While it’s been clear since the May leadership contest that conflicts between Bernier and Scheer persisted—with Bernier removed from the CPC shadow cabinet for publicly challenging the party on supply management in Canada’s dairy sector—this move came as a surprise given that it coincided with the start of the party’s policy convention.

Bernier made his move to maximize both media coverage and pressure on his former party, one he’s accused of “abandoning” Canadian conservatives. The question now is just how effective Bernier’s new party will be, and, if it can find success in time for the 2019 election, how will it affect the CPC and wider federal politics?

Bernier’s new party has potential, if for no other reason than he won more than 49 per cent support in the 2017 leadership contest, meaning that many Canadian conservatives are sympathetic to Bernier’s vision for Canada.

Caucus support?

But there’s no real sense if Bernier has support from key influencers in the CPC. Indeed, Bernier said in his departure news conference that he had not discussed his move with his caucus mates. This doesn’t mean failure is inevitable, but it may be that, however popular Bernier is with segments of the Conservative electorate, he won’t have the institutional muscle to launch a viable party, especially so quickly.

Furthermore, it’s not yet clear just what sort of platform Bernier will offer to Canadians.

In 2017, Conservatives looked to Bernier as the libertarian candidate who ostensibly fit the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” archetype. During that campaign, when hopefuls like Kellie Leitch and Brad Trost made staunch pitches to social conservatives, Bernier highlighted economic issues, namely limiting government intervention.

If this is the basis of his new party, he may well pull support from his leadership backers, as well as right-leaning Liberals who can’t stomach Conservative social policy.

Nonetheless in recent months, Bernier has merged his laissez-faire economics with an approach to cultural and social issues that aligns him much more explicitly with the far right than he did during the 2017 contest.

Most recently and notably, he has become a high-profile critic of what he called the Liberal government’s “extreme” approach to multiculturalism and diversity, which supposedly puts at risk the sanctity and meaning of Canadian identity.

Bernier has intertwined this with his anti-government ideology, saying that the Liberal approach to diversity creates little tribes that “become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges.”

What will his platform be?

In a sense, Bernier is keeping many of his libertarian policies while making an overture to those Canadians wary of diversity, immigration and multiculturalism. The question is: Can he convincingly combine these beliefs into a coherent policy suite that appeals to Canadians, or will he end up with a platform that pleases no one sufficiently to win any significant support?

But with all this in mind, let’s say Bernier wins meaningful support in 2019. What will the potential impact be?

In short, the conventional narrative is that this is a boon to Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Before this split, the CBC poll tracker had the Liberals and Conservatives nearly tied in the popular vote, but with the Liberals’ vote efficiency putting them on the precipice of another majority government.

Even if Bernier’s new party wins just five per cent of the electorate in 2019, and a majority of that comes from current CPC voters, it will benefit the Liberals (as well as the New Democrats, to a lesser extent, in some regions where they run second to the CPC).

So if one identifies as an anything-but-Conservative voter, Bernier’s move could be welcome news. The risk, however, is that while a more stridently conservative party led by Bernier will feud with Scheer’s CPC, it may also incubate experimental right-wing ideas that could be eventually incorporated into the CPC’s platform.

Poaching ideas

Such a scenario would be reminiscent of when the New Democrats have championed progressive social and economic ideas like pharmacare before they gained mainstream acceptance, but in so doing gave legitimacy to the ideas, which were then poached by the Liberals.

It isn’t inconceivable that Bernier’s new party could fuel attacks on things like Medicare and multiculturalism, which may allow the CPC to take up those ideas, even just partially, and appear as relatively moderate to the electorate in doing so.

Ultimately, we have no real sense of how Bernier’s plan will unfold, or if it will find even modest success. History tells us that the vast majority of political parties in Canada fail due to our first-past-the-post system. Indeed, only three federal parties have official party status right now; two with roots back to Confederation and one with roots in the Great Depression.

But don’t count Mad Max out. If politics has taught us anything over the past few years, it’s that the impossible is a lot more likely than we’ve previously thought.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

As the results of the 13th ballot of the Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race were read on May 27, 2017, Maxime Bernier faced the podium stoically, waiting to hear his name called. The Quebec MP was a longtime frontrunner in the race, and as ballots rolled in that afternoon, his chances of becoming the Leader of the Opposition were high. His opponent, Andrew Scheer, sat across the aisle. Then, the announcer began: “And the next leader, of the Conservative Party of Canada, with 51 percent of the vote…” There was a dramatic pause. Scheer responded with a pursed oooh, looking toward his wife. Bernier continued to stare forward, blinking, his face resolute.

The second announcer continued. “Le prochain chef, Andrew Scheer.” A smiling Scheer embraced his wife. Bernier smiled. He had found himself the Hillary Clinton of the CPC—losing to the young upstart. At 38, Scheer was named the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada—a job previously filled for more than a decade by the impervious Stephen Harper.

But when the results came in that evening, I thought to myself: Who the f&%$ is Andrew Scheer?

I’m not the only one asking this question. As a host of Canadaland’s politics podcast “Commons,” I stood with a recorder and camera alongside my producer in Toronto’s Eaton Centre just two weeks earlier in an attempt to ask questions about the upcoming leadership race. Those who stopped were largely unaware of who the candidates were, let alone what they stood for. Not a single person who stopped mentioned Scheer when asked to name potential candidates.

Scheer was the dark horse, or rather, chubby-cheeked dappled pony who rose out of the ashes of Kevin O’Leary’s withdrawal to win the derby. Midway through the race, Scheer was so far off the radar that This’s own December 2016 roundup of frontrunners failed to include him.

There were signs of change in the spring, by which Scheer had asserted a spot as a third-place option behind O’Leary and Bernier, albeit a more distant one. Polls repeatedly put Scheer in this position, with a March 8 Mainstreet poll slotting O’Leary and Bernier in the lead and Scheer trailing by more than 10 percent. A week later, The Hill Times, an independent politics and government newsweekly, listed Bernier, O’Leary, and Scheer as the top contenders, noting them as the first and second choices of several conservative insiders. Scheer, it appeared, was the “next best option” for many. In April 2017, the Winnipeg Free Press noted that Scheer had the support of several MPs but was lagging support from where it counted: from the party members who would be voting. But by the vote in May, Scheer had a clear path to victory. In the first round, the smiling candidate had 21.82 percent support on the first ballot—just seven points away from Bernier. Scheer edged past him on the 13th round by a mere 1.9 percent—despite being the first choice of fewer people in the ranked ballot system.

The youngest of the leadership candidates, Scheer and his ascension to the position of CPC top dog seems rather unremarkable when compared to the path of his predecessor. Like Harper, Scheer held no cabinet positions prior to his election as party leader (though he served much longer than Harper did before he became party leader). But while Harper had been lauded as a prominent player during his time as part of the Reform Party, Scheer has remained under the radar as Speaker of the House of Commons. It’s a role he has held since 2011, focusing on presiding over debates rather than participating in them, unable to vote unless there was a tie that needed breaking.

By all accounts, Scheer is the quintessential aw-shucks white guy—a church-going family man well-liked by the members of his party. He smiles all the time. He’s a safe choice for the Conservatives; he’s not going to post red pill memes on Twitter, like Bernier, or take selfies with joggers, like Justin Trudeau. Instead, he’s going to show up in a blue plaid shirt and a cowboy hat at the Harvest Hills Alliance Church pancake breakfast. His working-class, son-of-a-deacon background will surely be used as a foil to Trudeau’s perfectly coifed, Vogue magazine-appearing, son-of-a-prime-minister elitism.

Going into the race, the CPC wanted to be armed and ready for a fight. But it’s not clear what kind of a fighter the Conservatives have served up in the blue-eyed boy from Regina. Certainly, he doesn’t appear to possess any new weaponry, nothing we haven’t seen before in a more strident form in Harper—the same man who was voted out of power on the promise of the cleansing tide of Trudeau’s sunny ways and change. Scheer seems like weaker sauce, a mild-flavoured alfredo holding the pale noodles of the various CPC factions together. And it’s not clear that this sauce—this “Harper with a smile”—is the right choice for what lies ahead.

***

Originally from Ottawa, Scheer was first elected to public office as an MP in the riding of Regina-Qu’Appelle, Sask., in 2004. He was just 25, having moved there only two years before. He narrowly defeated longstanding NDP MP Lorne Nystrom in an election that saw the NDP routed, winning 19 seats nationally but losing all seats in Saskatchewan. Scheer was not well known, though he was involved in politics as a teenager volunteering for the Reform party. In 2006, Scheer was appointed one of three Deputy Speakers. Five years later, he won the election for Speaker of the House of Commons; he was the youngest person to ever hold the position. By 2015, he was appointed Opposition House Leader, a role he held until he threw his hat into the Conservative leadership race.

Throughout his campaign, Scheer positioned himself as a consensus candidate focused on the issues uniting conservatives. But his policies were curt and underdeveloped: The plan for ISIS was to “ensure we are doing all we can,” and the budget would be balanced by “reduc[ing] spending across government and focus[ing] on making sure money is spent more efficiently.” Still, the tagline on his site read, “Andrew will unify Conservatives to defeat Trudeau in 2019.”

And Scheer has plenty of people to unite. There are the populist Kellie Leitch fans, a small but loud and grumbling far-right faction. The social conservatives, such as Brad Trost and Pierre Lemieux, want to push religious right social policies. The libertarians, and the centrist Red Tories, are still kicking. But for all his talk about unifying, it’s unclear what Scheer will choose to unify his party around. He has yet to define “conservative values.” When he speaks of bringing all conservatives under a “big party tent,” what will that tent hold?

Right now, it is even hard for the average Canadian to know what Scheer stands for. At the time of publication, his website is completely devoid of any content other than a “thank-you” and a link to the CPC fundraising page, his 26 policy positions previously outlined wiped. Of those positions, he seems only to parrot the anti-Trudeau sentiment of former interim leader Rona Ambrose and the ideas of his mentor: a focus on taxation and savings, like home energy; an emphasis on forestry, gas, and oil; scrapping the Carbon Tax; a balanced budget in two years; and some focus on the family views of the future. Conservatives are generally united on these basic fiscal and economic policies, and Scheer’s rallying call around these “consensus ideas” is a safe bet as new leader.

It seems clear that Scheer will stay far away from hot-button social conservative topics, despite his clear social conservative voting record. A practising Roman Catholic and son of a deacon, he voted and spoke out against same-sex marriage and personally opposes abortion in 2005. Later, in 2016, he voted against adding gender identity and gender expression to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. But Scheer manages to do an awkward jig around these topics. Shortly after announcing his leadership campaign, he appeared on CBC’s Power & Politics; when asked whether he would promote and defend same-sex marriage, Scheer danced around the question like the artful dodger, responding that it was “the law of the land.” When asked directly if he supported it, Scheer stuttered and stammered some nonsensical words before admitting that he had his own personal beliefs and faith background. He reluctantly added that to build a national, viable coalition, he wouldn’t revisit the debate.

Fiscal policies, meanwhile, weren’t enough for Harper to win another majority and weather crises related to social issues. Harper’s fight against the wearing of niqab to citizenship ceremonies, for instance, backfired in his 2015 campaign. And it’s hard to think that Scheer can or will avoid social issues and debates of morality when many of the candidates for the Conservative leadership made it a race about these very issues. His closeness with far-right publication the Rebel, Ezra Levant’s merry band of bandits—a site that Scheer has granted several interviews to—is troubling. His comments on withholding funding from universities that don’t foster a climate of “free speech,” a hot button social issue, directly contradicts that principle.

Instead of dwelling on these social positions, Scheer has tried focusing on positivity. “I’ve always thought that it’s much more effective for all kinds of Conservatives—but especially social conservatives—to talk about the things that we’re for in a much more positive way,” he told Christian outlet Lighthouse News in May. But if party unity is channelled into a single-minded focus on defeating and attacking Trudeau, this positivity may go out the window.

Scheer’s social issues polka will present a major challenge in his search for unity—and for a long-term vision for the party. As our populace ages, the “old-stock Canadians” who vote Tory are being replaced with a younger, more diverse, left-leaning populace who care about these issues. To have any sense of longevity, the Conservative party must grow to come up with fresh ideas that appeal to a range of Canadians, and in particular, younger demographics. Because the youth are coming: While voters in the 65-74 age bracket had the highest participation rate in the 2015 election, voter turnout in the 18-24 age bracket increased by 18.3 percentage points, and those 25-34 increased by 12.3 percent. These Canadians and newcomers to our country face a set of different problems from the bread and butter of the old Conservative base. The election of the Liberal party in 2015 showed that the Harper ways couldn’t stand up to Trudeau’s promise of change. It is the Conservatives, not the Liberals, who are painted as out of touch, despite what the CPC press releases may say.

In choosing Scheer, a renewal seems difficult. A social conservative policy focus would be a bad strategy, out of touch with most Canadians. The people—at the very least, the young people poised to inherit the nation—want change. The Conservatives had an ever-so-slight glimmer of hope during this year’s leadership race, in the fresher ideas of a Bernier or Michael Chong; ideas that sounded different from the party of old and might have appealed to a broader swath of Canadians with a move toward a fiscally conservative, socially liberal small-c conservatism. But with Scheer, staying the Harper course does not look like the reinvigoration that they desperately need.

Deepak Obhrai’s French made a lacklustre appearance at the January 17 debate in Quebec City, featuring a lot of finger-stabbing, repetition of poorly pronounced words (“bonsoir, bonsoir, bonsoir”), and using the Englishequivalent of “pea” (pois) instead of “dot” (point) while announcing his website address. Following the debate, French language experts at CBC promptly gave Obhrai a failing grade for his attempts.

Kellie Leitch released her “Screening for Canadian Values” video in February—and had Twitter in an uproar. Some even speculated that the countless cutaways and over-dramatic pauses were signs that Leitch was actually being held hostage.

Will you choose the red pill like @Dfildebrandt ? #cdnpoli #ableg pic.twitter.com/m2cjwbo4v7

— Maxime Bernier ?? (@MaximeBernier) March 6, 2017

In March, Maxime Bernier tweeted a Photoshopped image of himself as Morpheus from The Matrix, holding a red pill and a blue pill, suggesting his supporters are as enlightened as the film’s Neo. But, as many on Twitter pointed out, The Red Pill is also a men’s rights activism forum that describes itself as a “discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.” Maybe stick to the Mad Max memes in the future, Bernier.

On March 22, the Globe and Mail’s Leah McLaren wrote a column detailing her attempt at breastfeeding a stranger’s baby during a party 10 years ago, “just to see what it felt like.” That baby’s father turned out to be leadership hopeful Michael Chong, who called the situation “odd.” The Globe has since suspended McLaren and removed the column, though not before it could go viral. Many are now questioning the validity of McLaren’s story and wondering if #lacgate was a failed attempt at humour or simply “fake news.”

Photo courtesy of Rona Ambrose.

Not even interim party leaders are safe. In January 2017, Rona Ambrose took a Caribbean vacation on a billionaire’s yacht. At that same time her caucus, with her support, was calling for the ethics commissioner to investigate Justin Trudeau’s vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas.

Kevin O’Leary, the Boston-based former CBC personality said that if he were ever elected, he would make unions illegal. He is one of 14 people running to lead the Conservative Party of Canada.

This was presumably before he had a plan to enter politics. He has since told the Toronto Star that he didn’t really mean that. He’d negotiate with unions, not outlaw them.

Whether or not O’Leary was lying then, lying now, or has honestly had a change of heart about unions hardly matters. The Conservatives have had a hostile relationship with organized labour and it’s unlikely to change, regardless of who is elected.

Among the 14 candidates, there is a troubling convergence of policy and ideas. This is most evident when the candidates talk about the economy.

“The economy” is many things. It’s industry: resource extraction, construction, retail, agrifood, and banks. It’s health care and education. It’s public infrastructure, public service, the arts, and telecommunications. In capitalism, the economy is everything: from our access to food and shelter, to our individual sense of meaning and self-identity.

The economy is certainly a favoured discussion topic among right-wing politicians. But workers? Not so much.

The Conservative voting system requires candidates to have riding-by-riding support, not simple popular support. It’s a system that disadvantages the bombastic and populist rhetoric of candidates like O’Leary and Kellie Leitch, and helps candidates who have demonstrated national and consistent support.

One of those candidates is Andrew Scheer. Scheer is the former Speaker of the House and an Ontario transplant from Saskatchewn whose folksy downhomeyness is only outdone by rhetoric such as: “Our forest industry is currently under attack. Pressure groups like Greenpeace are threatening our forest industry by disseminating false information to clients of Canadian businesses operating in the forestry sector. Our forestry workers use the best practices in the world and we need to tell that story. We must fight back and defend ourselves.”

His plan to promote Canadian lumber includes demonstrating how workers cut down trees. He even says workers! But this is about as close as Scheer gets to talking about workers. Of his 14 featured policies at his website, none are about the economy. He wants even more free trade, but the details are thin. He opposes condemning Islamophobia and paradoxically supports more religious freedom.

Lisa Raitt, former Minister of Labour, promises to “create jobs for all Canadians” through a combination of lower taxes, smaller government, and more jobs in the extractive industries. Of course, smaller government will mean fewer jobs, but there’s no explanation or strategy to square that contradiction.

Erin O’Toole has promised to give young people who have finished a post-secondary degree or apprenticeship $100,000 in tax breaks before they turn 30. If they graduated in coding or engineering, the tax break increases to $200,000. It’s a program that would reward the rich: You can only get a tax break if you make enough money to be in a higher income bracket. A recently engineering graduate, who is most likely to be a man who makes $120,000, is going to benefit from a $200,000 tax break much more than a social worker who can barely crack $30,000.

Among the candidates, there is general agreement that the best way to stimulate Canada’s economy is through tax cuts. Every candidate is promising to lower taxes, with the most extreme position held by Rick Peterson. He vows to eliminate corporate income tax entirely. Peterson is a long-shot candidate, but has announced his intention to run in Montreal for the seat recently vacated by Stéphane Dion.

The connection between lower taxes and job creation is the subject of great debate. There is no clear line from one to the other, and Canadians should be worried that this stands in as the most prominent jobs policy.

Lower taxes mean less money for services and infrastructure paid by the federal government. There are ways to make up for this gap, like privatizing parts of the public system so that they are funded by user fees, but privatization schemes only benefit people with higher incomes. In a Canada with no corporate income tax, we would have $37.9 billion less for federal services and provincial transfer payments that pay for health care, education, and municipal services.

Conservatives argue that corporations would have more revenue and profit, and in theory, would hire more people. More people receiving a salary would then boost the purchasing power of individuals, who could then choose the private school or private hospital of their liking.

But the correlation between tax cuts and an improved labour market is suspect. David Doorey, labour law professor at York University, cautions his students from believing the argument that there’s a clear correlation: “The Tory assertion that corporate tax cuts ‘create jobs in Canada’ or ‘improve productivity’ is a not a fact, it is an assertion only, and a highly dubious one at that when the ‘evidence’ is reviewed.”

There is a crisis of ideas and debate within the Conservative Party—and the broad consensus that lower taxes are central to improving Canadians’ access to work signals that Conservatives are more interested in undoing the social security net of Canada than they are about strengthening it.