LP_468x60
on-the-record-468x60-white

The Conservative Party is currently debating how they will deal with protecting the nominations of their incumbent MPs in advance of the next election, which could in theory come at any point.  The thinking behind protected nominations is that MPs are needed in Ottawa, and they don't have the time or capacity to be fending off an organized challenger in their own riding particularly when there's a hung parliament.  The problem with this notion is that it flies in the face of one of the most basic aspects of how our electoral system works in this country, and it undercuts one of the most fundamental accountability mechanisms that voters have when it comes to their local representatives.

The party has thus far stated that if the election is held before June 2021, then all current MPs will automatically have their nominations protected automatically, which is a Very Bad Thing.  There is ongoing debate as to what would happen if the election is later than that June 2021 date, and it sounds like the party's national council is debating adopting a position similar to what the Liberals did in the previous parliament, which was protecting the nomination so long as those MPs had fundraised a certain amount in their riding association, had a certain number of members signed up, as well as met targets for door-knocking all things which are good to have on an ongoing basis for anyone to ensure that they are not taking their position for granted, but these should never guarantee a protected nomination.

If things in our democracy were operating in an optimal way, there would be an open nomination in advance of any election, whether it's a government majority in the House of Commons or a hung parliament.  Why this is important is because grassroots members who join a riding association are supposed to all have a say in who their candidate is going to be, and when there is an incumbent, it offers them an opportunity to hold that member to account at a party level.  This is especially important in "safe" ridings where a party is likely to win the seat regardless, and if there is discontent at the riding level that said incumbent has been doing nothing of substance and is coasting to another victory, it can offer a way of ensuring that they don't have an easy ride especially if members of the riding association start organizing to find someone else to represent them.

This happened on a couple of occasions with former MP Rob Anders, who faced nomination challenges on a couple of different occasions after members of his riding association were tired of his remarks (such as when he referred to Nelson Mandela as a "terrorist.").  The first couple of attempts to oust Anders were unsuccessful (one of those attempts was by Alison Redford, who went on to become Alberta premier), until he was ousted by Ron Liepert.  We also saw nomination challenges to both Brad Trost and Kellie Leitch following their embarrassing leadership runs in the last parliament (Trost losing his race, Leitch deciding to stand down and not run again when it became clear that her challenger was organised), which proved that the party was trying to be self-correcting.  In fact, Conservatives have a strong tradition of having very competitive nomination races in places like Alberta, where many of those seats are considered safe, and there have been nomination elections where several thousand people have signed up to take part.  This is a good thing.  It's how the system should work.

We've also seen an attempt to weaponize nominations in the current Conservative leadership race, where would-be candidate Aron Seal (who never did end up filing his papers) started saying that he would protect the nomination of any MPs who supported his candidacy something that he was called out on by Scott Reid (who didn't name him at the time), but was denounced by several other candidates.  We also saw nomination threats in the UK prior to their general election, particularly among the Labour Party with those MPs who were not among Jeremy Corbyn's loyalists, as well as Conservatives who broke ranks on several of the Brexit votes (many of them choosing to not run again in the face of those threats).  This is all bad for our system of democracy, and we should be alive to the dangers.

And those dangers are very real.  The Samara Centre for Democracy's report on how nominations are being run in this country was nothing short of alarming.  Parties have been monkeying with nominations in a variety of ways to ensure that leaders' preferred candidates can win or avoid a challenge (this was also a problem with some of the attempts to oust Rob Anders), and offering protected nominations is just one more example of how parties can squelch the basic democratic rights of their own membership if they think it suits their purposes.  This is something that all Canadians need to be paying more attention to, because it's so fundamental to our system and how we wind up choosing the people who wind up on our ballots.

As of yet, the Liberals have not come to a decision on protected nominations, but given that they put such rules into place during a majority parliament (and still managed to make a complete farce of their own process), I have no faith that they will ensure a proper open nomination process before the next election.  The NDP make a point of insisting that they always have open nominations, even though that too winds up being more in theory than in practice (especially as they will acclaim a straight, white male if they think it will win them the riding in the face of rules that say they need to let an "equity-seeking" candidate challenge any nomination).  No party should protect their nominations if we want to be serious about our democracy, hung parliament or not.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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


Amongst Canada's punditry class, it has become a commonly accepted assumption that Peter MacKay, the leading candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, is a Red Tory.

It's a false assumption, but perhaps an understandable one, considering MacKay's formative years as a rookie Member of Parliament.

In those days, there was no Conservative Party.

Instead, center-right voters were split across the country; torn between the ascendency of the Reform/Canadian Alliance faction and the floundering remnants of the Progressive Conservatives.

Fiscal and social conservative hardliners were far more comfortable in the populist circles out west, while central Canadian moderates found their place in the Red Tory haven that was the PC party.

Between the two, the Nova Scotian born MacKay was decidedly a part of the latter.

By 2003, he even went on to succeed Joe Clark as leader of the Progressive Conservative forces, though only briefly, as it was under his leadership that the party merged and became consumed by the more dominant Alliance.

As a result of his political past, commentators have rushed to label MacKay a "Red Tory"; neither a progressive grit, nor a red-blooded neo-con.  Centre-right to be sure, but with a heavy dose of social liberalism thrown into the mix.

Even MacKay's chief rival for the Conservative leadership, Erin O'Toole, has picked up this thinking.  On numerous occasions, O'Toole has attacked MacKay for being "Liberal-lite."

But is the label really an accurate one?  Is MacKay really a Red Tory?  His record in government suggests otherwise.

During the near decade of Conservative rule under Stephen Harper, MacKay served loyally in several high-profile cabinet postings, including as Minister of Justice, Defense and Foreign Affairs.

In all that time, what liberal, or even moderate action was undertaken by MacKay on the important social issues of the day?

The examples are few and far between, and instead, point to a far more socially conservative record than many may care to admit.

For instance, the Conservative government (and at times, MacKay himself) championed mandatory minimum sentences for anything from handgun possession to first time non-violent drug crimes, even as the Supreme Court later found such punishments to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, MacKay defended the Zero Tolerance for the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which among other things, served as a crass political attempt to stoke fears of Muslim immigration into Canada.

And that wasn't all.

On physician assisted suicide, MacKay irresponsibly dithered on implementing legislation, instead choosing to pass the buck off for the Trudeau Liberals.

Don't forget MacKay's record on drug policy either.

For years now, the opioid crisis has ravaged communities across the country, claiming the lives of thousands of Canadians who have overdosed from these dangerously potent and highly addictive drugs.

Yet through it all, the Conservative government, with MacKay in tow, fought tooth and nail against the approval of safe-injection sites.  The fact that these sites have the backing of health policy research, which has demonstrated time and time again the benefits of hygienic needle provision and other harm reduction methods in saving lives, was sadly of no great persuasion.

Of course, this is not to suggest that MacKay is a part of the social conservative wing of his party.  Far from it.

After all, while he came around to idea of same-sex marriage quite late in the game, it was at least earlier than many of his Conservative colleagues.  And unlike Andrew Scheer, the man he seeks to replace, MacKay has pledged to march in Toronto's Pride parade (though don't expect him to go professing any of his beliefs on substantive LGBTQ policy issues.)

Regardless, it is evident that MacKay's record, when viewed in its entirety, disqualifies him from the label of "Red Tory."

If he was, he might be a bit more outspoken in his advocacy for safe-injection sites and the decriminalization of drugs.  Or for the banning of conversion therapy, as well as the usage of mandatory minimum sentences.

The revelation that Peter MacKay is most definitely a full-blooded Conservative will surely be greeted by party members, many of whom are in eager search of a candidate to throw their support behind.

But to moderate Canadians, including the countless citizens who genuinely identify as Red Tories, MacKay's candidacy will be far less welcomed.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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