Was The New Brunswick election a loss for parental rights?

Blaine Higgs with rookie Progressive Conservative candidate Faytene Grasseschi, Despite her inexperience in politics, Ms. Grasseschi rode her passion for parental rights to within 150 votes of election in her Hampton-Fundy-St.Martins constituency, even as the party itself went down to a sound defeat. It was other things then, says writer John Hilton O'Brien, that led to the Liberal victory in New Brunswick. Photo Courtesy Faytene Grasseschi

Let's ask the question. Was the New Brunswick election a referendum on parental rights? And did Higgs' defeat signal a meaningful loss?

It's not a small question.

Over the past year, Blaine Higgs introduced Policy 713, which required parental consent for children under 16 to change their pronouns at school. The policy received mixed reactions across New Brunswick, catalyzing internal policy divisions and public debate. Last week, Higgs lost re-election as Premier—– even losing his own seat. So the question, whether he was defeated over his parental rights legislation, is a live one.

With Scott Moe of Saskatchewan having brought in somewhat similar legislation and Alberta's Smith preparing to do much the same, there is plenty riding on the answer.

To answer the question, we must first ask what other factors influenced the election. I think that there are three primary issues:

First, Higgs was ambitious to run for a third time: no New Brunswick Premier has won three back-to-back elections in thirty years. New Brunswickers, unlike Albertans, change their governments regularly, whether they are doing well or not. And this was also the first election since COVID — which meant that the premier would face all the anger and resentment from lockdown policies. To some extent, the underlying current was heading for a red tide, no matter what happened.

Secondly, Higg's party was severely fractured. The social policy may have catalyzed internal party divisions, but the extent of the division revealed deeper fractures. he MLAs accusing Higgs of being dictatorial were probably not just referring to his approach to Policy 713. However, the resignations, leadership challenge, and visible loss of unity surely weakened the confidence of his supporters. Conservatives may well have stayed home.

Thirdly, there were much broader concerns in the election. Public debates didn't focus on Policy 713. They focused on affordability and healthcare. While Higgs was promising changes to improve healthcare, it is hard to believe an incumbent promising change. After all, why had he not already acted? These are actual "bread and butter" issues that drive voting patterns.

The fate of Faytene Grasseschi reveals the final point. The firebrand candidate, who appears to have joined Higgs because of his parental rights stand, was a primary target for the opposition, facing attacks over Policy 713 and her public Christian faith. Her opponent was a former Member of Parliament, recruited to the Liberals specifically to put her down. If this election was a referendum over parental rights legislation, she should have gone down to crushing defeat. But she didn't: she lost by less than 150 votes.

That latter fact must give pause to both sides of parental rights debates.

For opponents of parental rights, it's a warning. Parental rights can be such a winning issue for conservatives that an inexperienced, apparently "fringe" candidate can challenge an experienced mainstream candidate in the worst of situations and expect to win.

For social conservatives, this should teach a very different lesson: that governments don't necessarily win or lose office on social conservative issues. Social conservatism matters when it is part of a broader vision—and Higgs may have forgotten this.

Danielle Smith is about to introduce legislation we usually describe as parental rights policies in Alberta. It's more than parental rights: it deals with sports involvement, health care, and education materials. It's a win for social conservatives.

However, the fact is that Smith is not a social conservative; her progressive and libertarian leanings are well known. She's doing these things because they're good statecraft, and part of a broader policy vision.

Smith won't make Higgs' mistakes. She won't make decisions based solely on ideology. She's going to be focusing on bread-and-butter issues. Health care reform. Industry. Affordability. They'll be the clear focus of her larger view. Parental rights are part of that view — but only a part.

This presents both an opportunity and a challenge.

If parental rights advocates can show how their principles — including parental rights and educational choice — increase Alberta’s stability and prosperity, Smith will listen. But they must get it right: they must show that their values address real issues facing Albertans, rather than just being ideological positions. That’s what makes them part of the common good that Smith is responsible for.

Smith is willing to hear about funding following the child — if we can show her that it will make education better. And she might be willing to end the way the Education Act forces religious schools to have gay-straight alliances — if religious leaders are willing to say that it is offensive.

This isn’t about getting what we want. It never was. It’s about building an Alberta where everyone can flourish, materially and morally.

But make no mistake: Higgs’ election defeat is sitting in Smith’s rearview mirror. Right under the sign saying that “objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear.”

UPDATE: In the official New Brunswick election results, the Liberals claimed 48.2% of the seats, while the Progressive Conservatives took 35%.

John Hilton-O’Brien is the Executive Director of Parents for Choice in Education, www.parentchoice.ca

This article originally appeared in the Western Standard on October 28th, 2024. A printable pdf is available.