SCHEER EXPLAINS POSITIONS ON SIR JOHN A., FREE SPEECH
By Saturday morning, Andrew Scheer was in a good mood, ready to move past the drama of Maxime Bernier’s public exit from the Conservative Party. In a sit-down with Marie-danielle Smith from the National Post at the Conservative policy convention in Halifax, the party leader explained his positions on some of the policy resolutions that would be debated later that day — agreeing that the societal ills of pornography should be studied, for example, but avoiding an answer on whether Canada’s birthright citizenship program should end. He also took the opportunity to make clear his positions on policies Bernier has said will be key to his new party.
Q During last night’s speech, you chose to defend Sir John A. Macdonald. Tell me about that decision. A I believe it’s very troubling to see the trend that’s been emerging over the last few months, even a couple of years, that’s attempting to delete him and his legacy from public spaces and indeed in some cases from the history of Canada. Nobody can look back into our history and look at everyone who contributed into our development as a country and find someone who’s flawless. Some of the flaws that some of our leaders had were, in today’s light, very, very negative. There’s no doubt about that. No one is suggesting that that shouldn’t be part of the conversation. But statues of Sir John A. Macdonald aren’t erected because of his flaws. They’re erected because of the vision that he had, the work he did, the fact that he devoted his life to building Canada. And we are the inheritors of that work and that’s why I believe it should be remembered and celebrated.
Q This policy convention is about looking at ideas for the next election. Eliminating the carbon tax is one of the priorities being discussed. But to attract potential new voters, do you need something more detailed to respond to climate change? Are you developing such a policy?
A Yes and yes. Absolutely. It’s very clear that, look, we want to leave a better environment to ... Canadians. Conservatives have a great record on that, being conservationists, bringing in meaningful new regulations for wastewater. And then in helping cities upgrade their infrastructure so that they can clean up the water before it goes into our rivers, lakes, and here in Halifax, it’s a great example, into the harbour. So we are working on that.
Q As prime minister, if you had to work out a deal on NAFTA, and supply management were the last piece of the puzzle for President Trump, would you put that on the table? A I’ve made it very clear. I support supply management and I don’t believe that that is a situation we need to be in. The Conservative government in the past, when the free trade agreement was originally signed with the United States, was to preserve and protect NAFTA. And I think some of the things that are lost in this conversation is the vast myriad of support systems that the U.S. has for their own producers. That’s not part of this conversation. So everything from floor prices to their own quota system, in many, many states, as well as the U.S. farm bill.
Q Are you still working on your policy to remove funding from universities that don’t protect free speech? A Absolutely, and we’ve had some initial conversations as a team. A short while ago I had a meeting with university administrators to talk about how the framework could be built around that. I think it’s incredibly important and more and more people are telling me that they go through their undergraduate or even graduate studies, that they’re concerned by the trend that’s going on on campus with some speakers being disinvited or campus clubs not being recognized just because of a different perspective on things. So yes, we want to do it in a way that’s
respectful of the dynamics that universities face where they do have some legitimate concerns on how to manage protesters and backlashes but at the same time not allowing those people to have a veto. Because that’s not the right answer either. And also building in some way to evaluate what that framework would look like to see an isolated incident with one person at a university does not equal an entire mindset at that university.
Q How do you feel about the fact that the party is still debating abortion even though it’s electorally a very difficult issue that you’ve said that you don’t want to reopen? A Well absolutely, and in that sense my position continues. I said when I launched my leadership campaign that I will never introduce legislation, a government led by me as prime minister would not introduce legislation on this. It divides our caucus. We have a wide variety of views within our own parliamentary caucus, within our membership. And my goal, my focus, the way we win and not just the way we win but the way we offer good government to Canadians is to focus on issues that unite us. So that will always be the position of the party that I lead and it will always be the position of the caucus that I lead.
Q On foreign policy, should Canada move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? A We would absolutely recognize the capital of Israel as being Jerusalem. It’s recognizing a fact that has existed for a very long time.
Q But would you move the embassy? A When I announced that policy it did include that in consultation and in cooperation with the Israeli government that that would be the goal to work for. Obviously there are some sensitivities on the ground and we wouldn’t want to be insensitive to that, but obviously when you recognize a city as a capital that’s what you work towards.
Q One more question on the policies being proposed this weekend. There’s a resolution to stop the birthright citizenship program for Canada. Do you think that’s a good idea? Would you study that or implement that as prime minister? A We’ ll take a look and see what comes through it, but anything we do on this type of thing has to recognize that there’s not a one-sizefits-all approach to some of the issues in managing our immigration system and new Canadians. We want to make very sure that this doesn’t in any way preclude the ability for people who have come here who have not yet got their citizenship, who have children here, we don’t want that to be jeopardized. People who have come here are obviously going to be here, they’re permanent residents or they’re here on a pathway to citizenship. That’s why some of these things, you know, as they come through a policy process here at convention, often have to be addressed in light of the law, court rulings and what our government’s position will be on managing the immigration system. So I think it’s a little too early to speak precisely on this, but we certainly don’t want to do anything that would not be reflective of the balance that needs to be achieved on some of these issues.
Q You gonna try smoking pot again when it’s legal? A (Laughter) No. This interview was edited for length.