Things about the Tory government which disappoint me.

[Argus]

I realize, of course, that their freedom to act is limited given their minority position, and take that into account. However, there are actions I think they could have taken which they have not for whatever reason.

Health care. I see no real improvement here, and no inspired move to make any. There is some tinkering here and there, but no proposal for major overhauls which are desperately needed as our population ages. There's nothing innovative coming from them, and no sign they're even working on anything innovative or different.

Immigration. There have been some small scale changes, but not the kind of massive reform we need, and which I think much of the country is prepared to support them on. There is talk about shifting focus towards skilled immigrants, but not enough, and not enough reform of our idiotic "refugee" program, where most of the refugees are economic migrants. We also need to be able to throw out immigrants who act up a lot faster. In fact, we need a complete reform of the system for expelling undesirables. We have people who have been fighting deportation for literally decades. It's absurd.

The Military. Again, this is an area where they have freedom to act, and they have been acting far too slowly. Initial proposals for reasonable increases to the size of the military have been toned down considerably, and even the reduced goals are seeing little progress. The military procurement system is almost totally incompetent, but even so the Tories should have done something to speed up the acquisition of necessary equipment. The recent cancellation of the bidding process for new coast guard and naval ships does not impress me.

Human resources/skills training. We need a national skills training program to take those many hundreds of thousands of Canadians (if not millions) who are underemployed and train them into the jobs which are going to need them. I've heard nothing on this from the government, no proposals, plans or even an acceptance of the need.

The sad thing is, the Tories are still far, far out in front of the Liberals on all of these, for there has not been any effort or even a new idea on these topics from the Liberal party in twenty years. Nor is there any expectation on my part of seeing one in the near future.

[jdobbin]

I realize, of course, that their freedom to act is limited given their minority position, and take that into account. However, there are actions I think they could have taken which they have not for whatever reason.

It would help of they talked about what they intended to do if they had a majority. Harper has stated this week that he is proud of his legislative record and that his government has achieved all its goals. At the same time he has said Parliament is dysfunctional and he can't govern.

He will have to make up his mind which it is. He'll also have to say what he would differently with a majority. Many observers in the media and academia say that the Tories couch everything they say now. In other words, Conservatives are not speaking out as Conservatives.

If they want to sell a majority, they have to say what the major differences will be. The polls continue to show a distrust about the Tories because the feeling is that the major policy drives of the party remain to be seen.

Health care. I see no real improvement here, and no inspired move to make any. There is some tinkering here and there, but no proposal for major overhauls which are desperately needed as our population ages. There's nothing innovative coming from them, and no sign they're even working on anything innovative or different.

This was the promise the Tories tried best to run from once elected. Wait times. Remember that one?

It is so dependent on the provinces to get this to work. The Liberals had tried to speed up one aspect of the healthcare system when they restored money that they cut but some provinces banked that money or spent it on other things. Some used it for tax cuts.

Immigration. There have been some small scale changes, but not the kind of massive reform we need, and which I think much of the country is prepared to support them on. There is talk about shifting focus towards skilled immigrants, but not enough, and not enough reform of our idiotic "refugee" program, where most of the refugees are economic migrants. We also need to be able to throw out immigrants who act up a lot faster. In fact, we need a complete reform of the system for expelling undesirables. We have people who have been fighting deportation for literally decades. It's absurd.

I don't disagree there should be reforms. Mexicans coming to Canada because they are getting kicked out of the U.S. does not constitute a refugee.

I think the Feds need to work more with the provinces with provincial nominee programs. They are really good at integrating new people into Canada and into jobs.

This is one area that the government also needs to work with Parliament. The issue is too big to polarize with unilateral decisions.

Shutting the door completely to immigration and refugees or strangling it will add to backlogs and be just as much as an impediment to business as long waits at the border for imports and exports.

The Military. Again, this is an area where they have freedom to act, and they have been acting far too slowly. Initial proposals for reasonable increases to the size of the military have been toned down considerably, and even the reduced goals are seeing little progress. The military procurement system is almost totally incompetent, but even so the Tories should have done something to speed up the acquisition of necessary equipment. The recent cancellation of the bidding process for new coast guard and naval ships does not impress me.

I have no idea why the procurement seems so badly screwed up. It would help if they stopped the no bid awards of contracts or the re-writing of specs so that only one choice is possible for a contract.

Human resources/skills training. We need a national skills training program to take those many hundreds of thousands of Canadians (if not millions) who are underemployed and train them into the jobs which are going to need them. I've heard nothing on this from the government, no proposals, plans or even an acceptance of the need.

Once again a provincial responsibility. Nothing would irritate me more than creating a program to train people only to have a province bank the money or use it for a tax cut.

The sad thing is, the Tories are still far, far out in front of the Liberals on all of these, for there has not been any effort or even a new idea on these topics from the Liberal party in twenty years. Nor is there any expectation on my part of seeing one in the near future.

The Tories have the ball now. Perhaps they should actually say what they would do differently in a bold way otherwise they looks like the Liberals that they loath.

Edited August 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[Ontario Loyalist]

The Tories have the ball now. Perhaps they should actually way what they would do differently in a bold way otherwise they looks like the Liberals that they loath.

I'd like to point out that the usage of the term "Tories" is incorrect. The current Conservative party is simply a revamped Canadian Alliance party, in other words a hodge-podge of western seperatists, Alberta nationaists, republicans, and a few defectors from the PCs. The Tories still exist in the form of the Progressive Canadian party.

[jdobbin]

I'd like to point out that the usage of the term "Tories" is incorrect. The current Conservative party is simply a revamped Canadian Alliance party, in other words a hodge-podge of western seperatists, Alberta nationaists, republicans, and a few defectors from the PCs. The Tories still exist in the form of the Progressive Canadian party.

The name Tories is used by Canadian Press, the CBC, the Globe and Mail and by Conservatives to describe they party. The Conservatives do call their website Blogging Tories afterall. I don't think they mean Progressive Conservative party.

Edited August 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

The name Tories is used by Canadian Press, the CBC, the Globe and Mail and by Conservatives to describe they party. The Conservatives do call their website Blogging Tories afterall. I don't think they mean Progressive Conservative party.

I've always wondered what the diferences were between the two and I think if we called the PC's ,Tories, how can anyone call THIS conservative party, tories? They should have called themselves the Reformed Conservatives or Conservative Reformed.

[normanchateau]

I've always wondered what the diferences were between the two and I think if we called the PC's ,Tories, how can anyone call THIS conservative party, tories? They should have called themselves the Reformed Conservatives or Conservative Reformed.

I think the Harperites should be called the SC's, the Social Conservatives. Their out-of-control spending since gaining power is not remotely fiscally conservative.

[HisSelf]

I am very disturbed by Harper's stance on the Supreme Court. The Supremes are all we have standing between democracy and a beer hall putsch. Our senate is a bag of wind, even if elected. Our Governor General is completely impotent.

Some leaders have major flaws. With Trudeau it was economics. It was bad but it wasn't fatal. With Harper it is constitutional law. It is bad and it might damn well be fatal.

[normanchateau]

I am very disturbed by Harper's stance on the Supreme Court. The Supremes are all we have standing between democracy and a beer hall putsch. Our senate is a bag of wind, even if elected. Our Governor General is completely impotent.

Some leaders have major flaws. With Trudeau it was economics. It was bad but it wasn't fatal. With Harper it is constitutional law. It is bad and it might damn well be fatal.

Harper's action of adding a police officer to each judicial advisory committee shows contempt for our judicial system. What next - adding clergymen, providing they are not of liberal bent, to each committee?

[Wild Bill]

I'd like to point out that the usage of the term "Tories" is incorrect. The current Conservative party is simply a revamped Canadian Alliance party, in other words a hodge-podge of western seperatists, Alberta nationaists, republicans, and a few defectors from the PCs. The Tories still exist in the form of the Progressive Canadian party.

Interesting viewpoint. I WAS a Reformer for years and I see little or nothing of Reform in today's CPC. Virtually everything Manning campaigned with has been dropped, down the memory hole.

They look like a clone of the PC's from the Mulroney years. And that was the style that drove me to Reform!

[Fortunata]

I'd like to point out that the usage of the term "Tories" is incorrect. The current Conservative party is simply a revamped Canadian Alliance party, in other words a hodge-podge of western seperatists, Alberta nationaists, republicans, and a few defectors from the PCs. The Tories still exist in the form of the Progressive Canadian party.

I agree with you on this as I have indicated before in this forum.

Harper and the CPC represent the bad in conservatism. He is secretive, intolerant, mean; dictatorial and he spends like no other PM ever. He is everything for which Reform party was created to get away from. He has cast aside humanitarianism even though he preaches to countries like China; he has cast aside honest debate and discussion; he has cast aside respect; he has cast aside diplomacy. He truly does not care about democracy - his handbook on how to disrupt democracy in Parliament just one example. His handling of Chalk River; China; the Brenda Martin affair v.s. other Canadians convicted of crimes in other countries; his low-class derogatory remarks re: the Libs in international forums; Supreme Court (and other judiciary) weightings as noted by others here; the championing of Zaccardelli until even he couldn't anymore (imo he knew to whom he owed his minority), and by not taking responsibility for anything - is everything the Lib's fault? He is a failure as a man and a Prime Minister.

[Wilber]

Harper's action of adding a police officer to each judicial advisory committee shows contempt for our judicial system.

I don't have a problem with it at all. The police have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary. I hear contempt being expressed for our judicial system on a daily basis. Perhaps this will help restore their credibility. Less of a lawyers club.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Wilber

[HisSelf]

Harper's action of adding a police officer to each judicial advisory committee shows contempt for our judicial system. What next - adding clergymen, providing they are not of liberal bent, to each committee?

Exactamundo. Thanks for adding this very significant post.

[HisSelf]

I don't have a problem with it at all. The police have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary. I hear contempt being expressed for our judicial system on a daily basis. Perhaps this will help restore their credibility. Less of a lawyers club.

No No No!

The Police report to the civilian elected government. Get that straight.

The judiciary does not report to the police. The police do not decide if the judiciary is right. The judiciary decides if the police are right. That is how the trial process works. The police do the scut work. If they have something to say THEY TALK TO THE POLITICIANS. THE POLITICIANS APPOINT JUDGES. THE POLITICIANS APPOINT THE POLICE.

What sort of democracy do you believe in? Iran? China? The Philippines? Go live there and see what it's like.

Even in the US, both judges and Police Chiefs are elected. Only in police states do the police pick the judges.

I any case, and criminal law aside, what happens in matters of consitutional law? What happens if the government decides to suspend habeas corpus (as was done not so long ago by a certain government whose name we will not mention for fear of offending his mother MRS BUSH). Look for your name on a no-fly list any time...

What do we do than? Who will come to our defence then if not the judiciary?

Civilisation is a thin veneer, my friend. Do not forget it for a minute.

Edited August 24, 2008 by HisSelf

[Wilber]

No No No!

The Police report to the civilian elected government. Get that straight.

The judiciary does not report to the police. The police do not decide if the judiciary is right. The judiciary decides if the police are right. That is how the trial process works. The police do the scut work. If they have something to say THEY TALK TO THE POLITICIANS. THE POLITICIANS APPOINT JUDGES. THE POLITICIANS APPOINT THE POLICE.

What sort of democracy do you believe in? Iran? China? The Philippines? Go live there and see what it's like.

Even in the US, both judges and Police Chiefs are elected. Only in police states do the police pick the judges.

I any case, and criminal law aside, what happens in matters of consitutional law? What happens if the government decides to suspend habeas corpus (as was done not so long ago by a certain government whose name we will not mention for fear of offending his mother MRS BUSH). Look for your name on a no-fly list any time...

What do we do than? Who will come to our defence then if not the judiciary?

Civilisation is a thin veneer, my friend. Do not forget it for a minute.

Politicians appoint judges on the advice of judges. You are not giving the police control over the judiciary, just giving them a single seat on a committee in which makes decisions that effect them directly.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Wilber

[bk59]

Politicians appoint judges on the advice of judges. You are not giving the police control over the judiciary, just giving them a single seat on a committee in which makes decisions that effect them directly.

Would you give a seat on the committee to a convicted felon? Convicts "have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary."

The problem is that the police are there to put the accused person in jail. The judge is there to impartially run the trial, determine appropriate sentences and, in the case of a trial without a jury, impartially weigh the evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Having the police help pick judges gives the appearance that they are picking pro-police judges. Whether this happens or not, the appearance is damaging enough.

After all, how would it look if we gave people serving prison terms a seat at the table? If one side gets to help pick judges, why not the other side too? Isn't the justice system supposed to be about fairness?

[Pliny]

Although I am not a Conservative, I certainly do a lot of defending of the Conservatives here on this forum.

You are correct in stating it is a minority government which rarely accomplishes much anyway. Perhaps the best scenario from my point of view in any government i.e., - a minority government that can't accomplish anything.

Some have complained of it's record spending. Well, obviously this would not be a factor if it was being spent on their interests but minority governments do tend to overspend and it seems the Conservatives are no different.

On health care: There are things happening there. Brian Day the new President of the CMA has some very good ideas and from what I understand his basic concept of Health care will change the consumers from being looked at as a cost to the system, and thus some thing to be minimized, into an asset and something to be prized. I haven't read anything in depth regarding his ideas but I do know he would open up the private sector. This isn't the governments action, I know, but if anyone is susceptible to change in the health care industry it is, paradoxically, the Conservatives. We have only had health care since 1967 and already it is in a shambles.

Are the Conservatives "Tories"? Well they are a little bit liberal. A position they had to move to in order to capture any of the vote since most people were voting for handouts from government and the progression of creeping socialism had captured the minds of the citizenry. They even changed their party name to include the word, "Progressive" which is kind of an oxymoron to "conservative". Let's say that although they have some liberal tendencies they are the most conservative and closest to the centre of the political spectrum and are attempting to move a little bit closer

A lot of the furthest red liberals and outright socialists are getting a bit hot under the collar about seeing their hard won socialist ground starting to slip away and have stepped up the rhetoric about conservatism abandoning "politically correct" ground to the point Conservatives are being called Nazis and Fascists accompanied by dire warnings to the citizenry if they should win a majority or remain in government. These people are mobilizing and are forming up the Neocon movement. Neo-cons are definitely not conservatives but support of them by conservatives such as Bush has earned him a lot of headaches. They have come into Conservatism through the back door so to speak. The neocons are the latest socialist incarnation with its roots firmly embedded in lib-left extremism. Naomi Klein is still an extreme left wing person but will find herself in a metamorphosis of becoming a Neocon. She will either reject that label or become a conservative; that is if she has any interest in continuing a career as a political activist and comedienne. I think she will reject the label, rather than embrace it and humbly remove herself fro the scene wondering what happened. So conservatives are indeed now Tories when before they were sort of small "L" liberals. Someone said they were right wing but the originator of that statement must have been from a formerly communist nation where from that perspective everything would appear right wing.

The military: Some people were put off by the Liberals neglect of this area. If it weren't for the fact that the Liberals were heading Canada in the direction of depending upon the USA for it's defense, not entirely a good neighbour policy but a good Canadian value, it probably would have been ok. The US wasn't getting along with the Liberals. Harper has at least attempted to make friendly relations with the US and is showing some initiative to not just let America protect and defend us. Give America that responsibility, or anyone for that matter, Russia, the UN, and we end up their vassal instead of their ally.

Immigration: Too contrived and slanted toward inclusion and multiculturalism with the ideal of having a homogenous yet diverse population - ? Impossible! Yes, I agree. When immigrants are not allowed to become Canadians, only hyphenated Canadians, which they then use to their benefit, being Canadian only when it is convenient, is a sorry state of affairs. Mostly a lib-left, politically-correct, affirmative action doctrine of egalitarianism.

My sore points aren't particularly with what they are doing. I didn't like the reversal on the income trust promise, I don't agree with the daycare program but it is a bit of a refreshing change from what the Liberals had to offer.

I like the tax cuts especially the GST - down two points. I would like to see more tax cuts with accompanying spending cuts.

We may see a North American currency but that is a global shift and not really a Tory policy. The left won't like it and complain about loss of sovereignty, but it was a good thing in their eyes when European nations surrendered their sovereignty, much to the consternation of some of it's citizens, and formed the European Union. Besides having a single currency makes some sense but we should really return to having a money based currency rather than a fiat based currency. Especially if we wish sovereignty.

Well that's enoguh maundering for now. Gotta go!

Edited August 25, 2008 by Pliny

[Wilber]

Would you give a seat on the committee to a convicted felon? Convicts "have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary."

So you put police officers in the same category as convicted felons. Tells me where you are coming from.

Having the police help pick judges gives the appearance that they are picking pro-police judges.

The police aren't picking anyone, they will just have some input in the process. Right now the picking of judges has all the appearance of a club.

[bk59]

So you put police officers in the same category as convicted felons. Tells me where you are coming from.

The reason you gave for including the police on these committees applies equally to convicted felons. They too have an interest in the judiciary. You need a better reason than that to include police on these committees.

The police aren't picking anyone, they will just have some input in the process. Right now the picking of judges has all the appearance of a club.

It might have the appearance of a club if you don't know the process. Or if you just assume that everyone involved in the process is acting out of self-interest. Of course if you believe that, then there is no reason to believe that the police would act any differently.

So what input are they providing exactly? They are not legal experts so they cannot comment on the legal knowledge of the applicants. There are already representatives of the community on the committee. They are not generally familiar with private law matters. The only connection they have is to the criminal law, and in that respect the purpose of the police is to put people in jail. That is not an appropriate purpose when it comes to screening candidates for the judiciary.

[bk59]

Some have complained of it's record spending. Well, obviously this would not be a factor if it was being spent on their interests but minority governments do tend to overspend and it seems the Conservatives are no different.

The spending, for better or worse, will eventually take care of itself. No Conservative government will hold much weight with voters if it starts running deficits. Canadians saw what it took to get rid of the last deficit (whether you agree with those actions or not) and I don't think anyone will be eager to enter into that mess again.

What is more worrying to me is the transparency and accountability of this government. It came in on promises of openness and immediately went into information control mode. It's hard to be transparent when even MPs are not allowed to speak without consulting the Prime Minister's Office. Accountability took a huge hit on day one when Emerson was appointed to the Cabinet and Fortier to the Cabinet and Senate.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

My sore points aren't particularly with what they are doing. I didn't like the reversal on the income trust promise, I don't agree with the daycare program but it is a bit of a refreshing change from what the Liberals had to offer.

I like the tax cuts especially the GST - down two points. I would like to see more tax cuts with accompanying spending cuts.

I felt pretty much the opposite about the GST cut. I would much rather have seen income tax cuts rather than a GST cut.

We may see a North American currency but that is a global shift and not really a Tory policy.

I'm not sure North America is quite ready for that yet. With a relatively strong Canadian dollar I don't see people willing to give up their currency.

[Wilber]

The reason you gave for including the police on these committees applies equally to convicted felons. They too have an interest in the judiciary. You need a better reason than that to include police on these committees.

Except convicted felons are convicted felons. People who have been proven to have broken the law and victimized their fellow citizens. A difference you don't seem to comprehend. Many feel they already have representation, that is why the judiciary's public image is so poor.

It might have the appearance of a club if you don't know the process. Or if you just assume that everyone involved in the process is acting out of self-interest. Of course if you believe that, then there is no reason to believe that the police would act any differently.

The rational is there would be more than one interest represented and the more interests that are represented the more likely a result that reflects the public interest.

[Pliny]

The spending, for better or worse, will eventually take care of itself. No Conservative government will hold much weight with voters if it starts running deficits. Canadians saw what it took to get rid of the last deficit (whether you agree with those actions or not) and I don't think anyone will be eager to enter into that mess again.

True.

What is more worrying to me is the transparency and accountability of this government. It came in on promises of openness and immediately went into information control mode. It's hard to be transparent when even MPs are not allowed to speak without consulting the Prime Minister's Office. Accountability took a huge hit on day one when Emerson was appointed to the Cabinet and Fortier to the Cabinet and Senate.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Quite similar, I agree, their agendas somewhat differ though. The Liberals became a little too arrogant, an indicator of underlying scandal, I expect the Conservatives will soon become arrogant. It is the way of government.

I felt pretty much the opposite about the GST cut. I would much rather have seen income tax cuts rather than a GST cut.

Any cut is a good cut. I would like to see an income tax cut as well.

I'm not sure North America is quite ready for that yet. With a relatively strong Canadian dollar I don't see people willing to give up their currency.

It is the global progression. It isn't up to us. We lost sovereignty, what we had of it, when we joined the UN.

[Oleg Bach]

True.

Quite similar, I agree, their agendas somewhat differ though. The Liberals became a little too arrogant, an indicator of underlying scandal, I expect the Conservatives will soon become arrogant. It is the way of government.

Any cut is a good cut. I would like to see an income tax cut as well.

It is the global progression. It isn't up to us. We lost sovereignty, what we had of it, when we joined the UN.

You only lose personal sovereignty and national domain when you submit to a belief system that you accept - that you call the global prgression - and that bunch of Trotskite leftist opportunist self serving bandits you call the UN . You must have confidence and power and each man must state - I am king and carry yourself with dignity and honour - no one can harm or control you then - these dark forces thrive on fear and cowardice - be a man!

[DrGreenthumb]

Except convicted felons are convicted felons. People who have been proven to have broken the law and victimized their fellow citizens. A difference you don't seem to comprehend. Many feel they already have representation, that is why the judiciary's public image is so poor.

The rational is there would be more than one interest represented and the more interests that are represented the more likely a result that reflects the public interest.

I never had any good expectations of the supposi'TORY government so disapoint may not be the best discriptor.

Here are some of the many things I hate about the the Tory traitors.

1) Police picking judges, and all the further progression they have made toward the police state they aspire to.

2) MandaTORY minimum sentences. Taking the disgression away from judges to decide an appropriate sentence based on the facts of individual cases, and imposing cookie cutter justice, is simplistic, stupid, and leads to injustice.

3) Increased spending on the drug war. At a time when more than half of Canadians will admit to using cannabis at some point in their lives, these authoritarian paternalistic nanny staters think that that activity, or simply growing a few unnaproved plants in our gardens warrants jail time. I guess they want to provide more work for the police that don't get on the judge selecting commitee. We do not need permission from nanny, or is that nazi, to eat what we want, medicate how we want or sleep with who we want. These things are not the the business of the state. When we become adults and move away from our parents homes we do not need replacement parents in ottawa to dictate to us how we may use our bodies.

At a time when the approval process has become a lot easier for Pharmaceuticals, the cons think that we need to go the opposite direction with natural health products and make the approval process more difficult. Pharma Tony gets to peddle his pharma crap that kills thousands every year, and he has made it much easier for his companies products to recieve approval. No matter that these drugs do not have the thousands of years history of safe use like the natural health products, Tony thinks sea kelp needs to go through the same testing process as new man made chemicals, like VIOXX, CELEBREX, THalidomide, that end up damaging people and killing them even after passing their "double bind" testing process and years of "testing for safety and efficasy" So far I have never seen a kid with hands coming out of his elbows because his mother ate sea kelp during pregnancy. Never heard of anyone having a heart attack from using Cannabis to treat their arthritis either.

There are so many ways I hate the tories, and so little time to discuss them all, one last point I will make here is the total lack of accountability, the secrecy, and the total disrespect for Canadians and our political system. From the bribing of Cadman, the cheating in the last election , screwing Canadians(in out in out) to the way they hide from the media, and refuse to answer questions about their shady activities, prefering to obfuscate and lie, and even sue the opposition to avoid answering to Canadians about the dirty politics they are involving themselves in. Harper and his brownshirts, are a traitorous disgrace to Canada, and I sure hope Canadians have enough brains to throw them out come election time. That is if the Tories don't rig the next election, or otherwise find some loophole to cheat the voters out of a fair election, something I certainly don't think they are above trying.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Interesting viewpoint. I WAS a Reformer for years and I see little or nothing of Reform in today's CPC. Virtually everything Manning campaigned with has been dropped, down the memory hole.

They look like a clone of the PC's from the Mulroney years. And that was the style that drove me to Reform!

Well, Harper used to go around with his ideological guns blazing on issues like abortion until he realized that as PM--especially in a minority situation--you really can't impose your ideology without fueling an opposition. That's why the Liberals tend to govern more than the Conservatives--federally, at least--because they have tended to be more populist in their approach to governance. Trudeau, of course, had his problems, and when Martin took over (being somewhat more of a neo-con) and tried pushing his agenda, the Liberals faltered. .

[Ontario Loyalist]

The name Tories is used by Canadian Press, the CBC, the Globe and Mail and by Conservatives to describe they party. The Conservatives do call their website Blogging Tories afterall. I don't think they mean Progressive Conservative party.

Well, I think that the media is incorrect for doing so, but this shouldn't be a surprise because the media is so error-prone nowadays that it's no longer funny. I can't tell you how often I've read/heard the use of the Queen of England, British Royal Family, the GG referred to as our "Head of State"...

Of course the CPC is going to refer to themselves as Tories; they're trying to present themselves as the heirs to the Canadian conservativism, which is all part of the deception.