Western alienation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Western alienation, in Canadian politics, is the concept of the Western provinces, namely British Columbia (B.C.), Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, being alienated, and in extreme cases excluded, from mainstream political affairs within the greater Canadian system, in favour of especially Ontario and Quebec interests. The latter of these provinces are argued to be politically represented and economically favoured (especially Quebec) significantly more so than the former, which has given rise to an alienated sentiment among many Western Canadians. This sentiment is most pronounced in B.C. and Alberta.
For example, both Alberta and B.C., along with Ontario, have in recent decades, paid billions of dollars in equalization payments to Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This has caused varying levels of discontent in these provinces. Currently, "have" provinces (those who do not receive equalization payments) are Ontario and Alberta, with economists predicting that B.C. and Saskatchewan will join these ranks in the near future.[1] The last time B.C. was a "have" province was in 2001, and had been for 15 consecutive years prior to that.[2]
Contents |
[edit] History of alienation
Following Confederation in 1867, Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald announced a "National Policy" to develop and unite Canada geographically and economically. The policy aimed to build a transcontinental railway, to settle the prairies and to develop a manufacturing base in Eastern Canada. However as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation argues:
"The National Policy became the source of considerable Western discontent. To Western Canada, the legacy left by the policy consisted of discriminatory freight rates and a resource-based economy that was subject to the boom and bust cycles of the manufacturing and financial sectors of Central Canada."[3]
In 1980, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau developed the National Energy Program (NEP) which intended to use Alberta's oil revenues to subsidize gasoline prices nation-wide. The program was extremely unpopular in Western Canada, where most of Canada's oil is produced, and heightened distrust of the federal government, especially in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Many Albertans believed that the NEP was an unjustified intrusion of the federal government into an area of provincial jurisdiction, designed to strip their province of its natural wealth. By keeping the oil prices below world market prices, the eastern provinces were essentially subsidized.
[edit] Current factors of alienation
There are numerous current factors which have fueled alienated sentiment in Western Canada. Political factors include low political representation (for example, in the Senate – while Alberta and B.C. have 495,801 and 651,290 citizens per Senator respectively, Quebec and Ontario have 301,562 and 475,419)[4], as well as Quebec sovereignty and the significant attention the province receives from all parts of Canada, especially the federal government. A more potent but ambiguous claim is that the Canadian political agenda is directed predominantly by politicians reigning from Eastern Canada who pay less attention policy-wise to Western interests, instead focusing on the more vote-rich central region of Quebec and Ontario. Economic factors include a general redistribution of income from Western provinces to Eastern ones through taxation and the aforementioned equalization payments.
[edit] Political factors
One source of Western alienation is the distribution of population in Canada:
As of July 2005, it was estimated that 23.5% and 38.9% of the Canadian population resides respectively in Quebec and Ontario, for a total of 62.4% of the total national population. On the other hand, 13.2%, 10.1%, 3.1%, 3.6% reside in B.C., Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan for a total of 30% of the total national population–together less than half that of Ontario and Quebec.[5]
Westerners who feel alienated from the rest of Canada believe that Canadian politicians favour areas with larger populations (where they can receive more votes), and therefore formulate policies that favour the larger population centres, namely Quebec and Ontario. Such policies may not be directly detrimental to the West, but such systematic "favouritism" has the effect of alienating its people. While some may argue this has not in actuality been the case, the belief of this among Western Canadians has nonetheless been a major factor towards the sentiment of Western alienation.
Because of this uneven population distribution across the country, Western Canadians are, geographically, less represented in both the House of Commons and, as previously noted, the Senate. While especially in the former case, this is difficult to avoid whilst maintaining the democratic principle of one person one vote, in such a geographically large and diverse nation it can be problematic because federal policies designed for one region are often subjected to the whole. Thus, policies encouraged by the 62.4% of Canadians residing in Central Canada can hypothetically be imposed upon the unwilling 30% residing in Western Canada.
Secondly, because the constitution entitles a province to at least the same number of members of the House of Commons as the province had Senators in 1982 [6], the Maritime provinces have more members in the House of Commons than their population would otherwise warrant. For example, the average number of citizens per riding is approximately 34,500 in P.E.I., in B.C. and Alberta it is held noticeably higher than the the national average of 105,700 (respectively 118,900 and 118,100 in these two provinces). This disproportionately low political representation relative to the Maritime provinces is a further political factor in Western alienation.
The third political source of Western alienation can be traced to the Quebec sovereignty movement. Many Western Canadians argue that Quebec receives undue attention from the rest of the country due to concerns that it will separate, or obtain sovereignty-association, from the rest of Canada. Referendums were held posing this question to Quebeckers in 1980 and 1995.
Westerners who feel alienated from the rest of Canada believe that the result of the strong sovereigntist movement in Quebec has been exaggerated focus and attention placed on the province. This has been the case at both domestic and international political levels – for example with Jean Chrétien's plea to Quebec to vote no in the 1995 referendum – and at the grassroots level, for example with a pro-Canada demonstration in Montreal with thousands of Canadians from across the country attending. One way this attention manifested itself following the referendum was in the now infamous sponsorship scandal, which saw millions of federal dollars being funnelled into Quebec in attempts to promote Canadian nationalism there.
The immediate backlash of this in Western Canada occurred two years later during a dispute between B.C. and American officials over salmon fishing in the region. Following virtually no support from the federal government, B.C. premier Glen Clark unilaterally took action, protesting the neutral stance taken by Ottawa on the matter. Clark attributed this inaction to Western alienation, arguing the lack of support was due to not the nature of the problem but its location – namely, in the West. Senator Pat Carney suggested that B.C. use the threat of separation in further constitutional talks as a means to garner attention from Ottawa to Western provinces.[7]Although Ottawa did not dramatically change its stance, this comment sparked widespread attention from national media and reignited discourse over Western alienation.
[edit] Economic factors
Economic factors, including equalization payments, have caused great discontent, especially in Alberta. Equalization payments cost Alberta approximately $1.1 billion annually [8], less than that provided by, but significantly higher on a per capita basis than, Ontario. These payments are made by the federal government to the eight 'have-not' provinces. There are no federal restrictions over how this money is to be spent at the provincial level. Quebec receives $5.5 billion annually, making it the single largest recipient of these payments.[9]
British Columbia, as noted, has been a 'have-not' province for just over five years and will likely return to being a 'have' province in the near future. While being a 'have-not' province, it received the lowest payments besides Saskatchewan ($13), receiving $107 per capita in 2006.[10]
[edit] Equalization payments – 2006-07
($ millions)
| Newfoundland | Prince Edward Island | Nova Scotia | New Brunswick | Quebec | Manitoba | Saskatchewan | British Columbia | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regular | 632 | 291 | 1,386 | 1,451 | 5,539 | 1,709 | 13 | 260 | 11,282 |
| Adjustment* | 54 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 199 | 254 |
| Total | 687 | 291 | 1,386 | 1,451 | 5,539 | 1,709 | 13 | 459 | 11,535 |
| Per capita | $1,334 | $2,102 | $1,475 | $1,927 | $725 | $1,445 | $13 | $107 | - |
Notes:
Totals may not add due to rounding.
* For those provinces where there is a decline from the amount they had been advised of in November 2005, a one-time adjustment will be made to offset this decline.[11]
[edit] State of affairs in 2006
At the moment, Western alienation does not appear to be a significant force in Canadian politics, besides protest over equalization payments on the part of former Alberta premier Ralph Klein. In particular, Klein and others object to the formula the federal government uses to determine the distribution of the payments. Klein has been quoted as threatening to drop-out of the program, although this is not possible since it is funded from the federal government's general revenues.
There have been recent calls for the separation of at least Alberta from Canada, most notably from University of Alberta professor emeritus Leon Craig. However, such arguments, while not necessarily new, are rare and unlikely to materialize into a political movement in the near future.
The recent decisions of the minority Conservative government of Stephen Harper on issues such as income trusts and the recognition of the Quebecois as a "nation within a united Canada," have caused some dissent amongst a segment of Western Canadians who have traditionally supported the Tories. These feelings have fostered only a small ripple in the Tories' popularity in Alberta, with the formation of the new federal Party of Alberta in late 2006.[12]
The prospects for another referendum in Quebec in coming years is high with growing popularity of the Parti Québécois (PQ) and the waning support[citation needed], for Quebec premier Jean Charest and his Parti libéral du Québec. André Boisclair, the new leader of the PQ, has declared his intentions to hold another referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty if he secures victory in the next provincial election. As noted, this will likely have an impact on Western alienation.
