This article is absolutely right on. The same sentiment applies in Alberta.
What does Ottawa do for B.C. anyway?
Sentiment and inertia aside, there's little reason for the province to stay
Gordon Gibson
National Post
The rejection by central Canada -- yet again -- of the dominant political view in British Columbia leads naturally to the following question: "Why should this province want to stay in Canada?" The Vancouver Sun has already delicately addressed that question in an editorial -- with the politically correct cover of "wouldn't it be awful." But it is a question that will become respectable.
To understand why, back to basics. Why do we have national states? John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask rather what you can do for your country." This was uncritically received as a noble statement and curiously so, since, in fact, it is opposed to the founding spirit of individual liberty of our southern neighbour. Of course, as the illogical and emotional creatures that all humans are, Americans can and do support both of the presidential alternatives.
Canadians have always been more statist and deferential to authority, while, at the same time, feeling less emotional about our national state. We were born in reason, not revolution, and would never be so passionate as to have a bloody Civil War over states' rights. But the Kennedy question is as apt here, and the lesser degree of emotion makes the answer less certain once the issue has been opened.
Canada has always been a matter of convenience. It was an imperial administrative convenience for London, and a defence, transport, trade and linguistic convenience to the varied interests involved in our Confederation. Some emotion was involved, and heightened markedly during two world wars and the bitter argument over the Canadian flag, but generally we are a pretty sober and practical folk when it comes to government. This matters because -- and I say this with no fear of contradiction -- nothing but emotion (and inertia) today bind B.C. to Canada.
B.C. came reluctantly into Confederation in 1871, the unionists having to compete with strong factions wanting continued colonial status, or joining America, or even plain independence. But we were small and poor, the Brits wanted to get rid of us, and so we joined. It has never been a particularly happy marriage. Our legislature voted for secession twice before the turn of the century, and our premiers perpetually demanded "better terms" from Canada. We have, however, been too preoccupied with our internal affairs to seriously challenge national arrangements. They haven't been important enough, so far.
The world has changed. We are no longer small and poor. Our population and land base exceeds that of the Thirteen Colonies. We easily meet the requirements of independence.
The formative pressures for Canada are long gone. Trade and transportation are not issues today. The Canadian dollar is a rubber crutch that weakens our economy. The linguistic problems solved by Confederation (with the split of the old Canada into two provinces, one French, one English) are totally irrelevant to B.C., except as an irritant.
Our defence, whether as Canada or British Columbia, will ultimately be provided by the United States; everyone knows that. One likes to think, however, that were B.C. independent, we would like to pull a bit more of our weight.
We send MPs and taxes to Ottawa. Our taxes go to fountains in the Prime Minister's riding; our MPs are ignored. Twenty-nine of our 34 are in the Opposition, powerless under our system, and the five in government will be as ineffective as in the past.
According to the latest Statistics Canada figures adjusted by the B.C. finance ministry, Ottawa extracts about $22-billion from us every year and provides services -- including the military, foreign aid, interest on the debt, the bureaucratic overhead and all such things included -- worth only $19-billion. That $3-billion "cost of Canada" is a heavier burden than any provincial deficit.
Is this because we should help other provinces? Well, our GDP per capita is now lower than the Canadian average -- 95% in fact. Maybe we should turn to rich Ontario and Alberta for help like the other provinces, though we never would. But need we still bear the rich man's burden here?
Other than extracting and recycling money, Ottawa does only three important things in B.C.: running the fishery, aboriginal policy, and immigration. The first two are disasters; no local government could do worse. And as the most highly immigrant society in Canada, we could run that policy better as well.
So to summarize: Canada delivers its services badly here. It drains an enormous amount of money. It does us no good in defence or economic or foreign affairs. There is zero doubt but that an independent B.C. would continue in NAFTA and NORAD and the WTO and the UN and so on. (G-7? Who cares?) And, as the recent election has proven again in spades, we are out of tune with majority Canadian politics.
Can the above-noted glues of sentiment and inertia hold in the face of such realities? Maybe. We are not revolutionaries here. We just want to get on with our lives and the status quo may be the least painful.
But a few things should be noted. On the bright side, Canadian federalism may someday be sufficiently decentralized to resolve the problem.
Secondly, and on the other side, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference and the Parliament of Canada through the Clarity Act have set out straightforward procedures for B.C. to go its own way. The door has been built; it need now only be opened, and, unlike Quebec, we can easily afford to do so.
The third thing is what is so far missing: a respectable spokesman, a party, a leader for this cause of independence. He or she might start to ask the Kennedy question in a different way: "What country could do best for us?" If such a person and party emerge, if we find a René Lévesque, we may just peacefully, democratically, reasonably say goodbye one day.
We are not Americans and wouldn't seek to join them. We are just ourselves. But perhaps, as differences in political philosophy and expectations of the federation grow, "being ourselves" means that Canada should be just our neighbour, not our master.
nationalpost.com |
