Jamie Sarkonak: Maple Leafs coach Sheldon Keefe signs

Nearly one year ago, the Conservative Party of Canada elected its new leader, Pierre Poilievre. The event preceding his coronation was lined with the favoured rituals of progressive politics; it opened with the singing of the national anthem, followed by a land acknowledgement noting the event’s location on unceded Algonquin territory and a four-minute Indigenous blessing.

One proposal would specify that the party constitution’s usage of “equality” refers to equal opportunities — not equal outcomes, which is the common progressive understanding of the term. Another such amendment would affirm “the existence of only one human race” as a nod to merit-based, race-neutral policy.

Numerous proposed changes to the policy book would take an anti-DEI stance in universities, workplaces and the public service. One suggests an accord between the feds and the provinces to ensure free speech is protected in the academe — a nice idea in theory, but what’s really needed is restrictions on federal grants to the ever-growing field of academic activism.

In workplaces generally, another proposal would reject any kind of “forced political, cultural or ideological” training. While this would be an improvement to the status quo, it would fall far short of paring back the ideological laws that encourage race-based hiring (specifically, the Employment Equity Act that normalized identity-based workplace policies in the first place).

“Those employed in the public sector, unions or self-regulated trades/professions should not be forced to make affirmations, or participate in ideological programs, as a condition of employment or practice,” reads the proposal.

Another policy change would spurn the new emphasis on identity by federal research funding agencies when it comes to handing out awards and hiring people. Instead, it would direct that merit be the primary driver of these choices. It’s a laudable first step, but more effective would be the revocation of funding for any grants awarded under the auspices of DEI.

On gender, the party is being asked to contemplate where it falls on expression, identity and biological sex. One policy would define “woman” in the policy book as “adult female” and affirm the right of women to single-sex spaces, such as in prisons, shelters, locker rooms, washrooms, sports, awards, grants and scholarships. Another would ban “altering medicinal or surgical interventions on minors under 18 to treat gender confusion or dysphoria.”

These proposals are a far cry from the party’s approach to gender and kids in 2021, which involved hastily supporting a conversion therapy ban through Parliament. That bill, notably, only banned the “conversion” of trans-identified children into their biological sex. It did not ban the “conversion” of children comfortable with their biological sex into being transgender.

Since then, other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom have cracked down on the trendy but scientifically questionable practice of unrestricted gender affirmation. Similarly, data on gender-neutral facilities have, at least in the U.K., shown to carry a significantly higher risk of violence.

On crime and urban decay, members are asking the party to formalize a tougher stance. One proposal seeks harsher punishment for pedophilia-related crimes (which could very easily be struck down by the courts, but the idea is nice). Another would have breaching parole conditions made into a crime — because it isn’t at present. Another demands stricter bail laws.

These approaches to crime are being paired with a push for treatment-focused addictions policies in the wake of the country’s rising opioid crisis. One policy proposal calls for a national addictions strategy. Another calls for treatment programs and “not to provide the person with easier access to drugs by drug consumption sites or decriminalizing drugs.”

In response to the threat of foreign interference, one policy proposal would ban military co-operation and research participation with China, while ending Chinese ownership in Canadian companies. More generally, a number of pro-military proposals will be debated: one seeks a change to the party constitution that would “promote a well-armed military;” one would have Canada try to join additional military alliances; and one calls for a national cybersecurity standard.

On a more positive note, a common theme that can be gleaned from other proposals is the desire of Canadians to build. One proposal asks for an Arctic naval base, while another seeks a Hudson Bay port. Others support high-speed passenger rail and the construction of more transport capacity to move product to port. Party members’ approach to energy, meanwhile, focuses on improving technology, rather than taxation) and researching carbon capture technology, battery-based storage and small modular reactors.

At this point, we can’t know what will and what won’t pass into the party’s constitution and policy book. But overall, the sampling of what’s on the table broadly reflects the issues of today.

Interestingly, the membership has less to say about affordability. One proposal, to assist Canadians navigating the housing shortage, would push for rental payment history to be factored into mortgage considerations. Another would cap capital gains taxes to a lifetime maximum of $1 million rather than having the 50 per cent rate follow everyone around for a lifetime (a move that, surely, would help make Canada more affordable for the rich at least). More reasonable is a suggestion to bump the floor for small business GST registration to $47,000 from the current $30,000.

Absent from the slate of proposals is family policy — something one might expect in a country that can no longer seem to sustain its population without immigration. One proposal supports the removal of GST from maternity and newborn expenses, but that’s about it.

Party members are mostly mum on family formation, but many proposals are being put forth to help seniors instead. Proposals call for a national senior strategy, for palliative care to be declared a right in the Canada Health Act, for increased benefits, tax credits and financial assistance and for income splitting of retirement income before age 65. One even calls for the elimination of income taxes for those aged 65 or older. Hungary, meanwhile, has instituted tax exemptions for large families and young mothers. With nearly no natural population growth, one might expect Conservatives to take a similar approach.

It’s great that the Conservatives are no longer ceding cultural policy to the Liberals. It’s also great that the party membership is looking to solve Canada’s problems by building out infrastructure while not caving to progressive dogmas on crime. It will be a victory if the party membership formally moves the needle on these issues in September — in the long term, though, a firm stance on cultural policy should be paired with a firm stance on supporting young families.