CBC’s Power & Politics held one of those year-end political panels during the dead news week before Christmas and New Year’s to opine on the five biggest political blunders of the year.

Their choices were predictable. Donald Trump’s dangerous Twitter habit and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s catastrophic election call took the honours for best foreign political blunders. Closer to home, the panel cited Prime Minister Trudeau’s vacation with the Aga Khan (which actually took place in 2016, but never mind), the Phoenix pay fiasco and Bill Morneau’s disastrous handling of his tax reform package.

The Canadian scandals were pretty small stuff — certainly when compared to Trump and May — and they’ll likely be forgotten by the time Canadians go to the polls again. Somehow, the panel missed the biggest political blunder of the year, the one with real staying power: the Conservative party’s decision to choose Andrew Scheer as its leader.

With each passing day, it’s becoming clearer that Canada’s Official Opposition is led by a man who might have what it takes to rock a high school model Parliament, but little else. In federal politics, Scheer is a catastrophe — a gift to Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada and the most hapless and inept major party leader since Stéphane Dion vanished from the scene.

I’m sure Scheer is a nice fellow and a great dad — but he’s living in the wrong country. His socially conservative beliefs might work for him if he were running for governor of Indiana, or to replace Ted Cruz as the Tea Party flag-bearer, but he’s never going to be elected prime minister of Canada in the second decade of the 21st century.

The problem with Scheer, in some ways, is that he reflects all too well the true nature of the Conservative Party of Canada’s base: a rump of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, older, socially conservative Canadians who hate the modern, urban, diverse place the country has become.

To give you an indication of just how out of touch with Canadians Scheer is, check out these two public opinion numbers. According to an Ipsos Research survey published last year, 77 per cent of Canadians believe that abortion should be permitted. Scheer stands with the tiny minority that wants abortion banned and likes to refer to fetuses as “pre-born” children.

Harper was an opportunist — a smart, driven, Machiavellian leader who instilled fear in both his supporters and opponents. Scheer is a weak man; his opportunism smacks not of calculation, but of desperation. Harper was an opportunist — a smart, driven, Machiavellian leader who instilled fear in both his supporters and opponents. Scheer is a weak man; his opportunism smacks not of calculation, but of desperation.

CROP, another pollster, recently asked Canadians whether they agreed with the statement: “I find it great that in our society, two people of the same sex can get married.” Seventy four per cent of Canadians agreed. Once again, Scheer stands with the minority that would like to turn the clock back to the days of Leave It to Beaver — or better still, Adam and Eve.

And these are not just Scheer’s privately expressed views. They’re his very public ones. How else can you explain his continued refusal to participate in Pride marches — among the most middle-of-the road, uncontroversial activities a political leader can take part in these days? “Not everybody marches,” he told the Globe and Mail in an interview this week. “There are other ways that I’ve chosen to show support for the (LGBT) community.”

What “other ways”? Scheer pointed to the fact that he had introduced a motion calling on the government to condemn Russia for the persecution of the LGBT community in Chechnya. So he’s firmly against abduction and torture, which is … something, I suppose. But allowing homosexuals to marry and raise children? That’s taking things a bit too far for this prospective prime minister.

But the most bizarre thing about Scheer’s approach to social issues is the fact that he thinks Canadians don’t care what his Conservatives believe — as long as they have the good taste to shut up about it. He told the Globe that even though he holds these socially conservative beliefs, he will never officially discuss any of these issues in Parliament if the Tories get back into government.

“I’ve made it very clear that I won’t reopen those issues. And my position hasn’t changed. My job is to make sure our caucus and our movement is united. That means not bringing up divisive issues that would divide even our own party.”

It’s the old Stephen Harper tactic of keeping the rabid right-wingers inside the tent while trying to conceal from voters the extent of their influence in the party. But Harper was an opportunist — a smart, driven, Machiavellian leader who instilled fear in both his supporters and opponents. Scheer is a weak man; his opportunism smacks not of calculation, but of desperation.

So it’s no surprise that it took so long for the Conservatives to finally bite the bullet and expel Senator Lynn Beyak from the party’s caucus this week after she again demonstrated her cringe-inducing views of Indigenous Canadians by posting deeply offensive letters from her supporters. Her hostility towards the political concerns of Canada’s First Nations goes well beyond her cracked ideas about the unsung benefits of a residential school education. (You’ll remember she claimed that only “a small number of Aboriginals found the schools bad.”)

In earlier comments, the good senator urged Indigenous people to “trade (their) status cards for Canadian citizenship” — which suggested that she got to be a senator without knowing that they’re already citizens — and work to preserve their own culture “on their own dime.”

Scheer waited far too long to deal with Beyak. He has yet to demonstrate that he has the temperament and nerve to keep the politically-incorrect, angry base of the Conservatives in check, as Harper did. Scheer’s confrontation with Beyak made him look weak — and he’ll look weaker still every time the scenario repeats itself. And it will.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.