (federal government)
45. Canadian television: run out of Toronto, reflects Eastern Canadian views and concerns
46. Canadian Newspapers: both major chains run out of Toronto; reflect Eastern Canadian views and concerns
47. Canadian "culture": funded by federal government; reflects views and concerns of the extreme left; contemptuous of traditional morality
48. Social Programs: provincial responsibility under the constitution, increasingly subject to Supreme Court and federal government interference
49. Standard of Living: second in the world to the US prior to Trudeau; now 14<M>th in the world, and declining
50. Multiculturalism: funded and imposed by Ottawa; contradicts federal government's own "two founding nations" hypothesis
51. Fisheries: federal government mismanagement destroyed East Coast fishery; same process now at work on West Coast
52. Unemployment: well over 8% (compared to 5% in the U.S.); largely due to federal government economic policies
These and many other subjects show that the West has no reason to be in the Canadian federal system. It makes no sense whatsoever. The benefits (such as they have been) are few to nil, especially since Canada decided to repudiate its own British common law heritage, morality and history. The penalties for the West being in Canada are massive and growing. Those in the West who oppose independence do so for emotional reasons, not reasons of fact or substance.
Nevertheless, emotional ties remain strong. But they are largely emotional ties to a Canada that no longer exists, the Canada of Vimy Ridge or traditional family values, an old Canada that died some time ago. The West derives no moral, economic, spiritual, financial, or political benefits being in Confederation. To the contrary, the West is penalized in all these aspects. Even democracy itself seems of little concern to Eastern Canada, which continually votes for the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, or NDP, parties all of which oppose democratizing the Canadian federal system. Being associated with these six eastern provinces does the West no good and plenty of harm. The federal government cannot even provide for a strong national defence. Having grossly mismanaged its own areas of jurisdiction, the federal (i.e. Ontario Quebec) government also wishes to interfere (and mismanage provincial areas of jurisdiction.
One can easily say of Canada: "Thou art weighed in the balances and found wanting." (Daniel 5:27)
by Douglas Christie
The plight of British Columbians is becoming increasingly grim. There is a government in power whose socialist solutions to all problems is driving our economy into a stagnant state.
Taxes, the only source of government income, are rising to drive out investment and causing emigration to Alberta. The net result is reduction in government revenues and a massive rise in the deficit. The hard core of the NDP see this as a good thing because they are so hateful of business and of wealth held by private citizens that they see this destructive trend as justice.
Business goes to other provinces leaving for the socialists only a larger percentage of loyal socialist cadres dependant on government for all things. This result will no doubt be increased in the future.
But even now, as a by-election approaches in the Qualicum/Parksville area, no one will apparently speak for the separatist option. The people apparently haven't suffered enough. They need further demonstrations of the failure of the federal system. They, as yet, do not identify that the federal system creates the climate for socialism as it is really a large socialist system. The so-called social safety net is becoming a means of creating and maintaining dependency.
The Liberals in BC, the so-called right wing alternative, have made socialism their theme also. Just like the medical profession: all up and down the island highway and all over BC, in all likelihood, we see red billboards including a face of the MLA with the caption that he or she is destroying medicare, phone and ask him or her why. Radio ads and flyers give out Glen Clark's phone number so that you can phone him to ask him why he is destroying medicare.
The essence of this message is that "The NDP aren't socialist enough, phone them and ask them why!" Nobody asks if socialised medicine has perhaps become a failure. The system is perhaps too full of cheats, featherbedding and waste, penalizing the producers and rewarding the mediocre.
The irony is clear now that poor and decrepit socialist systems are not self-correcting. They can and do just get worse and worse, as witness the socialist Russian debacle which has gone on for 80 years and even if change comes, the mental state of the people is so dependent and lethargic that it is not really improvement.
People only have time to learn when they are affluent and often then they are interested in half-measures and toys. Which leads me to conclude things in BC have to get worse before they get better, but they will, and largely due to Alberta.
Alberta, at present, seems alive with properly directed hostility to the Ottawa regime. Taxes, "gun control" and senate appointment have once again become hot topics. The only real danger is that the identification will be inaccurate as to the cause of the problem. In 1980, the National Energy Policy identified in the minds of most Albertans the enemy as Ottawa. Unfortunately, Peter Lougheed (the future bank director) managed to convince people that the problem wasn't Ottawa, it was Trudeau, and negotiation was a realistic and better option.
We now see the results of the short-sighted and self-serving Lougheed rhetoric. The fundamental problem of Ottawa control has never been addressed and the GST, income taxes, gun control, disregard of Alberta's will on senate appointments, are really just symptoms of the deeper problem.
Ottawa has no need for Albertans or their opinions. Ottawa governs from Quebec and Ontario where as we pointed out in our graph, 80% of all political power lies. The need and opportunity which exists in Alberta is to point out this fundamental realization and to show the benefits of Independence.
Even bilingualism itself shows the powerful effects of Ottawa and media brainwashing. Twenty years ago, it was still a hot topic. People could object, and did. Today, practically every fisheries officer in British Columbia above a deckhand is from Quebec, primarily because of bilingualism. Canada, the big socialist system, is a master at constant repetition and brainwashing. "Bilingualism is good for you." We know of previous western separatists who now send their children to French immersion.
Bilingualism is good for you, it has repeated for 20 years, and Albertans and Westerners generally need to be told this is a big lie. We need to be out among the people advocating that separation is the only solution to these massive problems. The situation is only now in Alberta becoming hopeful again. New meetings are being planned for the new year where I can speak finally about the failure of the federal system, the benefits of independence and the need for each of us to reform our thinking.
An interesting lesson is to be learned from what the Soviet system is going through which actually parallels Canada's situation. They are trying devolution of powers but the one thing they (being the central planners and politicians) fear most is separatism.
They sense long before the people do, that once smaller ethnocentric nations emerge and demonstrate that smaller is better and more efficient, they might lose their collective power and their pensions, and have to work for a living. Their ability to fly over vast territories which they pretend to control would be finished along with their hubristic pride.
People need to realize they are being used by politicians for collectivist exploitation and control. Government does not need to control their lives as it has. From building inspectors to tax collectors, there is no end of artificial control. Take for instance, free trade.
We are told we signed a North American Free Trade deal. We now see farmers prosecuted if they export their own wheat. We see that customs officers are just as busy as ever. We see a huge document which is regulation upon regulation to control trade. This is government-regulated trade on a massive scale, just the opposite of "free trade."
A free trade agreement need only say in one line that henceforth, all private commerce between countries "x" and "y" shall be and the same is hereby declared to be free. No such declaration is ever likely from the control freaks of the New World Order. Our job is to make education our top priority and this can be done only when individuals are motivated to be willing to learn. That is the fundamental level upon which human change occurs.