What does Tory leader Andrew Scheer stand for?

MAYBE THE CONSERVATIVES ARE STILL IN WAIT-AND-SEE MODE. — COLBY COSH

Andrew Scheer published an “open letter to Canadians” in the Toronto Sun this Saturday. “Sunday marks exactly one year until the next federal election,” the federal Conservative leader observed, proceeding thereupon to a critique of Justin Trudeau’s government. As someone who is still trying to take stock of Scheer, I read the letter hoping for clues to his plan of attack for the 2019 election. I’m afraid it merely served to emphasize how much Scheer has remained on the defensive since winning the Tory leadership almost a year and a half ago.

That is part of the issue here: does it seem to you like a year and a half since Scheer became leader? Forgive me a very subjective observation, but I found myself hardly believing that we are much closer in time to the next election than we are to the choosing of an opposition leader who still seems like the enigmatic new guy. What are his signature issues? I am afraid the first answer that springs to mind is “dairy supply management” — which is a continuing controversy that has exposed Scheer to embarrassment, and has helped to split his party, albeit in what is likely to be an electorally insignificant way. (Maxime Bernier won’t be the next Prime Minister of Canada, but party morale is a thing in elections.)

The other major issues that have presented themselves to Scheer as opportunities haven’t proved much more helpful. When it comes to the federalization of carbon taxation, Scheer still has no good answers when he is called upon to reconcile his hypothetical support for emissions reductions with his opposition to the Trudeau plan. He doesn’t like carbon taxes, period, which will play well with climate skeptics who have three-SUV garages; I do not underestimate the impetus of that voting bloc, but the Conservatives own those voters already. Scheer also cornered himself into a lame position on the campus free-speech wars, and he is pulling sour faces about marijuana legalization, even though he is one of the few Canadian politicians who will admit to having smoked the stuff personally.

Maybe the Conservatives are still in wait-andsee mode. It is hard to know what appetizing tactical chances will appear between now and next autumn. But Scheer’s “open letter” is in many ways frustratingly elliptical. He complains that Trudeau promised tax relief for the middle class but repeats the CPC talking point that “More than 80% of middle-income Canadians actually paid more tax in 2017.” This depends on how you define “middle-income,” but more importantly fails to account for the Liberals’ supercharged Canada Child Benefit, which is somewhat counterintuitive for a fellow with five kids.

I’m childless, so I am ready to write rapturous columns about the Enough Kiddie Policy Already Party of Canada whenever one appears, which it won’t. But Scheer’s open letter whines that “It’s getting hard to get by and provide for your family.” From my conversations with parents, I fear that this argument will get drowned out by cartoon cash-register noises as the CCB payments keep arriving between now and election day.

But at least this is a specific argument — and it is about the last one Scheer bothers to make in the letter. Trudeau, Scheer says, “promised an economy that would provide jobs and opportunity for the middle class. He failed.” I suppose this is for individuals to judge according to their own circumstances, especially since Scheer doesn’t provide macroeconomic data, but when he describes the country as “stuck in mediocrity” and “drained of hope and opportunity,” I must plead that I don’t see or feel anything quite so dire.

I am as sensitive as any other Albertan to Scheer’s line about thwarted “nationbuilding mega-projects,” but, being sensitive, I notice that the word “pipelines” is carefully avoided. Scheer also argues that “Trudeau’s Liberals are as scandal-plagued as any of its predecessors (sic)”, which, I guess, is a line for the young folks who don’t remember the Mulroney or Chrétien governments. No scandals are mentioned explicitly, although Trudeau’s vacation adventure with the Aga Khan is referred to.

The Conservative leader then takes an amusing classwar detour. “I’ve sat at the kitchen table and watched my parents decide to put off a purchase so my siblings and I could have the best possible chance to succeed,” says the prairie lad. “Watching them make those sacrifices taught me about priorities . ... They showed me how to handle money responsibly. That’s why I will handle yours responsibly.”

The reader is, not too covertly, invited to contrast Justin Trudeau’s childhood with Scheer’s: what Canada needs, the subliminal argument runs, is not a rich trustfund bubblehead, but a dose of middle-class discipline. (The kind of hardscrabble prairie virtue that you can only learn growing up in ... Ottawa, Ontario?) Well, this is identity politics — well suited, perhaps, to the temper of the times. I anticipated that Scheer might try to win an election on who he is more than on what he stands for. But I do not have to like it, and it is not within me to warm to it.