Conservatives Archives - Page 2 of 4

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.

Click here for more

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

“How many times have we heard blustering declarations from armchair critics and jaded pundits that proportional representation is most definitely, indisputably and irrevocably dead as a doornail? And yet, just as tulips gather strength beneath the frozen ground of winter, the electoral reform movement continues to grow deeper roots and gain momentum.” – Anita Nickerson and Gisela Ruckert of Fair Vote Canada, The Tyee, Feb. 2

I happened to come across the op-ed containing the above passage. It’s a good analogy of the tumultuous history involving Canada, proportional representation and other models of electoral reform.

Whenever there’s a close result or unusual anomaly, the first thing some Canadians start suggesting is an overhaul of our electoral system. “We need to abandon the first-past-the-post system,” they say, “and consider PR models like mixed-member proportional, alternative vote and the single-transferable vote.”

That’s what briefly happened after the Quebec election on Oct. 3, 2022.

Premier François Legault and Coalition Avenir Québec won 90 of the 125 seats with 40.98 percent of the popular vote. It’s the largest majority government in Quebec in decades. Yet, Legault’s triumph wasn’t the main reason why electoral reform became a popular topic of conversation. It was due to the fact that in spite of finishing fourth out of the five major parties in the popular vote, Dominique Anglade and the Liberals ended up forming the official opposition.

The Liberals won 21 seats with 14.37 percent popularity. In contrast, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois and Manon Massé’s Québec solidaire won 11 seats with 15.43 percent, while Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s Parti Quebecois won 3 seats with 14.61 percent. Eric Duhaime’s Conservative Party didn’t win any seats but earned 12.91 percent.

The result itself wasn’t surprising. The Liberals achieved a large voter concentration in anglophone ridings and won many of them. Clumps of votes were spread across the province for the other three parties and reduced their chances of winning more seats. Nevertheless, the fact that Quebec’s official opposition finished second in total seats and fourth in popularity was a pretty stark reminder of the weaknesses in our FPTP system.

Quebecers were initially a bit miffed. The provincial blood pressure went back to normal within a week. Politics as usual became the daily pleasure and/or grumble in la belle province. It’s doubtful many voters will vividly remember this strange political anomaly when they head back to the polls in 2026.

If you think that I’m mocking Canadians who support changes to our electoral process, you’re mistaken. I’m one of a few Conservatives who has spoken and written in favour of electoral reform for decades. (Other than a brief spell where I had second thoughts about PR and supported mandatory voting. This phase didn’t last long.)

Various countries have tried to create their own unique electoral systems since the end of the Second World War. The highest averages and largest remainders systems tended to be the most popular. The basic d’Hondt and LR-Imperiali electoral formulas were frequently used; they were the least proportional and often favoured large political parties. As Prof. Arend Lijphart noted in Electoral Systems and Party Systems (1994), these systems used lists of candidates that enabled voters to choose more than one preferred candidate for elected office.

The modified Sainte-Laguë system, which treated parties equally by increasing the first divisor from 1 to 1.4, thereby reducing the potential for smaller parties to win seats, also became popular. Several countries opted for the single transferable vote, in which a preferential vote for individual candidates was regularly used.

Canada’s two main parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, have historically supported FPTP or majoritarian system. Prof. Giovanni Sartori noted in Comparative Constitutional Engineering (1994) that countries using majoritarianism “seek a parliament that reflects the voting distributions; they seek a clear winner.” That’s what happens when a politician ends up winning a seat by either one vote or one million votes. The more politicians elected under a party banner, the greater the possibility of that party ultimately taking the reins of government.

Liberals and Conservatives are therefore quite content with FPTP, since it often works to their political advantage. If the system ain’t broke, why fix it?

The problem is the system has been broken for decades. FPTP isn’t representative of actual voter intentions. It largely discounts popular support, too. Only a handful of Canada’s federal governments have received 50 percent or more of the popular vote – Sir Wilfrid Laurier (1900, 1904), Sir Robert Borden (1917), William Lyon Mackenzie King (1940), John Diefenbaker (1958) and Brian Mulroney (1984). Many provincial governments have been elected with the support of less than 50 percent of the electorate.

There are several different electoral models that would produce results which are more fair and representative of voter intentions. This includes alternative vote/instant run-off voting, which has been used in countries like Australia, Ireland and India, and mixed-member proportional, which has been used in New Zealand, Bolivia and Germany’s Bundestag and several state elections.

Will electoral reform ever happen in Canada?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau certainly seemed determined to eliminate FPTP at one stage. His support for a preferential ballot collapsed when it became clear it would have only benefited his party. How so? The Liberals traditionally rank high as a second choice alternative among Canadians. The Conservatives have core supporters on first choice ballots, but would get crushed as a second choice alternative. As for the NDP, Greens and other small progressive parties, they would likely get out-muscled by the Liberals for left-wing votes time and time again.

Maybe electoral reform just isn’t for the Great White North. Then again, the frozen winter months are over and the tulips are gathering strength once more.

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