fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

ALBERS: It’s time to end Ottawa’s colonialism over the West

Guest columnist James Albers writes about the West’s continued status as a colony of a former colony.

mm

Published

on

Editors Note: The following is a guest column submitted by James Albers

According to most dictionaries, colonialism is the practice of a state seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, normally with the aim of economic dominance. In the process of colonization, colonizers may impose their religion, economics, and other cultural practices on the populations of a colony. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonized region’s people and resources. 

The 20th century saw the movement away from colonialism through the manifestation of independence movements across the globe. In Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, and Central and South America, local colonial populations took steps either peacefully or by force to cast off colonial rule in favor of local independence. For the most part, it is believed that colonialism or a nation’s foreign domination over other resource-rich areas and peoples rightfully no longer exists as an acceptable policy among the respectable nations of the world.

Indeed, that is the case with one glaring exception; Canada and the West, namely Alberta. A cursory review of the articles, documents, and commentary from the era when Alberta was formed as a province denotes the colonial tenor of both Britain and the federal government towards the region. 

That Britain saw the Rupert’s Land/Northwest Territories as a colony is beyond dispute; even to the point of sending troops and building forts to claim control of the region. That Canada did as well is also amply documented. Canadian political scientist J.R. Mallory’s description of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905 was as follows; They “were provinces not in the sense as were Ontario and Quebec, but in the Roman sense.” His meaning is clear; Alberta was considered a colony. Further proof of this was that Ottawa initially kept control of crown lands and natural resources in the Buffalo provinces, arguing that unlike earlier provinces, Alberta had never owned the lands.

We have forgotten that from the beginning, Sir John A. Macdonald referred to the West as a crown colony, the nineteenth-century British version of a Roman province. Alexander Isbister, a prominent Metis of the era, warned that the West would soon become “a colony of a colony.” Therefore, when England handed over the administration of the Buffalo region to Canada, it was seen by all parties as simply the transfer of the territory from one colonial power to another.

That the region would be split in two and bestowed with provincial status in no way mitigated against the truth of the arrangement as newspapers and politicians in both Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Canada commented on the colonial nature of the agreement. Albertans saw this as a clear indicator of things to come and Canada – namely Ontario and Quebec – saw this as an opportunity to exploit this vast and untapped region to feed its economy and foster the growth of its wealth.

Interior Minister Clifford Sifton told a Winnipeg audience in 1904, “We desire, every patriotic Canadian desires, that the great trade of the prairie shall go to enrich our own people in the East, to build up the factories and the workshops of Eastern Canada, and to contribute in every way to its prosperity.” 

If Alberta was a province, it was in name only, and never in all of our 115 years under Canadian control have we fully enjoyed the same provincial rights and privileges that Ontario and Quebec have. Underscoring this idea would be the many acts of parliament that would spell out the one-way nature of the arrangement. In simple terms, far more money moved out of the region to Ottawa, than into the region from Ottawa. The Canadian Wheat Board put a chokehold on Alberta agriculture. The National Energy Program (NEP) – along with other restrictions on provincial trade and economic independence – stole our economic prosperity and ability to grow. 

Political imbalances ensure that Central Canada retains dominance over Alberta as a modern quasi-colony. Canadian federalism lacks meaningful political protections in the form of a legitimate senate that could have served to protect the regions from the vote-rich center. Canada’s medieval, appointed Senate constitutionally entrenches a massive seat imbalance, allotting tiny Nova Scotia nearly twice as many seats as Alberta, which has twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces combined. Even the “Western-friendly” Conservatives won’t dare broach the subject of fair seat distribution in the Senate, for fear of upsetting less politically reliant regions.

It is important to take note of the efforts of some to compare what is happening in the West with the Quebec experience. Quebec’s separatist ambitions were indeed separatist, in that she was core to the “ideal” of Canada in as much as Ontario and Quebec are Canada. Quebec has enjoyed favored status within Confederation and much of the Canadian national identity is formed around that concept. Their various attempts at separation may have been sincere at some level, but always seemed to result in a further strengthening of Quebec’s’ position politically and economically. 

The Alberta experience on the other hand is a march to independence. Not separation (the need to be apart), but rather the manifestation of a colony’s right to be independent. In as much as Canada and many of the other colonies under British rule did not desire separation from the British empire itself, our goal is the same. And as many of these now independent countries agreed to participate as members of the British Commonwealth, in the same way, Alberta must pursue the establishment of a mutually satisfying relationship with Canada as an independent nation. 

Alberta and Saskatchewan – and to a lesser extent the other Western provinces – may well be the last colonies of an empire that was discarded long ago. Canadian colonialism – over the West and First Nations – has stubbornly hung on as a central tenant of federal policy despite her attestations of progressive largess. Alberta’s independence movement is therefore not a “separatist” movement, but an sovereignty movement and the manifestation of the desire and will of the people of this region for self-determination and control of our destiny. 

James Albers is a member of the Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: The leadership race about nothing

Fildebrandt writes that in contrast to the 2017 leadership race, the 2020 vote has little to do with real policy differences.

mm

Published

on

The 2020 Tory leadership race has shaped up to be a boring, pale reflection of the exciting contest that marked the party’s 2017 race.

In 2017, 14 candidates fought it out for the Conservative brass ring. The contenders – for the most part – represented different factions, and featured a battle between people with substantive policy differences.

Maxime Bernier the anti-establishment libertarian. Michael Chong the Green Tory. Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux the social conservatives. Kellie Leitch the Red Tory cum populist-nationalist. Lisa Raitt the socially progressive Red.

Kevin O’Leary ran less on policy, than the force of his considerable personality before bowing out.

Erin O’Toole and Andrew Scheer also ran light on policy, trying to position themselves as the centre-ish goldilocks candidates for down-ballot support. In Scheer’s case, his only noted policy was his fanatical defence of the supply-management dairy cartel.

The race was fought with a healthy number of debates held in almost every major region of the country, and the large number of candidates forced the contenders to stand out from the pack.

Contrast the 2017 race with the 2020 race, and the reflection is not flattering for the party.

By necessity, COVID-19 has nixed most of the debates and put a hard dampener on campaign tour events, but the virus cannot be blamed for most of the problems.

While packed stages with 14 candidates and large crowds are off the table, a camera pointed at four candidates on the stage were possible. The party held just a single one of these. True North News tried to hold a second, but it was effectively scuttled when Peter MacKay pulled out at the 11th hour. The result is that CPC members have hardly had any chance to see these candidates face off outside of duelling Facebook memes and news releases. This has added to the otherwise small contrast in ideas and styles between the two front runners, Peter MacKay and Erin O’Toole.

And while the two “second-tier” candidates – Leslyn Lewis and Derek Sloan – have been a bit more policy heavy – they have received little attention from the media, and have little chance of an upset.

MacKay and O’Toole are the only two candidates with any realistic chance of winning, and the contrast between the two men is mostly rhetorical. Both support renamed carbon taxes on industry, like Alberta’s TIER. Both have not committed to any significant reduction in federal spending to balance the budget within a term in office. Both support the continuation of the supply management dairy cartel. Both will not commit to any specific on Equalization reform, or to reopen the constitution to address Western issues. Both have committed to upholding the status quo on abortion, although O’Toole has not shown the open distain that Peter MacKay has for the “stinking albatross” of social conservatives.

The differences between the two candidates largely boil down to their campaign rhetoric and style. MacKay is openly campaigning as the moderate successor to the Progressive Conservatives. O’Toole campaigned in the middle of the pack in 2017, but he smartly realized that there was no Bernier-style candidate in this race to carry the libertarian or more hardcore conservative banner in this race. As such, he has positioned himself as the “True Blue” choice.

The biggest difference between the two candidates, is largely who is supporting them. MacKay dominates the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, and in the absence of a Western candidate in the race, O’Toole is poised to win it. As with federal elections, the ultimate decision will boil down to Ontario.

Undoubtedly, federal Wexit activists are pining for a MacKay win. With very little support between Winnipeg and Vancouver, he will be easier to portray as an Eastern establishment politician with little regard for the West. While O’Toole’s Western policies may be similar to MacKay’s, he at least has allies in the neighbourhood.

O’Toole’s abstinence from attacking social conservatives will likely serve him well on down-ballot support. As Sloan and Lewis likely drop off in the first and second rounds, the smart money is on their next choices going disproportionately to O’Toole.

Lewis in particular has stepped out of obscurity in this race and will be well positioned for a front bench role if she manages to win a seat in the next election. Sloan may be doomed to suffer the fate of Brad Trost; thanked for his second-choice support, but shuffled off to the back benches, and potentially out of a nomination.

Candidates almost always run to the centre after capturing their party’s leadership or nomination. It’s the natural pull of political gravity, but on August 21st, CPC members are voting more for a brand, than a set of principles.

I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Derek Fildebrandt is Publisher of the Western Standard and President of Wildrose Media Corp. dfildebrandt@westernstandardonline.com

Continue Reading

Opinion

LETTER: No social conservatives for next Tory leader

A reader says that Peter MacKay should be the next Tory leader because he is a social progressive.

mm

Published

on

Outgoing Conservative leader Andrew Scheer recently stated his belief that the PM can be “socially conservative” and that only the Trudeau Liberals “demonize such views”.

Wrong Mr Scheer, as a card carrying member of your party, I can tell you for a fact that we lost the last election precisely because you would not publicly support both existing abortion rights and LGBT equality. I am already convinced that the Trudeau Liberals will win the next election too, because all of your would be successors have stated that as PM, they would allow their backbencher MPs to bring forth anti-abortion legislation, although both MacKay and O’Toole have stated that they would not personally support such motions when they come up for a vote in Parliament.

We are never going to beat the Trudeau Liberals in this day and age, especially in the large cities & suburbs, until we finally make peace as a political party with existing abortion rights and LGBT equality.

MacKay may be marginally better than the rest of the pack in this sense. 

Frank Sweet
Brandon, Manitoba 

Continue Reading

Opinion

GRAFTON: Trudeau cannot lead a nation that he doesn’t believe in

“Distrust in government, a disproportional electoral system, mass immigration, and other factors are poised to meet at the polls next election in a perfect storm of disunity.”

mm

Published

on

In November 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave an interview to the New York Times. It was an historic interview, during which the Prime Minister signaled his disdain for Canada as a nation with any kind of unique cultural identity. He said that Canada has no core identity, and that it is “becoming a new kind of country, not defined by our history or European national origins, but by a pan-cultural heritage”. He went on to say that he sees Canada as the “first post-national state”. 

Almost six million Canadians – mostly east of Manitoba – supported his vision at the polls in 2019.

The critical take-away here is the clear statement of a “post-national” goal. Post-nationalism involves the global replacement of national identities and nation-states with multicultural supranational entities such as NATO, the UN, the EU, and multi-national corporations.

Disunity now threatens Confederation.

DART poll conducted on February 24th shows that an alarming sixty-nine percent of Canadians believe “Canada is broken”. Eighty-two percent of Canadians believe that politicians represent their own partisan interests rather than those of Canada. 

The Electoral Map resembles a cancerous MRI scan, vividly coloured tumours highlighting patches of tribal discontent from coast to coast. 

poll conducted for the Western Standard in May found that between 45 and 48 of Albertans back independence, depending on how the question was put. Soon after, Wexit Alberta and the Freedom Conservatives merged to form the Wildrose Independence Party, also with a credible leader in the original Wildrose’s first leader, Paul Hinman. 

The Bloc Quebecoise holds 32 seats in the House of Commons, giving it the balance of power on national legislation. 

What led to this great divide?

We could attribute it to a lack of national leadership, however blaming it all on Trudeau would be too easy. There are other causal and contributing factors.

One is the electoral system. The “plurality system”, also known as “first-past-the-post”, is responsible for the 2019 re-election of the Trudeau government, with only a third of the popular vote. More Canadians voted for Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives. This marginalized the West – which had voted solidly Conservative – and contributed immediately to the formation of the Wexit Party federally, the Wildrose Independence Party in Alberta, and the Buffalo Party in Saskatchewan. Trudeau had campaigned in 2015 on a platform promising electoral reform, but abandoned his promise after taking office. Of course, had he followed through with electoral reform, he would have lost to Scheer in 2019 and we would have a Conservative government in Ottawa, or at the very least, a Conservative plurality of seats. 

The reality of the first-past-the-post system is that Ontario (121 ridings) and Quebec (78 ridings) can  determine who wins an election. With 338 ridings across the country, a plurality of 199 seats invalidates the other eight provinces and three territories (with only 139 seats combined). The electoral system therefore sows disunity.

Another causal factor may be found in demographics. A 2019 poll conducted for CBC showed that while indigenous voters were abandoning the Liberals, immigrants overwhelmingly support Trudeau and the Liberals. According to the poll, “Forty-five per cent of new Canadians polled say they voted for the Liberals in 2015 and 39 per cent say they currently intend to vote for the party in 2019.” Under the Trudeau government, immigration levels have soared to record high levels, with the 2022 annual target set at 361,000 (comparable to adding a city the size of say London or Halifax every year). Using the CBC numbers, that represents an influx of 141,000 to 162,000 new Liberal voters annually to Canada. 

The 2011 National Household Survey revealed that most immigrants (86 per cent) are from non-European countries, and that 20 per cent of the population (6.8 million) were born outside of Canada. Almost all (95 per cent) move to Ontario, BC, Quebec, and Alberta; most (91 per cent) in large cities, and most of these in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Unfamiliar with Castor canadensis, new immigrants are a large voting block inhomogeneous with national voting trends. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver voted Liberal in 2019. Forty-five of fifty ridings in the GTA alone elected Liberal members. For comparison, there are only thirty-four ridings in all of Alberta. This trend will continue to marginalize the West.

Contributing to national disunity is an erosion of trust in the democratic process. Globally, voters are disengaging from mainstream politics and polarizing toward niche parties serving special-interests (Bloc Quebecoise, Green Party, and Wexit

Distrust in government, a disproportional electoral system, mass immigration, and other factors are poised to meet at the polls next election in a perfect storm of disunity.

 It may be a tipping point for Canada’s future.  

Canadians awoke on the morning of October 22nd, 2019 to a crisis of disunity. The prime minister cannot recognize a national crisis if he does not recognize the nation. 

Ken Grafton is a freelance columnist

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.