WHY WESTERN INDEPENDENCE IS
To someone who has lived in Western Canada all their life, the answers are so self-evident that the question seems almost an insult to one's intelligence. The reasons for Western Canadian Independence have been enumerated since the very creation of Canada, prior to the four Western provinces even being brought into Confederation. They date from the days of "Upper" and "Lower" Canada. Still, we need to be precise in our thinking and communicate these reasons to others who may not have approached the question analytically. Since words and thoughts are the arrows of arguments, we will give them to those who may be our allies and fellow citizens, clear and bright and sharply pointed.
Political Reasons for Western Independence
Once the Liberals under Trudeau in 1980 demonstrated the West (from the Lakehead, west, actually) doesn't count. They governed the whole country from Quebec and Ontario with only two seats west of the Lakehead. They plundered Alberta's resource of oil at the time because they didn't need a single seat in the west to stay in power.
This pattern of power was even repeated by the Liberals under Chretien. There was only one province in all of Canada where they won a majority in the 1997 election, and that was Ontario where they won 101 out of 103 seats. They didn't even need a majority in Quebec!
These two examples, that this situation should even be possible, should be enough for any thinking person (especially if they actually live in the West!), but if not, a simply seat analysis of provinces and the House of Commons seats should indicate that Ontario and Quebec comprise almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons and hence elect the government. This political reality has been so throughout Confederation since 1867. Although some people try to justify this with reference to "representation by population", it is also clear that each federal riding is not equal in population and hence this argument is not strictly true. Quebec has a certain guaranteed percentage, as do small provinces like P.E.I., but even if it were strictly representation by population, another balance would be necessary for a fair and equal distribution of political power.
A regionally-elected Senate with regional equality and power is what makes the United States a more unified country in many ways. Without this balance and check, New York and California would control the legislative agenda as Ontario and Quebec have done in Canada. The people of smaller, more sparsely-populated states would never tolerate this situation and internal conflict would more readily result. But Canada has no such balance.
The power of the President of the United States is balanced by the Senate which is balanced by the House of Representatives. Each has a share in power. Canada has only the Prime Minister, elected in one province, and who picks his cabinet and runs the Parliament as if it were the House of Representatives.
The Senate of Canada, meanwhile, is appointed by the Prime Minister, for life and has no real power to initiate or oppose legislation. The Senate of the United Sates is elected with two senators from each state, regardless of size or population. The U.S. Senate has real power to set and control the legislative agenda, along with the House of Representatives and the President, who is separately elected.
For these reasons in its early states, the Reform Party wanted a "Triple E Senate", that is "equal" from each province, "elected" in each province and "effective" legislatively. Soon after shifting from a western regional party to a "national" party as Reform became more concerned with becoming the government, they realized this idea could not be made popular in Ontario, which had all the seats they needed to win the government. Hence, as one can see in the experience of the Reform Party, a "national" party cannot establish a "Triple E Senate" because it will not be accepted in Ontario and Quebec.
This experience parallels the history of political reform movements that have originated in Western Canada since Confederation, such as the Progressives, Social Credit, the United Farmers of Alberta and the CCF.
Such a constitutional amendment as a Triple E Senate would require two-thirds of the House of Commons and Senate, and a majority similar in the legislature of all provinces including Ontario and Quebec. It is impossible. Political power, concentrated as it is in the hands of Quebec and Ontario will never be voluntarily surrendered. Separation is really the only solution other than surrender forever to the political dictates of Ontario and Quebec. This latter course more and more Western Canadians are not willing to take.
From the concentration of legislative power in two provinces, flows the concentration of all rewards, favours, appointment patronage and naturally concentration of media focus. A forest fire or flood in Ontario is national news. If it happens in the west, it is a "regional story." In patronage, we have appointments to the federal courts, federal boards, commissions, ambassadorships, and all manner of tribunals from human rights to transport safety boards. Political affiliation to one of the "national" parties is a passport to paradise in one of these lucrative posts. The people who desire money and power know this, and are controlled by such considerations in either the Liberal or Conservative parties.
No regional party, without hope of forming a government can offer these reward with any hope of success. More people are in politics for purely selfish reasons than most people realize. The small regional parties cannot discipline their members by offering or threatening to withhold such patronage and hence have endless internal dissension. The major media of Canada are silent partners in this conspiracy. They never mention the origin of the appointment, but tacitly support it by lending unquestioned credibility to the "authorities" so appointed. There is a niceness to the presentation of a "national" party representative or appointee and a cranky reticence to recognize anyone who represents a block or region outside of Ontario. They are not really "Canadian."
A disastrous flood of epic proportions was not a reason of enough importance to delay a general election if it occurred in Manitoba, but a flood of similar magnitude in Ontario would inevitably have resulted in a six-month delay when it was clear the election was not necessary or specifically required by law.
The political reality has never changed. Many Western political leaders have become "bought off" by the system. They think they represent the enlightened among us, as their personal futures are secured by some post of appointment or they become Members of Parliament from the West in Ontario. Doug Christie was the first to say, but now it has become often repeated that they become Ottawa's representatives in the West.
The major reason the political power of Ontario and Quebec has never been challenged in Ottawa is simply because the west has never considered the option of Independence. Until we do, they will offer us nothing better. When we do, they have nothing better to offer. The bankrupt, multicultural, bilingual chaos which Ottawa represents with its patronage appointments of mediocre political opportunists and brutal laws of censorship, political control and unworkable bureaucracy are a pale shadow of the bright future we could have with Independence.
Economic Reasons for Independence
The West produces 52% of the Gross National Product in fishery, forestry, mining and agriculture and 90% of the petroleum production with a mere 27% of the population. The west pays more to Ottawa in taxes than it receives back from Ottawa for all services, schools, roads, health care, including pensions, etc., than it receives back, by billions every year. Alberta particularly, and British Columbia, secondarily, have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in equalization and intergovernmental transfers of funds. The west has more than enough to prosper in self-government.
In addition, the West is a competitive producer on the international market. There are only three provinces in Canada who year after year produce more foreign exports than they do foreign imports, by a massive amount. Those are B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan. This is contrasted with Ontario and Quebec where 80% of all Canadian manufacturing occurs. They are major net importers on the international markets, but they are major net exporters to the domestic market of other provinces. To simplify this, the West gets the favourable balance of trade internationally and Ontario and Quebec skim off the wealth by monetary, trade and tariff barriers to force the West to buy from Ontario and Quebec where all the money ends up in the manufacturing sector which also keeps the majority of the population in those provinces for electoral purposes happy, Liberal (or P.C.) voters. It's a vicious circle.
Historically, the economic bias against the west has been exploited carefully and systematically over a long time. This has proceeded sector by sector with a caution to avoid irritating more than one sector at a time. For a time in the early 1980's Ottawa attacked the oil sector. The farmers said very little as did the B.C. forest or fishing industries. Soon after, Ottawa attacked the farmers by revoking the historical Crow Freight Rate. They offered some short-term perks and all other sectors were quiet. Then they attacked B.C.'s fishing industry and created a stir but the loggers were quiet. So, sector by sector, they play one against the other and exploit them all. It is a game as old as Confederation.
The west remains a colonial economy. Ontario and Quebec are the imperial power and there has never been a Boston Tea Party. The West has yet to wake up in a massive way to the rip-off of the Canadian economy and political system and let's face it, the CBC aren't going to tell them, in either language! As usual, Quebec is the wild card in this equation, as they keep raising the stakes. At some point, at some patronage contract to Quebec, the West could balk. This may occur over special status for Quebec itself. If Reform surrenders on this position, they will lose the West, and never gain the East. Time will tell.
In conclusion, economically Confederation has been a drain and an impediment to development of wealth and industry, jobs or population in the West. Ottawa prefers to view western resources, be they oil, r fish or forest or grain, as a cash cow to exploit and reallocate to voters in the populated areas of Ontario and Quebec where that wealth translates into political power for them in Ottawa. It was always this way, from the beginning of Confederation. Until Independence, it will thus ever be.
Cultural Reasons for Independence
Culture is the essence of a nation. The cultural reasons for Western Independence are deeper and harder to define, but even more important. Very few people have the courage to broach this subject because this is where Canada is weakest. The elite has therefore made this a taboo topic. A "Canadian consensus" has developed without debate that as usually is the case, anyone who claims to represent a culture that is not multicultural, bilingual and "open" to any immigration of foreign culture is a "racist, redneck, or bigot." The usual result is to be shut out of serious discussion by the "intellectuals" and because most people fear rejection, very few will ever proceed further. This is true, for example, of many in the Reform party.
What is Canada's culture? What was it? Where is it going? What is the end result of government enforced bilingualism and government enforced multiculturalism? These are questions which are never being publicly asked and without addressing them, the culture of Canada, indeed its very identity is sleep-walking toward a precipice.
Official bilingualism has been a long-standing irritant in the West. It was a Trudeau bribe to the voters of Quebec: "Stay in Canada, and I'll get you a high-paying job in the federal government, anywhere in Canada!" Call any government office in Ottawa and you will see how 25% of the population have 75% of the jobs, influence and power in Ottawa. The same is true in other federal institutions in Canada.
Similarly with government enforced multiculturalism. The euphemism "multiculturalism" was sugar-coated to get the average Westerner and indeed Canadian to accept what in effect was a cyanide pill of cultural suicide of historic proportions. Since the Trudeau changes to the Immigration Act favouring applicants from anywhere but Europe, the demographic make-up of Canada has been radically shifted. We are witnessing in Canada the planned genocide of European Christian culture along with our history, values, language, and inherent rights. These are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and selfish political interests. New Canadians generally appreciate the government who brought them here and vote loyally Liberal, the "national" party that gave us a new ethnic makeup. Where can we of European heritage go when our culture has been destroyed here? We can't go to India, China, Africa or South America. We won't be welcome there; they don't have the same government-enforced multiculturalism that Canada has! But why should we have to leave our homes, families and countries. Many of us were born here. Why should our culture, language and identity be placed in competition with others in our own land? Why should "affirmative action" a euphemism for disadvantage to white males, be imposed upon us?
It's simple: the politicians have created block-voting ghettoes whose demands they must satisfy to get elected. These ghettoes are primarily in Ontario, but any large city in the West will show you similar areas where English is not spoken.
In real terms, Canada is too big, too remote and too corrupt to survive as a nation much longer. A famous writer, once wrote:
"Governments are made to be bribed. The bigger they get, the more surely they will become corrupt. Power has a market value and concentrating power increases the pressure, usually through the medium of money, on any leak. Nature finds the human flaws in any system."
This can surely be said of Canada. Unless a common language, common cultural norms and values create standards of self-discipline, which are rewarded by cultural myths and legends, no external discipline can keep a society or its leaders from corruption and decadence. Canada has systematically dismantled its European Christian cultural heritage and substituted multicultural tolerance for any and all corruption. To object is to be a bigot. Canada hence becomes culturally, politically and morally more and more corrupt. Nobody says anything except when they have to pay their taxes. They they try to find ways to hid and avoid at best. They don't believe in the system. They didn't create it and they don't control it. This is Western alienation, at its heart.