What Blatchford sees in Bernier; Coyne on bold ideas versus vanity; Cosh on the Twitter rant.
BERNIER DOESN’T OFFER ANYTHING BUT OUTRAGE.
— KELLY McPARLAND
In the fish-versus-pond scenario, we now know where Max Bernier comes down: he’s all for the big-fish-in-a-small-pond option.
He’s so determined to have his way with the other fish, in fact, that he’s apparently decided to form his own pond altogether. He doesn’t have it a name for it yet, but the Maxime Bernier Party might do. That’s what it’s all about anyway: creating a party that agrees with Max Bernier, and whatever issue Max is on about today.
Oh, sorry, I misspoke. Bernier says the new party will represent “conservative principles” and “real conservative ideas.” In his case that appears to mean opposition to supply management, “extreme” multiculturalism and too much diversity. He hasn’t made clear how much diversity is too much, but he evidently figures he knows it when he sees it.
He’s far from the first conservative to decide the Conservative Party of Canada doesn’t represent “real” conservatism. Preston Manning had a similar complaint when he launched the Reform party, which advocated Senate reform, decentralized government, social conservatism and less pandering to Quebec. Like Bernier, Reformers looked askance at Liberal immigration policies and the party’s devotion to multiculturalism, preferring to champion “Canadian” values.
Values were a key element in Bernier’s tirade against Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer on Thursday: “Do we want to emphasize our ethnic and religious differences, and exploit them to buy votes, as the Liberals are doing? Or emphasize what unites us and the values that can guarantee social cohesion?”
Presumably the correct choice is emphasizing what unites us. And that would be … what, in his estimation? Hockey? Cold winters? The shared kick we get out of looking down our noses at the U.S.? It’s a bit novel to have a member of Parliament from Quebec talking about shared values and their importance to social cohesion, given that the upcoming provincial election in Quebec will be the first in decades in which independence isn’t a major issue. Also given that the two topics about which Bernier can’t stop talking are primarily Quebec-focused: the flow of asylum-seekers pouring across its border with the U.S., and the “supply management” system that enriches a small collection of Quebec farmers at the cost of higher dairy and poultry prices.
The Liberals have badly mismanaged the border problem, and are vulnerable to critics. But there’s no easy solution, either, and Bernier doesn’t offer anything but outrage. Indeed, he appears to have immigration, diversity and multiculturalism all garbled up in one big mishmash, which is a good way to get blood boiling, but a poor way to solve the problem. All he’s done is make it easier for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to divert attention from his own failings by tagging the Tories as bigots.
As for supply management, it’s about as popular with Canadians as a wet summer weekend, but hardly a threat to the future of the country. Bernier’s suggestion that sacrificing it to the demands of Donald Trump will open the way to a new deal on free trade is either frighteningly naive or woefully blinkered. Trump’s response to concessions is to demand more concessions. How would Bernier treat Trump’s insistence on a five-year sunset clause on the agreement, which would render it functionally useless? Is complying with U.S. demands to be a core policy of the new Bernier party?
The main achievement of the Reform party in pursuing “real” conservative ideas was to split the conservative vote and hand Jean Chrétien’s Liberals three consecutive majorities. Liberal dominance was only ended when Stephen Harper managed to reunite the squabbling factions behind something resembling a coherent platform. Bernier was happy to serve in the Harper government, which had no problem with diversity and made it a priority to curry support within ethnic communities. The man assigned to that duty — which proved highly successful — was Jason Kenney, currently leader of the United Conservative Party of Alberta, who called Bernier’s initiative “a joke.”
“If he couldn’t even persuade his closest colleagues to support his policy direction, then how could he expect to form a new party?” Kenney asked.
Even Stephen Harper, who has kept his distance from Canadian politics since quitting the leadership, saw fit to comment, noting that Bernier’s blast was mostly a reflection of ego and would only reopen divisions. Harper was no more a fan of supply management than Bernier, but concluded he had to live with it if Tories hoped to remain competitive in Quebec. It’s easy to be all about devotion to principle when you occupy a seat in the opposition back benches, but anyone who thinks political power comes from carving a set of inviolable ideals in stone and inviting voters to take it or leave it should prepare themselves for a long life on the outside looking in.
Bernier’s views are often identified as Libertarian. There’s been a Libertarian party in Canada for more than 40 years. In the 2015 election they ran 72 candidates and got just under 37,000 votes. That’s 5.6 million fewer than the Conservatives. Maybe the Bernier party will do better. There are undoubtedly Canadians out there who share his opinions. And they may be willing to cast their votes in his favour, despite the knowledge that doing so can only hurt Conservatives — “real” or otherwise — and offer Liberals a better chance of re-election than they’d have otherwise.
Or, Bernier could end up as the only fish in his new pond. Maybe he’ll be happier that way. It will certainly leave the Conservatives to get on with other matters.