‘Values’ fight lets Trudeau off the hook
Afunny thing happened on the way to the Tory leadership race: The whole bustling, jostling field of contenders — which now includes Kellie Leitch, Tony Clement, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong, Deepak Obhrai and soon Andrew Scheer, but not Peter MacKay — forgot the nature of the fight they’re in, and who they’re fighting with. Hint: His initials are J.T.
Monday, even as one-time heir apparent MacKay bowed out and former speaker of the House of Commons Scheer prepared to bow in, Clement unveiled his 10-point plan to bolster Canada’s immigration, refugee and border security. Highlights included a promise to jail suspected would-be terrorists via an as-yet undefined judicial process, and a pledge to monitor every Canadian charity for signs of terrorist activity.
Liberal partisans greeted this, by and large, with strenuous eye-rolling. They should not. The broad strokes of Clement’s tough-on-terror stance will resonate with many of the “everyday Canadians” at whom it is aimed. Stripping dual citizens who attack this country of their Canadian citizenship, for example, is problematic, if it means they’re deported overseas where they might launch further attacks. But on Main Street many will agree with him.
Likewise, the values debate. Leitch, who thrust her party kicking and screaming back into the culture wars with her call to screen immigrants for “anti-Canadian values,” seems singularly unable to defend her position. Even so, a Main Street/Postmedia poll released Tuesday indicates the brouhaha has pushed her to the front rank of Tory leadership contenders. All it would take, in a general election, would be a reframing of the question to make it more broadly salable.
For example: Should prospective Canadian citizens, who are already introduced to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its various equality provisions, be required to study and then express comfort with the charter, informing the section of the oath of citizenship that reads “I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen”? The point is arguable, of course. But Liberals, who worship the charter, would find this tougher to dismiss.
Here’s the larger problem, and the reason why broaching these questions now has been a very bad move for the Conservatives: Timing, and context. For one thing, the wounds of last October’s defeat are still too fresh. The loss occurred at least partly because a debate over the Muslim veil, the niqab, distracted the Tories from their chosen ballot questions, the economy and security. For another, they’re fighting this culture battle among themselves, at a time when there’s little evidence of any broad public appetite for it.
Is there an obvious, pressing need for more rigorous screening of new arrivals to Canada? Well, no. The most recent notable influx has been of 25,000 Syrian refugees.
That has been handled, as the Liberals made clear when they unveiled the plan in the fall of 2015, with the most rigorous screening that could be devised. In an interview with CTV’s Evan Solomon last Sunday, Immigration Minister John McCallum made clear the government is still on the hunt for ideas to make the system more airtight. “If we could do it better, and make Canadians safer, we’d certainly look at that.” Translation: Any good Conservative ideas on security will be stolen and assimilated.
Meantime, no Conservative leadership candidate appears interested in tackling Justin Trudeau where he is weakest and their party is traditionally strongest — on trade and the war with Islamist terrorism, overseas.
Has a leadership candidate yet dissected the Liberal plan to put hundreds of soldiers in harm’s way somewhere in Africa, in an as-yet undefined mission? Where is the Conservative charge on the Liberal government’s collapsing effort to get a new oil pipeline approved, and the alternative plan to get it done? (In fairness to Bernier, he has staked out a clear position in favour of pipelines.) Where is the Tory leadership candidate with a compelling proposal to restart stalled bilateral free-trade talks with India and Japan, or push the Liberals off the fence on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Perhaps Scheer, said to be the early favourite of the party establishment, will raise the temperature. Party members will hope. But though he’s well known thanks to his former prominent job, Scheer has yet to distinguish himself in debate, speech or scrum, that I am aware of. And the man deemed by many to have had the best shot at unseating Trudeau in a general election, MacKay, stepped out Monday, citing family considerations. Some might translate this as: I don’t think we can win.
In sum, the state of play suggests a party preparing for a long stretch in opposition, not a return to power; while its would-be leaders, paradoxically, have not yet grasped what’s most essential to their new role, which is to oppose — not each other first and foremost, but the government. Parliament returns next week.