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

McCAFFREY: Don’t let Calgary ruin the region

Central planning doesn’t work and the current government should reverse this mistake as soon as possible by abolishing the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board and allowing municipalities to return to cooperating on a voluntary basis.

Published

on

The Calgary Metropolitan Region Board (CMRB) was created in 2015 by the NDP government to control planning and development for the entirety of the Calgary region. 

Since then, this unelected body has been working on creating a new growth plan for the region that contains some of the most radical changes to development and planning rules ever proposed in Alberta.

With the enactment of this growth plan, the CMRB is set to become what will effectively be a fourth level of government for citizens of the Calgary region and will allow Calgary to export its bad policies across all the other municipalities of the region.

Yet barely anyone in the Calgary region has even heard of the board.

How is it possible a new level of government could be introduced without anyone noticing?

Well, in part, that’s thanks to a very deliberate effort by the former NDP government, and the board itself, to keep the powers and potential wide-ranging influence of the board as below the radar as possible for as long as possible.

The board, at least according to its designers, is simply meant to help manage planning and development issues, in order to help manage the significant population growth that the Calgary region is expected to experience in the coming decades.

Make no mistake about it, though, the CMRB and its growth plan do much more than this.

The entire growth plan is based on the philosophy that a small group of people, in this case, bureaucrats and city planners—particularly in Calgary—can do a better job planning and managing population and employment growth than the free market can.

The central planners believe the challenges of growth are better addressed by forcing the municipalities in the Calgary region to cooperate rather than compete to provide these services and facilities.

Rather than merely permitting cooperation between municipalities as claimed, however, the creation of the CMRB and the implementation of the growth plan actually forces Calgary and the surrounding municipalities to cooperate on many issues, even when this goes against the wishes of the municipalities and their residents.

Requiring municipalities to cooperate even if they believe it’s against their and their residents’ interests to do so is bound to lead to less fair and less equitable outcomes for the whole of the Calgary region.

Even worse, the forced co-operation doesn’t go both ways.

Despite claims the board is based on cooperation, the 10-member municipalities are being forced to participate in the organization, they cannot leave, and the voting system of the board effectively gives a veto to the Calgary on every issue.

In effect, this puts Calgary politicians and bureaucrats in charge of planning and development for the entire region, as without Calgary’s approval, no plan or development can go ahead.

This is no accident, the board was very deliberately created to do exactly this.

For years, Calgary has pursued bad public policies that have increased rules, regulations, red tape, and taxes on businesses and residents of Calgary.

The situation has become so dire that now many businesses and residents are leaving Calgary entirely and setting up their operations and family lives outside of the city in one of the many surrounding municipalities, where regulations and taxes are lighter.

Essentially, Calgary has become noncompetitive with other municipalities in the region, but planners in Calgary don’t see this as a problem, rather they see it as an opportunity.

But Calgary didn’t want to fix the problem by cutting red tape, getting taxes and spending under control, and working to become competitive again.

Rather, the city lobbied the provincial government to help them out by giving Calgary the power to impose the same high levels of regulations across the entire region—essentially killing off the competition.

It was perhaps not surprising that the former NDP government was willing to give Calgary this power, as the NDP government do not understand or believe in the benefits of free market competition to begin with.

But the current Alberta government has repeatedly stated its core focus is on reducing red tape and unleashing Alberta’s economy. They have put significant effort into achieving this goal in many other policy areas.

Yet, when it comes to regional planning they have, so far at least, permitted the exact opposite to continue.

Rather than reducing red tape and regulation to get the Calgary region’s economy going, in almost every policy area the growth plan goes in completely the other direction and essentially centralizes planning decisions for the entire region.

All types of development—single family houses, row houses, apartments, shopping malls, retail stores, manufacturing, warehouses, agricultural services, and more—will now have to be approved not only by the local municipality but also by an unelected board dominated by Calgary.

Thrown out the window is any concept of the free market, individual choice, property rights, competition and, frankly, basic economics.

This dramatic centralization will impose a series of significant direct and indirect costs on the economy of the Calgary region, none of which are considered by the CMRB in its growth plan.

These costs include the millions of dollars spent creating and operating what is effectively a fourth level of government, the significant costs to Calgary businesses, residents, and the economy as a result of this extra bureaucracy, the dramatic costs that would be incurred by projects being reduced, relocated, or cancelled under the growth plan, as well as indirect and intangible costs.

The plan also runs roughshod over local democracy in the member municipalities, and over the property rights of the residents of those municipalities.

What, exactly, is the point of electing a local council in your district or town, if planning and development rules—until now one of the most important tasks of a local government—will now be controlled centrally by an unelected board?

Worse yet, this move from voluntary cooperation to forced cooperation will not solve the very problems the CMRB and the growth plan were designed to fix.

The end result of a growth plan that replaces voluntary cooperation and competition with forced collaboration will be higher taxes and higher fees, more regulation and red tape, increased housing and infrastructure costs, less efficient delivery of utilities and services, and worse environmental outcomes for the entire region.

There are far better ways to accommodate future population growth in the Calgary region than via a top-down, centrally controlled regional growth plan that violates the values that made Alberta what it is today: individual freedom, personal choice, fiscal responsibility, property rights, and a free market built on competition rather than government diktat.

The proposed growth plan would block billions of dollars of investment, redirect billions more out of the Calgary region, and cost tens of thousands of jobs. This is the exact opposite of what the Calgary region needs right now.

The CMRB, and the requirement for them to create a growth plan to control development in the region, were an ideological creation of the former provincial government, based on the idea that top-down central planning is the best way to run an economy.

Central planning doesn’t work and the current government should reverse this mistake as soon as possible by abolishing the CMRB and allowing municipalities to return to cooperating on a voluntary basis.

Peter McCaffrey is the President of the Alberta Institute, an independent, libertarian-minded, public policy think tank that aims to advance personal freedom and choice in Alberta.

The Alberta Institute has prepared an academic research paper outlining the history of regional planning in the Calgary Region, and looking at the implications of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board on jobs, investment and democracy for Alberta.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Krahnicle’s Cartoon: September 17, 2021

mm

Published

on

Continue Reading

Opinion

MORGAN: It’s time for Kenney to resign

“I say this regretfully, but it’s time for Jason Kenney to resign as premier of Alberta and as the leader of the United Conservative Party. I wish things had ended differently.”

mm

Published

on

Premier Jason Kenney gambled and lost.

His move to declare Alberta as being permanently open for business was a hail-Mary pass for a beleaguered government and it has failed in the worst possible way.

Alberta is in the midst of a health care crisis, deaths are on the rise and we are entering a new period of mandatory vaccine passports, lockdowns, and other restrictions.

I say this regretfully, but it’s time for Jason Kenney to resign as premier of Alberta and as the leader of the United Conservative Party.

I had the highest of hopes for Kenney. I was enthusiastic as he won multiple leadership races and merged the previously intransigent Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties. I was thrilled when Rachel Notley’s NDP government was trounced in the general election. I thought we’d be looking forward to some steady, competent, conservative governance for at least a couple of election cycles.

I was wrong. Boy, was I ever wrong.

Love him or hate him, Jason Kenney is undeniably one of the brightest and hardest working politicians in Canada. He worked his way from advocacy into elected office and then became a respected cabinet minister in a number of portfolios. It appears Kenney met his match when it comes to the party and provincial leadership. He has managed to alienate both the left and the right within the province and I don’t see how he can recover from this.

Kenney’s leadership woes were already appearing well before the COVID-19 pandemic appeared on the scene. The shotgun marriage of the Wildrose Party and the Progressive Conservatives was showing cracks as caucus infighting began to smolder. The pandemic crisis exacerbated the issue and Kenney is now heading up a deeply divided caucus with multiple members having been tossed out of the party or disciplined. This inability to manage his own caucus has shaken the confidence Albertans had in Kenney to manage the province.

The Kenney government has been noteworthy for setting high targets and then failing to move toward them. The Fair Deal panel appeared to be an act of deferral, rather than an exercise to build a stronger, more independent province.

Kenney refused to take strong actions against Ottawa despite the open hostility shown to Alberta by the Trudeau government. This has fed the theory Kenney is using Alberta as a stepping stone towards pursuing a federal run. We can safely say Kenney’s federal career is finished at this point.

It seems that everything Kenney has touches turns to scheiße. The energy “war room” has turned into a running joke and with long and constant delays on its launch. The Allen Report examining groups that attack Alberta’s energy sector has been a waste of time. Energy producers seeking a sense of confidence in Alberta have been left disappointed.

In picking a battle with Alberta’s doctors and nurses, Kenney has drawn fire from all sides of the political spectrum. While there certainly is room to reexamine the agreements with health care providers, it has to be done carefully and with strong leadership. The UCP has appeared ham-handed and virtually leaderless on the issue.

The Kenney government has become election fodder used to hammer the O’Toole Conservatives on the federal front. The UCP looks so inept and unpopular that Trudeau is using it to attack O’Toole, and O’Toole hides from any association with Kenney.

Politicians are by nature self-interested beings. Caucus members within the UCP are surely weighing their options as the Kenney government continues to crash and burn in public opinion. With less than two years to go before the next provincial election comes, they know the window for getting rid of Kenney is closing quickly. The only hope the UCP has of winning the next election is to get a new leader and show some sign of new direction, and soon.

Rumblings from caucus are soon going to become a roar.

There are two options for the UCP right now. They can keep Kenney into the next election and most likely hand Rachel Notley a second NDP term, or they can get on with finding a new leader and reconnecting with Albertans. The UCP now is simply too wildly unpopular to regain the trust of the electorate under Kenney’s leadership.

I still respect Jason Kenney and appreciate what he did on the federal front, along with his efforts to unite conservatives in Alberta. I would like to see Kenney retain what dignity he can by resigning for the sake of Alberta and his party. It would hurt his pride, but it still would be a better end to a political career than being kicked out by his own caucus, or by the electorate in a general election. His “best summer ever” strategy failed and it’s time to face the music.

I wish things had ended differently.

Cory Morgan is the Alberta Political Columnist for the Western Standard and Host of the Cory Morgan Show

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

343 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**



The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.