Confessions of a self-loathing Tory

Scott Gilmore: I hate my party. It’s time to build a new one that genuinely believes in liberty, equality and facts over ideology.


 
Conservative Party leader candidates, from left, Lisa Raitt, member of parliament (MP), Andrew Saxton, former member of parliament (MP), Chris Alexander, former minister of immigration, Rick Peterson, venture capitalist, Brad Trost, member of parliament (MP), Andrew Scheer, member of parliament (MP), Michael Chong, member of parliament (MP), Erin O'Toole, member of parliament (MP), and Steven Blaney, former minister of public safety, participate in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership debate in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Conservative Party leader candidates, participate in the Tory leadership debate in Vancouver, British Columbia,  on Sunday, Feb. 19, 2017. (Ben Nelms/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

This happens regularly: I pick up my phone and hear “Mr. Gilmore, thank you for your previous donations to the Conservative Party of Canada…” Before they can continue, I respond: “You picked the wrong day for this” and hang up. Because, inevitably, I will have just watched Brad Trost deny climate change, or heard Maxime Bernier’s plan to send troops to the border, or read anything that plopped out of the mouth of Kevin O’Leary.

The Conservative leadership race has been hard to watch, unless you support the Liberals or any other political party in Canada —in which case it’s been a laugh a minute. But for people like me, I am left wondering how I ended up in a party seemingly dominated by xenophobic, economically illiterate, populist buffoons.

After the improbable drubbing the Conservatives received at the hands of Trudeau, I had hoped the party would pull itself together. Understandably, voters ran from Harper’s vision of a Canada with more jails, fewer refugees and less pot. This country has become far more cosmopolitan, multicultural, tolerant and socially liberal than it was a generation ago. And these social and demographic shifts can’t be undone.

RELATED: How Kellie Leitch touched off a culture war

Which is why I had expected the Conservatives would recognize they needed to catch up with the rest of us. But if the bulk of its leadership candidates reflect the future of the party, Trudeau will be in power until the NDP finally gets its act together (i.e. forever).

The problem is that two different ideologies have been shoehorned into the husk of the Conservative Party of Canada. The old Reform/Progressive Conservative definitions are not entirely accurate— but roughly speaking one group is socially conservative and economically populist, and the other is focused on individual liberty and free markets. If we have learned anything useful from this leadership race it is that these two conservative philosophies cannot be reconciled.

While the majority of naturally conservative voters welcome refugees, believe in climate change, and don’t care if the neighbour smokes weed, the majority of leadership candidates are actively opposed to all those things. And because this latter group dominates the CPC, and has for some time, we ended up here. The Liberals are sitting safely in power, espousing whatever patchwork ideology works best for them this year, while most Conservative leaders inexplicably race each other to the right, abandoning the center entirely. This leaves voters like me cringing as they are forced to make the ridiculous choice between Trudeau or Trost.

I have a proposal to change this.

Maybe it’s time we just give O’Leary and Bernier and Pierre Lemieux and Ezra Levant what they want: a populist, nationalist, socially conservative party that focuses on older, rural, white, male, voters. There is a legitimate place for a party like that in Parliament, and they’re welcome to own it.

And maybe it’s time the rest of us conservatives acknowledged the merger worked in the short term, but eventually it exposed irreconcilable bedrock differences. And “uniting the right” is worth nothing if you must abandon your ideological values in the process. Maybe it’s time we considered starting something new: a right of centre party that genuinely believes in individual liberty, that the state has no right to tell us who we can love, what we can smoke or what we can say—a party that doesn’t want to put more people in jail, but rather believes citizens should be given every opportunity possible to defend themselves before the law.

RELATED: 5 ways Trump has already poisoned Canadian politics

This could be a party that believes in science and recognizes ideology should never trump facts—a party that acknowledges the reality of climate change. And a party that genuinely believes in markets and understands free trade can lift all boats, that economies evolve and while individual workers should be helped, industries should be allowed to die to make room for new ones. This would be a party that understands governments are lousy investors, voters should not be bribed with their own money, and a carbon price (not regulation) is the market solution to climate change.

Canada needs a party that wants to play a substantive role in the world, and is also willing to pay the entrance fee by spending more on our military, our diplomats and aid. This party would recognize that almost all of us descend from immigrants, that immigration built this country, and it should continue. We would acknowledge that all people are born equal, but not into equal circumstances. We would not tolerate that a child born onto reserves is less than half as likely to graduate high school as a white child born in the city, any more than we would tolerate open racism or sexism.

This would be a conservative party that believes in equality for all regardless of race, creed, language, sexual orientation, or gender —a party that doesn’t see feminism as a left-wing plot, that doesn’t worry if we don’t share the same values, and is not frightened of everyone and everything.

COUNTERPOINT: Chuck Strahl on why a divided Conservative Party cannot stand

Imagine a national party that believes we are obligated to take advantage of our strong economy and unparalleled good fortune by aspiring towards ambitious national projects, and not just tax cuts for the “struggling middle class”. Imagine a party that recognizes government should not always be the solution of first resort for every problem that ails us, but also understands only the government can level the playing field before it gets out of the way.

OPINION: Why I wouldn’t vote for Kevin O’Leary—and neither should you

All signs suggest the Conservative party is about to choose a leader who either doesn’t champion these ideas, or actively opposes them. When that happens, those of us who do should finally consider building ourselves a new home.

I will do this: The week after the new leader is chosen, I will host three dinners for whoever wants to discuss this idea, in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The goal will be simple: Let’s talk about whether Canada needs a new conservative party, and if so, how would we build it?

If you are also unhappy with what the Conservative Party has turned into, join me. Maybe no one else shows up. Maybe they do but no one agrees. Maybe we agree, but nothing happens. I admit, the odds of this succeeding are very small, but they are not zero. I believe it’s worth trying. And, besides, I’m buying the first round of drinks.

UPDATE: Due to the sudden and overwhelming response to this column, Scott has set up a page where you can sign up to join one of these dinners here.

Scott Gilmore is a member of the Conservative Party, and married to a Liberal Cabinet member


 

Confessions of a self-loathing Tory

  1. I feel your angst. Thank you for the warning about populist candidates.

    • All you have to do is look at what is happening in Europe and see if you want this shit in Canada, who will stop this muslim invasion, of our country, A group0 of people who only want to destroy the world,

      • There is no Moslem invasion. Stop talking nonsense.

      • You really should crawl back into the 1950’s where you came from. The US and the ant-Islamic actions created this crisis and you would exasperate it.

    • http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservative-leadership-candidate-michael-chong-s-noble-pursuit-1.3276655

      Not all the candidates are terrible. However, we cannot ignore that 1 in 4 Canadians are afraid of a Muslim invasion. We cannot ignore that young people do not get out to vote but those old white rural people do and those who are afraid of a Muslim invasion will get out to vote. You say Scott that we should let them have their party well that is what happened in the US with Trump and that is the vote that happened in Britain and we know those ended up. We also cannot forget what happened to the PC party of Canada after Brian Mulroney. You are all bemoaning its disappearance and sharing your found memories but were were you when the voting was happening? The party was left with 3 seats after Kim Campbell’s devastating loss to Chrétien. Peter McKay united the PC with the Reform Party because his party was dead in the water and the Reform Party had momentum. That cannot be ignored in the history lesson. Politically, it was a smart move. Justin Trudeau has also made some astute moves. He cannot make any change if he isn’t the leader so he has become flexible. You guys talk about the great Joe Clark but he was PM for 6 months so how much of a success was he really? You hate Harper but he hung in there for over 10 years. Alberta has two Conservative parties and they have come to the realization they can’t win without uniting. You want to split the parties and believe you can win by splitting the vote. In what universe is that possible when your new just right of central party will be competing with a centrist party like the Libs? It might sound like a good idea but it isn’t going to work.

  2. I agree with a lot of whats said, i did vote for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada at one time, John Crosbie, Norm Doyle, these were all good red tories i voted for, politicians who believed in progressive policies instead of getting hung up on ideology. Then Harper comes in and picks the weakest link in the PCs to make a merger with the PCs(Peter Chopper McKay), and then Harper hoodwinks the real PCs into a Reform Party state of mind, the Reform DNA on the party. It completely took the PC party right off the map. This time after loosing i thought this party would learn its lesson. Right now they are a party looking for an identity, but they seem destined to ruin other peoples identity to get there. Life is to short to get hung up on identity politics, live and let live, just get on with the business of governing. When Harper was PM, he had a chance to show the country that the governing Conservatives are about running a country for all to live, and to reach out to everyone, instead making everyone your enemy, he took the cons from 0 to 60 in the first few years, only to fall flat on all fours by bringing identity politics into the country(Tom Flanigan), i never ever saw that kind of politics in this country before, i always thought we were a country of tolerance and inclusiveness, and now we have fallen back into a snake pit of vipers in this country driving everyone crazy by using fear and identity politics on everyone, again. The conservative party needs to take a personal inventory of the way it wants to govern, and the way it needs to take its party, or they will end up sitting in the bleachers for years to come.

    • Carpet Bomber… your punctuation could be improved, but your political analysis of the CPC is excellent. Your analysis should be required reading for the CPC but they’re busy drinking Cool-aid. Scott is a very confused ‘conservative’ I think his heart has been hollowed out by “the Harper Governing Experience”.

      What Canada needs is a Progressive Conservative Party that has the traditional roots of their notable leaders such as Joe Clark, Robert Stanfield, Peter Lougheed and Bill Davis. But it’s not going to happen. The Alberta centric ideologues and the Alberta gravitational centre of the Reform and Alliance Parties form the root of the current CPC and they continually play the card of being “abused misunderstood underdogs subservient to Central Canada” which plays well at home but is a myth. Alberta is not an underdog. It has the highest wages in Canada. The past 3 decades of “Provincial Conservative” government have squandered their Heritage Fund and blame the rest of Canada for their plight. As I wrote, it plays well at home but it’s a fiction.

  3. This sounds like a great party, Scott and I’d vote Con for the first time in my life if it ever existed. But as you say, the leader hopefuls are all a bunch of either/ors and think that’s what the party should be too. This isn’t pie – there’s enough to go around for everyone.

  4. I would vote for such a party.

  5. I hope he is successful in re-creating the PC party. What we need is a reasonable right party and a left party. This would probably move the Liberals more to the left squeezing out the NDP. Presto, the two ideologically based extremes would be out of business. Suits me fine.

    • Scott Gilmore – husband of Liberal Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna – working for a magazine that gets a 1.5 million dollar a year grant from the feds just to survive.

      Do you really believe him?

      You need to think a bit on this before responding.

  6. If Guy Caron wins the NDP leadership race, you might ironically find yourself very conformable in the NDP.

  7. O’Leary is anything but a populist. He just believes in sound fiscal management-a concept completely abandoned by Liberals provincially and Federally. As for man made climate change, there are now close to 32,000 real scientists around the world who think that’s a scam. Trump’s position will allow a lot of those who have been denied a say by the left media to be heard and we’ll finally get some honest debate underway.

      • Try this Emily
        http://www.petitionproject.org/
        The writers definition for this article says that populism embraces Xenophobia. Not the case with O’Leary. His main platform is not wasting money. So far the surfer dude has had 10 vacations with his tax paid entourage and given $10 billion to foreign causes. Now that’s performancw!!

        • Words have a specific meaning…..found in the dictionary. People cannot make up meanings to suit themselves.

          Ordinary people are often xenophobic.

          It’s all populism.

          • So, I guess we both conclude this author is inept.

        • Gilmore isn’t.

  8. What took you so long?
    Though most of the real Tory’s turned away after the Reform takeover in disgust and in sadness, former MP Joe Heuglin kept a light in the window, forming a new PC Party, the Progressive Canadian Party as a place for exiled PCers and has kept up his email blog.
    I would think he has a pretty full rolodex of unhappy former Tories and I know he has an active email list as well.
    The Progressive Canadian Party could be the new old party and could be revitalized with an influx of new people and fresh ideas..

    Why don’t you give Joe a call?Aside from everything else it would be a reward for a faithful Tory in keeping the Tory flame alight all these years.

    • Gawd yes, Joe has kept things humming along all these years.

  9. The first leadership race in the Conservative Party or Harper Coalition was always going to be messy internal affair as the party figures out who it is without Harper.

    The first succession is always difficult.

    If one of the more reasonable candidates wins…i.e. Scheer or O’Toole…the party will be fine as it evolves post-Harper. Raitt doesn’t speak francais, so she doomed her leadership aspirations.

    If O’Leary wins, then the party will fissure. O’Leary isn’t remotely a conservative in any way. Only the lunatics at the CBC think O’Leary is a conservative. The CBC doesn’t allow “real” conservatives on the air, ever.

    Both the Conservatives and the NDP have the problem of being grassroots party where meddling by the central Canadian plutocrats screw the party up. The Liberals are the party of the central Canadian plutocrats.

    • Speaking as a plutocrat I don’t speak to the lumber peasants of the west.

      • I’m curious. Is your last name Poe?

  10. You’d have my vote.

  11. Allowing the incompatible elements of a big tent party to have separate expression is a good idea. Get some of those differences out of the back rooms and into the House of Commons under separate party banners.
    Then the nuttier proposals can be kicked to the margins by the sensible majority, and the better ideas can find cross-party majority support.

    Unfortunately Canada’s first-past-the-post voting system does not allow politicians to be so clear about what they think, nor does it allow voters to play an important role in winnowing the nutty stuff from the practical.

    For that you’d need citizens with equal effective votes and a Parliament which really represented the various strands of political thought in realistic proportions.

    Other than Guy Giorno and Nick Loenen, where are the Conservatives who realize that proportional representation would be a boon to themselves and to Canada?

    • Very good points. To be fair, Preston Manning was a supporter of PR (as it was explained to me, it apparently was part of the Reform party platform). But you’re right, they’re few and far in between.

  12. The party he longs for is called the Liberal Party of Canada. Turn in your card, Scott, and join the Liberals.

    • Gilmore- Just join the Liberals or the NDP and be done with it. You guys invent so many reasons to try and proclaim yourself conservative, yet everything you write says you just want to be a Liberal.
      For most of us, our conservatism is based on the fact that we’re sick to death of the constant failures of big government. I can’t swing a cat without hitting some failure of government or another. Government swings and misses at this, and instead of trying to do better, they take a swing at a faster, steeper curving ball.
      I’ll give you a classic example. Yesterday, I watched 5 city employees working at a job that a private contractor would have sent one person to do. All of them were probably being paid more than the lone employee a private contractor would have sent to wash graffiti from a sidewalk. (I am VERY familiar with this particular business.) Multiply this typical wasteful mismanagement of resources across multiple levels of government and the scope of the problem is inescapably enormous.
      Those of us out here in tax land have had enough, and have been telling governments we’ve had enough, for decades. The federal f—ing government can’t manage to keep Indians from burning alive in their own houses, or dying en masse from drug and drink, but they want to save the planet from global f—-ing warming!!?? Again, the list of minor problems the feds can’t solve in their own back yard reads like a Russian novel, but they want to save the friggin’ planet? They can’t manage any one of a dozen simple nation building projects in a fashion that actually builds the nation, but incessantly want to do even more with more of our money.
      NO! Back the f–k up and put down the tax collection cudgel.
      We’ve had enough of big government. It doesn’t work. We’re tired of people like you telling us every day we need more corrupt government shoved down our throats. What we’ve collectively but independently decided is that we’ll vote for the most racist, homophobic sonofabitch that puts his hat in the ring if we think he’ll at least try and put a few government employees out of work. If that’s what it takes, that’s what we’ll do.
      If the mayor doesn’t want to go to the gay pride parade, I don’t give a rat’s ass. If the premier doesn’t believe in global warming, I don’t give a rip. If the PM doesn’t speak French, so the hell what? What I want to know is how many government departments are you going to eliminate, and when? How many regulations are you going to repeal, and when? How many employees are you going to turf, and when?
      All the other questions are pretty much secondary, if they’re even that important.

      • Bill you will die ranting about taxes and it won’t have changed a thing

        We have always paid taxes and we always will.

        • I have nothing against paying taxes. I do, however, have a beef with gross incompetence and the continual growth of government beyond the things that are broadly accepted as mandates of government.
          Take every level of government, trim their spending by a third. Not tomorrow, but today. Then, take away all of their privileges to increase spending without a broad mandate from the tax-paying electorate (i.e.- no government employees are allowed to vote on fiscal issues). ‘T’ain’t rocket surgery.

          • In other words you want taxes to go on YOUR choices, no one else’s.

            Except that this is a democracy.

            If you really wanted to save money you wouldn’t attack the civil servants you’re jealous of…..you’d go after big things like the Senate or the monarchy or the military. Or all of them

            Enough with the piddley-ass stuff. Either pee or get off the pot.

        • No Em, we have not always paid tax in Canada. The first federal income tax didn’t come into effect until 1918 and was famously considered a “temporary” tax to support the war. Very few provinces had significant taxes prior to 1900.
          .
          You are probably correct that we will always pay taxes. And it seems at an ever increasing rate.

          • Joseph and Mary were on their way to Bethlehem to pay their taxes.

            We’ve always had taxes……no matter the country, no matter the name.

            “Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada avoided charging an income tax prior to the First World War. The lack of income tax was seen as a key component in Canada’s efforts to attract immigrants as Canada offered a lower tax regime compared to almost every other country. Prior to the war, Canadian federal governments relied on tariffs and customs income under the auspices of the National Policy for most of their revenue, while the provincial governments sustained themselves primarily through their management of natural resources (the Prairie provinces being paid subsidies by the federal government as Ottawa retained control of their natural resources for the time being). The federal Liberal Party considered the probable need to introduce an income tax should their negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States in the early 20th century succeed, but the Conservatives defeated the Liberals in 1911 over their support of free trade. The Conservatives (Tories) opposed income tax as they wanted to attract immigrants primarily from the United Kingdom and the United States, and they wanted to give immigrants some incentive to come to Canada.
            Wartime expenses forced the Tories to re-consider their options and in 1918, the wartime government under Sir Robert Borden, imposed a “temporary” income tax to cover expenses. Despite the new tax the Canadian government ran up considerable debts during the war and were unable to forego income tax revenue after the war ended. With the election of the Liberal government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, much of the National Policy was dismantled and income tax has remained in place ever since.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada#History

    • Scott Gilmore – husband of Liberal Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna – working for a magazine that gets a 1.5 million dollar a year grant from the feds just to survive.

      Do you really believe him?

      You need to think a bit on this before responding.

  13. Count me as skeptical about a guy who is married to a Liberal cabinet minister and has never had a good thing to say about the Conservative Party or anybody in it – as far as I can remember – really has the interests of the party at heart with his new initiative. It sounds more like some self-righteous virtue signalling and a bit of fiddling with the Overton Window to make Canada’s political spectrum a little more to his liking

  14. It should have been obvious to Trudeau when Trump was elected on November 8 that whatever kind of policy on immigration from Muslim countries he announced was likely to put pressure on the Canadian border and he should do something to beef up border security. The useless twit did nothing, and when Trump announced his so-called Muslim ban, which was much more selective than feared, Trudeau responded by issuing moronic tweets that seemed designed to promote the flood of illegal immigrants that has ensued. Then his incompetent Minister of Immigration, REFUGEES and Citizenship, Ahmed Hussen, himself a Somali refugee, argued that there was no clear upward trend in illegal immigrants, although it should have been obvious to anyone that there was. However Gilmore’s wrath is directed not against Trudeau or Hussen, but against Maxime Bernier for calling on Canadian troops to patrol the border to deal with the emergency created by Liberal incompetence. Gilmore obviously isn’t much of a Conservative, or a conservative. What he appears to be is someone trying to help his lovely wife, Catherine McKenna, hold onto her job as Environment Minister, by syphoning off as many opposition votes that would otherwise go to the Conservative Party as possible. I hope his efforts fail, as they deserve to do.

    • Question 1…..how long is the Canadian/US border?

      Question 2….How many ‘troops’ does Canada have?

      Bonus question……how many refugees have actually crossed the border?

      Bonus question 2….what countries are they from?

    • Even assuming we had enough troops to man the border, what then? Do you propose they shoot anyone who crosses?

  15. Dear Scott Gilmore:

    Respectful how is your position any different from the liberal party?
    Climate Change: You support the Carbon tax.
    Many Conservatives, Brad Trost included, understand man made climate change occurs. But many conservatives disagree with the scope of effect, as with many scientist. Irregardless, the issue actually lies with of how exactly a carbon price will help. Besides destroying industry and putting many out of work how will paying the government more money help?
    Refuges: Are we talking Refuges or Economic Migrants? Canada is a nation with laws and boarders. Illegal migrants are jumping the quo are preventing, as in the immigration website has been closed at several points by the federal government, people who have been attempting to legally immigrate.
    Weed: To be honest I dont think many people care but following science it should have legal age set as 25 years old (Based on brain studies that suggest people under 25 can have iq decreases)
    Free Market: yes we need a better free market in Canada 100% agree. That is why CBC should be sold or nor longer exist government should not need propaganda media. CRTC should be gutted to allow competition on the telecommunication market, leading to lower cable and phone bills and better coverage.
    Military: Again you are correct on this and do differ from liberals in this instant.
    Equality: You seem to flirt with equality of outcome. Reserves are unfortunately due to a lot of corruption in which money is spent on entertainment rather than essentials. The government should ensure that the band members should have more transparency with their tribe spending. Understanding they wish for seperation and power to conduct themselves (the tribe chiefs).
    Questions need to be answered on this topic (I dont have them but they need to be talked about) what happens when chiefs are found to be corrupt and stealing from their tribe or not providing basic services to their tribe members? Will the reservations be going on indefinitely? Will pouring more money into this problem help?
    But it is not the governments business to enforce outcomes for people. Freedom allows failure.
    Feminism: Women win 95% of custody cases, men get harsher punishments for crimes. Men are around 4x more likely to commit suicide. Sounds like they don’t have enough feminism and to much ‘toxic’ masculinity. How about we treat people equally and allow them the freedom of choice. Turns out a lot of women CHOOSE not to go into science or a career. If they choose this why should anyone get in their way.
    Middle Class: The middle class grow under Harper. In a couple years it will shrink back down from Justin.
    Racism/sexism/biotry/islamophobia: I know you did not say all those words as a rule, people should be able to express them selves with words no matter how —-ism or –phobic or —ist the speech appears to be. If they incite that is already a crime. If they commit actions that is already a crime.
    The more you try to censor words (which are not aggression) the more it moves underground and gains traction until it is ready to burst.

    • LOL ahh yes, women choose not to be in science, natives choose not to eat, , people choose not to smoke weed……oh wait…..

      Give it a rest dude…..you are not the nation.

    • “Are we talking Refuges or Economic Migrants?” which if any do you prefer if any? I wouldn’t be here if 3 of my great grandparents and 2 of my grandparents weren’t economic immigrants, if 1 of my GGs hadn’t been a refugee from violence and if another hadn’t been dumped here by a British government clearance. I can understand that someone running away from a blown up house and dodging bullets would be willing to do extraordinary things and be a little cavalier about rules and regs; I can’t understand how people can take an instant dislike to people for being the target of mass murderers.

      • Immigrants that go through the legal system and come here legally to become Canadians.

        I wish to help out refugees. But as a strong caveat they need to be refugees and not economic migrants. As i have mentioned several times the Feds have shut down the immigration website as the influx of illegal migrants have been to high to allow legal migrants to apply.

        Right now there are likely 100s to 500s (data not available as RCMP was ordered to stop recording the information)

        Right now Trudeau is playing favorites allowing in people he wants with a little nudge “Remember who let you into the country, Remember who wants to get rid of you.”
        That is the slimy process of Trudeau and his policy on illegal migrants. He is attempting to buy political favours using tax payers money and screwing over hard working legal immigrates.

        Notice how CBC calls them boarder crossers. Or asylum seekers. They are in the United states. There is no civil war. There is nothing for them to flee from. If they are illegals from that does not equate to refugees.
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-rcmp-border-crossing-1.3989681

  16. Interesting but highly questionable.
    Perhaps one day Mr. Gilmore who is married to a Liberal cabinet minister will take off the blinders, (please). When Mr.Harper bulldozed our Progressive Conservative Party I was appalled and I did my best to stop him from my position on the board of “P,C, Metro” Toronto. I have witnessed first hand just how nasty politics can be, especially when against the varies Liberal Party factions.
    The N.D.P. are a crude but happy lot and Smilin’ Jack was a treat.
    After re-examining Scott Gilmore’s background I would say that he had the makings of a “Progressive Conservative” card carrier, no more than that.
    First, is Canada responsible in any way for our present “climate change” ? Perhaps only a few people feel that way, since we contribute to climate stability. So why the “Carbon Tax”?
    J.Trudeau stated, so that we could set an example, and that is very poor business sense.
    Canada is in trouble economically and we moved very quickly in to that position. The scandals and mismanagement are now endless. So, we need a real “Progressive Conservative at the helm. They call us “Red Tories”. There are a few possibilities on the horizon , and they are the people that the Liberal Party (s) fear most. Call me Scott for a rude awakening.

    • And all the girls down at the local ho house thought smilin’ Jack was a real treat too!

    • So … Mr Gilmore is a card carrying Conservative and therefore a member of the party and he has an opinion!? Too bad for Mr Gilmore that it’s a club of brown-shirts like you who can not tolerate contrary opinion or even constructive criticism. As economies go, Canada’s doing okay … could do better to be sure (and we need to find a way to dig our way out of the mono-thematic economy created by Harper that lashes us to the price of a single commodity) but bigotry is a less useful economic or social policy than you imagine (possibly I forgot that social policy is equivalent to liberalism for many cons).

    • You are one of the few who gets it.

      Scott Gilmore – husband of Liberal Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna – working for a magazine that gets a 1.5 million dollar a year grant from the feds just to survive.

  17. We used to have the Progressive Conservative, with Leaders like Robert Stanfield and Joe Clarke both of whom were highly principled and dedicated to the good of us all. Peter MacKay sold out to Harper and the current Conservative Party came into being, some of the PCs crossed the floor and others dropped out next election. When I vote and I have never missed in the last 62 years. I have over those years voted PC, Liberal, Con, not based on the leader but on the candidates in the riding in which I lived. The current government is probable the most dishonest one I have ever seen except for the current Ontario mob, so I may have to rethink my options. Our current MP is a well educated, intelligent woman who deserves my vote, but her leader will be denied my support.

  18. Oh, but Mr. Gilmore, there is already a political party for you right here in Canada. It’s Called the Liberal Party. Please feel free to join at your earliest convenience!

  19. “Imagine a party that recognizes government should not always be the solution of first resort for every problem that ails us, but also understands only the government can level the playing field before it gets out of the way.” Sounds like you are a little confused. You are calling for limited government and government intervention in the same sentence. Another conservative party would just splinter the vote on the right. I believe there are some good candidates that are talking sense and putting forward a positive vision for the country based on limited government. Maxime Bernier’s economic plan makes sense and is inspiring. It is based on freedom and personal responsibility, something few people have the courage to stand up and talk about. He should be given credit for this. As one response said, if you don’t believe in a plan to shrink government maybe you are not really conservative after all and would feel more at home with the “progressives”/Liberals

    • Progressive is a loaded term so is liberal….could dialogue all night on meanings of these terms/ history of these terms

  20. Did it ever occur to you that most of the people that support the Federal Conservative Party are indeed “xenophobic, economically illiterate, populist buffoons.” I have a number of siblings living in Alberta all of their life, and know no other party except for the recently elected NDP — which they hate. You people have no one else to blame but yourselves.

  21. You pompous Conservatives advocating your anti-climate change tirades on this site remind me of the recent comments of a Republican from the State of Pensylvania:
    “Talking about climate change, Wagner on Monday told WITF radio in Harrisburg: “I haven’t been in a science class in a long time, but the Earth moves closer to the sun every year — you know the rotation of the Earth. … We’re moving closer to the sun.”
    “We have more people,” he continued. “You know, humans have warm bodies. So is heat coming off?”

    • Can you stick to Canada for your argument?
      Man made Climate change exist but can I ask you to what degree it has increased over the past 150 years?

      Secondly how will giving all the moneys to the government stop global warming? Even if Canada, the US and every other country except china just stopped all CO2 emissions it would maybe delay the projected “horrors” by like 30 years.

      The Carbon tax is just the government taking money to do what? Fund green energy? Turns out that green energy might be worse for climate. As you have large fluctuation in energy availability. Go from energy poverty and than excessive energy to be forced to pay people to take the money.

      Could it be improved sure green energy could be improved but again how does giving the government more money solve global warming? It is at best a virtue signal at worse growing a bloated government into further corruption

      https://qz.com/680661/germany-had-so-much-renewable-energy-on-sunday-that-it-had-to-pay-people-to-use-electricity/

  22. Obviously, and I can’t believe no one has pointed this out, Mr. Gilmore is not a conservative at all. I don’t fancy most of the candidates either, but at least ‘Mad’ Max would give people like Gilmore and his wife something to whine about, and that’s worth this “old white males” vote! :)

  23. Good for you, Jason! We need a viable second party, and the Reform Party, under any name, isn’t it.

    We also need voices calling out the idiocy of O’Leary and company. How can anyone believe he’s in it for anyone but O’Leary? He’s a venture capitalist, living in the U.S., playing right from the Republican handbook. Right now, he can’t get his hands on the money in government coffers. Privatize, and he can.

    Tell people they’ll save money on their taxes, and few will think to ask what it’ll cost them. Harper already played this card. Give the middle-class a little tax break, give corporations a huge one, and turn a massive surplus into a deficit. Then, you tell the middle-class you have to cut back on services, to pay for the tax break. It only took him 2 years. Ordinary Canadians ended up on the hook for a bigger portion of the tax bill, while corporate execs pocketed big bonuses. And where did the money go? Back into our communities? Did it create jobs? Hardly. How about off-shore tax havens?

    Don’t ask what O’Leary will do for your tax bill. Ask what he’ll do to your total bill.

    It takes a special kind of stupid to fall for the same gambit twice.

  24. In contrast to his claims, it’s painfully obvious that Scott lacks even the most understanding of science. Making silly statements about people not believing in climate change (climate is changing just like it always has since the beginning of earth’s history) is ludicrous at best. There is absolutely nothing Canadians can do to affect global temperatures.
    Canadian never has needed nor does it now have a need for anyone to enter our country illegally or for anyone to move into our country and demand we change our laws to accommodate their wishes.
    Canadians do not have any need for Red Tories. Scott needs to go and seek out his own kind in the Liberal Party, if destroying Canada is his goal.

    • Correction to the above: “…Scott lacks even the most ‘basic’ understanding of science.”

  25. The truth is ‘Canadian values’ for the majority of Canadians are rather soft and touch-feely; hardcore gun-totin’ policy can only ever address minorities. IMHO Canadians never really loved the little guy from Shawinigan because he seemed a little slippery (and he was) but they liked him because he had a knack of finding the moderately acceptable soft solution and rarely spoke policy as if it were religion (what he did behind the scenes is apparently a much different story). That’s not to say I want wishy-washy government: I still remember the days when Bill Davis gave us sweaters and cute dogs as campaign platform; on the other hand, policy based on seeing citizens as problems and/or enemies of the state is offensive – when ‘can’t we all just get along’ could be a majority mantra. The CPC needs an antidote to Harper – after a spate of shutting down parliamentary discourse for a record number of times and intensive manipulation of the (theoretically independent) senate, followed by a temp who places dogma above consideration, the CPC doesn’t need another iconoclast: a plausibly reasonable progressive conservative with democratic leanings is more likely what the CPC needs.
    Oh well, after the leadership race fist fight, they’ll all buddy up; after all, the quest for power is ever the one ring that binds them.

  26. Michael Chong appears to want the party described in the article. I’m suprised Mr. Gilmore didn’t mention him. But that might have made the article unnecessary.

    • Oh, is Chong leading so much as the race for leader let alone the leader?

      No, he’s getting booed and heckled at all the CPC debates.

  27. Suggest Mr. Gilmore have a look at Tom McMillan’s recently published book: Not My Party: The Rise and Fall of Canadian Tories, from Robert Stanfield to Stephen Harper. It is filled with info that would help greatly in any move to renew the current Conservative Party or resurrect the old Progressive Conservative Party.

  28. Scottie
    Looking forward to meeting you in Vancouver on your tour. Wear a red carnation so we can find you. Is the Trudeau foundation paying for spouses to travel and buy their drinks now? Or are you selling Caths pictures of Paris. If so bring 10. I have a loony.
    By the way
    Trump won
    Catherine zero

    Mocking is so much fun isn’t it.

  29. “… new one that genuinely believes in liberty, equality and facts over ideology.”

    No need. That party already exists, it’s the Liberal party.

  30. 75% of what Gilmore wants can be found in the Liberal party. Heck, a fair bit can be found in the NDP. His problem seems to be he doesn’t understand who Conservatives are.

  31. Scott Gilmore – husband of Liberal Cabinet Minister Catherine McKenna – working for a magazine that gets a 1.5 million dollar a year grant from the feds just to survive.

    Does anyone really care what he thinks? Does anyone really believe one bit of the article he wrote?

    If you did you are not as smart as you should be.