I have no interest in celebrating the FOUNDING OF A CROWN COLONY! Why do we have such an archaic "celebration" in this day an age when we no longer BELONG to the crown?
Enjoy the art and culture, but to tie it to being a colony of the CROWN is ridiculous. That is not a piece of history I want to remember! The celebration should be tied to the day we joined CONFEDERATION not the day we were colonized. How insensitive to the aborigional population and the rest of the citizens of BC.
In protest, I WILL NOT ATTEND!

The day we joined 'CONfederation' should be celebrated alright. As a day of mourning.

We'd have far likely been better off to have evolved into an independent DOMINION in our own right, under the CROWN, proud of our heritage of "British" common law, with over 1,000 years of hard-won freedoms that turned that 'Crown' from the oppressor of civil liberties into one of their greatest defenders. Rather than as a mere Province of some country that's now ashamed to even use the title its founders bestowed upon it ~ Dominion of Canada.

But those who are completely ignorant of our history, and want to exhibit their ridiculous "political correctness" that somehow our founding as a Crown Colony under the rule of law is something to be ashamed of, maybe should look at the record of some of the places that no longer have that 'Crown' in their government systems.

Take a look at America. And its record with its aboriginal peoples. Was there ever a Treaty made there that was honoured? Was there recourse when it wasn't? Who was "responsible" when it wasn't, tiny? An "abstraction" known as "the People"? What a wonderful way for those that were responsible to avoid being responsible for anything.

Lets skip from A to Z, in the interests of brevity. Take a look at Zimbabwe. There's a wonderful example of a modern 'republic' for you! There was more 'democracy' there when it was Rhodesia, under that Crown, (even after it unilaterally declared independence from the British 'parliament') than there's ever been under Comrade Bob, to whom any opposition politician is a 'traitor' to HIS country.

I care little for the current BC Liberal government, and many of the things its done to this Province. But I WILL be proudly celebrating our 150th anniversary of our founding as a CROWN COLONY, and I hope we remain under that Crown for time immemorial.

Speaking of history...we left the Crown in 1982 so I think that is reason enough thank you.

Here is a link on a summary of Canadian history:
http://www.shannonthunderbird.com/canadian_constitution.htm

And here is the link to our Constitution and Charter:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html

I am a Canadian citizen not a member of a British Colony! I will celebrate all things Canadian but not British!!

History of BC link:
http://www.westcan.org/westcan/bchist.htm

Colony of BC joined Canada in 1871.

I for one will be celebrating everywhere a celebrations is going on. I appreciate funds being made available by our province to encourage people to participate. We need more reasons to celebrate where we live and how fortunate we are. I am thankful for colonization, for Canada being a Dominion from sea to sea and for British Columbia's diversity, achievements and strength. First Nations included. There is not a celebration in BC where the First Nations are not visibly present and actively involved. We have lots to celebrate. Chester

I still contend it is like celebrating your golden anniversary when you divorced many, many years ago.

We didn't "divorce" from the "Crown", tiny. The repatriation of the Constitution simply ended the British "Parliament's" right to amend that Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867.

The Queen is still head of state of the Dominion of Canada, and Province of British Columbia, (where her current vice-regal representative, the Lieutenant-Governor, is a proud member of one of our First Nations. Something which I think every British Columbian can take pride in, for it shows how all people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions, and political opinions can be united under the Crown.)

We could certainly end the position the Queen holds as OUR head of state, but lets hope that if we ever do that we first realize just WHAT IT IS WE'D ACTUALLY BE DOING. Which, I'm afraid, too many who call for such a move clearly do NOT.

As to the "divorce" of Canada from British GOVERNMENT control, that took place in 1931 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster which recognized the "Dominions" as free and equal sovereign entities to Britain itself.

You are probably not aware of the fact that there has long been a very good 'legal' argument that that same Statute of Westminster of 1931 nullified the British North America Act of 1867, and that the whole existence of "Canada" as a legal entity may be without basis in law.

There was a great deal of research done on this whole matter by Walter Kuhl, MP, back in the 1930's, regarding the actual "constitutionality" of Canada itself once the Statute of Westminster was enacted. Perhaps someday that whole issue will come to light in exactly the same way many of the long forgotten Treaty Rights of aboriginals now have.

"the whole existence of "Canada" as a legal entity may be without basis in law."

An interesting opinion.

Should be of special interest to the First Nations.

They should declare the country has been theirs, that the British and French abandoned it and that they are the government of the country by default since it reverted to the previous inhabitants when they did though an international treaty and an act of parliament.

It may one day again be of more interest to those Provinces that were "Crown colonies", like BC was before Confederation, Owl. It questions the original intent of the British Government when it confederated the four original colonies into the Dominion of Canada in 1867.

Walter Kuhl was an Alberta MP, and did extensive research on the BNA Act in the years when Alberta was at odds with the Federal government over its attempts to implement "social credit" Provincially.

Kuhl secured the favourable opinion of some Parliamentary experts in the employ of the Federal government, (during the time when MacKenzie King was PM) that there was a good chance the BNA Act wasn't what it purported to be, i.e. Canada's "Constitution".

That the Statute of Westminster actually granted independence to the Provinces in the case of Canada, not to the Dominion. Which, with its passage, no longer had any legality and would have to be re-confederated with a proper Constitution to continue to legally exist.

Provinces that were previously Crown colonies might all have a substantial basis in law for defying the Federal government in any area of jurisdictional dispute. (Alberta wasn't ever a Crown colony, however, so its status might've been somewhat in limbo had Kuhl's contentions ever gone to Court.)

The case has never come before any Court, though Kuhl in his later years, and no longer an MP, urged the Parti Quebecois to seek a ruling based on his findings.

Though it all seems too fantastic to contemplate, who would ever have thought that the "Treaty process" with aboriginals across this country would've developed the way it has? And much of that's been based on a similar interpretation of original intent when the Treaty was made.