opinion | The Tribunes Club

In any good family, whether blended or extended, there is at least one person who must be right. No matter the subject, no matter the stakes – his point of view must prevail. Facts and arguments often intertwine without coherence or common thread. Usually with a lot of emotion. The search for neutral topics to avoid slippage can cause a lot of anxiety when approaching a family celebration.

I have always been in awe of the consensus that emerges from any gathering of federal Liberals. Whether they are in opposition or in power, whether they are a hundred or a thousand. Even if fiery debates follow one another behind closed doors, in public, Soviet solidarity settles in, rarely leaving room for dissidence. The upset keep quiet, hide or inherit an embassy. Voters are spared mixed messages, which is usually wise, communications experts will confirm.

If the Liberal public relations operations compare to a performance by the Swan Lakethe conservative ones are closer to a WWE wrestling gala.

The dismissal of Erin O’Toole this week took place under the aegis of a law passed in 2015 allowing members of a party to knock out their leader. Largely inspired by a British model – which is currently threatening Prime Minister Boris Johnson – no one will be surprised that the Conservatives are the first to take advantage of it in Canada. And as the conservatives always have a good reserve of free electrons in their ranks, it should not be surprising if this sword of Damocles comes back into service.

Mr. O’Toole’s performance as a chef will not leave only fond memories. He gave the impression – especially since the electoral defeat last September – of being a hunted man ready to make any accommodation to appease his oppressors. A person looking for landmarks in the middle of a raging sea. Even the recent presentation of a brief rather beneficial to the cause of Mr. O’Toole, prepared by a former Conservative MP responsible for shedding light on the electoral results, will not have spared him the scaffold.

This dismissal juxtaposed with sensational statements by certain deputies around the demonstrations of truckers and health rules leaves many voters pensive. Among these voters, many come from large suburbs in Canada whose electoral weight is well established.

The Conservatives boast about winning universal suffrage in the last election. Granted, but to govern, they will have to make inroads in many constituencies where more calm voices and slightly more nuanced policies will be necessary.

Unlike Americans who delight in controversy, Canadians seek consensus and abhor division. They also have an idealistic image of their country that is sometimes disconnected from reality. It is always surprising to learn that there are still many Canadians who oppose abortion or who do not take seriously the repercussions of greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, it is the anti-vaxxers – some of our friends or co-workers – who force us to acknowledge that dissent (or stupidity) exists, even with regard to issues considered fundamental.

That these people seek support from our parliamentarians neither surprises nor shocks me. Our Parliament wants to be a reflection of our society – if we must applaud the emergence in Ottawa of a political class from visible minorities, we must at the same time hope for a plurality of opinions.

But the elected members of the Conservative Party, it must be admitted, often find themselves in minefields. These controversial topics find their way more naturally into their inboxes. Unfortunately, too many of them turn into stooges rather than mouthpieces. Not only do they report the concerns of their constituents, but they often choose to marry them indiscriminately. Without the presence of a leader with an ascendant, this noise becomes deafening and causes repeated existential crises.

If the Conservative Party were to slide to the right following the next leadership campaign, in the next election, it will still be stranded on the reefs of the center that prevails in Canada. Ultimately, the party will branch off to the center, as it did in 2003 after the marriage of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party. The reformists, with five times more deputies and pharaonic financial means, had come to the altar with a partnership proposal. The Reformers knew they needed the Progressive Conservatives to hope to win. And if they have forgotten it, voters will remind them.