Erin O’Toole is a failure as a politician, losing seats, and emerging with a lower popular vote in the September 2021 election. He is also a failure as a leader of men and women.
Instead of building a united, cohesive Conservative party, O’Toole has recklessly wielded a cleaver to slash the caucus, leaving its members both resentful and deeply divided.
The Conservative Party’s collapse as the official Opposition Party was evidenced by its reaction to the constitutionally questionable Conversion Therapy (Bill C-4). The Conservative`s decision to push this bill through, without debate, committee review or a vote was an insult to informed Canadians.
O’Toole strives to project an image of a strong, decisive leader. Instead, he comes across as utterly out of touch, demanding that the Party follow his personal, left-of-centre ideology even though it is contrary to the views of millions of Canadians who would traditionally be sympathetic to the Conservative Party.
O’Toole has shown his dislike and distrust of any member of his caucus who is unwilling to follow his policies and those of his Red Tory advisors, by shutting them out of his shadow cabinet and silencing them.
Currently as Opposition Leader, O’Toole resides in Ottawa rent-free in the official residence of the leader of the Opposition, Stornoway. It is staffed by household help paid by the taxpayer. He has a chauffeur-driven car and an annual salary of $358,500 as leader of the Opposition. This is in contrast to the salary received by a backbench MP of “merely” $182,600 annually. Also, being the party leader plays into O’Toole’s ego, since it provides him the opportunity to make or break the careers of his fellow Conservative MPs, and also to determine party policy, as evidenced during the last election when he took policy decisions without input from the caucus. O’Toole obviously is determined to retain these generous perks as leader of the Opposition, regardless of the fact that the party is disintegrating under his feet. This indicates poor judgement and a failure to respond to the concerns of others.
Fast Tracking Conversion Therapy
This immense dissatisfaction within the Conservative party came to a head after Conservative MP, Rob Moore (Fundy Royal) presented a Motion in the House of Commons on December 1, 2021 to send the highly offensive Bill C-4 (Conversion Therapy) directly to the Senate for approval without debate, committee review or vote. Such an action is completely contrary to standard parliamentary procedures (see REAL Women Alert, December 6, 2021, which provides details of this event).
According to information obtained from some Conservative MPs, many were blindsided by Moore`s Motion. Although the issue of fast-tracking the conversion therapy legislation had been discussed in caucus, there was no consensus on the matter. In addition, the Motion was timed to take place just when MPs were in the process of leaving the floor of the House of Commons after Question Period. They were caught off guard and were unable to raise objections to the Motion in the few seconds following its introduction.
It should be pointed out that MP Moore, who proposed this Motion, was selected by O’Toole as a member of his shadow cabinet as critic of the Minister of Justice. Moore apparently had concerns about this bill when it was reviewed by the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament. He proposed an amendment to the bill on December 10, 2020 which would have more clearly defined the controversial expression “conversion therapy”. His amendment was defeated in a 6-5 vote by the committee. Moore told the committee at that time that his amendment would address some of the concerns about the bill.
Under the circumstances, it appears likely that Moore was convinced by O’Toole to table the Motion by way of the fantasy that he would be appointed Justice Minister in a future Conservative government led by O’Toole. This will never happen.
This deceitful slippery maneuver, sprung on the caucus by O’Toole to fast-track the problematic homosexual policy of conversion therapy, is another example of O’Toole’s personal left-wing ideology. He brings his watering can and fertilizer to left-wing policies in order to ensure they become embedded in Canadian soil, to flourish and thrive, regardless of the views of a more discerning public.
O’Toole will pretend that he is a genuine Opposition Leader by attacking Trudeau on economic issues such as Canada’s shocking deficit, national debt, and rising inflation. O’Toole is hypocritical in this regard, as he proposed during the last election to spend more than $50 billion over the next four years on new initiatives if he was elected Prime Minister.
Whither the Conservative Party?
Canada is burdened by the fact that all five of the federal parties with members sitting in the House of Commons are left-of-centre “progressives”. This does not accurately reflect Canada. Multicultural communities, faith-based institutions and individuals, hard-working taxpayers, who only want to get on with their and their families’ lives, are not represented in Parliament. Consequently, controversial policies such as a national daycare plan, environmentalism, climate change preoccupation, and a carbon tax, the destruction of the oil industry, and the promotion and funding of extremist, special interest organizations are all approved by Parliament’s left-of-centre political parties with little opposition.
The public can turn a blind eye to such practices and continue to be ignored (except when their vote is needed at election time) by the federal parties, or it can take action to stop this farce.
There are two ways in which this problem can be solved. One way is for the Conservative Party to get rid of O’Toole, and replace him with a genuine Conservative Opposition Leader who will unite the party. The other way is for another party with more moderate, conservative policies to emerge. This may already have happened, with the People’s Party of Canada, under Maxime Bernier. These alternative approaches would fill the vacancy left by the current Conservative leader and party which appear oblivious to the views of the many Canadians averse to the leadership’s autocratic stance.