Connect with us

Features

Italian magazine spotlights Alberta’s independence movement

Atlantico is an Italian libertarian magazine normally covering issues in Europe. But with the rising tide of the Western independence – or “Wexit” – movement beginning to gain attention around the world, Atlantico reached out to speak with Western Standard Publisher Derek Fildebrandt for more information.

mm

Published

on

The full article in Italian can be found at atlanticoquotidiano.it.

Alberta between Canada and independence: an interview on the future of the Canadian West
By Marco Faraci

One year ago Justin Trudeau won the Canadian federal election for the second time, albeit with lower votes and seats than in 2015. Trudeau’s Liberal Party has substantially built its parliamentary plurality in Eastern Provinces, without hardly winning any seat West of Ontario.

The Liberals failed to make any inroads into the provinces of the Prairies and it is no surprise that the strongest rejection of the federal Liberal government has come from Alberta, where voters overwhelmingly supported the Conservative Party.

However, once again, the will of the citizens of Alberta has been outvoted by the Eastern progressive bloc. Alberta seems to be doomed to be structurally in opposition, without any real chance to have a say in federal politics.

But can things be changed? Is there still a place for Alberta and the other Western provinces in the current federal constitutional framework? And what can be the long term political alternatives for the neglected conservative provinces?

We have discussed all these issues with Derek Fildebrandt, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for the conservative-libertarian Wildrose Party from 2015 to 2019, and now the publisher of the magazine “Western Standard”.

Fildebrandt holds genuine right-libertarian views and is an adamant advocate of self-government for Alberta.

Mr. Fildebrandt, a popular expression to describe the malaise of the Western Canadian provinces is “Western alienation”. Do you think that it captures the feelings of most of the Alberta citizens accurately?

I think that in some way “Western alienation” is an old expression. This expression has been circulating since the 70s and 80s and in my opinion, it understates the current political conditions of Alberta. The word “alienation” just hints at the concept that the federal government ignores us. Unfortunately, this is not true anymore. Ottawa does not just ignore Alberta; it is actively hostile to the interests of Alberta.

I think that a more representative notion would be “Western siege”. I think that Alberta is under siege. We are attacked and besieged by a distant and increasingly foreign government.

This is a rather strong statement. Could you explain to our readers how the federal government harms Alberta and the interests of its citizens? 

It does it in many ways. It is not just about milking Albertan taxpayers’ money, which has always happened. Now, with the rise of the green New Left, our oil and gas industry is overtly under attack and this is really worrying for us. The federal government is implementing policies that are disastrous for our provincial economy.

Do you think that only economic interests are at stake or do you also see a cultural clash between Alberta and the dominant East? In other words, is Alberta “different”?

I think that the issues between Ottawa and Alberta are primarily economic: keeping more money home and defending our right to work without undue confiscations and regulations. 

There are also a number of cultural issues, but they are different from those inspiring Quebec nationalism. Quebec nationalism is about ethnolinguistic claims; we do not have this type of cultural divide with the majority of the Canadian provinces. We speak the same language; we eat the same food. Our cultural differences are more in terms of values: our approach to work, our approach to family, our approach to liberty. In these regards, we have more in common with Montana than with Toronto. 

Do you believe that a strategical alliance between Alberta nationalists and Quebec nationalists is possible?

It happened in the 80’s, when Brian Mulroney managed to form a broad coalition uniting discontented Westerners and Quebec nationalists, but the truth is that the two approaches are rather distant. On the one hand, Quebec nationalists are disproportionately positioned on the Left of the political spectrum. On the other hand, the kind of decentralization that Quebec seeks is different from the kind of decentralization that we seek. Quebec wants cultural and social decentralization from what they see as a domineering English government, but is not interested in fiscal decentralization, because Quebec is and always has been a net recipient from the federal budget – while Alberta is and has for generations been a net contributor. In other words, Quebec wants to decentralize the power of spending money but strongly supports taxation at a central level. 

Do you think that Canada is a structurally liberal country, where conservatives will always be a minority ?

Canada is structurally liberal in the sense that it is structurally Eastern. As Eastern provinces are predominantly liberal, then the result is that the federation is by default liberal – but the core issue is the uneven balance of power between the different parts of the federation.

And why then is Canada structurally Eastern? Is it a matter of demography?

Certainly in demographic terms, Easterners outnumber Westerners, but it is not just a matter of demography.

The dominance of Eastern provinces is enshrined in the Constitution and there is very little we can do to change that. Some provisions are ludicrous, such as the composition of the Senate.

We are virtually the only democracy in the world with an unelected Upper House and we are the only federation in the world where the Upper House is not conceived with any kind of regional balance.

Our Senators are appointed by the federal Prime Minister, like they were bureaucrats. Justin Trudeau, who is highly unpopular in Alberta nominates the Senators for Alberta.

But the issue with the Senate goes beyond that. The Senate was created in 1867 and the distribution of seats was negotiated by the colonies that existed at that time. Western provinces had not been created yet and were later allocated only a handful of seats. Alberta is the fourth Canadian province by population; it has twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces combined, but has nearly half of the Senate seats given to New Brunswick.

The opportunities for Alberta to play a role in federal institutions are also hindered by official bilingualism. If you grow up in a province like Alberta, there is very little incentive to learn French, but this also means that Albertans will less likely qualify for federal offices requiring bilingualism, including roles in the Supreme Court.

The position of Alberta within Canada is much weaker than the position of the Red states within the United States. The American framework guarantees a much stronger system of checks and balances and no state finds itself in the position of being structurally kept out from the federal political dynamics.

Do you think that Canada is a “lost cause”? Or is it still worth fighting to bring Canada back on track?

I believe that Canada is worth trying to save, but I’m sceptical that it can be. 

We would need to reform the Constitution to allow real free trade between provinces, to have an elected and fully representative Senate and to abolish the “Equalization formula”, which transfers money from Alberta to Eastern provinces. But that reform is virtually impossible because the Constitutional amendment rules render the status quo effectively unalterable.

Canada is a great country, with a mostly great history and I believe in the idea that it is worth fighting to save. I just have extremely little faith that it is politically possible to do so.

In these conditions, is independence for Alberta a viable alternative?

Yes, it is. Alberta’s GDP per capita is among the highest on the planet. We would be in the company of countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg or Singapore. An independent Alberta would keep between 20 and 30 billion dollars a year of taxpayers’ money in Alberta.

The critics of independence say that Alberta is landlocked. This is certainly true. Alberta is landlocked and there is nothing we can do about it. But it is also landlocked as a province and, as a landlocked province, we are in an extremely weak position. We cannot push for free trade, for example – as we do not even have free trade between provinces in the current Canadian framework. And we cannot get the government we want; Alberta did not elect a single Liberal in the last election and yet we got a Liberal federal government.

I think we would have much more leverage as an independent landlocked nation than as a landlocked province, barring the unlikely scenario of constitutional reform. A sovereign Alberta would be in a position to force free trade and market access, while as a province we can only continue to elect Conservatives bound to be outvoted by Eastern Liberals.

So you are saying that independence would be economically viable. But is there a viable political path to independence?

There is definitely increasing support for independence in Alberta, but circumstances are not ready yet. I was the first elected representative in Alberta since the 1980s that openly supported independence if constitutional reform fails. I campaigned on the platform of a set of two referendums for Albertans to consider. The first referendum would be to demand full equality with other provinces. Then if either Ottawa or the provinces reject constitutional reform to make Canada fairer, the second referendum should be on independence.

Currently polls show that 52 per cent of the voters of the mainstream conservative party governing Alberta (the United Conservative Party) support independence. I am not sure if mainstream Conservatives will ever be ready to go forward on independence – they are too divided on the issue and they will try to avoid it. However new political parties and movements with a crystal clear commitment to independence are gaining ground and I am sure that they will play a political role. 

Summing up, will we ever see an independent Alberta?

The path will be long and far from smooth, but I believe that independence is a realistic possibility if things do not change.

Features

When pacifists become fighters

Herbert Hildebrandt, son of Church of God pastor Henry in Aylmer, Ont., said his dad and the congregation showed that kind of leadership when confronted with the pandemic lockdowns.

mm

Published

on

Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said: “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.”

Herbert Hildebrandt, son of Church of God pastor Henry in Aylmer, Ont., said his dad and the congregation showed that kind of leadership when confronted with the pandemic lockdowns.

“My dad’s preaching going, ‘Something feels off, but I don’t know exactly what it is,’” Hildebrandt told the Western Standard as he recalled steps taken by the Ontario government a year ago.

“And then, it’s week one and then week two, and week three, and then the narrative changes, and it’s week four. And then people were like, ‘Okay, hold on a second.’”

The congregation was ready for their pastor’s defiance long before four weeks became fifty.

“There was a grassroots driven push, like if you’re going to step out, we will back you up,” Hildebrandt recalled.

“The vast majority of the congregation was ready for him to take a step, and they have been consistently pushing him to keep doing that. He’s not acting as a lone wolf by any means. He’s providing leadership, but it’s also leadership that is being fostered through the congregation.”

Few Canadian clergy have openly defied the lockdowns and Hildebrandt believes he knows why.

“Instead of leaders leading, they’re doing the same thing in many churches that they’re doing in politics, which is governing by poll. So it’s polling your congregation going, yeah, they’re kind of 50-50. And I know this because I’ve spoken to some that have said that… And they’re like, ‘I don’t really like what’s going on, but we need to just sit this out for a bit. Now is not the time.’”

Some believers have opposed the church instead of the government.

“Some of our largest pushback outside of the political sphere is coming from churches that either disagree or do not want to get involved…a large group that is more than happy to do nothing besides criticize those that do. And some of that may be out of ignorance. And some of that may be because they simply just prefer to not have to do the heavy lifting right now.”

In an old Bible story, Queen Jezebel threatened Elijah’s life for unjust reasons. In his distress, he told God he was the last true prophet standing, but God said he counted 7,000 other faithful people.

“That same analogy goes for us and my dad uses it a lot. It’s that, you know what, God still has his 7,000,” Hildebrandt said.

“We’ve met so many wonderful new people that we never would have known without this [pandemic who] have really stepped out…from across this region, the province, Canada, and the world that we are now in constant communication and fellowship with, that has just made it worthwhile.”

A holy rebellion may be underfoot, he said.

“The government is just so far out of their lane; they’re not recognizing any sort of sphere of sovereignty in the church,” Hildebrandt said.

“Other pastors have risen up and said, ‘Enough’s enough,’ and they’re seeing the same thing. They’re shedding some people, they’re losing people. But at the same token, there’s many new people that are coming in and going, ‘I was looking for a godly leader. Thank you.’”

Aylmer Church of God has faced off against the government before. Twenty years ago, child protective services took the seven children from a couple in their congregation for a time because they spanked their children using a switch or paddles. Some families went to the U.S. as a result, and four families went to Chihuahua, Mexico where Herbert’s brother Peter pastored a church.

More recently, Hildebrandt has thought about his family’s journey to Canada.

“My family came early, right? When the first rumblings in Russia were going on in the Ukraine back in the 1870s, they went to Manitoba, and then Saskatchewan and other places,” Hildebrandt said.

“My wife fled the Soviet Union as a German expat with her parents at six years old in 1989 and was able to get an exit visa and get out…My wife’s grandmother spent time in the work camps. Her grandfather was taken to the Gulag for some time. They know all this. And I’m not saying Canada right now is where the Soviet Union was in the ‘60’s or ‘70’s, but it’s a scary, scary proposition to see how quickly we can get our heading in that direction.”

Harding is a Western Standard correspondent based in Saskatchewan

Continue Reading

Features

The Second Battle of the Plains of Abraham: The critical battle you’ve never heard of

A critical battle of the American War of Independence was fought on the same ground in Quebec City as the decisive battle of the Seven Years War. And you’ve probably never heard of it.

mm

Published

on

Snow swirled furiously around the fortified walls of Quebec on that fateful night. It was New Year’s Eve – December 31, 1775 – and the Red Coats who defended the city were on the lookout for American troops. They knew the Americans were out there somewhere – the city of Montreal had already fallen to the Americans only a month earlier. But for now, the British troops in the citadel of Quebec couldn’t see anything beyond the blizzard. And that is exactly why the Americans chose that moment to strike.

Of all the days in the American War for Independence, that snowy New Year’s Eve stands out as a pivotal moment in the overlapping histories of Canada and the United States. If the events of that day had gone differently, Canada as we know it might not exist today.

How poetic that the fate of Canada would yet again be decided on that same field outside the old citadel, the Plains of Abraham. Only sixteen years earlier (1759) this battlefield had seen the final blow in Britain’s conquest of New France. Now, during the American Revolution, it would play host to a new crucial contest. Perhaps we should begin to think of this night as the Battle of the Plains of Abraham II.

To the American mind at the time, it seemed natural that the Quebecois would join their fight against the British Empire. After all, the British Conquest of Quebec was a relatively fresh wound. Since that time, the French-Canadians had lived under the rule of their historic enemy. Quebec would surely jump at the opportunity to throw off the yoke of their British oppressors. Many Americans expected the French-Canadians would greet their army as liberators. 

Before the outbreak of war, the Americans wrote a series of letters to Quebec, asking them to join in solidarity against Britain: “The injuries of Boston have roused and associated every colony, from Nova-Scotia to Georgia. Your province is the only link wanting, to complete the bright and strong chain of union.”

Later – during the American occupation of Montreal – the Americans distributed propaganda flyers promising that they were fighting for “your liberty, your honour, and your happiness.”

In hindsight, one wonders how many times that old American pick-up line about being “liberators” has actually worked. It certainly didn’t work on Quebec. Whatever hope the Americans had of convincing the French-Canadians to toss away the Union Jack and join their revolution, such hopes were dashed throughout the winter of 1775-76. Even before the fateful Second Battle of the Plains of Abraham, there were already clear signs that the Quebecois were just not interested in America’s bold advances.

The first challenge was religious. The Quebecois were French-Catholics and the Americans were overwhelmingly Anglo-Protestants. Sure, the British were Anglo-Protestant too, but by the 1770s they had learned a thing or two about how to treat a papist right. They guaranteed Catholic freedom of religion, including the collection of tithes for the church. They also allowed Catholics to hold government positions, which was not allowed in other parts of the British Empire at the time.

By contrast, the American soldiers who marched into Quebec in 1775 had little respect for the Catholic religion. Some American soldiers even desecrated Catholic shrines and churches. The local clergy soon learned to distrust the occupying army, and warned their parishioners to do the same.

The second challenge was logistical. How do you feed a thousand soldiers occupying a foreign city over several hard winter months? You either bring your own food or you take it from locals. The American soldiers seized the supplies they needed, understandably leading to further local resentment.

The British wooing of Quebec at this time was clear from the Quebec Act of 1774. The act dramatically expanded the size of the colony: to the east it included Labrador, and to the west and southwest it covered parts of present-day Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. This move benefited Montreal’s fur-trading industry and shut out American ambitions for westward expansion.

The Americans listed the Quebec Act among the “Intolerable Acts” imposed by Britain, alongside acts which put Massachusetts under military rule and allowed the seizing of colonists’ property for British soldiers. The Americans would surely overturn the Quebec Act as soon as they won the war. With both sides’ intentions clear, Quebec’s elites naturally preferred British victory in the war.

That brings us back to New Year’s Eve 1775. The American side was led by two officers, Benedict Arnold (who would later – and infamously – defect to the British) and Richard Montgomery. Their combined force had only about 1,200 troops. The British side numbered about 1,800 and they also had the advantage of heavy artillery and shelter behind the fortified walls of Quebec City.

The American attempt to take the city was a disaster from the start. They launched a two-pronged attack, with Montgomery’s forces attacking the south of the city, and Arnold’s troops attacking the north. The snowstorm at first gave them the element of surprise, but it soon proved to be more trouble than it was worth. Without cover, the Americans’ guns were fully exposed to the snow, which risked dampening their gunpowder. To make up for the poor visibility, some Americans lit lanterns which only made them walking targets. 

On the south side, the British noticed the American lanterns. They waited until the Americans were at close range before opening fire. General Montgomery was killed in the barrage, causing many of his men to panic and retreat. 

On the north side, Arnold started his assault after the British were already alerted to their presence. Arnold’s troops faced a barrage of musket fire, but they finally managed to enter the city gates. During the breach, Arnold’s leg was hit and he had to fall back. Arnold’s company was quickly taken over by Daniel Morgan, who led them further into the city where they had planned to meet up with Montgomery’s troops. Of course, Montgomery never made it that far, and Morgan’s men were left completely alone. A street fight ensued for several hours, but Morgan’s men were vastly outnumbered and surrounded. They eventually surrendered at 9 a.m. the following morning, and 400 American soldiers were taken prisoner.

Meanwhile in Montreal, American soldiers continued to occupy that city for several more months until British reinforcements sailed down the St. Lawrence in May 1776. Vastly outnumbered, the Americans fled to the south and their Quebec campaign was over.

By the time the Americans launched their surprise attack on the Plains of Abraham, they had already failed to win the hearts and minds of the Quebecois. The British had promised them the moon and won the cooperation of Quebec elites. The Americans’ crushing military defeat during Plains of Abraham II ultimately put a nail in the coffin of their ambitions for Quebec to join the revolution. Although the Americans would go on to win the independence of 13 colonies, Quebec would not be among them.

Most people have never heard of this critical battle, possibly because all sides would rather forget about it. For the Americans, it was an embarrassing early defeat that fits awkwardly with the patriotic narrative of their successful revolution. For the British, the victory was overshadowed by their devastating loss of the 13 Colonies. For Quebecois nationalists who decry Anglo rule, it may be an embarrassment to remember that when faced with the choice to throw off the Union Jack or keep it, Quebec chose to keep it.

Still, the long-term consequences of this battle cannot be overlooked. The fact that the British kept Quebec meant that they would continue to have a strong presence in the heart of North America despite ultimately losing the American War for Independence. From that foothold they could rebuild their English population north of the St. Lawrence and in the Maritimes, starting with the Loyalist Migrations of 1780s. Without that British imperial presence in North America, the state of Canada as we know it simply could not exist today.

And it all took place one snowy night on that little patch of land on the banks of the St. Lawrence. As it did sixteen years earlier, the Plains of Abraham once again determined the fate of empires, nations, and the future of North America.

James Forbes is the Western Heritage Columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Features

WESTROCK: Whitesnake’s Hoekstra on his new solo album and recording during lockdowns

Ernest Skinner interviews Joel Hoekstra. He even plays a few preview chords just for Western Readers.

mm

Published

on

I had the chance to chat with Whitesnake guitarist Joel Hoekstra about his dynamite solo project Hoekstra 13. This is his second solo album after Running Games from Hoekstra 13 and it has been getting rave reviews from around the world since he released a couple tracks in advance of the February 12 release date for the commoners.

When I tell you the Whitesnake and Trans Siberian Orchestra (TSO) guitar player’s new album is dynamite, it’s because it truly is. It is more work to BS your way through a subpar performance than to just avoid it altogether, so referring to the above, it’s seriously on the mark as one of the best new hard rock melodic albums I have heard in a few years.

Joel Hoekstra has a special preview for western standard readers

In case you have been in lockdown for the better part of the last 20 years, Joel is one of the classiest axe masters out there. He has toured as Cher’s guitarist, performed in Broadway’s Rock of Ages, and had stints with Night Ranger, but his claim to fame is clearly his stage presence and melodic mastery with Whitesnake and the TSO.

To sum up Running Games, it’s a very smooth and crunchy riff-oriented album with power vocals from Russell Allen, who many would agree is one of the best all-around singers in the world. Early on, Russ made a name for himself by belting them out with hard rock legends Symphony X.

Listening to the album, you are going to hear many great things, and an Yngwie Malmsteen vibe is one of them for many a reason. Rounding out the all-star lineup are Derek Sherinian (Sons of Apollo, Dream Theatre), Tony Franklin (Blue Murder, The Firm), Vinny Appice (Dio, Black Sabbath), and last but not least, Jeff Scott Soto (Sons of Apollo, Yngwie Malmsteen, TSO) on backing vocals.

The musical influences that Joel is fond of are apparent at times. In addition to his own style – which encompasses a vast library of sounds – there is no doubt that Satriani, Vai, Vandenberg, Viv Campbell, David Gilmour – and maybe even Ernest Skinner – are part of his musical DNA.

On tracks from the album “Fantasy” and “Reach the Sky”, I hear a Whitesnake-meets-Led Zeppelin beat, and Pink Floyd guitar tone at times.

To put things in perspective, I spoke with three world-class guitarists and had them listen to the album and this is what they told me.

Rik Emmett (Triumph): “There is an elite group of rock guitarists on the planet, a small handful of consummate professionals who can play with full mastery of technique and passion.  Joel Hoekstra is one of them. When it comes to the added value of stage presence, charisma, and physical style, he’s the total rock god package. Running Games is dynamite, but on the track (Finish Line) he’s a full-blown fire-breathing monster. There are arc-welding sparks flying off the guitar parts on this track.”

Sean Kelly (Nelly Furtado, Lee Aaron, Helix, Crash Kelly): “Joel is one of the best guitarists I have ever seen live; a perfect blend of melodic maturity and dazzling technical proficiency. I had the pleasure of sharing a bill with him in Oklahoma when I was in Helix and he was in Night Ranger. Running Games is an amazing piece of Classic melodic metal art with a modern production touch. It is delivered with all the taste and firepower we’ve come to expect from Joel.”

Ron ‘Bumblefoot’ Thal: “[I] love this album and Joel! Joel has it all – emotion, virtuosity, identity; he’s a great songwriter, great showman, and he’s a great dude.”

Before you go and order the album and read my summary of my chat with Joel; check out this wild tune below and you’ll hear what all the fuss is about. I also need to ask: is it me, or does anybody else feel a Surfing with the Alien nostalgia via Joe Satriani with this animated video and Joes’ album cover?

Family Dude

Joel was just as upbeat as the first time I interviewed him. Sometimes you can sense that the artist is tired, bored, or just doesn’t want to repeat the same thing over and over again. Joel’s energy was ceaseless from the time he picked up the phone with a “hey dude”.

We didn’t just talk music, but also his family. The rock star is refreshingly grounded with his wife of 17-years and two youngsters, aged nine and five. Following in his old man’s footsteps, his nine-year-old son is currently into Iron Maiden. When asked what his five-year-old daughter listens to, he responds with a chuckle, “Frozen.”  

If you’re a guitarist and are wondering; he used about three guitars in recording Running Games. He used a Taylor on acoustic, a Strat for the cleaner parts, and of course his prized gold top Les Paul. The album was recorded remotely during the COVID lockdown, and Joel thinks it is the way to go.”It doesn’t put pressure on you playing in your own studio, as you play when you are in the mood”

I could go on about Running Games and Joel, but I have to get back to listening to it. Get your copy via Amazon, Apple Music, or check out his website at www.joelhoekstra.com.

On a somber note – please keep Rik Emmett in your thoughts tonight, as he told me his father passed away yesterday morning.

Ernest Skinner is the Westrock columnist for the Western Standard


Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © WSNM Media Corp.