Rebel Yell

They aren't the heirs. The Conservative Party is a new party with a similar name. Defacto heirs--but for how long?

There's no real point in arguing about who is the 'heirs' of such things. One can only surmise, but certainly no political party is. Anybody who argued that even the most staunch 'western supporter' is arguing the same thing as was being fought by Riel is seriously delusional.

However, it's always ironic that even here where there is so much fault found with the federal government there are few who really want to 'rock the boat' of federalism. There are many and varied arguments about the 'change in direction', but the idea that different parts of canada may want different things, is not seriously considered.

The 'new' conservatives have made so many concessions to appeal to Ontario that they are scarcely recognizeable as a western party. As far as the federation goes, the Liberals have made serious concessions to the province to not appear to be overburdening them. They have learned that it is far easier to talk with the chequebook than through the media.

Even if you look at western values they are far different than what they once were. The vast majority of farmers never supported the increasing opening up of beef borders which led to the current problems. There are federal regulations, but these are all backed up by provincial governments as well. There is no doubt that there is a feeling of 'federal disenfranchisement' among westerners, but I think at this point in time we can assume that just about ALL canadians feel a huge gulf between themselves and their government unless it comes to taxation.

At some point, perhaps with Quebec leading the way, Canadians will have to figure out how to 'reign in' their federal government, or else, well, we'll continue to be strangers in our own country. Yes, that's another toot for direct democracy, I'm STILL waiting for a better suggestion.

As One holding themself out in the community as Metis I thank you for the url and history it contains.
Dio

---

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boy.
-Parliament of Whores

A centralized country kept Canada alive.....we have a leadership deficit, not a domcratic deficit.

Obviously a centralized Canada kept it in existence, how else does a centralized government function? That 'leadership deficit' is very much a central Canadian idea. After all, virtually every type of leader can be found, the liberals, conservatives, NDP or Green party all have 'leaders' of various stripes. There can't be a 'democratic deficit' where there is no democracy. If you think there's no democratic deficit then remind me of the last federal referendum vote you cast? Name a single issue in the last decade where canadians have placed an issue on ANYTHING. The 'leadership deficit' idea usually stems from the idea that an individual feels there is no leader who would do what THEY want them to do. Those who love Harper, Martin, or Layton obviously have no such feelings, however, showing actual democracy in Canada is far more elusive.

Yes there were a few proposals for what to do about the west. the premier of nwt when laurier was prime minister wanted one big province roughly where saskatchewan & alberta are now, called buffalo. that would one seriously powerful province now, with all the oil, wheat, etc coming out of the region now. laurier thought the 'divide & conquer' approach was better though, so his government created two smaller provinces instead of one big one.

what i still don't really understand is why people even use the term "western alienation". someone wrote to the local canwest paper (times colonist) & quoted a recent poll that found that the federal liberals had more support in british columbia than in ontario!!

---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

I wouldn't trust a poll by canwest as far as I could throw them. There's no real way of knowing such things, however, if we are talking about 'western alienation', then we can assume that number is fairly static. It's doubtful that the Gomery scandal is going to make somebody feel MORE alienated. If they didn't feel it before, I doubt this would push them over the edge (however, it's not impossible).

So to look at that you should look at the last election. The trouble with polls is they never poll within specific ridings, this is one of the reasons politicians fear Proportional Representation so much-polls all of a sudden will become far more accurate, leading to an even more 'govern by polling' than we have now.

However, in the last election 28% of British Columbians supported the Liberal Party, whereas 45% of Ontarians did. That's a pretty big statistical difference. However, BC has a far more pronounced NDP, Green, and Labour base than do the prairies, which means their 'western alienation' is quite different from the prairies. However, if we do assume the Liberals are a 'centrist' party, then obviously there is a real feeling of alienation there. That's no big surprise really, imagine having Rome, Italy making your decisions if you're in Brazil.

But like I said, the liberals are in power because of Ontario, but that certainly doesn't mean Ontarians feel 'more attached' to the federal government. Clearly this province benefits from the feds, but it also did so under Mulroney and Trudeau. Yet it is only certain sectors who benefit. School principals probably feel VERY close to their provincial government now that McGuinty has approved their new contract and the new starting salary for a principal is $98,000. However, that only makes the vast majority of Ontarians feel further removed from a political arena that benefits one class so much, while doing nothing for the other end of the spectrum. This applies to the federal government as well.

Just a last point to ram that previous point home, when we talk about alienation the best way to gauge it is by the number who simply can't be bothered to vote, and it's close to 40% in both Ontario AND British Columbia. Ironically, the highest voting turnout is in the maritimes, where the people effectively have NO representation-which just goes to show you just how much 'money talks' in Canada's democracy.

You're correct about Macdonald's role in confederation but wrong about his motivations. What they were concerned about was not that an autonomous government would be created but about American expansion in the midwest and the threat to the wealth of resources, etc. the west represented. You're also correct that Macdonald was a conservative but his conservative party was one represented more by people like David Orchard and Joe Clark than the current Conservative (Republican) Party of Canada with Harper and Flanagan making policy.

Yes, when I read about the "divide and conquer" strategy, it became apparent that Canada was founded as an empire ruled jointly from Ontario and Quebec, with the other provinces as colonies. Citizens living in the colonies were (and are) meant to have zero say in how the country is run. And under Trudeau/Chretien unitarism, even their local governments came under attack by the central state.

Westerners feel alienated for very good reasons. They, along with Atlantic Canadians, are looked upon by their Central Canadian neighbours as being "lesser Canadians", and as less worthy of having a voice in the affairs of the country.

I live in Ontario, and I don`t know of any Ontarians who look upon the west or the maritimes as lesser people. But i tend to agree with the notion that to keep Canada united, a strong central government, dedicated to the idea of Canada, is the best scenario. I wouldn`t call the treasonous works of Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin 'strong' and all imposing central governments. Quite the opposite.

---
Dave Ruston

Times change. Statism was obviously a central part of the founding Canadian political philosophy, but so were rigid social hierarchy, Anglicanism, patriarchy and "white man's burden". We had no trouble getting rid of de-emphasizing these characteristics as history advanced. Why is statism so sacrosanct in the Canadian context?

Because, simply, we`re still a country called Canada, and to benefit all Canadians, we need a strong, central government to better the life chances of all Canadians. Yes, times change, but the one thing most Canadians don`t want to see change is a disintegration of Canada into components. Canada is a rich country, and Canadians believe that we all share with each other these riches, be it the raw materials, manufactured products, and natural beauty. Yes, times do change, but states, nations, and cultures still matter. The destruction of Canada as we are witnessing does NOT have the consent of the majority of Canadians. In the long run especially, Canadians are better off if we remain united!

---
Dave Ruston

There is no single "idea of Canada". There are several competing, and in many cases, mutually exclusive ideas of Canada across the different regions, ethnic communities and classes which make up this country.

Is Canada a confederation of 10 provinces and 2 territories, or a unitarist state? It is "deux nations", or is it British North America? It is a multicultural mosaic, or a community of communities? Is it Cuba North, or Sweden West? Or is it simply, as Homer Simpson opined, "America Junior"?