Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- Should Western Canada Leave Confederation (Part 2)

PLEASE NOTE ... this is the second in a series on whether Western Canada should leave confederation. If you missed it, you can CLICK HERE for Part 1

To properly understand the impetus for confederation, we have to go back to 1841 and the British Parliament Act of Union that joined Upper and Lower Canada into one Province of Canada. Each of the former provinces would elect an equal number of representatives to a central Parliament.

Lower Canada was annoyed as Upper Canada had a population of about 450,000 while Lower Canada had a population of about 650,000. The result was that no political leader could draw enough support from the ‘other side’ to form a majority government.

Elections were held in 1841,1844, 1848,1851, 1854, 1858, 1981, and 1863 without a workable government being elected. The notion of joining with other provinces to break the deadlock led to talks between Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Quebec joined the talks.

All provinces were concerned over a potential American invasion as the American Civil War had ended in 1865, and the US had an ample army in uniform to invade and annex Canada. Quebec was particularly concerned as she feared that if America invaded and won, she would lose the rights she was granted by the Quebec Act of 1778.

The main reasons for confederation were to break the political deadlock in the Province of Canada, and unify to fight off a potential American invasion. There was no thought creating a wider Confederation or anything that did not protect the enjoined provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.

The British North America Act of 1867 clearly reflected the importance of Ontario and Quebec and made it clear that they were the central core of the confederation. Nothing has changed since.

In 1869, Canada purchased Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Company, with considerable pressure from the British government. The Hudson’s Bay Company wanted to sell to the US at a higher price.

When the federal government tried to install a governor in the Red River Settlements, he faced a rebellion and the Province of Manitoba was created (1870).

The construction of a railway brought British Columbia into Confederation (1871).

These efforts were to vastly expand the territory under control of Canada. There was no thought to creating strong provinces or equality of any sort.

When the area between Manitoba and British Columbia was under settlement, the federal government feared a strong province might appear which would become a political problem, so it spit the territory into Alberta and Saskatchewan.

From the outset and creation of the British North America Act -- to today -- the intention is to concentrate political power in Ontario and Quebec ... and that has been succeeded so far.

Immigration has kept populations in those provinces high, and between them they hold 58.8% of Commons seats and a 45.7% of the Senate seats. Since the Senate is split along party lines despite efforts to show otherwise, Liberal control of the Senate is even stronger. |

The die is cast and we cannot look to constitutional amendments to improve our lot. We face a stark choice of remaining a subsidiary controlled by Ottawa or striking out on our own.

John Feldsted ... is a political commentator, consultant, and strategist. He makes his home in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BC’s Forestry Decline Is a Policy Failure, Not a Market Reality -- Forestry Critic Calls for Accountability and Urgent Policy Reset

Conservative Party of BC Forestry Critic, and Kamloops - North Thompson MLA,  Ward Stamer As the Truck Loggers Association convention begins today, BC Conservative Forestry Critic Ward Stamer says British Columbia’s forestry crisis is the result of government mismanagement, not market forces, and that an urgent policy reset is needed to restore certainty, sustainability, and accountability. “For generations, forestry supported families and communities across BC,” said Stamer.  “Today, mills are closing, contractors are parking equipment, and families are being forced to leave home, not because the resource is gone, but because policy has failed.” Government data shows timber shipment values dropped by more than half a billion dollars in the past year, with harvest levels falling by roughly 50 per cent in just four years. At the same time, prolonged permitting timelines, unreliable fibre access, outdated forest inventories, and rising costs have made long-term planning impossib...
Post a Comment
Read more

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...
Post a Comment
Read more

Eby government signs another land-use agreement, as they say one thing and do another, during DRIPA chaos

While promising to fix DRIPA, the Eby government continues to quietly sign binding land-use agreements that fundamentally alter how Crown land is governed in British Columbia. On January 15, 2026, the government signed four ministerial orders advancing the Gwa’ni Land Use Planning Project with the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, amending the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan and changing how more than 166,000 hectares of Crown land can be accessed, developed, and managed. “This is Land Act reform by stealth,” said Critic for Indigenous Relations Scott McInnis. “British Columbians already rejected these changes once. In 2024, public backlash forced the NDP to pull its Land Act amendments. Instead of listening, this government has gone underground, signing individual deals behind closed doors, just like we’ve already seen in places such as Squamish, Teẑtan Biny, and across Northwest BC.” “The Premier admits DRIPA ( the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act) is creating ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more