Far from being a Trumpian import, the Conservative leadership contender Pierre Poilievre's strategy draws directly from Canada's own history of populist rhetoric
Not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but there are a series of thoughtful analogies to other moments in Canadian political history that more commentators should engage with. This is exactly the kind of content that I came to The Line to read.
This commentary is a little naive. The man wants to replace the Head of the Bank of Canada and explore Bitcoin as a legitimate source of currency. His disdain for dismantling our institutions rather than fix them is insane.
The main job as a Prime Minister is to unite the country. Nothing Poillievre has said or done can be construed as being the great unifier. He’s too divisive. Hard pass.
So the man who thinks budgets balance themselves and "doesn't think about monetary policy", has tried to dismantle our oil and gas sector, can't even buy pistols for our AF and invoked the Emergency Act for a peaceful demonstration is better? The man who called people who disagreed with him racists, misogynists and extremists is a unifier?
Other than Harper, what recent PM hasn't be a divider? Harper more or less ignored regional concerns and they more or less went away.
PP never stated that BTC has anything other than an emerging technology. He could have elaborated further, along the lines of:
-Canada needs a regulatory framework to address crypto
-the emergence of crypto might present business opportunities for Canadians
-crypto might take market share from fiat currencies, further debunking the notion of Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. that government can borrow infinitely from central banks without causing inflation)
-crypto can be a hedge from inflation has some coins have capped amounts in circulation or expand at predefined rates. At this point in time, the liquidity risk vastly exceeds the inflation protection
The BoC has messed up massively and someone has to be held accountable.
If we are ever going to make meaningful change in this country, things are going to have to become even more divisive. And destructive. You can't seriously believe the housing crisis and inflation can be resolved without putting the top and bottom classes to work.
Respectfully I disagree. I’ve had my fill of divisive politicking and it’s only gotten us in an even more polarizing environment. The only way forward is through meaningful dialogue from all perspective points of view. This widening divide is horrific for our upcoming generations.
Environics found that Canadians stood 60/40 for "Politicians who compromise" vs "Politicians who stick by their principles". For Americans, the 60/40 was reversed, and that tells you much about America's radical politics versus our own less-divided state.
The above two posts read like an American arguing with a Canadian about how to get something done.
PePo doesn't do meaningful dialogue. He's all about breaking, smashing, tearing things down. It's all about the blame game with PePo. He's not alone nor is he new to it—it's just what Cons do. He's always been that nasty little terrier snapping at ankles.
Nor do I think he's carrying on Canadian progressive traditions. This is the first time I have heard someone compare PePo to David Lewis. David Lewis is memorable, Skippy not so much.
PePo is not looking all that great to the centrists even if the Libs continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
You don't have to have full agreement. What is missing in today's dialogue, is accepting differences and moving forward. Partisanship has replaced informed discussion and good governance.
The real divisiveness will come from ending public sector privilege, basically moving towards market cased compensation and HR policies for public servants.
Allan, I believe you've got it right. That leftist inclinations are not thrilled with Poilievre (as you describe) doesn't mean they aren't potential supporters.
Canadians are angry...and they're going to vent it one way or another. Minor ideological compromise will very much be the order of the day when the Liberals are finally held to account.
It will be interesting to observe if Trudeau's wish--power until 2025--allows him to so degrade Liberal respect that he suffers a "Wynne implosion".
The Liberals already have institutional memory for the humiliation of 3rd party status. (That’s how Canadians got stuck with Trudeau. The Liberals went with name recognition and sex appeal to lead them out of the wilderness).
I can’t see Trudeau sticking around for a humiliating end to his Prime Ministership. Nor can I see the movers and shakers of the Party letting him run the ship into an electoral reef.
As no less a Tory than John Crosbie said, "There are worse things that can happen to Canada than perpetual Liberal government." And he was only talking about the Reform Party.
What goodies? Increased borrowing costs already consumer more than the (likely under-projected) daycare deal. Canada is headed for 90's style austerity under all scenarios.
Borrowing costs are going up regardless of credit rating.
Would you actually support additional spending during an inflationary surge? Canadian governments are still stimulating, which works against monetary fiscal policy. A responsible government would be balancing its budget as quickly as possible, mostly through austerity
Canadians need the Government to withdraw from the economy. Government largesse has over primed the system and the accumulated debt is will start chewing up a lot of gdp in interest payments.
At some point and time, the Liberal's are going to have to address the financial calamity that we are currently living in...and no one seems to want to address. The baggage they have now will still be with them, and there are still more scandals sitting in the wings waiting to wear the Trudeau brand into the dust. I believe the Liberal's only path to a majority is without Trudeau leading. If the Conservatives deal with their women's rights albatross, I believe they'll be decimated.
It will be increased interest rates that will kill the Liberals. We live beyond our means with the goodies that we can't afford in a higher interest rate environment, and those higher rates will also show that Canada's economy relied too much on home building (and speculating) for cashed up immigrants.
I really hope you're right. But if there's a global recession, I don't see how we won't be enveloped by it, and there are a whole lot of careers that need recruits. Most of that is provincial, but we really need leadership right now. I'm not seeing much anywhere.
He is absolutely nothing like Trump. We need someone who can beat Trudeau. As I’ve said many times on various platforms, we chose to move to Canada. We came here just before PET became PM. His attitude and treatment of the west made me feel like we had come to some backward third world country. That might have been due to the provincial government but we are now a leader in many things. We have lost our fossil fuel jobs without first having an alternative and since JT has been PM I have been researching if it would be feasible to move bsck to the UK. I am no longer proud to be a Canadian. I worry for the future of Canada unless we dump JT and his Buddy Singh.
I don’t know if Poliviere is the guy to do it but he may well be. It’s ridiculous to say he’s akin to Trump.
Agreed. "Trumpist" is a lazy slur at this point. He won because he had a point, "America first", as in, look out for your own citizens. The left used to be the labour party, and they've effectively abandoned them. Now it's all identity politics from them. Trump picked up that abandoned demographic and carried it to his win.
Trump's secret mojo, in my opinion, is his shamelessness. If Poilievre can emulate that and push back against his critics, he has a chance.
I don’t think all politicians are as dishonest as JT are they? We need someone who pulls us together. All JT does is drive the country apart. Maybe Canada is too big to be one country. But I sure don’t want to be part of the US. We have no feeling that we are a unified country. Of course the UK citizens don’t all agree but I get the feeling that they still all feel like they belong to one country. I think JT has ruined this feeling in Canada.
Do you really think Trudeau is more dishonest than Jason Kenney or Stephen Harper? We'll leave Trump out of this because he shatters all records - no matter what Mike Pence might say. I don't think Trudeau is trying to drive people apart. I just think it's his elitist nature of which he seems unaware. At the same time, Canadian Conservatives like to use one Trudeau or another as the reason for their own failures.
Oh for goodness sake. JT prorogued parliament to get out of facing the other three parties getting together. He weaseled out of the WE scandal and the Lavalin scandal. If anything Harper was boring and didn’t do anything offence or exciting. I know nothing about Kenney.
The latest thing is the interference with the RCMP investigation into the NS murders. He’s going to weasel out of that one too.
Actually, I do think he is more dishonest. He is twice convicted of ethics offenses lied about blackface, groping (all women have to be believed), WE etc.
I also believe he tries to use events to create wedge issues to divide Canadians for political gain. Why else would he discuss a SCOTUS decision that means nothing in Canada, or go from no mandates to mandates two days before he calls an election, pass phony gun legislation days after the NS shootings.
You are right about his elitist nature and I'm sure he believes if he does or says something he is right because he is Justin Trudeau. And if it turns out he is proven wrong it is a learning experience for other Canadians.
Politics is a form of marketing, I guess, and JT is gifted at it, especially the exploitation of a wedge issue. Divide and conquer.
JT himself said we are a "post-national" country, whatever that means. We're seeing that played out. For instance our flag (our flag!) is now apparently a symbol of the dreaded convoy.
I think Trumps secret mojo was running against Hillary. She was as shameless a liar as he was but he was seen as a beltway outsider whereas Hillary was the same corrupt elitist insider.
And she came with more exploitable baggage than the Titanic. In some ways, Trump was the US's Trudeau....he offered an appealing vision and they failed to deliver in every way. Trudeau just didn't boldly lie as much.....although that appears to be changing too.
So every "elitist" is corrupt? Every single one. DT has no secret mojo. HC won the Dem race and DT behaving like the AH he is won for the GOP. Yup DT and HC are elitists. He didn't pick HC to run against. He lost the popular vote, which makes more sense there as people actually vote for their Prez and VP unlike us.
There are probably many elitists who are not corrupt and not interested in manipulating power for personal gain. But it is only the elite who are in a position to do so. I don't see the poor lobbying for monopolies, lowering wages, ensuring higher profits for oligopolists.
Certainly you can google a list of the things Hillary lied about -- including lying to the FBI (I had no "secret" documents on my server) which landed Martha Stewart in jail. Lately we found out she knew the Russia/Trump clusterf%$k was a hoax that was "trumped" up by her own staff.
Beating Trudeau is the simple matter of putting a woman's right to choose in the CPC policy manual, and ending that wedge issue for good. Will they take that step?
We lost a lot of fossil fuel jobs because the price collapsed as much as anything else....including a complete lack of vision on moving product.
David, sure oil patch jobs are cyclical but if you think the loss of jobs in the last 5 years is due to the price of oil (oil have been over $45 except for a brief time during COVID) then you are mistaken. Capital investment was driven south by our PM who in 2017 said he would "phase out" the oilsands. O&G investment has never reached 2016 levels again.
I'm not sure the Conservatives can put the abortion issue to rest that easily. It's a political loser in a general election, but there's still a not insignificant portion of the Conservative coalition that cares about it. They haven't even got enough weight in the party to win on that issue, but enough that they can undermine a leader who tries to unequivocally take a pro-rights position. Those folks having lately been taking a lot of cues from the MAGA right in the US, and will doubtless be emboldened by the recent Dobbs decision.
Exactly. They're feeling bold, but not realising what country they're in. It comes down to whether they want to win....but you can't get elected telling the truth. So they'll probably lose a 4th. I certainly won't vote for them until they resolve this, and I won't vote for Trudeau for a thousand reasons.
But you could get fired for not having a vaccine but not for getting pregnant :)
BTW I am vaxxed and have no problem with proven vaccines being given to the population at large especially to the old (of which I'm one) and those with compromised immune systems (I check this box too). But, we were sold a bill of goods on the Covid vaccines in the sense that it did not prevent people from becoming infected. I will await the scientific papers that should be coming to see if it really did make the symptoms less severe or if that was the result of different variants.
If I was a young male I would have had serious concerns about myocarditis and I'm can't say for sure that I would have taken the vaccine. If I was a women who wanted children I doubt I would've taken a vaccine.
I understand the greater good but we were claiming the greater good without any proof that there was no long term harm.
I think the majority of Canadians said I got the vaccine so everyone has to get the vaccine. In hindsight, though we knew COVID was the most severe in the elderly and others with compromised immune systems and those with underlying health issues, we did a lousy job of protecting them and as a result went overboard on vaccine mandates. IMHO.
Stephen Harper lamented that Canada was “a Northern European welfare state” over 20 years ago. Canada has not changed - our social policies do resemble northern Scandinavia much more than the US. Good luck moving back to the UK - British voters seem, if anything, to be unhappier than those in Canada.
The UK for all that it's an island and once upon a time the sun never set on it, it's as bonkers as Canada.
You might as well stay put Liz. Inflation is worse and Boris is dodging scandals like a pro. Covid numbers were higher than us on all counts. If you are no longer proud to be a Canadian, I would suggest that you look deep inside and question how one political party can strip that away from you, yet another might reinstall it. You haven't the knack of being a proud Canadian. It could be because you are in Alberta.
The writer has identified a growing gap between the Liberal “consensus” and what ordinary, centrist voters think. The boring center is where gains can be made, and Poilevre is consolidating his position leaving little room for the Liberals to reorient their messaging to. All woke, 24/7 has run it’s course.
There's a lot worth unpacking in this piece. I agree that if the Liberals don't take Poilievre seriously they will regret it. What bothers me about him, though, is his cynicism. He knows those Ottawa protesters are gullible and naive but instead of helping them with that he will just use them for their votes. That is very Trumpian in the way Trump will never have a rally at Mar-A-Lago. He doesn't want those people anywhere near his home.
It's true that there are different kinds of populism because both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are populists. The difference is that one wants to help working people and the other wants to scam them. I'm afraid PP is on the Trump side of the scale. It looks very much like he admires the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation in the US. That's not good at all.
His attacks on the Bank of Canada mirror the American libertarian "Audit the Fed" nonsense.
Making a noise about the WEF and so-called "globalism" is also very popular with the American radical right. That keeps the pressure off the real problem which is neoliberal policies around the world promoted by the Koch network. Somehow George Soros is the most evil man in the world but Charles Koch is a good guy. Ok, sure.
I think the "woke" issues are something separate from any political party and need to be dealt with as such. I find it bizarre that such attitudes have taken hold with little pushback and that has as much to do with the lack of wisdom and spines of the generation in power everywhere now as the loonies that promulgate it.
Oh, yeah... Free Trade did cost us, especially Ontario, a whole lot of industrial jobs and Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadian still exist and are doing good work!
Really? Going to Ottawa to protest provincial mandates is not naive? Protesting a federal mandate that is mirrored by an American one so that if Trudeau cancelled it that very day it would have changed nothing for those people is not naive? And, no, most Canadians did not agree with them. Lastly, the "my body, my choice" thing only works if pregnancy is contagious. It is not.
So you are saying the federal mandate wasn't necessary. Good reason to ask for it to be lifted. What did the gov't have to lose except a wedge issue to Canadians.
And most Canadian did think they had the right to protest buy stopped supporting the convoy when the block borders and refused to leave Ottawa.
Pregnancy is contagious and is caused by exchange of certain bodily fluids :)
(def: 1 : able to be passed from one individual to another through contact)
The "truckers" knew for months that the border mandate was coming up. It had been announced months earlier. Did one "trucker" call his MP or write an email or collect names on a petition with their reasoning? NO. They decided to drive to Ottawa in the middle of winter where they became confused as to why they were there...other than Freedum! Then they go after other truckers trying to drive into the states. No Freedum for them?
Oh hey, Lich has been arrested for breaking bail conditions. Back to jail girl.
The moment somebody says "elites" these days, I smell bullshit.
They're never talking about the Irvings, the Shaws, the Rogers, or indeed, any billionaires. And they never do specify, in such articles, whom the hell they are actually talking about. Frequently it boils down to university professors, making classroom speech awkward for the 1% of Canada that spends its days in University classrooms.
Just be specific, man: Doug Ford is near the very top of any list of "governing elites". Name names, and name the specific offense, and how it harmed you. Allowance for putting an "X" on a passport for somebody else harms you, how? Did it harm you when they "focused on oppression narratives"? Awww...why not just ignore them? If you - or some "ineligible charity" found that their "human rights" had actually been abrogated, did you take it to a court? What did they say about your rights? The right to ignore vaccine mandates and put others in a bar to risk was explicitly denied by courts. Or are they part of your "governing elite" that somebody has to end?
If you aren't specific about terms like "governing elites" - the way Bernie Sanders screeds are absolutely specific about naming certain corporations and billionaires - then it sounds like you're peddling the vague, un-named "shadowy elites" of a typical conspiracy theory.
And nothing is more Trumpy than conspiracy theory.
Boy I would say the Irvings, Shaws, Rogers, Demarias, Westons, Thompsons etc are part of the elites. They conspire with the Government (some call it lobbying) the media (which they control) and academia (to whom they are patrons) to create monopolies and oligarchies capable of fixing prices and holding down wages to maximize their wealth.
That is the real issue. Canada needs to open the dairy, poultry, health care, telecom, air travel and media industries to competition. This will mean repealing the Air Canada Act, modifying the Canada Health Act, privatizing CBC, ending Supply Management and reducing the CRTC's mandate to allocating spectrum on radio, twisted pair and coaxial (i.e. no authority over content). Eventually financial services will need to follow, but breaking the banking oligopoly will be too risky until the global financial system further delevers.
If you think PP will actually stand with people against the elites I fear you will be sorely disappointed. The whole "conservative movement" is about supporting the elites and reducing democracy.. you know, the noise from the peasants
I don't know why you think I'm a PP fan. I think all of government is about supporting the elites and reducing democracy. The Libs are just the current crew removing our rights (C-11 S-7) and allowing monopolization (Shaw - Rogers).
Support of elites is where they get the money and therefore power and reducing our rights and government opaqueness is how they keep it.
I bow to Allan Stratton's half century of literary accomplishment in Canada. After all, who could ever challenge a writer who came up with "Nurse Jane Goes to Hawaii"?
But seriously, Mr. Stratton is correct that a Polievre government is a real future possibility. (Liberal commentator Scott Reid has been ringing that bell loudly on Curse of Politics and calling for an immediate Liberal attack.)
I am reduced therefore to quibbling about some of Mr. Stratton's arguments.
Beginning with where he finishes, I question his reference to "the Liberal party and its Twitter cult". That seems a little hyperbolic to me considering Polievre's own Twitter proclivities.
At the top of his piece, Mr. Stratton suggests that "social conservative attacks on abortion ... seem off the table". How can this be true when Polievre refuses to confront the positions of his competitor Leslyn Lewis?
Mr. Stratton insists that "our governing elite has been captured by zero-sum, intersectional orthodoxy, at odds with the instincts of mainstream Canadians on both left and right", which is arguable I suppose but not by "violent male sex offenders have been moved into women’s prisons based on self-ID alone [and women] at women’s shelters have been forced to room with sexually aggressive transwomen, and have been told they are in violation of human rights law if they complain" which all strikes me as a bridge too far.
I accept Mr. Stratton's fundamental thesis that demagoguery holds appeal in today's Canadian society and that many are looking for sweeping and acceptable political change. I was distracted and put off, however, by the stridency of "private-school valedictorian", "the Laurentian Consensus on such cultural matters has itself become radically out of step with moderate opinion", and "a governing elite focused on oppression narratives based on immutable characteristics". Pejorative, yes, but convincing, no.
Even less convincing is the wordy notion that 'Wokespeak' is a bunch of "ever-changing linguistic codes [amounting to] a form of privileged secret handshake".
A fascinating read from an impressive source. I'd give it at least B+.
It provides an excellent platform for debate, as someone else pointed out, and is a very good example of why The Line is so worthy.
Thank you for that. Your comment is much clearer than my response would be.
While I also didn't agree with some of the points and others I found interesting, especially comparing PePo to historic figures. I was hoping as I scrolled down through the article that we'd make it to the end without the word "woke". We didn't. Wokespeak. Ever-changing linguistic codes/ privileged secret handshake. It is only the Cons who have embraced the word, and the codes are all on them. Not one of the Cons actually knows what woke means but it's a handy privileged secret handshake that they all know and use all the time. I wonder how Cons managed without "woke" to get them through their day.
“The generosity of spirit” necessary for compromise in Canada the writer cited really hits home. I feel we have temporarily lost some of that generosity. It is not really surprising - we are living in a tumultuous time.
Poilivere is exactly who he derides so frequently -- an elite. Like Scheer before him, he has little or no work experience other than as a politician. Elected as an MP at 25, some 24 years ago, a great salary -- well above that of all the 'hard working Canadians' he loves to extol -- and a golden pension awaiting him when he shuffles off the political stage he occupies. If that isn't an elite, what is it?
His support of the Ottawa protest speaks volumes about his opportunism. Did he care much about the Ottawa residents whose lives were disrupted? Did he care about the local businesses that suffered thanks to the irresponsibility of the protestors?
PP is one more empty shell of a "leader" who loves the sound of his voice, promises the world to his followers (the vague "freedom" he tosses like red meat, which has no real meaning other than activating salivary glands among the mob) and has the "vision" to embrace the fantasy-ponzi scheme of crypto currency. And how is that working out?
He is another loud donkey, braying for attention and power for its own sake.
Ottawa is full of professional politicians as well as professional lobbyists who used to be politicians. Justin Trudeau has a pretty thin resume in business administration or law, but has found a niche in Ottawa.
Wondering if Poilevre has the humility to understand the working class is a fair question, but his upbringing is 180 degrees away from Trudeau. His adoptive parents were chased out of their home by high interest rates. Hardship shapes attitudes and he learned first hand how families can be harmed by poor political decisions.
Just when I thought The Line had degenerated into an ongoing, mindless anti-Trudeau screed, I was pleased to read a thoughtful article. I question some of the examples set out & the endless western grievance plaint (I live in SK, it never ends) but was pleased to read this analysis.
I agree that Trudeau as well Chretien and Trudeau 1.0 before him played from this playbook: inventing enemies (ex. the unvaccinated, Western Canadians, free trade supporters, fiscal conservatives, the energy industry) and wedging swing voters against them. The Liberals reap what they sow.
True but I miss the fiscally competent Libs like Chretien, Martin, Turner and Manley -- heck even Morneau (though he couldn't get through to his boss). In those days fights were about real issues -- free trade etc. that divided the country and less about identity politics which, for the most part, are bullshit.
"In the 1988 free trade election, the left argued that free trade would gut our manufacturing base and put downward pressure on our social programs as working-class jobs would flee south to low-wage jurisdictions. In Liberal leader John Turner’s soaring rhetoric to Brian Mulroney (cue thunder sheets)"
Yeah, and guess what?
They. Were. Right.
Do you want to know why so many people are so pissed off? It's because they don't see any possibility of improving their futures, of owning their own homes, of creating better futures for their kids. And yet, any time someone suggests that "free trade", at least as it's been practiced in Canada for the last 35 years, and that our economic model needs a long, hard look, so many of the chattering classes in this country race for the smelling salts, fan themselves and go into fainting spells at something so utterly scandalous, as if it is a Thing That Is Not Done In Polite Society.
The whole idea of the Neoliberal Consensus was that, if governments got the hell out of the way and just let unregulated markets do their thing, everybody would prosper and dictatorships like China would become democracies. 35 years later, China is still a dictatorship, autocrats are gaining power in many parts of the world, people who see themselves at a dead end are angry and willing to listen to populists, and even institutions like the World Bank are sounding the alarm on the dangers of rising inequality.
Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and the rot runs back decades. The likes of Poilievre and Trump are just the latest signs of it.
A very thoughtful and worthwhile column, and thanks to The Line we get to read it. There appears to be no national leader on the horizon who can unite Canadians and fix all the problems in this country. However, Trudeau, the Liberal government, and Singh's NDP have proven themselves unworthy of governing. In fact, with their authoritarian urges, divisive rhetoric, and their characterization of those who speak up against their policies as enemies of the state, they are downright dangerous. Poilievre may not be perfect, but to continue to vote for the current Liberal/NDP coalition is flat out foolish.
I agree with a lot of what's here. Poilievre channels some of the magical thinking that powered ideas like social credit (and, the Social Credit party), so agreed - he is tapping into a lot of legacy Canadian themes here.
Among them is the idea that Central Canadian elites run the country to the disadvantage of anyone not within a days driving distance of downtown Toronto (The Laurentian Consensus). As someone who *does* live a painful 90 minute drive from Toronto, this has often felt like a bit of a cliche in Canada. Most of my life, federal politics has been driven by grievance from the West ("let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark") and Quebec. Then as now us city-livin Ontarians have been the scary boogeypeople of Confederation. Living here, that seems a bit laughable; I had no idea I had such power!
But yes: looking at Poilievre through a Canadian historical lens is probably far more accurate and useful, including noting how much (or how little) movements like Social Credit actually delivered.
Not sure if I agree with the conclusion, but there are a series of thoughtful analogies to other moments in Canadian political history that more commentators should engage with. This is exactly the kind of content that I came to The Line to read.
This commentary is a little naive. The man wants to replace the Head of the Bank of Canada and explore Bitcoin as a legitimate source of currency. His disdain for dismantling our institutions rather than fix them is insane.
The main job as a Prime Minister is to unite the country. Nothing Poillievre has said or done can be construed as being the great unifier. He’s too divisive. Hard pass.
So the man who thinks budgets balance themselves and "doesn't think about monetary policy", has tried to dismantle our oil and gas sector, can't even buy pistols for our AF and invoked the Emergency Act for a peaceful demonstration is better? The man who called people who disagreed with him racists, misogynists and extremists is a unifier?
That is a whole pile of barely true, bent, twisted, misinformation based on Twitter and FB and Rumble. You know better Dan.
Which part is not true?
The part about Trudeau "thinking"
Other than Harper, what recent PM hasn't be a divider? Harper more or less ignored regional concerns and they more or less went away.
PP never stated that BTC has anything other than an emerging technology. He could have elaborated further, along the lines of:
-Canada needs a regulatory framework to address crypto
-the emergence of crypto might present business opportunities for Canadians
-crypto might take market share from fiat currencies, further debunking the notion of Modern Monetary Theory (i.e. that government can borrow infinitely from central banks without causing inflation)
-crypto can be a hedge from inflation has some coins have capped amounts in circulation or expand at predefined rates. At this point in time, the liquidity risk vastly exceeds the inflation protection
The BoC has messed up massively and someone has to be held accountable.
If we are ever going to make meaningful change in this country, things are going to have to become even more divisive. And destructive. You can't seriously believe the housing crisis and inflation can be resolved without putting the top and bottom classes to work.
Respectfully I disagree. I’ve had my fill of divisive politicking and it’s only gotten us in an even more polarizing environment. The only way forward is through meaningful dialogue from all perspective points of view. This widening divide is horrific for our upcoming generations.
Environics found that Canadians stood 60/40 for "Politicians who compromise" vs "Politicians who stick by their principles". For Americans, the 60/40 was reversed, and that tells you much about America's radical politics versus our own less-divided state.
The above two posts read like an American arguing with a Canadian about how to get something done.
Do you think Trudeau will have meaningful diaglogue, or Jagmeet? Your living in Neverland, not Canada.
PePo doesn't do meaningful dialogue. He's all about breaking, smashing, tearing things down. It's all about the blame game with PePo. He's not alone nor is he new to it—it's just what Cons do. He's always been that nasty little terrier snapping at ankles.
Nor do I think he's carrying on Canadian progressive traditions. This is the first time I have heard someone compare PePo to David Lewis. David Lewis is memorable, Skippy not so much.
PePo is not looking all that great to the centrists even if the Libs continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
It's impossible to have full agreement on literally anything.
You don't have to have full agreement. What is missing in today's dialogue, is accepting differences and moving forward. Partisanship has replaced informed discussion and good governance.
The real divisiveness will come from ending public sector privilege, basically moving towards market cased compensation and HR policies for public servants.
Allan, I believe you've got it right. That leftist inclinations are not thrilled with Poilievre (as you describe) doesn't mean they aren't potential supporters.
Canadians are angry...and they're going to vent it one way or another. Minor ideological compromise will very much be the order of the day when the Liberals are finally held to account.
It will be interesting to observe if Trudeau's wish--power until 2025--allows him to so degrade Liberal respect that he suffers a "Wynne implosion".
The Liberals already have institutional memory for the humiliation of 3rd party status. (That’s how Canadians got stuck with Trudeau. The Liberals went with name recognition and sex appeal to lead them out of the wilderness).
I can’t see Trudeau sticking around for a humiliating end to his Prime Ministership. Nor can I see the movers and shakers of the Party letting him run the ship into an electoral reef.
Unfortunately, I DON'T see him letting go nor the party having the cojones to dump him.
Hmmm. JT sticking around too long would be a big strategic error. I hope the party is smarter than that. Remember RBG!
Hehehe. Hahaha. Terry, you are always coming up with comedy gold!
As no less a Tory than John Crosbie said, "There are worse things that can happen to Canada than perpetual Liberal government." And he was only talking about the Reform Party.
What goodies? Increased borrowing costs already consumer more than the (likely under-projected) daycare deal. Canada is headed for 90's style austerity under all scenarios.
Borrowing costs are going up regardless of credit rating.
Would you actually support additional spending during an inflationary surge? Canadian governments are still stimulating, which works against monetary fiscal policy. A responsible government would be balancing its budget as quickly as possible, mostly through austerity
Canadians need the Government to withdraw from the economy. Government largesse has over primed the system and the accumulated debt is will start chewing up a lot of gdp in interest payments.
Bad days are coming.
At some point and time, the Liberal's are going to have to address the financial calamity that we are currently living in...and no one seems to want to address. The baggage they have now will still be with them, and there are still more scandals sitting in the wings waiting to wear the Trudeau brand into the dust. I believe the Liberal's only path to a majority is without Trudeau leading. If the Conservatives deal with their women's rights albatross, I believe they'll be decimated.
Will Canadians still be angry in 2025 when the bond market forces interest rates into the stratosphere, leading to a deep recession?
I note your placement of “goodies”. Do Liberals ever see a day when the public accounts are so bad that the flow of goodies runs to a trickle?
so prepaying their purchase of votes with money borrowed from our grandchildren...
Hahaha. I love it!
It will be increased interest rates that will kill the Liberals. We live beyond our means with the goodies that we can't afford in a higher interest rate environment, and those higher rates will also show that Canada's economy relied too much on home building (and speculating) for cashed up immigrants.
The thing is, the available data doesn't confirm your hypothesis. Canada is booming, but it isn't an economic growth boom, which isn't sustainable,
In the end everyone has to live within their means, even Canadians.
I really hope you're right. But if there's a global recession, I don't see how we won't be enveloped by it, and there are a whole lot of careers that need recruits. Most of that is provincial, but we really need leadership right now. I'm not seeing much anywhere.
He is absolutely nothing like Trump. We need someone who can beat Trudeau. As I’ve said many times on various platforms, we chose to move to Canada. We came here just before PET became PM. His attitude and treatment of the west made me feel like we had come to some backward third world country. That might have been due to the provincial government but we are now a leader in many things. We have lost our fossil fuel jobs without first having an alternative and since JT has been PM I have been researching if it would be feasible to move bsck to the UK. I am no longer proud to be a Canadian. I worry for the future of Canada unless we dump JT and his Buddy Singh.
I don’t know if Poliviere is the guy to do it but he may well be. It’s ridiculous to say he’s akin to Trump.
Agreed. "Trumpist" is a lazy slur at this point. He won because he had a point, "America first", as in, look out for your own citizens. The left used to be the labour party, and they've effectively abandoned them. Now it's all identity politics from them. Trump picked up that abandoned demographic and carried it to his win.
Trump's secret mojo, in my opinion, is his shamelessness. If Poilievre can emulate that and push back against his critics, he has a chance.
I don’t think all politicians are as dishonest as JT are they? We need someone who pulls us together. All JT does is drive the country apart. Maybe Canada is too big to be one country. But I sure don’t want to be part of the US. We have no feeling that we are a unified country. Of course the UK citizens don’t all agree but I get the feeling that they still all feel like they belong to one country. I think JT has ruined this feeling in Canada.
Do you really think Trudeau is more dishonest than Jason Kenney or Stephen Harper? We'll leave Trump out of this because he shatters all records - no matter what Mike Pence might say. I don't think Trudeau is trying to drive people apart. I just think it's his elitist nature of which he seems unaware. At the same time, Canadian Conservatives like to use one Trudeau or another as the reason for their own failures.
Oh for goodness sake. JT prorogued parliament to get out of facing the other three parties getting together. He weaseled out of the WE scandal and the Lavalin scandal. If anything Harper was boring and didn’t do anything offence or exciting. I know nothing about Kenney.
The latest thing is the interference with the RCMP investigation into the NS murders. He’s going to weasel out of that one too.
Actually, I do think he is more dishonest. He is twice convicted of ethics offenses lied about blackface, groping (all women have to be believed), WE etc.
I also believe he tries to use events to create wedge issues to divide Canadians for political gain. Why else would he discuss a SCOTUS decision that means nothing in Canada, or go from no mandates to mandates two days before he calls an election, pass phony gun legislation days after the NS shootings.
You are right about his elitist nature and I'm sure he believes if he does or says something he is right because he is Justin Trudeau. And if it turns out he is proven wrong it is a learning experience for other Canadians.
Politics is a form of marketing, I guess, and JT is gifted at it, especially the exploitation of a wedge issue. Divide and conquer.
JT himself said we are a "post-national" country, whatever that means. We're seeing that played out. For instance our flag (our flag!) is now apparently a symbol of the dreaded convoy.
Except it was not portrayed as the truth by the MSM.
Norm, if you don't know what a post-national country is, why are you concerned it is dividing us?
Aren't all issues that the Libs come up with a wedge issue or a divisive issue?
PePo doesn't exploit any wedge issue real or imaginary does he? He makes 'em up and tests them on Twitter.
Oh my goodness...I don't think a whole lot of Scottish citizens would disagree with the UK being a unified country.
If PePo loses maybe he can get a job as a reality tv grifter :)
More likely a social media influencer.
I think Trumps secret mojo was running against Hillary. She was as shameless a liar as he was but he was seen as a beltway outsider whereas Hillary was the same corrupt elitist insider.
And she came with more exploitable baggage than the Titanic. In some ways, Trump was the US's Trudeau....he offered an appealing vision and they failed to deliver in every way. Trudeau just didn't boldly lie as much.....although that appears to be changing too.
So every "elitist" is corrupt? Every single one. DT has no secret mojo. HC won the Dem race and DT behaving like the AH he is won for the GOP. Yup DT and HC are elitists. He didn't pick HC to run against. He lost the popular vote, which makes more sense there as people actually vote for their Prez and VP unlike us.
What did Hillary lie about that has you upset?
There are probably many elitists who are not corrupt and not interested in manipulating power for personal gain. But it is only the elite who are in a position to do so. I don't see the poor lobbying for monopolies, lowering wages, ensuring higher profits for oligopolists.
Certainly you can google a list of the things Hillary lied about -- including lying to the FBI (I had no "secret" documents on my server) which landed Martha Stewart in jail. Lately we found out she knew the Russia/Trump clusterf%$k was a hoax that was "trumped" up by her own staff.
Beating Trudeau is the simple matter of putting a woman's right to choose in the CPC policy manual, and ending that wedge issue for good. Will they take that step?
We lost a lot of fossil fuel jobs because the price collapsed as much as anything else....including a complete lack of vision on moving product.
David, sure oil patch jobs are cyclical but if you think the loss of jobs in the last 5 years is due to the price of oil (oil have been over $45 except for a brief time during COVID) then you are mistaken. Capital investment was driven south by our PM who in 2017 said he would "phase out" the oilsands. O&G investment has never reached 2016 levels again.
Dan, pffft! You are not doing well today.
Sorry ;(
I'm not sure the Conservatives can put the abortion issue to rest that easily. It's a political loser in a general election, but there's still a not insignificant portion of the Conservative coalition that cares about it. They haven't even got enough weight in the party to win on that issue, but enough that they can undermine a leader who tries to unequivocally take a pro-rights position. Those folks having lately been taking a lot of cues from the MAGA right in the US, and will doubtless be emboldened by the recent Dobbs decision.
Exactly. They're feeling bold, but not realising what country they're in. It comes down to whether they want to win....but you can't get elected telling the truth. So they'll probably lose a 4th. I certainly won't vote for them until they resolve this, and I won't vote for Trudeau for a thousand reasons.
They should see that and raise the bid to bodily autonomy for all (my body my choice). Commit to putting it in the Charter.
Unless of course the government thinks you need a vaccine.
You don't have to get a vaccine.
You will never need an abortion.
You don't understand the difference between the two.
You don't have to get a vaccine.
You will never need an abortion.
You don't understand the difference between the two.
But you could get fired for not having a vaccine but not for getting pregnant :)
BTW I am vaxxed and have no problem with proven vaccines being given to the population at large especially to the old (of which I'm one) and those with compromised immune systems (I check this box too). But, we were sold a bill of goods on the Covid vaccines in the sense that it did not prevent people from becoming infected. I will await the scientific papers that should be coming to see if it really did make the symptoms less severe or if that was the result of different variants.
If I was a young male I would have had serious concerns about myocarditis and I'm can't say for sure that I would have taken the vaccine. If I was a women who wanted children I doubt I would've taken a vaccine.
I understand the greater good but we were claiming the greater good without any proof that there was no long term harm.
I think the majority of Canadians said I got the vaccine so everyone has to get the vaccine. In hindsight, though we knew COVID was the most severe in the elderly and others with compromised immune systems and those with underlying health issues, we did a lousy job of protecting them and as a result went overboard on vaccine mandates. IMHO.
They can both be coerced. I think that's immoral, bad public health, and bad politics.
Stephen Harper lamented that Canada was “a Northern European welfare state” over 20 years ago. Canada has not changed - our social policies do resemble northern Scandinavia much more than the US. Good luck moving back to the UK - British voters seem, if anything, to be unhappier than those in Canada.
While I want to see Trudeau defeated, I am not convinced PP or a Conservative party under his leadership will be able to do that.
Boris Johnson. Boris. Johnson. Boris Johnson's hair?
Brexit!
Banned Beer Ads! Beer advert banned for sex link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4600622.stm
The UK for all that it's an island and once upon a time the sun never set on it, it's as bonkers as Canada.
You might as well stay put Liz. Inflation is worse and Boris is dodging scandals like a pro. Covid numbers were higher than us on all counts. If you are no longer proud to be a Canadian, I would suggest that you look deep inside and question how one political party can strip that away from you, yet another might reinstall it. You haven't the knack of being a proud Canadian. It could be because you are in Alberta.
Hahaha Terry! I love you buddy.
Excellent article.
The writer has identified a growing gap between the Liberal “consensus” and what ordinary, centrist voters think. The boring center is where gains can be made, and Poilevre is consolidating his position leaving little room for the Liberals to reorient their messaging to. All woke, 24/7 has run it’s course.
There's a lot worth unpacking in this piece. I agree that if the Liberals don't take Poilievre seriously they will regret it. What bothers me about him, though, is his cynicism. He knows those Ottawa protesters are gullible and naive but instead of helping them with that he will just use them for their votes. That is very Trumpian in the way Trump will never have a rally at Mar-A-Lago. He doesn't want those people anywhere near his home.
It's true that there are different kinds of populism because both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are populists. The difference is that one wants to help working people and the other wants to scam them. I'm afraid PP is on the Trump side of the scale. It looks very much like he admires the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation in the US. That's not good at all.
His attacks on the Bank of Canada mirror the American libertarian "Audit the Fed" nonsense.
Making a noise about the WEF and so-called "globalism" is also very popular with the American radical right. That keeps the pressure off the real problem which is neoliberal policies around the world promoted by the Koch network. Somehow George Soros is the most evil man in the world but Charles Koch is a good guy. Ok, sure.
I think the "woke" issues are something separate from any political party and need to be dealt with as such. I find it bizarre that such attitudes have taken hold with little pushback and that has as much to do with the lack of wisdom and spines of the generation in power everywhere now as the loonies that promulgate it.
Oh, yeah... Free Trade did cost us, especially Ontario, a whole lot of industrial jobs and Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadian still exist and are doing good work!
Really? Going to Ottawa to protest provincial mandates is not naive? Protesting a federal mandate that is mirrored by an American one so that if Trudeau cancelled it that very day it would have changed nothing for those people is not naive? And, no, most Canadians did not agree with them. Lastly, the "my body, my choice" thing only works if pregnancy is contagious. It is not.
So you are saying the federal mandate wasn't necessary. Good reason to ask for it to be lifted. What did the gov't have to lose except a wedge issue to Canadians.
And most Canadian did think they had the right to protest buy stopped supporting the convoy when the block borders and refused to leave Ottawa.
Pregnancy is contagious and is caused by exchange of certain bodily fluids :)
(def: 1 : able to be passed from one individual to another through contact)
BTW the vaccine didn;t stop transmission.
Pregnancy is contagious!! Flipping ignorant.
Are you really saying that you don't know where babies come from? Don't be sneezing on any girls or you might have to marry them.
Whose polling? Please scare up that one for us.
The "truckers" knew for months that the border mandate was coming up. It had been announced months earlier. Did one "trucker" call his MP or write an email or collect names on a petition with their reasoning? NO. They decided to drive to Ottawa in the middle of winter where they became confused as to why they were there...other than Freedum! Then they go after other truckers trying to drive into the states. No Freedum for them?
Oh hey, Lich has been arrested for breaking bail conditions. Back to jail girl.
The moment somebody says "elites" these days, I smell bullshit.
They're never talking about the Irvings, the Shaws, the Rogers, or indeed, any billionaires. And they never do specify, in such articles, whom the hell they are actually talking about. Frequently it boils down to university professors, making classroom speech awkward for the 1% of Canada that spends its days in University classrooms.
Just be specific, man: Doug Ford is near the very top of any list of "governing elites". Name names, and name the specific offense, and how it harmed you. Allowance for putting an "X" on a passport for somebody else harms you, how? Did it harm you when they "focused on oppression narratives"? Awww...why not just ignore them? If you - or some "ineligible charity" found that their "human rights" had actually been abrogated, did you take it to a court? What did they say about your rights? The right to ignore vaccine mandates and put others in a bar to risk was explicitly denied by courts. Or are they part of your "governing elite" that somebody has to end?
If you aren't specific about terms like "governing elites" - the way Bernie Sanders screeds are absolutely specific about naming certain corporations and billionaires - then it sounds like you're peddling the vague, un-named "shadowy elites" of a typical conspiracy theory.
And nothing is more Trumpy than conspiracy theory.
Boy I would say the Irvings, Shaws, Rogers, Demarias, Westons, Thompsons etc are part of the elites. They conspire with the Government (some call it lobbying) the media (which they control) and academia (to whom they are patrons) to create monopolies and oligarchies capable of fixing prices and holding down wages to maximize their wealth.
That is the real issue. Canada needs to open the dairy, poultry, health care, telecom, air travel and media industries to competition. This will mean repealing the Air Canada Act, modifying the Canada Health Act, privatizing CBC, ending Supply Management and reducing the CRTC's mandate to allocating spectrum on radio, twisted pair and coaxial (i.e. no authority over content). Eventually financial services will need to follow, but breaking the banking oligopoly will be too risky until the global financial system further delevers.
If you think PP will actually stand with people against the elites I fear you will be sorely disappointed. The whole "conservative movement" is about supporting the elites and reducing democracy.. you know, the noise from the peasants
I don't know why you think I'm a PP fan. I think all of government is about supporting the elites and reducing democracy. The Libs are just the current crew removing our rights (C-11 S-7) and allowing monopolization (Shaw - Rogers).
Support of elites is where they get the money and therefore power and reducing our rights and government opaqueness is how they keep it.
You might say the Irvings, Shaws, etc etc but you never do. No specificity, no clarity, just finger-pointing at the government—it's their fault!
I bow to Allan Stratton's half century of literary accomplishment in Canada. After all, who could ever challenge a writer who came up with "Nurse Jane Goes to Hawaii"?
But seriously, Mr. Stratton is correct that a Polievre government is a real future possibility. (Liberal commentator Scott Reid has been ringing that bell loudly on Curse of Politics and calling for an immediate Liberal attack.)
I am reduced therefore to quibbling about some of Mr. Stratton's arguments.
Beginning with where he finishes, I question his reference to "the Liberal party and its Twitter cult". That seems a little hyperbolic to me considering Polievre's own Twitter proclivities.
At the top of his piece, Mr. Stratton suggests that "social conservative attacks on abortion ... seem off the table". How can this be true when Polievre refuses to confront the positions of his competitor Leslyn Lewis?
Mr. Stratton insists that "our governing elite has been captured by zero-sum, intersectional orthodoxy, at odds with the instincts of mainstream Canadians on both left and right", which is arguable I suppose but not by "violent male sex offenders have been moved into women’s prisons based on self-ID alone [and women] at women’s shelters have been forced to room with sexually aggressive transwomen, and have been told they are in violation of human rights law if they complain" which all strikes me as a bridge too far.
I accept Mr. Stratton's fundamental thesis that demagoguery holds appeal in today's Canadian society and that many are looking for sweeping and acceptable political change. I was distracted and put off, however, by the stridency of "private-school valedictorian", "the Laurentian Consensus on such cultural matters has itself become radically out of step with moderate opinion", and "a governing elite focused on oppression narratives based on immutable characteristics". Pejorative, yes, but convincing, no.
Even less convincing is the wordy notion that 'Wokespeak' is a bunch of "ever-changing linguistic codes [amounting to] a form of privileged secret handshake".
A fascinating read from an impressive source. I'd give it at least B+.
It provides an excellent platform for debate, as someone else pointed out, and is a very good example of why The Line is so worthy.
Thank you for that. Your comment is much clearer than my response would be.
While I also didn't agree with some of the points and others I found interesting, especially comparing PePo to historic figures. I was hoping as I scrolled down through the article that we'd make it to the end without the word "woke". We didn't. Wokespeak. Ever-changing linguistic codes/ privileged secret handshake. It is only the Cons who have embraced the word, and the codes are all on them. Not one of the Cons actually knows what woke means but it's a handy privileged secret handshake that they all know and use all the time. I wonder how Cons managed without "woke" to get them through their day.
I'm giving it a C+.
“The generosity of spirit” necessary for compromise in Canada the writer cited really hits home. I feel we have temporarily lost some of that generosity. It is not really surprising - we are living in a tumultuous time.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee proved that no good deed goes unpunished.
Poilivere is exactly who he derides so frequently -- an elite. Like Scheer before him, he has little or no work experience other than as a politician. Elected as an MP at 25, some 24 years ago, a great salary -- well above that of all the 'hard working Canadians' he loves to extol -- and a golden pension awaiting him when he shuffles off the political stage he occupies. If that isn't an elite, what is it?
His support of the Ottawa protest speaks volumes about his opportunism. Did he care much about the Ottawa residents whose lives were disrupted? Did he care about the local businesses that suffered thanks to the irresponsibility of the protestors?
PP is one more empty shell of a "leader" who loves the sound of his voice, promises the world to his followers (the vague "freedom" he tosses like red meat, which has no real meaning other than activating salivary glands among the mob) and has the "vision" to embrace the fantasy-ponzi scheme of crypto currency. And how is that working out?
He is another loud donkey, braying for attention and power for its own sake.
Ottawa is full of professional politicians as well as professional lobbyists who used to be politicians. Justin Trudeau has a pretty thin resume in business administration or law, but has found a niche in Ottawa.
Wondering if Poilevre has the humility to understand the working class is a fair question, but his upbringing is 180 degrees away from Trudeau. His adoptive parents were chased out of their home by high interest rates. Hardship shapes attitudes and he learned first hand how families can be harmed by poor political decisions.
Just when I thought The Line had degenerated into an ongoing, mindless anti-Trudeau screed, I was pleased to read a thoughtful article. I question some of the examples set out & the endless western grievance plaint (I live in SK, it never ends) but was pleased to read this analysis.
Really, really? He’s playing right out of Trumps playbook. And, the lies are absurd.
I agree that Trudeau as well Chretien and Trudeau 1.0 before him played from this playbook: inventing enemies (ex. the unvaccinated, Western Canadians, free trade supporters, fiscal conservatives, the energy industry) and wedging swing voters against them. The Liberals reap what they sow.
Wait -- I liked Chretien. I think he disliked more Liberals than he did PC's.
Chretien negative campaigned with the best.
True but I miss the fiscally competent Libs like Chretien, Martin, Turner and Manley -- heck even Morneau (though he couldn't get through to his boss). In those days fights were about real issues -- free trade etc. that divided the country and less about identity politics which, for the most part, are bullshit.
A refreshing point of view with many beliefs which I, as a well-advanced senior, appreciate and remember. Perfect platform to get more viewpoints.
"In the 1988 free trade election, the left argued that free trade would gut our manufacturing base and put downward pressure on our social programs as working-class jobs would flee south to low-wage jurisdictions. In Liberal leader John Turner’s soaring rhetoric to Brian Mulroney (cue thunder sheets)"
Yeah, and guess what?
They. Were. Right.
Do you want to know why so many people are so pissed off? It's because they don't see any possibility of improving their futures, of owning their own homes, of creating better futures for their kids. And yet, any time someone suggests that "free trade", at least as it's been practiced in Canada for the last 35 years, and that our economic model needs a long, hard look, so many of the chattering classes in this country race for the smelling salts, fan themselves and go into fainting spells at something so utterly scandalous, as if it is a Thing That Is Not Done In Polite Society.
The whole idea of the Neoliberal Consensus was that, if governments got the hell out of the way and just let unregulated markets do their thing, everybody would prosper and dictatorships like China would become democracies. 35 years later, China is still a dictatorship, autocrats are gaining power in many parts of the world, people who see themselves at a dead end are angry and willing to listen to populists, and even institutions like the World Bank are sounding the alarm on the dangers of rising inequality.
Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and the rot runs back decades. The likes of Poilievre and Trump are just the latest signs of it.
A very thoughtful and worthwhile column, and thanks to The Line we get to read it. There appears to be no national leader on the horizon who can unite Canadians and fix all the problems in this country. However, Trudeau, the Liberal government, and Singh's NDP have proven themselves unworthy of governing. In fact, with their authoritarian urges, divisive rhetoric, and their characterization of those who speak up against their policies as enemies of the state, they are downright dangerous. Poilievre may not be perfect, but to continue to vote for the current Liberal/NDP coalition is flat out foolish.
I agree with a lot of what's here. Poilievre channels some of the magical thinking that powered ideas like social credit (and, the Social Credit party), so agreed - he is tapping into a lot of legacy Canadian themes here.
Among them is the idea that Central Canadian elites run the country to the disadvantage of anyone not within a days driving distance of downtown Toronto (The Laurentian Consensus). As someone who *does* live a painful 90 minute drive from Toronto, this has often felt like a bit of a cliche in Canada. Most of my life, federal politics has been driven by grievance from the West ("let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark") and Quebec. Then as now us city-livin Ontarians have been the scary boogeypeople of Confederation. Living here, that seems a bit laughable; I had no idea I had such power!
But yes: looking at Poilievre through a Canadian historical lens is probably far more accurate and useful, including noting how much (or how little) movements like Social Credit actually delivered.