CANADA HISTORY

Western Alienation

Western alienation, a deeply rooted political and economic sentiment, has long influenced the relationship between Western Canada and the Federal government. The perception that Ottawa is preoccupied with the interests of Central Canada—primarily Ontario and Quebec—while neglecting the West has fostered a sense of discontent among many Western Canadians. This feeling of alienation intensified throughout the 20th century, but it was particularly pronounced during the 1970s and early 1980s when national energy policies became a focal point of tension.

Origins of Western Alienation

The historical roots of Western alienation can be traced back to the early days of Canadian Confederation. Western provinces, including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, often felt marginalized in national decision-making processes. They perceived that policies were created to serve the more populous and economically dominant provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The allocation of resources, infrastructure investments, and political influence appeared to favor Central Canada, while the West—home to vast natural resources—felt it was providing much of the wealth but receiving little in return.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Alberta’s oil industry expanded significantly, becoming a key player in Canada’s economy. Under the Social Credit government, Alberta largely allowed big oil companies to manage the industry, collecting provincial taxes and royalties. However, Alberta's place in the national economic conversation began to shift in the 1970s when the province's new Conservative leadership took a more assertive stance on resource management.

The Rise of Peter Lougheed and a New Provincial Agenda

In 1971, the Social Credit party, which had governed Alberta since 1935, was replaced by the Progressive Conservatives under Peter Lougheed. Lougheed's government pursued a more proactive approach to Alberta’s oil industry, seeking to use the province's natural resources not just as a revenue stream but also as a way to diversify the economy. Lougheed believed that the oil wealth could help Alberta invest in infrastructure, education, and other industries, ensuring long-term prosperity and independence from the volatile energy market.

The 1973 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East significantly affected global oil markets. In response to the war, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) raised oil prices by nearly 100%, causing a global energy crisis. While the rising oil prices brought windfall profits to Alberta, the rest of Canada faced skyrocketing energy costs and economic instability.

The Alberta government under Lougheed saw this as an opportunity to build a Heritage Fund, amassing billions of dollars in provincial savings. By 1975, this fund had grown to over $14 billion. However, for the rest of Canada, the dramatic rise in oil prices led to significant economic pressures. The Federal government, led by Pierre Trudeau, moved to alleviate these pressures by introducing several controversial measures, including freezing oil prices, preventing companies from deducting provincial royalties from federal tax calculations, and imposing an oil export tax.

Trudeau vs. Lougheed: A Clash over Energy Policy

The conflict between Lougheed and Trudeau came to symbolize the growing divide between Western Canada and the Federal government. Lougheed accused the Trudeau Liberals of prioritizing the economic interests of Ontario and Quebec over those of Alberta. Trudeau, in turn, sought to reduce the financial burden on Central and Eastern Canada by controlling energy prices and nationalizing aspects of the oil industry. This culminated in the implementation of the National Energy Program (NEP) in 1980, one of the most contentious policies in Canadian history.

The NEP aimed to reduce Canada’s dependence on foreign oil, increase Canadian ownership in the energy sector, and promote domestic energy self-sufficiency. However, many Western Canadians, particularly in Alberta, saw the NEP as a federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over natural resources. The program allowed the Federal government to "see into" the oil industry and determine how revenues were being generated, independent of the provincial governments. This deepened the sense of alienation in the West, as many believed that the NEP was designed to siphon wealth from Alberta to benefit other parts of the country.

"Let Them Freeze in the Dark": Alberta’s Response

One of the most infamous moments of the energy dispute occurred when Lougheed, exasperated by the Federal government’s policies, was asked what Central Canada should do in the face of rising energy costs. His reply—"Let them freeze in the dark"—became a rallying cry for Western Canadians who felt that their economic interests were being sacrificed for the benefit of Ontario and Quebec. Lougheed’s defiant stance resonated deeply with Albertans, and by 1981, almost half of the province’s population supported the idea of separation from Canada.

The sense of disenfranchisement was further compounded by the political landscape. After the 1980 federal election, the Liberal Party held no seats west of Manitoba, effectively cutting the West out of federal decision-making. This political isolation contributed to the rise of Western separatist movements, and Alberta, in particular, became a hotbed for anti-Liberal and anti-Ottawa sentiment.

The National Energy Program (NEP) and Its Fallout

The NEP represented the peak of tensions between Western Canada and the Federal government. The program's introduction was seen as a direct assault on Alberta’s autonomy over its natural resources, and many in the province viewed it as yet another example of Ottawa’s disregard for Western interests. The program imposed price controls, increased federal taxation on the oil industry, and introduced new regulations aimed at increasing Canadian ownership in the sector.

While the NEP was intended to strengthen Canada's energy security, its effects on the Alberta economy were devastating. Oil prices, which had been soaring during the 1970s, collapsed in the early 1980s, causing a severe economic downturn in Alberta. Many Albertans blamed the Federal government and the NEP for exacerbating the crisis, as the program limited the province’s ability to fully capitalize on its resources during the oil boom.

By 1981, tensions reached a breaking point. While an agreement was eventually reached between Lougheed and the Federal government regarding revenue-sharing, the damage had been done. The NEP had left deep scars in the political landscape, and Western alienation intensified. When oil prices collapsed in 1982, Alberta's economy was hit hard, and many in the province blamed the Federal government for the downturn.

The Legacy of Western Alienation

Western alienation has continued to shape Canadian politics long after the end of the NEP. The sense of disenfranchisement and frustration with Ottawa has remained a persistent theme in the West, influencing electoral outcomes, political movements, and regional dynamics. The rise of the Reform Party in the late 1980s, led by Preston Manning, was, in part, a direct response to the perceived neglect of Western interests by the Federal Liberals and the establishment parties.

The Reform Party, which eventually merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada, positioned itself as the voice of Western Canada and promised to challenge the dominance of Ontario and Quebec in national decision-making. Even today, the legacy of Western alienation can be seen in the political rhetoric of provincial leaders, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where tensions over resource management, federal environmental policies, and energy infrastructure projects persist.

The period of Western alienation during the 1970s and 1980s, particularly the conflict over energy policy between Trudeau and Lougheed, represents a defining chapter in Canadian history. The struggles over control of the oil industry, revenue-sharing, and federal-provincial relations highlighted the broader tensions between Western Canada and Ottawa, tensions that continue to influence the country’s political landscape today.

While the NEP and the energy disputes of that era were specific to their time, the underlying issues of representation, regional autonomy, and resource management remain central to the debate over Canada’s future. The enduring legacy of Western alienation serves as a reminder of the need for a more balanced approach to national governance, one that ensures the voices of all regions, including the West, are heard and respected.