Canada was once a great country. For its first hundred years or so, Canada was known for exceptional national projects — railways, pipelines, mining, etc. — and for punching above its weight in international conflicts. But since the 1960s, it has changed. Liberal leaders decided to remake Canada into a different kind of country, one that prioritized leftist social engineering over the country’s historic identity and achievements.This transformation was criticized by real Canadian patriots. Unsurprisingly, the sharpest critic was Ted Byfield of Alberta Report magazine. He grew up in Toronto, but after moving to Alberta, he became a fervent Alberta patriot, like many other Ontarians who have moved West..BURTON: Alberta’s independence question is no longer hypothetical — Canada needs to pay attention.When Byfield was growing up in Toronto, Canadians still thought of themselves as British North Americans. As he put it, “Our flag was the Union Jack. It consisted, we were told, of three Christian symbols — the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick. This evidenced that the empire was the product of Christianity, and that behind the laws of man must lie the more fundamental laws of God.”That flag, of course, was changed under Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson in 1965. “The Christian symbolism of the Union Jack has been replaced by the pantheistic symbolism of the sugar maple, a tree that does not grow in the West.” The change in the flag was symptomatic of a larger movement away from Canada’s original identity. As Byfield saw it — and this is vitally important — “the land of my birth has, in a sense, vanished.”One result of the efforts to erase Canada’s historic identity was the strengthening of regionalism and the consequent reduction of national attachment. As the Liberals worked eagerly to destroy historic Canadian identity, “men’s loyalties turned instead to the homeland. And the homeland is the region. But to blame regionalism for the failure of Canadian confederation would be to mistake an effect for a cause. It would be like blaming the lifeboats for the shipwreck.”.The cultural identity of Canada was being euthanized, and there was nothing to replace it besides one’s region or province.This is a very important point. Sometimes Albertans who support independence are accused of being disloyal to Canada. But that is completely untrue. Albertans who support independence are often those who remember and deeply love the Canada that existed before the Liberals wrecked it.Indeed, by 1980, with then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau pushing fundamental changes to the country, there were already two Canadas: Old Canada and New Canada. The first was being smothered and the second was beginning to emerge..OLDCORN: Floor crossing to Liberals isn’t about one MP — it’s about breaking Pierre Poilievre.Byfield was raised in, and was loyal to, Old Canada. As he explained in 1980, “The Canada I grew up in and was expected, should the occasion arise, to fight and die for, has changed so much in the past 12 years that it has effectually ceased to exist. I think of it as Old Canada, a country pulled together in the latter 19th century by Sir John A. Macdonald and endowed with a constitution. New Canada, on the other hand, has been fashioned in the latter 20th century by Mr. Trudeau, and it is about to be endowed with a constitution.”There were certain practical outworkings of the two different Canadas, and Byfield made a long list contrasting the two: “Old Canada had some harsh laws but was safe to live in. New Canada has enlightened, lenient laws and is increasingly unsafe to live in. Old Canada was generally committed to the free enterprise system, modified where necessary. New Canada is increasingly committed to the socialist system, magnified where unnecessary.”“Old Canada met its military obligations, in fact served magnificently in two world wars. New Canada has virtually no army and has reneged on its military obligations. Old Canada was frugal and poor but paid its way. New Canada runs at a $14 billion deficit.”.These are two very different countries. And so the question arises as to which country is worthy of support. Referring to independence supporters as “free Westers,” Byfield noted that Trudeau and his ilk “seem to assume that the same allegiance which we all owed to the Old Canada must automatically be payable to the New. The free Westers aren’t so sure about that, and neither am I. When people put the question — Are you loyal to Canada? — I have to ask: To which Canada? The one we used to know? Or the one which Mr. Trudeau is forcing upon us? I certainly felt part of the first, but that country doesn’t seem to be there anymore. About the second, I have grave doubts.”So it was not a question of being disloyal to Canada. It was a question of determining which Canada to be loyal to. The “free Westers” were indeed loyal, but they were loyal to Old Canada, not New Canada..BONDY: Carney’s China gamble — trade diversification is smart — a ‘strategic partnership’ is not.With Trudeau’s New Canada in mind, Byfield wrote, “Again and again it has shown its contempt for the old institutions. Everything it does bespeaks a tyranny foreign to the values which Old Canada represented. To be loyal to the one therefore means to be alien to the other.”Our national identity was constantly under assault from Pierre Trudeau. To be loyal to Trudeau’s New Canada was to be a traitor to the Canada of old.And so it is today. Liberal Party politicians — most infamously Pierre Trudeau — transformed Canada into a different kind of country, one that is no longer recognizable to many of us. We want our country back. This is why we support Alberta independence. Good Old Canada has vanished. In its place, we have New Trudeau Canada, which reeks of wokeism, socialism, and an emerging police state. But an independent Alberta can and will uphold the noble traditions and freedoms of the original Canadian dream.
