Canada - 1
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 11 October 11:40I will be posting a sereis of some 30 articles on this site, outlining the history of Canada and how it became a place to leave.
One crucial task confronts all who wish to build a better country, a country of their own, independent of others. That task is to understand the history of Canada. With this knowledge you can teach others that Canada is indeed A Dead Country Walking. With this knowledge a New Alberta can be created avoiding the mistakes of the past.
Conception
Part 1
From this night forth English speaking peoples are predominate.
He kept it secret. None of his men knew of the hidden path until the night of battle. This path led to victory. This path led to the end of France’s ambitions in America. The battle that took place at its end, on the Plains of Abraham, established the supremacy of English speaking peoples from the North Pole to the lands of Mexico, eventually throughout the world. This was a singularly crucial path.
Later there would be wailing laments, from the French, of British trickery, British deceit and British cheating. In reality, the British had fought wisely, bravely and ferociously. The French were careless. Many of the French soldiers posted to guard this path had been allowed to leave their post for harvest. The soldiers remaining were taken totally by surprise. A few soldiers, awake, could have held their enemy at bay.
Montcalm had been outflanked, outgunned and outdone. The fighting was toe to toe. Many were killed, many wounded. Wolfe died on the battlefield surrounded by his men. Montcalm, mortally wounded, fled - soon to die. Wolfe’s body was returned to England for burial with all the pomp and ceremony due a hero. Montcalm was buried in a nearby shell hole. The French had no occasion for ceremony.
The expression “Je me souviens” (I remember) stems from this drama. This battle signified more than the loss of Canada. This battle was the end of France’s hopes and dreams in the New World. From this day forth, France began it’s long decline from a first world country of renown, “you weren’t civilized if you couldn’t speak French”, to being just another of the world’s second class nations. Britain, France’s most indomitable enemy, was in ascension, extending empire to become masters of the world. This was a pivotal point in Canadian history. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham not only determined the future course of Canada, it was a devastating blow to French pride and honour. The British victory established the prism through which the Quebecois, even now, view English Canada. The French will continue to view us in like manner until they reverse history. Only then can they recover pride and honour.
A new coat of arms was adopted by Quebec in 1939. These words adorn the scroll beneath. The present issue of Quebec license plates also bear the inscription, “Je me souviens”. It is also of interest to note that the official flag of Quebec, the fleurs-de-lis, presently flying over most, if not all, buildings owned by the citizens of Quebec is another reminder of a glorious past, forever lost. This flag is the same version that accompanied Montcalm in 1758 in his battle against the English army in Ticonderoga, New York. Here the French won. It was near last of France’s great victories.
Bitterness and shame of glories long lost are now the official looking glass through which the Government and the people of Quebec view their place within Canada.
Contrary to what many have been taught, Lord Durham’s report of 1839 did not fully form the basis of the Canada we see today. Lord Durham was, as was the British government of the day, well aware of the lurking dangers of forming an independent country containing divided loyalties. And large schisms there were in the Canada of the mid nineteenth century. In Lower Canada, Lord Durham found “two nations warring in the bosom of a single state”. He found that this struggle was one, not of principles, but of race, French against English.
The English of Upper Canada fought against any form of government that would see their minority ruled by the majority French. To this rule they would never peaceably submit. One of the English’s ablest advocates declared that “Lower Canada must be English, at the expense, if necessary, of not being British”. French insurgents, assisted by some citizens of the United States, inflamed this situation.
Many English, in this period of uncertainty, considered the advantages of separation from Britain, followed by incorporation with the United States. They believed that the influx of American emigration would speedily tip the population favouring the English. These immigrants would also have brought with them the desire of an American style governing system based on the legal separation of powers. There was some sympathy in the U.S. for this to happen. This design was anathema to British interests.
Lord Durham and the British Government desired above all that a solution be found that would put this new country on the path to peace. As is the want of authority administered from afar, the solution found was one of short term gain for them at the expense of long term pain for the rest of us. The assimilation of the French population, proposed by Lord Durham, was never carried out. Without assimilation, a form of governance that gave power to the federal spheres to the detriment of the provinces, was thought needed to quell French nationalism. This central authority allowed English electoral domination over the French in the halls of federal power.
The first, but not the only, of the gravest mistakes, leading to the formation of this country, was the inability or unwillingness to assimilate the French population, forming a new, stronger political mosaic.
Comments 0
Canada - 2
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 11 October 11:41Conception
Part 2
Rome conquered the known world creating the largest Empire until Britain’s expansion. Force of arms initiated the empire, assimilation was the glue which held it together. Romans would occupy a conquered nation and provide security and protection through garrisons strongly held. The new province was governed under the laws of Rome directed by the traditions of Rome. The populace was, in most part, allowed to live their own lives, value their own traditions and history and revere their own gods with little or no hindrance. In fact, the Romans often took some of these foreign gods as their own. After a few generations the social structure became homogenous even to the extent of intermarriage. Thus, the Roman Empire lasted more than four centuries. To this day, our civilization is influenced by the legacy of Rome. How will Canada compare?
The spread of Islam entailed conquering foreign villages, states and countries. The conquered inhabitants were given a simple choice – convert to Islam or die. At times, whole villages, whole cities were slaughtered or sold to slavery. In those days, religion had passionate hold. Most converted. The Moslem hordes were checked at the Gates of Vienna. To this day many of these countries are held under the sway of Islam. Some eventually escaped. Spain is one such country. After being held in the chains of Islam for centuries, a fateful battle, led by El Cid, finally drove the Moslem hordes from Spain. The resulting European passion towards Christianity drove many of the atrocities to come. The assimilated Middle East held together as an homogenous religion-based political unit, until colonial times. At a time that Europeans huddled in separate hamlets, a cheque issued on a Moslem bank could be cashed in any other Moslem bank even those separated by borders and thousands of miles.
After William the Conqueror won the battle for England, he wisely incorporated the Saxon legal and governing system within his own royal system, requiring all citizens to be governed by the same common laws. After three or four generations of intermarriage, a united Britain, stronger than ever before, went on to dominate and populate half the world with English speaking peoples. In contrast, the people in the provinces of France, conquered by Edward the Second in the fourteenth century, were never assimilated into the British Realm. The armies of France could not stand against Edward’s great, high tech, weapon – the long bow. However, power alone can not long hold land. The French provinces soon passed from England’s hands.
The American civil war, a clash of ideas - federal rights versus states rights, is an ideal example of the benefits of assimilation. The southern states learned the extent of their powers. The federal government learned how far they could safely encroach on state rights. In the decades leading to the war, the southern states were drawing further apart from the north as the separation of these powers had not yet been truly tested. After the war, the southern states became entrenched within the union, to full extent.
French Acadians settling in the United States, both voluntarily or otherwise, assimilated in to the mainstream of American laws and culture. They settled in New England and Louisiana, greatly adding to the richness and strength of the American nation.
How does Canada compare?
Citizens of one province, eyes cast bitterly toward the past, were isolated within a separate culture of separate laws and separate visions of life. English Canada was governed by English Common Law, Quebec, holding to Roman Law, was set aside, disconnected from the main stream of Canadian political affairs. Distinct and made to feel distinct, their daily lives were ruled by the Catholic Church as if it were still the seventeenth century. The people of Quebec languished in an agricultural society long past the time the rest of North America had progressed. Only the English had the where-with-all, thereby gaining access to the economic levers of the province, increasing the resentment of the French. Within this Quebecois society, no pan-Canadian vision was adopted or even considered, no concern as to what was best for Canada; Quebec concern was and is only with what Quebec can gain from others. The seeds of dependency were sown. If there is any surprise in Canadian history, it is that this pressure cooker has kept its lid on as long as it has. This is the product of failing to assimilate a conquered peoples. This is the legacy of victor and defeated, by law and by culture, kept separate one from the other, while living in the same realm.
Comments 0
Canada - 3
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 11 October 11:43Conception
Part 3
In the years following the United States rebellion, some forty thousand Empire Loyalists emigrated to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec. This migration doubled or tripled the Canadian English population. The Loyalists left their fellow citizens building a new nation complete with a modern governing system designed for the future. Casting aside an old, dictatorial, repressive form of democracy entrenched in England, the Americans created a system of citizen rule, fully adaptable to the needs of a country of infinite potential fast expanding in territory, population and economy. These emigrants of British stock whose descendants had struggled to carve a civilization in an uncivilized continent conspired against the new order. Their blood ran cold. After the United States became a sovereign nation, fearing their security, hungering for comfort, stability, dependent on strong, controlled, royal governance they fled the future to settle in the past - a place called Canada.
Dependence on a strong, royal, authoritarian government, singular rule from the top, was thus established in central Canadian politics. This sentiment is entrenched and immutable in eastern Canada to this day.
One of the most insidious informal organizations in any of the world’s democracies, the Family Compact, sprang out of the governing vacuum that was left after Wolfe’s victory. The Compact came to dominate the Executive Council, judiciary and the governmental bureaucracy of British controlled Canada. Comprised of men of strong family, business and ideological ties and descendents of Empire Loyalists, they were staunch supporters of the Crown, seeking a society indistinguishable from the mother country. They resisted the reformers who wanted responsible government and clashed with elected representatives of the legislature. The Château Clique was the name given to a parallel, powerful group in French Lower Canada.
The ghost of the Family Compact survives to this day. It is comprised of the eastern elite, French and English, of like schooling, like heritage and like resolve - referred to by some as the “Eastern Martini Drinkers”. Their life is bent on driving federal political power for the best interests of Ontario and Quebec. Only three times in the twentieth century did the modern “Family Compact” lose control of the federal government; the Progressive Party out of Alberta held the Liberals to a minority government in the 1920s and helped force concessions of which we shall later speak, the short Diefenbaker years and the even shorter reign of Joe Clark’s government. However, there are some who consider Joe Clark to be of the Compact, slightly removed. This eastern informal bloc has, in one manner or another, controlled federal legislation for ninety two of the last hundred years, limiting and eliminating opportunities in every other region of Canada, not for the good of the country, but only for the best interests of themselves.
Prior to 1867, discussions of the form responsible government should take were long and varied. Many discredited the American form of a Republican system viewing it as “a system of death and decay”, an opinion based simply on a dislike of tax on interstate trade, a tax system that Canada heartily adopted a few decades later. Others, such as the Family Compact, desired nothing more than to adopt British rule, traditions and attachments in all respects possible. Still others, many descendents of the Loyalists, sought the security of monarchial rule, especially as it was the antithesis of the American system.
There were, however, some of foresight, with the ability to see the future clearly, who did discuss a republican form of government that legally separated the powers of the executive and legislative. The governing body, in Canada, under British rule was composed of an elected Assembly headed by advisors (cabinet) and Prime Minister all appointed from outside the elected body. It would have been a natural progression to have the Prime Minister as an official elected separately, the cabinet appointed by him. Canada missed the opportunity of having a modern, progressive system that took the good from the American model leaving the less good behind. Alas, chance is fleeting. The system created was modeled after both good and bad of the British parliamentary system. As we shall see, this was further enhanced by limiting the good and making the bad, worse.
The British colonies of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and British Columbia sent observers to the two conferences leading up to confederation. The British Columbian delegation took ship from British Columbia to the United States, entraining to the East coast as there was no Canadian route, other than by foot. Newfoundland wanted to take an active role but tardiness delayed them. They were not to join the federation until another eighty-two years had passed.
They controlled a land mass larger than France, Germany and Spain combined. At first they had no idea of the extent of their holdings. Only after years of exploration did it become clear. The Hudson Bay Company, by Royal Charter in 1670, was granted ownership of this vast tract monopolizing the fur trade for almost two centuries. After Confederation, the fur trade near an end, the Company ceded this immense territory to the Canadian government for an indemnity of 300,000 English pounds and 7,000,000 acres. In the future, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as well as the northern portions of Ontario and Quebec, would be carved from this once privately held property.
The prairies, largely empty of European settlers, under no direct authority, acted as a magnet attracting the thoughts and aspirations of the American settler, trader and politician. This area was to play a large part in the growth of Canada, if only to limit American expansionism.
This was the state of the country on the eve of birth.
Comments 0
Canada - 4
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 11 October 11:45Birth
Part 1
We the people. Rousing words. A call to citizens. A message to the world. We the people are responsible. These three modest words set the tone, the philosophy, the vision for greatness. These three words are a declaration of freedom from tyranny, freedom to succeed and also the freedom to fail. This is the Constitution of the United States enacted in 1776. The rest of this crucial document is composed of supporting values. The vision, “We the people”, is the thought, entire.
Whenever irresolvable constitutional conflicts arise “We the people” states the final authority for resolution. This phrase is immutable. From this phrase all else flows.
A century later, the Constitution of Canada was born. Not for Canada are clarion calls for the future. In Canada, vision is stillborn. In Canada, constitutional values are disregarded. In Canada the constitutional trumpets ring only for “The Interests of the British Empire”. Cold. Heartless. Self defeating. In the Constitution of Canada there is no call binding the nation. No call to give direction. No call establishing any root principle, nor any Canadian value, nor final moral authority to lend guidance to national posture. No Canadiana. In contrast to the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian document, looking to foreign shores, begins “We the British Empire”.
The Canadian Constitution is not a framework in like manner as other national constitutions. The Canadian Constitution is no more than a list of legal mechanisms, binding Canada’s interest to those of Empire. In this constitution, there resides no final Canadian authority of intention, holding hope and vision, providing direction to resolve irresolvable conflicts. That final authority rests with a few politically appointed judges with their own biases, prejudices, personal agendas, guided by past practices established through the early authority and control of a foreign power.
The Oxford Dictionary defines a constitution as, “a body of fundamental principles or established precedents to which a state or organization is governed”. There are no fundamental principles expressed in the Canadian Constitution other than obeisance to the British Empire. The precedents upon which our constitution rests are those precedents established by the British reflecting British concerns. The molding of this foreign model of jurisprudence was directed by Britain, through appointed Governors General and the British Privy Council as late as 1949. As nation building went, Canada was to be a modern nation. Would it be too much to expect a modern constitution? Apparently so. The United States had the wherewithal to create its own precedents reflecting its own needs. The United States also set its own fundamental principles, one principle in particular, containing the values and aspirations of its founders. Even after a century of exposure to the numerous accomplishments of the United States, Canada was unable to translate this experience into a vision of its own future.
In fact, early Canadian constitutions were so detailed that each and every electoral constituency in the country was named. After each census a constitutional change was required. The Canadian Constitution, much like the British North America Act which preceded it, was nothing more than a business contract between interested parties, not unlike a contract to build a house. With such a dispassionate technical beginning, how does an overview of this Canadian Constitution fare?
The law.
The Fathers of Confederation agreed to continue Roman Law ruling local affairs in Quebec. In fact, sensitivity to the Quebecois’ desire to protect their culture, laws and language was the main driving force behind the establishment of the Canadian legal structure. Setting language and cultural differences aside, sharing the land with two separate legal systems was folly. Not since the reign of Henry Plantagenet in the 10th century, had English Common Law and Roman Law occupied the same space. This temporary duality was necessary to advance the rule of law from an archaic system to a modern, commonly applied system designed for a free and responsible peoples. Henry’s intent was to have a code of laws equally, therefore fairly, applied across the land. No one was to be judged separately from another. No one was to receive less or special privilege due simply to race, language or culture. The system of justice would be common no matter to whom it applied or where that person chose to live. Thus, a nation was formed.
Again, Quebec is isolated behind a wall of distinction, divided from the main by a separate system. From this duality came, among others, the seeming necessity of reserving Supreme Court appointments for Quebec-based judges. Of course, the other partner of confederation would not share less. Ontario was also awarded an equal reserve of judges. To this day, our laws are subject to interpretation and expansion by Supreme Court decisions, the majority of whose members reflect central Canadian values, morals and power.
Having the Supreme Court Judges appointed by the Governor General, final legal determination made by the British Privy Council, with our constitution held bondage in Britain, removed from our citizens any control over our long term affairs. For longer than Canada’s first 100 years, this legal structure bound Canada and our laws to the needs and wants of the British Empire. This set the tone of Canadian jurisprudence during our formative years. Thus was the tone of the Canadian legal tradition, convention and precedence established - not to serve our needs - instead, to service the needs of a foreign power.
The choice to deposit the development and enforcement of criminal law in the federal sphere was, for Canada, problematic. It made sense for a geographically small, homogenous country such as England. In a country as geographically and culturally extensive as the country which the framers were intent on building, centralizing this power was a singular lack of foresight. This action categorized criminal law as a one size-fits-all. New laws that are needed to fight localized crime in one region require the stirring of two orders of government. A request is made by the province requiring the law. The Federal machinery, grinding ponderously, may or may not develop the legislation requested. Even when the provincial wish is granted, the province has the primary responsibility of enforcement. Often the law is what only Ottawa envisions. No matter, the province’s sole choice is to try to make it work. When a federal law, meant for resolving singular problems is enacted, the law applies to all regions, even those for which it may be detrimental. One example of this is the law requested by Quebec to battle outlaw biker gangs in Montreal.
However, all of this pales when compared to the most devastating legal loophole in the constitution. Section 91 of the constitution reads, in part –
“It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada,….” *
In ordinary words - while doing battle supporting challenged legislation, the government has the legal tool to claim that the courts should allow the legislation for the sake of “peace, order and good government”. How is peace defined? Whose order? Whose good government? Who decides? A government elected with only a 40 per cent mandate – the majority having voted for others? Nine judges appointed by, in some cases, the very government now before them? Bereft of constitutional compass, what criteria do the judges follow? Their own common sense? Their own agenda? Do they follow precedents, that have been corrupted by decisions made under similar conditions? Do they follow precedents made during the first century of British monopoly in appointing supreme judges and determining legal precedent – judges and laws established by the British for British interests? Are their decisions based on interpretations of the constitution that were entrenched by the privy council of a foreign power? One fact is beyond dispute. In the Canadian Constitution, there is no overriding declaration of common principle, common value or common sense anchoring these decisions , except the one value – the one principle the Canadian Constitution espouses “The Interests of the British Empire”.
Peace order and good government, a basic tenet of our constitution, seldom interpreted counter to government want, has the intention and effect of giving the government a free pass on any law, any policy since the courts lack any constitutional compass to find their way. This is a “get out of jail free” card for any legislation the government enacts.
This clause does nothing more than extend the right of Royal Privilege to the office of the Prime Minister. By this clause, Canada became a Monarchy, in deed if not in word.
The Senate
“The Senate was created under the Constitution Act, 1867, primarily to protect regional interests but also to provide what George-Étienne Cartier called a "power of resistance to oppose the democratic element.” www.canadianencyclopedia.ca
Lurking behind the scenes, the shadow of the Family Compact toiled. Desiring all things English, they conspired to import the equivalent of the British House of Lords, to be known as the Canadian Senate. The English House is composed of the heads of great British families, most dating from the Feudal Lords of earlier centuries. A millennia of tradition, honour and service to king and country lay behind them. No other nation has had an assembly with a longer or greater call to duty.
Never mind that Canada’s elite families had no tradition, little service, questionable honour. The Senate was a tool of power. Frustrated by the adoption of representation by population which spread power among the provinces, the Senate represented another opportunity for the Family. Unlike Senates established in other countries, the Canadian version had Senators, of no fixed term except death who were appointed by a representative of the British Crown. Control of the Senate, in conjunction with control of the House of Commons, provided rich opportunity for Ontario and Quebec to retain control of the federal political process.
Searching for some rationale of equality, the Quebec Conference of 1864 justified the distribution of Senators across Divisional lines giving twenty four to each “Division”. However two Divisions, Ontario and Quebec just happen to also be “protected” provinces. Each of these “Divisions” is assigned twenty-four Senators. The only other provinces within the confederation at the time, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were lumped as the Maritime Division and assigned twenty-four Senators, twelve for each. Not for Canada was there to be any hint of equal status. The fact that no constitutional document, describing the structure of Canada, gave legal weight to a “Division”, was ignored. In Canada there are only two levels of government, provincial and federal. Each level has, by statute, its own share of power and authority. (The third level, municipalities, has no standing within the constitution. Municipalities are extensions under provincial authority. If a province wished to abolish one, or any number, of towns or cities, there would be no direct constitutional bar to this action.)
It is interesting to note that the word “Division” has particular meaning in British politics. As far back as the 15th century Parliament, its members cast votes by dividing themselves on one side or the other of any particular issue. This became known as the “Divisions” and is still referred to as such to this day.
Divisions, as a legal entity, have no mention, no power, no right of organization within the written constitution. This charade of senatorial “Divisional” equality is a pretense, a ruse. This was a ploy of central Canada to retain, not only the power of rep-by-pop, but the excessive power of the Second Chamber. It should not have been allowed. But then again, the birth of Canada was not an event trumpeted as even a tiny step in the progress of mankind. Canada’s birth was just - - - a business deal.
Comments 5
Canada - 5
by Bob Pawley on Wednesday 12 October 11:54Birth
Part 2
The decision to adopt any governing system, other than that adopted by America, leads to the question how is a Prime Minister to be chosen? Pre-confederation, the federal governing structure was much suited to emulate the United Sates legislative and executive separation. Had this course been chosen, the Prime Minister would have been elected based solely on his personal merits. Members of the House would be elected on merit, not strictly on party affiliation. The cabinet would have been chosen based on skill and accomplishment not on electoral prowess. The legislative would have been much less controlled by party politics. Our representatives would be representing “we the people” – not their party. Checks and balances to power would have resulted.
Sadly, that was not to be.
Outside the structure of the constitution, a British tradition long in place, was adopted by the Canadian Government. That decision, a source of great trouble in later years, elevated to highest office the leader of the political party attaining the most seats in the course of an election. Followed, in close order, by the accompanying tradition of choosing cabinet members from the ranks of the party in power.
Once the law, requiring party leaders to sign nomination papers of their electoral hopefuls, was passed, the die was cast. Total overriding political power now rested with the Prime Minister of the day.
This confluence of decisions reinforced the monarchial legal structure, imported from Britain and relegated to Canada. The Prime Minister was Monarch, in fact if not in name. With the advent of party discipline, the Prime Ministerial office is a dictatorship. By threat and by promise, he controls his caucus and cabinet. All the strings of federal power, as well as purchased provincial power, lead to this office. Senators are personally beholden to he and his predecessor alike. The Chamber of Sober Second Thought, may occasionally think, but scarce does it act. A real Senate does battle to protect itself from evil, outside forces. Our Senate is no check to kingly power, this higher chamber was born sullied. Our Senate is no senate holding promise to We the People. Our Senate is a structure for the ennoblement of the Prime Minister, sustaining influence for that shadowy force which controls him, focusing power in Ottawa at the direct expense of Canadians. The Prime Minister with absolute authority, during his term of office, fears only one minute check, one tiny balance to his power – an election.
Canadian elections are curious events. Meant to choose the best, they oft choose the worst. It matters not that a good and honest person run. It matters only for which party. With absolute control the Prime Minister’s caucus members are no more than numbers to be counted. With numbers enough, total power is attained. There are no checks no balances in the exercise of power - no laws to limit the power of the Prime Minister. Any act to close the deep democratic deficit is reliant on the honour of a single individual. Little honour is found. Every decision, every bill and every move is motivated, initiated and completed with one cause in mind – the return to power. Nothing and no one else matters, not the representatives, not the people and certainly not the country.
Other countries have limits to the power their leaders wield. Laws dictate responsibility and authority. The structure of governance in these countries ensures legal compliance. In these countries government exists for the people. Not so in Canada. In Canada, the government exists to exercise control, in the interest for and the benefit of self.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 6
by Bob Pawley on Friday 14 October 13:40Birth
Part 3
The corollary of conquest is having to deal with the conquered. The Romans were among the first to realize the danger and the advantage. Allowing the conquered to retain power, land and laws established a continuing present danger. Rather than butchering or selling the defeated, they saw the advantage of incorporating the willing into Roman life. After all, assimilate or die is mostly an easy choice. In all of the European wars of conquest, assimilation was the best option, the option most employed, even to the conquest of the Saxons by the Normans.
However, assimilation is best practised with two cultures near the same level of societal, technological and civilized development. How best then, to treat a conquered peoples whose culture, technology and social development is eight thousands of years behind?
Canadians faced this problem. To great degree we still seek solutions.
During the great European expansion, colonies were established in every corner of the world. In Africa, Australia and islands of the Pacific, the colonial powers found primitive societies akin to that found in Canada. Most of these indigenous peoples were treated in similar manner - conquered, pacified and used for unskilled labour. In Africa, there was some effort expended by the British in training the more gifted in the law, education and policing, bringing local inhabitants at least some of the way into the British sphere. Some of these efforts took root, lending invaluable expertise to these countries upon their eventual independence.
In both Australia and Canada, indigenous peoples were shunted aside to lands reserved for them and to large degree, generally left to fend for themselves. In Canada, effort was made, when needed, to provide food and tools sufficient to sustain life. Survival is one thing, thriving another. Neither country provided the tools for more than survival.
In most cases the decision was mutual. The Indian tribes were granted the land on which they and their ancestors had resided for centuries. This was land reserved for them, no Europeans allowed. They saw how quickly Europeans were pouring into the country from across the sea and across the border and were thankful to retain some part of their land.
These reserved lands soon became ghettos inhabited by people who knew only hunting, gathering and at best subsistence farming. They had no written word, no common language, no trade, no doctors, no manufacturing, no system of governance other than tribal, no hope, certainly no valid promise, no economy, no tools, no books. What they did have or acquired – local plus imported European diseases, early death, cycles of starvation, alcohol, bitter cold winters, served them ill.
The Europeans in Canada soon greatly outnumbered the Indians. The Europeans had no direct need to train local inhabitants as was done in Africa. Encouraging a whole peoples to quickly travel the path of eight thousand years is a daunting task, one not pursued lightly. In early Canada there were enough challenges, dangers and opportunities without choosing near impossible tasks for which no one, not even the subjects, asked, no one needed and no one wanted. Perhaps this fact alone is the reason the Indian was relegated to reserves. No need presents no desire to make an effort. And, the needed effort would have been great.
What Canada did, a policy still alive today, was introduce the Canadian Indian to a feudal system containing its own culture, laws and social customs separate from the main, containing nothing upon which to build. As feudal systems went, the Canadian model was the most appalling. Our feudal system took the hunter from dependence on the land and reliance in himself to dependence and reliance on his leaders and the federal government. There was no fealty to the land, as there was in European feudalism, since there was little knowledge of agriculture, few tools, no smithies, no tenure and, due to government welfare, no incentive. The fealty was to an individual, be it chief or government agent. Once proud hunters, family providers, family protectors, independent, with, due to their efforts, high tribal standing, of a sudden had no need to hunt, provide or protect. Out of the inner circle of tribal power, men were forced to depend on others, to ask, beg for sustenance, shelter and work. This is Canada of the nineteenth, twentieth and so far the twenty first century. This is Canada now.
It would have been long, hard, patient work, but one has to wonder the strides our society might have made if these proud, strong peoples had been incorporated into our laws, culture and economy. It needn’t have happened during the time of struggle to build our own. But, welcoming, and pushing these people into the modern age could have been accomplished at any point in the last one hundred years.
The key factor for societal advancement, as in all well run democracies, is the right of ownership. Without this the individual has nothing. Without this the individual is dependent on others for what he needs and is as dependent on all to keep that which he has. Without ownership, backed by law, there is no individual wealth, no mobility. If he moves, all he has stays behind. If he comes back to his homeland he starts over. Perpetual poverty, hopelessness, despair, this his legacy, this his future. The Canadian federal government took the Indian under its wing promising to care as a parent cares for a child. Some parent. Unfortunate child.
Canada has been born. However, the child was malformed. Laws and separation, based solely on race and culture, became a leading factor of the constitution and government policy. All three pillars of government - Executive, Judicial and Legislative, critical to any form of democratic governance, were fatally flawed. Bad though this distortion is at the birth, worse is yet to come.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
A Personal View
by Bob Pawley on Friday 14 October 22:03Preface
Canada is a nation no longer.
By strict definition this country was never a nation. Canada, even at its birth, contained a people divided. Since then the laws of this northern land mass have entrenched dual culture, dual language into its very laws.
I was born in Calgary, Alberta and can therefore legitimately claim to be of the West. I was proud of my western birth, even while growing up in Ontario. I cheered for the Stampeders as both my brothers cheered for eastern teams. As are most Canadians, I am a multi-breed. My English half is constantly at war with my Irish, Slav temperament. Because of this fact I am in harmony with no community in our government mandated multi-cultural country. Once I felt a belonging to a magnificent community-at-large. That community is no longer.
I was proud to be Canadian. One of my uncles fought in the Terrible War, my father spent six years of his life fighting in the second of the Wars to End All Wars. I served my country as an airman. Working and traveling in many offshore countries, I gloried in my Canadianism. I was a Canadian.
No longer. Casting back, it was in the late 1960s that my country began to leave me. I, a simple person, didn’t notice until the latter 1980s. Since then, the rate of departure has ever accelerated. We are not a nation. We are barely a country. Soon we will be something new.
In Official World we are a duality within a democracy. In Real World, where most live, we are a collection of languages, cultures and heritages held together, not by common cause but, by emotion - by artificial boundaries - by corrupt political institutions - by a federal government that has, since 1915, been constituted illegally. Democracy in Canada was born deformed. It was badly injured in 1915, mortally wounded in 1974, died in 1985. We await burial.
Outside of the two “founding nations”, Ontario and Quebec, provinces are held as colonies to Central Government. Some are held in bondage through utter dependency on federal wealth. Others are held by force of numbers strengthened by a malformed senate, controlled through an illegal, immoral and unfair electoral system.
My emotional ties to this mythical nation began to wane in the 90s. They are no more. I do believe I am not alone.
Canada - The Series is my poor attempt at presenting a reality of Canada – a viewpoint that some ignore and many obscure. I will attempt to demonstrate the sham of this structure which binds we the colonials to Imperial Ottawa.
Note - “Nation – a large aggregate of people united by common descent, culture, or language inhabiting a particular state or territory.” Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2002
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 7
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 18 October 10:43Growth
Part 1
The Americans are coming! The Americans are coming! Such was the cry upon the land. “The battle tested armies, fresh from their conflict, will be sent to wrest Canada from the British. War will result. All will be lost.” Fear stretched across Canada. Fear of war. In London, concern was expressed that Canada would be soon lost.
If the Americans had been as rapacious and land grabbing as their critics stated, the conquest of British North America would surely have taken place. The British had no desire for another North American war. Had the Americans been even the least bit aggressive they could have easily contained Canada within its 1867 boundaries. The seizure of what was soon to be Winnipeg, by the Americans, would have defeated the British plan to extend Canada to the west. This would not have led to war. Manitoba was an island within a wilderness, cut off from British authority. There was no access through Canada from either the west or the east. The only way in to this lonely land for the British forces to stream men and supplies, was overland from James Bay – an impossible trek to sustain an army – or, equally impossible, fighting their way through the United States. With Manitoba occupied by the United States, the colony of British Columbia would also have been isolated. One thousand American soldiers could have changed history. But nothing happened. No armies were mobilized. No war waged. No border was breached. No land was seized. No threat was offered by official Washington.
The Americans were interested in adding the northern lands to the Union. But, they were set on peaceful ways. All interested parties, the colonies (including British Columbia) the Hudson Bay Company even the British were offered terms and compensation. The Annexation Bill of 1866 proposed a union of the willing. Although passed by the U.S. Congress, and made into law, it never came into effect. The terms were generous in the extreme - few knew. The Hudson Bay Company certainly did not reject the ten million US dollars that the Annexation Bill proposed, only to settle for the Canadian pittance that was accepted less than four years later. For sake of Empire, fear, not knowledge, was encouraged to rule.
Hollow, prejudicial fear engineered by British authority, was the anvil upon which the Canadian national structure was forged. An ominous beginning.
Encroachment there was - but of the peaceful non-violent sort. In their westward expansion, south of the Great Lakes, travel, much easier than to the north, encouraged early and heavy migration to the American plains. Gravitating northward onto the Canadian prairies was natural and predictable.
To forestall a peaceful American takeover, the new Canadian government initiated their westward push by acquiring the rights to the land of the vast empire of the Hudson Bay Company and the wealth within it. In contrast to the American offer of US $10,000,000 dollars, the Canadian government was only willing to pay the equivalent of US $1,500,000 and 7,000,000 acres of land as compensation.
The province of Manitoba was carved, from these lands, in 1870, by government edict, after little or no effective consultation with the inhabitants.
Manitoba was born. But not without conflict. Louis Riel, objecting to Canadian control over the Metis population, rebelled. Citizens of all cultures were, in large number and for other reasons, sympathetic to the rebellion, distrust of Canada being the leading fear. They were right to be concerned. Riel lost his war, his home and his life. Manitoba became a province of the new Dominion with significantly reduced status and power, relative to the original four provinces.
*
British Columbia was the next link in the chain to cleave the west to central Canada, discouraging American encroachment. In this they had help. William Alexander Smith, born in 1825, in Windsor, Nova Scotia was truly a Canadian character. At some point in his checkered life after an epiphany, he changed his name to Amor De Cosmos; perhaps predicating his own cosmic fame. He settled in Victoria, British Columbia in 1858 traveling by way of the California gold rush. Founding a Victoria newspaper, The British Colonist, he was instrumental in organizing the Yale Conference paving the way to consolidating the two western colonies within British Columbia and joining Canada.
The province entered Canada under authority of a contract known as the BC Terms of Union. This contract, in clear language, set out not only the benefits to, but also the responsibilities of both parties. One of the responsibilities that befell Canada was a guarantee that British Columbia would enjoy status, within the confederation, “equal to the founding provinces”. In this responsibility, Canada has been most consistent in its failure.
At the time, a most important contractual clause was the promise of building a rail line from Canada to British Columbia. Cosmos put great faith in the terms of the contract that brought British Columbia into confederation. In 1879, while acting as both Premier of British Columbia and as a Member of Parliament, at the same time, frustrated at the slow pace of rail construction, Cosmos put forth a motion in the House of Commons calling for the separation of British Columbia from the union. This was the first, but certainly not the last, call for provincial separation from Canada. Always an eccentric individual, in 1895 De Cosmos was declared insane. He died two years later.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 8
by Bob Pawley on Thursday 20 October 11:14Growth
Part 2
*
“We feel that we have discharged our duty to the people – that we have fairly placed the subject before them, and we shall henceforth refrain from the advocacy of a measure which, notwithstanding its importance, is regarded by the mass of the people as one which render them and their children slaves to Canada.”
Editor of the “Islander”, PEI, 1866
Prince Edward Island was the seventh province to join Canada. As such, it required negotiation not once but twice. The colony was near imminent financial collapse due to overextending itself building a rail line. Even so, the province rejected the first offer for a try at greater gain. They succeeded. The Prince Edward Island Terms of Union is a modified copy of the terms accepted by British Columbia. One clause, the guarantee of status equal to the founding provinces, is an exact copy as that found in the British Columbia terms. This clause, as in all contracts, binds both parties equally. Prince Edward Island will be the first to abrogate this clause by arguing, in court, for special electoral status.
*
Rail and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (known then as the Northwest Mounted Police) joined Canada west to east, establishing Canadian authority, thwarting American expansionism. Rail opened the west to successive waves of European immigrants, settling, for the main, on the prairies. This influx led Canada to create the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, which it did by edict, with no need for negotiation.
However, the act creating these two prairie provinces was not without controversy. The established power structure, in what was then called the Northwest Territories, objected strenuously. They denounced various points of procedures and clauses in vain attempt to retain power. In spite of these objections, the Acts creating both Alberta and Saskatchewan were enacted in 1905.
The Quebec Conference of 1864, established the guidelines for senatorial distribution. This decision which promised equality by way of the, just invented, “Divisions” of Canada, was well honoured, only as it applied to the eastern provinces, including Prince Edward Island. However, when it came to the four western provinces, this promise made in Quebec was conveniently cast aside. Instead of the twenty four senators they were due, the western provinces were allotted a distribution of British Columbia 3, Alberta 4, Saskatchewan 4, Manitoba 4 for a total of fifteen. It is quite apparent that the Senate was developed for no reason other than as a tool to ensure eastern power.
Newfoundland, through misadventure and reluctance, in 1949 was made the tenth and last province of Canada. It too a colony, was welcomed into the dominion with similar blandishments as were British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. Six senators were assigned to Newfoundland. The four Maritime provinces now had thirty senators representing them. Abolished for all time, is the concept of “Divisional” or regional equality in Senate appointments. Despite this, the governments of Canada, continue to promote the conceit of, regional or divisional, equality.
One important clause engineered by British Columbia and inserted into the BC Terms of Union, found its way on to the Newfoundland Terms of Union in exact language. This equality clause was upheld by both the Supreme Court of Canada and Britain’s Privy Council in rulings as long ago as 1903 and 1904. The clause giving equal status “as if it were a founding province” is now the heritage of three provinces. By this 1949 inclusion, the government in effect upheld the term of guaranteed equality.
This guarantee of equal status for British Columbia, “as if we were a founding province”, has been ignored or discounted by the federal government for their own direct benefit. The body holding greatest responsibility for upholding Canadian law has abdicated its duty. That the government can safely ignore well established legal precedent, when it is in their interest to do so, places Canada closer to the Third World than it does to a country governed by the rule of law.
The flood of immigration into the western provinces, reflected in the census of 1900, produced a new dynamic in constituency redistribution. The result was the imminent decline in Members of the House, representing Prince Edward Island, from four to three. Heedless of the Terms of Union which bound them to equal status, Prince Edward Island objected. Taking to the courts, Prince Edward Island successfully argued that they should not have fewer Members of Parliament than their four Senators. This was a breach of contract by Prince Edward Island and the courts. Damage was done not only to the other provinces but to Prince Edward Island Itself. Constituencies in other provinces would grow larger as populations grew. In Prince Edward Island, constituencies would remain the same size, giving this small province more power in the House of Commons than deserved. This extra, static power influenced provincial policies and regulations. Thus Prince Edward Island became the first of the provinces dependent on wealth generated by others, dependent on that wealth, wealth undeserved, being transferred by Ottawa. The Supreme Court of Canada, those justices who at the time were appointed exclusively by the British Governor General representing British interests, agreed. As final legal authority, in those days, the British Privy Council also agreed. How these legal bodies, flying in the face of clear contractual agreements, agreements previously ratified by they themselves, and contrary to the much ballyhooed British value of fair play, came to this conclusion is interesting.
(This whole sad story can be found at http://www.110west.org/distribution/mpcount.html This site also includes the Court decisions that Canada has ignored for the last 90 years.)
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 9
by Bob Pawley on Sunday 23 October 11:48Growth
Part 3
*
“Agreement to transfer natural resource administration to Alberta
1926
With Confederation, the British North America Act accorded the four signing provinces rights to the management of public lands and to all natural resources thereon. However, under the Manitoba Act (1870) these rights were vested in the Crown and were to be administered by the Government of Canada "for the purposes of the Dominion."
Ottawa's control over western resources was subsequently reaffirmed under the Northwest Territories Act (1875) and by the two acts creating the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan (1905). Ottawa argued that this move was necessary in order for it to oversee the national goals of populating the West. But to many westerners it became a popular grievance since it relegated their provinces to second-class status in Confederation.
In the 1920s, the resource question resulted in a series of federal-provincial conferences, of which this original signed agreement between Alberta and Canada was an outgrowth. Finally in 1930, the federal government and the three Prairie provinces came to an understanding which resulted in three separate resource agreements that were ratified by Parliament.” www.collectionscanada.ca
“British North America Act, 1930,
Alberta
And whereas it is desirable that the Province should be placed in a position of equality with the other Provinces of Confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources as from its entrance into Confederation in 1905:” www.canada.justice.gc.ca
After arduous talks, political pressure, minority governments and wheeling and dealing the federal government reversed its long held stance. This addition to the British North American Act, 1930, brought all four western provinces control of all natural resources discovered on their land. These are rights that were automatically given to the four founding provinces. If Canada had been built on any basic principles whatsoever, these rights would have been awarded, without question, to all the new provinces directly upon entry. (Note - As the United States was expanding, all new entrants were awarded the same rights, the same privileges and the same responsibilities as all other states. In one word - EQUALITY - sadly lacking in Canada.)
This 1930 Act indicates that the federal government can be made to accept the concept of provincial equality. The act also establishes a precedent, narrow though it may be, that provincial equality is a desirable feature in the affairs of a Federal Confederation.
But Canada did not have equality in any form. With no place to vent frustration on a par with other concerns, issuing from other places, frustration builds. Without equal provincial access to the halls of the Senate, discord arises. With no balancing of provincial powers against the power of population, there is no redress for grievances.
“1934
BC Separatism
“... The Okanagan and Fraser Valley fruit farmer is not the docile habitant of Quebec; our loggers and miners in this province are real men; while the great middle classes in our British Columbia cities average up a people unequalled on earth.
If we are forced to it by Eastern Canada, we can separate and pay our own way and go it alone; and we can be sure we will have 100 per cent British support. Victoria and Vancouver are world seaports. This province is a great hunting and sporting country. And regardless of the tongues and races in the rest of Canada, we are and propose to remain, a British people.
There must be a more equitable sharing among Canadians of things Canadian, or else this province must look about in self- defence to find ways and means to federate these parts into a DOMINION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.” Source: Vancouver Sun, 14 May 1934, p. 1.
In 1949, Newfoundland became Canada’s tenth province. Britain acted as final authority over the Newfoundland referendum. To this day there are bitter charges of unfairness, fixes and sundry nasty actions of both Britain and the last Father of Confederation, Joey Smallwood.
*
In summary –
· The formation of three of Canada’s provinces were established through legally binding contracts to which no government was to be bound.
· The Canadian Constitution built three houses, English, French and Indian, segregating race and culture.
· The Senate was built in such manner that it proved to be the reverse of its oft stated aim of “balancing power”.
· The Canadian ship of state, for its first 100 years, was steered by a foreign power standing at its helm.
· Canadian laws and its constitution were determined by foreign interpretation.
· Judges were appointed exclusively by the British Governors General.
· British legal rulings on the Canadian Constitution established solid precedent for judges to “interpret” the constitution and laws springing from it, as a “Living Tree”, with all their personal prejudices, bias and agenda infused upon it.
· Judges interpret the interpretations of the British Privy Council that favoured the country’s singular power structure.
· Canada was deliberately created as an “asymmetrical federation”, giving the federal government ability to manipulate, divide and conquer.
· The only act of citizen participation that the constitution originally allowed, rep-by-pop elections, was broken – soon to be shattered.
· Appointed by singular federal authority, equality born mute, the Senate was created as an ineffective force.
· With no effective Senate, the House of Commons became all powerful.
· Population density ensured this power was to be held in the east. Phantoms of the old Family Compact – leaders in business, media and society, continue to mold opinion directing this eastern power.
· The Canadian parliamentary system surrenders all federal authority to the party in power.
· The legal requirement that all electoral nominees are to be authorized by the party leader ensures caucus subservience to that leader.
· Subservience fuses House of Commons power to the Prime Minister.
· The Prime Minister becomes monarch and dictator, bearing authority of total power between elections.
· Elections are tainted with the stench of inequality and the distinct lack of legality and equal suffrage.
· Ideology of power replaces democracy.
· Democracy, if ever alive, is now dead.
Such was Canada in 1949. Yet, worse was still to come.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 5
Canada - 10
by Bob Pawley on Tuesday 25 October 12:19Maturity
Part 1
It takes but one side to make war – two to wage peace.
One hundred ten thousand killed - such was the cost of marching to Britain’s bugle. By action and disease the toll was, in South Africa – 219 dead (3% of those who served); W.W. 1 – 66,000 dead (11%); W.W. 2 – 45,000 dead (4.5%). Canada as a country, maturing by bloody battle, in defense of Empire.
Nations are defined by war.
These three wars defined Canada to others, as a country of honour and valour, containing a fighting spirit unparalleled in the annals of history. However, this was the Canada of English Speaking Peoples.
The advent of the 1899 Boer War split Canada again, directly along linguistic lines. English Canadians were eager to support Britain. The French, sympathetic to the Boer minority in South Africa, saw only an English war. Laurier, the Prime Minister, compromised by sending a volunteer force only. This concession satisfied neither side. The passage dividing the two houses of Canada narrowed and grew longer.
Ypres. Canadian soldiers bore the brunt of Germany’s first use of chlorine gas. Where others fell back, the Canadian lines held. The valour and bravery of these Canadian soldiers swayed German opinion on the usefulness of gas as a weapon. It was later used, but not to the extent planned had our soldiers not held the line at this small town in Belgium.
After Ypres, the battalion was transferred to The Somme. Here, for the sake of capturing a village and three kilometers of territory, Canadians lost 8,000 killed and 16,000 wounded.
Vimy Ridge (not Vichy Ridge as John McCallum would have us believe), withstood attacks by our allies for two years. The Canadians captured this German stronghold. The cost - 10,000 casualties. Here stands Canada’s National Memorial to those lost in this most terrible of wars.
Conscription became necessary to increase troop levels due to the widening war and the carnage inflicted. At home, volunteer enlistment was rapidly decreasing. Frustrated with their lot in Canada, resentful of how the French outside of Quebec were treated, the Quebecois shunned the “English war”. At a time when twenty thousand Canadian casualties were recorded, and English Canadians were volunteering at the rate of five thousand per month, Quebec produced less than one hundred volunteers. English Canadians spoke of forcing French Canadians to contribute their fair share of the burden. Conscription triggered riots in Montreal and Quebec. Four people were killed.
French Canadians had gained sentimental attachment to neither Britain nor Canada. On top of this, they had lost any patriotic fervor they may have once held for France, their own ancestral home. Separate languages, separate laws and no commonly accepted Canadian guiding vision, conspired to drive these two Canadian cultures apart. The passage between the Houses, grew longer.
* * * * * *
“The carnage was appalling. Caught in the crossfire at Beaumont Hamel, the Newfoundland regiment (not then part of the Canadian military) suffered 233 killed and some 477 wounded or missing in thirty minutes; the British lost 19,240 men while an additional 37,000 were wounded. All these losses occurred on the first day.
Canadian troops entered the battle in September. They managed to capture the village of Courcellette, but at the great cost of 7,230 casualties during the week-long battle. The Canadian divisions withdrew from the Somme in October and counted 8,000 dead and some 16,000 wounded, all for a territorial gain of under three kilometres. In total, British and French [France] troops suffered 600,000 casualties for a gain of 13 kilometres. The Battle of the Somme epitomized the futility of trench war.” www.lermuseum.org
*
“On 2nd September 1918, seven Canadians earned the Victoria Cross in exceptionally fierce fighting. The corps attacked across the Canal du Nord, forcing the Germans back to the Hindenburg Line, which was broken on the 27th of that month. On 9th October they took Cambrai. During the period between mid-August to mid October, the Canadians had suffered over 30,000 casualties killed, wounded, or captured.” www.collections.ic.gc.ca
*
“Our lines of communication having been cut, we had no contact with headquarters, and as by this time we were mixed up with other battalions, no one seemed to know just who should or should not be in command. So it was just a case of doing the best we could under the circumstances as conditions were changing momentarily.
I can recall an instance when the Germans broke through on our left, and our one and only machine gun, being inactive on our immediate front, a Lieutenant of the Fifth Battalion; and if my memory serves me right, Fitzpatrick, was his name, coming into our bay and on seeing our machine gun, wanted to know if it was in working order, and on being told that it was, wanted to know why the hell we were not using it to our left rear.
Our officer at the time replied that he could not tell which were the Germans and which the French [France]. To this Fitzpatrick replied, "You can't go wrong. If they are Germans you are OK and if they are French then they have no bloody business going back",” www.pacific-pages.com
Private William Peden #1023 - 8th Battalion, "Little Black Devils", Canadian Expeditionary Force
The Treaty of Versailles ended the first of the German wars. Heroic action brought Canada and Australia to the treaty table, not as colonies, but as equal partners with our allies. Few French Canadians felt kinship in this, Canada’s first small step toward maturity.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 11
by Bob Pawley on Friday 28 October 10:22Maturity
Part 2
Weakened by war, a whole generation disemboweled, Britain needed friends and allies more than they needed colonies. Emboldened by recent war efforts, the colonies, seeing opportunity - struck.
After many calls, Britain ceded freedom to the colonies of which Canada was but one. Hereinafter, laws applying to Canada would be made in Canada. Laws made in England would no longer be applied to Canada without parliamentary ratification. This, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, was a form of sovereignty but it was not independence, for Canada’s judicial system and constitution were still subject to British control. But, within the borders of Canada, there was political and legislative autonomy. The first major step toward full independence was forged on the World War’s fields’ of battle.
What did this mean for Canada?
Canada was now a sovereign state. Political affairs, both internal and external were in the hands of Canada’s Parliament. Foreign treaties and other external relations fell to the federal sphere as prescribed by the constitution, the fate of all new Canadian political powers. In 1931, Canada gained the ability to make its own triumphs and tragedies. Both were attained.
Canada’s first major test of independent action was triggered by the Depression. Buffeted by high unemployment, demands for services and a tax base restricted by the constitution, the provinces were hard pressed. To address the provincial/federal financial imbalance, the Rowell-Sirois Committee was formed.
The commission considered three approaches to relieve the financial pressure on the provinces -
1. Reallocating powers between the two levels of government so that responsibilities would match fiscal capacity. This would imply massive centralization and probably could not be achieved given the autonomous stand of many of the provinces.
2. Reallocation of fiscal powers in favour of provincial governments could be made but the Commission argued that this could not be achieved because of the great economic disparities between provinces and regions. These problems could have been overcome. This method was probably rejected, far more because it was not conducive to promoting "national unity", rather than for economic reasons.
3. To centralize taxes and to establish a guaranteed income for the provinces.
The third option, considering the players involved was, of course, chosen. Centralizing taxes is a tried and true method of taking hold of power – the one goal of those shadowy central Canadians since well before confederation. Within six years of legislative independence from Britain, Canada sought to instill national unity and patriotism, not by common cause, not by national purpose, but instead - by simple purchase.
Newton Wesley Rowell from Ontario was succeeded by Joseph Sirois of French heritage, both centralists, as chairs of this committee. The report, released in 1940, called for a massive transfer of taxing power from the provinces to the federal government. The report recommended that personal and corporate income taxes be relinquished by the provinces to federal authority. The federal government would remit a small percentage of revenue thus gathered back to the provinces. This attempt at centralizing Canada was accompanied by a recommendation that the federal government be the provinces’ paymaster. This idea did not go over well in Quebec.
Maurice Duplessis, 1950s Premier of Quebec, in the latter 1930s said -
"A government with no control over its sources of revenue has only phantom powers, restricted by the interests of those who control, collect and distribute the public's funds. It is the government of an occupied country, of an enslaved people.” Claude Bélanger, Department of History, Marianopolis College
Meeting in 1941 to ratify these recommendations, the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia were totally against this federal grasp for power. Manitoba and the Maritime provinces were wholeheartedly in favour of this redistribution of other peoples’ wealth. The new Quebec Premier, Adelard Godbout, put in office with the help of the federal Liberals, dithered. He was the first minister in Quebec since the 1870s to not stand for provincial autonomy. He was never elected to public office again.
The meeting closed with the Rowell-Sirois report shelved. Modest amounts of money were distributed from Ottawa as a one time help for the provinces. The centralists were not yet done. Council for this commission was one Louis St. Laurent. He, as Prime Minister, in 1957, would revive the centralist objective of creating a Canada that was subservient to federal power.
The Rowell-Sirois Commission was Canada’s first major policy undertaking free of British oversight. The three options for resolving the financial challenges faced by the provinces were stark. Only one option would increase provincial power. The option proposed by the commission, would give the federal government full and total control over each province’s finances. It took centralists less than six years to make a bid for total economic and political power within this country. This cold, ruthless gang used, first the cover of the Great Depression, then the patriotism instilled by the war in a vain attempt to gather to themselves all of the decision making authority within this, supposed, federation of equals. But in this failed coup attempt lay the seeds of federal success for the future.
In 1957, the federal government passed the Equalization Act. Thus, the federal body gained the authority to redistribute wealth from those who do and make, to those who don’t and spend. By the twenty-first century, this redistribution culminated in some Atlantic provinces squealing with indignation when new found oil wealth lowered their equalization income. These provinces are determined to have their cake and eat it too.
In his inaugural address, John Kennedy said to the American people "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country" . Less than four years earlier, the Canadian government had already established their call-to-arms for its citizens. With the advent of receiving unearned wealth through equalization and political favour, our battle cry became – Ask not what I can do for my country – ask what my country can do for me.
The Rowell-Sirois Commission Report was key to the equalization program which set Canada on the unenviable path to egocentric demands by some, for wealth created by and through the hard work, sweat, risk and venture of others.
The maturation of Canada continues.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 12
by Bob Pawley on Friday 28 October 21:49Maturity
Part 3
Following Britain to war, in 1939, was a more hesitant affair than in previous wars. A week of doubt existed in the halls of power. Amongst the English population, there was no question but to share peril with Britain. The French-English rift rose anew throughout the Second World War. Volunteers, mostly English Canadians, filled the needs of war until 1941. Conscription was needed. In Quebec, seventy four percent said no. Eighty percent of English Canadians, in the rest of Canada, said yes. The French were willing to soldier for Canada on Canadian soil but not to fight for the relief of France. Conscription was enacted as part of the National Resources Mobilization Act. Prime Minister King, heeding Quebec’s preference, promised to restrict conscripted soldiers to domestic chores. By 1944 King felt he had no choice but to send the 13,000 conscripted overseas. The Prime Minister’s greatest concern, throughout this political and military crisis, was to keep Canada from splitting along English-French lines as happened in 1917.
The respect of fighting prowess, gained in the European Theater, was a further step toward Canadian maturity and national independence. In Canada, the English showed the way, dragging the uncaring behind.
First Special Service Force
[The Devil’s Brigade]
Brotherton, William E.
(M11122) Silver Star
“Staff Sergeant, Canadian Army, 3rd Company *** Regiment, First Special Service Force. For gallantry in action on *** December 1943, on Mont *** Italy, Staff Sergeant Brotherton, was a member of a combat patrol of one officer and three enlisted man detailed to penetrate into enemy territory and destroy enemy machine guns and snipers whose fire was causing casualties in his unit.
Staff Sergeant Brotherton executed his mission with skill and aggressive spirit, once coming to within a yard of an enemy position before being discovered. In the several enemy positions which were encountered and reduced, nine of the enemy were killed, of who Staff Sergeant Brotherton killed seven by rifle fire.
Staff Sergeant Brotherton’s spirit and skill reflect credit upon himself and the two armies which he serves. Entered military service from Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada.
Aitken, Robert B. Private
(D109795) Silver Star
"Private, Canadian Army, 1st Company, 3rd Regiment, 1st Special Service Force. For gallantry in action on 7 January 1944, on Mount Majo, Italy. Private Aitken volunteered for the task of silencing an enemy machine gun whose fire was causing heavy casualties in his company. He crawled toward the position while under fire from the machine gun and from enemy riflemen on both sides of him. Reaching a spot twenty yards from the hostile weapon, he raised to his knees and threw a hand grenade into the position. He then fired several bursts with his submachine gun to silent the enemy weapon.
Private Aiken's heroic actions reflect credit upon himself and the two armies which he serves. Entered military service from Montreal, Quebec, Canada." www.execulink.com/~kiska/FSSFHomepage.index01.html
As it appeared in Chapter “Growth” –
“In the late 1930s, Charles Cahan, the Tory Member of Parliament from Montreal who in 1928 had publicly lamented that the poor quality of the Supreme Court prevented the abrogation of appeals, attacked the Privy Council’s interpretation of the BNA Act and demanded the end of appeals [to the British Privy Council]. Like many Canadian legal scholars, Cahan believed that the Privy Council had deliberately attempted [emphasis added] to alter the true meaning of the Canadian Constitution. He concluded that members of the Privy Council were “personally ignorant” of Canada yet arrogated “to themselves a prescience and clairvoyance which entitles them to substitute their judgments and even their personal preferences, for the deliberate legislative enactments of the elected representatives of the people who sit in the parliament of Canada”. The Supreme Court of Canada : The Rise and Fall of Chief Justice Lyman Poore Duff, McGill Law Journal, 2002, Author – R. Blake Brown.
Charles Cahan won his point. Chastened by two world wars, Britain, through the governing Labour Party, was busy dismantling the British Empire. Former colonies, such as India that had supplied much of the Empire’s wealth over the previous three hundred years, were being transformed to independent status as a member of the British Commonwealth. The war had destroyed Britain’s economy. The British had their own massive problems. It had no need to concern itself with Canada. In 1949, appeals to the British Privy Council were abolished. The Supreme Court became supreme.
Yet the damage had been done. Making the Supreme Court the legal arena of final appeal did not undo eighty-two years of Privy Council decisions that established Canadian legal precedents. The precedents so established and the British philosophy instilled in the Canadian legal mindset, were not eliminated by this simple act in 1949. The precedents and mindset have never been changed nor challenged. The legal underpinning supporting the Canadian legal structure was already built by 1949. The rules and thinking that guide legal decisions and lawmaking for all the years and decisions to come, were created by a foreign power to which Canada was subservient.
Do citizens of a democracy not deserve a legal, therefore a political, process that reflects their own thinking, their own values, their own morals?
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 13
by Bob Pawley on Friday 28 October 21:56Maturity
Part 4
Canada’s courts employ a philosophy that the constitution is a “living tree” bearing only one immutable principle – adherence to The British Empire - with no other compass guiding the making of law. Until 1929, interpreting the Canadian Constitution was accomplished by a narrowly defined technical reading. Lord Sankey, head of the Privy Council, took it upon himself to decree the means by which the Canadian Constitution would henceforth be defined. He likened the constitution to a “living tree” capable of expansion. The fact that this dictate was in, what we now consider, a good cause is beside the point. This “reading” of the intent of the founders was to have much more profound and far reaching effect than the “persons case” which was its spark.
Lord Sankey was of Britain. Canada was merely a colony of the British Empire. Britain neither has, nor had, any written constitution in like manner as Canada. Britain’s laws and policies were founded on precedent and tradition developed over centuries of strife and struggle. Constraints on the courts and crown had been long established through war, death, imprisonment, challenge and compromise. Canada had no such history. Canada had only the written word anchored by Britain and her history. Britain could see no future where Canada would not be ruled by British protectionism. Lord Sankey, unaware or uncaring of events to come, failed to consider the ramifications to Canada once Canada lost the British anchor. That anchor was soon lost.
Other nations were quite able, on their own, to wade through the issue of women’s rights without coming to blows or distorting constitutions. One even went so far as to have “We the people” establish its own destiny. In this other country, the people decided the issue of women’s rights within its own society. These people made their determination in a broad deep referenda that did not weaken their country, but instead, strengthened it. Not for Canada was there to be found a democratic determination. Not for Canada was there to be resolution by “We the people” neither on the “persons case” nor on any other constitutional issue. In Canada, weighty matters of great import are to be determined by eleven elected politicians and, in the present construct, nine judges appointed by one of these same eleven politicians. In Canada “We the people” are expected to do no more than pay and obey.
Once Canada dropped the right of appeal to the Privy Council, the constitutional “living tree” was ripe to twist under the pressure of single issue organizations. Any group that could blow hard enough, long enough for their particular opinion-du-jour would eventually surely bend the courts, thereby the constitution, to their will. Had Lord Sankey been more farsighted by recognizing the limits of Empire, he may never have uttered those fateful words. The constitution would have continued to be interpreted more narrowly allowing “We the people”, through our parliament, or perhaps, may the Saints preserve us, even direct referenda, to speak for ourselves and steer the country to the distant place envisioned by all the people. Facing a choice of permitting Canadian citizens to guide their own destiny by wide and deep consensus, or by functionaries beholden to British interests, Lord Sankey chose what was best for the British Empire.
Also in 1949, the Supreme Court reached its present size of nine members. The Supreme Court Act stipulates that three of its members are to be appointed from Quebec and three from Ontario. This would be of minor consequence if the courts took the narrow, technical interpretations as it had before Lord Sankey’s pronouncement. However, with two thirds of the court interpreting the “living tree” from the viewpoint of the values, morals and mindset of only two of ten provinces, there is a pronounced imbalance. Fairness, diversity and equality have not been an overriding, immutable value in the constitution, or even in the minds of the ghosts of the Family Compact. Were these values present in either part, dividing the appointment of nine members of the Supreme Court between ten provinces, in rotation, would prove to be an easy mechanism to design.
*
Dissention within Canada during the Korean War was non-existent. Canada sent so few troops to battle they were made up of the existing volunteer regular army. No need to employ conscription. No need to put bother to the French. No hue and cry.
More than 20,000 Canadians served in this war. Of these troops, 516 (2%) were killed. Officially the Korean conflict was a Police Action. It would be a surprise if the contestants considered it in this way. In a police action the participants enjoy the comfort of shelter and their own bed from time to time. Not so in Korea. Downplaying the danger, strife and struggle of this peninsular war is a disservice to all who served.
Korea marked a milestone for Canada. This was the first war in which Canada participated as an equal player. Canada was no longer beholden to Britain.
However, Korea marked a second milestone in Canada’s maturation. We traded loyalty, allegiance, fealty and sovereignty once freely given to the British Empire, to a new, untested world organization of no tradition and little honour – the United Nations.
The Statute of Westminster gave Canada sovereignty in lawmaking. The cessation of appeals to the British Privy Council furthered Canada’s journey to independence. But, Britain still legally held our constitution. The Governor General, representing no one but an archaic empire that had become dust on the shelves of history, retained a critical position.
Soon, one of these issues would be finally resolved.
*
On October 18, 1919, was born a child who would play a pivotal role in Canadian politics. One month after the outbreak of the second war, he turned twenty years old. Thousands of his peers volunteered to go to Europe in defense of the peace and freedoms that came with living in Canada. His value system was different. He and his contemporaries shunned this war even to the extent of despising the officer training program to which he was subjected – a very minor duty. His contempt for things military extended to riding through neighbourhoods bedecked in a German helmet, reviling the friends and kin of those being slaughtered by the thousands in Europe. He and his Quebec friends considered WW 2 to be an English war. He knew better. He could read. He was aware that France and Scotland, his ancestral homelands, were in mortal peril. He cared not. His father, one of few to profit through the depression, was wealthy. Money was available for all he wanted. He used this money. He undertook extensive travel through Canada and Europe before the war. He had no concept of what it took to earn an hourly wage. He had no perception of the risks, effort and disappointments of business. He knew only himself and cared only for his intellect. He publicly praised both Stalin and Mao. It was known, even then, that both had murdered tens of millions of their own citizens. His admiration for their accomplishments knew no bounds. He was for power. He realized the NDP, let alone the Communist Party, his natural home, would never make government. He became a Liberal. He had a cold, ruthless, domineering character. His value system was at odds with all that had gone before. He relied on his intellectual prowess. He had no personal comprehension of the struggles, wants and needs of common folk – those who provided through hard, smart work, the wealth he so freely used. His name was Joseph Phillipe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau.
The Rowell-Sirois Commission started the Canadian trend. Equalization policies would continue it. Pierre Elliot Trudeau was to be the third rail of the track leading to the decline and death of Canada.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 14
by Bob Pawley on Monday 31 October 19:04Decline
Part 1
Conception commands. The outcome of any birth is tied directly to the DNA mix at conception. Environment surely modifies – but, just as surely, DNA sets the course. The birth of Canada was the offspring of a ménage a trois. All three participants had their own wants and needs stemming from the creation of this new country. The main actors were the British and English Canadians. French Canadians influenced the action, inserting their points by right of separate laws and separate culture. Conception leads to birth, decline - then death. The mix of DNA determines integrity of body, thereby - longevity.
Lacking the will to assimilate the defeated French, the British need for English dominance in Canada led to instituting a domineering power within a strong federal government. However, a populous Quebec separated from the main by language, laws and culture was a power, apart from the rest of Canada, with which to be reckoned.
In both Ontario and Quebec, within the political milieu, there was running, in secret veins, a movement which sprang from the Family Compact. This shadowy faction of elites saw it as their God given right to be rulers of this new, untested country. The entire structure of government was engineered to gain and retain the greater part of the Dominion’s power and authority. Until 1931, the British held the federal government in check. It was in the British interest to keep the federal/provincial tensions alive. Power, unattainable during the time of British control, was acquired shortly thereafter.
“In a deliberate departure from the U.S. model, the Fathers of Confederation awarded to the federal Parliament the residual power, i.e., jurisdiction over all areas not specifically assigned to the provincial legislatures. (The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states or to the people all powers not specifically enumerated.) The federal government was also provided with unlimited taxing powers while the provinces were restricted to direct taxes within the province.” www.ambassadeducanada.org/government/constitution-en.asp
If the Canadian ménage a trois had truly been striving for a democratic country, they would have taken a hint from the American experience. However, a true democracy was not to be.
The declaration of the American founders, “We the people”, as front and centre of the constitution, was buttressed by their actions. The Americans limited the power of their federal government in favour of “the people”. Their federal government has only the authority expressly allowed by “the people”. Most power, especially that power which most affects citizens’ day to day life, is held close to “the people”.
In America, the people rule, the government obeys.
In Canada, contrastingly, the governments closest to the people were allotted only those powers that the founders held to be a must for ratification. All other powers, all other authority plus the greatest ability to raise taxes was given to the federal government. As governing became more complex, the ability to impose excessive tax has allowed Ottawa an almost unlimited ability to intrude into provincial affairs. Through bribery, grants and fiscal policy more power has been usurped from the provinces than even the founders had considered to be wise.
In Canada, the government rules, the people obey.
The Canadian government of the day has only one, small, minor check on its power. Every few years, when the government determines, the people have their say in a general election. However, as we shall see, even this minor democratic allowance has been corrupted.
*
Many long years and thousands of lives were lost in the struggle to remove the yoke of Empire and establish our own Canadian independence. Our freedom did not long last. Before the final vestige of British legal authority was cast aside, Canada hobbled itself to a new world order. Unlike the British Empire, the United Nations enjoys no common thread with Canada. Unlike the British Empire, the new world order has little regard for tradition, no sense of honourable conduct, no regard for human or democratic values.
Like the British Empire, the United Nations is self absorbed, holding our national interests to account rather than being accountable to us as a member nation.
Canada, feeling adrift and alone in a dangerous world, shrank from the responsibilities demanded of a free and independent nation. Purposefully and by design, Canada surrendered its sovereignty on external matters to a world organization largely controlled by dictatorial and repressive regimes.
Having succumbed to the dictates of the new world order, Canada soon forgot the harsh lessons of the past. Withdrawing from its own moral stance, Canada abandoned its world responsibilities, adopting “soft” power in place of real power. The natural track of this path decimated our once proud military making it a shadow of its former self, resting the full weight of continental defence on the shoulders of the United States.
With our moral authority in the world chiefly discredited and our country’s defence seconded to the American army, we now stand alone and vulnerable as never before.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 15
by Bob Pawley on Wednesday 2 November 17:40Decline
Part 2
The lust for centralized power that was demonstrated in the years surrounding the birth, was not soon forgotten. Shortly after Canada received the authority to independently develop its own policies, the centralists struck again. The Rowell-Sirois attempt to make the provinces mere vassals of Ottawa was shelved. However, the fact that some provinces were eager to divest themselves of their own authority says a lot about the true nature of the Canadian structure. Not to be defeated, the centralists aimed for a lesser target. This time they would succeed.
Equalization. Equalization has long been a part of the Canadian DNA. The power of wealth has been employed since the first deal was made to offset the debt the smaller colonies had acquired. These one time transfers of funds established Ontario and Quebec as the federation’s predominant players. The centralists, seeing opportunity, moved to formalize redistribution in a grab for power and control. In the late 1930’s they struck but failed. Legal council for the failed Rowell –Sirois Commission, Louis St. Laurent, was elected Prime Minister of Canada on 15 November 1948. Nine years later, in 1957, St. Laurent brought in Canada’s Equalization Act. This formally enhanced the power of the central government through redistribution of wealth from those who can to those who can’t – or can’t be bothered.
Monies were distributed by the federal government on the basis of perceived need. In the first few years, all needy provinces were handed funds so that they could offer the same services to their citizens that Ontario and British Columbia offered to theirs. Theory had it that a person living in a “have-not” province need not have the burden to move to another province in order to obtain superior government services. Moves of this nature were to be only for the “higher purpose” reason of obtaining a better paying job. This act was to ensure, not equality of opportunity, but rather the equality of result, a scheme which proved deadly to the Soviet Union. Of course, the unstated outcome is that the wealth taken from Ontario and British Columbia to pay for this extravaganza diminished the capacity of these two provinces to best serve their own citizens. Equality is not attained by forcing everyone into the same house. It took the Soviet Union seventy years to realize that equality in poverty is not the answer. Today’s China is just now realizing that fact. Canada has yet to learn.
Those who are interested could read the decline of the Twentieth Century Motor Company as personified in Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged. Over the last few decades, China has been an exemplary example of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Workers can’t be fired. They are paid a base salary. Shelter, for it’s not housing as we know it, extra monies and services are provided on the basis of need. The more needy, the greater the payoff. In Chinese government-owned factories, workers show up in the morning to make their presence felt. During the morning shift, if one needs assistance, not a worker is to be found. Suddenly, at lunch, provided by the factory, all workers are present and accounted for. That’s when the foreign consultant can seize the person needed. However, it’s best if you keep the worker on short tether.
So it is with Canada. Provinces receiving equalization have little or no built-in incentive to expend the extra effort and to accept the risk needed in the development of policies and opportunities for growth. Their effort goes to increasing access to the easy, lazy money transferred by the federal government. Politicians in these provinces are encouraged not to campaign on provincial fiscal self reliance. Politicians are like water. They gravitate to the lowest common point. But, they do show up for the free lunch.
“Let's examine the concept of equalization payments. In a nutshell, such were instigated to assure that financial resources were available to enable all provinces to have essential public services that were fairly compatible across the country. The concept was great and worked well for a while. Then it began to encourage irresponsible fiscal management in have-not provinces - i.e., roads to nowhere were built and paved, and expensive public services were set up in small, rural hamlets that couldn't dream of affording and supporting them. Once given, these luxuries are very hard to take away. Thus, we have dependence.” Daniel N. Paul is a human rights activist, historian and author. Comments can be forwarded to 28 Elmsdale Cres., Halifax, N.S. B3R 2G5.
The original intent of equalization was to bring per capita tax revenues of all ten provinces up to the level of British Columbia and Ontario, the two richest provinces at the time. The second formula, theoretically, brought the poorer provinces to the level of the average of all ten provinces. In 1982, the third change had, as a baseline, the average of five designated provinces - Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia Today some provinces clamour for a return to the ten province model. A ten province model, of course would include Alberta making a bigger economic pie – larger slices. Greater political resources are spent by some provinces, creating lazy capital, than they ever spend on policies and regulations that generate working capital.
Lazy money, money given with no expectation of return, returns nothing except dependency, self loathing and guilt. Working money, money given with all expectations of a fair return, not surprisingly, also returns pride, industry and hope. Given a choice, I know in which Canada I would rather live.
It’s interesting to note that the averaging concept in the equalization formula is a fool’s game. The descriptor “game” is used knowingly. Average, by definition, means one half above the line and one half below the same line. This isn’t a formula to raise all to the level of one – or even some. By employing averaging, there will always be have-not provinces. Prince Edward Island could become so wealthy that even with money spilling into the surrounding seas - they could still be eligible for hefty equalization payments. Equalization has spawned a centralist’s dream of gaining and holding power, not by ability, not by hard and smart governance, not by risk taking, not by honour, not by ideas – but by simple purchase. The have-not provinces have become the paid mercenaries of Canada’s political wars. Thus is created cultures, formulae and policies for the perpetuation of wealth transfer. A program totally controlled by Ottawa through excessive power, control and taxation ability. The Prime Minister’s Perfect Perpetual Power Providing by Provincial Purchase Machine - perhaps, unique in the world.
The losers in this game are the provinces that receive these ill gotten gains. At first it was only the provincial governments that succumbed to the easy acquisition of lazy money. But, trickle down economic principles work well. The citizens of these provinces, seeing how easily lazy money could be acquired, sold their votes. They began to vote in large numbers for politicians who promised to help. The help these voters wanted was not for greater opportunities - not for less taxes to spur growth – not for ease of regulations to help start up and operate small businesses, independent of government. No, these folks voted for the help that would give them the largest share of lazy money possible. These citizens of welfare dependent provinces sold their votes for the sake of an excessive desire for money that other people were hard pressed to earn. Lazy money provided to provinces creates nothing more than mostly short term mock jobs. Most of these are service jobs controlled by the provincial government – jobs of disputed value and, in some cases, willed to offspring. In very large part, the wealth received returns no comparable positive value. What the citizens of these welfare provinces have received are decades of declining population growth as real workers leave for a life away, in search of real work in real economies.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 16
by Bob Pawley on Thursday 3 November 18:39Decline
Part 3
The other losers are the provinces which have sensible, economic policies in place and citizens who benefit from doing for themselves. These provinces create the wealth that is misused, by the federal government, to hand over as provincial welfare payments to other provinces. This enforced redistribution takes wealth from those who have demonstrated their ability to create wealth. Redistribution sends this wealth as lazy money to those who have well demonstrated no monetary expertise, except for the expertise of spending. One would think that a government ruling a modern democratic state would strive to establish win/win policies. In Canada, that is not to be. For the sake of directing raw power towards themselves, the federal government has set in place a lose/lose policy. We, the taxpayers of the vibrant, dynamic provinces, are the losers.
“University of Alberta economist Bev Dahlby, in "The Incentive Effect of Fiscal Equalization Grants", drawing on his own and others' analysis of the incentives implicit in equalization, predicts that empirical analysis will confirm that recipient governments will set higher tax rates and spend more on consumption-related programs. Conversely, recipient governments are predicted to spend less on income-producing initiatives.”
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) and the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI).
“These federal programs have not helped. The track record of direct government interference in Atlantic Canada is abysmal. As Mr. Martin was touring the region with his promises, Nova Scotia was interring the remains of two previous disasters resulting from decades-long government plans. What was left of the Sydney steel mills was auctioned off last week, but the $9-million to $14-million expected from the sale is scant recompense for the $3-billion that provincial taxpayers have spent bailing out the mills since 1967. The last of the Cape Breton coal mines that supplied the steel mills are also in the process of closing, marking an end to the more than $1.6-billion that federal taxpayers poured pointlessly down their shafts over three decades.”
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS)
“While the voters of Atlantic Canada have repeatedly rewarded politicians bearing gifts, the region's chronic economic underperformance attests to the damage that such market distorting behaviour inflicts. It is not another 10-year plan that Atlantic Canada needs, but politicians with the nerve to leave the region to the tender mercies of the unsubsidized market. Only then will it fulfill the promise it showed 30 years ago.”
Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS)
Equalization was introduced in 1957. Since then, the populations of the seven provinces that have received these payments have grown at a much slower rate than have the provinces contributing the wealth. By the 2000 census, the rate of growth in these seven provinces has declined to the point that, in aggregate, their actual populations are declining. In 2000, the populations of these provinces were fewer by fifty thousand people than in 1990. This is the first decline in real population of any combination of provinces in Canada’s history. The indications are that these provinces are losing their most productive workers to other provinces. At the same time, these seven provinces are not attracting highly productive workers as replacements. For these provinces the spiral is down. The downward spiral will continue until such time as the provinces take control of their own responsibilities, repulsing the seductions of the federal government. Taking more control can be accomplished, in the short term, by an issuing of a simple statement – “Keep your damn money, transfer tax points instead. We will look after ourselves.” Of course, the provincial governments that stride this path would need politicians of honour, integrity and dedication. They will need to demand that their citizens live within their means. They will need to generate the political will for change. They will need to tell their voters the truth – real, long term wealth is not created without hard smart work. Do such politicians exist where needed? With the shenanigans of Newfoundland in the summer of 2004, the prospect looks bleak.
Some make the argument that the wealth used by equalization does not come from the rich provinces. This argument claims that all rich individuals throughout Canada contribute to the equalization program. This is an apologists argument. Equalization payments amount to $10,000,000,000 per annum. Some provinces have policies and procedures in place that contribute to wide spread wealth creation . The citizens and businesses of Alberta, through excessive federal taxes, send a little over 10,000,000,000 excess dollars to Ottawa. This is $10,000,000,000 that does not come back to the citizens who earned it, in either goods or services. If this transfer of Alberta’s wealth were removed, today’s federal government would have a choice – no equalization or no surplus.
Seven provinces holding almost one-half of Canada’s population are net users of other peoples hard earned income. This was the way it was in 1957, the first of the Equalization programs. This is the way it is in 2004. After 47 years of wasting scarce and hard earned billions, nothing has changed except greater dependency, wasted lives, more virulent hate and less cohesion as a country.
Equalization and all federal transfers of wealth do little else but harm the economies of both the wealth creators and the receivers of that wealth. Wealth redistribution turns working capital into lazy money. The removal of working capital impedes the further development of the smart, hard working provinces. The infusion of lazy money distorts the economies of the receiving provinces, destroying opportunity, removing incentive and creating dependency. Recipients of lazy money, at some level of realization know that what they receive is, in fact, welfare. Welfare is debilitating. Welfare ties the individual to the whims of others. This loss of freedom breeds resentment. Ongoing resentment breeds despair then self loathing turned outward. The loathing cannot be directed at the people who control the wealth. This would be self defeating for those who receive the gravy from this welfare train. Instead, the loathing is directed at the western provinces which create the wealth. These provinces lack the respect of the country as their compassion outstrips their collective ability to reason and act. Over the years, British Columbia and Alberta have gained the reputation of easy marks. Regardless of the wealth removed from their citizens’ hands by excessive federal taxes, these provinces never object. Regardless of the billions in economic potential these provinces have lost over the decades, they hold compassion for others as a plucking of heart strings. Never mind that this compassion is misplaced. Never mind that this false compassion is actually doing great harm to the very people it was meant to help. Never mind that their own citizens needlessly suffer through lost opportunities and lesser services. All that matters are the dreamy, “aren’t I good” feelings for self. Our politicians, naturally, gravitate to the lowest common perch upon which they receive the least amount of verbal and electoral flack. Politicians of today, being followers not leaders, respond to these wistful, dreamy desires of their voters.
Unremitting welfare promotes guilt within individuals as, deep down, they know that they are dependent on a society to which they give nothing in return. However, after two generations of welfare, that guilt may be very mildly felt.
Some cast jealous eyes at the natural resources of the rich provinces. In their minds, this wealth is the basis for the economic disparity between provinces. On one hand, centralists glory in the asymmetry of the Canadian federation. These centralists consider the separate deals, laws and governing structure (exemplified by the disparity in provincial representation in both the Senate and House) as a boon to the country. They even go so far as to credit this lop-sided structure as a cause of unity. On the other hand, they regard the wealth of some to be of the common weal, to be shared by all. These centralists have no interest in all Canadians having equal access in the governance of the country. But, they themselves want equal access to the wealth produced by all Canadians.
The people and the provincial governments who have come to this conclusion have done so for the most basic of human reasons – laziness and greed. They have rejected the idea of working hard to modify and develop policies that would increase the economic potential of their provinces. They have also rejected the even harder work of forcing the federal government to modify federal policies toward this end. In Canada it is much easier to, when your own resource base has matured or has been decimated, lobby the federal government for other people’s wealth - as if it had, somehow, been earned by the petitioner. The structure of Canada - leader of political parties becoming Prime Minister, the office of the PM having total control of parliament, the taxation disparity between federal and provincial authority, the imbalance of MP and Senate representation - makes the dependency option an easy, downhill battle.
Bob Pawley
Penticton, BC
rjpawley@shaw.ca
Comments 0
Canada - 17
by Bob Pawley on Sunday 6 November 11:26Decline
Part 4
Had the structure of our federal government been set on a different course, the downhill battle would, instead, be toward provincial self reliance. Natural forces would then be aligned that encourage provincial governments to develop policies that would build an economy not reliant on the whims of the federal government - an economy and culture of self reliance. An economy that doesn’t take needed wealth from those who do smart, hard work to earn it only to have it given to those who know only waste.
Lest one think that what I suggest is impossible, absent the bounty of natural resources ready to tap, please consider the following.
In 1960, Singapore was a backwater city state with a population of 1,600,000 people. The four Canadian Atlantic provinces had a similar population of 1,800,000 persons. In this year, the transformation of Singapore began. By 1999 Singapore had increased its population by more than 230 percent. In contrast, the Atlantic provinces had increased their population by a mere 26 percent. More telling is the fact that, during this same period, Singapore’s per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew more than ten fold. The whole of Canada, including all of those resource rich provinces, by 1999, had increased their GDP by a factor of only three and a half fold, since 1960. It is unfortunate that, since 1960, the Atlantic provinces in particular and Canada in general, have not had politicians who acted for the betterment of their citizens, as did Singapore.
There were other, similar success stories in the twentieth century. Hong Kong and Taiwan are two such examples. None of these economies had extensive natural resources. Nor did they have other governments to bail them out . They knew they had to succeed or fail on their own accord. They did succeed. They succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Atlantic Canadians, due to hard, smart, self reliant effort and politicians who care. T’wouldst we were they.
We are beyond the second generation of peoples living under the shadow of formalized provincial welfare. A large percentage of this country’s population know of no other life than that of living in the most pervasive welfare trap outside of recognized communist regimes. These people and provinces are powerless to cleave through the chains bonding them to federal servitude. There is no expectation that a federal government, formed by any party, will break this cycle. Equalization and other wealth transfers is the major source of all of their electoral power and control over the country. The centralists will not shed this power easily. Supporting the centralists are those citizens living in welfare dependent provinces who will continue to strongly support the status quo.
The onus is on the have provinces, in particular Alberta, to wrest power from the centralists and, if possible, bring the country to its senses. If this does not happen soon, Canada will persist on the dependency path to the continued detriment of all.
*
Compassion. Programs, such as the Equalization Act among others, are touted by many as a natural response by a compassionate country. In the minds of some, compassion is the definition of being Canadian. We pride ourselves on our feelings of compassion. Let’s take a moment to consider the affect of building a country based on feelings of compassion.
“compassion – sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.”
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 2002
Evidence is scarce, that there exists in Canada suffering or misfortune on a scale that would elicit true and genuine pity. Those who have the misfortune of being able to demand only an hourly wage, are not considered to be suffering, even in comparison to someone such as Conrad Black. Those who are able to command no wage, are not necessarily assisted by government to government wealth transfers.