What do you think?
Rate this book
Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark: The West Versus the Rest Since Confederation
The oil sands. Global warming. The National Energy Program. Though these seem like modern Canadian subjects, author Mary Janigan reveals them to be a legacy of longstanding regional rivalry. Something of a "Third Solitude" since entering Confederation, the West has long been overshadowed by Canada's other great national debate: but as the conflict over natural resources and their effect on climate change heats up, 150 years of antipathy are coming to a head. Janigan takes readers back to a pivotal moment in 1918, when Canada's western premiers descended on Ottawa determined to control their own future--and as Margaret MacMillan did in "Paris 1919," she deftly illustrates how the results reverberate to this day.
448 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
9 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 5, 2021
Excellent book with a title that misses the mark. While the "let them freeze" slogan comes from bumper stickers c. 1973, the book explores history mainly from the 1850s though the 1930s. (More recent days receive relatively short treatment in an "Afterward" at the back of the book.)
The book's focus is an ongoing series of battles over control of resources in Canada. Specifically, the "Prairie" provinces versus the national government in Ottawa. While the "original" Canadian provinces had control (at least more or less) of resources within their boundaries, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta did not. A vexing issue in this regard was that much of the land constituting those provinces had been acquired by the national government, such as in the purchase from the Hudson's Bay Company of the massive tract of land dubbed "Rupert's Land."
For purposes of growth in national population and economic output (as well as the post-WWI settlement of huge numbers of men returning from war), the national government gave away land in the Prairie - with little say by the provincial governments. The expenses of accommodating huge numbers of immigrants (e.g., the need for schools and roads) rankled many in the provinces. So did the principle that the earlier provinces had local control over resources that the Prairie provinces did not.
Layered on top of the Prairie's complaints were the grievances of various other provinces (in the book, called the "Rest of Canada"). Most notably, the eastern (or "Maritime") provinces had their own demands for money and other concessions. In efforts to enforce their demands, the Maritimes largely opposed the transfer of resource-bearing lands to the Prairie provinces -- at least unless the Maritimes got their cuts of the action. In support of their positions, the Maritimes argued, not implausibly, that they had paid part of the freight for the acquisition of Rupert's Land and other lands. Hence, if the Prairies got paid, the Maritimes wanted to get paid too. Politicians in Ottawa largely played the provinces against each other, effectively stalling the Prairie provinces' demands but also sowing seeds of national disunity.
These disputes lingered, largely in the open, for decades. (While there was somewhat of a hiatus during WWI, at best the issues remained on the back burner, simmering.). Prime Minister King eventually brokered resolutions of sorts during the late 1920s into the 1930s. (Some of these things seemed to move at glacial paces even when the parties were more or less agreed.)
However, during the energy crisis of the 1970s and into the early 1980s the old issues arose again, as now oil-rich provinces faced efforts by Ottawa to (depending on one's perspective) change or supplement the deal. For example, Ottawa clamped on price controls during the 1970s, and via the much-reviled National Energy Program of 1980 imposed taxes on oil production and awarded twenty five percent of every new oil development to a Crown corporation, Petro-Canada. (There have been further developments, some in favor of the Prairie provinces, but the old wounds run deep.)
With Canada's long-standing tension regarding resource control as the centerpiece, the author offers a captivating history of conflict between provinces and national government, and between provinces. Along the way, she illustrates the various time periods with ample context, such as (just for example) the experiences of individuals immigrants and groups. Lacking any expertise in Canadian history, I appreciated the author's relatively rich paintings of the different eras the nation experienced over time. This is no sterile exercise in examining a narrow issue, but a broader and more interesting treatment of several decades in a nation's life.
The book's focus is an ongoing series of battles over control of resources in Canada. Specifically, the "Prairie" provinces versus the national government in Ottawa. While the "original" Canadian provinces had control (at least more or less) of resources within their boundaries, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta did not. A vexing issue in this regard was that much of the land constituting those provinces had been acquired by the national government, such as in the purchase from the Hudson's Bay Company of the massive tract of land dubbed "Rupert's Land."
For purposes of growth in national population and economic output (as well as the post-WWI settlement of huge numbers of men returning from war), the national government gave away land in the Prairie - with little say by the provincial governments. The expenses of accommodating huge numbers of immigrants (e.g., the need for schools and roads) rankled many in the provinces. So did the principle that the earlier provinces had local control over resources that the Prairie provinces did not.
Layered on top of the Prairie's complaints were the grievances of various other provinces (in the book, called the "Rest of Canada"). Most notably, the eastern (or "Maritime") provinces had their own demands for money and other concessions. In efforts to enforce their demands, the Maritimes largely opposed the transfer of resource-bearing lands to the Prairie provinces -- at least unless the Maritimes got their cuts of the action. In support of their positions, the Maritimes argued, not implausibly, that they had paid part of the freight for the acquisition of Rupert's Land and other lands. Hence, if the Prairies got paid, the Maritimes wanted to get paid too. Politicians in Ottawa largely played the provinces against each other, effectively stalling the Prairie provinces' demands but also sowing seeds of national disunity.
These disputes lingered, largely in the open, for decades. (While there was somewhat of a hiatus during WWI, at best the issues remained on the back burner, simmering.). Prime Minister King eventually brokered resolutions of sorts during the late 1920s into the 1930s. (Some of these things seemed to move at glacial paces even when the parties were more or less agreed.)
However, during the energy crisis of the 1970s and into the early 1980s the old issues arose again, as now oil-rich provinces faced efforts by Ottawa to (depending on one's perspective) change or supplement the deal. For example, Ottawa clamped on price controls during the 1970s, and via the much-reviled National Energy Program of 1980 imposed taxes on oil production and awarded twenty five percent of every new oil development to a Crown corporation, Petro-Canada. (There have been further developments, some in favor of the Prairie provinces, but the old wounds run deep.)
With Canada's long-standing tension regarding resource control as the centerpiece, the author offers a captivating history of conflict between provinces and national government, and between provinces. Along the way, she illustrates the various time periods with ample context, such as (just for example) the experiences of individuals immigrants and groups. Lacking any expertise in Canadian history, I appreciated the author's relatively rich paintings of the different eras the nation experienced over time. This is no sterile exercise in examining a narrow issue, but a broader and more interesting treatment of several decades in a nation's life.
July 23, 2025
“Ministry officials pestered Aboriginals to surrender land that they considered surplus to the band’s needs, and they allowed speculators to snap up indigenous land before settlers arrived. Extortionate officials told hungry Aboriginals that they would not get equipment or supplies unless their reserve lands were surrounded and sold”
“[The Maritime provinces’] taxpayers had contributed to the purchase of Rupert’s Land and the cost of driving the railway across the prairies. Their sons and daughters had left home to settle the frontier. When Ottawa had expanded provincial boundaries in 1912, the Maritimes had lost their stake in that valuable Northwest Territories terrain”
“Ukrainian-born farmers, who had answered Clifford Sifton’s siren call for homesteaders at the turn of the century, [became] pariahs…were now regarded as traitors who had to register with federal authorities and carry identification cards…more than 8,500 aliens would be interned in camps across the nation.”
THE GOOD
Notwithstanding that many of Alberta’s contemporary complaints about equalization payments are dumb and ill-conceived, sections of this book should be essential reading for every Central and Maritime Canadian, to understand the historical roots of Western alienation and their sense of victimhood. Truly at times treated like a colony and an afterthought, although I found myself (an admitted Trudeau Sr.-style centralizer) sympathizing more with Ottawa and Confederation Provinces than Janigan probably intended. Janigan prefers to colour their arguments as self-interest, mutual recrimination, disunity, etc…but it seems like a pretty valid distinction to me that the prairie provinces came in as a purchase, at great expense, and then required further great expense to settle and build-up, without which none of their contemporary resource wealth would have been possible. Seem reasonable for the founders to expect a return on their investment.
Either way, hard to imagine these historical roots not having a long-lasting impact on Western identity. Or at least among elites - given what an immigration star the West has been for a while now, one wonders how widespread those ‘alienation’ attitudes are among actual residents, so many of whom are newcomers. Some data on that would have been cool.
The intense anti-Central and Eastern European racism of the early Canadian public and political class was interesting to read about and is definitely underplayed in today’s history textbooks (gee, I wonder why). Just as interesting was capitalists’ success in overcoming it in order to avail themselves of the resource boom of the early 20th century. Canada, like the U.S., seems to have always had a xenophobic strain that never succeeds in stemming the tide of immigration thanks to labour shortages.
Of course, immigration from those regions would never have been necessary had MacDonald and Laurier managed to attract “Anglo-European stock” like they wanted to. The harrowing tales of extremely oppressive conditions for settlers, which cause the pampered Anglos to leave soon after arriving, is one of the strengths of the book. It’s brought to life with diaries, letters, statistics, etc. No wonder most Westerners I meet seem larger and hardier than your average Central Canadian - they’re descended from the toughest of the tough.
I enjoyed the section on Riel, it made me want to revisit the Chester Brown novel. Is what he did all that different from what other now-unquestioned revolutionaries did a hundred years earlier (thinking of American and French examples here)? The only difference being he lost (outmaneuvered by MacDonald, who appears here, as everywhere, a shrewd, visionary politician).
Finally, it was cool to get such a deep dive on Borden. Pretty much all I knew about him was the Conscription Crisis - that ubiquitous history test-fill-in-the-blank for every Canadian high school student. Turns out he was a pretty mid PM, more interested in swanning around with VIPs abroad than governing, domestically incompetent when he did deign to govern. His credit for “shepherding” Canada through WW1 (i.e. he was sitting in the chair when it popped off) seems ill-deserved. I was left with the impression there could probably be someone better on our $100 bill.
THE BAD
It takes a while to get going (and I say this as a CanPol nerd - this book’s target audience), due to the author’s bad decision to use an obscure 1918 conference as a literary device to frame the narrative (traces of Margaret MacMillan’s influence perhaps?). In reality, the conference is super boring without context, and the context only gets revealed in time, so it probably should have just been given a chapter when it naturally arose, rather than opening the book and potentially discouraging the reader from continuing due to disinterest.
As far as the writing itself, it is outrageously repetitive reading, which may just be a problem with the choice of subject matter?
I join the other reviewers in being irked at the misnomic title - in fact the period in which that infamous bumper stick appeared is barely touched. Which is a shame, because it’s a super interesting, dramatic period than anyone younger than a Gen-Xer will be largely ignorant of. Maybe the redundancy problem noted above could have been solved by trimming the early 20th century stuff in favour of more late 20th century stuff, which also would have created a nice through line and solidified that ‘link to the present’ the author seems so desperate to establish.
Janigan does her darndest to introduce and background the various players and characters (provincial premiers mainly), but unfortunately they seem to enter and exit the stage so quickly, and are generally such uninteresting men, that I eventually stopped bothering to remember the names…which then made me less invested in the narrative, and made for boring reading. Meanwhile, seemingly important and interesting events, like an entirely new and influential party entering Parliament (the Progressive Party) get short shrift and I’m left Googling them.
Like most historians, Janigan fawns over Mackenzie King and his political acumen. Seeing how he was the first PM to finally relent on resource control, and that he did it partly to save his own political skin during a minority gov, and partly out of a naive belief that the good times (the 20s) would last forever…one wonders if there’s a more negative take to be had….i.e. that he weakened the federal government and further fragmented the federation, leading to the present day embarrassment of having freer trade with other countries than we do domestically. Resource control is one less leverage point the Fed has to compel the provinces to act in the national interest.
Indeed, we never actually get a normative / pol theory argument that any province deserves full control of its resources - why shouldn’t the Fed use them for nation-building and national interest purposes, especially in an increasingly hostile world? The book seems to have an unspoken provincial rights ethos behind it that left me wanting.
“[The Maritime provinces’] taxpayers had contributed to the purchase of Rupert’s Land and the cost of driving the railway across the prairies. Their sons and daughters had left home to settle the frontier. When Ottawa had expanded provincial boundaries in 1912, the Maritimes had lost their stake in that valuable Northwest Territories terrain”
“Ukrainian-born farmers, who had answered Clifford Sifton’s siren call for homesteaders at the turn of the century, [became] pariahs…were now regarded as traitors who had to register with federal authorities and carry identification cards…more than 8,500 aliens would be interned in camps across the nation.”
THE GOOD
Notwithstanding that many of Alberta’s contemporary complaints about equalization payments are dumb and ill-conceived, sections of this book should be essential reading for every Central and Maritime Canadian, to understand the historical roots of Western alienation and their sense of victimhood. Truly at times treated like a colony and an afterthought, although I found myself (an admitted Trudeau Sr.-style centralizer) sympathizing more with Ottawa and Confederation Provinces than Janigan probably intended. Janigan prefers to colour their arguments as self-interest, mutual recrimination, disunity, etc…but it seems like a pretty valid distinction to me that the prairie provinces came in as a purchase, at great expense, and then required further great expense to settle and build-up, without which none of their contemporary resource wealth would have been possible. Seem reasonable for the founders to expect a return on their investment.
Either way, hard to imagine these historical roots not having a long-lasting impact on Western identity. Or at least among elites - given what an immigration star the West has been for a while now, one wonders how widespread those ‘alienation’ attitudes are among actual residents, so many of whom are newcomers. Some data on that would have been cool.
The intense anti-Central and Eastern European racism of the early Canadian public and political class was interesting to read about and is definitely underplayed in today’s history textbooks (gee, I wonder why). Just as interesting was capitalists’ success in overcoming it in order to avail themselves of the resource boom of the early 20th century. Canada, like the U.S., seems to have always had a xenophobic strain that never succeeds in stemming the tide of immigration thanks to labour shortages.
Of course, immigration from those regions would never have been necessary had MacDonald and Laurier managed to attract “Anglo-European stock” like they wanted to. The harrowing tales of extremely oppressive conditions for settlers, which cause the pampered Anglos to leave soon after arriving, is one of the strengths of the book. It’s brought to life with diaries, letters, statistics, etc. No wonder most Westerners I meet seem larger and hardier than your average Central Canadian - they’re descended from the toughest of the tough.
I enjoyed the section on Riel, it made me want to revisit the Chester Brown novel. Is what he did all that different from what other now-unquestioned revolutionaries did a hundred years earlier (thinking of American and French examples here)? The only difference being he lost (outmaneuvered by MacDonald, who appears here, as everywhere, a shrewd, visionary politician).
Finally, it was cool to get such a deep dive on Borden. Pretty much all I knew about him was the Conscription Crisis - that ubiquitous history test-fill-in-the-blank for every Canadian high school student. Turns out he was a pretty mid PM, more interested in swanning around with VIPs abroad than governing, domestically incompetent when he did deign to govern. His credit for “shepherding” Canada through WW1 (i.e. he was sitting in the chair when it popped off) seems ill-deserved. I was left with the impression there could probably be someone better on our $100 bill.
THE BAD
It takes a while to get going (and I say this as a CanPol nerd - this book’s target audience), due to the author’s bad decision to use an obscure 1918 conference as a literary device to frame the narrative (traces of Margaret MacMillan’s influence perhaps?). In reality, the conference is super boring without context, and the context only gets revealed in time, so it probably should have just been given a chapter when it naturally arose, rather than opening the book and potentially discouraging the reader from continuing due to disinterest.
As far as the writing itself, it is outrageously repetitive reading, which may just be a problem with the choice of subject matter?
I join the other reviewers in being irked at the misnomic title - in fact the period in which that infamous bumper stick appeared is barely touched. Which is a shame, because it’s a super interesting, dramatic period than anyone younger than a Gen-Xer will be largely ignorant of. Maybe the redundancy problem noted above could have been solved by trimming the early 20th century stuff in favour of more late 20th century stuff, which also would have created a nice through line and solidified that ‘link to the present’ the author seems so desperate to establish.
Janigan does her darndest to introduce and background the various players and characters (provincial premiers mainly), but unfortunately they seem to enter and exit the stage so quickly, and are generally such uninteresting men, that I eventually stopped bothering to remember the names…which then made me less invested in the narrative, and made for boring reading. Meanwhile, seemingly important and interesting events, like an entirely new and influential party entering Parliament (the Progressive Party) get short shrift and I’m left Googling them.
Like most historians, Janigan fawns over Mackenzie King and his political acumen. Seeing how he was the first PM to finally relent on resource control, and that he did it partly to save his own political skin during a minority gov, and partly out of a naive belief that the good times (the 20s) would last forever…one wonders if there’s a more negative take to be had….i.e. that he weakened the federal government and further fragmented the federation, leading to the present day embarrassment of having freer trade with other countries than we do domestically. Resource control is one less leverage point the Fed has to compel the provinces to act in the national interest.
Indeed, we never actually get a normative / pol theory argument that any province deserves full control of its resources - why shouldn’t the Fed use them for nation-building and national interest purposes, especially in an increasingly hostile world? The book seems to have an unspoken provincial rights ethos behind it that left me wanting.
August 8, 2014
The title is marketing puff, intended to entice readers by making them think the book is about late-twentieth-century energy policies in Canada. In fact, the period treated is from 1870 to 1930, when Canada transferred control of natural resources to the prairie provinces. The work is a serious historical treatment of the long tug-of-war over such resources, closing with the bittersweet achievements of Mackenzie King. The profiles of western premiers also are good, but the provincial grounding of disputes in real resources, rather than in political rivalries, is fuzzy. The author does not handle quotations well (they are often unattributed in the text), nor does she achieve in integrating occasional vignettes from the grassroots into the larger narrative. A valuable work, the value greatly exceeding the faults.
December 23, 2019
The book delivers on what it promises, an explanation of the roots of western alienation in Canada. But its a very one-sided story that plays fast and loose with its narrative. More “popular” than “history,” Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark; the West Versus the Rest Since Confederation just rehashes the same old perspectives on its topic, and ultimately reaffirms the Canadian State, rather than sounding a note of caution about how it may choose to handle future conflicts involving western resources and national economic development.
Thoughts about the book on my blog.
https://kdbellblog.wordpress.com/
Thoughts about the book on my blog.
https://kdbellblog.wordpress.com/
Read
October 18, 2014Author Janigan's book reads like a mystery novel as she uncovers clue after clue and layers of intrigue of the mystery of the evolution of Canada. The importance of this book at this time in Canada's evolution cannot be overlooked.
April 3, 2020
Welp, definitely learned a lot. Not sure how I grew up thinking Canada was the land peace and harmony when one might argue that has literally never been true (especially as an Albertan). I suppose the current iteration of #wexit is just a continuation of an old tradition.
But overall not a bad read although it is kind of unfortunate to end the book with a quote from Alison Redford. She certainly was not the beginning of a new era.
But overall not a bad read although it is kind of unfortunate to end the book with a quote from Alison Redford. She certainly was not the beginning of a new era.
November 30, 2018
The title and cover blurb are incredibly misleading. I thought it was going to be about the NEP, but it was mostly about provincial resource control 40-70 years prior to the NEP.
Sometimes the writing style makes it hard to follow the chronology of events. Also, if the author had stayed on topic, this book could have been about 30% shorter.
Sometimes the writing style makes it hard to follow the chronology of events. Also, if the author had stayed on topic, this book could have been about 30% shorter.
May 19, 2019
Well done. I keep going back to this book.
April 9, 2016
I think this is a great book that thoroughly explains the origins of the west vs. east mentality of Canada. I especially liked how the author contrasted personal entries and letters of high rank politicians with the everyday accounts of ordinary citizens who were being affected by their policies. That being said, I don't think people realize how dramatic Canadian politicians are, and this book definitely reveals that the founding fathers of our confederation could be as petty as mean girls. However, as detailed as it is, it only goes up until 1930 and given that this whole issue still plagues Canadian politics it's really only giving you an account of this neverending problem in a particular time, and because it largely deals with the same groups of people arguing the same thing, it can get repetitive after a while.
February 14, 2013
Really good history book that didn't read as a dry history book, but a lively discussion of the issues between the Prairies and the rest of Canada, mostly land and mineral rights. What I enjoyed the most is that the book showed the western wants and the reasons why the rest, especially the Maritimes, were resistant to the western demands. I was engrossed in the battle for the rights and found myself understanding more about the prairie world view that I got a taste of when I was in Regina in 2011. The author did treat the subject matter as a part of the times and clearly understood the mix between the micro history and world history. I also got a better understanding of the Canadian world view during the general time frame of 1900-1930.
July 2, 2023
In general an interesting deep dive into Canada’s political history.
Two star rating because I found the writing style grating. The author would explain the way someone felt or some action they were planning to take, repeat what they just explained, and then repeat it again in the voice of person who was doing it. Multiple times I had to go back and re-read pages just to make sure that there wasn’t some printing error and the same section of text was written word for word twice.
At times I felt like I was reading a paper written by a student trying to hit a certain word count. I think with some better editing the same amount of information could have been shared in a book three quarters the length.
Two star rating because I found the writing style grating. The author would explain the way someone felt or some action they were planning to take, repeat what they just explained, and then repeat it again in the voice of person who was doing it. Multiple times I had to go back and re-read pages just to make sure that there wasn’t some printing error and the same section of text was written word for word twice.
At times I felt like I was reading a paper written by a student trying to hit a certain word count. I think with some better editing the same amount of information could have been shared in a book three quarters the length.
June 11, 2013
I must say that I was disappointed by the scope of this book. When the title is a quote from the NEP era and the sub is "the West versus the Rest since Confederation" it seems odd that it essentially stops at 1930. The story of the battle for provincial control of natural resources is an interesting one but I was hoping for a book that covered the ongoing story through the more recent issues of western alienation.
June 30, 2013
Excellent early history of how we got to where we are on resoucrece issues.
August 21, 2024
A must read book
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews