Quebec and Alberta have seldom held similar visons for their respective governments, but have from time-to-time been allies against federal governments overextending their will into provincial jurisdiction. Those days appear to be relics of history.
In 2019, the bad-boys of confederation could be mistaken for enemy nations by outside observers. Few countries in the democratic world can boast having its constituent parts so close to one another’s throats. Countries torn apart as Canada are largely limited to the less-than-democratic world, and are normally focused around religious or ethnic divisions.
That does not appear to be the case in the West-Quebec struggle. In 2017, a majority of Conservative Party members in Alberta voted to make Maxime Bernier their leader over Saskatchewanian Andrew Scheer. Westerners angry at Quebec were willing to vote for a Quebecer with a heavy accent on the basis of common values, at least in an internal party leadership race.
The growing tempest in the West is not ethno-linguistic in nature, but economic and political.
Faced with economic and fiscal headwinds exacerbated by Ottawa, Alberta and Saskatchewan view themselves as grossly unappreciated after contributing so much. Since 1960, Quebec has received more than $200 billion in direct Equalization payments, while Alberta received none, and Saskatchewan next-to-none.
Westerners have elected governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan with strong mandates to confront Ottawa, and the view from here is that it kowtows to Quebec, despite being a perennial net consumer of federal largesse.
Quebecers for their part have felt under threat from Ottawa in relation to their Bill 21 drive to expunge religious symbols from public life, and appear to have taken offence to Western demands around Equalization and pipelines. While the major federalist parties fell over themselves to win Quebec – exacerbating tensions in the West – the Bloc Québécois stood poised to waltz into the churn. No matter what the federalist parties promise, it’s hard to out-Quebec the party devoted to nothing but Quebec.
However wild it may appear to Westerners, the Bloc made the case to Quebecers that Ottawa was actually serving Alberta and Saskatchewan at the expense of them. Justin Trudeau even got in on the action (in the French debate only) and called for Quebecers to back his crusade against the “Oil Barons.”
Quebecers irritated by Western calls to reduce the generosity of the Equalization program couldn’t help themselves from supporting the Bloc’s call for an additional new “Green Equalization” program. In short, a massive new tax would be levied on the energy producing provinces, and transferred to the energy consuming ones. Mostly Quebec. Even Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program was not so braggadocious about its design to plunder the economies of the West.
In all likelihood, the Bloc doesn’t expect Trudeau’s minority government to give them Green Equalization in exchange for their support. Doing so would throw the Prairies into a state of revolution. More likely, is that the Bloc used this policy to stake out a marker that they won’t give an inch on defending Quebec’s interests, and that they are happy to paint the West as not just English (the horror), but greedy and dirty. (SNC Lavalin having nothing to do with greed, and dumping raw sewage into the St. Lawrence having nothing to do with pollution.)
The move is also likely intended to inflame relations with Canada as a whole, bolstering their case for independence at home.
Even with the federalists falling over themselves in Quebec, voters there decided to go with the home team.
In contrast to the political mosh pit in Quebec, the vast space between Winnipeg and Vancouver was fly-over country. With few more Conservative seats to be won and fewer Liberal seats to be lost, it was wasn’t worth fighting over. The West’s home team Conservatives couldn’t even muster up the courage to promise a mealy-mouthed “review” of Equalization, let alone promise to reform or repeal it.
Perhaps it’s time the West learned from Quebec in how to make federal politicians sing for their supper.
WAGNER: How Pierre Trudeau created the Alberta independence movement, and his son made it mainstream
Michael Wagner writes that before 1980, independence was a tiny fringe movement. In 2020, it is approaching a majority of Albertans.
A fundamental change occurred in Alberta in 1980. On February 18 of that year, Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals defeated Joe Clark’s Progressive Conservatives, restoring Trudeau to the office of prime minister. Consequently, on October 28 – a day that will live in infamy – the National Energy Program (NEP) was unleashed as a blatant attack on Alberta and its oil industry. These historical events generated a credibility for Alberta’s independence movement that had never before existed. After 1980, support for independence was no longer a tiny fringe phenomenon.
Until the fateful events of 1980, polling data measuring support for Alberta independence were generally in the low single digits. This can be seen in the early polls on sovereigntist sentiment that were reported in a 1979 article by political scientists David Elton and Roger Gibbins entitled, “Western Alienation and Political Culture,” in the book The Canadian Political Process. As Elton and Gibbins noted, a 1969 provincial poll found that only 5 per cent of “respondents expressed interest in even discussing the merits of separation.” Five years later, a 1974 survey conducted in Calgary found less than 4 per cent “expressed even the most cautious support for separatism.” And in a 1977 survey commissioned by the Calgary Herald, only 2.7 per cent said yes to the question, “Would you like Alberta to separate?”
Clearly – at least as far as polling data suggests – support for independence was disappointingly low before 1980.
But then Canada experienced the second-coming of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – who can rightly be called the father of the Alberta independence movement because his policies gave the movement its original credibility and momentum.
The effect of Trudeau’s aggressive anti-Alberta posture was immediate. Data from a number of post-NEP polls are presented in an article entitled, “Separatism and Quasi-Separatism in Alberta” by sociologist Edward Bell in the Fall 2007 issue of Prairie Forum. On November 1, 1980 (shortly after the NEP was announced), the Calgary Herald reported on a poll indicating that 23 per cent of Albertans were in favour of Western Canadian independence. A subsequent study – undertaken in Edmonton from February to April 1981 – found that “about one in four respondents either supported Alberta independence or were willing to give their provincial government a mandate to negotiate it.”
Surprisingly, in a March 1981 poll conducted by the Canada West Foundation, 49 per cent of Albertans agreed with the statement: “Western Canadians get so few benefits from being part of Canada that they might as well go it on their own.” That question did not measure outright commitment to independence as such, but it does seem rather high. Nevertheless, it is not inconsistent with some later polling.
Sociologist Trevor Harrison, in his 1995 book, Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, reports on a 1992 poll with a question very similar to the one from the Canada West Foundation. Harrison writes, a “poll of 710 Westerners conducted by Environics Research in March 1992 found that 42 per cent of respondents agreed with the question: ‘Western Canada gets so few benefits from Confederation the region might as well be on its own.’” At that time, of course, Brian Mulroney was prime minister, and like Pierre Trudeau, he catered to Central Canada at the expense of the West. In fact, Mulroney’s policies led to the rise of the Reform Party.
Edward Bell adds one more poll result to fill things out. In 2005, a poll found 35.6 per cent of Westerners agreed with the statement: “Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country.”
More recently, on August 1, 2014, Insights West released a poll of Albertans that found, “Only 23 per cent of residents believe the province would be better off as its own country.” “Only” 23 per cent? Actually, 23 percent is rather high, especially considering that Stephen Harper – an Albertan – was prime minister at the time.
Two years later, on July 28, 2016, Insights West released another poll noting that “23 per cent of Albertans say the province would be better off as its own country.” The percentage remained the same as before, but the harmful effects of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s anti-Alberta policies were not yet fully realized. Things have since changed.
On May 25 of this year, in a poll conducted for the Western Standard, “45 per cent of decided Albertans surveyed said that they would defiantly vote yes or were leaning yes if there was a referendum on Alberta’s independence.” That is to say, support for independence is likely higher in 2020 than at any previous time. The more moderate position of supporting independence if proposals for constitutional reform were first rejected by Ottawa, was just shy of a majority at 48 per cent.
The point is this: before 1980, polls showed support for Alberta independence to be in the low single digits. After 1980, polls show support in the double digits, usually a quarter of the population or more. This suggests that a fundamental change occurred in 1980 as a result of Pierre Trudeau. Before Trudeau, Albertans really weren’t interested in thinking about independence – but he made it respectable and credible. Support for independence never seems to have returned to the low single digit range.
Support for Alberta independence is not going away. It is not a passing fad. Under the current Liberal government – with its agenda of phasing out Alberta’s key industry – the independence movement will likely continue to grow. The question is whether a leader will emerge to articulate the Alberta cause and gather Alberta patriots into a coherent and effective political body.
Michael Wagner is columnist for the Western Standard. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta. His books include ‘Alberta: Separatism Then and Now’ and ‘True Right: Genuine Conservative Leaders of Western Canada.’
SELICK: The Two Sides to the Vaccine Safety Debate
Karen Selick takes on the politicians trying to use government to force vaccinations.
EDITORS NOTE: The Western Standard Editorial Board encourages open debate by its columnists. The column below reflects the views of its author, but not necessarily that of the WS Editorial Board.
This article is about a recent event in Eastern Canada, but it should ring a cautionary bell for all Canadians since we will all soon be facing a similar issue.
New Brunswick’s Education Minister Dominic Cardy is fuming because an amendment to provincial legislation that he championed was recently defeated in a free vote. Had it been successful, the amendment would have made numerous vaccinations mandatory for school children in New Brunswick, removing an exemption that previously existed for students whose parents filed a written objection.
According to Mr. Cardy, “There are no two sides [to the debate] around the safety of vaccines.” He described opponents of his bill as having given in to “medieval conspiracy theories.” Rhetoric like this is common in the vaccine debate.
However, existing legislation in Ontario indicates that Mr. Cardy and those who make similar statements are profoundly misinformed on this subject.
In June, 1987, Ontario adopted a law on immunization that’s now section 38 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. It applies to the vaccines for 13 different diseases, including diphtheria, polio, measles and influenza. It requires doctors, nurses and pharmacists to watch for and report any adverse reactions to the vaccines they administer, including:
- Persistent crying or screaming, or anaphylactic shock, within 48 hours of vaccination
- Shock-like collapse, high fever, or convulsions occurring within 3 days of vaccination
- Arthritis occurring within 42 days of vaccination
- Hives, seizures, encephalopathy, brain inflammation or other significant occurrence within 15 days of vaccination
- Death following any of the symptoms already described.
The 1987 legislation came about through the efforts of then MPP Jack Pierce, who spoke in the legislature about eight cases of severe vaccine injuries that had recently occurred in his riding of only 30,000 people. It was drafted after extensive consultations with the medical community. It was “doctor-approved” law, in a day when it was still permitted to discuss all sides of the vaccine issue without being ridiculed or silenced.
Patients can and do suffer vaccine injuries of the kind described in Ontario’s legislation far more often than Mr. Cardy seems to be aware of.
The vaccines used in Canada are the same as those used in the United States, and there’s a little-known database of vaccine injuries available to anyone who cares to look. That’s because the US abolished tort liability against vaccine manufacturers in 1986 through the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Instead of suing vaccine manufacturers, injured persons are now restricted to making a claim against a government-run compensation fund called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The program reports monthly on the compensation it pays out.
Since inception, the program has paid out more than $4 billion in compensation to 7,252 individuals suffering vaccine injuries (figures as of May 1, 2020). This is a significant amount of money. Some vaccine injuries are devastating. They can include permanent brain damage.
These figures underestimate the extent of the damage done by vaccines because the compensation program has a strict time limit for making application. Many parents of vaccine-injured children don’t find out about the compensation fund until after that window of opportunity has shut.
According to a World Health Organization publication from 2011, there are 19 countries around the world that have recognized the dangers inherent in vaccines by implementing compensation programs for individuals who have been injured by them. Germany was the first to implement such a program in 1961, eight years after the German Supreme Court ruled that people injured by mandatory vaccinations (smallpox, in that case) were entitled to compensation.
In the 1970s, eight countries recognized the dangers of the “DTP” (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis) vaccine by adopting compensation programs for the vaccine-injured. These included Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.
In 1972, a five-year-old girl in Quebec was vaccinated against measles as part of the province’s large-scale free vaccination program. She developed acute viral encephalitis, resulting in almost total permanent disability. The family sued the Quebec government, and initially obtained a judgment of $385,000. The trial court explicitly found a causal relationship between the vaccine and the child’s encephalitis. The compensation award was eventually overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal on the grounds that Quebec civil law does not recognize no-fault liability. However, even at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, “the Attorney General [was] no longer disputing the causal link between the vaccine and the encephalitis.”
As a result of this case, Quebec became the only Canadian province to adopt a vaccine compensation program. Between its inception in 1988 and April 1, 2019 (the latest date for which statistics are available), it had paid compensation to 51 vaccine-injured individuals, in an amount totaling $5,797,000.
A study was published in 2011 by scientists associated with the University of Ottawa and the University of Toronto. It showed that when infants aged 12 months or 18 months were injected with live vaccines (such as the MMR—measles, mumps, rubella vaccine), they were significantly more likely to visit the hospital emergency room within the next twelve days, as compared with the number of visits they would make during a control period that did not follow vaccination.
What additional evidence would it take for Mr. Cardy to recognize that there are indeed two sides to the vaccine safety debate?
Parents faced with the prospect of mandatory vaccinations for their children are perfectly justified in their concerns. They are not part of a “medieval conspiracy theory”. It is very disturbing that an individual in a position of power such as education minister Cardy is both ignorant of the facts and willing to vilify individuals who are more knowledgeable than he is himself.
Karen Selick is a Columnist for the Western Standard. She has previously written for the original Western Standard, National Post, Canadian Lawyer Magazine. She is the former Litigation Lawyer of the Canadian Constitution Foundation and is the owner of KeenEyesEditing.ca.
CLEMENT: Banning paid blood donations only forces us to pay for foreign donations
David Clement writes about why the Voluntary Blood Donations Repeal Act will allow Alberta to stop paying for paid donations from the United States.
Alberta’s United Conservative Party is proposing a new way to help supply hospitals with much-needed blood plasma therapies, and it would mean letting Albertans receive cash for their donations.
MLA Tany Yao will introduce a bill that would repeal the former government’s Voluntary Blood Donations Act. This would allow for blood plasma donors in Alberta to be compensated for their donations, which the NDP previously made illegal. While this might sound like an obscure policy for most, it is incredibly important that Alberta continues down this path and legalizes compensation for plasma donors.
Blood plasma is a valuable resource used to create medicines that treat burns, help those with immune deficiencies, coagulation disorders and respiratory diseases. Unfortunately, Canada does not collect enough plasma to meet our domestic need for plasma therapies. That’s why for years, we have imported these medicines from the United States. More than 80 per cent of these therapies come from south of the border, where plasma donors are compensated for their donations.
That fact alone makes the NDP’s Voluntary Blood Donations Act a farce, and one worthy of repeal.
Critics of paid plasma argue that compensating donors increases risks and is less safe than voluntary donations. We know that this isn’t true, and can’t be true, because Canada relies on paid plasma donors for their medicines – they just happen to be American instead of Canadian. If compensating donors was really unsafe and risky, we wouldn’t be so comfortable importing these medicines from our American friends. There is also no data to support the claim that paid plasma is risky. There has not been a single instance of viral or bacterial transmission from plasma products since modern processing practices were implemented over 25 years ago. That is exactly why Canadian Blood Services CEO Graham Sher said the following about the existence of a paid plasma sector.
“I certainly need to be very clear that we don’t believe the existence of a paid plasma sector is a safety threat to product or to patients and I don’t think there is data or evidence to support that.”
Critics also posit that compensating donors for their time is exploitation, and that “blood brokers” will be praying on vulnerable citizens. This also doesn’t pass the smell test, because if it were true, critics such as the NDP, Bloodwatch, and their public-sector union partners would be lobbying for a ban on the import of American-made plasma therapies. They aren’t doing that, and haven’t done that, because they know that such a move would be devastating to the patients who rely on these therapies. Compensating donors for their time simply acknowledges the reality that pure altruism isn’t always enough. There is nothing exploitative about informed, medically screened and healthy adults being compensated for their plasma donations to aid the process of making much-needed plasma therapies for patients.
If the UCP succeeds with legalizing paid plasma collection in Alberta, it can be expected that plasma collection will increase in the province, as it has in other jurisdictions. Czechia for example (formerly known as the Czech Republic) legalized compensation and saw donations increase by 700 per cent. Because of that decision, Czechia is now entirely self-sufficient when it comes to blood plasma collection and doesn’t need imports at all. In fact, the only countries who are self-sufficient for plasma collection are the USA, Germany, Austria and Czechia, and they all allow for donors to be compensated. Anti paid plasma organizations like Bloodwatch have long been calling on Canada to become self-sufficient when it comes to plasma collection, but rebuff the obvious solution. It’s a sad fact that they have actively, and successfully, fought the only proven tool to increase domestic supply.
The need for paid plasma becomes even more necessary in these uncertain times. Just this April, President Donald Trump empowered FEMA to prevent the shipment of essential medical goods into Canada as a response to Covid-19. What if Trump banned the export of plasma therapies into Canada? Stranger things have happened. Would our entirely voluntary public system, which accounts for less than 20 per cent of the supply we need, be able to cover the difference? Our country would be struck by severe medical shortages, and the public system wouldn’t be able to cover the gap. To say that this would be devastating for patients would be an understatement.
Luckily there is a way to help avoid that nightmare scenario. Alberta should follow through with its plan to legalize paid plasma, and other provinces should follow suit. Doing so would put patients over politics, and that is something certainly worth celebrating.
David Clement is a columnist for the Western Standard and the North American Affairs Manager of the Consumer Choice Center
Yahoo! Albertans still choosing Western names for their young ‘uns
Calgary police, fire statues desecrated
UCP launches independent probe into 2016 Grande Prairie hospital noose incident
EXCLUSIVE: CN Rail to send emergency propane shipments to Quebec
ANDRUS: Trudeau has bet double-or-nothing on Freeland to pacify with West
EXCLUSIVE: Teamsters union could block emergency propane shipment to Quebec
Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter
News5 days ago
NDP to introduce anti-independence resolution in Alberta Legislature
News4 days ago
Rebel UCP MLA Barnes blasts NDP motion on unity
News5 days ago
Calgary looking at taxing home businesses
Opinion5 days ago
WAGNER: How Pierre Trudeau created the Alberta independence movement, and his son made it mainstream
News4 days ago
Alberta oil on way to New Brunswick – via ship
News4 days ago
CHAZ has fallen
News2 days ago
Calgary police, fire statues desecrated
News4 days ago
Supreme Court clears way for TMX pipeline expansion