Bernier’s bad judgment emboldens foes

Maxime Bernier is a man with obvious political skills, some good ideas and more public appeal than the average backbench member of parliament, but suffers from a gaping hole where his judgment should be.

It’s a problem that’s been evident since he lost his job as foreign affairs minister after leaving secret cabinet documents at the home of his biker girlfriend. It took him years to work his way back into the party’s good graces after that episode, only to have things blow up again when he suggested that Andrew Scheer — the man who defeated him for the Conservative leadership — stacked the deck with “fake Conservatives” in his winning campaign.

Now he’s at it again, embarrassing Scheer and plunging the party into unnecessary controversy, first by issuing remarks that smack of intolerance, then by launching a Twitter storm challenging Scheer’s response. A less cautious leader would have kicked Bernier’s butt halfway down Parliament Hill by now, inviting him to form his own party if he can’t learn to control himself within the Tory caucus. Yet Bernier seems incapable of grasping the damage he’s doing, both to himself and his party, by persisting in prolonging a mess he’s created all on his own.

It’s a characteristic of the Conservative fold that it tends to attract people of strong convictions and a compulsion to share them. It’s both an attribute and curse. It’s admirable that the party welcomes strong opinions, a range of ideas, and respects the right to express them. But it has hurt them in the past, when bozo eruptions undermined support and public sympathy for an organization that seemed too willing to tolerate supporters with ugly viewpoints. The party labours continually to isolate the cranks and succeeds in a broad sense, but battles the intolerant few in the same way New Democrats must regularly deal with the looniest fringes of socialist fantasists. (Liberals don’t seem to suffer the same problem as the party has demonstrated a profound willingness to subordinate personal beliefs to the hunger for power).

Bernier caused trouble by accusing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of promoting “extreme multiculturalism and (a) cult of diversity,” dividing Canadians into “little tribes that … become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges.”

He continued: “People who refuse to integrate into our society and want to live apart in their ghetto don’t make our society strong.”

It’s an argument that didn’t need to be raised and could only serve to inflame a sensitive issue just when the party is working to develop a reasonable position on immigration and related issues. It also carries obvious overtones of the painful and damaging debate sparked by the Parti Québécois’s ill-considered “Charter of Values.”

Most damagingly, it taints the Conservatives — unfairly and inaccurately — as anti-immigrant. The government of Stephen Harper worked hard, and with considerable success, to eliminate any doubt about the party’s recognition of immigration as essential to the health and character of a proudly diverse country. Leadership candidates who sought to exploit resentment drew limited support and were consigned to defeat.

If Bernier succeeded at anything, it’s in handing opponents an easy weapon with which to disparage the party, an opportunity Trudeau quickly seized on. Bernier also happens to be off the mark. If he wants to suggest Canadian culture and society is threatened, he first needs to define “Canadian” culture. In a country built entirely by immigrants, when did immigration start being bad in Bernier’s opinion? Irish, Chinese, Italians, Asians … newcomers have often huddled in “ghettos” while they found their feet; there’s nothing new in those arriving today seeking the same sense of community and support.

There’s a serious discussion to be had on immigration, and one on which the Trudeau government is politically vulnerable, but it’s not the one Bernier raises. The Liberals have yet to develop a coherent plan to deal with the influx of asylum-seekers crossing illegally into Canada, mainly via Quebec. Their efforts to date have mainly focused on housing and processing the claimants, rather than addressing the fundamental problem behind the issue: the loophole in Canada’s border pact with the U.S. that makes this country an attractive bolt-hole for those seeking a better life or a means to escape the hostility of the current U.S. administration. You can sympathize with their situation, and admire their aspirations, while still recognizing that a fair and responsible approach to immigration doesn’t equate with crowds of people taking taxis to illegal border crossings, where RCMP officers try and convince them to turn back.

The Liberals have no idea what to do about the situation. In usual fashion, they’re throwing money at it, promising millions of dollars to cities and provinces willing to help spirit away the evidence in hotels and temporary shelters. Great efforts have been made to smother it in soothing terminology. It’s not a “crisis” but a “challenge,” according to Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale. The arrivals aren’t “illegal” but “irregular.” The entry point is simply “unauthorized,” despite a sign warning that crossing there is against the law. Other countries struggle with millions of refugees, so Canada’s 30,000 is trivial in comparison.

Much as Liberals and their apologists might want to wish away the situation, however, it has struck a nerve with Canadians, the large majority of whom express concern and disapproval when asked. As law-abiding people, most believe laws on immigration should be observed and enforced, if only out of fairness to those waiting patiently in line to be accepted through regular channels. It’s a long line and those seeking to skip the wait aren’t looked on with affection.

With little more than a year until the next federal election, the issue is a valid one on which to confront the Liberals. Bernier has only made that harder, undermined his own leader and added to his party’s challenge with his latest tumble into the empty hole where his judgment should be.