LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

Erin O'Toole's victory in the wee hours of Monday morning was a reiteration of a truism that has emerged in Canadian politics over the past few years, which is that the social conservatives will play kingmaker in their party elections.  We saw that in the previous Conservative leadership, we saw that in Ontario, which followed the same rules, and it played out yet again in this just-completed race.  Not only that, but the social conservatives held a more than respectable share of the votes cast, and they not only toppled establishment candidate Peter MacKay, but very nearly put Leslyn Lewis over the top, had her votes been a bit more efficiently distributed under their point system.  And you can bet that those same social conservatives are feeling all the more emboldened for it.

It cannot be denied that part of the revenge these social conservatives extracted against MacKay were for his comments post-election where he said that Andrew Scheer's inability to come up with answers regarding his personal socially conservative views hung around the party like a "stinking albatross," something he tried to later walk back once he declared his leadership intentions.  Those comments could not stand, and those very same social conservatives, who tend to be effective when it comes to volunteering and fundraising for the party hence the reluctance to annoy them or cut them loose from the fold ensured that they got their votes out for this leadership contest, possibly to a greater degree than the last one because there was likely an implicit fear that a MacKay leadership would be more likely to cut them adrift.  And they had two candidates to rally behind.

In Derek Sloan, the Trump-worshipping branch of the party, happy to hear his racist, xenophobic and homophobic commentary, was able to exercise its wishes and he got some 14 percent of the first-round ballots.  Leslyn Lewis, still pro-life and socially conservative but minus the racism, got a little over 20 percent on the first ballot.  The fact that Lewis was able to take Saskatchewan (and drive Peter MacKay to fourth place in that province) and to come in second in three other provinces plus the combined Territories shows that for a relative unknown in politics, she had an effective ground-game, and full kudos to her campaign manager for that.  He told Power & Politics on Monday that the pandemic helped to level the playing field for Lewis because she could do more virtual contacts in a day than if she had been doing a traditional tour.  More than one commentator said that if she had any proficiency in French that she probably would have won the race, which is very interesting to ponder.

Ground game helped O'Toole in Quebec in particular, whereas MacKay seems to have lost in in particular heartland provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan.  MacKay was also hobbled in those provinces by "legacy party issues," as one Conservative operative described them to me that he was a former Progressive Conservative, never mind that he never really acted or voted like it.  There was also evident bad blood between MacKay and Alberta premier Jason Kenney, who endorsed O'Toole, but who also appears to have ties to Lewis that likely prompted her unsuccessful run for a seat two election cycles ago.  His organizational machine's efforts shouldn't be discounted in what happened in this race, particularly the influence that he wields among the social conservative ranks.  (Most people forget that when Kenney was doing his "ethnic outreach" as a minister, it was under the rubric of bringing social conservatives among the Chinese, Korean and Sikh communities, to name a few, into the Conservative fold, with logic like "You don't like the gays?  We don't either!  Come join us!")

The question for O'Toole now is how he deals with these social conservatives, and will he do so in a way that won't alienate more moderate voters.  I was reminded of what Patrick Brown did as Ontario PC leader, which was to jettison the social conservatives once he won the leadership and embraced carbon pricing a move which left his caucus unhappy and when the allegations of sexual misconduct arose, it was an excuse for the caucus to rally for his immediate ouster, and Doug Ford's rise was very much with the help of those social conservatives.  O'Toole made a big show of accepting Sloan after his victory speech, despite the fact that many nominal conservatives who are trying to get out of the shadow of these kinds of social conservatives have been calling for his ouster from caucus, and while the leader doesn't control that (thanks to the provisions they voted on as part of the garbage Reform Act), it seems unlikely that O'Toole will permit that to happen.

Meanwhile, O'Toole spent part of that victory speech trying to tell people that no matter who they are, no matter their race, faith or sexuality, that they have a home in the party.  I'm not sure that's going to quite fly among many of those communities so long as people like Sloan remain in the fold, and where O'Toole will feel beholden to those social conservatives for his leadership win, and his need to keep the party unified if he hopes to win the next election.  It does give one pause as to whether or not it's possible to grow the party's share of the vote so long as they cling to those social conservatives, who are out of touch with the voters they are desperate to reach a good many of them suburban women in places like the GTA, who don't necessarily respond well to their presence.

There is a reason why women poll much higher for the Liberals than the Conservatives, and we're seeing this exacerbated in how conservative provincial governments have been responding to the concerns of women as a result of the pandemic, which is to say not at all.  Stephen Harper managed it by keeping an iron fist on the social conservatives with strict message discipline, but can O'Toole manage that as well?  He is going to have to thread that needle very carefully in the months ahead, which will take a lot more skill than simply hiring professional shitposters to run his messaging like he did in the leadership.

Photo Credit: National Post

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.


Back in June, Canadians were heavily focused on the coronavirus pandemic.  They were understandably worried about the potential ramifications of COVID-19 on their families, friends, communities and businesses.  Little else seemed to matter at that point.

This gave Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a golden opportunity to take care of a particular issue.  In a quiet and rather conniving fashion, the Liberal minority government banned hundreds of rifles and shotguns in the depleted and understaffed House of Commons.

According to a Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association data set that was shared with the National Post on June 3, "at least 320 rifles and shotguns" were included in the Liberal gun ban. Ottawa had already outlawed 1,500 firearms on May 1.

What's a few hundred additional firearms between friends, right?

Wrong.

Five separate lawsuits have since been launched.  This includes the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, a Haida Nation hunter and trapper, and individual gun owners.  A few provincial premiers, including Alberta's Jason Kenney and Saskatchewan's Scott Moe, are monitoring this situation at present.

The Liberal gun ban was a direct contravention of the Firearms Act, and a clear attack on private property rights.

"The [government] does not have unfettered discretion to prohibit firearms by Order-In-Council," suggested one court document reprinted by the National Post on Aug. 11.  There's also the belief the Liberal gun ban was "promulgated at a time when the Parliament of Canada was not having regular sittings due to the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby shielding the government from parliamentary scrutiny."

The court document also suggests Ottawa's use of the term "assault-style weapons" has no legal meaning.  "This language is confusing and deliberately misleading, as all assault firearms have been prohibited since 1977."

It remains to be seen whether these lawsuits are successful.  One thing has already occurred, however.  The Liberal gun ban has hurt Canadian businesses involved in the sale of rifles and shotguns.

Here's an example.

Kris Sims, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation's B.C. Director, recently conducted an interview with Cassandra Parker.  (It can be found on YouTube.)  She and her husband own K.K.S Tactical Supplies in Prince George, B.C., which sells firearms and hunting equipment.

"We wanted the store to be a spot that other families like ours could come to take their children to get them into the sport," Parker told Sims.  "We've got five kids and it's a huge part of our life.  Our entire year centres around hunting seasons and fishing seasons, and it's something we love."

Make no mistake: Parker and her husband respect the laws of our land with respect to firearms, and operate their small, family-run business accordingly.

"When you go into a store like ours," Parker said, "we ask to see your PAL (Possession and Acquisition License), we check it on the RCMP  database, we make sure that it's valid."  They store all firearms properly, and trigger lock them.  They have security cameras and metal grates on the doors.  People can't just walk up to her store without a license and purchase a firearm at night, either.

"It's not this free for all, shoot everything kind of mentality.  That's not what we're about in Canada," Parker said.

It seems like K.K.S Tactical Supplies does everything by the book, and then some.

Yet, this business has been directly affected by the Liberal gun ban.  Parker's inventory can't move, and that's hurting her financially.  "If we had had it stolen from us," she said, "if I had had a break-in or there had been a fire, I'd have insurance to cover it.  But when the government takes it and then doesn't initiate a buyback program, even immediately, they just ask you to sit on that inventory… Now I'm sitting on inventory that I can't sell."

Parker is understandably frustrated with this situation.  "When you start taking property away from Canadians without a conversation, without a discussion in parliament, it means that you can do that with other things… At what point can the government take other freedoms away from my family?"

She's right.

I've never owned a rifle or shotgun, but I strongly oppose gun control.  I firmly believe in gun rights, which is an issue of freedom and personal choice.  If a Canadian citizen wishes to purchase a rifle or shotgun through a licensed dealer by legal means, the government has absolutely no right to infringe upon this freedom.

With respect to the Liberal gun ban, it was clearly pushed through with no parliamentary debate, no scrutiny from the opposition and with basically no rhyme or reason, other than to appease their friends in the gun control lobby.  That's both disgraceful and unconstitutional.

Parker is taking the federal government to court over this matter.  The CTF is supporting her brave fight.  Good for them.

As a thought, maybe Erin O'Toole can join this effort.

"When I'm prime minister, I'll put an end to Trudeau's attacks on law-abiding gun owners," the newly minted federal Tory leader's website states.  "I'll take aim at the real target gangs with smuggled guns and leave legal gun owners alone.  As Conservative leader, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with hunters, sport shooters and the firearms community."

It's a bit on the early side, but I'm pleased to make this introduction.

Erin O'Toole, meet Cassandra Parker. Read her story. She could use your help.

Photo Credit: CTV 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.