Editors Note: The following is a guest column submitted by James Albers.According to most dictionaries, colonialism is the practice of a state seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, normally with the aim of economic dominance. In the process of colonization, colonizers may impose their religion, economics, and other cultural practices on the populations of a colony. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonized region’s people and resources. .The 20th century saw the movement away from colonialism through the manifestation of independence movements across the globe. In Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, and Central and South America, local colonial populations took steps either peacefully or by force to cast off colonial rule in favor of local independence. For the most part, it is believed that colonialism or a nation’s foreign domination over other resource-rich areas and peoples rightfully no longer exists as an acceptable policy among the respectable nations of the world..Indeed, that is the case with one glaring exception; Canada and the West, namely Alberta. A cursory review of the articles, documents, and commentary from the era when Alberta was formed as a province denotes the colonial tenor of both Britain and the federal government towards the region. .That Britain saw the Rupert’s Land/Northwest Territories as a colony is beyond dispute; even to the point of sending troops and building forts to claim control of the region. That Canada did as well is also amply documented. Canadian political scientist J.R. Mallory’s description of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905 was as follows; They “were provinces not in the sense as were Ontario and Quebec, but in the Roman sense.” His meaning is clear; Alberta was considered a colony. Further proof of this was that Ottawa initially kept control of crown lands and natural resources in the Buffalo provinces, arguing that unlike earlier provinces, Alberta had never owned the lands..We have forgotten that from the beginning, Sir John A. Macdonald referred to the West as a crown colony, the nineteenth-century British version of a Roman province. Alexander Isbister, a prominent Metis of the era, warned that the West would soon become “a colony of a colony.” Therefore, when England handed over the administration of the Buffalo region to Canada, it was seen by all parties as simply the transfer of the territory from one colonial power to another..That the region would be split in two and bestowed with provincial status in no way mitigated against the truth of the arrangement as newspapers and politicians in both Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Canada commented on the colonial nature of the agreement. Albertans saw this as a clear indicator of things to come and Canada – namely Ontario and Quebec – saw this as an opportunity to exploit this vast and untapped region to feed its economy and foster the growth of its wealth..Interior Minister Clifford Sifton told a Winnipeg audience in 1904, “We desire, every patriotic Canadian desires, that the great trade of the prairie shall go to enrich our own people in the East, to build up the factories and the workshops of Eastern Canada, and to contribute in every way to its prosperity.” .If Alberta was a province, it was in name only, and never in all of our 115 years under Canadian control have we fully enjoyed the same provincial rights and privileges that Ontario and Quebec have. Underscoring this idea would be the many acts of parliament that would spell out the one-way nature of the arrangement. In simple terms, far more money moved out of the region to Ottawa, than into the region from Ottawa. The Canadian Wheat Board put a chokehold on Alberta agriculture. The National Energy Program (NEP) – along with other restrictions on provincial trade and economic independence – stole our economic prosperity and ability to grow. . ALBERS: It’s time to end Ottawa’s colonialism over the West .Political imbalances ensure that Central Canada retains dominance over Alberta as a modern quasi-colony. Canadian federalism lacks meaningful political protections in the form of a legitimate senate that could have served to protect the regions from the vote-rich center. Canada’s medieval, appointed Senate constitutionally entrenches a massive seat imbalance, allotting tiny Nova Scotia nearly twice as many seats as Alberta, which has twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces combined. Even the “Western-friendly” Conservatives won’t dare broach the subject of fair seat distribution in the Senate, for fear of upsetting less politically reliant regions..It is important to take note of the efforts of some to compare what is happening in the West with the Quebec experience. Quebec’s separatist ambitions were indeed separatist, in that she was core to the “ideal” of Canada in as much as Ontario and Quebec are Canada. Quebec has enjoyed favored status within Confederation and much of the Canadian national identity is formed around that concept. Their various attempts at separation may have been sincere at some level, but always seemed to result in a further strengthening of Quebec’s’ position politically and economically. .The Alberta experience on the other hand is a march to independence. Not separation (the need to be apart), but rather the manifestation of a colony’s right to be independent. In as much as Canada and many of the other colonies under British rule did not desire separation from the British empire itself, our goal is the same. And as many of these now independent countries agreed to participate as members of the British Commonwealth, in the same way, Alberta must pursue the establishment of a mutually satisfying relationship with Canada as an independent nation. .Alberta and Saskatchewan – and to a lesser extent the other Western provinces – may well be the last colonies of an empire that was discarded long ago. Canadian colonialism – over the West and First Nations – has stubbornly hung on as a central tenant of federal policy despite her attestations of progressive largess. Alberta’s independence movement is therefore not a “separatist” movement, but an sovereignty movement and the manifestation of the desire and will of the people of this region for self-determination and control of our destiny. .James Albers is a member of the Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta. The NDP have become a branch of the Liberals. They may as well make it official.
Editors Note: The following is a guest column submitted by James Albers.According to most dictionaries, colonialism is the practice of a state seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories, normally with the aim of economic dominance. In the process of colonization, colonizers may impose their religion, economics, and other cultural practices on the populations of a colony. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonized region’s people and resources. .The 20th century saw the movement away from colonialism through the manifestation of independence movements across the globe. In Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, and Central and South America, local colonial populations took steps either peacefully or by force to cast off colonial rule in favor of local independence. For the most part, it is believed that colonialism or a nation’s foreign domination over other resource-rich areas and peoples rightfully no longer exists as an acceptable policy among the respectable nations of the world..Indeed, that is the case with one glaring exception; Canada and the West, namely Alberta. A cursory review of the articles, documents, and commentary from the era when Alberta was formed as a province denotes the colonial tenor of both Britain and the federal government towards the region. .That Britain saw the Rupert’s Land/Northwest Territories as a colony is beyond dispute; even to the point of sending troops and building forts to claim control of the region. That Canada did as well is also amply documented. Canadian political scientist J.R. Mallory’s description of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905 was as follows; They “were provinces not in the sense as were Ontario and Quebec, but in the Roman sense.” His meaning is clear; Alberta was considered a colony. Further proof of this was that Ottawa initially kept control of crown lands and natural resources in the Buffalo provinces, arguing that unlike earlier provinces, Alberta had never owned the lands..We have forgotten that from the beginning, Sir John A. Macdonald referred to the West as a crown colony, the nineteenth-century British version of a Roman province. Alexander Isbister, a prominent Metis of the era, warned that the West would soon become “a colony of a colony.” Therefore, when England handed over the administration of the Buffalo region to Canada, it was seen by all parties as simply the transfer of the territory from one colonial power to another..That the region would be split in two and bestowed with provincial status in no way mitigated against the truth of the arrangement as newspapers and politicians in both Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Canada commented on the colonial nature of the agreement. Albertans saw this as a clear indicator of things to come and Canada – namely Ontario and Quebec – saw this as an opportunity to exploit this vast and untapped region to feed its economy and foster the growth of its wealth..Interior Minister Clifford Sifton told a Winnipeg audience in 1904, “We desire, every patriotic Canadian desires, that the great trade of the prairie shall go to enrich our own people in the East, to build up the factories and the workshops of Eastern Canada, and to contribute in every way to its prosperity.” .If Alberta was a province, it was in name only, and never in all of our 115 years under Canadian control have we fully enjoyed the same provincial rights and privileges that Ontario and Quebec have. Underscoring this idea would be the many acts of parliament that would spell out the one-way nature of the arrangement. In simple terms, far more money moved out of the region to Ottawa, than into the region from Ottawa. The Canadian Wheat Board put a chokehold on Alberta agriculture. The National Energy Program (NEP) – along with other restrictions on provincial trade and economic independence – stole our economic prosperity and ability to grow. . ALBERS: It’s time to end Ottawa’s colonialism over the West .Political imbalances ensure that Central Canada retains dominance over Alberta as a modern quasi-colony. Canadian federalism lacks meaningful political protections in the form of a legitimate senate that could have served to protect the regions from the vote-rich center. Canada’s medieval, appointed Senate constitutionally entrenches a massive seat imbalance, allotting tiny Nova Scotia nearly twice as many seats as Alberta, which has twice the population of all four Atlantic provinces combined. Even the “Western-friendly” Conservatives won’t dare broach the subject of fair seat distribution in the Senate, for fear of upsetting less politically reliant regions..It is important to take note of the efforts of some to compare what is happening in the West with the Quebec experience. Quebec’s separatist ambitions were indeed separatist, in that she was core to the “ideal” of Canada in as much as Ontario and Quebec are Canada. Quebec has enjoyed favored status within Confederation and much of the Canadian national identity is formed around that concept. Their various attempts at separation may have been sincere at some level, but always seemed to result in a further strengthening of Quebec’s’ position politically and economically. .The Alberta experience on the other hand is a march to independence. Not separation (the need to be apart), but rather the manifestation of a colony’s right to be independent. In as much as Canada and many of the other colonies under British rule did not desire separation from the British empire itself, our goal is the same. And as many of these now independent countries agreed to participate as members of the British Commonwealth, in the same way, Alberta must pursue the establishment of a mutually satisfying relationship with Canada as an independent nation. .Alberta and Saskatchewan – and to a lesser extent the other Western provinces – may well be the last colonies of an empire that was discarded long ago. Canadian colonialism – over the West and First Nations – has stubbornly hung on as a central tenant of federal policy despite her attestations of progressive largess. Alberta’s independence movement is therefore not a “separatist” movement, but an sovereignty movement and the manifestation of the desire and will of the people of this region for self-determination and control of our destiny. .James Albers is a member of the Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta. The NDP have become a branch of the Liberals. They may as well make it official.
