OTTAWA—Kevin O’Leary says Canada’s “inclusive society” is an advantage for the country, one it could capitalize on as the U.S. increasingly restricts travel and immigration policies.

In a Conservative leadership race that has been mired in identity politics and questions of Canadian values, he said increasing anti-immigration sentiment in the United States could work to Canada’s advantage.

“The fact that it’s getting more unstable in the U.S. on immigration and travel policy is a huge advantage for Canada,” O’Leary told the Star on Thursday.

“If there’s an engineer sitting in Jordan or Iraq or Syria, or anywhere in the Middle East, I want them to come here to Canada. So I think there’s potential upside of what’s going on globally.”

O’Leary was among the majority of Conservative leadership candidates who opposed an anti-Islamophobia motion brought forward in the House of Commons. But when asked about the tone of the Conservative race, he’s quick to point out he’s a child of immigrants.

The television personality and businessman is considered a front-runner in the race to replace Stephen Harper — even if it is difficult to imagine two more different men.

Harper was a policy wonk, longtime conservative activist, at times remote. O’Leary has little to no experience within the Conservative party or Canadian politics, seems to invent policy on the fly, and has been in the spotlight on American and television for years.

But leave aside, just for a minute, the television bluster, the questions about his time spent living in Boston, or suggestions he’d sell Senate seats to the highest bidder. What would a Canada under Kevin O’Leary actually look like?

Unlike the other 13 leadership candidates, O’Leary’s campaign has been largely silent about policy. The candidate’s one promise, he repeats, is to grow the economy at three per cent.

(Private sector economists project the economy to grow by roughly two per cent over the next two years. O’Leary’s three per cent promise would mean an additional $4.7 billion on an annual budget of roughly $300 billion, according to federal budget projections.)

That scaled down approach to a platform will change on Friday, with O’Leary expected to lay out more detailed economic policy in a luncheon speech at the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto. According to his campaign, the speech will include “significant” tax reductions while boosting “productive” infrastructure spending, as well as an emphasis on attracting skilled immigrants and cutting regulations.

O’Leary has also suggested he’d “coerce” provinces into going along with his economic plans, something he said Thursday would be more like “adult supervision.”

The Conservative constitution favours strong provincial governments, and the Conservative Party has typically been in favour of less intervention from Ottawa in provincial affairs. But O’Leary is taking a different tack.

“I’m a new form of Conservative, a Conservative expansionist. I want to make the Conservative Party the people’s party,” O’Leary said. “It requires strong leadership at the federal level to do that.”

O’Leary has threatened to cut transfer payments to provinces that refuse to go along with his economic plans — including Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should they refuse to lift their bans on fracking.

Patrick Fafard, a professor at the University of Ottawa who has worked in intergovernmental affairs under provincial and federal governments, said the move would likely invite years of court challenges from provincial governments.

“In the short term, he could probably get away with it,” Fafard said.

“It cuts all ways. If a Conservative government in Ottawa threatens to cut transfers because Nova Scotia . . . is not allowing fracking, the reverse is also true. A future NDP government or Liberal government in Ottawa could also say we’re going to cut your transfers because you’re not imposing a carbon tax.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“So be careful what you ask for.”

O’Leary is less concerned when asked if his “adult supervision” would result in court challenges from provincial capitals.

“Try me,” he said.