Conservatism is hurt as individualism is curbed
Conservatives must be able to argue, debate, discuss and disagree, says Steven Fletcher.
The deadline to enter the race has now passed, and we know who is vying to become the next leader of the Conservative party. Whoever wins, he or she must support a fundamental concept.
That is the concept of the individual — be it individual Canadians, individual party members or individual caucus members. The “collective” mentality of the recent reincarnation of the Conservative Party of Canada needs to morph into a party based on individualism.
It is disingenuous and wrong to force members of the party to act like happy-go-lucky monoliths, singing Kumbaya in glorious harmony. Since when have Conservatives in Canada had a successful election by employing groupthink?
In the modern Canadian context, Conservative caucus members must argue, debate, discuss, disagree and be respectful of ideas and each other. If not, the party has a collective mind, not a conservative one.
Conservatives need the chaos of ideas in order to thrive. An outlier MP or individual can become the mainstream leader on any issue.
Here are four examples the next leader should learn from:
■ A former colleague and friend recently revealed that he was punished by party leadership for his position on liberalizing the laws around marijuana. MP Scott Reid, seven times elected, lost a coveted shadow minister position because he had a different point of view from the leader on marijuana.
A lot of Canadians agreed with Reid’s position (I was not one of them). However, I did support his right to this position. In fact, he educated me on how the cannabis industry could bring great economic benefits to the riding he represents.
■ Maxime Bernier quit the Conservative party an hour before the caucus kicked him out. Bernier had come within a rounding error of being leader of the Conservative
party. But rather than allow some diverse thought on important issues, Conservative MPs feared anyone speaking contrary to the collective consensus.
Bernier had a different position on supply management and the Paris climate accord. A lot of people have problems with both issues, for a lot of valid reasons. But he was gone for a thought crime.
■ Brad Trost, a four-term MP and fourth-place finisher in the federal Conservative leadership race, was driven out for being too socially conservative. This is ironic, given that the same people who tossed him completely fumbled issues considered to be socially conservative during the election.
Trost is genuine, we know where he stands, and he makes strong arguments. (I do not share many of his well-known views.) People such as him make the Conservative party stronger in many ways, including providing a “social conservative” point of view. It forces those of us who may not share that point of view to understand, in a more fundamental way, why we disagree.
If you cannot talk about public policy and social issues in Parliament, where else are these issues to be raised? Is debate not the whole point of Parliament? (Besides taxing us and spending our money).
■ After being swept out as an MP in the 2015 election, I was denied the opportunity to even run for a nomination for the federal Conservative party in 2018. It was revenge for my advocacy of endof-life choice, including medical assistance in dying.
As an MP, I introduced two pieces of legislation to help the right-to-die movement in Canada. No recognized political party supported my legislation. The issue is a big deal for those people who find themselves in terrible circumstances over their right to choose how and when they die.
The issue was opposed by the vast majority of MPs, who did not want to discuss it publicly. In hindsight, they may look a little foolish as the intent of my legislation is now the law of the land, thanks to a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
To Stephen Harper’s credit, he in no way hampered my introduction of the bills — presumably on the basis of freedom of thought and speech. Contrast this leadership quality with the most recent Conservative leader and we can see why the movement in Canada is fracturing.
One more example, on the economy and taxes:
I became a provincial MLA in Manitoba six months after the federal election of 2015. As an MLA, I was the only elected politician in Manitoba at any level of government to speak out against a ridiculous carbon-pricing plan introduced by the provincial Conservative government (not the federal Liberal government).
This made-in-Manitoba plan made no sense in the Manitoba context. But rather than stand with me on principle and good public policy, or against a plan which undermined the entire federal conservative argument on carbon pricing, the federal Conservatives remained quiet, not a word even from the Manitoba MPs. Manitoba’s premier eventually flip-flopped, but the tag “team” of the federal and provincial conservatives had undermined the first principles of those who support them.
Critical thinking and experience in a leader’s office is important. Conservatives should not hide on difficult issues. Scott Reid had a more libertarian view on marijuana. Maxime Bernier wanted more freedom in the marketplace. Brad Trost presented views held by many Canadians. I wanted to empower individuals to be the master of their own fates until the very end.
In each case, the insecure federal or provincial Conservatives displaced or removed these well-intentioned individuals.
To outlaw independence and individuals will tear apart the united Conservative movement, created by Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay, who is now in the running to succeed him. Hopefully, the new Conservative leader will be secure enough in his or her own skin to allow others to live in theirs.
The Conservative party needs to show respect for the individual voter and the individual party member. Otherwise, the party will be just another collective.
Steven Fletcher served in the federal cabinet for five years and as an MP for four terms. He was the minister of state for democratic reform and minister of state for transport. He is part of the leadership team of
Critical thinking ... in a leader’s office is important. Conservatives should not hide on difficult issues.