Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole maintains the party will have to moderate if it wants to win a majority government in the next general election, and he “disagrees” with his caucus colleagues who say otherwise.

With just days to go before the Durham, Ont. MP resigns his seat in the House of Commons, O’Toole sat down with CTV’s Question Period host Vassy Kapelos, in an interview airing Sunday, to discuss why he’s leaving, his thoughts on the future of the party, conspiracy theories, and allegations of Chinese interference in Canada’s elections.

O’Toole — who’s taking on a new job at a global strategy firm — said he’s “had an amazing run” in politics, but that it’s the “perfect time” to leave.

It’s been nearly a year and a half since O’Toole was ousted as Conservative leader following the 2021 federal election loss. The former leader faced criticism from his caucus at the time for flip-flopping on certain policies, such as the carbon tax, and moving towards the centre during the election campaign.

O’Toole told Kapelos he still believes the party will have to moderate and “be willing to govern for the whole country,” to win the next election, despite the Conservative caucus members who say otherwise.

“I disagree with them,” O’Toole said, adding the Conservatives won the popular vote in the last two elections, during which he believes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself catered to smaller cohorts of Liberal voters, earning him minority governments with smaller margins of the popular vote.

O’Toole said he thinks Conservatives want to hear plans for the environment that balance the needs for economic competitiveness and trade, for example.

“There’s a bunch of voters that want to see the Conservatives address all issues. I think (Conservative Leader) Pierre (Poilievre) will do that,” he said. “So if you’re killing the carbon tax, I tried to propose an alternative, but I think we’re going to have to come up with real policy to meet the needs of the country.”

O’Toole said the Conservative Party under Poilievre’s leadership is “absolutely” still the party he wanted to lead, but that Canadians have become increasingly frustrated since he became an MP a decade ago, something he attributes largely to the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of social media.

“Now the job of the new leader is to make sure that those people feel heard,” he said. “But as I’ve said many times, we still need to win more seats in Toronto and Vancouver, and they’re going to want to hear Conservative ideas on everything from the environment, to rights, to other things.

“So how do you bring energy policy and concerns about the carbon tax alongside proposals to reduce emissions? That’s going to be the secret sauce that Pierre (Poilievre) has to find, and I wasn’t successful in it,” he added. “That’s why I think it’s time for me to move on.”

This transcript of O’Toole’s interview with Vassy Kapelos for Sunday’s episode of CTV’s Question Period has been edited for length and clarity, and the full interview in the video player above.

———————————————————

Vassy Kapelos: Why are you leaving now?

O’Toole: “Well, I’ve had an amazing run. It’s been a decade. I served my first few years in government, including in cabinet, and made a real difference, I think, and then in Opposition in a number of roles, including leader of the Conservative Party. I almost won the 2021 election.

I put out ideas that I care deeply about, from mental health, to veterans, to the Arctic, to Canada’s role in the world. I think those will continue to ripple, but it’s time our new leader has the chance to lead without the old leader kind of hanging around. I think it’s a perfect time and I’m very optimistic for the future in the job I’m having in the private sector. It’s perfect for me and the family.”

Kapelos: Do you feel like your party is still the party you wanted to lead?

O’Toole: “Absolutely. But the country, as I’ve always said, is more frustrated than a few years ago, and I think the pandemic from all points of view — and I said this in my last speech — has accelerated some of the divisions, along with social media. That makes people a little more frustrated. So I think our new leader is speaking to that and trying to bring an idea and a plan that will bring some of the people who are frustrated with the country, in Western Canada, some of them even giving up on the country, to engage them to let them know that Ottawa is listening.”

Kapelos: I’m going to talk a little bit about the way in which he and other politicians are engaging, and in particular, the way that you framed it in that speech you just mentioned. You said “performance politics is fueling polarization. Virtue signaling is replacing discussion, and instead of leading, instead of debating our national purpose in this Chamber, too many of us are often chasing algorithms down a sinkhole of diversion and division.” Why not stay and try to counter that?

O’Toole: “I tried to do that in the 2021 election. I had some success, but ultimately was not successful in trying to have people hear the other side. That was what I said in my last official speech as Conservative leader, trying to find solutions on the environment, for example, that would satisfy Conservative voters in rural Alberta, but also urban voters. I think we’re having some success, and the pandemic made that more difficult, but losing eroded my sort of trust with some of our caucus and with some of our grassroots.

Now the job of the new leader is to make sure that those people feel heard. But as I’ve said many times, we still need to win more seats in Toronto and Vancouver, and they’re going to want to hear Conservative ideas on everything from the environment, to rights, to other things.

So how do you bring energy policy and concerns about the carbon tax alongside proposals to reduce emissions? That’s going to be the secret sauce that Pierre (Poilievre) has to find, and I wasn’t successful in it. That’s why I think it’s time for me to move on.”

Kapelos: Do you think there is a possibility for success in that through the team around Mr. Poilievre? I ask because whenever I speak to any of them, they actually kind of rebuke your approach, the more moderate approach you took during the election versus what you did during the leadership race. And they rebuked the idea that they have to moderate at all in order to win those seats, which you point out are necessary to form a majority government.

O’Toole: “I disagree with them. You know, the Conservatives won the popular vote in the last two elections. It just wasn’t efficient enough. And Mr. Trudeau, some of the polarization is actually focusing on over-delivering your small cohorts. So he’s now won two minority governments with a smaller popular vote, and in some elections being virtually shut out in certain provinces of the country. So I think, had the pandemic not been part of the discussion, I had a lot of fiscal conservatives that wanted to see the Conservatives with a smart plan on the environment. A lot of business leaders, for example, or small business owners, who wanted to make sure they lowered emissions for their kids, but were worried about our competitiveness, worried about trade relations, and who thought Mr. Trudeau’s ethics were questionable. So there’s a bunch of voters that want to see the Conservatives address all issues. I think Pierre will do that. And so if you’re killing the carbon tax, I tried to propose an alternative. But I think we’re going to have to come up with real policy to meet the needs of the country. But I think there’s a mood for change, Vassy. I’ve never seen such tensions out there and frustration with the government. The latest thing over Paul Bernardo is this government’s getting casual with the truth, and so I think there’s going to be an element where the next election may just be ‘throw the bums out.’ But we have to be willing to govern for the whole country.”

Kapelos: Is blaming the pandemic, though, for your failure to capitalize on that sentiment in 2021 the easy way out?

O’Toole: “Well no, it’s what our data told us. But look, I take responsibility for that loss. But I was frustrated by Mr. Trudeau. He didn’t get any advice from civil service on launching a vaccine mandate where people could lose their jobs. I never wanted people to lose their jobs. And that policy led to the convoy and the shutdown. But I was a bit squeezed where I didn’t support what he was doing then nor did I support illegal blockading of cities or bridges, and the tensions of the time, which are starting to dissipate, thankfully, made it hard to be a bit of a bridge builder. But I still think that’s what politicians owe their community regardless of sites.

I said ‘don’t become a follower of your followers’ because the algorithms on social media amplify the loud angry voices on the left and right. And if you think that is a cross-section of real opinion in Canada, you’re fooling yourself. I think social media, especially when there was no parliamentary sittings, no interactions that MPs had with constituents at fairs or rotary club meetings, they were getting feedback from social media and it made the divisions and the polarization much worse on all sides. We have to look in the mirror as much as Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Singh’s teams.”

Kapelos: And I wouldn’t abdicate responsibility for any side, but I did want to ask if you did specifically mean the current leader of the party, Mr. Poilievre, who is very active on social media, who has denounced the ‘great reset,’ who doesn’t want to send anyone to the World Economic Forum, all things that you flagged, but didn’t name him by name.

O’Toole: “I think if you say we’re not going to participate in the World Economic Forum because it’s become a parade of celebrities, or because of some of the concerns about it being far too left, or anti-energy, that’s fair. But I think that politicians also have to say Canada does have a role in some of these multilateral forums. I think when Stephen Harper went there and promoted us as an energy superpower, for example, that’s how you go there and make your case for Canada. But what I think Pierre (Poilievre) is doing is addressing some of the frustrations — that is fair — but I do think politicians have to fight against some of these conspiracies that are building that it’s some secret global government or there’s this secret group taking over the world. I have people asking me about that on the streets in my community, Vassy, and what I find is, if a politician will address them right up front, handle their concerns, you can actually have a decent conversation, but what we see on social media is there’s less and less of that happening. So I think you can have a firm policy, like we’re planning to have, that will address people’s concerns, but you then also have to say Canada is a trading nation, we helped draft the NATO charter, we helped create the Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations, we have a role on the world stage. And we need to be at a lot of these tables.”

Kapelos: What evidence do you have that the leader of your party, that Mr. Poilievre, is trying to thread that needle at all?

O’Toole: “I think on reconciliation with Indigenous groups and First Nations is something that Pierre (Poilievre) is doing well in terms of saying, ‘hey, let’s make sure that First Nation communities benefit from resource development.'”

Kapelos: But I’m asking about conspiracy theories.

O’Toole: “Well the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is something that people were opposing as part of this UN agenda. I think I see Pierre (Poilievre) trying to have that balance, but that was my message, Vassy. My message was not just to my side of the House or the other side of the House, I also took some responsibility for not always getting the balance right as well.”

Kapelos: Do you regret any of that? I’m thinking of the leadership in particular.

O’Toole: “Well, the leadership contests are different in that you’re speaking to a number of Canadians who’ve already self-selected into a group, they bought a membership, and you’re speaking just to that group. But I think on certain things I didn’t have the right tone, and I’ve talked about that. Talking about cancel culture and Sir John A. McDonald statues, sometimes I didn’t have the right tone on that stuff. And I think those conversations are so important, so I always tried to correct, but I think what I see — and why I had this in my final message — is I’ve seen this get worse every year.

When I first got here over a decade ago, I don’t even think Stephen Harper tweeted much or was on Facebook. He launched this thing called 24/7 that everyone kind of made fun of, but now we’re seeing how algorithms actually will feed people’s worries and concerns, and politicians have the ability to surf on that, or the ability to say ‘hey, I understand your concern, and here’s how we’re going to fix it with policy.’ So alienation in the West, here’s how we’re going get a pipeline built, here’s how we’re going to get emissions down. I tried to do that, not as successfully as I would have liked, but as this gets worse, I think politicians have to rise to the occasion.

We also have to have more transparency on algorithms and we have to look at regulating the tech companies without stifling free speech. So some of the conversations are happening here but not to the degree I think they need to.”

Kapelos: I want to switch gears before I let you go, because you have been very active on the issue of China, and in particular foreign interference, and we actually haven’t had an opportunity to speak on this. You were briefed by CSIS about China’s activities involving you, and I know you’ve detailed some of them already. What I wondered, as you detailed what they told you, was did they tell you anything you didn’t already suspect?

O’Toole: “Just the degree of coordination was a shock to me. This was not one-off little things. There was connection running through all of them. I had seen glimpses in the campaign, and even before and after, of some of the misinformation on WeChat and social media, some of the attempts at voter suppression, but what I was surprised with was the amount of connections between it all. I was very careful not to reveal source information, but there’s foreign money, there’s active people being recruited, there’s suppression, and there’s misinformation, and they know who’s doing it. That’s why I was very disappointed with (special rapporteur) Mr. (David) Johnston’s report. I think Mr. Trudeau set him up to fail, and he got a snapshot of intelligence and not the whole picture. That’s why we need a national inquiry, as much to see whether Mr. Trudeau failed in not responding enough —and I think he did fall short — but we have to prepare for the future, because I think all Western democracies are experiencing this. We are less sophisticated on an intelligence and security basis than U.K. or Australia, and sometimes our ‘golly oh shucks we’re Canadians, we say sorry’—we’re not ready for the amount of influence and just ruthless strategy that some nations like China or Russia will pursue to influence people and decisions, and particularly the millions of Canadians from diaspora communities. We owe it to them. They come here for the liberty of being able to vote for whoever they want, or throw the bums out, or reject this, reject that, and they should never be influenced by force from outside of Canada.”

Kapelos: Is it your impression — and I know you can’t speak to specifics — but is it your impression that the perpetrators of much of what was described to you are still operating in and among us in Canada?

O’Toole: “Yes. (Emergency Preparedness Minister and former public safety minister) Mr. (Bill) Blair sat on a warrant request from our intelligence services that was going to be a warrant against a very prominent Liberal organizer. That is a red flag. That should have been one decision that Mr. Johnson said ‘yes, we need an inquiry.’ I think Mr. Trudeau doesn’t want to acknowledge eight years of poor decisions. And these can add up to a situation where we’ve allowed this influence and these operations to get to the extent they are. I think there are going to be some very embarrassing pieces of evidence in an inquiry and that’s why the Trudeau government has tried desperately to avoid it. And they’re now basically hoping the last few days of parliament will pass and they can get on the barbecue circuit, but we owe it to our democracies. I’ve always said this, let’s make this nonpartisan, let’s get this retired judge, let’s look at this seriously, because we owe it to our democracy and to our citizens that come here for that freedom.”

Kapelos: I also want to be clear, based on what you know, do you think it’s an issue of competence, or have you assigned intent to the government here?

O’Toole: “That’s what the inquiry will show. There has been some intent that I think is reckless. When Mr. Trudeau, early as prime minister, reversed decisions on takeovers of Canadian security companies that our Conservative government had rejected, those were either incredibly naive or reckless decisions. I think there’s now a pattern after many years of pivoting too much to try and secure a free trade deal — or whatever his end goal was — at a time that China after 2017 was actually going in the wrong direction. It was getting worse in some of the control of the Communist Party over companies and people and surveillance.

So we have to recognize we’re on the wrong path. (Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia) Freeland just cancelled investments in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I wrote a letter to (the prime minister) several years ago on that, and Andrew Scheer, the previous (Conservative) leader had asked, so I think they’re recognizing they’ve been completely out of step. The issue will be, was it naivety? Was it willful blindness? Was there some influence from some of these organizers? I think there’s a lot of questions that Canadians should have on just, you know, how out of step with our allies Canada has been under the Trudeau government.”

Kapelos: Do you acknowledge though that the way in which our government in this country approaches the relationship with China is very complicated? I ask because I just spoke with (U.S. National Security Council spokesperson) John Kirby last week on this program. The White House has been, up until the last few weeks, very specific about the way in which they view China, and that relationship has grown more antagonistic by the day. They’re all of a sudden reversing course as well. They’re saying we want to reset relations, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken is on his way there next week. Is that not emblematic of the fact that it isn’t easy to be black and white about China? Our trade last year with them, our imports, were the highest on record. Can you acknowledge or concede that it isn’t black and white?

O’Toole: “I’ve given dozens of speeches on this, Vassy. It’s hard to balance off our interests, economic mainly, with our values, but our values should always come first. I was very proud of our motion on the genocide towards the Uighur minority, these things we don’t see on a daily basis, but Canada should never trade in goods or products coming from Xinjiang, for example. These are reasons why we need a foreign influence registry, why we should have a wider discussion of these things, because there’s a lot of money to be made, yes, but not at the cost of our values and our soul as Canadians.

As I said, we wrote that Declaration of Human Rights at the U.N. We’ve got to live it today. So it’s not easy. I think the U.S., their strategic ties with Taiwan, is why they want to keep conversation going. There’s some analysis that could say China moves on Taiwan in the next few years. We’ve got Russia’s attack on Ukraine. So I think the U.S. doesn’t want to lose the ability to reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait. But Canada is an ally, we should be firmly in the Five Eyes, AUKUS (without Canada), a group of countries to make sure that we’re aligned, and we’re promoting Western values alongside our trade opportunities.”

Kapelos: Okay, I’m going to leave it there. Mr. O’Toole, thank you very much and best of luck.

O’Toole: “It’s been a pleasure. Thank you.”

With files from CTV’s Question Period Senior Producer Stephanie Ha