Howard Anglin: Canada needs an Opposition that will oppose

The jubilant reaction of my fellow Catholics to the first few days of new Pope Leo XIV’s tenure reminded me of something, but it wasn’t until I sat down to write this piece that I could place it. It is the same giddy relief I heard from the CBC political panel reacting to Mark Carney’s first press conference last week.

Habemus primum ministrum! And (God be praised!) he’s a real Liberal! Alleluia! 

The big winner in the federal election was the status quo, and that suited the CBC political panels—the journalists and the lobbyist-pundits—just fine. If they had any worries about the new government, they forgot to mention them. Their concern was all for the Opposition.

“Canadians don’t have time for fights in Parliament,” as Aaron Wherry approvingly described Carney’s message to general agreement. Tim Powers followed, assuring us that “Right now, Canadians don’t want the partisan nonsense, they don’t want what they lived through the last two years.” More agreement.

Rosie Barton summed up the general mood: “If Mr. Poilievre doesn’t see the way the prime minister is trying to be gracious and say we all need to work together…he runs the risk of hurting himself politically.” Vigorous agreement.

It was the same this week after Carney rolled out a continuity cabinet—what in real estate terms would be called a “sympathetic renovation” of a vintage Trudeau fixer-upper. CBC’s Power and Politics host David Cochrane seemed offended that Poilievre, after losing the election, would dare to criticise Carney’s cabinet choices.

With all due respect for the decorous civic sensibilities of the CBC panelists: get over yourselves. Oppositions oppose. The clue is in the name. Winston Churchill credited his father^{1The original saying is attributed to eighteenth century whig, George Tierney.} with advising him that:

the business of an Opposition was to oppose everything, propose nothing and turn out the Government. If, he added, by any unfortunate combination of circumstances, the Opposition was occasionally forced to support the Government, that support should invariably be given with a kick and not with a caress.

Poilievre, for the record, didn’t go nearly that far. Despite the CBC’s spinsterish alarm, he was clear that the Conservative Opposition will not “reflexively oppose” the government but will weigh each policy, support what they agree with, and oppose what they don’t. All very reasonable.

There are good patriotic as well as political reasons for Conservatives to be open to supporting the government from time to time. Policy demands the NDP or the Bloc might make in exchange for their support could wreak long-term damage to the country. Lending occasional support to the government would let Conservatives temper Liberal policy and avoid worse concessions to the NDP and to the Bloc.

Cautious and conditional support, especially on economic files or when Carney is dealing with Donald Trump, will still leave the Conservatives with plenty of Liberal policies to oppose. Carney’s campaign commitments and the ideological constraints of his caucus won’t allow him to do what’s necessary to fix the problems facing Canadian communities.

On crime, real progress requires a government willing to use the notwithstanding clause to chasten the courts’ political excesses. Carney, while professing the greatest respect for most of the Charter, is bizarrely allergic to its most democratic provision. This leaves him open to justified criticism from Poilievre and the Conservatives that he won’t do what’s necessary to keep Canadians safe.

On drugs, perhaps someday the ruin of lives and communities will be so obvious that even Liberals will recognise their free-drug policies have failed, but for now they are still ideologically committed to their errors. Again, the Conservatives have much to oppose here and a compassionate, treatment-based alternative to offer.

On immigration, during the campaign Poilievre supported a return to Harper-era levels of permanent immigration, while Carney committed to a number 50 percent higher—more than 400,000 new permanent residents every year. Carney will also allow temporary migration up to 5 percent of Canada’s population, or 2 million people. He calls this number  “sustainable.” It is anything but.

For context, Carney’s proposed temporary migrant population is the same as Trudeau’s in 2023. As recently as 2018, it was half that: 1 million. During the Harper years, it was about 600,000. Conservatives should clearly and vocally oppose Carney’s high immigration levels, which will strain our housing markets, health care, and social bonds and dwarf those of our peer countries.

These are obvious areas where Conservatives can oppose the government, but there are many others. Spending; pipelines; public service bloat; DEI mandates; UNRWA funding; freedom of speech; Canadian history and identity; a broken asylum system; universities estranged from reality; the expansion of MAiD to the mentally ill; and a hopeless federal housing plan are all fat targets for the Opposition.

In short, while there may be value—for Canada as well as the Conservative Party—in occasionally helping the Liberals avoid the high price of buying off the NDP or the Bloc, there will also be plenty of opportunities for the Opposition to do its constitutional job. In both cases, Poilievre should do it with a smile and a sharp kick. Or to put it in terms Liberals and the CBC might understand: “Elbows up.”