The post Should Cities Build More Bike Lanes? appeared first on Alberta Views.

The post Should Canada ban TikTok? appeared first on Alberta Views.

Neil Hetherington says YES

CEO of Toronto’s Daily Bread Food Bank

let’s start from an unusual place: agreement. We all want a country where everyone has the food they need and we don’t need food banks. But the sad reality is 8.7 million people in Canada are food insecure. The rising cost of living is far outpacing increases in wages and social supports, so more of our neighbours simply can’t afford sufficient food. I argue that food banks are essential interventions now and indeed a requirement for the lasting social policy action that will eventually put food banks out of business.

The old arguments against food banks must be dispelled. It’s said that food banks let government off the hook, yet there has been no case study that shows a jurisdiction where a food bank was shut down and the government stepped in to solve the issue. Also, some people call food banks a “Band-Aid” solution. That may be true, but that label doesn’t negate their necessity.

The first argument for food banks speaks to their effectiveness. When COVID hit, long lines formed outside food charities. They scaled to meet the extraordinary challenge, with an efficacy that any for-profit or government agency can only dream of—typically spending about $1 to distribute a meal.

But efficiency won’t end food insecurity. That can only be fought through systemic change, which charities in Canada have historically spearheaded. Before public education or healthcare, places of worship stepped in to create schools and hospitals for people who couldn’t afford these services. Charities then argued that their empathetic actions needed to become legislated rights, and Parliament agreed. Their personal experience gave them the credentials to call for systemic change.

In many respects this played out with food banks in Canada in the 1990s and 2000s. Food banks, alongside community leaders, argued for the Child Tax Benefit and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. They’d seen first-hand the people chronically requiring food banks and used that knowledge to petition for better supports. When these policies were implemented, national food bank use decreased markedly.

Because most food banks don’t receive government funds, they have an independent status that enables them to make life uncomfortable for people holding office. They can unabashedly and independently share with the public and elected officials what’s happening on the ground. When you distribute just under one million meals per week, as Daily Bread Food Bank does, you earn a seat at the policy table. The scope of our work grants us the opportunity, and obligation, to speak with governments to demand affordable housing, income supports and decent work. Food banks can apply pressure, as we did, to implement the Canada Disability Benefit, which will precipitate a big decline in food bank use once it becomes fully funded.

Food banks not only facilitate emergency food access, they are an essential part of the advocacy work that will help create the future we all desire, one in which no one goes hungry.

Elaine Power says no

Professor of kinesiology and health studies at Queen’s University

It’s a litany now so familiar that we tune it out: Food banks are desperate, unable to meet the demand for food. But despite their best intentions, food banks have inadvertently obscured the underlying problem. They direct our attention to food when the real issue is inadequate income.

Demand is “spiralling out of control,” Food Banks Canada reports. Toronto’s Daily Bread Food Bank is at “a breaking point.” Visits to Calgary’s Food Bank rose 200 per cent from 2019 to 2024. Nationally, over two million Canadians received food charity in March 2024, a million more than five years earlier. Food Banks Canada explains that this “unthinkable” growth can’t be sustained. Food bank usage has soared in tandem with record rates of food insecurity, now affecting over nine million Canadians, including over two million children.

While food bank demand has skyrocketed, the volume of individual donations has dropped, because the affordability crisis is affecting donors too. Corporate donations have also fallen off. Feed Ontario, the provincial food bank association, reports that almost 40 per cent of Ontario food banks have had to reduce the amount of food they give out. Nationally, almost 30 per cent of food banks ran out of food last year.

But food banks were never a solution to food insecurity (inadequate or insecure access to food). For a variety of reasons, the vast majority of food-insecure households don’t even use food banks. The food bank system is, unfortunately, scattershot. Food banks take root where there is a convenient space and a group of volunteers, not necessarily where food insecure households are. Despite their best efforts, food banks have limited capacity and hours. The variety and quantity of foods is limited. Most put strict limits on how often a household can use their services and how much food they can receive. For some Canadians, the idea of using food charity is a sign of hitting bottom, and they’d rather go hungry.

Households that use food banks remain food insecure. That’s because food banks can only provide temporary relief. Food insecurity is a symptom of the much broader household problem of inadequate income. Food-insecure households are less likely to be able to afford their necessary prescriptions. They’re more likely to fall behind in utility payments and rent, and to live in crowded, substandard housing.

The very existence of food banks has unintentionally sown the seeds of a chronic and increasingly desperate crisis. Instead of lobbying politicians to create effective income solutions to food insecurity, we’ve been busy with food drives, imagining that we just need to pitch more tins into the donation bin.

It’s hard to imagine that there are almost nine million food-insecure Canadians. The argument that we can’t close food banks because these people will go hungry ignores the fact that most food-insecure Canadians are already hungry. They’ll remain that way until we confront the real problem—poverty.

neil hetherington responds to elaine power

The Daily Bread Food Bank serves the people of Toronto. Sadly, we provide just under one million meals per week to the community. It is a staggering reality that one in 10 Torontonians now receives much-needed food from our organization and the network we support. The numbers for Alberta food banks are similar. These statistics are disheartening and maddening.

What has been uplifting is seeing volunteers, donors, advocates and staff at Daily Bread rise to the occasion. Collectively we have ensured uninterrupted weekly service of good food to 300,000 people through a shopping model that provides dignified, barrier-free access. Last year Daily Bread distributed over 43 million pounds of food to our network of member food banks, over half of which was fresh produce and protein. These nutrition-dense options can help build balanced meals, but they’re often inaccessible to people facing food insecurity.

Nationally it is a sad reality that Canada has now one food bank for every three grocery stores. The proliferation of food banks and the sophistication with which they operate has grown significantly over the decades. They are a tremendous resource to their 2.8 million clients each year. According to Statistics Canada, that client list is bigger than the number of severely food-insecure Canadians.

Some critics argue that food banks inadvertently obscure the underlying problem of food insecurity by redirecting attention to food itself rather than to the root cause: inadequate income. That critique is outdated, as food banks have taken their frontline experience to the frontlines of advocacy.

Food banks—our research and persistent lobbying within coalitions—are helping drive policy changes.

Far from distracting the public and policymakers from the root causes of food insecurity, food banks are in a unique position to document these causes and advocate for solutions that end poverty and hunger. This is exactly what we do. Throughout our networks, food banks are increasing our sophistication in research to complement what we learn from conversations with the people we serve. As a result, food banks have solid data on why Canadians need to avail themselves of food charity, who these Canadians are, and the policy interventions required to reduce lineups. Ironically, this is data that academic critics of food banks often cite. But I’m more interested when I see it cited by elected officials when they are committing to making legislative and regulatory changes to social policies. These are uplifting moments amid the despair of knowing that approximately 10 million Canadians are food insecure.

Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion. With data, you can drive change.

Over the last year, for example, Daily Bread has seen three policies come into force that have two common elements. First, and most important, each will have a positive effect on reducing food insecurity in Canada. The second is that the experiences of food banks—their research and their persistent lobbying within coalitions—helped drive these changes.

Daily Bread wrote the City of Toronto’s declaration of food insecurity as an emergency. This then resulted in a universal student nutrition program, when the city’s Vision and Strategy for a Universal School Food Program was unanimously passed.

Food banks joined disability communities to argue persuasively that someone receiving disability benefits in Canada shouldn’t be legislated to live in deep poverty. One-third of food bank clients have a disability and are expected to live on $1,400 per month; a full $1,000 below the poverty line. On July 1, 2025, the new Canada Disability Benefit began to distribute $200 per month to Canadians living with a disability.

Finally, in June 2024, changes to Canada’s immigration strategy and regulations resulted in lower growth in food bank usage in Toronto.

None of these policy interventions would have been possible without our on-the-ground experience, serving people who are food insecure. We collect data, the media amplifies it, the community is mobilized, and policies begin to change—albeit too slowly.

Canada’s food banks can walk and chew gum at the same time, as we always have. The policy wins this year were possible because of our authentic service in the community, and our amplifying what we see each day.

Food charity has always been done with humanity. I expect food charity will always be with us. But our hope at Daily Bread is that the experiences of individuals going through difficult times become briefer and recur less. The chronic use of food banks across Canada can be reduced through systemic changes. Until that day, food banks will continue to feed the need now while relentlessly advocating for social policy change.

Elaine Power responds to Neil Hetherington

Food banks were first established here in the 1980s. Why Because Canadians, living in one of the wealthiest countries in history, simply couldn’t imagine that their neighbours might be hungry. The early food bank founders expected their organizations to close once the economy recovered. Governments would surely recommit to their obligation to support Canadians’ well-being. But 44 years after the first food bank opened in Edmonton, the idea that food banks should close has become almost unimaginable.

Neil Hetherington’s willingness to speak publicly for his vision of a hunger-free Canada, without food banks, is refreshing. As he is the head of Canada’s largest food bank, his arguments for affordable housing, income supports and decent work should carry moral and persuasive authority with elected officials.

But the reality is governments aren’t paying enough attention to this public-health issue, which has profound short- and long-term effects. While Hetherington points to the new Canada Disability Benefit as a testament to food banks’ advocacy, the impact of this small supplement is uncertain. Moreover, it upholds and reinforces the artificial divide between “deserving” and “undeserving” poor. The CDB’s very existence could inadvertently make it more difficult to implement other supports, such as basic income. Similarly the new National School Food Program may mean that fewer students go hungry. But their food-insecure parents and caregivers will still be unable to afford the food they and their children need at home.

Under the terms of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Canada committed to ensuring that every citizen has an adequate standard of living, enabling Canadians to purchase food along with other necessities of life. If this were the case, then the demand for food banks would fall off. Food banks could scale down and most could close.

This will happen only when Canadians are mobilized to demand government action to significantly reduce poverty and income insecurity. These are the root causes of food insecurity. Our country’s track record offers little evidence that reasoned arguments will move governments to act decisively. Getting governments to act is a matter of political power, and poor people are among the least powerful. While food bank advocacy for meaningful policy change is important, it is insufficient on its own.

What stands in the way of mobilizing more of us to demand government seriously address food insecurity?

For about the same period that food banks have existed—with a short intermission during the pandemic—we’ve been told that government itself is a problem; we shouldn’t expect it to fix things. Instead we’ve been schooled to turn to “the market” as the better problem solver, and to charity when markets fail. Over the past four decades, food banks stepped up to try to fill the gaps as governments neglected our social safety net.

A stereotype is that people in poverty should be grateful to charitable benefactors, not expect rights or justice.

Of course, we Canadians did our part, bringing non-perishable items to food drives at school, church, work. Instead of being uncomfortable with food banks—and the public policy failures they represent—we celebrate them as proof of our collective and individual kindness. Corporate food bank donors earn “good citizen” badges. Meanwhile, some of the same donors contribute to food insecurity with poorly paid jobs while actively lobbying for lower taxes, which decrease government’s ability to strengthen the social safety net.

Meanwhile, cruel Victorian myths and stereotypes persist about the causes of poverty. Instead of seeing structural and epigenetic causes, some people continue to hold the poor individually responsible for their plight—and for escaping it. The CDB suggests we might give some leeway to those with state-certified disabilities, so they have a tiny bit more income. But the stereotypes imply that those living in poverty should be grateful to charitable benefactors, and not expect rights or justice.

Some say we just “can’t afford” to reduce poverty. This ignores the fact that poverty already costs us—in the healthcare, education and justice systems. A 2019 Feed Ontario report conservatively estimated the annual cost of poverty in Ontario at up to $33-billion. It presents poverty reduction as an “investment” that lowers costs and boosts revenues for businesses and governments.

I’m old enough to remember when we didn’t have food banks. We expected that government programs would keep us afloat when tough times hit. But food banks have become part of the social wallpaper. For my students they’re normal. They can scarcely imagine an alternative. I want to live in a Canada where kindness and compassion is structural, not charitable. I want our policies to be just. We can afford this dream. We don’t need food banks to realize it—we need the political will.

____________________________________________

Support independent local media. Please click to subscribe.

The post Should We Have Food Banks? appeared first on Alberta Views.

Anita Nickerson says YES

Executive director of Fair Vote Canada, a multi-partisan movement for electoral reform

The most compelling reason to adopt proportional representation is that it’s fair to all citizens. With first-past-the-post (FPTP), majority governments can be elected with the support of only 39 per cent (or less) of voters. In a democracy, a party with a minority of voter support shouldn’t be able to wield 100 per cent of the power.

First-past-the-post is especially unfair to citizens who vote for smaller parties. In 2008 almost a million Canadians voted for the Green Party, which received zero seats. With almost the same number of votes, the Bloc Québécois saw 49 MPs elected.

FPTP also harms national unity. In 1993 the Bloc became Canada’s Official Opposition with a mere 13.5 per cent of the vote. This was ludicrous, considering the party advocates for Quebec seceding from Canada. At the provincial level, the separatist Parti Québécois could win a majority government in 2026 with 33 per cent of the vote.

First-past-the-post exaggerates regional tensions. Canadians aren’t as divided as FPTP suggests. A party can win every seat in a region even if a large minority of people living there voted for other parties. For years Conservatives didn’t have even one MP in Toronto, and Liberals didn’t have any in Alberta.

In 1979 the federal Task Force on Canadian Unity (Pepin–Robarts Commission) concluded that proportional representation was “urgent and of very high priority.” Since then our politics has become more polarized. Most alarming is how people increasingly see those with different political views as immoral or dangerous. This isn’t a healthy debate but a descent into “us” vs. “them,” increasing the risk of violence.

Experience in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries shows that proportional representation leads to more co-operative and less polarized politics. Almost every vote counts, giving everyone a reason to cast a ballot. Citizens are fairly represented in parliaments, and more points of view are considered, leading to more broadly accepted public policy. Local representation is strengthened. Voters in every region can elect MPs from the governing party and opposition parties alike as advocates. Cabinets can more easily include MPs from every region; no region need dominate or be excluded.

Proportional representation also acts as a crucial safeguard to prevent an extremist leader of a party with only minority support from gaining complete control.

Proportional representation has a strong track record. About 80 per cent of democracies in the OECD use such systems, including democracies ranked as the world’s strongest. These countries outperform ones with winner-take-all systems on economic growth, population health and environmental protection.

In short, proportional representation is fair, it works and it’s long overdue in Canada.

lydia miljan says no

Professor and head of political science at the University of Windsor

You must give proponents of proportional representation (PR) credit; they are relentless in their desire to change our electoral system despite the public repeatedly rejecting the proposition. Since 2005 Canada has had six provincial referenda asking citizens if they’d like to change how we vote. In all cases the majority didn’t want change or so few people cast ballots that there was no mandate for change. Additionally, both the federal and the Quebec governments have made highly publicized promises to change the electoral system, only to abandon them without offering any alternatives to the status quo.

Our current system, based on plurality, is colloquially known as first-past-the-post. The winning candidates receive the most votes in a constituency. Crucially they don’t need a majority of votes, just more than any other candidate. The fact that in many ridings the winner gets less than 50 per cent of the vote leads electoral reform advocates to complain that votes are “wasted” or results don’t reflect the popular vote.

The problem with this argument is that the metric often used is the total vote compared to the percentage of seats allocated in the House of Commons. While it’s true that not every riding is won with a majority, in some federal elections one-third to half of the electoral districts are won with at least 50 per cent of the vote. Over the last six federal elections roughly 40 per cent of ridings were won with a majority. In 2012 nearly half of Canada’s ridings (47 per cent) were won by candidates who earned a majority of the vote.

In Alberta elections it’s quite common that most seats are won with a majority of votes. In 2019, for example, the UCP won a majority in 53 of 87 ridings. In 2023 it got more than 50 per cent of the vote in 47 ridings. Rather than reveal a flaw in the electoral system, these outcomes demonstrate how vote share can be determined by effective party campaigns. They also reflect our geographical differences and allow us to guard against factions of the majority that live in cities, thus giving rural and remote communities their say in elections.

Canada’s multi-party parliaments are unusual. Duverger’s law argues that plurality systems like ours generally lead to two-party dominance. That Canada subsidizes smaller parties by issuing tax credits to their donors and reimbursing some party campaign expenses only increases the likelihood of fewer ridings being won with a majority vote.

In contrast, PR systems often see many more parties elected than typically win in Canada. This is in part because there’s less need for parties to compromise before elections, which creates the illusion of more choices for the electorate—an illusion because PR often leads to minority governments, which require post-election negotiations to form coalitions. Voters are excluded from these negotiations and have little say in the final composition of the government.

anita nickerson responds to lydia miljan

Lydia Miljan claims that advocates for proportional representation are “relentless,” and on that we agree. We are relentless in advocating for an electoral system grounded in fairness, in which 30 per cent of the vote gets a party 30 per cent of the seats. Every voter should matter, not just voters in a few swing ridings. We are relentless in support of a fundamental principle of fairness embraced by the world’s strongest democracies.

The principle of proportional representation is also supported by a strong majority of Canadians. A 2025 EKOS poll showed that 68 per cent of Canadians agree with proportional representation and only 21 per cent oppose it, echoing national polls over the past 20 years.

Miljan points to a history of divisive and confusing provincial referendums as a reason that citizens should give up and walk away. These were referendums launched by politicians with dubious motives, plagued by partisanship and misinformation. Research from the OECD shows that countries that moved to proportional representation did so through multi-party agreement, where parties were willing to co-operate and compromise. Achieving proportional representation requires politicians to put their country first and show real political leadership.

Miljan points to the fact that in six consecutive elections, in about 40 per cent of ridings, the MP got more than half the popular vote—as if that shows the FPTP system is working. In fact, it speaks volumes about just how many voters are unrepresented. She misses the point of proportional representation, which is to make every vote count and to ensure that, overall, Parliament reflects how Canadians voted.

Whether an MP received 30 per cent, 40 per cent or even 60 per cent of the vote, the question remains: Who represents the other voters Why should one group of voters in a riding receive the representation of their choice while others get no voice in Parliament Canadians aren’t satisfied with a system where millions of votes have no impact, and where “majority” governments are formed with 39 per cent of the vote. Institutionalized minority rule that shuts out a majority of voters isn’t democratic.

Why should some voters in a riding receive the representation of their choice while others get no voice?

Miljan states that FPTP outcomes better reflect our geographical differences and give rural and remote communities their say. What FPTP actually does is grossly exaggerate our regional differences, making us appear more divided than we really are, pitting regions against each other and hastening another national unity crisis.

In the 2025 federal election Liberals won 23 of 24 ridings in Toronto (96 per cent of the seats) with just 58 per cent of the vote. Conservatives won 13 of 14 seats in Saskatchewan (93 per cent) with just 65 per cent of the vote. This wall of urban red vs. wall of rural blue is an outcome manufactured by our current electoral system, and it’s a recipe for alienation and polarization.

With proportional representation, seats in every region would reflect all of the people who live in that region, not just the biggest group. It would produce a kind of politics that aims at understanding one another, finding common ground and working together.

Miljan argues that Canada’s multi-party Parliament with FPTP is unusual because first-past-the-post typically shuts out smaller parties—as if achieving that is the ideal outcome. In the 2025 election, Canadians on the left and right flocked to the two biggest parties, motivated to block a party they opposed from winning a false majority. This two-party situation is where FPTP has taken us—but is it really where Canadians want to go A 2025 post-election poll showed that 63 per cent of Canadians think the country has never been more polarized. By a margin of two to one, Canadians think domination by two parties is bad for our democracy.

The US has become a flashing billboard for what can happen when a winner-take-all system reduces a country’s politics to two warring camps and where a single party or leader can be handed far too much power. For several years the Economist Intelligence Unit has been warning in their Democracy Index reports that Canada’s political problems, particularly rising levels of polarization, are beginning to resemble those of the US. By contrast, the most successful democracies use proportional representation and have multi-party systems. Stable majority coalitions are the most common government in the OECD. Finding solutions by collaborating with other parties is preferable to a single leader with a false majority being able to ram through legislation supported by a minority of voters while being abhorred by large parts of the country.

That’s why countries with PR outperform countries with winner-take-all systems on policy outcomes ranging from economic growth to population health. Parliaments elected this way are stable, representative and create policy that takes into account the views of more citizens.

lydia miljan responds to anita nickerson

In her argument for proportional representation, Anita Nickerson conflates how we vote with other factors that impact the vote. She presents several reasons why Canada should adopt a PR system, but each point either makes no material difference or exacerbates the flaws she identifies.

First, she argues that FPTP is unfair for voters of small parties, as their votes don’t translate into seats. Small parties are small because they typically don’t co-operate or compromise. Consequently, proportional systems have more parties and less co-operation in terms of platforms and campaigning.

Second, she claims that the current system harms national unity, pointing to when the separatist Bloc Quebecois formed the official opposition. The Bloc’s success was not due to FPTP; it was because Quebec has 78 seats. Changing to a PR system wouldn’t alter Quebec’s seat allocation. While it may be unsettling to have the Bloc as official opposition, the issue lies with the Conservatives’ failure to run a winning campaign in 1993, not the electoral system.

A separatist party would still be competitive regardless of the electoral system. Comparing the Greens and Bloc nationally is disingenuous; the comparison should be to the provincial level. In 2021’s federal election, the Greens garnered only 1.5 per cent of the Quebec vote; the Bloc got 32.1 per cent. This explains why the Greens failed to get a seat in Quebec.

Third, she suggests that FPTP exacerbates regional tensions, implying that minority views in provinces dominated by one party aren’t represented. She cites elections where the Liberals had no seats in Alberta and the Conservatives had none in Toronto. This isn’t necessarily due to the voting system but to specific party platforms and leaders. The lopsided results can’t be placed solely at the doorstep of FPTP. Campaigns matter, and party competitiveness influences outcomes. For example, in the 2021 election Albertans elected two NDP and two Liberal MPs. In that election, nearly two-thirds (65 per cent) of Alberta’s 34 ridings had winning candidates with over 50 per cent of the popular vote. Liberal victories were narrow, with George Chahal winning by 6.3 percentage points and Randy Boissonnault by 1.3 points. Blake Desjarlais (NDP) won by a 3.5 per cent margin. Yet even in Alberta, Heather McPherson (NDP) won with a majority (60.7 per cent).

Majoritarian systems like first-past-the-post punish extreme views on both the left and the right.

Fourth, Nickerson claims that PR systems reduce political polarization and the chances of extremist politics. But evidence suggests otherwise. Academic analysis of electoral systems suggests radical right-wing parties are more than twice as successful at gaining seats under PR than under majoritarian systems. Majoritarian systems punish extreme views on both the left and right, explaining why the People’s Party (PPC), led by Maxime Bernier, has been unsuccessful, but equally why Canada’s Communist Party is also ineffective. A PR system would pave the way for the PPC and other extreme parties, as their chances improve with proportionality.

Proponents of electoral reform argue that PR systems often have higher voter turnout and engagement. This too is based on a false premise. Voter turnout is based on many sociodemographic factors, such as age, education, gender etc. Crucially it also depends on the campaign itself. “Change elections” tend to produce higher turnouts. Ballot box questions can also move the vote. Charisma and policy—such as Justin Trudeau in 2015 promising marijuana legalization—proved compelling for first-time voters. To assert that changing the system would automatically result in better participation is wishful thinking.

A pressing concern with changing the electoral system is that it alters election outcomes. PR systems encourage multi-party campaigns, leading to more coalition governments. While proponents argue this leads to more co-operation, it also means less accountability and more government spending. PR systems often don’t result in majority governments, leading to post-election negotiations to form coalitions. These often involve more than two partners, each seeking additional programs and spending for their constituents. This often results in higher debt and deficits. As no single party is held accountable, similar outcomes occur in future elections.

It’s notable that the minority governments formed in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 federal elections increased spending significantly, with the NDP demanding social programs such as national pharmacare and dental care.

Let’s not kid ourselves: proponents of electoral reform don’t want to change the rules just to be fair to voters. They want to change the rules to favour their preferred parties. Electoral reform provides more incentives for single-issue parties and those that are currently unable to compromise to attain seats and influence.

____________________________________________

Support independent local media. Please click to subscribe.

The post Should We Adopt a Proportional Electoral System? appeared first on Alberta Views.

Donna Wilson says YES

Registered nurse and professor of nursing at the University of Alberta

I finished my first nursing program in 1976 and began working in hospitals. At that time, we were witnessing an explosion in life-saving medications and other healthcare technologies. It was so very exciting to think that people would no longer die of injuries and common illnesses.

What we now call “avoidable” deaths were normal occurences before today’s healthcare technologies became readily available. It wasn’t that long ago that life support became possible. Antibiotics only came into wide use after the Second World War. Canada’s first intensive care unit opened in 1958, but it wasn’t until the 1970s that all larger hospitals routinely had ventilators and heart monitors.

These and other lifesaving technologies were welcome, but a major issue quickly surfaced: the belief that physicians had a moral obligation to use these interventions, even if they were considered futile and even if the patient didn’t want them. Much broad-based concern subsequently arose over patient rights and persistent vegetative states.

The 1975 Karen Ann Quinlan case in the US brought these matters into stark view, as her physicians refused to stop her ventilator despite her irreversible brain damage. In 1976 her parents fought successfully in court to discontinue her ventilator. Quinlan lived another nine years in a coma in a nursing home because of daily tube feeding.

In 1984 the Canadian Nurses Association, Canadian Medical Association, Catholic Health Association and other legal/health groups issued the Joint Statement on Terminal Illness, saying “in conditions of ill health and inevitable death… no resuscitation is appropriate and ethically acceptable. It is also recognized that it is the patient’s right to accept or refuse treatment.”

Life extension remained the norm, however. My first research study in 1991/1992 was on long-term tube feeding, a common practice then in nursing homes and hospitals.

The turning point in Canada was our first widely covered “right to die” case, when Sue Rodriguez requested assisted suicide. Her request was denied in 1994, although four of the nine Supreme Court judges sided with her over changing Canada’s Criminal Code so that adults who wanted to die could have their death assisted by other people.

Additional citizen petitions to the courts led to the June 2016 legalization of MAID for people whose death was reasonably foreseeable. In March 2021 MAID eligibility was expanded, because more citizens petitioned for MAID access. Ill people who were uncertain about when they would naturally die gained the right to have MAID approved for later possible use.

Healthcare technology will improve and society will ever evolve. So it doesn’t surprise me that more people would like the right to apply for and receive assistance to end their life earlier than if nature took its course. We are each best able to determine if our own death is preferable to living longer.

Trudo Lemmens says No

Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Toronto

We need to refocus MAID on its original purpose: allowing patients who are approaching death to ask healthcare providers to end their life in exceptional circumstances. This means withdrawing Track 2 MAID, the consensual killing of disabled persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable, and strengthening other safeguards, as urged by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Carter that an absolute prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide violated the Charter, it instructed Parliament to balance protecting people against premature death with some form of access to physician-assisted dying. Parliament therefore initially focused its MAID law on end-of-life, with reasonably foreseeable death as a crucial safeguard. It required unambiguous consent, irremediable illness, intolerable suffering and irreversible decline of capability. MAID was deemed exceptionally justifiable based on compassion for people suffering intolerably from irremediable illness, and to provide them more control over their dying.

MAID promoters immediately pushed to stretch access criteria and challenged the end-of-life safeguard. When a Quebec court ruled that providing MAID only at the end of life was unconstitutional, the federal government failed to appeal and instead rushed through its expanded 2021 MAID law, removing safeguards and allowing MAID for disabled persons whose death wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.

Canada now has arguably the most open-ended euthanasia law, with a record of 60,000 deaths. Some 4.7 per cent of all deaths in Canada are by MAID, second only to the Netherlands. Most fall within Track 1 (foreseeable natural death), but many of these people may have had years of life left. Since the expansion, more than 1,000 disabled persons have died under Track 2.

For MAID expansionists, high numbers are a success story. But reports from Health Canada, the Ontario Chief Coroner’s office and various media reveal that many people ask for MAID not due to irremediable suffering in dying but for suffering in life that must be addressed by adequate healthcare and social supports. Suicidal patients, often with intersecting physical and mental disabilities, with years or decades of life left if supported to live, are increasingly hastened to death by MAID.

Killing people or encouraging suicide remain prohibited under the Criminal Code, including for physicians. But the exemption for MAID has given health professionals discretionary powers to end life as a form of therapy, opening the door to abuse and overzealousness. MAID law, weak guidance and oversight, and aggressive MAID promotion have undermined the prohibition. It tells disabled people facing serious challenges that ending their life is a reasonable option. In the name of false compassion, it pushes people over the edge when they need support. It’s hard to imagine a greater social injustice. Further expansion of MAID is unconscionable.

donna wilson responds to Trudo Lemmens

MAID eligibility should be expanded to Canadians with diagnosed mental illnesses. Currently, we are in a three-year pause ending March 17, 2027, to prepare for this extension. After that, people with impactful mental illnesses will be able to request MAID. As in all MAID cases, by law, the requester must complete an application and be assessed as meeting all criteria by at least two nurse practitioners or physicians. MAID will continue to hinge on an autonomous and non-coerced decision being made for professional assistance to end one’s own life earlier than if nature took its course.

Before rebutting Trudo Lemmens, I’ll highlight two key reasons for this expanded eligibility.

The first is that people are the best judge of whether or not their life should continue. As a nurse I’ve seen many terminally ill and dying people awaiting death. They and their family really suffer. I remember one man telling me (before MAID legalization) he’d put down his dog when it suffered, but his sister, who was dying a terrible death, couldn’t have her suffering ended. We have better pain options now, but ill people still suffer in so many ways. The 2023 MAID report highlights two (almost universal) concerns of people who request MAID: loss of ability to perform activities of daily living, and loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities. This is understandable, as 95.9 per cent of MAID recipients had an end-stage illness—cancer in two-thirds of cases—with death immediately foreseeable. As a long-time palliative care advocate, I started to advise Health Canada in the 1990s on the need for hospices, as Canada lagged behind other developed countries in compassionate care options. We still do. The 2023 report shows that 75 per cent of MAID recipients received palliative care, but we lack support for high-quality home and nursing home deaths.

The second reason is that diagnosed mental illnesses have significant long-term effects. Unemployment is common, as is poverty. Over time fewer friends and family can be counted on, and adults living with a mental illness often end up homeless. Most live with multiple physical ailments as they age prematurely. These are people who are diagnosed with a mood disorder (major depression or bipolar), anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder or another mental illness such as schizophrenia, eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or dementia. Most have the capacity to decide if death is preferable over continued life.

MAID is planned, controlled and openly reported; it is a safe and effective procedure for people who choose it.

Lemmens would “refocus MAID on its original purpose: allowing patients who are approaching death to ask healthcare providers to end their life in exceptional circumstances. This means withdrawing Track 2 MAID, the consensual killing of disabled persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.” His argument reminds me of ones used to try to prevent MAID legalization. Chief among them was the slippery slope fear: that we would become so accepting of killing people that we wouldn’t care or notice when disabled people are encouraged (or forced) to have MAID. Lemmens’s use of the term “disabled” illustrates this fear. The slippery slope has not materialized anywhere MAID is legal. MAID legalization means death-hastening is planned, controlled and openly reported; it is an effective medical procedure for people who choose it and who meet the legal requirements for it.

Lemmens’s wish isn’t reasonable, as many individuals and organizations support the 2020 amendment extending MAID to people who don’t have an evident death date. In 2023 there were 19,660 MAID requests, with 15,343 people receiving MAID, 2,906 dying before they could receive it, 915 deemed ineligible, and 496 withdrawing their request. Most people fear dying and death; having MAID as an end-of-life option is compassionate.

Going back to the 2016 policy would mean assisted death could only occur a few hours or days earlier than if nature took its course. Canadians would again know they need to suffer through almost an entire terminal illness. They’d need to be awake and alert at the time MAID was scheduled, so they could say or indicate they still want it. To achieve this last-minute consciousness, painkillers and sedation are often withheld.

It’s important to try to understand why anyone would have MAID limited to only those in such an advanced state of illness that their death is imminent. Lemmens is a bioethical theorist, not someone with evident healthcare degrees or healthcare employment to show him first-hand how much ill people and their families suffer. His use of the term “patient” is telling. That outdated term reflects subservience to healthcare professional dominance.

Lemmens appears to think MAID is too easy to obtain, something the annual MAID reports show to be untrue. I believe MAID should be available to all Canadians, including those with diagnosed mental illnesses.

trudo lemmens responds to Donna Wilson

Donna Wilson suggests MAID should be expanded because more people want to “receive assistance to end their life earlier than if nature took its course.” She further sees MAID as a response to a medical system otherwise excessively focused on stretching lives. This reflects common misconceptions about MAID and trivializes concerns about state-funded healthcare-provider ending of life.

The argument that legalizing euthanasia is needed to counter aggressive life-extension was once common but no longer holds. Respect for refusal of life-prolonging measures has been essential to medical law and practice for decades. More-holistic medical practices, particularly palliative care, emphasize quality of life and patient and family empowerment, not technology-driven life-extension. Unfortunately, the expansion and prioritizing of MAID risks undermining palliative care.

In fact, MAID via lethal injection (which is not just “receiving assistance”) medicalizes dying itself. This may be why some physicians embrace MAID so enthusiastically. Physicians can have trouble accepting that they have no “fix” for suffering patients. MAID gives them the illusion of medical control over dying, an event that otherwise escapes control. Rather than a reaction against technology gone wild, MAID is a technical way to deal with an essential human experience.

Wilson’s ethical justification that “people want it” also ignores the official justification for MAID as well as the complexity of healthcare and end-of-life decision-making, and the broader context in which choices are made.

No jurisdiction accepts choice as a sufficient basis for legalizing euthanasia. All have criteria that reflect how physicians can only offer it for compassionate reasons in exceptional circumstances. Even standard medical procedures aren’t justified solely based on choice. Healthcare providers must offer evidence-informed care that respects professional standards. Less risky procedures must be tried first. Brain surgery to control seizures is unacceptable, even if patients want it, if less intrusive options may work. Remarkably, Canada’s MAID law introduced death as therapy even when other options to ease suffering exist. Ending of life has become a consumer good “on demand.” This also lets society and our health system off the hook for failing to ensure timely care.

Broadly legalized MAID sends a message: death is prioritized over care for disability and disease-related suffering.

Over-reliance on “choice” ignores the complexity of healthcare decisions. For the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Canada’s MAID system’s reliance on choice “creates a false dichotomy.” Choices are determined by psychological (e.g., despair after a disabling accident), economic, cultural and social factors. Poverty, loneliness, power-differentials between physicians and patients, ableist attitudes—rampant in healthcare—family pressures and lack of timely care undermine choice. The Committee also warns that our MAID law sends a message that death can be prioritized in response to disability and disease-related suffering; that a life with disability doesn’t require the same protection against suicide.

Imagine what the 2027 introduction of MAID for sole reasons of mental illness—and its eventual expansion to minors—could entail. Unlike other diseases, many mental illnesses have suicidal ideation as a diagnostic criterion. The trajectory of mental illnesses is uncertain, and psychiatrists can’t reasonably predict who won’t get better. MAID is said to be needed for irremediable medical conditions in people with irreversible decline. But physicians would offer it to people who will likely get better with good mental health care, in which conveying hope is crucial. Imagine a 17-year-old with autism who struggles with depression and refuses care, believing no further option exists. MAID assessors could offer that person death as a form of therapy. Some would prudently explore other options. But MAID here is already dominated by providers who often seem to prioritize access over protection. Recent cases discussed in reports by the Ontario Chief Coroner’s office and in the media reveal that assessors without strong expertise in mental health care or complex conditions already approve or provide MAID to patients with such intersecting illnesses, including some with suicidal ideation.

An ongoing Alberta controversy shows how people can get approved for MAID even when doubts exist about their eligibility. The case involves a woman in her 20s who according to her father has autism but no clearly diagnosed irremediable illness. Neither health authorities nor regulators have been willing to intervene, even though half of the physicians in three subsequent requests for MAID deemed her ineligible, and questions abound about her lack of care and “doctor-shopping” for approval. Rather than expand MAID “because patients want it,” let’s investigate why people ask for it, how we can improve care, and how our existing MAID regime needs to be changed to protect people against premature death.

____________________________________________

Support independent local media. Please click to subscribe.

The post Should we expand eligibility for MAID? appeared first on Alberta Views.

The post Do Private Schools Offer Better Education appeared first on Alberta Views.

Jeffrey Dvorkin says YES

The Massey College senior fellow and former director of the journalism program at U of T

Government in Canada has been funding the media for 100 years. There has always been a postal subsidy for newspaper distribution. More recently, the Canada Periodical Fund has helped magazines, newspapers (non-daily) and digital periodicals overcome market disadvantages. And, of course, there is the CBC, which gets more than a billion dollars a year from a direct government subsidy.

Conservative and Liberal governments alike have seen support for media as an urgent part of maintaining democracy in Canada. There is widespread agreement among parties and beyond that without a vigorous journalistic culture, democracy here would suffer. US studies, for example, show that less journalism results in more frequent reelection of incumbents.

The question of government funding of media is increasingly about whether Canadian media has become—or is in danger of becoming—an arm of government. Meanwhile the digital transformation of media continues, convergence has given us fewer choices, and so-called “news deserts” spread. Over 500 news outlets in Canada shut down between 2008 and 2024.

How to correct this And what would be the consequences of less government support for media?

It’s worth looking at how other aspects of our society would function with less support. If government stopped funding public education, the private school business would boom. The privatization of hospitals would take us into a vastly poorer version of US healthcare—a life-threatening outcome. What about privatizing the military Let’s not go there.

A free press is a critical element of democracy. We don’t need more government-funded news or pro-government messages. We do need better ways to fund media—and they should involve thoughtful support from government.

Our government gives tax credits to media organizations for labour and technology costs and to invest in regions ill-served with news. Subscriptions to credible media earn individuals a tax benefit. In addition to this, the public should be allowed to donate to the CBC to enable the removal of ads. This would end CBC’s competition for ads with commercial news publishers, which is contributing to the spread of news deserts, and make the public broadcaster more accountable to its audience. A Crown-funded national public broadcaster must do what commercial outlets can’t: develop unique programming to serve the needs of local audiences for information, reflection and perspectives that enable effective participation in democracy and cultural life. Programming must be decentralized while budgets focus on strong local/regional news and information. Local stations must program the needs of a local audience.

We must restore public confidence while deepening journalism and reporting on government. If our democracy is to survive, media as an agency of citizenship must be brought up to date, not defunded.

Peter Menzies says no

The Macdonald–Laurier Institute senior fellow and former Calgary Herald publisher

Not long ago, anyone arguing Canada’s news media should depend on a buffet of taxpayer money controlled by politicians would’ve been labelled a traitor to the craft. In the meantime, a great many moral contortions have brought us to where the matter is even up for debate. But here we are: the vast majority of Canada’s news organizations now depend upon politicians for their existence. They have submitted to the humiliation of applying to the government to become a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization. They did so to avail themselves of the Journalism Labour Tax Credit and the Local Journalism Initiative. Others shape their content to qualify for the Canada Periodical Fund. Licensed broadcasters queue for assistance at the government-appointed Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

It requires some imagination to square this with statements like this one from the Toronto Star’s Standards and Practices: “Independence from those we cover is a key principle of journalistic integrity. We avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of such conflicts. …These policies apply to all outside interests that could cause our audiences to question the fairness and independence of our journalism.”

Journalists argue they can’t be bought. But the near-total absence of commentary arguing against these funds within the pages and platforms of organizations bearing the government’s stamp of approval indicates that debate can most certainly be stifled. And what journalists believe on this file is inconsequential. All that matters when it comes to subsidies and journalism is what the news-consuming public believes. And polling suggests the subsidies aren’t saving journalism; they’re killing it. Oh, the husks of once-magnificent titles still stumble around like zombies, but without trust—the bond tying journalists to readers, viewers and listeners—it’s all a charade.

In 2024 The Hub, a subscriber-based platform that eschews government funding (disclosure: I write for it), polled Canadians. Seventy-six per cent of respondents believe subsidies could undermine journalists’ ability to report objectively. Seventy per cent oppose the funding, including 75 per cent of Liberal voters and 86 per cent of Conservatives; 73 per cent say subsidies hamper journalists’ ability to challenge the government. Reuters, meanwhile, reports that Canadians’ trust in journalism fell from 55 per cent in 2016—before the latest subsidies were announced—to just 39 per cent in 2024.

If government and the news industry want trusted news to survive, subsidizing its production is counterproductive. If anything should be subsidized, it should be the consumption of news, through deductibility of subscription costs and other mechanisms, forcing platforms to compete for, and build, public trust. As for the CBC, its primary source of revenue must similarly be detached from the vicarious whims of Parliament and its sustenance placed squarely in the hands of the public.

jeffrey dvorkin responds to peter menzies

As a former managing editor of CBC Radio and former VP of News and Information at National Public Radio (NPR) in Washington, DC, I’m arguing yes to government funding for media—with strict limits.

In the 1990s we operated at CBC on the premise of maintaining an arm’s length relationship with government. We understood, as did our bosses, that our credibility as a provider of reliable information depended on maintaining public trust. The journalists who created our programs and reported the news for CBC had to act without “fear or favour” toward the government. One example of how CBC remained resistant to government pressure was during the Somalia affair. In 1993 a Somali teenager was beaten to death by two Canadian peacekeepers who were part of humanitarian efforts in that country. Captured by photos, the killing revealed internal problems in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. A CBC reporter received and reported on altered military documents, which led to allegations of a cover-up.

In the early 2000s, after moving to NPR, I found that mainstream media believed the first amendment to the US constitution gave journalists a measure of protection. American suspicion of government (quite different from the more accepting Canadian attitude) meant that US media were, for the most part, vigilant in maintaining independence.

But one particularly effective guarantee of public broadcasting’s independence from government in the US is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB dubs itself “the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting,” and it distributes public money to some 1,220 public radio stations and 361 public TV stations. These stations can raise their own operational money. Stations (notably PBS, as NPR gets less than 1 per cent of its budget from CPB) that exist in markets where fundraising is limited can ask for government funding in the form of a top-up from the CPB. This includes stations in rural areas, Indigenous communities etc. Congress allocates public funding once a year and CPB distributes it. CPB ensures that public funding is done at arm’s length from government.

Similarly, CBC’s credibility might be improved if its budgets came from an openly neutral source, one that is at arm’s length from the federal government.

Funding from government sources needs to be seen to be free from the influence of government

CBC journalists are of course aware that funding for their work comes directly from a parliamentary allocation, now more than $1-billion a year. Upper management, including the CBC’s president, go before a Heritage committee to press their case for continued annual funding for both CBC and Radio-Canada. English and French TV services alike are allowed to air ads, which bring in a few hundred million dollars. With the ad market softening, that amount has been declining.

Canadian media are suffering. The financial weakness of our broadcasters and newspapers is revealed daily. The spread of news deserts continues apace. Even the CBC is feeling the pinch. In frequent presentations to Parliament and reports to the public, the CBC says it tries to do “all things for all people,” with a range of offerings in two official languages and several Indigenous ones. This goal is clearly impossible when eyeballs and ears are attracted to social media’s more entertaining qualities.

Indeed the internet bears unique responsibility for this collapse of traditional media. Canada’s government is attempting to remedy this by redirecting funds from Meta, X and other deep-pocketed sources that it says are taking advantage of traditional news media. This hasn’t worked, as Meta won’t co-operate and most of the Google funding hasn’t yet been distributed. Increasingly in Canada, as in the US, suspicion is growing about the motives for government largesse. Sequential Heritage ministers haven’t made a strong case for how that funding will come without strings or government interference.

Meanwhile other sources of new income haven’t appreciably boosted circulation numbers or broadcast audiences. Public trust in media continues to decline due to the heightened suspicion of all major institutions, especially government. And digital continues to be the accelerant on a widespread media fire.

One solution Government could play a better role by acting in an arm’s length manner. We need a Canadian version of CPB, for all media. Funding from government sources needs to be seen to be free from the influence of government. A “blue ribbon” panel of citizens could determine how much money should be allocated to various media, including the CBC. This would help restore public trust in journalism by acting as a neutral and accountable supporter of independent media. In turn, news media must foster an environment of contextual, local and investigative journalism by and for Canadians—because the future of our democracy depends on it.

peter menzies responds to jeffrey dvorkin

There is no reason why citizens should have their tax dollars used to prop up media promoting policies—left or right—to which they are opposed. Canadians who lean to the left shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support the National Post, which leans to the right, any more than conservative-minded Canadians should have to feed the bottom line of the Toronto Star, dedicated to the advancement of left-leaning causes.

This doesn’t mean that public policy support should not be provided for the consumption of news and a shared set of facts. As I will show, the current problem is that assistance is being provided at the wrong end of the food chain and is suppressing the innovation needed during a time of historic transition. In the meantime, I will challenge a couple of points.

Yes, the government has always “funded media,” but postal subsidies were never about subsidizing journalism; they were about subsidizing access to journalism by consumers. Newspapers would have been unharmed without these subsidies, while readers in rural and remote areas would have been burdened, having to pay more for local news. The case can similarly be made regarding magazines, although, as they have transitioned to online entities, this rationale has become more questionable.

It’s true that hundreds of publications have shut down in Canada. What needs to be added to the conversation is that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 new platforms—most of which are better equipped for the realities of the 21st century—have launched in Canada since 2008. It’s also important to note that Canadians now have access to news from thousands of global outlets. There is no shortage of news—except at the local level, where coverage of municipal councils and courts, for example, is often rudimentary. The more subsidy is given to prop up proprietors who aren’t meeting the public’s demand for this information, the less room there will be for innovators and entrepreneurs willing to do so. The government’s thumb, through subsidies, is permanently on the scale in favour of old structures struggling to innovate while suppressing startups with new energy and ideas.

The government’s thumb, through subsidies, is on the scale in favour of old, struggling media.

Journalism is not fundamental to democracy. It exists and even thrives in authoritarian regimes. Freedom of speech, civil rights, free and fair elections and an independent judiciary are the fundamentals of democracy. Provided journalism supports those fundamentals and delivers news in an objective fashion, it is useful to democracy. When it doesn’t do so, it can harm democracy. The Tehran Times and Pyongyang Times are both examples. Pravda, of course, is legendary. All employ journalists.

Among the civil rights most vital to democracy is a free press. Our democracy guarantees that people who distribute the news are free to do so in whatever fashion they please, moderated only by their ability to meet public—and not government—expectations. Studies invariably show that consumers want news that is thorough, objective and accompanied by a balance of opinion and analysis from a variety of perspectives. Some bias one way or the other in the opinion offerings is tolerated and even rewarded, provided the news can be trusted. The greater the pressure to be trusted and serve readers/consumers in the manner they wish to be served, the better those services will be. Subsidies lessen that pressure, because they decrease news organizations’ need to build trust with the public.

The more the media is funded by the government and politicians, the less people will trust it to hold government to account.

As for the CBC, it’s one thing for a public broadcaster to exist within a news ecosystem rich with independent organizations—a mix that imposes discipline on all involved. It is quite another to declare there can be no ill effects when the entire news industry exists only thanks to subsidy. All this situation does is diminish trust, which reduces public consumption of the news, which increases demands for subsidies. It’s also worth noting that the CBC was born of a desire on the part of the government of the day to control content on the airwaves.

We agree that societies function better when citizens have a shared set of facts they can use to organize their lives and that a stable news industry supportive of democratic principles serves the public good in providing that information. What needs public policy support, however, is the consumption, not the production, of that information. Allowing each citizen to deduct the cost of subscriptions up to $1,000 annually (up from the current $500) would provide such an incentive without the damage to trust and innovation that is being inflicted by current practices. Let the most trusted news providers win and the least trusted and incapable of adaptation lose.

____________________________________________

Support independent local media. Please click to subscribe.

The post Should Government Fund Media? appeared first on Alberta Views.

The post Should Voting be Mandatory? appeared first on Alberta Views.

Kevin Van Tighem says YES

Alberta-born author, naturalist and former Banff National Park superintendent (2008–2011)

Over four million people visited Banff National Park in 2023. Some got lost or hurt and had to be rescued. Others fed bears and had to get straightened out. All flushed toilets, drove on roads and parked in parking lots. Campgrounds had to be maintained. Signs, picnic tables and boardwalks had to be repaired. The list goes on. It’s costly.

A lot of Canadians, however, didn’t visit Banff or any other national park—either because they couldn’t afford to or weren’t interested. It’s not clear why their tax dollars should finance holidays enjoyed by others.

Should the occupants of all those vehicles streaming into the park each day pay their own way Of course they should; they get to enjoy a costly privilege that others don’t. But the core costs associated with national parks should be funded through the public treasury. That’s not a contradiction, because it’s not the same thing.

National parks are institutions that represent the part of our Canadian identity defined by our nature and our history. Parks ensure we’ll always be able to know ourselves, because we’ll always be able to find ourselves. That mandate is a benefit to all—visitors or not—and a legacy to future generations. Like our national archives, military, treaty obligations and other institutions, it makes sense to fund our parks with tax revenues.

And, in fact, every Canadian should be welcome to visit and be inspired by their national parks without paying a fee. The parks are ours, by virtue of citizenship. But here’s the problem: when we choose to visit by means of a vehicle, that creates costs unrelated to protecting heritage—and compromises that very mandate. Without cars, we wouldn’t need to replace wildlife habitat with kilometres of paved highway lined with noxious weeds. Without cars there wouldn’t be bear jams and traffic gridlock. Snowplowing, parking lots, fencing, roadkill—all are in service of vehicles and those of us who insist on using them.

When I was responsible for Banff National Park I did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation and found that well more than 75 per cent of the park’s budget went to providing for the use of—or mitigating the impacts of—vehicles. Recently congestion has brought parts of that park to a virtual standstill. An added irony: the exhaust gases spewing from those engines contribute to a climate disaster that makes park protection increasingly hopeless as glaciers melt, fires burn and wildlife comes under growing stress. In Banff’s case the problem is compounded by a species of mandate creep that has turned a protected heritage place—dedicated only to future generations of Canadians—into an international tourism resort. More vehicles.

So here’s my idea: the basic costs of protecting parks—our national birthright—should be fully funded by tax revenues. Canadians arriving on their own two feet should get in for free. But anyone who comes by vehicle should pay a substantial fee that accounts for the full cost of that privilege. No free rides.

Ian Urquhart says no

U of A professor emeritus and former editor of the AWA’s Wild Lands Advocate

Free admission to Canada’s national parks was a gift Ottawa gave Canadians in 2017 for this country’s 150th birthday. It was a good idea then; it’s a good idea now.

Entrance fees are a revenue source for Parks Canada, albeit a small one. In 2022/23 the agency spent $1.28-billion; entrance fees paid for $91.5-million, or 7 per cent, of those expenses. Why get rid of these fees I recently posed this question to Catherine McKenna, the federal minister who delivered free admission to national parks in 2017. Today she strongly believes parks should be free “because we need people to understand the value of nature,” and that spending time in the outdoors may be the best way to do that. She suggested free admission helps parks promote many values, including health, equality, biodiversity, climate change mitigation and Indigenous partnerships. I agree, and I’ll just address two of them.

Research into the nature–human relationship clearly shows the health benefits of spending time in nature. Greenspace exposure reduces high blood pressure, high HDL cholesterol and cardiovascular mortality. Nature delivers similar mental health benefits. Connectedness with nature reduces stress while increasing happiness and cognitive abilities.

The research demonstrates parks are essential health care institutions. Dr. Melissa Lem agrees. She’s the director of PaRx, Canada’s prescription for nature program. Parks Canada has partnered with Lem’s program to enable registered health professionals to prescribe an annual park pass to patients. Alberta doctors who register with PaRx can prescribe this access to Alberta’s outstanding national parks. Calgary physician Andrea Hull regards PaRx as “an exciting way to showcase the health benefits of time in nature.”

Inequality is another important foundation for opposing entrance fees. User fees discourage people with lower incomes from participating in outdoor activities. Personally, $22 for a day pass to Banff isn’t going to stop me from visiting, but I’m lucky. The cost of a family day pass or annual pass ($151.25) puts time in national parks beyond many people’s reach.

I couldn’t support abolishing entrance fees if I thought it would mean damage to the parks. Maintaining and restoring ecological integrity is the first priority of managing the national parks. But the experience of 2017, when entry was free, allays my concerns. Parks Canada used other measures, such as buses and area closures, to manage the increase in visitors.

Banff National Park’s assessment of the 2017 season argued that McKenna’s decision was ultimately justified. Free passes “allowed more Canadians… to connect with these wonderful places that are actually their places.” The feared additional damage to nature from more visitors didn’t arise.

As minister of environment and climate change, McKenna favoured this tagline for our parks: “Discover. Connect. Protect.” Today let’s adopt it and add the word “Free.”

kevin van tighem responds to ian urquhart

Ian Urquhart argues that national parks should be free to Canadians because of parks’ health benefits. It’s hard to disagree with that view, but to an unfortunate degree it’s an idealistic one that doesn’t reflect the actual park experience for many visitors. It’s hard to see how sitting in a traffic jam on Banff Avenue or jostling with the crowds that throng the Lake Louise shoreline is good for health. If anything, the tension experienced by visitors during crowded times—which, increasingly, is most of the time—frays tempers and exacerbates the social stresses those visitors went to their parks to escape. That’s not healthy.

Minister McKenna’s 2017 decision to provide free access to Canada’s national parks was not the painless success that Urquhart suggests. Yes, in many less visited parks and historic sites, Canadians did connect to their heritage. But Alberta’s already crowded mountain parks saw worse traffic, bigger crowds and the diversion of budgets from priorities such as trail maintenance and wildlife management to crowd-control.  When a national park visit becomes an exercise in navigating traffic cones, being directed into emergency parking lots by safety-vest-clad employees, crowding onto buses and waiting endlessly, something has gone wrong. It certainly wasn’t good healthy fun for anyone, including those harried park employees.

Yes, Parks Canada scrambled to mitigate the challenge by setting up public transportation. But those buses, signs and flag-people came at a cost. Nothing is free, after all. Somebody has to pay. In 2017 it was Canadian taxpayers who picked up the tab. I’m not sure how this was fair to the large percentage of those taxpayers who chose not to visit a park that year—partly because of the well-publicized crowding issues.

Nothing guarantees a right to private vehicle use in the parks. Kilometres of pavement compromise nature.

Social equity challenges don’t just involve the cost of getting into a park. People who can’t afford a park pass generally live far from national parks. The economic challenges involved in enjoying those parks include the cost of transportation to get there, finding accommodation and paying inflated prices for meals and other amenities in parks that have been taken captive, to a considerable degree, by a tourism industry that targets well-off motorized travellers. Low-income Canadians unquestionably deserve the opportunity to experience their national parks, but the cost of admission is often the least of the barriers they face.

For all those quibbles, I generally agree with Urquhart. National parks are meant to benefit every Canadian; every Canadian should be able to enjoy them for free. But the traditional emphasis on private motor vehicles can make parks less than enjoyable.

Public transportation is one way to democratize access to the national parks. For that truly to work, it has to include not just internal options such as Banff’s Roam bus service but also services to help Canadians get to their parks from the cities and towns where most of us live. That’s a costly proposition, given that the country’s infrastructure is built around the private vehicle. It was no accident, after all, when Greyhound folded. Cars rule.

But the value of good, affordable public transportation to and in our national parks would go beyond social equity; it’s a critical part of any meaningful response to the climate crisis—a crisis that threatens both human health and the natural environment.

So how could we pay for it Collect high fees from those who insist on driving their vehicles to the parks. Progressive economic policy requires that those who demand special benefits that work against the public good should pay dearly for their privilege.

Nothing in the Canada National Parks Act guarantees a right to private vehicle use in the parks. As Urquhart points out, parks’ first priority is the protection of ecological integrity, something inevitably compromised by the kilometres of pavement covering what was once wildlife habitat; the hundreds of birds, mammals, amphibians and insects killed each year by vehicles; and the climate chaos engulfing us because of all the CO₂ those cars release.

National parks are dedicated to future generations of Canadians as places that provide for the benefit, education and enjoyment of people. Private vehicles aren’t required for that; just the opposite. Nature is off-pavement.

Anybody who doubts the need to challenge conventional car-centred logic in the management of national parks should take a trip to Banff on any summer weekend. Yes, national parks should be free to all Canadians. But not to our cars. If we charged private vehicle users the full cost of their privilege, we’d start generating the kind of revenues needed to fund public transportation for all. We might also restore the peaceful enjoyment of nature—the kind of real national park experience that is rapidly becoming roadkill.

ian urquhart responds to kevin van tighem

Kevin Van Tighem believes that anyone using a private vehicle to visit national parks should pay a “substantial fee.” Why Because such visitors compromise Parks Canada’s heritage protection mandate. He uses Banff National Park to make the point that vehicle congestion can produce gridlock. Banff again is used to argue that managing private vehicles costs a lot of money. Such costs are compounded, in the case of Banff, by the park’s alleged transformation from “a protected heritage place” into “an international tourism resort.”

Much of his argument is Banff-based. Banff is unique, and we should be wary of generalizing from what we think is best for Banff to all national parks. That said, I believe his prescription is wrong even for Banff.

Before I critique the former superintendent’s position, readers should know he misrepresents Banff’s history. Tourism, not heritage protection, motivated the establishment of Canada’s first national park. Sir John A. Macdonald concluded Banff could be “a great place of resort” that would attract people from across North America and Europe. Banff was created to be an international tourist destination. Decades later, parks commissioner J.B. Harkin wanted the parks to serve all Canadians. Ironically—given this dialogue—he saw roads and the automobile as the way to do that. Promoting tourism is a constant, not a novelty, in Banff National Park’s history.

We agree, however, that tension between human desires and heritage protection is another constant in the history of our mountain parks. Today’s volume of vehicle traffic to Banff attests to this.

But all visitors, including those in cars, are more than simply threats to heritage protection. They are potential allies to promote that mandate. Their support for parks is an important political resource in the annual competition for Canada’s tax dollars. Building public support for Parks Canada is especially important now. The agency benefited from the 2021 federal budget’s $2.3-billion investment in nature conservation. But the funding was temporary. It will dry up in 2026–2027, and with it will go an important chunk of the agency’s budget.

All visitors are potential allies to promote heritage protection. Support is more likely when entry is free.

Parks Canada needs our support to try to secure dollars to invest in its core mandate. Support is more likely when nearly all visitors say they would recommend their experience to others. In 2022–2023, 95 per cent of visitors to Canada’s national parks surveyed said this. A new, substantially increased entrance fee, a form of double taxation, might damage or kill that support.

A substantially higher fee would also make access even more challenging for lower-income Canadians. Today, as a century ago, the car offers the most practical and affordable means of travelling to Alberta’s national parks. The least expensive round-trip bus option for a family of four going to Banff from Calgary is just under $95, or $117 with a day pass. If the same family’s SUV uses 8 litres per 100 km, the fuel cost will be less than $35.

A bus trip to Jasper is a non-starter for a family of four living in Edmonton. The only commercial bus service to Jasper would cost them $344.44—one way. And if you live elsewhere in Alberta… An automobile is your only practical means for visiting.

The report of the expert advisory panel on moving people sustainably in the Banff Bow Valley (2022) saw pricing as one of its eight key strategies. But the panellists wrote that if a pricing strategy didn’t consider income it could “create equity issues and discourage lower-income persons from experiencing the  park.” Van Tighem’s position sounds like it would do exactly that.

Do vehicles produce gridlock in parts of Banff National Park Absolutely. But the panel suggested that serious transportation issues arose only “in a relatively small portion of the park. [Some] 97 per cent of the park is declared wilderness, where development is prohibited.” When gridlock occurs, it likely arises in the town of Banff, Lake Louise or Lake Minnewanka.

I’m writing this on a Sunday afternoon in July while looking at the Town of Banff’s traffic cams on my computer. The cameras show considerable traffic entering, leaving and driving around town. But while I’d be annoyed by this traffic if I lived in Banff, I can’t conclude the cars I’m watching constitute gridlock or pose a serious threat to heritage protection.

Without tourists, especially Canadian ones, the future of our national parks would be dim. Canadians’ support is vital to the heritage protection mandate that Van Tighem and I both value. Slapping a substantial fee on visitors who drive threatens that support. Instead of higher fees, Parks Canada should do what it does already for youth, members of the armed forces/veterans, and new Canadians—offer free entry. And let’s all join the fight for additional tax dollars.

____________________________________________

Support independent local media. Please click to subscribe.

The post Should National Parks Have Entrance Fees? appeared first on Alberta Views.

The post Should Permanent Residents be Able to Vote in Municipal Elections? appeared first on Alberta Views.