Return of the Liberal-Conservative Party?

Justin Trudeau, not Pierre Poilievre, may have more to fear from a new centrist party

By now, you have probably heard of Centre Ice Canadians. The group was co-founded a year ago by former two-time Conservative leadership candidate Rick Peterson. It made its debut as Centre Ice Conservatives, during the Conservative leadership process, holding a policy conference in Edmonton, followed by similar events in Halifax and Toronto. It published numerous op-eds and got the Canada Pension Plan to disinvest from funds profiting from slave labour in China. It positioned itself as a home for the politically homeless, chiefly Red Tories and Blue Liberals, who felt that neither of their parties were listening to their ideas.

Last week, Centre Ice announced that it would explore the possibility of registering as a political party. It did this following both an external opinion survey of 2000 Canadians, which found that 32% of those polled would likely consider voting for a centrist party in the next election, and a callout to its roughly 2000 supporters, which saw most respondents approve of the concept.

A working group headed by Peterson and New Brunswick MLA Dominic Cardy is now investigating the idea, including a draft constitution, fundraising and a new name, until September 20, at which point Centre Ice will formally decide whether it goes down that road. Observers posit that it could “disrupt the political system”, evoking memories of the Reform Party which did the same thing thirty years ago.

Whether that happens remains to be seen. Centre Ice was created as a welcoming space to discuss policy and push the two main parties to moderate their views and vitriol. As someone engaged with the organization, which includes Rick Anderson, Laurie Hawn, Peter Kent, and Marjory Lebreton, that’s what I hoped would happen.

However, I also predicted the possibility of a new party as a potential outcome of the Tory leadership race, in the conclusion of my book The Right Path, published last year:

“…Canadian politics may come full circle, back to the party that founded the country: the Liberal-Conservative party… It would be neither statist nor populist. It would straddle the centre right and appeal to the Common Sense Canadian voter. It would provide a home for disaffected Blue Liberals and Red Tories....

Such a party could be achieved in one of two ways: the Conservative party elects a centre right leader who builds the party in this image. Or if such a leader does not prevail, a new party is created, with a new name and a new brand, to be determined.”

To those in the Conservative party who are unhappy with Centre Ice now debating the latter course of action, it could likely have been avoided by some savvy outreach in the months following the leadership vote. Those hands were not extended, however, and it became manifestly clear to a lot of people that they were not wanted on the voyage.

To paraphrase the old saying, hell hath no fury like politicos scorned.  Extrapolate that to 16% of the party membership, and you’ve got a veritable village of scorn looking for a new home.

There’s another saying which management seems to have overlooked: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”. Leaders traditionally neutralized their opponents by keeping them busy and giving them reason to be loyal. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made a place for former rival Joe Clark; Stephen Harper brought Peter MacKay into cabinet. In the Liberal camp, Jean Chretien had Paul Martin helm the Finance Portfolio; Trudeau gave Marc Garneau Transport and then Foreign Affairs.

That type of thing hasn’t happened in the current scorched earth climate. Animated by Twitter, where we’ve all said things we regret, it has instead produced a toxic purity test that excommunicates anyone who challenges the party line or criticizes the leader. Only the worthy are allowed in the tent.

That applies equally to the Liberals, who draw lines in the sand for their faithful on all manner of issues from abortion to gun control to internet regulation. Which is why the Centre Ice movement isn’t just about the Conservatives. Many of the people signing up on the organization’s website aren’t members of any party, but they would like to be. But they don’t like the climate of fear in either of the main parties.

They want to be able to express an opinion without being trolled. They want a place that eschews groupthink for group discussion. Whether such a party can exist in today’s politics, or whether it could make any headway in an election, is an open question.

What isn’t in question is that both federal parties have become polarized to their respective ends of the political spectrum: wokeism and populism. That is more unusual for the Liberals than for the Tories – the Liberals were traditionally the party of the centre, derided as the “mushy middle” for their ability to morph into whatever voters wanted at the time, as well as conflating their brand with the image of Canada (tolerant, multicultural, bilingual) in a way the Conservatives did not manage to do.

But Trudeau’s two-year dalliance with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has moved the Liberals further to the left and dismayed many of their supporters. Which is why a Centre Ice party might pose more of an electoral danger to the Liberals than to the Tories.

Centre Ice polling found that 25% of Canadians identify as centre-left, 29% as purely centre, and 16% as centre-right. Polling showed it is the centre-left that is most desirous of creating a new vehicle for their beliefs, with net likelihood of voting for a centrist party higher among current Liberal voters than among Conservatives. Support is highest in Alberta, BC, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.

All of which means Trudeau may have more to fear from a new centrist party than Poilievre does. The Liberals score 28% support in the latest Nanos tracker – if they bleed support to a new party, it could split the centre-left vote and allow the Conservatives – at 35% - to make gains in the next election.

One thing is certain: voters are restless. They want change but aren’t sure they can get the change they want. That ultimately may be up to them, and the choices they decide to give themselves. Bottom line: if the two main parties don’t want more competition, they should open the tent flaps and let more voices in. Maybe the threat of another party will finally make them do it.