” I have a plan. These words, like a divine incantation, punctuated Erin O’Toole’s responses during the first leaders’ debate last Wednesday. A few hours before the second fist fight, the nature of this famous plan is finally clear: the new Conservative leader wants to drag his party, by the hair if necessary, into the XXIe century. He would like his party to be in tune with what is seen as essential by ordinary people: climate change, gun control, access to abortion, LGBTQ + rights. He admits, without being able to say it out loud, that Stephen Harper’s attempt to reinvent conservatism – by merging the Progressive Conservative Party into the Canadian Alliance in 2003 – has failed.
From 1867 to today, with the exception of the three terms obtained by Mr. Harper, the only conservative brand that has had the good fortune to please Canada is the one associated with Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest – economically on the right, but socially more on the left – and which is oddly called conservative progressivism. Moreover, during the Face to face of TVA, the new CPC leader chose to talk about Mr. Mulroney rather than his former boss, Stephen Harper. Why whip a horse in agony? as the English speakers say.
Like François Legault, Erin O’Toole is a pragmatist rather than an ideologue.
But as far-sighted as it may seem, Mr. O’Toole’s strategy is riddled with pitfalls. First obstacle: his party. CPC members voted 54% against a motion recognizing climate change at a convention last March. In June, just over 50% of elected Conservatives voted against the federal bill banning conversion therapy, an approach that could be described as medieval when it comes to homosexuality. These therapies seek to erase homosexuality in the same way that someone once eradicated “evil” from someone: with sermons and magical thinking. Also last June, 81 Conservative MPs supported the motion of their pro-life colleague, Cathay Wagantall, seeking to ban sex-selective abortions and re-criminalizing the termination of pregnancy with the same breath.
Note that when it comes to these two motions – on LGBTQ rights and women’s rights – all other parties voted unanimously in favor, while 50% to 75% of CPC MPs voted against. This is to tell you the steep hill that Mr. O’Toole will have to climb to bring his party into modernity. We can still believe, of course, in miracles.
The other obstacle in Erin O’Toole’s “winning” strategy is Erin O’Toole himself: there is a limit to constantly reinventing yourself based on who is in the room.
During the leadership race, Mr. O’Toole decided to play the card of true blue Conservative in order to stand out from Peter MacKay, the former Progressive Conservative who was leading the race. The member for Durham did not hesitate to give the party’s religious right a good look, not to mention the gun lobby. Then, as soon as the race won – quite a feat, given the initial unpopularity of Mr. O’Toole – the new leader hastened to show himself on the side of modernity, that is to say for the recognition of abortion, climate change and LGBTQ + rights. Of course, all political parties are opportunistic, but can we trust a man capable of turning his jacket so swiftly, in a party that has a very different DNA than the one the leader is trying to impose on him?
Personally, I am ready to believe that Mr. O’Toole is that rare bug, a born-again progressive-conservative. But precisely, given the deeply reactionary elements of his party, is he not condemned to play the acrobat for the duration of his possible mandate?
In Texas, we have just seen how far this political inclination on the right can go for sleight-of-hand tricks, this mania of pushing through the back door what cannot be made through the door. forward. The Republican state has just found a way to neutralize the law legalizing abortion by giving ordinary citizens the right to sue anyone who facilitates – from the doctor to the simple taxi driver – the termination of pregnancy.
Of course, Canada is not the United States, our laws and our Supreme Court would not allow, until proven guilty, such a judicial deviation. Nonetheless, if we examine the tactics of the pro-life conservatives, we see the same “sinister brilliance” that allowed the passage of the Texas law. Claiming to want to save “baby girls,” the bill banning sex-selective abortions was paraded under a false feminist veneer while allowing for the criminalization of abortion again – an outright disaster. Having never been legalized, but simply decriminalized in Canada (1988), unlike the United States (1973), access to abortion is in fact based on a house of cards: the simple goodwill of our legislators not to not reopen a Pandora’s Box. The situation remains fragile and could easily change.
Can Erin O’Toole be trusted in this regard? On gun control? Climate changes ? Who, progressive or conservative, will be there?
fpelletier@ledevoir.com
On Twitter: @ fpelletier1