 |
|
Feature: |
| |
| You are here:
Home > Features > The Conservative
Party of Canada: Uniting the Right |
Opposition to Uniting the Right
The primary opposition comes from within the PC party
Who Opposes the Merger?
Opposition to the merger came primarily – although not exclusively - from within the
Tory party. There is no question that many long-time conservatives wanted the merger.
According to newspaper reports, it was former Mulroney Cabinet Minister Don Mazankowski
who suggested talks turn from informal cooperation to merger at the August 2003 meeting
between CA and PC officials.
However, a significant group of Tories, including some caucus members, opposed joining
forces with the CA. From the start, the push to unite the two parties has come primarily
from the CA. PCs have either reluctantly participated in discussions or walked away,
depending on their standing in the polls at the time.
Much of the merger opposition came from so-called “Red Tories.” Red Tories represented
the more socially reformist elements within the PC party. They believe the national
government has a role in promoting community well-being. Measures taken to achieve this
can include everything from placing limitations on the private sector to expanding social
services. By contrast, the CA placed individual rights above all else. They believed
interference by the national government in individual’s lives should be as minimal as
possible.
In addition to basic ideological differences, Red Tories are uncomfortable joining
forces with a party that – deservedly or not – has a reputation in Eastern Canada for
being racist and anti-Quebec. When stating his opposition to the merger, former Prime
Minister Joe Clark said that: “This is about more than a name and history…It is about
a hard-won reputation as a party that is both inclusive and pan-Canadian.” (Source:
Orangeville Citizen).
In addition, opponents feared that the merger really amounts to a takeover of the PC
by the Canadian Alliance. Or, at the very least, the public may view the merger as a
takeover. This is problematic for two reasons:
- The policies of the new party may be less inclusive than the PC party
- The newly formed party may repeat the CA’s poor electoral performance in Eastern
Canada
Concerns that the CA was taking over the Tory party were evident in early October,
when talks stalled over choosing a leader for the new party. Tories wanted each of the
301 ridings to carry an equal weight in the leadership selection process. By contrast,
the Alliance wanted a system based on one-person, one-vote. Tory organizers voiced two
concerns over the Alliance method:
- The CA’s large Alberta membership would control the outcome
- Single-issue extremist organizations – more likely to be CA members - could hijack
the process.
In the end, the CA compromised by agreeing to the system used to elect Joe Clark in
1998. For their part, the Tories compromised on the means used to adopt the new party’s
constitution and policy platform.
Legal Maneuvers to Block the Merger
Following Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper’s announcement that their two parties would
merge, Tory supporter David Orchard attempted to block the merger by initiating legal
action. Orchard was a candidate in the recent PC leadership race, and eventually threw
his support behind MacKay on the convention floor. Orchard’s support was conditional
on MacKay’s signed agreement to review NAFTA, not enter into merger talks with the CA,
and to run candidates in all 301 ridings. Orchard has publicly stated the merger is
a “complete and utter betrayal of our agreement.”
Orchard and other Tory merger opponents sought the following declarations in Ontario
Superior Court:
- Under the terms of its constitution, the PC party could not be dissolved without
holding a national meeting, in which two-thirds of the delegates must vote for dissolution.
As such, regional meetings, the procedure by which MacKay pursued party support for
the merger, would violate the terms of the party’s constitution.
- Both the Management committee and individual committee members could be held liable
for approving an invalid dissolution process and sued.
- Conservatives opposing the merger may be entitled to the “assets of the original
organization.”
The suit filed by Orchard was intended to preserve the Progressive Conservative Party
name and assets. This would allow members who did not want to join the new Conservative
Party to remain under the old party. However, on December 5, 2003, Superior Court Justice
Russell Juriansz dismissed Orchard’s application completely, deciding that the lawsuit
had no merits.
Former Progressive Conservatives Leave the Party
Opposition to the merger became clearly evident following the new Conservative Party
becoming official, as several former Progressive Conservative members immediately left
the new party. On December 8, 2003, former PC leader Joe Clark, New Brunswick MP John
Herron and Quebec MP Andre Bachand announce that they would leave the Conservative Party
and sit as independents. On December 10, 2003, Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison left the
Conservative Party and crossed the floor to the Liberal Party. Then in January 2004,
British Columbia MP Keith Martin left the Conservative Party to sit as an independent,
and announced his intention to seek the Liberal nomination for the riding in the next
federal election.
The exodus of former Progressive Conservative members was due in large part to a perceived
take over by the Canadian Alliance of the Progressive Conservatives, and a resulting
far-right ideology in the new Conservative Party. Without key “progressives” such as
Joe Clark, it will be difficult for the new party to shake this perception within the
general public.
|
