In a move pollster calls ‘a direct challenge’ to O’Toole’s leadership, 15 to 30 Tory MPs and Senators starting new caucus to speak up for anti-vaxxers losing jobs

In a move pollster calls ‘a direct challenge’ to O’Toole’s leadership, 15 to 30 Tory MPs and Senators starting new caucus to speak up for anti-vaxxers losing jobs

By Abbas Rana      November 4, 2021

But three-term Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu says the ‘Civil Liberties Caucus’ is not aimed to undermine Erin O’Toole’s leadership, only to represent constituents’ concerns.

Three-term Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu and a group of 15 to 30 Conservative MPs and Senators are starting a caucus called the ‘Civil Liberties Caucus’ to advocate for ‘reasonable accommodation’ for anti-vaxxers who are losing their jobs. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Erin O’Toole’s stance on COVID-19 vaccinations hurt the Conservative Party’s recent election campaign and remains a divisive internal issue as a group of 15 to 30 Conservative MPs and Senators is set to start a new intra-party caucus on Nov. 8 called the “Civil Liberties Caucus” that Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu says will speak up for anti-vaxxers who are losing their jobs for refusing to get the shot.

The idea to start this caucus came at a social gathering of Parliamentarians early last month in Ottawa, after the first post-election caucus meeting, Ms. Gladu (Sarnia-Lambton, Ont.) told The Hill Times. At the time, a number of caucus members expressed concerns about some of their constituents losing their jobs in a variety of professions for refusing to get vaccinated. With House committees seeming unlikely to meet until February, the three-term MP said there’s no parliamentary forum in the interim where MPs can have a serious discussion on this issue. Ms. Gladu said this is the reason “like-minded” MPs and Senators decided to start this caucus.

Get Today’s Headlines Newsletter

Canadian politics and policy stories that are shaping the day. Weekdays. By entering your email address you consent to receive email from The Hill Times containing news, analysis, updates and offers. You may unsubscribe at any time. See our privacy policy

Since that meeting, Ms. Gladu said some Conservatives MPs and Senators have had four Zoom meetings to discuss the path forward to highlight this issue and what they can do to encourage employers to find a “reasonable accommodation” for these workers. In her own Ontario riding, she said, 18 nurses lost their jobs early this  week for refusing to get vaccinated. Ms. Gladu suggested rather than firing people from their jobs, employers can use rapid tests to determine whether staff are COVID-19 positive, or transfer them to positions that do not involve contact with patients. On Nov. 8, in the evening, she said some Conservative MPs and Senators are meeting online to finalize the nuts and bolts of how they want to run this caucus.

Conservative Party Leader Erin O’Toole is facing an uphill internal battle over the divisive issue of vaccinations. The Hill Times photograph by Sam Garcia

Ms. Gladu said the House committee approach is under consideration as a model to follow, whereby the caucus could invite experts to guide members about possible solutions. The caucus is considering launching a Facebook page to provide updates to their constituents about the caucus’ work and may invite them to participate, she said. She said the group has not formally informed Mr. O’Toole or the opposition leader’s office about this caucus as it’s an informal group and it’s not unusual for Parliamentarians to start caucuses on issues of interest. She also said that it’s highly unlikely that the leadership would try to shut it down as there are other caucuses on “controversial” issues, such as the pro-life caucus that has been in existence for years.

Canadians’ rights ‘are being encroached’ on: Gladu

Ms. Gladu denied the “Civil Liberties Caucus” is aimed to undermine or challenge Mr. O’Toole’s leadership and said she hoped other federal parties don’t exploit this issue as the caucus members are only trying to help their constituents. The group chose “civil liberties” as a name, she explained, because they believe Canadians who don’t want to be vaccinated are not getting fair treatment, and losing their jobs is a violation of their rights.

“I would really encourage every MP to listen to constituents in their ridings, because across the country, people are concerned about these things,” said Ms. Gladu, who declined to share the names of other caucus members until next week.

“Our job as MPs is to raise the issues that our constituents are bringing, and ask the important questions and get the experts in on it, and set a path to take action to make sure that people’s rights and freedoms are protected. And that’s why we’re sort of looking at the name of civil liberties. I mean, it’s basically these are the areas where we feel people’s [rights] are being encroached.”

However, she conceded that being a member of this group could also affect an MPs’ prospects of promotion in the party’s shadow cabinet, noting it’s a possibility that every member has to consider before joining the group. Ms. Gladu said that the membership of this caucus could grow beyond 30.

“That is possible, and people will have to choose what their priorities are,” said Ms. Gladu, adding that the only reason this caucus started is to help out constituents. “No, I don’t think that this is very controversial. Honestly, these are issues that are being raised by our constituents, and we were put here to basically represent their needs and make sure that those issues are raising in government, and that’s what we’re doing.”

According to the recently announced new rules of the House Board of Internal Economy, anyone who is not vaccinated cannot enter parliamentary buildings or the Chamber. The Liberal, NDP. and Bloc Québécois have publicly announced that their caucus members are fully vaccinated. But, on the Conservative side, there are some MPs who are not vaccinated. The number however is unknown. According to a survey by CBC of all Conservative MPs, 81 said they are fully vaccinated, three declined to share their vaccination status and 35 did not respond.

The Conservative Party’s official position is that it will follow the House rules, but plan to challenge the edict as a point of privilege in the House on the grounds that MPs should be making these rules, not the nine-member all-party Board of Internal Economy.

Some Conservative caucus sources told The Hill Times this week that these unvaccinated MPs will try to enter the building and it will become an issue that will yet again highlight the party’s internal divisions on the topic. And if that happens, that could result in caucus expulsions.

“I’ll tell you this: Nov. 22, can be a very interesting day,” said one Conservative MP who spoke to The Hill Times on not for attribution basis to offer their candid opinion. “Because I believe there are Conservative Members of Parliament who are unvaccinated who are going to try and get into the Parliament buildings anyways. So, they’re not going to follow the rules, despite what we’ve decided as a caucus. And what happens after that? I think they’re going to be kicked out of caucus.”

Election performance review end date up in the air

After this, Conservative sources said the next date to watch for is former Conservative MP James Cumming review report of the party’s election performance. At the first caucus meeting after the election, all caucus members were told that Mr. Cumming, who lost his seat in the Sept. 20 election, will conduct a comprehensive review of the last election and present his report to the leader by Dec. 31 and the leader will share this report with the caucus.

Former Alberta Conservative MP James Cumming is conducting a comprehensive review of the party’s election performance. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Mr. Cumming told The Hill Times that he is trying to complete his report as soon as he can. But, considering that the holiday season is starting next month, he was not sure if he would be able to complete the report by Dec. 31. Mr. Cumming declined to say when he would submit his report. For his review, Mr. Cumming said that so far he has talked to about 50 people, including candidates, MPs, campaign managers, staff who were directly involved in the campaign and some who were not. These conversations involve both in-person and phone conversations. He said that he has one staffer who is helping him with co-ordination and documentation of these meetings. Mr. Cumming said that he might be reimbursed for his expenses but said that it’s not decided whether he would get paid for his time spent on this report.

“I haven’t picked an end date yet,” said Mr. Cumming. “But I would tell you that again, my drive is to make sure that it’s comprehensive and that it’s based upon I’ve received enough information, be able to prepare a good report?”

New group makes O’Toole ‘look weak,’ says pollster

The vaccination issue was one of the key reasons the Conservatives failed to unseat the Liberal government in the last election, according to Greg Lyle, president of Innovative Research. Even now, the party is divided, and he said a new caucus speaking up for Canadians who don’t want to get vaccinated will be seen as a challenge to Mr. O’Toole’s leadership. He said that a clear majority of Canadians are in support of vaccination and Conservative Party is divided, so it portrays Mr. O’Toole as a weak leader. It appears Mr. O’Toole is trying to downplay the issue, he said, while some of the caucus members are highlighting it, making it difficult for the party to win next time.

“It’s pretty much a direct leadership challenge to Erin O’Toole,” said Mr. Lyle, a prominent pollster. “Which makes him look weak, which doesn’t help him in his competition if he stays on as leader. And No. 2, it’s offside with the vast majority of Canadians. … Given that O’Toole said he is going to respect the ruling, it’s a direct attack on his leadership, there’s just no other way to look at it.”

Conservative sources said that there are a lot of conversations happening within the caucus as to the possibility of holding a caucus review of Mr. O’Toole. At this time, they said, it appears a third of the caucus is on the leader’s side, a third is against the leader, and a third is in wait and see mode. They said that one reason some caucus members are undecided is because they don’t seen a prominent person willing to run for the party leadership who could succeed Mr. O’Toole and win the next election. But others say, right now, the leader’s position is not open, and no one knows who the potential candidates are. Once the position opens up, they said, there will be candidates who can win the next election for the party.

“The ballot question cannot be who’s in the wings,” said a senior Conservative. “The ballot question has to be, can O’Toole win or not? That’s got to be the ballot question. If that seat [leader’s position] becomes available, then there’ll be plenty of people stepping forward.”

The Hill Times

CLARIFICATION: This story was updated on Nov. 4 to clarify that the quote in the original headline calling the new intra-party caucus “a direct challenge” to Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole’s leadership was from pollster Greg Lyle, not a member of the new caucus. As noted in the piece, Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu has said it is not meant as a challenge to Mr. O’Toole’s leadership. The Hill Times apologizes for any confusion.

O’Toole’s Gay Candidate Calls Cops & Has The Rebel’s Reporter David Menzies Arrested for Asking Questions

Thornhill CPC candidate Melissa Lantsman has David Menzies arrested for asking prickly questions

In politics, they call summer the silly season. Hardly anything of substance seems to happen, and the politicians are typically in their ridings having BBQs and whatnot.

Such was the case on Sunday in Thornhill, Ontario, just north of Toronto. The outgoing MP, Peter Kent, was having a summer shindig in the parking lot of the Promenade Mall. I dropped by not so much for Mr. Kent, but to interview the replacement candidate for the federal riding of Thornhill, Melissa Lantsman.

I assume most people don’t know who Melissa Lantsman is, but they should. She was Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s war room director in 2018 and helped create slogans like “For the People” and “Ontario: Open for Business.”

Alas, we all discovered that when the COVID pandemic hit last year, the Doug Ford PCs were not “for the people,” and Ontario was very much closed for business. Oh, not all businesses, mind you. If you were a U.S.-based multi-billion dollar conglomerate such as Costco or Walmart, it was business as usual.

And speaking of Walmart, by 2020, Lantsman had resumed duties as a lobbyist. And she lobbied mightily for the Arkansas-based superstore chain. Lantsman went to Premier Ford and successfully ensured Walmart would be exempt from any lockdown rules.

So now that Lantsman is the Conservative Party candidate for Thornhill in 2021, I wanted to ask her a simple question: how can she possibly run to be the MP to represent the people of Thornhill when she was personally responsible for engineering a lockdown policy that caused so many businesses to fold and so many people to be thrown out of work? I mean, her nickname is actually “Lockdown Lantsman.” How do you recover from that? And it was hard to believe this woman is a professional communicator, given how tongue-tied she got when it came to answering hard questions.

And then I wanted to know how she became the representative for the Thornhill riding in the first place. You see, a few months ago, Ontario PC MPP Gila Martow was vying for this position. Martow is a veteran politician who is well-liked and well-respected. I think she would’ve been a slam dunk to win the riding in the next federal election. When Lantsman was declared the winner, it was a shock to everyone — including Lantsman herself, who did not have a victory speech prepared! So, either those exit polls were mightily flawed or this was a screw job of Herculean proportions.

So, I reached out to members of the Martow camp, none of whom want to be named. Why would the Conservative party go with a candidate who has more baggage than the Arrivals terminal at Pearson International Airport?

And the answer was this: it had everything to do with Melissa Lantsman’s sexual orientation.

You see, the Erin O’Toole Conservatives are obsessed with the party being a so-called “Big Tent” operation – it’s not just a bunch of old white guys anymore, you see. They’re sick of the CBC calling them names.

And what better way to prove that point than to promote a LGBTQ candidate representing the Conservatives in the suburbs? Wow, look at that diversity!

Now, folks, I personally do not give a rodent’s rectum if a candidate is a lesbian or a Martian. I think it’s irrelevant. But Lantsman and the Conservatives can’t stop talking about her gayness — it was their main selling point. Is the Conservative Party now fully invested in identity politics and playing the race card and gender card and sexual orientation card? What about who is the best person for the job — no matter what

So, I asked Melissa: is she the candidate for Thornhill based on merit, or her sexual orientation? She sort of answered the question and didn’t object to it. I asked it again, and she ignored me. And that was that.

I had more questions about Walmart, but then I was interrupted — by police! The Lantsman campaign called the cops on me. But there is no crime of asking prickly questions, so they lied to the police, making accusations that I assaulted people. It was the other way around. They were purposely bumping into me and trying to block me. They knocked my hat off. They threw water on me. And for what? Asking questions

And how about this slice of unethical behaviour: while I was being arrested and handcuffed by police, one of them stole my clipboard notebook and took photos of my notes. What’s the deal with that? What kind of political party has a reporter arrested, and then steals their notebook and takes pictures of it?

It looked awful on the Conservatives — especially having me arrested. So after ten hours, they decided to revise history. They say I engaged in homophobic slurs against Lantsman? What? I did not — you can see my question and her answer to it. It wasn’t homophobic, and she obviously didn’t think it was at the time — until later, when her spin doctors needed a way to change the subject from having me arrested, throwing things at me and stealing my notebook.

My final question to Lantsman was this: when Erin O’Toole was running to be the Conservative leader, he was the pro-free speech/anti-cancel culture candidate. And then he becomes leader, and it turns out he is pro-cancel culture/anti-free speech. So I asked Melissa what’s the deal with that?

Could you imagine a real leader such as Donald Trump saying “no comment,” and even running away? Can you imagine a politician of substance calling the cops to have a reporter criminally charged? And that’s what Lockdown Lantsman did on Sunday — she or her minions called the cops. She later issued a press release saying it was a safety issue. A “safety issue” — yeah, my safety! I was pushed, shoved, splashed with a liquid and arrested.

And in the department of perverse irony, check out the tweet Mr. O’Toole issued around the same time I was being stuffed into a police cruiser based on lies from the Lantsman camp: “If you don’t support free speech, you have four parties to choose from. If you do, you only have one: Canada’s Conservatives.” Sorry, Mr. O’Toole. Sorry, Lockdown Lantsman. Actions speak louder than words. And just like Andrew Scheer, you are already blowing this election. Big time.

Petition to Stand With Derek Sloan

Petition to Stand With Derek Sloan

Right now in the Conservative Party, we are seeing a clear case of dirty politics.

On January 20th, MP Derek Sloan was kicked out of the Conservative caucus. He will no longer be allowed to run as a Conservative Party member in future elections and will now sit as an Independent MP.

This happened after Erin O’Toole initiated a caucus vote which resulted in a majority of Conservative MPs voting to remove him from the caucus. This vote was initiated because Derek Sloan had apparently accepted a $131 donation to his 2020 leadership campaign from a white nationalist named Paul Fromm.

As many quickly pointed out, there are factors around these allegations that don’t hold up. For example, the Conservative Party took a cut from this donation and they weren’t even able to flag his name.

Additionally, the donation was apparently made under the name ‘Frederick P. Fromm’, so even if Sloan was expected to recognize the name of this obscure white nationalist, the donation was made under a name most would not recognize as his.

Derek Sloan is likely being thrown under the bus for being an extremely vocal social conservative.

Derek Sloan has spoken out unequivocally against abortion, euthanasia, attacks on religious freedom and many other vital issues to conservatives and faithful Christians, many of whom see him as their voice on Parliament Hill.

Erin O’Toole has always claimed to want a big tent party in the Conservative movement, but clearly Derek Sloan has been too successful at mobilizing people who agree with him on these issues for O’Toole’s liking.

Sign our petition to tell Erin O’Toole that you stand with Derek Sloan. We want him back in the Conservative caucus – and we want to know everyone who voted him out in the first place so we can support more tolerant conservatives in upcoming primaries and elections.

To make matters worse, the Conservative caucus vote that resulted in Derek Sloan being ejected was confidential. No one knows who voted to suppress Derek Sloan’s freedom to represent his constituents, and who voted in support of his freedom.

If you’re represented by a Conservative MP, don’t you think you deserve to know if they voted to suppress one of Canada’s most outspoken social conservative politicians? Don’t you feel that how a Conservative MP voted on this reflects on whether they’re capable of truly representing religious and social conservative constituents, such as yourself?

There may be good reasons why the Conservative Party would need to hold confidential votes at private meetings. But on issues like deciding what beliefs can be represented in the party, there needs to be transparency.

Join our campaign to get O’Toole to release the names of those who voted to eject Derek Sloan from the Conservative caucus. We must also demand that he do everything in his power as party leader to bring Derek Sloan back into the party.

O’Toole was quick to say after kicking out Sloan that this is not meant to be a condemnation of social conservatives in general. I’m sure O’Toole is internally justifying that he is only kicking out Sloan because he’s divisive and is causing a lot of negative media attention.

But the fact is that the mainstream media in Canada will always ensure that the beliefs of social conservatives will be divisive. These organizations have close ties to Canada’s left-wing parties, and so a socially conservative politician can either hide their views or cause negative media attention through their honesty.

You also cannot kick one of the most outspoken pro-life, pro-family, and pro-liberty candidates out of caucus and not expect a severe backlash from people who hold these values.

When CitizenGO sent out surveys to candidates of the Conservative leadership race last year, Derek Sloan was the only candidate to respond with a full endorsement of the values we surveyed him on.

O’Toole may not be as left-wing as our Prime Minister, but when he says that people like Derek Sloan are not welcome in the Conservative Party, I cannot help but feel he’s attacking the values of CitizenGO and our supporters.

Please sign to stand with Derek Sloan: Erin O’Toole must rectify this poor decision that he initiated. He must allow Derek Sloan back into the Conservative caucus and be transparent about who all voted to kick out Sloan in the first place.

Thanks for all you do,

James Schadenberg and the entire CitizenGO Team

P.S. Remember, if it weren’t for social conservatives, Erin O’Toole would’ve lost to Peter MacKay. Social conservatives are necessary for the success of the Conservative Party and its leader. We must demand to be respected.

More information:

Controversial MP Derek Sloan ejected from Conservative caucus (CTV News)

Derek Sloan incident as told by Paul Fromm the Godfather of free speech for Canadians

Derek Sloan incident as told by Paul Fromm the Godfather of free speech for Canadians. Refuting the censorship minority lobby lies [especially the Canadian Anti-Hate Network] spread by the FAKE News media of being a “neo-Nazi”. Thanks to Rebellion Radio,

“This is ridiculous,” Derek Sloan refuses to leave CPC without a fight

“This is ridiculous,” Derek Sloan refuses to leave CPC without a fight

By True North Wire – January 19, 2021 Share Facebook Twitter Linkedin ReddIt

Conservative MP Derek Sloan says he will fight efforts by Erin O’Toole to kick him out of caucus.

“If I am guilty of something, they are guilty of something. This is ridiculous,” Sloan said in a Facebook video on Monday.

“I’m not going to go down without a fight.”

On Monday, O’Toole said he has begun the process of removing Sloan from caucus after it was revealed that Sloan’s leadership campaign received a donation from known white supremacist Paul Fromm. 

“Racism is a disease of the soul, repugnant to our core values. It has no place in our country. It has no place in the Conservative Party of Canada. I won’t tolerate it,” O’Toole said in his statement.

However, the MP for Hastings – Lennox and Addington is accusing the party of hypocrisy. 

According to Sloan, Fromm was a party member and voted in the party’s recent leadership contest — something that would have been known to all leadership candidates, including O’Toole, and party headquarters as well. 

In a statement on Twitter, Sloan says he was unaware of this donation and that nobody made any effort to contact him.

“His donation was processed without either my campaign or the CPC realizing who had made the donation,” said Sloan.

“The Party must check each donor to ensure they have not exceeded the maximum, I did not hear from them, ever, on this matter.”

Sloan said it’s absurd to expect that any politician to be familiar with the names of every single one of their donors. Fromm’s donation of $131 was one of 13,000 donations to Sloan’s leadership campaign. 

Leadership campaign donations are processed by both the campaign staff and the Party. 

Under the Reform Act, O’Toole can initiate a vote within the party to remove a member of caucus should they lose the confidence of the party.

FROMM GATE: Conservative Party Accepted Fromm’s Membership Application, Mailed Him Leadership Race Ballot, Accepted Returned Ballot Says Sloan

Conservative Party Accepted Fromm’s Membership Application, Mailed Him Leadership Race Ballot, Accepted Returned Ballot Says Sloan

NewsSpencerFernandoJanuary 18, 20210

How can they justify booting Sloan when it appears responsibility actually rests with the central party.

With Conservative leader Erin O’Toole pushing to remove Derek Sloan on a weak pretext, Sloan is pushing back.

In a letter shared online, Sloan went through the chain of events.

He also made some quite interesting points, including saying that the Conservative Party of Canada approved Paul Fromm’s (going under the name Frederick P Fromm) application to be a party member, mailed him a leadership race ballot, and accepted his ballot when it was returned.

As Sloan notes, “Therefore the Party, and the O’Toole campaign, failed to uphold the same standards to which they are now applying to me.”

He also points out that even after O’Toole said he would investigate what happened, he never even contacted Sloan.

You can read Sloan’s full letter below:


Fromm Gate: Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker’s Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan’s Defence After Erin O’Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation

Fromm Gate: Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker’s Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan’s Defence After Erin O’Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation

Le FrommGate
La culture woke – nous en parlons souvent– est la version « à la mode »
de la rectitude politique à la sauce stalinienne. Comme il est considéré
comme passéiste de réclamer le goulag pour les opposants, on impose
plutôt la « cancel culture », terme « globish » à la mode cachant une
réalité nettement plus sombre. Que cette vision séduise la gauche au
sens large, on le comprend. Rare sont ceux qui veulent réellement
protéger la liberté d’expression de leurs ennemis; alors on approuve
plus ou moins tacitement, on dénonce ici et là les excès quand ils
frappent un des nôtres sans raison, mais au final, la gauche aime bien
ce pouvoir débordé qui lui permet en jetant une fatwah d’effacer ni plus
ni moins l’ennemi potentiel.

Ce qui est plus difficile à comprendre, c’est pourquoi la droite
commence à adhérer à la culture woke.

Le 18 janvier, le Canada apprenait avec stupeur que l’un des candidats à
la chefferie conservatrice, Derek Sloan, avait reçu un chèque de 131$ du
« suprématiste blanc » Paul Fromm. Dans les heures qui suivaient, Sloan
était éjecté manu militari de Parti conservateur, sans pouvoir répondre
de ces accusations (mais au fait de quoi l’accuse-t-on vraiment?).

Pour comprendre l’affaire, il faut d’abord savoir qui est Derek Sloan,
qui est Paul Fromm, et en quoi 131$ représente un enjeu.

D’abord, Derek Sloan fut le candidat le plus à droite de la campagne
conservatrice, le seul à être ouvertement opposé à l’avortement, le seul
à être pour une droite morale et le seul à être en faveur de la liberté
d’expression. Et justement, Paul Fromm est le directeur du Canadian
Association for Free Expression, une organisation basée sur la défense
de la liberté d’expression. On peut aisément comprendre pourquoi ce
dernier a jugé bon de faire un don à la campagne de Sloan.

Seulement, on reproche à Fromm, qui est aussi un farouche opposant à
l’immigration de masse, de défendre la liberté d’expression de tous, ce
qui n’est pas convenable dans notre société très « Charlie », pas ni «
Soral », ni « Ryssen ».

Bref, on assiste à une double association douteuse : Fromm défend la
liberté de ceux qui sont bafoués; il donne de l’argent à Sloan, donc
Sloan est un nazi. Bingo! Il a fallu quelques heures, voire quelques
minutes au Conservateur Erin O’Toole pour conclure sur cette affaire.
Mais la somme aussi représente un certain intérêt. En acceptant une
somme d’un homme, on estime que le politicien est lié à ce dernier.
Peut-être même qu’il lui doit quelque chose. C’est ce que les
journalistes et O’Toole semble croire du moins. Et, conscients de ce que
valent les politiciens à l’heure actuelle, ils semblent enclins à croire
que la somme de 131$ est suffisante pour acheter un député à Ottawa!
Il faut croire que la famille Rizzuto qui a « investi » des milliers de
dollars dans le Parti libéral du Québec depuis des années aurait dû
investir à Ottawa et profiter des aubaines ontariennes.

Au-delà de ces réflexions sur l’éthique et la corruption que soulèvent
inévitablement cette histoire de 131$, il reste que cela nous prouve une
énième fois le manque de clairvoyance et d’épine dorsale du clan
conservateur. Les stratèges conservateurs semblent passer trop de temps
à écouter la CBC : ils ne réalisent pas que les délires woke sont
minoritaires et qu’il n’y a rien à gagner à jouer contre son propre
camp. Que CBC fasse du 131$ l’affaire du siècle, c’est normal, et c’est
même une preuve qu’on dérange un peu. Un candidat conservateur, un parti conservateur, un homme de droite, ne doit pas chercher à obtenir
l’assentiment du principal organe de gauche au pays. En cela, les
conservateurs devraient regarder ce qui se passe à gauche. Personne à
l’UQAM ne recherche le sceau d’approbation de l’Institut économique de
Montréal et Manon Massé n’a jamais expulsé personne de son parti pour
plaire à Richard Martineau ou Joseph Facal. Ça, tout le monde le
comprend et l’accepte. Alors pourquoi l’opposé n’est-il pas vrai?

Ceux qui connaissent l’expression « cuckservatives » ou « cocuservateurs
» pour les besoins de la francisation, savent pertinemment pourquoi
O’Toole agit ainsi. Pourquoi avant sa démission « choc » Andrew Scheer
refusait de parler de ses idées. Pourquoi l’ancien homme fort de la
droite Stockwell Day décida de dévouer sa vie à la lutte contre le
racisme, démissionnant de toutes ses fonctions pour avoir « nié » le
racisme systémique. Pourquoi le Parti conservateur a éjecté Richard
Descarie de la dernière course à la chefferie.

La véritable question n’est pas pourquoi cette fausse droite agit ainsi
– elle n’a pas le courage de ses convictions et la vision nécessaire
pour les défendre efficacement. La véritable question est : pourquoi y
a-t-il encore des gens pour voter pour elle?

Quebecois de Souche/Old Stock Quebecker's Publication Le Harfang Comes to Derek Sloan's Defence After Erin O'Toole Seeks to Purge Him from Party After Paul Fromm Donation                      

Woke culture - we often talk about it - is the “trendy” version
political correctness with Stalinist sauce. As it is considered
as backward-looking to demand the gulag for the opponents, we impose
rather “cancel culture”, a fashionable “globish” term hiding a
much darker reality. May this vision seduce the left to
broad sense, we understand. Rare are those who really want
protect the freedom of expression of their enemies; so we approve
more or less tacitly, we denounce here and there excesses when they
hit one of ours for no reason, but in the end, the left likes
this overwhelmed power which allows him by throwing a fatwah to erase nothing more
no less the potential enemy.
What is more difficult to understand is why the right
begins to adhere to the woke culture.
On January 18, Canada was shocked to learn that one of the candidates for
Conservative chiefdom Derek Sloan received a check for $ 131 from
"White supremacist" Paul Fromm. In the hours that followed, Sloan
was ejected manu militari from the Conservative Party, without being able to answer
of these accusations (but what are we really accusing him of?).
To understand the case, you first need to know who Derek Sloan is,
Who is Paul Fromm, and how $ 131 is at stake.
 people to vote for her? First, Derek Sloan was the campaign's most right-wing candidate
conservative, the only one to be openly opposed to abortion, the only
to be for a moral right and the only one to be in favor of freedom
expression. And precisely, Paul Fromm is the director of the Canadian
Association for Free Expression, a defense-based organization
freedom of expression. We can easily understand why this
last saw fit to donate to Sloan's campaign.
Only, we reproach Fromm, who is also a fierce opponent of
mass immigration, to defend the freedom of expression of all, this
which is not suitable in our society very "Charlie", not nor "
Soral ”nor“ Ryssen ”.
In short, we are witnessing a dubious double association: Fromm defends the
freedom of those who are scorned; he gives Sloan money, so
Sloan is a Nazi. Bingo! It took a few hours or even a few
minutes to Curator Erin O’Toole to conclude on this matter.

But the sum also represents a certain interest. By accepting a sum of a man, the politician is considered to be related to him. Maybe he even owes her something. This is what reporters and O’Toole seems to believe at least. And, aware of what are worth the politicians nowadays, they seem inclined to believe that the sum of $ 131 is enough to buy an MP in Ottawa! We have to believe that the Rizzuto family who "invested" thousands of dollars in the Liberal Party of Quebec for years should have invest in Ottawa and take advantage of Ontario deals. Beyond these reflections on ethics and corruption raised by inevitably this story of $ 131, it remains that it proves a umpteenth time the lack of clairvoyance and backbone of the clan conservative. Conservative strategists seem to spend too much time listening to the CBC: they don't realize that woke delusions are minority and there is nothing to be gained by playing against one's own camp. That CBC is making $ 131 the deal of the century is okay, and it is even a bit of a disturbing proof. A conservative candidate, a party conservative, a man of the right, should not seek to obtain the approval of the main left body in the country. In this, the conservatives should watch what is happening on the left. Nobody at UQAM does not seek the seal of approval of the Economic Institute of Montreal and Manon Massé never expelled anyone from her party for please Richard Martineau or Joseph Facal. That, everyone understands and accepts it. So why is the opposite not true? Those who know the expression "cuckservatives" or "cocuservateurs »For the purposes of francization, know very well why O’Toole does this. Why before his resignation "shock" Andrew Scheer refused to talk about his ideas. Why the former strongman of Right Stockwell Day decided to devote his life to fighting the racism, resigning from all his functions for having "denied" the systemic racism. Why the Conservative Party kicked out Richard Descarie of the last leadership race. The real question is not why this false right is acting like this - she does not have the courage of her convictions and the necessary vision to defend them effectively. The real question is: why is there do there still people vote for her?