Hugh Segal is the Mathews Fellow in Global Public Policy at the Queen’s School of Policy Studies and senior adviser at Aird Berlis LLP. In 1998, he was runner-up on the first ballot of the Progressive Conservative leadership convention that chose Joe Clark. In 2005, he was appointed to the Senate and sat as a Conservative from Ontario.
Much like weddings and funerals in any family, leadership conventions can bring out the best or worst in folk. The coming Conservative leadership battle will be no different.
Part of what determines if the best or worst in us emerges is the disposition of the leadership candidates themselves, and their ability (or inability) to ensure the comportment and standards used by their campaigners, whether they be paid or volunteers.
This risk-management context is particularly acute because a minority Parliament, as Canada has now, can defeat a government at any time, and the prime minister can visit the governor-general to seek an election whenever it is clear there are not enough votes in the House of Commons to sustain parliamentary confidence.
That means there may not be the typical gap between a leadership convention and a general election, during which a new party leader would moderate whatever extreme things were said during a leadership campaign in order to win the support of the broader electorate. The oft-used approach of appealing to the entrenched base by indulging in the narrowest ideological excess would be a dangerous path for any candidate to choose. It would hurt the party intensely in the coming election.
For Conservatives, this means many things. Ad hominem attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or questions about his motivation, may feel good for some in the base. But the results of the last election underline how little wood it chops in the cities and major population centres.
Questioning the Prime Minister’s policies and choices is the legitimate role of the Opposition. But even that should be accompanied by alternate Conservative proposals: what they espouse, and why they would be better for Canada’s future.
Leadership candidates for the Conservative Party of Canada will need to showcase real, thought-out, policy directions with which to identify out of the starting gate. There’s a reason the Liberal Party has been the default choice for Canadians for most of our history; competence and policy credibility count.
For Conservative leadership candidates, the old game of personality, organization, money and networks – with as little policy as possible – is not good enough. The digital universe is constantly probing for weakness and substantive vacuums all the time.
Many of the self-proclaimed “organizational pros” often propose going policy-free, so as not to offend any potential supporter, often doing so while launching treacherous negative personal attacks against other leadership candidates, through friends in the press where possible.
Leadership candidates of character should and can set these low-ball tactics aside in favour of policy courage and a measure of civility. The Conservative Party has succeeded electorally when red Tories, blue Tories, socially conservative Tories, Quebec-“decentralizing” Tories and big-business Tories all get to be part of the family, with no single group ever allowed to win every argument.
The essential component of effective Conservative leadership is managing this diversity because it reflects large parts of Canadian society. They need to inspire hope and trust with balanced new policy priorities for a plurality of electors and win back progressives who abandoned the party when it no longer reflected their social values. Leaders like Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Lougheed, Davis and Harper did this as successful first ministers. Leaders who failed never had a chance.
There is immense need and room for new ideas and fresh thinking in a range of areas, including fiscal policy, federalism, equalization, immigration, defence and foreign aid, foreign policy, and reconciliation and reparations with First Nations. Conservative leadership candidates should be out front on these issues with policy ideas that reflect their views of Canada and its priorities. Ambition to becoming leader and prime minister is an important part of what energizes our democracy, but it is not enough.
Stating clearly why you want to be prime minister, and what you would like to change or conserve, should be as much of the needed table stakes for prospective party leaders as large financial deposits and a lengthy list of signed-up supporters. Canadians deserve no less, and they will remember if they get no more.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.