LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

It’s that time of year again, where opposition parties start getting antsy for new means by which they can embarrass the government, and the best way to do that in the dog days of summer is to hold “emergency” committee hearings. If they can get one of the other opposition parties on board, no matter how dubious or indeed ridiculous the premise, then the committee has to recall and a vote be held as to whether or not they’ll hold a full meeting or series of meetings on the subject of the “emergency.” Mercifully, we had very few of those meetings last summer because the Bloc and the NDP were not in the mood to play ball with the Conservatives, but this year, they are starting up once again, in part because of the incentives at play, which are to harvest clips for their social media channels. Gone are the days when committees actually did serious work—everything is now a performance for the cameras.

One of the most important things to note off the top is that the committees in play right now are all those who are chaired by Conservatives. Under the Standing Orders, several committees are automatically chaired by members of the official opposition, and they include the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, Government Operations and Estimates, Public Accounts, and Status of Women. This is to ensure that for committees with a more pronounced role of scrutinizing the government, that the government’s chair on those committees can’t use their power and influence to sway the studies away from topics that might embarrass the government. Each of those committees are implicated in these summer clip-harvesting exercises, starting with the Ethics committee’s July 17th meeting to conjure up a supposed ethical breach by employment minister Randy Boissonnault where the Ethics Commissioner has already stated that one does not exist.

What garnered a lot of attention was the Status of Women committee meeting last week, where a couple of the witnesses walked out in tears after the meeting derailed, but much of the blame was put on Liberal MP Anita Vandenbeld even though the whole exercise was a set-up from the beginning. The meeting was held under the auspices of “study of testimony related to the committee’s core mandate,” and no opposition party was given the ability to suggest witnesses, as is how things normally happen. And right off the start, these witnesses made their statements and had a round of questions from the Conservatives, before anyone else could object to the circumstances by which said meeting was convened. When she finally got a turn, Vandenbeld noted that they have done several studies already on gender-based violence, and pointed out that the Conservatives abused their position as chair in order to call this meeting in the way they had, which had the effect of playing on the trauma of the witnesses, before moving a motion that they would be better off considering the study on reproductive health that the committee has been sitting on since March 2022.

There is blame to go all around on this, starting with the Chair, Conservative MP Shelby Kramp-Newman, who abused her powers to summon witnesses without the input of any of the other members of the committee, and treating this like an emergency situation. She also sold a false bill of goods to those witnesses, which should be inexcusable. The intent by the Conservatives, as evidenced by a motion that Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri tried to move later in the meeting was to try and tie the Liberals to the (slight) increases in violent crime reported by Statistics Canada in their annual Crime Severity Index report, with the motion that “That the committee hold four more meetings on the impact of violent crime against women.” Clearly this was an attempt to try and catch the Liberals out and get clips of them badgering and hectoring the government about how they are the ones responsible for this increase in violent crime, but the Liberals weren’t about to play ball on that.

Nevertheless, Vandenbeld trying to move the committee back to the reproductive health motion, which is more specifically about ensuring national access to abortion across the country—because yes, there are plenty of places where access is not readily available because of the actions of provincial governments—came across as extremely crass. It’s no secret that the Liberals are trying to jam the Conservatives on the question of abortion rights, particularly given that they hope to capitalize on what happened with Roe v Wade in the US, and such a naked attempt at the committee when trying to avoid the Conservatives’ planned clip-harvesting dog-and-pony show saw not exactly sensitive to the witnesses, no matter that they were present under false pretenses. It’s a very real problem with committees these days that people wind up wasting their time coming in as witnesses only for the committee to devolve into procedural gamesmanship, and this was no different.

There is more of this to come. This week, the Public Accounts committee will be looking into the ArriveCan issue, but more specifically, the Auditor General’s report on it, because that’s the purpose of the Public Accounts committee, and I cannot fathom why this would merit an “emergency” summer meeting outside of the obvious example of this being solely about harvesting clips of Conservative MP Michael Barrett calling the government “corrupt,” and asking about RCMP investigations when that has nothing to do with the Auditor General’s findings—most especially because she didn’t make any findings related to the government in what happened. The week after, the Government Operations Committee is going to be looking into the purchase of the C$9 million Manhattan condo as the new residence for the Consul General in New York, for the sole purpose of performative hairshirt parsimony by all three opposition parties, even though this really isn’t something that this committee should be concerned with.

These committees are supposed to be doing serious work, but the fact that they now solely for the provenance of dog-and-pony shows for the benefit of the cameras is damaging to democracy. We need our MPs to take their jobs seriously, and simply harvesting clips for social media as if they were Millennial wannabe-influencers trying to juice their engagement numbers is not that. If we want to preserve our democracy from the authoritarian populism heading our way, we need to demand better from our MPs.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


As the year draws to a close, there have been a handful of year-end interviews from the Conservatives, but vanishingly few from mainstream legacy media outlets. The closest that Pierre Poilievre came were interviews with Rex Murphy at the National Post and Brian Lilley at the Toronto Sun, but neither interview can credibly claim to be anything other than a friendly chat with absolutely no pushback from the interviewers. Deputy leader Melissa Lantsman did one year-ender with CTV, but otherwise, Poilievre mostly stuck to independent right-wing outlets and with right-wing talk radio hosts. While there were some attempts to get Poilievre to talk about his plans if he were to form a government, the answers were, not unsurprisingly, vapid and unserious, with no credible path laid out.

One such example was around immigration targets. This is one area where Poilievre has to walk a tightrope between appealing to the nativists in the base he has been actively trying to cultivate, while also trying to ensure that he has the support of enough ethnocultural minority voters, primarily in the suburbs of Canada’s largest cities, where these demographics can make or break an electoral victory for a party. So how does Poilievre hope to play to both sides? By pretending that he can set immigration targets with a “mathematical formula” that takes into account things like housing, the number of doctors required, and availability of jobs. While that may have a whiff of credibility and thoughtfulness to it, which is what Poilievre is hoping to project, the problem is that it falls apart the moment you actually think about it for more than five seconds.

If we tied immigration levels to housing, we would never bring in more immigrants, ever. Yes, things are at a crisis level right now, but it’s also because of the complacency that provinces and municipalities have lulled themselves into (along with the plaintive wails of NIMBY constituents who want less housing so that their property values can continue to increase along with scarcity of supply). If anything, the current situation has given said provinces and municipalities the kick in the ass that they needed to start taking this seriously, while the federal government is deploying what few tools they have—namely money, in the form of the Housing Accelerator Fund—to get them to start making the necessary changes. It’s also forced the immigration department to start looking to skilled trades workers from other countries who can help with our construction needs, rather than just keeping the focus on highly skilled immigrants in mostly STEM fields. There is also finally attention being paid to the colleges, particularly in Ontario, who are running “degree mills,” that are abusive and exploitative of international students. That may not have happened without things reaching the current situation.

As for Poilievre’s continued insistence that he can speed up foreign credential recognition, particularly for healthcare workers, whether doctors, nurses, or pharmacists, that remains something of a pipe dream because he has no levers at the federal level to do that—not even money. This is the domain of private professional colleges, not governments, and they have been overly protective of their turf. Provinces have not helped because they have refused to fund enough residencies that can ensure that these foreign-trained professionals can properly meet the Canadian requirements, and again, Poilievre has no real levers there, unless he wants to send a lot more money to the provinces and hope that they won’t spend it on other things (which leads to questions about what he would cut to send that money). As for a “Blue Seal” program for these credential recognition to practice around the country, again, no federal government could make that happen.

When it comes to the deficit and spending, this is again where things are unserious. This was where Lantsman took the lead in the CTV interview, and insisted that they would achieve savings by reining in spending on “things that we don’t need or want,” which is handwavey bullshit. Every program has someone who needs and wants it, and that’s why deficit reduction programs are extremely difficult to deal with. It’s also opened up the attack line from the Liberals that it means the Conservatives will come after the Canada Child Benefit, dental care, or $10/day child care, all of which the Conservatives opposed, and who have not stated categorically that they will protect them, even though they can lead to larger savings overall, or in the case of child care, ensures that more women are in the labour force, which we need.

Lantsman did say that they would cut the ArriveCan app, which is money that is already spent so it wouldn’t achieve savings, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or the “green slush fund,” a reference to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada, which was a Conservative creation under the Harper government. She also made reference to cutting the federal carbon price, which would do absolutely nothing about the deficit because it’s a revenue neutral levy where all funds are returned to the province in which they are collected, and redistributed in the way the province has decided (which is mostly the carbon rebate program, which the Conservatives deliberately omit from admitting it exists).

The Conservatives also keep insisting that slaying the deficit will bring down inflation and interest rates, which is not at all true. The current deficits are not being financed by printed money, and are thus only marginally inflationary (the biggest part is where provinces are using spending to juice growth beyond what the economy can sustain, hence stoking inflation). And if you look at the United States, they brought down their high inflation through productivity gains, and are still running massive debts and deficits, so the Conservatives’ logic doesn’t hold. Inflation is coming down thanks to the Bank of Canada’s measures, and rate cuts will follow soon, which will leave Poilievre to shift his goal posts on this file again.

Whether trying to justify their votes against Ukraine or how they’ll combat climate change with “technology not taxes,” there are no credible lines from the Conservatives—only slogans. But when they stack up against the government, who delivers its own meaningless pabulum lines that don’t explain their policies or how they’re addressing the various crises around the country, it’s one more reminder about how nobody is being well-served by politics right now, and that hurts everyone.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Canadian Conservatives (like me) believe the state interferes far too much in our daily lives. That’s why we’ve historically supported concepts like small government, low taxes and more individual rights and freedoms.

This doesn’t mean Conservatives are anti-statists. Most of us recognize the government still has a role to play in society, including the health and well-being of its citizens. If it fails in this regard, we must all shoulder the blame.

I was recently reminded of an older example of massive government failure related to autism. It remains as mind-boggling now as it did then.

This is the story of Jon and Karissa Warkentin. They had moved from Colorado to the tiny community of Waterhen, Manitoba (pop. 169) with their four children in 2013. They purchased the Harvest Lodge, a local hunting and fishing business, with the intention of living in Canada and running it as a profit-making venture. They reportedly invested $600,000 of their own money, and paid taxes and other fees “in excess of $20,000.” They applied for permanent residency in Nov. 2016. 

The Warkentins appeared to be a pleasant, hard-working family. This assessment was confirmed by Waterhen Mayor Larry Chartrand. He told the Winnipeg Free Press on July 25, 2017, “They are well-liked, friendly members of our community. They are always willing to help out.”

Yet, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada initially turned down the Warkentin family’s application in July 2017. Why? According to the rejection letter, their six-year-old daughter, Karalynn, could “reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.”

Karalynn, who was previously diagnosed with epilepsy, also had symptoms related to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and global developmental delay, which is commonly associated with autism. Even though she hadn’t experienced a seizure in over two years, Ottawa’s policy was still one of expressed concern. Her annual costs for medical treatment would have been well above Canada’s “excessive demand” per person for publicly funded services, which was then limited to $6,655 a year. 

Our country’s supposedly open immigration system wasn’t all that open when it came to applicants with autism and other serious ailments. This poor family, who were clearly making a real contribution to Waterhen, was caught in the crossfire. They could have been forced to abandon their dream and leave the country.

The situation was finally rectified on Dec. 5, 2017, and the Warkentin family was allowed to become permanent residents. It took a 500-page application to determine Karalynn’s case wasn’t as severe “as they had feared,” Jon Warkentin told the CBC. And, one assumes, a fair amount of media attention and bad press for Ottawa to change hearts and minds. 

Karissa Warkentin basically confirmed as much to Canadian Mennonite Magazine on Jan. 24. 2018. “We had almost a thousand signatures on an online petition,” she said. “It was 95 pages printed out front and back of comments and signatures from people all over Canada and the United States.”

Naturally, this family wasn’t going to point fingers. “We don’t know, we can only, you know, kind of guess at what changed it,” Jon Warkentin said to CBC. “While we’re very happy with the decision for our family today, (our hope is) that they’ll take a really hard look at it…and other families won’t have to go through what we’ve gone through. That’s our hope.”

Their story frustrated me in a personal way. Why? I have my own story. It’s only been told a few times, but it deserves an additional mention.

My wife and I noticed our son, Andrew, wasn’t developing at a normal rate in 2009. We did some tests and discovered he had a duplicate in Chromosome 7, which was related to a severe delay in speech. He was initially placed, quickly removed, and placed again on the autism spectrum with a moderate diagnosis.

Andrew has received applied behaviour analysis (ABA) therapy for years. He’s also had a speech language pathologist, occupational therapist, academic tutors and a full-time aid for school, among other things. The intensive treatments have worked well. He continues to grow, develop and improve each year.

Autism Canada noted in a Mar. 29, 2018 press release, “1 in 66 Canadian children and youth ages five to 17 are on the autism spectrum…based on analysis of 2015 data supplied by six provinces and one territory.” These findings were taken from the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder prevalence rates. Moreover, as Autism Canada’s Executive Director Laurie Mawlam pointed out, “1 in 66, the number released in the PHAC report, reflects what we’re witnessing in the autism community – that the prevalence of autism is on the rise.”

That’s not encouraging to hear.

My wife and I have paid for almost everything with private money. Our annual costs are more than ten times the minuscule “excessive demand” national figure. We’re lucky that we can handle it. Others haven’t been nearly so fortunate. There have been heartbreaking stories about families who sold their homes, cars and other worldly possessions to take care of their autistic children. 

That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not acceptable.

More taxpayer dollars need to be prudently allocated to autism, including therapeutic treatment, scientific research and community resources. Canada obviously can’t pay every nickel for every family – there are many other expenses that need to be earmarked in the day-to-day operations of government – but there’s no reason we can’t do more. Eliminating meaningless social programs designed to score political points would be a good place to start, and there’s plenty that could be done on this front. 

Conservatives should want to help – and, in most cases, do. While autism isn’t a national epidemic, the number of recognized cases is growing each year. If we want to build a better society, here’s our chance to do it in a non-ideological, fiscally responsible manner. 

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.