Pierre Poilièvre new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

[Howard]

Some analysts saw the race between 2 real contendants ; Jean Charest, a centre-right candidate, and Pierre Poilièvre who is a right wing. I didn't like Stephen Harper's conservatives because he was much pro-oil. I don't like Jean Charest because of his cuts in education he did when he was in provincial politics. I do have a liking for Poilièvre mostly because he wants to undo the dammage caused by all the the money printing did by Trudeau during the pandemic. It's news that make me want to vote the next federal election. What is your take on the event? Would you have rather seen Charest win and why? Do you, like me, prefer Poilièvre? Or are you disgusted by everything right wing?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Considering my distaste for the liberals right now, I'd maaaybe be tempted to vote for the conservatives and he seemed better, but it's hard to have good hopes for any xD.

They can't even get along when they're forced to with minorities.

[MarRister]

I'm not a fan personally. Much of what he says I disagree with, and I really think the biggest thing people see in him is solely his anti-Trudeau rhetoric, but I don't find that to be enough. To try and get ahead solely by putting the other guy down. I want real ideas, and real plans, not just, "Oh I'll fix everything Trudeau did." That doesn't mean anything. It is just a populist tactic. I think many people want to blame someone for the issues we are seeing today, but that really can't be entirely put on one person or political party. I don't really see how the Conservatives would have gotten us out of the pandemic at a better spot. I think it would have sucked either way, either more during the height of the pandemic or more after. And the after effects suck either way. Inflation isn't just a Canada problem right now, it is spiking across the world, it is bigger than just how our government dealt with the pandemic. We are also dealing with other things impacting that, like the energy crisis relating to the war in Ukraine. 

 

I have my issues with Trudeau for sure, and I think I'd rather see him step down and let someone else take the helm of the Liberal party. who though I couldn't say. He has too much history and been in power too long I think to be seen in a positive light by many voters, though I would not be at all surprised for him to make another run at it.

 

I just don't see scapegoating as a positive campaign tactic. People love to blame Trudeau for being divisive, but I can't understand how this tactic is less divisive than anything Trudeau has ever done. It is illogical to see this as joining people together. It is more like giving an angry mob torches and weapons.  

[Ceebs]

He annoys me, just his general character. I guess I would've preferred Charest because he seems a little less... slimy... to me. If either one of them had to be our next Prime Minister, I think I'd find Charest less embarrassing. Tbh I don't pay much attention to what goes on with the Tories, as I don't vote for them. But then I don't really want to vote for anyone anymore either, so. I couldn't bring myself to vote in the last Ontario provincial election.

[awadama]

I'm not Canadian and I don't know these people but that dude's name makes me think of Pierre Bouvier from Simple Plan. I'd vote for Simple Plan if I could!

[notafigmentofurimagination]

1. what position are they running for and what are their powers in that position?

2. is their plan to undo pandemic damage gonna work? (i love the idea though, its quite tempting)
3. how about their other policies that they will push for and be successful in pushing for?

4. what are the current priorities rn?

[ElloryJaye]

I am mildly disgusted, but unsurprised, at the news Poilièvre won (this is my normal reaction to any news about the Conservatives).  I would not vote for their party regardless of who was in charge.  The nature of right-wing politics is that it treats money as an end rather than a means, which means that any position they put forth is based on incorrect principles.  According to what little I know about him, Poilièvre doesn't even have the redeeming quality of being socially progressive.

 

In choosing who to vote for, it's best to ignore what politicians are saying, and look instead at their history, and their party's—what have they voted for?  What bills have they proposed or endorsed?  Talk is cheap.

 

As for "repairing the damage" from the pandemic?  That won't happen in the short term no matter who's in charge, and trying to reorient the economy too fast will do more harm than good (which services are you going to gut to get the money to do it?)  It's a promise that can't be kept.

[Howard]

 

10 hours ago, notafigmentofurimagination said:

1. what position are they running for and what are their powers in that position?

They're eventualy be running for prime minister of Canada. Being a democratic country, the position in itself has little power without the parliament's approval.

10 hours ago, notafigmentofurimagination said:

2. is their plan to undo pandemic damage gonna work? (i love the idea though, its quite tempting)

2 key promises : cap spending and make the central bank more accountable like making it subject to audits like anyone else.

10 hours ago, notafigmentofurimagination said:

3. how about their other policies that they will push for and be successful in pushing for?

The two promises I like the most are scrapping the programmable digital currency program and instore a free speech commitee led by a judge.

10 hours ago, notafigmentofurimagination said:

4. what are the current priorities rn?

On top of what I already mentionned, they want quicker treatment of immigration laws and force Vancouver and Toronto to increase the housing supply

 

9 hours ago, ElloryJaye said:

In choosing who to vote for, it's best to ignore what politicians are saying, and look instead at their history, and their party's—what have they voted for?  What bills have they proposed or endorsed?

The canadian parliament vote over 100 bills a year. As such, it's a difficult question to answer. I invite you to visit the parliament's website to learn more.

9 hours ago, ElloryJaye said:

As for "repairing the damage" from the pandemic?  That won't happen in the short term no matter who's in charge, and trying to reorient the economy too fast will do more harm than good (which services are you going to gut to get the money to do it?)  It's a promise that can't be kept.

I think I've answered the how up above. I agree it would take time. The last time Canada faced a similar situation, it was Chrétien's Liberals who fixed it and it did require 2 terms. Since it was done in the past, I believe it's a promise that can be kept.

[notafigmentofurimagination]

1 hour ago, Howard said:

 

They're eventualy be running for prime minister of Canada. Being a democratic country, the position in itself has little power without the parliament's approval.

2 key promises : cap spending and make the central bank more accountable like making it subject to audits like anyone else.

The two promises I like the most are scrapping the programmable digital currency program and instore a free speech commitee led by a judge.

On top of what I already mentionned, they want quicker treatment of immigration laws and force Vancouver and Toronto to increase the housing supply

 

The canadian parliament vote over 100 bills a year. As such, it's a difficult question to answer. I invite you to visit the parliament's website to learn more.

I think I've answered the how up above. I agree it would take time. The last time Canada faced a similar situation, it was Chrétien's Liberals who fixed it and it did require 2 terms. Since it was done in the past, I believe it's a promise that can be kept.

okay this candidate seems good, im no expert tho, but i could vote for them if i were able to

[Ceebs]

3 hours ago, Howard said:

The two promises I like the most are scrapping the programmable digital currency program and instore a free speech commitee led by a judge.

This intrigues me. 
 

I have serious differences with the CPC regarding economic ideals so I don't see myself ever voting for them because of that, but social issues are precisely why I didn't vote in the last provincial election. There is no one who really represents where I stand. I've been a card-carrying member of the NDP for 18 years, but the social justice left and I have diverged too much on things like freedom of speech and related issues. I find it all very illiberal -- and ironic that the right seems associated with that ideal now. Thing is, I very much do not trust the motivations of some right-wingers for taking up that fight. I don't want to be associated with them either.

 

So, I'm lost.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I'm torn. Because I was looking a bit around and apparantly he opposed transgender surgeries being covered. The program is already pitiful and only covers the most basic things. I was hoping since he's supposed to be pro-lgbtq that he might be ok but now i don't think so.

 

It sucks because I really want the current liberals out of there but most other parties don't have a chance compared to conservatives.
So I guess probably Charest would've been better. In my view now.

 

[MarRister]

5 hours ago, Howard said:

2 key promises : cap spending and make the central bank more accountable like making it subject to audits like anyone else.

The Bank of Canada already gets audited regularly. Unless you are taking about something different than a financial audit?

 

Capping spending means cuts. If he is also adding new programs like this freedom guardian, that means direct cuts, so where is the money coming from? 

 

What is the point of scrapping the digital currency program? I think they are just researching it currently, doubt it frees up much money, and many other countries have already delved into this world, I think it would be weird not to look into it at this point.

 

5 hours ago, Howard said:

a free speech commitee led by a judge.

All I read about was a free speech 'guardian' which was one single former judge who he picks, who follows a policy he has decided and would only be doing this for university campuses. And would do this under threat of taking away funding and grants to said university if they do not agree with their assessment. But also education is more provincial jurisdiction than anything, and some provinces already have free speech type policies in place for post-secondary institutions, so it doesn't seem to be adding anything 'useful'. Also it seems to be adding unnecessary burden and more complexity for universities. Like the charter already exists, if this is not being upheld this is an issue for the courts, not some selected former judge. Is there a different free speech committee other than this? 

[Howard]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:37 AM, MarRister said:

Is there a different free speech committee other than this?

no. The charter lacks teeth, imo. It can be expensive to drag an instution to court when free speech is broken. As such, I welcome any initiative to limit cancel culture.

[-1=e^ipi]

I don't like Poilievre, or Charest, or Trudeau, or Singh, or Bernier, or Ford, or Legault, or really any modern Canadian politician (Eric Duhaime and Annamie Paul would be exceptions for me), and I am not aligned with any party in particular. That said, there are enough problems in Canada, and I dislike Trudeau enough, that I might vote for Poilievre despite never voting for a conservative party before (unless you count the PPC, but that was more of a protest vote against the dairy cartel), and despite strongly disagreeing with Poilievre on a number of policies (such as taxing CO2 emissions to fight climate change). Although, if there will be a viable option offering electoral reform (the so-called liberal party and the so-called NDP are not believable on this; and the green party is in disarray) then I might vote for them.

 

With respect to the conservative debates, Charest greatly disappointed me.

• Firstly, he basically slandered Poilievre by claiming that Poilievre was against the rule of law and in favour of blockades and illegal activity. If you want to criticize Poilievre's support or mannerisms with respect to the trucker convoy, fair enough. But I don't understand how it makes sense to throw false accusations like this; I would prefer people argue over policies. Maybe this was how politics was done 20+ years ago in Charestland, but it does not appeal to me at all.
• It also doesn't make sense to campaign on wanting to unify the country and reduce polarization while also failing to make distinctions or recognize nuance or the diversity of the public. Some trucker convey people wanted the Governor General and the Canadian senate to declare themselves the government of Canada, and some of the trucker convoy people were associated with racists, fair enough. But you also had many people who were against vaccine mandates, believed in "my body my choice", including for abortions, or had concerns about COVID policies (such as lockdowns, curfews, or the Government of Quebec considering making it unaffordable for people to be unvaccinated by fining them). It doesn't help reduce polarization by grouping all those different people together and pretending that they are all evil racists who want to violently overthrow the government.
• The thing that annoyed me the most about Charest was his completely wrong statements about climate change policy (which he boldly stated in a manner to project high confidence, while having nothing to back it up). In particular, Charest's opposition to carbon taxes (well more specifically, he is fine with less efficient "carbon prices" such as through Canada's clean fuel standard or oil and gas cap), and bold (and unfounded) claim that a cap on industrial emissions are the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions. It's the complete opposite. Broad-based taxation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the most economically-efficient way to reduce emissions, which is the position of essentially all economists, including Nobel-prize winners like William Nordhaus. Recently, Canada's Ecofiscal Commission released a report where they looked at the cost-effectiveness of different climate policies to reach Canada's 2030 targets, based on economic modelling. Unsurprisingly, taxation of carbon dioxide gave the best results, while policies targeting only "big industries" (an approach favoured by Charest and O'Toole) were so bad that they resulted in Canada's GDP per capita declining over the next decade (despite technological progress) and society getting poorer.

 

Fighting climate change isn't a game, and its getting more concerning that Canada's targets are getting more aggressive (whether they are believable is another question) while simultaneously essentially all the political parties continue to support the most costly and oppose the most efficient climate change policies. This is a recipe for a poorer society. The scientific and economic illiteracy of the Canadian political establishment is not good.

[-1=e^ipi]

On 9/11/2022 at 5:10 PM, Ceebs said:

I couldn't bring myself to vote in the last Ontario provincial election.

You didn't have the None of the Above Party running in your riding?

[-1=e^ipi]

On 9/12/2022 at 4:59 AM, Howard said:

The two promises I like the most are scrapping the programmable digital currency program...

Honestly, this is one of the most bizarre positions. There is nothing wrong with the central bank exploring cryptocurrency. In fact, being against this is an anti-cryptocurrency position, while being for it is a pro-cryptocurrency position. But the Canadian politicians don't know what they are talking about, they are just trying to posture themselves as either pro- or anti-establishment with little coherence.

 

Canada's central bank has been exploring cryptocurrency for years and they have economists that work in this area. In fact, the former deputy head of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Wilkins, was one of the lead economists in the Bank of Canada on cryptocurrency. Here is a paper that she coauthored a few years ago. Strangely, Trudeau did not choose for her to be the new head of the Bank of Canada (despite claiming to want women in leadership roles), favouring Tiff Macklem, perhaps because Trudeau viewed Macklem as more favourable to expansionary monetary policy or stronger "ESG" policies.

[-1=e^ipi]

On 9/14/2022 at 3:21 AM, Howard said:

The charter lacks teeth, imo.

Yes, the charter is a giant lie that pretends to give us rights (the so-called section 2). In reality, section 2 is severely limited by section 1 (i.e. the government can do away with any of our rights if they can convince the judges that they appoint that these limits are so-called "reasonable in a democratic society") or section 33 (the not-withstanding clause that allows federal and provincial governments, specifically Quebec, to bypass fundamental rights). The main obstacle to improving the charter (or replacing it) are the Canadian nationalists who want to pretend that our charter is the greatest and most infallible thing in the universe.

[Howard]

5 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

There is nothing wrong with the central bank exploring cryptocurrency.

If only we were talking about cryptocurrencies like Ethereum or Bitcoin. Please see the following : Programmable Digital Currencies Are Coming - Here's What That Means | Nasdaq. I don't like the idea of a government more into what I do with my money, much less a currency that can vanish if I disagree with the government or I am forced to invest a certain in order to save a pet company of the government.

[-1=e^ipi]

7 hours ago, Howard said:

If only we were talking about cryptocurrencies like Ethereum or Bitcoin. Please see the following : Programmable Digital Currencies Are Coming - Here's What That Means | Nasdaq. I don't like the idea of a government more into what I do with my money, much less a currency that can vanish if I disagree with the government or I am forced to invest a certain in order to save a pet company of the government.

This is the first that I have heard of the central bank using cryptocurrency in this way. I was more under the impression that some central banks were thinking that they could introduce a stable coin, for example, that people could choose to purchase. If the central bank were to introduce a cryptocurrency with undesirable features (such as what your article indicates), couldn't people simply choose not to buy it? Unless the government forces people to buy central bank cryptocurrency, or the government bans all other cryptocurrency, I'm not sure there would be a problem. I am far more concerned with central banks getting involved with the so-called "ESG", which apparently doesn't include Tesla, than I am about central banks offering cryptocurrencies.