Former Quebec premier Jean Charest is reportedly considering a leadership run for the Conservative party. Given he hasn’t been a household name in Tory circles for a long time, many are likely to dismiss the idea out of hand.

This would be a mistake. If Charest is serious about putting his name forward, conservatives should welcome the idea. And even if it’s not possible or realistic to endorse any candidate at this early stage, there are plenty of reasons to think he would bring much to the table.

First, Charest has been a major Canadian politician for decades, with significant Parliamentary experience, whom the party would not have to introduce to voters. What the Tories primarily lacked in the last election was wide recognition of their leader’s name and identity, which allowed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to portray Andrew Scheer in a way they couldn’t rebut. And if Trudeau has proved anything, pedigree has real currency in national politics. That Charest has his own brand, separate from the Conservatives, counts for much.

Second, his long stint as a federalist politician in Quebec gives him practical experience on perhaps the biggest issue facing the country: national unity. Where Trudeau has been so ineffective in engaging with the provinces, especially where their interests collide with the Liberals’ governing agenda, there is much opportunity for a Tory leader with credibility on federal-provincial relations. Articulating a new paradigm on this file should be a significant piece of the party’s next pitch to voters.

Third, his local name recognition would give the Tories a decent shot at becoming competitive again in Quebec, which is where the Liberals see their path to another majority government. The Tories also have a lot of ground to make up in Atlantic Canada, where many residents remember Charest fondly for his role in the “no” side of the 1995 Quebec referendum. And in Ontario, an eastern-based politician with environmental credentials could help the party to break back into Greater Toronto again.

Fourth is the French factor. While it’s certainly far from necessary the Tory leader be a francophone, it’s a fact that a leader’s performance in the election debates is crucial. Charest is perhaps the most bilingual politician in the country; there is no way the head of the Bloc Québécois would be able to run circles around him the way Yves-François Blanchet did to Scheer in October.

These are, I think, some compelling reasons Charest should enter the race and attract attention from conservatives. But there’s no kidding this would be an uphill battle for him from the start. The Tories’ identity has largely merged with Western Canada, in part because this is their base of support and in part because the region’s interests align with traditional conservative principles. Some westerners would doubtless be very hesitant about turning the reins over to a Central Canadian.

But this argument actually speaks in Charest’s favour. Electorally, the party needs to grow in the east to compete with the Liberals, without sacrificing the west. It seems to me this is far more likely to happen with a familiar face to Quebec and Ontario who espouses western-friendly policies, instead of a western-based leader who tries to fumble together policy appealing specifically to the east. Given that Maxime Bernier drew support from several western MPs in his bid to become leader in 2017, there is some precedent for the idea Charest could gain a following in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

What we need to hear from Charest, should he choose to declare, is policy substance

 

The current government owes some of its success to the support of disaffected, former blue voters. That’s not a reason for the party to abandon its principles; but there’s also something important to be said for bringing in a leader associated with the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservative party, now best remembered for advancing the U.S. and North American free trade deals that have so benefited the country.

What we need to hear from Charest, should he choose to declare, is policy substance. Promotion of pipelines, responsible budgeting and a rebalancing of fiscal federalism to address the west’s economic concerns would seem non-negotiable. But the party should be open to other ideas he may have, such as a more market-based environmental policy, especially if such an approach could be part of a good electoral strategy.

The former Quebec premier would not be able to win the contest as a “white knight” candidate by any means, in part because one has much to recommend in the presumed early frontrunner, Rona Ambrose. There is also no point dismissing the likely skepticism of the more regional and ideology-focused wings of the party. As the Post’s editorial board argued last Saturday, it’s every bit as key at this point for the Tories to develop policy and philosophy, which would include scrutinizing the positions of its leadership hopefuls.

Still, there is a place to look at the prospective entrants on their own merits, and not limit consideration to Tories who came of age in the Harper government. Reprising the style, strategy and policy of that era, without adaptation, has now been tried unsuccessfully. This doesn’t mean it’s time to jump ship and go back to the “reds”; but neither is it responsible to exclude outsiders from the movement’s past who could mount a serious campaign for the party if given the chance.

Even if Charest didn’t win the leadership, his participation in the process would be valuable and far from his distraction. By all means, small- and big-c conservatives should see the possible entrance of a big name like his as a good thing.

National Post