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.

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.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race, scheduled to conclude in May 2017, is off to an inauspicious start. Between fights in the name of “Canadian values” and hot takes on same-sex marriage, the candidates appear to be competing to see who can advocate the most regressive policies, with a few notable exceptions.

This takes a look at the five frontrunners—Kellie Leatch, Brad Trost, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong and Lisa Raitt—and their respective proposals for immigration, social issues, the environment and the economy.

Kellie Leitch

Leitch’s signature proposal is “screening immigrants, refugees, and visitors for anti-Canadian values.” Her website boasts, “Kellie is the only candidate who will ensure that those coming to Canada believe in the equality of women, freedom of religion, and equality under law,” but is short on details on how she plans to achieve this.

According to a recent interview with Toronto Life, the Simcoe Grey MP opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana, supports gay marriage, and identifies as anti-abortion.

She vows to repeal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national carbon tax if elected, insisting that carbon pricing should be left to the provinces.

Leitch vows to balance the budget by instituting a cap on government spending. Her website hints at mass privatization when it says that the government must “find new ways to get things done—new ways that don’t involve increasing taxes or borrowing money.”

Brad Trost

Though critical of Leitch’s vague “Canadian values” test, Trost (Saskatoon-University) said in an emailed statement that he wants to distinguish between immigrants who “Choose Canada” for its values and those who “Use Canada” for its public services.

Trost is staunchly opposed to gay marriage, wants “legislation to protect pre-born victims of crime,” and supports tough on crime legislation. “Catch and release is great for fishing, but not so great for criminals,” he said.

“I don’t think the uncertain science around climate change should be leveraged to force producers to leave oil and gas and coal in the ground,” he wrote, contending that the negative of job losses from reducing fossil fuel dependence outweigh the positives.

Trost aims “to keep corporate and income taxes LOW (sic),” which he said would be his main priority as prime minister.

Maxime Bernier

Bernier “plans to make an announcement on immigration later in the campaign,” says spokesman Maxime Hupe.

The Beauce, Que. MP supported the removal of the party’s “definition of marriage as being the union between a man and a woman” at its May 2016 policy convention in Vancouver, according to his website.

However, he vowed to reopen the abortion debate if party members request it, allowing a free vote. This is despite the vehemently anti-abortion Campaign Life Coalition rating him as consistently pro-abortion and therefore “not supportable.”

“Our prosperity is, and will remain for decades to come, dependent on fossil fuels to a large extent,” his website reads. He calls advocates of national carbon taxation “extremist green activists” who “want to see their standard of living significantly reduced to contribute in a negligible way to the global fight against climate change.”

Bernier advocates leaving the issue of carbon taxation up to the provinces and allowing the private sector to develop green energy of its own accord.

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Bernier called for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 10 per cent from 15 percent and the outright abolition of capital gains taxes.

Michael Chong

Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills) seeks to maintain the status quo on immigration, noting in a statement that immigrants and refugees are already “screened for criminality, war crimes, terrorism, health, and economic reasons.” Leitch’s proposal to vet newcomers for “Canadian values” is thus “not workable.”

He also vows not to “reopen divisive social issues,” namely those that have already been decided by Parliament, like abortion, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide.

An outlier amongst the leadership candidates, Chong advocates a carbon tax, albeit one that is revenue neutral, to discourage fossil fuel consumption and reach the international target for emission reductions by 2030. 

To make up for the carbon tax, Chong vows to slash personal income taxes by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.

Lisa Raitt

The Campaign Life Coalition rates Raitt as “unsupportable” due to her participation in the 2016 Toronto Pride parade and pro-abortion voting record. However, the group notes her opposition to assisted suicide, which she attributes to her Catholic faith.

In parliament, she vocally opposed the federal Liberals’ carbon taxation plan, advocating corporate solutions to what she acknowledges as the reality of man-made climate change.

During the party’s November leadership debate in Saskatoon, Raitt hinted at a reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers as a central tenet of her fiscal policies.

As the most recent addition to the leadership race, the Milton MP has yet to outline specific proposals on most issues, nor did her office respond to requests for comment. 

All the papers last week were abuzz about an op-ed written by now-backbench Conservative MP Maxime Bernier. Writing how climate change is an unsure thing indeed, he said his party was on the right track by playing it cool in Copenhagen.

He was roundly criticized by Canadian media and bloggers. Globe contributor Robert Silver called him Canada’s Sarah Palin. The National Post’s article on the matter began with Environment Minister Jim Prentice stating that the Harper government did not share Bernier’s skeptical position on the science. And Sun Media writer Lorrie Goldstein’s article, Mad Max makes sense on climate change, stated: “The good news is Harper is better on climate change than the opposition parties. The bad news is, that’s not saying much.”

Wait a minute. Harper not strong enough on climate change? Sounds like something we’ve been saying for a while.

Goldstein, however, thinks he hasn’t rejected climate change enough. Even believing in the evidence is too much.
But that’s okay, who reads the Sun anyway?

Oh right, lots of people.

Sun Media Corp. is Canada’s largest newspaper publisher, having eaten up dozens of mainstream dailies and hundreds of other community papers. It reaches over 10 million Canadians.

Bernier’s view was echoed by Conservative bloggers and comments in online articles. There was significant talk of Bernier setting up a future leadership run for the Conservative Party.

Move over to provincial politics and Ontario’s Conservatives have already chosen their Bernier. Leader Tim Hudak, elected last year, is a right-winger through and through. The Party’s environmental platform is perhaps yet to be hashed out for the next election, but there are rumours that the Green Energy Act—a new staple of support for renewable energy projects in the province—might be something Hudak would repeal.

This would be made politically salable by the unexpectedly strong pressure from supposed grassroots organization, Wind Concerns Ontario, which has branches in towns across the province. Hundreds come out to environmental assessment meetings to oppose wind establishment in their areas. These people are finding a friend in Tim Hudak.

Similarly, the Ontario Landowners Association is one to watch. The organization is another collection of rural groups from across the province with a membership 15,000 strong who support policies that may appear radical or American to their urban friends. And though some are good stewards of their land, they may not be interested in hearing about climate policy.

Although Randy Hillier, first president of the Association, lost soundly to Hudak in the Party’s leadership bid, its strong anti-Liberal message of rural land rights and ability to bus people to meetings may give Hudak the desire to lean on it in the next election. Having been in a room of rural Ontarians during a presentation by climate change skeptic Patrick Moore, I know that there is a widespread desire to hear and believe in the other side.

Drilling down one more level to municipal politics, Rocco Rossi, former National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada and inner-circle advisor to Michael Ignattieff has thrown his hat in the ring for Toronto Mayor, promising to ditch bike lanes and pause the city’s ambitious transit plan. After having taken Al Gore’s climate presentation training, this so-called “liberal” is looking to plan a city without the critical infrastructure necessary to support a safer method of travel for both cyclists and drivers, ditching a key urban carbon reduction measure.

But could it work for him? With commuting cyclists currently making up a very small proportion of residents, a move to make driving even appear more convenient, in a time when traffic jams clog Toronto morning streets, might be politically expedient in many Toronto neighbourhoods.

The United States is undergoing a strong movement of its far-right known as the Tea Party, described in a weekend article by Frank Rich. Rich warns to take the group seriously. The Tea Party has got people in the U.S. talking, and its mainstream conservative party getting nervous.

American writer Chris Hedges gives his answer to the movement and the weakness of Barack Obama (at Copenhagen and beyond), in a piece yesterday stating that the progressive left and the Democrats have succumbed to cowardice and have lost their energy. He urges a move back to third parties on the left, suggesting that a credible alternative to the state of the economy and society is what is most needed to bring the public onside, not liberals talking about policy all the time.

And so in the rural revolution and climate change deniers and their supportive media and blogs, Canadians may have our version of the Tea Party. While Americans, politics may be their hockey at the moment, we too may soon have an excited right which could pit itself against climate progress at a level that even Stephen Harper won’t touch. And whether that means bringing rural landowners in for climate consultation or starting a socialist revolution, it sounds like something worth planning for.