1) interesting how honking horns and diesel fumes in Ottawa have provoked a backlash against protestors, but burning churches and blockaded rail lines did not. Perhaps inconvenience and disruption out in the "colonies" is less important than when it impacts those at the center
2) fiscal conservatism should unite the factions. The post financial crisis narratives of government spending as the main path to economic growth and borrowed money carrying no cost could be rapidly ending
3) Canada is different. Nationalism won't bring in the votes in a country that lacks a coherent identity
4) appealing to Quebec in an attempt to attract a tsunami of swing voters is too complex, unpredictable, tied to bad economic policy and ultimately unlikely. Ending supply management, reducing bilingualim requirements in the federal civil service in order to attract more diverse employees, opening up the domestrc media, telecom and airline industries to competition (and repealing the Air Canada Act) would be sensible policies that would benefit a sizeable majority of Canadians
5) besides fiscal conservatism, affordability is the issue that Conservatives should be chasing. They hinted at this during the 2019 and 2021 campaigns, but were too easily distracted. This will take some bold policy proposals:
--tougher anti-money laundering measures to ensure Canadian real estate isn't being used as a haven for criminal proceeds. For some unknown reason, no one wants to touch this
--adding contingencies on transfers to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure. Other levels of government need to demonstrate attempts to remove regulatory barriers to housing supply
--reducing immigration quotas until the big cities can demonstrate plans to increase supply of housing and infrastructure
6) oppose Quebec Bill 21. No better way to reach out to communities of new Canadians while still throwing a bone to social conservatives
The fascinating thing about British politics is that it is the exact opposite of Canada, with the Conservative party being the natural governing party while the hapless Labour party seemly struggles to find not just a leader but a message.
Oh and one very important point about the convoy, is the media is focusing almost exclusively on a few nitwhits on the fringe while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. While that is to be expected the more shameful part is how the media, especially the CBC is massively misrepresenting what is happening. Take the “Terry Fox” fiasco, the CBC ran a headshot only claiming it had been vandalised (10 seconds of googling found the real picture) or the piles of garbage neatly piled on the street waiting to be picked up. Embarrassing is a huge understatement
The core problem is that, like Lucien Bouchard said, Canada isn't a real country. It's a British counter-revolutionary project that is no longer British, whose raison d'etre for 150 years was to be the homeland for English speakers in North America who rejected the American project (with some French speakers more or less unhappily grafted on).
This reality is why Trudeau can without apparent embarrassment say things like "Canada has no mainstream identity," or start every speech with an acknowledgment that, if we're really being honest, someone else should be in charge of the land he's standing on. ("...unceded land of the Algonquin peoples...") We had a 150th Anniversary where we supposedly celebrated Canada but no one in the government could make a compelling case about what's good about it.
There are no parties with a national vision because there's no nation, just nostalgia. The country is held together, to the extent it's held together, by dim memories of Vimy Ridge and the Suez Canal, and the conceit that the healthcare system is run better than the Americans' healthcare system.
Out of these preconditions emerge two parties with a viable claim on power. Neither articulates any actual vision, so they fight over small differences. The Liberal Party wins consistently, so they have a significant advantage in trying to recruit the slightly more talented politically-minded ambitious types, and thus they will continue to win most of the time.
The Conservatives are the Pepsi to the Liberal Party's Coke -- a functionally identical political product that presents the illusion of meaningful choice to the bored political consumer .
This Canadian malaise is why Trudeau is right now hiding somewhere undisclosed rather than making any effort to evict the convoy(s). His father, Pierre Trudeau, had a clear vision for Canada and the backbone to go with it. In the October Crisis, he was able to tell separatists and any other detractors that, right or wrong, he was going to use force to protect the state.
Is that kind of application of power even even imaginable today? Who is going to potentially shoot someone to protect the Canadian government? And what military officer is going to put himself in harm's way to maintain the operation of the government? What even is the Canadian government? A few hundred fat MPs, a picture of the Queen here and there, and a focus grouped high school teacher well out of his depth on the world stage.
Imagine for a second any U.S. president running away and hiding while the capital was occupied by a mob. Read the letter of Sullivan Ballou from the American Civil War and try to imagine any modern Canadian ever voicing any remotely similar sentiment.
But though Conservative partisans think the problem is the liberals, it isn't. The Conservatives don't offer any competing vision. It's all about tweaks at the margins. Instead of a carbon tax you will have a carbon savings account. You get a child tax credit instead of daycare, or something. And private school-educated, Rolex- and bespoke-suit-wearing Jagmeet Singh, who supposedly leads the workers' party, is no better. He doesn't even have the intellectual honesty to say that you can't make housing more affordable without lowering the price of houses! (see the last set of leaders' debates).
Canada is a country without big ideas, and can't have big ideas unless someone can articulate a national vision that's more than "we aren't Americans." So of course the Conservatives are just going flounder around until the Liberals do something ridiculous and the Conservatives luck their way into power. And that seesaw pattern will continue while the country circles the drain until some major world event intervenes and it goes the way of say, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia.
Before we go full populist and pick our version of a Trump, since we always seem to follow in the US footsteps, let's get ahead of this and as others have pointed out move the party to a more working-class point of view.
Harper started this, I remember him being the Tim Horton's guy, and the others were uppity Starbucks.
The left in general has gone full identity-politics, embracing the elite class for their funding. This leaves an opening for a more blue-collar party, consistent with being pro-business, pro nuclear, pro buy-Canadian, pro family.
Love it or not, the convoy has shown that there are some principles that will get the entire country together, in freezing cold, standing united. Party leadership could learn from that.
"That the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners, has nonsensical and constitutionally-illiterate demands, and are being absolute shits to the people of downtown Ottawa also doesn’t matter. "
1. Please provide your evidence that the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners.
2. What percentage do you believe is funded by foreigners?
3. What does it matter if foreigners contribute?
It appears to me that this is just another attempted smear tactic, as if Canadians don't support this protest when they clearly do just from the numbers of supporters at the sides of roads and online support. They were at over 124,000 donations exceeding $10 million total when it was frozen by GoFundMe.
4. What are the "nonsensical" demands? They are calling for an end of the vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The World Health Organization is also against vaccine mandates and has been against vaccine passports. Many countries and U.S. states have abandoned or barred vaccine mandates and are moving toward an "endemic COVID" model. Are they all "nonsensical"?
It includes statements on December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022 along with their 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination which includes,
- "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio."
You'll also note at the link that they came out against boosters, except for high-risk categories, and against vaccinating children and adolescents. Also, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came out against such mandates.
You'll note that the reasons for all of these also have to do with equity, fairness, reducing negative effects on marginalized communities, limiting harms to personal autonomy, and more effective outcomes.
I'm not aware of them changing policy on this and can't find any reference to a change in policy.
Are these all nonsensical?
5. What are their constitutionally-illiterate demands?
I've been following them since the beginning and the only thing I can see fitting the constitution is the basis for their demands involving respect for human rights to decided what medical procedures to undergo. That's well-documented in Charter precedence. You can read about it here: https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably,
"Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”. "Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged." "This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment"
Most notably, from (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. This is in accordance with the fact . . . that “s. 7 was enacted for the purpose of ensuring human dignity and individual control, so long as it harms no one else”."
The typical response is that being unvaccinated harms somebody else. But, it doesn't. This is the big confusion with those trying to impose mandates; they confuse being unvaccinated with being positive for COVID-19. Being unvaccinated has a relative risk compared to being vaccinated, as well as relative compared to other things in life, and it is a relatively small difference.
That relative risk is a product of risk of exposure, risk of infection given exposure, and risk of transmission given infection. Canada's vaccine brain trust is centred at the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and delivered in Advisory Committee Statements (ACS), the latest which summarizes,
"There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk.
To this point, an unvaccinated remote worker is certainly a significantly less risk to be around than a vaccinated person who as been to a restaurant, bar, or gym in recent days. Being a remote worker means they have limited exposure and being unvaccinated means they can't get into any of the places that even Health Canada says are the high-transmission places. E.g., from here, under "People at greater risk of exposure": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
"Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
"We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants, as well as other settings."
These are all places that only vaccinated people can go right now.
There is fundamentally no basis for claiming that an unvaccinated person is "harming other people", and even if we extend that to suggest the risk of harming other people, that is situational. A rural, remote worker with is not allowed in restaurants or gyms because they are unvaccinated is much less risk of transmitting than an urban worker frequenting such places, and much less risk that the PM is right now, having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
So, again, what is this constitutional illiteracy? It looks to me like the proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated are constitutionally illiterate, and illiterate over how to calculate or compare risk factors, and ignorant of the status of "we don't know" as far as the science on transmission risk, particularly given Omicron.
The grass always appears greener on the other side (in this instance, the other side of the pond). But for all of Boris Johnson's electoral success, he is about to go down in flames, partly because he is a congenital liar and also because he hasn't got a coherent governing vision for the UK Tories. So he's hardly a model template for the Canadian Conservatives, as the post suggests.
One promising area where O'Toole appeared to be making headroads was converting the PC's into a pro-worker party, embracing a kind of "blue collar conservatism". The party tacked Left on pro-worker policies, thereby neutralising a lot of the traditional concerns about voting for them, especially in regard to benefits for gig workers, worker representation on corporate boards, and protecting pensions from corporate bankruptcy has given voters a positive reason to vote Conservative — a stark contrast to the Liberals.
Corporations are so large and dominant that it’s impossible for individual workers to negotiate a fair salary. It has been one of the primary causes of recent wage stagnation. The idea that a single worker could stand a chance in a negotiation with a company like Amazon, which is worth nearly $2 trillion is unrealistic. So embracing strong unions not only deals with a significant barrier to greater equality, but does so in a way that enhances the functioning of a free market economy (and I think Tories still like that, don't they?)
There are likely better approaches as well on climate change (why doesn't the Tory Party become the party of nuclear power?), and fruitful attacks on the "woke capitalism" embraced by the liberals, where symbolic gestures to virtue signallers are deemed more important than structural economic changes that would help working Canadians.
In the end, O'Toole might not have been the best vehicle for this message, but he tried. I'm sure Pierre Poilievre might win the battle on Twitter, but he's probably too polarising to win an election for the party. My guess is that Rona Ambrose would be a more credible leader for the kind of approach that would engender greater electoral success (Brian Mulroney, minus the sleaze factor).
It's pretty hard to build a coherent conservative program to respond to problems when there are so many members of the base who adamantly and vociferously refuse to acknowledge the reality of those problems. Underlying the opposition to a carbon tax is a denial that anthropogenic global warming even exists, let alone a more nuanced rejection of the catastrophism of environmental activists. The opposition to COVID mitigations tends to be driven by a notion that the COVID pandemic is a hoax, not finding better ways of managing the impact on the health care system.
Somewhere between 60 and 85% of the country believe these are problems that must be dealt with. Simply denying the problems and refusing to do anything means they look elsewhere. Conservatives have the opportunity to propose a better solution, or at least something less bad from their perspective. It'd also be possible to change public perception of whether something is a problem, but they have to get a lot more persuasive than the jumble of poorly-informed and badly articulated arguments we tend to get.
I have never felt more politically homeless in my life. Throughout most of my adult life, I voted between Liberal and NDP. This past Federal election was the first time I voted Conservative. These past few years I've watched the Lib's and NDP move so far Left that I now look like I'm on the right. Leslyn Lewis actually caught my eye. She is the type of Conservative I could get behind (genuine free speech and speaking out against identity politics).
O'Toole turned out to be a huge disappointment, just like this article. I despise these coercive mandates and I fully support the truckers. And, as it turns out, most Canadians are also getting fed up with these mandates and restrictions. The latest Angus Reid poll, https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/, now shows that the majority wants them to end too. It's a 15 point rise since early Jan. Surprisingly enough, Alberta (at 57%) came in behind Quebec at 59%. It's very interesting as the Quebec gov't has been the most authoritarian (the un-vaxxed cannot even shop at Walmart). Looks like the Quebec gov't is actually the fringe at this point.
And what the hell is up with this line, "Believe it or not @CPC_HQ, not many swing voters stroke to Jordan Peterson or other avatars of the iconoclastic right." ?!? Dr Peterson is admired by many on the left, and right but mainly the center. To say that he is an avatar for the right is highly disingenuous.
Between that comment and the biased articles against the truckers, I am very, very close to cancelling my subscription to the Line. And I've been here from the beginning (or close to anyway).
Very good summary of the problems with the Conservative party. I was going to support them but now have to wait to find out what they are actually going to be for. With three Woke parties to the left we need a pragmatic party on the right we can support.
Boris Johnson? Seriously?? The politician who wrote a memo in favour of Brexit and against it and then chose based on polling? The person who asked the United Kingdom to shut down and then partied hard? He got Brexit done, because of Dominic Cummings... subscribe to his Substack and you shall see.
I am sorry, this is not acceptable as a benchmark or anything even if the connection with the first-past-the-post and parliamentary government is there. Canada deserves a Conservative Party modeled on serious, trustworthy and hard working right-of-centre politicians.
Why don't we look at Angela Merkel, or Mark Rutte, heck even Bibi Netanyahu or Scott Morrison if we really want to push the limits of expediency vs dogmatism?
Yes, there is a need for pragmatism in any political party who expects to win elections. It is also more a function of who goes to the polls and who stays home, given how polarized voters are.
Boris Johnson as a model... C'mon The Line that is beyond the pale.
One longs for a Conservative Party alternative to the fatuous incompetence of the current PM, but as long as the Conservatives insist on moving to the conspiracy-theory/culture-war Right-Wing fringe, they leave this many-time Conservative voter where I have always been, in the Political Centre.
Interesting read. I would like to introduce some 'diversity of thought' at the invitation of the author.
BoJo was elected after the atrocious leadership of his predecessors and hardly because of his competence or 'charisma' -- the man has a silly pompous accent (even for a British elite) and a ridiculous hairdo and goes around Britain pretending he is (his idol) Winston Churchill. Alas, he falls slightly short of this mark and will likely go down in UK political history as an enormous failure. Who supports him now? The conservatives who voted for him realized they got a 'controlled opposition' mild Progressive, and the Labour voters who voted for him realize he is no friend of the working class. A dithering flip-flopper with no coherent goals -- sound familiar?
The author, despite denying it, is in fact endorsing 'The Conservatives should be Liberals-Lite'. Unfortunately, this advice is neither new nor particularly original. I think future success depends on how precisely opposite the direction the Conservatives can go in opposition to our Progressive parties.
I think this lack luster advice is borne of projection. 'Modern conservatism is all about attitude these days, not worldview' -- admonishing the Conservatives for not having a worldview makes less sense when you realize that conservatism is not a worldview. Progressivism is a worldview. The Progressives of the world all believe basically the same things. (Vibrant diversity here).
A conservative is the inheritor and protector of traditions. You cannot inherit and protect with a staunch worldview. Unlike Progressives, you couldn't possibly lump together all the conservatives of the world because the traditions and pasts are so diverse and different. Like Thomas Sowell said, 'What we call the Right, are the disparate and various opponents of the Left' -- it's a Leftist projection. The Left is collectivist, centralizing and authoritarian, and whoever doesn't support them is named 'the Right' -- these opposing groups could have almost nothing in common, which is why the ranks of the Alt-Right are swelling precipitously without them having done anything to recruit anyone -- it's simply the Left labeling any dissenters thus.
The above are clues as to the natural difficulty in building conservative coalitions.
I believe that if the Conservatives want to remain a relevant party, they ought to take on the precise opposite position to anything coming from our Progressive parties. Not for immature contrarian reasons; I genuinely believe this is the right path for our country. More communitarian policies for Canadian citizens (and not all the world are Canadian citizens, so distance us from the UN and other corrupt global enterprises. They do nothing for average Canadians.)
1. Climate Change
We could today eliminate 100% of our carbon and ghg emissions and it would change literally nothing in terms of global climate change. But it's important, the author says, to have policies in place reducing emissions and hamstringing our energy industries. Why? Honestly, why? This is ideology. This is faith.
If however you want to talk environmental policy as you mentioned -- strengthening our climate resilience and proofing our lives, our farms, and our shelters for the inevitable, then I'm all ears. Do the opposite of the Libs: scrap all Carbon taxes, stop bludgeoning our energy industry etc.
2. Multiculturalism
I admire the ideals of America and find the average American a decent chap. I do agree that we do not need to become America -- after all Canada should be its own project. There is a current policy that more than any other ensures that we will in fact become America. This is our official policy of Multiculturalism and insanely high levels of immigration (highest per capita in the world). America is tearing itself at the seams because it is a hodge podge collection of so many different identity groups (that used to melt together once upon a time but no longer). In Canada we are doing our best to replicate this ensuring that we will become a little America, and eventually a balkanized Yugoslavia.
Again, the prescription is do the opposite of the Libs: drastically reduce levels of immigration, support integration and make it harder to become a Canadian citizen. Watch real wages rise for the average Canadian as the source of cheap foreign labour dwindles.
Good article, Andrew… the PC party lost me with Harper, and my membership $, too. I’ve seen nothing coming from the right to change that view, but I’d sure welcome changes, or at least adult conversation, about the ideas you’ve tabled with this article.
A few comments:
1) interesting how honking horns and diesel fumes in Ottawa have provoked a backlash against protestors, but burning churches and blockaded rail lines did not. Perhaps inconvenience and disruption out in the "colonies" is less important than when it impacts those at the center
2) fiscal conservatism should unite the factions. The post financial crisis narratives of government spending as the main path to economic growth and borrowed money carrying no cost could be rapidly ending
3) Canada is different. Nationalism won't bring in the votes in a country that lacks a coherent identity
4) appealing to Quebec in an attempt to attract a tsunami of swing voters is too complex, unpredictable, tied to bad economic policy and ultimately unlikely. Ending supply management, reducing bilingualim requirements in the federal civil service in order to attract more diverse employees, opening up the domestrc media, telecom and airline industries to competition (and repealing the Air Canada Act) would be sensible policies that would benefit a sizeable majority of Canadians
5) besides fiscal conservatism, affordability is the issue that Conservatives should be chasing. They hinted at this during the 2019 and 2021 campaigns, but were too easily distracted. This will take some bold policy proposals:
--tougher anti-money laundering measures to ensure Canadian real estate isn't being used as a haven for criminal proceeds. For some unknown reason, no one wants to touch this
--adding contingencies on transfers to provinces and municipalities for infrastructure. Other levels of government need to demonstrate attempts to remove regulatory barriers to housing supply
--reducing immigration quotas until the big cities can demonstrate plans to increase supply of housing and infrastructure
6) oppose Quebec Bill 21. No better way to reach out to communities of new Canadians while still throwing a bone to social conservatives
The fascinating thing about British politics is that it is the exact opposite of Canada, with the Conservative party being the natural governing party while the hapless Labour party seemly struggles to find not just a leader but a message.
Oh and one very important point about the convoy, is the media is focusing almost exclusively on a few nitwhits on the fringe while ignoring the vast majority who are well behaved. While that is to be expected the more shameful part is how the media, especially the CBC is massively misrepresenting what is happening. Take the “Terry Fox” fiasco, the CBC ran a headshot only claiming it had been vandalised (10 seconds of googling found the real picture) or the piles of garbage neatly piled on the street waiting to be picked up. Embarrassing is a huge understatement
The core problem is that, like Lucien Bouchard said, Canada isn't a real country. It's a British counter-revolutionary project that is no longer British, whose raison d'etre for 150 years was to be the homeland for English speakers in North America who rejected the American project (with some French speakers more or less unhappily grafted on).
This reality is why Trudeau can without apparent embarrassment say things like "Canada has no mainstream identity," or start every speech with an acknowledgment that, if we're really being honest, someone else should be in charge of the land he's standing on. ("...unceded land of the Algonquin peoples...") We had a 150th Anniversary where we supposedly celebrated Canada but no one in the government could make a compelling case about what's good about it.
There are no parties with a national vision because there's no nation, just nostalgia. The country is held together, to the extent it's held together, by dim memories of Vimy Ridge and the Suez Canal, and the conceit that the healthcare system is run better than the Americans' healthcare system.
Out of these preconditions emerge two parties with a viable claim on power. Neither articulates any actual vision, so they fight over small differences. The Liberal Party wins consistently, so they have a significant advantage in trying to recruit the slightly more talented politically-minded ambitious types, and thus they will continue to win most of the time.
The Conservatives are the Pepsi to the Liberal Party's Coke -- a functionally identical political product that presents the illusion of meaningful choice to the bored political consumer .
This Canadian malaise is why Trudeau is right now hiding somewhere undisclosed rather than making any effort to evict the convoy(s). His father, Pierre Trudeau, had a clear vision for Canada and the backbone to go with it. In the October Crisis, he was able to tell separatists and any other detractors that, right or wrong, he was going to use force to protect the state.
Is that kind of application of power even even imaginable today? Who is going to potentially shoot someone to protect the Canadian government? And what military officer is going to put himself in harm's way to maintain the operation of the government? What even is the Canadian government? A few hundred fat MPs, a picture of the Queen here and there, and a focus grouped high school teacher well out of his depth on the world stage.
Imagine for a second any U.S. president running away and hiding while the capital was occupied by a mob. Read the letter of Sullivan Ballou from the American Civil War and try to imagine any modern Canadian ever voicing any remotely similar sentiment.
But though Conservative partisans think the problem is the liberals, it isn't. The Conservatives don't offer any competing vision. It's all about tweaks at the margins. Instead of a carbon tax you will have a carbon savings account. You get a child tax credit instead of daycare, or something. And private school-educated, Rolex- and bespoke-suit-wearing Jagmeet Singh, who supposedly leads the workers' party, is no better. He doesn't even have the intellectual honesty to say that you can't make housing more affordable without lowering the price of houses! (see the last set of leaders' debates).
Canada is a country without big ideas, and can't have big ideas unless someone can articulate a national vision that's more than "we aren't Americans." So of course the Conservatives are just going flounder around until the Liberals do something ridiculous and the Conservatives luck their way into power. And that seesaw pattern will continue while the country circles the drain until some major world event intervenes and it goes the way of say, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia.
Before we go full populist and pick our version of a Trump, since we always seem to follow in the US footsteps, let's get ahead of this and as others have pointed out move the party to a more working-class point of view.
Harper started this, I remember him being the Tim Horton's guy, and the others were uppity Starbucks.
The left in general has gone full identity-politics, embracing the elite class for their funding. This leaves an opening for a more blue-collar party, consistent with being pro-business, pro nuclear, pro buy-Canadian, pro family.
Love it or not, the convoy has shown that there are some principles that will get the entire country together, in freezing cold, standing united. Party leadership could learn from that.
He lost me at catastrophic climate change. There is far too much hyperbole across the political spectrum right now.
"That the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners, has nonsensical and constitutionally-illiterate demands, and are being absolute shits to the people of downtown Ottawa also doesn’t matter. "
1. Please provide your evidence that the convoy is funded (in part) by foreigners.
2. What percentage do you believe is funded by foreigners?
3. What does it matter if foreigners contribute?
It appears to me that this is just another attempted smear tactic, as if Canadians don't support this protest when they clearly do just from the numbers of supporters at the sides of roads and online support. They were at over 124,000 donations exceeding $10 million total when it was frozen by GoFundMe.
4. What are the "nonsensical" demands? They are calling for an end of the vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. The World Health Organization is also against vaccine mandates and has been against vaccine passports. Many countries and U.S. states have abandoned or barred vaccine mandates and are moving toward an "endemic COVID" model. Are they all "nonsensical"?
You can read all about the WHO position here, with full links and citations: https://adnausica.substack.com/p/who-keeps-on-trucking
It includes statements on December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022 along with their 6-point policy paper on what is required for mandatory vaccination which includes,
- "If such a public health goal can be achieved with less coercive or intrusive policy interventions, a mandate would not be ethically justified, as achieving public health goals with less restriction of individual liberty and autonomy yields a more favourable risk-benefit ratio."
You'll also note at the link that they came out against boosters, except for high-risk categories, and against vaccinating children and adolescents. Also, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics came out against such mandates.
You'll note that the reasons for all of these also have to do with equity, fairness, reducing negative effects on marginalized communities, limiting harms to personal autonomy, and more effective outcomes.
The WHO also came out against vaccine passports: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-vaccines-idUSKBN2BT158
I'm not aware of them changing policy on this and can't find any reference to a change in policy.
Are these all nonsensical?
5. What are their constitutionally-illiterate demands?
I've been following them since the beginning and the only thing I can see fitting the constitution is the basis for their demands involving respect for human rights to decided what medical procedures to undergo. That's well-documented in Charter precedence. You can read about it here: https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art7.html
Notably,
"Section 7 also protects a sphere of personal autonomy involving “inherently private choices” that go to the “core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”. "Where state compulsions or prohibitions affect such choices, s. 7 may be engaged." "This aspect of liberty includes the right to refuse medical treatment"
Most notably, from (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do), "Security of the person has an element of personal autonomy, protecting the dignity and privacy of individuals with respect to decisions concerning their own body. It is part of the persona and dignity of the human being that he or she have the autonomy to decide what is best for his or her body. This is in accordance with the fact . . . that “s. 7 was enacted for the purpose of ensuring human dignity and individual control, so long as it harms no one else”."
The typical response is that being unvaccinated harms somebody else. But, it doesn't. This is the big confusion with those trying to impose mandates; they confuse being unvaccinated with being positive for COVID-19. Being unvaccinated has a relative risk compared to being vaccinated, as well as relative compared to other things in life, and it is a relatively small difference.
That relative risk is a product of risk of exposure, risk of infection given exposure, and risk of transmission given infection. Canada's vaccine brain trust is centred at the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and delivered in Advisory Committee Statements (ACS), the latest which summarizes,
"There is currently limited evidence on the duration of protection and on the efficacy of these vaccines in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2."
There is also a section entitled “Efficacy and effectiveness against asymptomatic infection and transmission”. It notes the data is preliminary, that “current data is insufficient to draw conclusions”, and “Exploratory analyses for the AstraZeneca viral vector vaccine has not demonstrated efficacy against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection”.
Most proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated address only the second factor, infection, which in the literature varies from 0% to 70% reduction in risk from vaccination, depending on the vaccine and variant, and varies from study to study. (Science takes a long time and many studies.) If this were the only factor, that would indicate that one unvaccinated person is equivalent risk as between one and 3 vaccinated people. Yet, people will go into restaurants, gyms, and other places with many more than 3 other vaccinated people which puts them at much higher risk.
To this point, an unvaccinated remote worker is certainly a significantly less risk to be around than a vaccinated person who as been to a restaurant, bar, or gym in recent days. Being a remote worker means they have limited exposure and being unvaccinated means they can't get into any of the places that even Health Canada says are the high-transmission places. E.g., from here, under "People at greater risk of exposure": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks.html
"Your vaccination status only changes your risk of getting COVID-19 and becoming sick. It doesn't change your risk of exposure to the virus out in the community."
Or here, under "Settings with higher risk of transmission": https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/health-professionals/main-modes-transmission.html
"We also know that most transmission occurs indoors. Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were suspended in the air and that people inhaled the virus at distances beyond 2 metres. Such settings have included choir practice, fitness classes, and restaurants, as well as other settings."
These are all places that only vaccinated people can go right now.
There is fundamentally no basis for claiming that an unvaccinated person is "harming other people", and even if we extend that to suggest the risk of harming other people, that is situational. A rural, remote worker with is not allowed in restaurants or gyms because they are unvaccinated is much less risk of transmitting than an urban worker frequenting such places, and much less risk that the PM is right now, having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
So, again, what is this constitutional illiteracy? It looks to me like the proponents of oppressing the unvaccinated are constitutionally illiterate, and illiterate over how to calculate or compare risk factors, and ignorant of the status of "we don't know" as far as the science on transmission risk, particularly given Omicron.
The grass always appears greener on the other side (in this instance, the other side of the pond). But for all of Boris Johnson's electoral success, he is about to go down in flames, partly because he is a congenital liar and also because he hasn't got a coherent governing vision for the UK Tories. So he's hardly a model template for the Canadian Conservatives, as the post suggests.
One promising area where O'Toole appeared to be making headroads was converting the PC's into a pro-worker party, embracing a kind of "blue collar conservatism". The party tacked Left on pro-worker policies, thereby neutralising a lot of the traditional concerns about voting for them, especially in regard to benefits for gig workers, worker representation on corporate boards, and protecting pensions from corporate bankruptcy has given voters a positive reason to vote Conservative — a stark contrast to the Liberals.
Corporations are so large and dominant that it’s impossible for individual workers to negotiate a fair salary. It has been one of the primary causes of recent wage stagnation. The idea that a single worker could stand a chance in a negotiation with a company like Amazon, which is worth nearly $2 trillion is unrealistic. So embracing strong unions not only deals with a significant barrier to greater equality, but does so in a way that enhances the functioning of a free market economy (and I think Tories still like that, don't they?)
There are likely better approaches as well on climate change (why doesn't the Tory Party become the party of nuclear power?), and fruitful attacks on the "woke capitalism" embraced by the liberals, where symbolic gestures to virtue signallers are deemed more important than structural economic changes that would help working Canadians.
In the end, O'Toole might not have been the best vehicle for this message, but he tried. I'm sure Pierre Poilievre might win the battle on Twitter, but he's probably too polarising to win an election for the party. My guess is that Rona Ambrose would be a more credible leader for the kind of approach that would engender greater electoral success (Brian Mulroney, minus the sleaze factor).
It's pretty hard to build a coherent conservative program to respond to problems when there are so many members of the base who adamantly and vociferously refuse to acknowledge the reality of those problems. Underlying the opposition to a carbon tax is a denial that anthropogenic global warming even exists, let alone a more nuanced rejection of the catastrophism of environmental activists. The opposition to COVID mitigations tends to be driven by a notion that the COVID pandemic is a hoax, not finding better ways of managing the impact on the health care system.
Somewhere between 60 and 85% of the country believe these are problems that must be dealt with. Simply denying the problems and refusing to do anything means they look elsewhere. Conservatives have the opportunity to propose a better solution, or at least something less bad from their perspective. It'd also be possible to change public perception of whether something is a problem, but they have to get a lot more persuasive than the jumble of poorly-informed and badly articulated arguments we tend to get.
As an aside while vehemently disagree with the author I do appreciate the fact the line is willing to run it!
I have never felt more politically homeless in my life. Throughout most of my adult life, I voted between Liberal and NDP. This past Federal election was the first time I voted Conservative. These past few years I've watched the Lib's and NDP move so far Left that I now look like I'm on the right. Leslyn Lewis actually caught my eye. She is the type of Conservative I could get behind (genuine free speech and speaking out against identity politics).
O'Toole turned out to be a huge disappointment, just like this article. I despise these coercive mandates and I fully support the truckers. And, as it turns out, most Canadians are also getting fed up with these mandates and restrictions. The latest Angus Reid poll, https://angusreid.org/omicron-incidence-restrictions/, now shows that the majority wants them to end too. It's a 15 point rise since early Jan. Surprisingly enough, Alberta (at 57%) came in behind Quebec at 59%. It's very interesting as the Quebec gov't has been the most authoritarian (the un-vaxxed cannot even shop at Walmart). Looks like the Quebec gov't is actually the fringe at this point.
And what the hell is up with this line, "Believe it or not @CPC_HQ, not many swing voters stroke to Jordan Peterson or other avatars of the iconoclastic right." ?!? Dr Peterson is admired by many on the left, and right but mainly the center. To say that he is an avatar for the right is highly disingenuous.
Between that comment and the biased articles against the truckers, I am very, very close to cancelling my subscription to the Line. And I've been here from the beginning (or close to anyway).
Very good summary of the problems with the Conservative party. I was going to support them but now have to wait to find out what they are actually going to be for. With three Woke parties to the left we need a pragmatic party on the right we can support.
Boris Johnson? Seriously?? The politician who wrote a memo in favour of Brexit and against it and then chose based on polling? The person who asked the United Kingdom to shut down and then partied hard? He got Brexit done, because of Dominic Cummings... subscribe to his Substack and you shall see.
I am sorry, this is not acceptable as a benchmark or anything even if the connection with the first-past-the-post and parliamentary government is there. Canada deserves a Conservative Party modeled on serious, trustworthy and hard working right-of-centre politicians.
Why don't we look at Angela Merkel, or Mark Rutte, heck even Bibi Netanyahu or Scott Morrison if we really want to push the limits of expediency vs dogmatism?
Yes, there is a need for pragmatism in any political party who expects to win elections. It is also more a function of who goes to the polls and who stays home, given how polarized voters are.
Boris Johnson as a model... C'mon The Line that is beyond the pale.
One longs for a Conservative Party alternative to the fatuous incompetence of the current PM, but as long as the Conservatives insist on moving to the conspiracy-theory/culture-war Right-Wing fringe, they leave this many-time Conservative voter where I have always been, in the Political Centre.
Interesting read. I would like to introduce some 'diversity of thought' at the invitation of the author.
BoJo was elected after the atrocious leadership of his predecessors and hardly because of his competence or 'charisma' -- the man has a silly pompous accent (even for a British elite) and a ridiculous hairdo and goes around Britain pretending he is (his idol) Winston Churchill. Alas, he falls slightly short of this mark and will likely go down in UK political history as an enormous failure. Who supports him now? The conservatives who voted for him realized they got a 'controlled opposition' mild Progressive, and the Labour voters who voted for him realize he is no friend of the working class. A dithering flip-flopper with no coherent goals -- sound familiar?
The author, despite denying it, is in fact endorsing 'The Conservatives should be Liberals-Lite'. Unfortunately, this advice is neither new nor particularly original. I think future success depends on how precisely opposite the direction the Conservatives can go in opposition to our Progressive parties.
I think this lack luster advice is borne of projection. 'Modern conservatism is all about attitude these days, not worldview' -- admonishing the Conservatives for not having a worldview makes less sense when you realize that conservatism is not a worldview. Progressivism is a worldview. The Progressives of the world all believe basically the same things. (Vibrant diversity here).
A conservative is the inheritor and protector of traditions. You cannot inherit and protect with a staunch worldview. Unlike Progressives, you couldn't possibly lump together all the conservatives of the world because the traditions and pasts are so diverse and different. Like Thomas Sowell said, 'What we call the Right, are the disparate and various opponents of the Left' -- it's a Leftist projection. The Left is collectivist, centralizing and authoritarian, and whoever doesn't support them is named 'the Right' -- these opposing groups could have almost nothing in common, which is why the ranks of the Alt-Right are swelling precipitously without them having done anything to recruit anyone -- it's simply the Left labeling any dissenters thus.
The above are clues as to the natural difficulty in building conservative coalitions.
I believe that if the Conservatives want to remain a relevant party, they ought to take on the precise opposite position to anything coming from our Progressive parties. Not for immature contrarian reasons; I genuinely believe this is the right path for our country. More communitarian policies for Canadian citizens (and not all the world are Canadian citizens, so distance us from the UN and other corrupt global enterprises. They do nothing for average Canadians.)
1. Climate Change
We could today eliminate 100% of our carbon and ghg emissions and it would change literally nothing in terms of global climate change. But it's important, the author says, to have policies in place reducing emissions and hamstringing our energy industries. Why? Honestly, why? This is ideology. This is faith.
If however you want to talk environmental policy as you mentioned -- strengthening our climate resilience and proofing our lives, our farms, and our shelters for the inevitable, then I'm all ears. Do the opposite of the Libs: scrap all Carbon taxes, stop bludgeoning our energy industry etc.
2. Multiculturalism
I admire the ideals of America and find the average American a decent chap. I do agree that we do not need to become America -- after all Canada should be its own project. There is a current policy that more than any other ensures that we will in fact become America. This is our official policy of Multiculturalism and insanely high levels of immigration (highest per capita in the world). America is tearing itself at the seams because it is a hodge podge collection of so many different identity groups (that used to melt together once upon a time but no longer). In Canada we are doing our best to replicate this ensuring that we will become a little America, and eventually a balkanized Yugoslavia.
Again, the prescription is do the opposite of the Libs: drastically reduce levels of immigration, support integration and make it harder to become a Canadian citizen. Watch real wages rise for the average Canadian as the source of cheap foreign labour dwindles.
Good article, Andrew… the PC party lost me with Harper, and my membership $, too. I’ve seen nothing coming from the right to change that view, but I’d sure welcome changes, or at least adult conversation, about the ideas you’ve tabled with this article.
Nailed it. My fear is that without a credible opposition the Liberals will win by default, and not even have to try.