CKNW Editorial
for December 29, 2000

There has been a lot of talk over the years about setting up a new country made up of the four western provinces. Indeed, this is not really new talk. It's one thing, however, to talk the talk but quite another to talk the talk.

First off, by what process would we reach this destination? Presumably we would need referenda in all four provinces and even if the federal government didn't prevent such a vote, what would it take to pass? A mere 50%? Some higher threshold? But more importantly, what would the question be? Presumably it would have top be pretty specific as to just what the new country would look like.

The first and I would think fatal problem would be in creating a system of government that all provinces could live with. Would we abandon the notion of a federation and just have a unitary state made up of all former western.provinces? Or would we have a federal government. In either case, looking at the matter through other eyes, the problem clearly is that BC would be, in the new federation, what Ontario is to Canada. We would have 50% of the population and would, unless we made rules to overcome this, have 100% of the power.

Should we then have an upper house to offset the tyranny of strict rep by pop? Maybe that would be a good idea but would British Columbia stand for the majority being overturned by the minority? Of course we are in favour of such a notion now, because we're in a minority but would we be so generous with power sharing if we were the ones doing the sharing?

Where would the capital be? With perhaps the exception of Edmonton, the capitals are dependent on the government to survive. Just imagine moving most of the civil service out of Regina, Winnipeg or Victoria! Moreover, would British Columbians be much interested in being civil servants in weather that, for eight months of the year, is quite uncivil.

What then of British Columbia and Alberta forming their own country? The same problems prevail. Does anyone suppose that Alberta would want to be in a country dominated by, indeed governed by British Columbia? How would you put that government in place bearing in mind that British Columbians would become instant fans of pure rep by pop if they were called on to give up a soupcon of power to Alberta.

There are substantial differences amongst the regions of British Columbia let alone huge differences any form or western federation would bring. I would think it very challenging just to have a separate British Columbia. Let's deal with that notion for a moment. First off, a country of British Columbia from a political point of view is the only breakaway that makes any sense. But British Columbia would face all the problems now facing Canada. A couple of regions, the Peace River and the East Kootenays would be veryreluctant to cut off ties with Alberta and in the former case especially,  might wish to be left behind. There would be a very strong case made by rural British Columbia for an upper house where the regions could balance off the cities. We would, in urban BC, see for the first time just how isolated we are, geographically, socially, ethnically and politically from the rest of the province. Would Victoria be acceptable as the province's capital if BC were an independent country? I somehow doubt it.

Having said all these things, mostly negative, I nevertheless believe that we should have contingency plans in place. One might question if BC would, on its own initiative, leave Canada. It might - the way things are going one can see that sort of trouble brewing. But the more immediate question is what happens not just if Quebec secedes but gets a much larger provincial autonomy. I don't think for a moment that BC would take a special deal for Quebec lying down and if she seceded I have no doubt that BC would reject a Canada legally as well as factually run by Ontario.

Our unwillingness to make contingency plans seems to be rooted in the notion that this in itself would beget separatist notions ... which is sort of like the person who won't buy life insurance because it's bad luck

So we should discuss and plan. But isn't it more than just a bit ironic that in looking for plans and solutions we are dealing, on a smaller basis, with precisely the same problems that beset Canada as a nation? And doesn't that raise the obvious question, if we can solve the difficulties attendant upon our becoming independent, why can't we solve our present Canadian problems?