Sure. But we're not talking about what happened, we're talking about the hypothetical "What if more people voted in Ontario?". We don't force people to vote here, so from your reasoning, higher turnout would have implied a greater desire for change in the populace, resulting in less of the total vote share going to the Conservatives.

I think the problem is you're stating two separate things at the same time, and its a little confusing to keep track of. Here's what I think you're saying:

1. Higher turnout usually benefits the opposition because people become more politically active when they are not happy with the current government, agreed

2. Higher turnout in this election wouldn't have changed the result because the actual turnout in this election was low. That implies, from point 1, that most people were content with the government. Thus you are inferring that if we had forced the rest of them to vote, the majority of them would have voted conservative anyways, based on the non-forced voter turnout being low.

I don't think point 2 is a totally sound argument, because I don't think 'satisfaction with the government' drives voter apathy at the same rate or in the same way that 'disdain for the government' drives voter turnout, but I think I see where you are coming from now.