• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

Also, the NP gives a preview of some of the motions to be brought forward at the convention.


One can also peruse the full suite of policy proposals and motions that have been made public here:

 
Last edited:
Also, the NP gives a preview of some of the motions to be brought forward at the convention.


One can also peruse the full suite of policy proposals and motions that have been made public here:

I've just read the CPC Convention package for Quebec 2023. I won't go into a summary of the whole package, but I just to highlight in Red Italics two particular items of interest.

V – National Defence and Security/ Défense nationale et sécurité A – 15- 1213
Submission ID / Numéro de la proposition : 1213
Sponsoring EDA / Circonscription parrainante : Wellington – Halton Hills

Type of Submission / Type de proposition : MODIFICATION / MODIFICATION

Submission #1213 - 171.North Atlantic Treaty Organization

171. Deterrence and Strength through Collective Defence
The Conservative Party of Canada supports Canada’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the principle of collective security. A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of our GDP on National Defence.

As an Indo-Pacific nation, Conservatives support Canada joining the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD Group) for strategic military cooperation, as well as charting a path to membership in the new elite defence pact AUKUS.

Proposition # 1213 – 171.Organisation du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN)

171. Dissuasion et force par la défense collective

Le Parti conservateur du Canada soutient la participation du Canada à l’Organisation du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN) et le principe de la sécurité collective. Un gouvernement conservateur cherchera à dépenser au moins les deux (2) pour cent du PIB recommandés par l’OTAN pour la Défense nationale.

En tant que nation indo-pacifique, les conservateurs soutiennent l'adhésion du Canada au
Dialogue quadrilatéral sur la sécurité (groupe QUAD) pour la coopération militaire stratégique, ainsi que
de tracer la voie vers l'adhésion au nouveau traité de défense d'élite AUKUS.

Notes:
(1) Conservatives, like the Liberals, will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended 2% of the GDP. This is not a firm commitment to spending 2%. I take it to mean that the CPC will not make any fiscal cuts to the defence budget as a minimum, but that doesn't mean any significant increases either. This will depend on the overall fiscal situation.

(2) I'm not sure what conditions would be for Cda to join AUKUS. I'm not sure if the general public will even support it especially if it means nuclear submarines or a substantial increase in the defence budget.

In brief, same old news as the Liberals, with their proposed defence and veterans' policies as last time, and before that. Lots of grand ideas but no firm commitment.

Anyway, we'll see after the convention what the platform will be after the party votes on the convention package. Like any good political party there will be very little commitment to spend money, but there will lots of implied new focused spending.
 
I've just read the CPC Convention package for Quebec 2023. I won't go into a summary of the whole package, but I just to highlight in Red Italics two particular items of interest.

V – National Defence and Security/ Défense nationale et sécurité A – 15- 1213
Submission ID / Numéro de la proposition : 1213
Sponsoring EDA / Circonscription parrainante : Wellington – Halton Hills

Type of Submission / Type de proposition : MODIFICATION / MODIFICATION

Submission #1213 - 171.North Atlantic Treaty Organization

171. Deterrence and Strength through Collective Defence
The Conservative Party of Canada supports Canada’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the principle of collective security. A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of our GDP on National Defence.

As an Indo-Pacific nation, Conservatives support Canada joining the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD Group) for strategic military cooperation, as well as charting a path to membership in the new elite defence pact AUKUS.

Proposition # 1213 – 171.Organisation du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN)

171. Dissuasion et force par la défense collective

Le Parti conservateur du Canada soutient la participation du Canada à l’Organisation du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord (OTAN) et le principe de la sécurité collective. Un gouvernement conservateur cherchera à dépenser au moins les deux (2) pour cent du PIB recommandés par l’OTAN pour la Défense nationale.

En tant que nation indo-pacifique, les conservateurs soutiennent l'adhésion du Canada au
Dialogue quadrilatéral sur la sécurité (groupe QUAD) pour la coopération militaire stratégique, ainsi que
de tracer la voie vers l'adhésion au nouveau traité de défense d'élite AUKUS.

Notes:
(1) Conservatives, like the Liberals, will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended 2% of the GDP. This is not a firm commitment to spending 2%. I take it to mean that the CPC will not make any fiscal cuts to the defence budget as a minimum, but that doesn't mean any significant increases either. This will depend on the overall fiscal situation.

(2) I'm not sure what conditions would be for Cda to join AUKUS. I'm not sure if the general public will even support it especially if it means nuclear submarines or a substantial increase in the defence budget.

In brief, same old news as the Liberals, with their proposed defence and veterans' policies as last time, and before that. Lots of grand ideas but no firm commitment.

Anyway, we'll see after the convention what the platform will be after the party votes on the convention package. Like any good political party there will be very little commitment to spend money, but there will lots of implied new focused spending.
I stopped believing either party on defence spending or commitments and just ignore what either has to say on it when the time comes to vote.
 
Remember all the political parties have your best interests at heart and will work hard for you, the voter.
Caveats:

1. You must be a firm believer in the political party's ideology
2. If the party can't implement it's campaign promises it is because:
  • the opposition party is placing its own self interests ahead of the voter
  • the opposition party is playing partisan politics and will constantly oppose, delay, obstructed you in any way it can
  • the opposition party left the country's finances in such a mess that your party cannot possibly fulfill its campaign promises
  • the opposition party dithering left the country in such a mess that it will require years of fixing before any of the campaign promises can be fulfilled
3. The party's efforts are being stymied by the global elite
4. The party's efforts are being stymied by gov't bureaucrats are afraid of losing their own power or they dislike the party
5. The party's brilliant policies have made enemies of the other foreign gov'ts who will obfuscate your efforts on the international stage
6. The very vocal unenlightened minority constantly spreads lies on social media about the party's brilliant policies causing confusion among the general public
 
One more to add to your already-good list :)
... 2. If the party can't implement it's campaign promises it is because:
  • ...
  • the opposition party screwed things up so badly when they were in power, things are harder to fix
  • ...
 
And yet, they're clearly panicked, coming up with such nonsense to smear him:
1694284985675.png



If I worked at the CBC, I wouldn't hang my hopes on the delegates rejecting that resolution. Delegates sought to protect Radio-Canada, not CBC.
 
And yet, they're clearly panicked, coming up with such nonsense to smear him:
View attachment 79961



If I worked at the CBC, I wouldn't hang my hopes on the delegates rejecting that resolution. Delegates sought to protect Radio-Canada, not CBC.
If Poilievre doesn’t abide by something that the majority of the party wants (whatever it is), he best be explaining why to them or I can see some issues falling out.

And yes, the resolution voted down is apparently to cut both SRC and CBC. If CBC gets cut, it would be hilarious if SRC just “happened to gain” an English-language subsidiary.
 
If Poilievre doesn’t abide by something that the majority of the party wants (whatever it is), he best be explaining why to them or I can see some issues falling out.

And yes, the resolution voted down is apparently to cut both SRC and CBC. If CBC gets cut, it would be hilarious if SRC just “happened to gain” an English-language subsidiary.
Much more complicated than one would think. Defunding the cbc as a whole is doable, defunding the English language side only would require somewhat more. Not impossible but without a majority and some changes to laws it probably won’t happen the way some wish it would.
 
And yet, they're clearly panicked, coming up with such nonsense to smear him:
View attachment 79961
For some perspective, here's what the National Post says he said (from a full text of the speech) ....
... As the great economist Thomas Sowell said: the first law of economics is scarcity —people always want more than there is to have and the first law of politics is to ignore the first law of economics ...


If I worked at the CBC, I wouldn't hang my hopes on the delegates rejecting that resolution. Delegates sought to protect Radio-Canada, not CBC.
As the CTV piece says, parties (no matter what colour) aren't handcuffed to resolutions when it comes to campaign platforms. And as for that delegates "meant", all we can go by is what was written (see attached). And PP's statements pre-convention seem to have been aimed at CBC, not the French side, but we'll see what happens 1) when the platform is developed & shared, and 2) if he becomes PM.

Then again, he can always cut English-language funding by, say, 50% and say, hand on heart, that he didn't "defund" it :)
 

Attachments

From Terry Glavin’s most recent newsletter, he has this to say about the possibility of Poilievre over-promising and under-delivering on housing. It is a multi-pronged problem developing over a long period of time. If he doesn’t deliver, people will be really, really, really

In my last newsletter I included two charts, both of which showed that something really bad happened around 2015, in the case of housing costs. But that’s only part of the story. Here’s another chart, showing what was happening during the Harper years, from 2006 to 2015. Something really bad happened around 2006.



In the Canada that Harper’s Conservatives handed over to Trudeau’s Liberals in October 2015, the housing market was the most overvalued in the entire world. Two days before the October 19 election, the Economist magazine reportedthat consumer debt in Canada had reached a record 165 percent of disposable income, and most of that debt was related to maintaining a roof over one’s head.

Building more houses will not solve the current crisis, a predicament the Trudeau Liberals have made exponentially worse since 2015. As the data in my last Real Story showed, recent history is clear: you’ll just end up with more dramatically overpriced houses.

You could build millions of homes, which are increasingly costly to build, and you still wouldn’t keep up with immigration. Meanwhile, nearly a third of the homes purchased in Canada so far this year were bought by investors - people who already own their own homes. The Trudeau Liberals aren’t talking about this. Neither are Poilievre’s Conservatives.

All this is to say that there’s something deeply dysfunctional going on here, a combination of factors contributing to a structural disorder that’s been in play for a long time.

Long story short: If a Poilievre government ends up replacing the Trudeau Liberals’ “luxury beliefs” and their “narrative” with luxury beliefs and a narrative of its own, this country is in for a very, very rough ride. You think Canadians are angry now? You just wait.

 
From Terry Glavin’s most recent newsletter, he has this to say about the possibility of Poilievre over-promising and under-delivering on housing. It is a multi-pronged problem developing over a long period of time. If he doesn’t deliver, people will be really, really, really



I haven't heard PP, or the CPC in general promise to fix everything overnight.

I suspect that if Canadians see improvement, even if things aren't fixed, they will be less angry than they currently are with the LPC.
 
I haven't heard PP, or the CPC in general promise to fix everything overnight.

I suspect that if Canadians see improvement, even if things aren't fixed, they will be less angry than they currently are with the LPC.

His point is that simplistic slogans/solutions (“down with gatekeepers!”, “build more houses!”) won’t work. When after four years and the Tories have barely begun to fix the problem, people will be really angry and start looking to real honest-to-god Marxists or fascists to “fix” the problem.

Under-promise, over-deliver, have a real solution and don’t sugarcoat how painful and long it will take to fix.
 
Back
Top