What Is Wrong with Canada’s Conservatives?

How, exactly, did today’s conservatives devolve from serious people into members of a populist cult missing basic moral principles?

When Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt on Saturday, politicians were quick to condemn the attack and wish him well. Even fierce political opponents.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre went further.

“I condemn in the strongest terms the attempted murder of former President Trump today. I am relieved he is safe. My prayers are with other innocent people harmed or killed by this heinous act,” he tweeted.

“I am also happy the suspected shooter is dead. Democracy must prevail.”

That’s sick. It would be barely tolerable from a ranting right-wing uncle at a family dinner. But this was a considered public message on a major public platform, a signal of Poilievre’s attitudes.

No one should be “happy” a 20-year-old suspect has been shot dead. Especially a Conservative politician who supposedly believes in the rule of law and sanctity of human life.

The Secret Service response was unavoidable. That’s their job.

Anyone with a moral compass should recognize the killing was necessary, but not a cause for glee.

Certainly, it’s not for the family of Thomas Matthew Crooks, who are now left trying to understand how their son could go from high school grad to would-be assassin.

And anyone who believes in the rule of law would hope Crooks could have been arrested and tried, not shot dead.

Not just because that would have allowed for a defence, the right of all accused people.

But because we would learn more about the causes of his action, whether he acted alone and how he was able to come so close to successfully carrying out a political assassination.

And we would have that important knowledge at a critical moment for democracy. With Crooks dead, dangerous rumours and conspiracy theories are running wild — everything from theories that Trump staged the shooting to it being a deep-state plot. The very real risk is that more violence will flow from this act.

Poilievre’s tweet also raises the question of whether the killing of other suspects will bring him happiness. Which crimes would he like to be solved with a shooting instead of a trial?

BC Conservative Leader John Rustad echoed Poilievre.

“I condemn the reprehensible attempted assassination of former President Trump,” he tweeted. “We pray for his recovery and for the family of the innocent bystander who lost their life at the hands of this individual.”

“I am relieved to hear the assassin behind this heinous act is dead.”

Not quite as gleeful as Poilievre. But it’s nonetheless disturbing that a politician would express satisfaction in the death of a young person.

Poilievre’s — and Rustad’s — positions are dangerous, and far from the historical Conservative approach to state killings.

The death penalty was largely ended in Canada in 1976, when Parliament repealed the sentence for most crimes.

But the direction was set by Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker from 1957 to 1963. The courts sentenced 63 people to death in his time as prime minister. Diefenbaker, a former defence lawyer who believed it was too easy for the state to kill an innocent person, commuted 55 of these death sentences to life sentences. (Every year or so someone had to die to show the government had not abandoned the death penalty, a move then considered politically unacceptable.)

Diefenbaker is a Conservative icon. What would he make of Poilievre’s joy in the killing of a young man?

Much more importantly, what should Canadians make of this strange man’s celebration of death?

It’s a serious question. Does Poilievre support police killings of suspects generally, or just in this case? Will he bring back capital punishment? How far will he go?