The populist, the multiculturalist and the member of the elite

There was no shortage of intimate revelations Wednesday evening at the first official debate of the Conservative Party leadership race.

We learned about the musical tastes, the bedside readings and the favorite TV series of the candidates. Unfortunately, time passed before it was known which was a toast or cereal bowl type.

But despite the sometimes bizarre questions and the format which stifled the exchanges, the debate made it possible to better know the six contenders. Three have a reasonable chance of winning: Patrick Brown, Jean Charest and the presumed point guard, Pierre Poilievre. And between them, the contrast is striking.

Party members have a real choice, and it will be important. After three victories, the Liberals are worn out by power. The winner of this race could become prime minister.

The confrontation is between a populist, a multiculturalist and a member of the elite.

The populist, Pierre Poilievre, showed two sides of himself.

The worst caught the eye. He accuses the Trudeau government and the Bank of Canada of having provoked (” setup ”) a debt crisis. As if their secret plan was to intentionally harm Canadians, out of sadism, I presume. After recently calling Bank Governor Tiff Macklem a “financial illiterate,” he promised to fire him.

His mandate must last until 2027, and he cannot be removed arbitrarily. How would Mr. Poilievre proceed? He does not say it. It’s dangerous. If our monetary policy obeys the unpredictable whims of the ruling party, investors will go elsewhere. And contrary to what Mr. Poilievre claims, speculating on bitcoin, which has lost 20% of its value for the past month, is not a recommendable method of protecting against inflation.

Mr. Poilievre loves slogans. His sentences are short and they rhyme. But on certain subjects, he showed astonishing wisdom. He does not want to abolish supply management – ​​compensating farmers would be too expensive. It would increase the budget for the Armed Forces, without, however, aiming for the NATO target of 2% of GDP – that would widen the deficit and, in any case, the bureaucracy prevents the entire envelope from being spent. Nor would he advocate a flight ban over Ukrainian territory – that would cause an escalation with Russia.

Mr. Poilievre knows his promises could haunt him in office, so he is careful not to toss around unworkable ideas. Sometimes, at least.

Here is a man with a little devil on his shoulder arguing with his conscience.

Patrick Brown has no position on supply management. He would agree to engage NATO in an air war in Ukraine. He pledges to adopt each of the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and adds that this would help build new pipelines, assuming that First Nations will support them.

The Trudeau government will beat its record by welcoming more than 400,000 immigrants per year. Mr. Brown is the only one to offer more. According to him, this would be necessary to combat the labor shortage. However, several economists have shown that a general increase in the number of new arrivals would have a very weak effect*.

Mr. Brown woos religious minorities. He travels the country to meet them in their places of worship, speaking to them as believers rather than citizens, hoping for a community vote from them. During the debate, he summed up his plan as follows: to create “a multi-religious and multi-cultural coalition”. Even before the campaign, he wanted to use Ontarians’ public funds to attack the Caquiste law on religious symbols.

He tried to portray Mr Poilievre as a racist, referring to his “discriminatory policies”. True, the Alberta MP has already insulted the First Nations by asking them to value the effort… But Mr. Poilievre is not xenophobic. Although he shares Donald Trump’s taste for angry sophistry, he practices another style of populism.

Jean Charest presents himself as the best placed to reconcile the Prairies with the rest of Canada. This is a strategy that would be more appropriate for a general election than for a Conservative leadership race. It is not the undecided and disappointed Liberals who will elect the next Conservative leader.

To win, Mr. Charest will need to sell a spectacular number of membership cards to people who will vote for him. Because within the party, the wind rises against the elites, and it blows against its face.

Mr. Charest has tried to put forward concrete ideas, such as capital participation by First Nations in natural resource projects or the opening of two military bases in the Arctic. He relies on his experience, but it is also his weakness. His record as Prime Minister forces him to make laborious contortions. If we confined people during the pandemic, it is because of the fragility of the health network, he laments. Except that after a decade at the head of Quebec, he bears at least a small part of the responsibility. His new solution is to modify the Canada Health Act to give more privacy.

He attacked Mr. Poilievre for the ambiguity of his position on abortion. In fact, it is clear. The member from Ontario is pro-choice. His government would not touch abortion. It would allow members to introduce a bill, but it would not pass it.

Mr. Charest is a formidable debater, but Mr. Poilievre is just as much. Judge for yourself.

After urging Stephen Harper in 2009 to become a climate leader, Charest now promises to champion fossil fuels and ease the Liberals’ carbon pricing. According to him, this can be done while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How ? He simply mentioned nuclear energy, biofuels, hydrogen and carbon capture. We will have to wait for the details.

In the Conservative Party, no one will blame him. Each candidate has the same strategy: propose more oil, gas and pipelines, then finish their sentence by speaking more and more quickly and less and less loudly, with an agreed formula like “and we are going to do it with respect for the environment of course”…

On this subject at least, among the Conservatives, unity reigns.