In 2006, several months after becoming prime minister, Stephen Harper traveled to Washington to meet President George W. Bush. At a private dinner hosted by Canada’s newly-appointed ambassador, Michael Wilson, the subject of diversity and immigration came up.

There, in the presence of Bush’s campaign guru Karl Rove and several U.S. cabinet ministers (Bush didn’t attend himself), Harper explained how the Liberal party had traditionally been the party of immigrants in Canada — and that he was determined to change that. He told his American guests that Canada’s immigrant communities had the right-of-centre family values that should make them feel perfectly at home in the Conservative party.

Harper then warned his guests that the Republican Party should be aware of the demographic changes that were sweeping America and made it clear that if they failed to attract the votes of Hispanic Americans, they eventually would pay a heavy electoral price.

We all know what happened since. Rove and Bush, who had been governor of Texas and understood the need for the Republicans to broaden their base, tried to do just that — and failed. Immigration reform died under an onslaught from the Tea Party and the surge of the crackpot alt-right, phenomena that eventually brought Donald Trump to the White House, with plans for a fabulous wall and a Muslim ban.

In Canada, Harper remained in power for almost a decade, helped by the split in the centre-left and the ferocious control he exercised over the motley coalition of Christian evangelicals, government-destroying libertarians and old-school Tories that constituted the Conservative Party of Canada. Through much of that time, Harper kept the lid on the nasty xenophobic elements in his party and actually made significant inroads in certain communities of new Canadians with the help of Jason Kenney, who continues to argue in favour of open borders and against Trump’s Muslim ban.

Stephen Harper may have had plenty of shortcomings, but he was no bigot.

It all came apart in the final desperate days of the 2015 election, of course, when a desperate Conservative party cavorted openly with anti-immigrant voters and launched the ill-fated ‘barbaric cultural practices’ snitch line. Since their defeat, the Conservatives have been flailing around looking for direction. Devoid of attractive alternatives who can actually unify the party and make it a viable centre-right option, the leadership race has devolved into a mosh pit of candidates who will literally say anything to get attention.

Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I don’t think this is a winning electoral strategy for Conservatives — except with the die-hard 30 per cent (or less) of voters who don’t like all these foreigners and would like a return to a white, Christian, unilingual Canada. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I don’t think this is a winning electoral strategy for Conservatives — except with the die-hard 30 per cent (or less) of voters who don’t like all these foreigners and would like a return to a white, Christian, unilingual Canada.

All of this has led to the Conservatives’ shameful response to the anti-Islamaphobia motion brought by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid. Ignorant, blind hatred of Islam as a religion is, unfortunately, present in Canada and deserves to be denounced by the House of Commons, particularly after the mosque attack in Quebec City. The cesspool of online hate that has flooded into Khalid’s inbox since she proposed the motion is proof that Islamophobia is a homegrown reality here.

Instead, some Conservative MPs have suggested that adoption of this non-binding motion will somehow constrain free speech by condemning hatred of Islam. Leadership candidates Kellie Leitch and Kevin O’Leary have, as usual, been trolling well beneath contempt. “No religion should be singled out for special consideration,” said Leitch. “A slap in the face to other religions,” said O’Leary, ignoring the motion’s condemnation of systemic racism and religious discrimination.

Chris Alexander, the boy-wonder diplomat turned crass populist, told a rally organized by the hard-right online outlet The Rebel in Toronto this week that he had trouble supporting a motion that “doesn’t mention the number one threat in the world, which is Islamic jihadist terrorism.” So hatred of Islam presumably isn’t a problem that Canada needs to worry about, according to the former ambassador.

What about the motion passed by the Commons calling for the protection of Yazidis from ISIS, or the 2004 resolution recognizing the 1915 genocide of Armenians? Were Canada’s Jews or Rwandans slapped in the face because these resolutions failed to acknowledge their history of genocidal suffering?

The truth is that there’s pressure on Conservative leadership candidates to keep the back door open to the Islamaphobe vote. How else can you explain Leitch’s posting of a photo of a (blue-eyed) young woman wearing spaghetti straps, her lips sealed with a tape marked M-103, the number of Khalid’s motion? In the background is a faint image of police officers on Parliament Hill — a not-so-subtle reference to the 2014 attack on the Commons.

Then there’s candidate Pierre Lemieux (whoever he is), who said that Islamophobia isn’t at the forefront of discussion and isn’t a problem in Canada. He clearly hasn’t been watching the news for the past month. Maxime Bernier says he’s worried the motion would restrict freedom to criticize Islam — and then somehow managed to link its passage to support for Sharia law.

Backbench Conservatives have been no better. MP Marilyn Gladu said she worries that she could be accused of Islamophobia if she voiced the concern that ISIS terrorists would want to rape and behead her. By even suggesting that equivalence, our enlightened MP demonstrates that she clearly has issues of her own.

Of the candidates for leadership, only the thoughtful and eminently reasonable Michael Chong has said he would support the motion. Others are openly hostile, or are trying to slither out of supporting it. Not an edifying sight.

Mélanie Joly, the Heritage minister, is actually right when she says that these Conservatives “are scared of denouncing Islamophobia and by not denouncing Islamophobia, they are actually contributing to the problem.”

There are Conservatives who think they can make short-term gains on this score, maybe even win the party’s leadership. Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I don’t think this is a winning electoral strategy for them — except with the die-hard 30 per cent (or less) of voters who don’t like all these foreigners and would like a return to a white, Christian, unilingual Canada.

And getting on the Trump train after the chaos of the past month might not be such a smart idea, especially if it’s heading for a major derailment.

I thought I’d heard enough from Stephen Harper to last me another lifetime. On this matter, I’d like to know what he has to say.

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.