Makes on wonder how we as a country went from the leadership of a statesman like Harper to a foppish fool like Trudeau. What changed in the Canadian electorate or are we dominated by shallow thinking self serving quasi ideologues?
I think MG said on the podcast one time that the liberals will do anything to win an election and stay in power.... like play one region of the country against the other.
Because his party was politically aggressive in a way that wasn't popular, not clearly more ethical than the Liberals, and while I don't think he was anti-immigrant boy did large chunks of the party make it easy to cast him as such and a national hotline to report barbaric cultural practices was NOT a good policy.
I always looked at that tipline differently. I thought it was possibly a place where oppressed women could actually seek help. Maybe I was wrong about that, but that was my theory at the time and I came to that conclusion after researching it. I think we'd be in a much better place if Harper had won that election, even though I thought he actually might have tired of us by that point. And rightly so. Canadians put him through a lot. That was back when the media weren't cheerleaders for the government. (And yes, not all media are cheerleaders for the current guy, but a lot are.)
Like most of Harper's immigration stuff, I think it was an understandable concern about a real issue with a terrible solution badly sold (which tended to be the problem with most Harper solutions. And Trudeau solutions, though he was better at selling them). The name did NOT help - it very much gave an impression of angry old white busybodies calling the line because their Sikh neighbour had a turban. I am told by a friend who was a staffer at the time that the idea met with a round of applause when it was proposed, which also suggests a certain lack of wisdom in the staff at that point.
To hell with 'not smooth sweet-talkers.' Toews was a corrupt hypocritical asshole who took no criticism, and he was the minister of justice and ended up with a nice cushy judicial appointment. Pierre was a good little attack dog. Others were much the same.
The CPC of the era was well past 'not nice' and into 'vicious.' If you're gonna be like that, you'd better back it up with VERY well-crafted ideas, and they largely didn't.
> I thought it was possibly a place where oppressed women could actually seek help.
We already had those. And we still do. They're called women's shelter hotlines.
As I recall, the Harper election team never came up to an answer to the most basic question: "What problem will your hotline address THAT ISN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED?".
And if they couldn't answer that question, their hotline just seemed like "hear me out... it's a hotline to report crimes... just like 911.. except this one is for crimes by AAAARABS!".
If there was an answer to that basic question, I never heard it and I was paying pretty close attention.
"Forced marriages were part of what motivated the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which was a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Civil Marriage Act that made permanent residents and temporary residents inadmissible to Canada if they practice polygamy and established a national minimum age for marriage of 16.
So ... exactly what I said.. they're replicating the function of women's shelters except only for some women. Or if you're reporting polygamy, replicating the regular police phone number for reporting a crime. (Section 293 of the criminal code according to a quick search.) And also we've legalized self-defence..which was already legal.
That's the problem the Conservatives had... they were duplicating what already existed and saying "it's for Arabs specifically this time". And when they were asked what was new they just repeated things that were already done.
Kind of like an "ebony alert" for reporting missing children... but only black children.
Not quite the same. Anyway, an election platform point comes to nothing unless it's presented to the House, voted on, and made into law. Unless it's the Liberal Party with executive orders. In any case, there's no use discussing the policy platform 11 years after the fact, when it's not on the table. I am just saying that it wasn't necessarily what people made it out to be. You have a different opinion. I don't agree with it, but I am okay with your having it :-)
From the same article: "The NDP voted against the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act in the House while the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have said that while they agree with the legislation in principle, its name could be considered offensive to people who hail from regions where these practices are common."
We had it too good for too long and thought nothing could go wrong. We wanted the same as we had "but be nicer" and get international attention for our well-spoken model/actor PM. Oh and legal weed.
Stephen Harper had a vision for a united Canada. The current liberals have a philosophy of divide and conquer. I just wish Canadians were smart enough to know the difference and realized they're being played.
The Harper Conservatives rushed through parliament a gazillion bills that had the unanimous opposition of all other parties. The worst Liberal legislation has tended (such as The Online News Act, Bill C-5), have variously passed with the support of opposition parties.
Opposition does what opposition always does, they oppose. I never understood that stance. The goal should always be what's good for the country but there you have it. All governments pass gigantic omnibus bills including things they know wouldn't be popular on their own. That is true of all governments of all stripes. The conservatives were no better no worse.
As to the media; national unity or even informing isn't their goal. Quite obviously, the goal is to promote everything liberal and to dismiss and vilify most things conservative. That is the ecosystem we've lived under and tolerated for a long time, I can't see that changing anytime soon. National unity should a priority of the federal government but wow, this liberal government thrives on division so yeah, there's that.
Omnibus bills have been getting worse over time, but Harper seemingly still has the record for the largest omnibus bill ever (the 880-page 2010 Canadian omnibus budget Bill C-9). In terms of content, Harper's 2012 450+ page "budget" Bill C-12 was worse for touching upon dozens of environmental laws all at once. Trudeau did put forward the 556-page Bill C-74 which also did some tampering with criminal laws in the context of a "budget" bill. The Conservative record here is worse simply for the fact that Harper omnibus bills were subject to time allocation and were never improved by accepting any opposition amendments whatsoever.
Populist shouldn't be seen as a pejorative term. Populist is the opposite of elitist. Carney leads an elitist government more interested in its own survival than the welfare of Canadians. No matter how you look at Poilievre, most if not all he says and does is to try and improve the lives of Canadians. That kind of populism is ok by me.
It goes without saying, we need politicians who can govern first and foremost. My point is that populist shouldn't be a pejorative term, not in the context of Canadian politics. Modern day conservatives tend to be more populist and liberals, especially in the last ten years, have been more elitist. Canadians could use a government that puts them first for a change.
Anyone who thinks Pierre Poilievre is anything other than an absolutely mainstream centre-right politician, is either an outright partisan Liberal or otherwise looking for excuses not to vote for him.
Oh, on the one side is a party that has demonstrably ruined our standard of living and has nothing but excuses about how they will somehow fix it if you give them an eternity in power. On the other is a guy who might be a populist conservative rather than a conservative populist (or vice versa, I lost track of what the bad one is supposed to be). Geez, better not take that chance. Fuck sake.
True as that also is, I'm just beyond sick of people measuring angels dancing on the heads of pins as an excuse to write off the only real change alternative while the country we knew 10 years ago effectively stands in ruins around us.
I contend that there is no possibility of a "perfect" Conservative candidate. The media sees to that.
With the media running against the party, there will always be something wrong with whatever party leader is put forward, and that will be the narrative. Too brash, too boring, too ideological, too wishy washy, too much of an outsider, too much time in politics, a pre-politics resume that doesn't matter if it's good and broad, or very important if narrow and limited, French fluency not really an asset but limited French a huge liability, etc. etc.
This is why we are one of the few countries on the entire planet whose elderly vote left-wing. They as a generation have no media literacy and this is what gets fed to them. They believe what comes from the TV more than what they can see in real life with their own eyes.
Populist is a pejorative term for very good reason, much like fascist and communist. There is a distinction between caring what people think and populism.
Every CPC and Liberal government is interested in its own survival first. If PP gets elected, you're in for a disappointment.
The tension is between populism and the truth that one sees from the position at the top. There is a perspective that cannot be shared easily, that comes from being in that position, seeing things from there, having information few others have, seeing tradeoffs that no-one else sees or feels. This is not an excuse for leaders acting like elite, special people who are better than us. It's acknowledgement of something leaders experience.
The magic happens when a leader appears who can share that perspective in words, in a way that resonates with most of our community. PP doesn't have it. Jury's not in about Carney but his work experience suggests he has an edge. (the experience I refer to has little to do with banking btw.)
Call it desperate hope maybe but I think the conservatives are more principled than the liberals. Every time liberals spend any time in government, corruption, division, frustration and resentment increase.
Carney may be a smart man, he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.
Canadians need something to look forward to and all the liberals are giving us is more of the same inept leadership. Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy and instead of stimulating the economy, all the liberals do is raise the limit on the credit card. Nothing good can come of that.
Carney needs to get out of the way, realize he's not the answer to everything, repeal all those inane laws that scare investors and stop blaming everyone else for the liberals' ineptitude. For their part, Canadians need to get their heads out of their ass, put the elbows down and start using their brain.
I go back and forth on that all the time. I would say that between his winning the leadership and the 2025 election he was more like Preston Mannjng (I have an unpublished essay on my computer making that case). I think he is now morphing into someone more like Stephen Harper, but the morphing (in my view) is not yet complete. And may never be.
I don’t think Pierre Poilievre is a populist conservative.
I think he deploys populism strategically, but no more so than any other politician, and far less than the NDP.
Like an economist, populism is exploited until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost of deployment.
Pierre has made the same mistake as many Conservative politicians that have preceded him: that being, the failure to establish the necessary framework and groundwork for a Conservative Party victory.
Conservatives are terrible at optimizing the vote, which, ironically, is not a bad trait in and of itself. The Liberals are way better at campaigning than they are at actually governing. But people vote for the best campaign.
The conservatives had some very unfortunate faux pas last spring and that's on them. The liberals didn't win the election so much as the conservatives lost it. Poilievre was very persuasive, compelling and had the best platform, unfortunately, Carney ran his campaign of fear and that was enough to make the elbows up brigade run to hide under his skirt. The conservatives not only have to convince Canadians, they also have to run against the liberals and the media party and that will always be a tall order in Canada.
I see it differently, but my riding went from NDP to Conservative, probably because of very specific local issues. So far, I think people are quite impressed with our new MP, Aaron Gunn. But I guess we’ll know for sure if an election is called and he wins/loses. I did notice that in the last election the Libs actually tried here. Normally, they’re not on the community’s radar at all.
Ken, I'd like to vote for the CPC. I'd like that balance in our zeitgeist.
I predict PP is unelectable as PM. I wish it were not so, but it it is so. The blame lies with his strategy team and as long as sad baby has the mic, he is doomed. His team are STILL fucking it up. When sad baby fades to spend his emoluments (estimated to be 4b!!, impressive graft!), it will take time to forget the missteps and politics moves too fast.
If someone needs to blame voters, blame the voters who couldn't find an electable alternative.
"God bless Canada". One more reason I don't vote conservative, and right out of the rah-rah USA handbook. God is an opinion that belongs in the home, not the elected House of Commons.
> God is an opinion that belongs in the home, not the elected House of Commons.
Cool... can you also demand that non-theist members of the House of Commons leave their worldview and ethical perspective at home and not bring them into law-making? Because that's exactly what you seem to expect theists to do.
Except of course demanding that people leave their ethics and worldview behind is stupid. The funny thing is that non-theists don't realize that's what they're doing because they assume that their ethical framework is the default norm and it's only religious weirdos who are bringing in something foreign.
Strangely, this is kind of like the progressive criticism of "whiteness". That white people just assume their cultural norms are the "universal" ones and everyone just needs to follow those for everyone to get along.
************
In a pluralistic society, people of all stripes are going to bring in all kinds of ways of viewing the world. .. and they're going to bring them into the House of Commons too.
I think you missed my point, or I didn't explain it well enough. We are all a product of our experiences. That doesn't mean we have to bring our deities with us when we go to work. Joe Biden left his religion at home. They all say "God bless America". Looking at the US today, do you need any more proof that God doesn't exist?
The golden rule covers everything, as opposed to the bible (not a single white person in the bible) which is little more than a game of broken telephone written down.
Based on how we've treated the rest of the world, as a white guy, I'd say we're assholes. We did not follow the golden rule.... definitely not written by a white guy.
I think I get your point, but I think you don’t the inherent contradiction between you bringing your own worldview into the public sphere and your demand that other people not bring in theirs.
I anticipate you saying that you’re not saying they can’t bring in their own world-view, just that they can’t bring in God.
But those are the same thing.
Your worldview excludes God, that of others includes God and that of still others is based on God, so your demand is effectively a demand to centre and prioritize your worldview as the only acceptable one in public life.
That’s fundamentally incompatible with both liberalism and pluralism.
Is there, though? Complicated to say the least, but aren't the core tenets of religion already written into common law?
The laws politicians are making now are evolutionary to what already exists. As I mentioned, Biden left his religion at home. Yes, his God guided his life, but running a country doesn't mean you get to impose your religious opinions on it. When someone again floats the idea of adding Sharia Law to Canadian law, I hope it's shot down instantly. That person didn't leave their god at the door, and ignores the wishes of the country. The same when someone tries to restrict abortion through some backdoor move. And you know there are others who, in their kitchen, would like to make homosexuality illegal again.
The concept of separation of church and state is critical to a functioning democracy. I don't care who or what anyone prays to as long as they don't try and impose it on me. To me, that means God has no place in politics. In theory, all the Gods are already found in the basic rules of a civil society. God has had its say.
But it's a fascinating debate. I'll be thinking about this for a while. Thanks.
From where I'm standing it seems like you're arguing that you (or people who think as you do) should be the arbiters of which worldviews are "acceptable" for public life. This isn't any different than arguing that you need to be a good Catholic who regularly attends mass in order to contribute to politics. It's the other side of the anti-pluralism coin.
As far as "imposing" goes, you seem to be the one trying to impose your own opinion of which views and worldviews are acceptable. Last I checked, Harper didn't try to force anyone else to say "God bless Canada". The anti-pluralist and anti-liberal force is the people trying to silence speech they don't like or force people to say the things they expect.
I see this a lot with people who don't like religion... There seems to be an underlying assumption that their "non-religious" view has inherent legitimacy while all religious views (of the same subjects) in inherently illegitimate. And from there I see a lot of insistence that people are trying to "force their religion on me"... when in fact it's the anti-religion crowd that is busy trying to force their view on everyone else and suppress everyone else's..
> The concept of separation of church and state is critical to a functioning democracy.
That's the idea that we don't have a state church... and we don't. We have freedom of religion **which you are trying to undermine**. To say that people feign irreligiosity and be silent about their religion in order to bae allowed to participate in society is the opposite of freedom of religion.
You're the one who is trying impose your views on others.
"Harper didn't try to force anyone else to say "God bless Canada"." No, he brought an Americanism into Canadian politics. That's worse. They are the last country we should be copying.
As for your last 2 paragraphs, I'm simply trying to get ahead of what is happening in the US. It doesn't have a state religion either, but there's a child rapist dictator attempting to change that. Fundamentalist religions have destroyed the Middle East and are well along in the process of destroying the US.
"when in fact it's the anti-religion crowd that is busy trying to force their view on everyone else and suppress everyone else's..". What view am I trying to force on you? I think you're now playing word games. Religion belongs in your home. Religion belongs in your church. It does not belong in schools unless you're teaching all of them (see also grooming).
Clearly, we won't be finding common ground on this. Have a nice day.
God's in the Constitution. It admittedly doesn't say which, but Canada is on a fundamental level a religious country. Doesn't mean we should over-emphasize it. Doesn't make it wrong to occasionally mention such things.
Here's my rationale....I'm tiring of people hating or killing others for how they pray, or for praying to the wrong God. I'm tired of the absolute hypocrisy attached to fundamentalist religions of every stripe. God is an unprovable opinion. I have great respect for people who have a faith. As soon as they try to impose it on others, they're assholes, hence keep it out of school unless you're teaching all of them, and out of government. I don't want God in my government. And looking at the state of the world today, if God exists, it really doesn't give a damn about anything happening on earth. It's not coming to help.
Devout (haha) atheists Stalin (between 6 and 20 million killed), Hitler (11 to 17 million killed) and Mao Zedong (40 to 80 million killed) have entered the chat.
That's what happens when God is declared unwelcome from state governance.
Before you say it, I'm certainly not advocating for a theocracy. I would argue, however, that the best of our Western ethical traditions (and some Eastern traditions) stem from religious texts and movements, the majority of which stem from Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.
What, precisely, would you replace these with, David?
The problem is people, not religion(s). People are generally assholes (to use your terminology), and it does not matter if they are atheist, agnostic, or of a faith.
That's unfixable, at least by humans. So we have to have something, some principle(s), some ideals, to strive towards.
You can go and find your 'godless society' if you wish, but count me out of it.
Hitler was a Christian, and the people he persectued proves my point to "T". Look how Muslim dictatorships are doing. Look at who is being persecuted by alleged Christians in the US? Religious based persecutuion of another religion or a chosen race.
We are all a product of our experiences. You can have a religious background and bring its ideals, and not its God(s) into your workplace. Pretty much everything is covered by the Golden Rule.
I don't know if God exists or not. I would never ask you to follow me in my "Godless" society, nor will I ever ask to join yours. I don't know what's fact. Hence, why the imposition of one or the other by force is wrong.
Yeah, so is DJT - who told his 'beautiful Christians' that if they helped elect him, they 'won't have to vote anymore' because he would fix everything they were upset with in the USA. How very Christian that is. Evangelical Christians in the USA have largely been duped by the Republican Party for decades, culminating in the MAGA movement of the past decade. Take Jen Gerson's advice (as I did) and read The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory by Tim Alberta for details. Those evangelicals that have sold out (that is, betrayed, contradicted, and corrupted) the tenets of their own Christian Faith in an attempt to seize the keys to the secular 'kingdom, power, and glory' are assholes. I hope most of them live to realize that they have been behaving as such.
The Nazi's in power deemed mainstream Christianity to be incompatible with Nazism, so they set about creating their own Nazi Official Church. Hitler was their Führer. Ipso facto - Hitler was not a Christian - he and his fellow Nazi's were assholes USING warped and distorted pieces of it to achive their evil, secular, totalitarian aims.
I am not your enemy, and I certainly do not consider you mine. I'm just tired of religion being scapegoated as the main reason that people behave as assholes.
I think assholes use religions as tools of oppression and control. As soon as it goes "culty", the good it could bring is the first thing extracted, and I can't comprehend how people who seem rational fall into the trap of believing. I still remember watching Ernest Angley doing his schtick on US TV, and wondering how any fool could believe that. And yet, there they are... hypocrites to the core.
We have argued previously, but you certainly cannot (implicitly) deny that I am being inquisitive when I am inviting to explain a division entirely in your own words and perspective.
My perspective is that, while not perfect, Harper was the best in my lifetime, as evidenced by 10 years of progressive hair pulling over his policies. If we write an essay about his shortfalls, there will be a series of books about the numpf who followed him.
You are not obligated to answer my above question, but I will respectfully note for the record that you did not answer my question (if it was your intent to do so). What do you believe is the chief grievance of people who hate Harper?
We cannot debate whether he was the "best" if we cannot agree what his fundamental flaws were.
Sure, if you are the "right" kind of Canadian. For some of us, his legacy is the Barbaric Practices Tip Line, or making sure "Old Stock Canadians" knew they were SO MUCH BETTER than those of us who came to Canada and did our best to contribute, or was it his attempt to sell our fresh water? No wait, it must have been his introduction of his brand of nasty bitter dirty politics.... or was it the keeping of Stockwell Day as minister despite his long long record of bigotry. The list of his legacies is long and varied. Those are the legacies he is remembered for by so many Canadians.
Ken, only because you cast some doubt with "I believe 1997," I'm pretty sure the Globe and Mail article was 1996. I say this only because he came to the political science department at University of Calgary a gave a presentation on the piece right after it was published. I was a grad student and left in the summer of 1996. I remember the talk in the small conference room quite vividly.
An insightful article. Only when the electorate share the values of a political party is that party assured of lasting support. I fear that a goodly proportion of Canadian voters share the socialist and progressive views of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Conservative Party becomes an option only when the corruption and extremist policies of the LPC become too much to bear, even for the Liberal base.
Unfortunate that the successful formula and work Harper used federally wasn't better adapted by Kenney here in Alberta to temper the xenophobic populist side of the coin which resulted in the current wild rose authoritarian shit show.
An interesting retrospective piece on the (true) legacy of Mr. Harper. I thank him, and Ken, for the roles they played in that process of healing the schism between Reform and PC's.
One needs to ask, however - what is the current and future outlook for that legacy - that is, what will become of the Conservative Party of Canada in the short to medium term?
I know I'm uncertain about it.
I commented over on Jen Gerson's recent piece on Pierre and the CPC (summed up briefly as he/they will be proven right - just wait) that if the LPC keeps appropriating CPC policies, the latter may have peaked and could slide into redundancy/irrelevancy if Canadians continue to choose to let the Liberals do what they've been doing for over a decade.
To take it a bit further in the context of Ken's piece here, does the legacy of Harper's 'united' CPC work given the collapse of the NDP (no sign of a pulse that I can see) and the status quo of the Liberal/Bloq Quebecois dominating Ontario & Quebec? Have the CPC peaked at give-or-take 40% popular (and seat-inefficient) votes?
Restated - if the Liberals continue to play fast-and-loose with their 'principles' (hahahahahaa) to cosplay as a centre-right party to contrast themselves with both their own previous incarnation under Trudeau's leadership as well what the seemingly-stuck CPC is offering, is there anywhere for the CPC to go but down?
Perhaps Mr. Outhouse has a rabbit in his hat (CPC 'team' approach is rumoured, which I don't think Ken thinks can work), but with Comrade Avi Lewis poised to continue to steer the good ship NDP-Irrelevance into the rocks, with the Bloq a permanent feature in Quebec, and with money, Laurentian opinion, and the Canada-China 'Strategic Partnership' fairly solidly sticking with the LPC, I'm afraid that Mr. Harper's legacy may be in peril.
I hope I'm incorrect.
Perhaps as the Boomers gradually pass into their eternal reward-punishment, and assuming we are not annexed by either China or the USA, that the numbers will tip back just enough that the CPC can achive power. It would have to be a majority, given the Senate and Supreme Court.
If so, that's a decade on from today. Who will be the CPC Leader then?
Is it enough to appropriate policies during the campaign and not implement them? I am torn between thinking that Liberal voters seem okay with Conservative policies when presented by the Liberal Party and figuring that Liberal voters know their party well enough to know that these are just campaign promises/lies and therefore the end justifies the means. Tough call.
I heard the former Prime Minister give a speech around 2003 at an Ontario PC party convention in Ottawa. He was passionate and charismatic. The speech was about national unity and geography. I remember feeling proud to be Canadian. Years later, his passion continues to show; Canadian Geographic featured an article by him about the marvels of our provincial borders.
It is really interesting to get your recollections and insights. I read the Civitas speech a few years after it was given. The speech articulates a new Canadian conservatism. He remarks how there are different Conservative traditions in Canada. A new conservatism would include some of these traditions but not all. At the time, I felt I was the kind of conservative that was not included - a traditionalist red tory, maybe an economic nationalist - skeptical of free trade, that kind of thing, these were not in the vogue!
Will Canadian conservatism, as represented by the Conservative Party, reintroduce a conservatism that is critical of free trade with the US, and supportive of Tariffs?
Stephen Harper was the best organizer possible: he created a new conservative party.
Will Pierre Poillievre adopt an historic conservatism to be different from the Liberals?
Makes on wonder how we as a country went from the leadership of a statesman like Harper to a foppish fool like Trudeau. What changed in the Canadian electorate or are we dominated by shallow thinking self serving quasi ideologues?
The Canadian electorate is rather uninformed, reactive and gullible, facts that the liberals exploit every time.
I think MG said on the podcast one time that the liberals will do anything to win an election and stay in power.... like play one region of the country against the other.
Absolutely. They always have a good guy (them) and a bad guy (something else). It's so predictable.
Harper lost the 2015 election because he demonstrably alienated Canadians over the majority years of 2011 through to 2015. There's a serious record of scandal and manipulation unique to those 4 years specifically: https://stefanklietsch.substack.com/p/comparing-and-contrasting-the-scandals
A statesman who gave us FIPA? He sold us out. And the "barbaric cultural practices hotline"? He wanted to lose.
Because his party was politically aggressive in a way that wasn't popular, not clearly more ethical than the Liberals, and while I don't think he was anti-immigrant boy did large chunks of the party make it easy to cast him as such and a national hotline to report barbaric cultural practices was NOT a good policy.
I always looked at that tipline differently. I thought it was possibly a place where oppressed women could actually seek help. Maybe I was wrong about that, but that was my theory at the time and I came to that conclusion after researching it. I think we'd be in a much better place if Harper had won that election, even though I thought he actually might have tired of us by that point. And rightly so. Canadians put him through a lot. That was back when the media weren't cheerleaders for the government. (And yes, not all media are cheerleaders for the current guy, but a lot are.)
Like most of Harper's immigration stuff, I think it was an understandable concern about a real issue with a terrible solution badly sold (which tended to be the problem with most Harper solutions. And Trudeau solutions, though he was better at selling them). The name did NOT help - it very much gave an impression of angry old white busybodies calling the line because their Sikh neighbour had a turban. I am told by a friend who was a staffer at the time that the idea met with a round of applause when it was proposed, which also suggests a certain lack of wisdom in the staff at that point.
There’s something to be said about politicians who are not smooth sweet-talkers, though. I realize I am an outlier.
To hell with 'not smooth sweet-talkers.' Toews was a corrupt hypocritical asshole who took no criticism, and he was the minister of justice and ended up with a nice cushy judicial appointment. Pierre was a good little attack dog. Others were much the same.
The CPC of the era was well past 'not nice' and into 'vicious.' If you're gonna be like that, you'd better back it up with VERY well-crafted ideas, and they largely didn't.
I've always liked Pierre. Call him whatever names you like 🤣. In any case, Canada was a much better place overall before JT took over.
> I thought it was possibly a place where oppressed women could actually seek help.
We already had those. And we still do. They're called women's shelter hotlines.
As I recall, the Harper election team never came up to an answer to the most basic question: "What problem will your hotline address THAT ISN'T ALREADY ADDRESSED?".
And if they couldn't answer that question, their hotline just seemed like "hear me out... it's a hotline to report crimes... just like 911.. except this one is for crimes by AAAARABS!".
If there was an answer to that basic question, I never heard it and I was paying pretty close attention.
It's not exactly the same thing.
"Forced marriages were part of what motivated the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which was a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Civil Marriage Act that made permanent residents and temporary residents inadmissible to Canada if they practice polygamy and established a national minimum age for marriage of 16.
The changes also made it illegal to take a child or non-consenting adult out of Canada to have them married abroad and limited the use of provocation as a legal defence for so-called honour killings." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-barbaric-cultural-practices-law-1.3254118
So ... exactly what I said.. they're replicating the function of women's shelters except only for some women. Or if you're reporting polygamy, replicating the regular police phone number for reporting a crime. (Section 293 of the criminal code according to a quick search.) And also we've legalized self-defence..which was already legal.
That's the problem the Conservatives had... they were duplicating what already existed and saying "it's for Arabs specifically this time". And when they were asked what was new they just repeated things that were already done.
Kind of like an "ebony alert" for reporting missing children... but only black children.
Not quite the same. Anyway, an election platform point comes to nothing unless it's presented to the House, voted on, and made into law. Unless it's the Liberal Party with executive orders. In any case, there's no use discussing the policy platform 11 years after the fact, when it's not on the table. I am just saying that it wasn't necessarily what people made it out to be. You have a different opinion. I don't agree with it, but I am okay with your having it :-)
From the same article: "The NDP voted against the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act in the House while the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have said that while they agree with the legislation in principle, its name could be considered offensive to people who hail from regions where these practices are common."
We had it too good for too long and thought nothing could go wrong. We wanted the same as we had "but be nicer" and get international attention for our well-spoken model/actor PM. Oh and legal weed.
For me, I think voters got tired of him and that's how why Perry's boyfriend went full sunny ways to contrast Harper's dourness.
Justin was always a lounge lizard to me. I guess I didn't realize how many women fall for lounge lizards.
Stephen Harper had a vision for a united Canada. The current liberals have a philosophy of divide and conquer. I just wish Canadians were smart enough to know the difference and realized they're being played.
The Harper Conservatives rushed through parliament a gazillion bills that had the unanimous opposition of all other parties. The worst Liberal legislation has tended (such as The Online News Act, Bill C-5), have variously passed with the support of opposition parties.
What were you saying about uniting Canada again?
Once again my friend, agree to disagree. You can’t believe everything the CBC, CTV, Global and the rest of the legacy media tell you.
This is not a question of trusting the media. That the Harper government rushed legislation with about 100+ motions of time allocation is a matter of record that would be verifiable through the Hansard: https://www.revparlcan.ca/en/governing-by-time-allocation-the-increasing-use-of-time-allocation-in-the-house-of-commons-1971-to-2021/ That the major Harper bills tended to have unanimous party opposition is also verifiable through the Hansard.
(Also, making an enemy of the legacy media can be debated on its merits, but it certainly is not an obvious path to national "unity".)
Opposition does what opposition always does, they oppose. I never understood that stance. The goal should always be what's good for the country but there you have it. All governments pass gigantic omnibus bills including things they know wouldn't be popular on their own. That is true of all governments of all stripes. The conservatives were no better no worse.
As to the media; national unity or even informing isn't their goal. Quite obviously, the goal is to promote everything liberal and to dismiss and vilify most things conservative. That is the ecosystem we've lived under and tolerated for a long time, I can't see that changing anytime soon. National unity should a priority of the federal government but wow, this liberal government thrives on division so yeah, there's that.
Ah yes. “The media is against us”. The battle cry of the Canadian Conservative.
Omnibus bills have been getting worse over time, but Harper seemingly still has the record for the largest omnibus bill ever (the 880-page 2010 Canadian omnibus budget Bill C-9). In terms of content, Harper's 2012 450+ page "budget" Bill C-12 was worse for touching upon dozens of environmental laws all at once. Trudeau did put forward the 556-page Bill C-74 which also did some tampering with criminal laws in the context of a "budget" bill. The Conservative record here is worse simply for the fact that Harper omnibus bills were subject to time allocation and were never improved by accepting any opposition amendments whatsoever.
Does PP want a party that's populist first, conservative second?
Does he need it to be populist first?
I'm not sure either how he feels about the process of democratic institutions.
I want to know.
Populist shouldn't be seen as a pejorative term. Populist is the opposite of elitist. Carney leads an elitist government more interested in its own survival than the welfare of Canadians. No matter how you look at Poilievre, most if not all he says and does is to try and improve the lives of Canadians. That kind of populism is ok by me.
I prefer my populists to be conservative first, not populists first.
It goes without saying, we need politicians who can govern first and foremost. My point is that populist shouldn't be a pejorative term, not in the context of Canadian politics. Modern day conservatives tend to be more populist and liberals, especially in the last ten years, have been more elitist. Canadians could use a government that puts them first for a change.
Anyone who thinks Pierre Poilievre is anything other than an absolutely mainstream centre-right politician, is either an outright partisan Liberal or otherwise looking for excuses not to vote for him.
Oh, on the one side is a party that has demonstrably ruined our standard of living and has nothing but excuses about how they will somehow fix it if you give them an eternity in power. On the other is a guy who might be a populist conservative rather than a conservative populist (or vice versa, I lost track of what the bad one is supposed to be). Geez, better not take that chance. Fuck sake.
I understand what you are saying, and I don’t disagree.
We have the best story, we have the deepest bench strength, and we have a vision of the Country that is propositional, enthusiastic, and compelling.
Somehow, we need to take that extra step to bring a few more people over to our side.
True as that also is, I'm just beyond sick of people measuring angels dancing on the heads of pins as an excuse to write off the only real change alternative while the country we knew 10 years ago effectively stands in ruins around us.
I get that. That is a good observation.
Conservatives must present the perfect candidate, for most Canadian voters to even take a sniff.
We are walking through the actual ruins of The Lost Liberal Decade, one that seems to know no end.
I contend that there is no possibility of a "perfect" Conservative candidate. The media sees to that.
With the media running against the party, there will always be something wrong with whatever party leader is put forward, and that will be the narrative. Too brash, too boring, too ideological, too wishy washy, too much of an outsider, too much time in politics, a pre-politics resume that doesn't matter if it's good and broad, or very important if narrow and limited, French fluency not really an asset but limited French a huge liability, etc. etc.
This is why we are one of the few countries on the entire planet whose elderly vote left-wing. They as a generation have no media literacy and this is what gets fed to them. They believe what comes from the TV more than what they can see in real life with their own eyes.
I mean, the Harper years saw corruption, backbiting, hostility, and high-handed bad policy-making with any criticism dismissed without argument.
Neither party should try running on their record. It would not inspire.
Populist is a pejorative term for very good reason, much like fascist and communist. There is a distinction between caring what people think and populism.
Every CPC and Liberal government is interested in its own survival first. If PP gets elected, you're in for a disappointment.
The tension is between populism and the truth that one sees from the position at the top. There is a perspective that cannot be shared easily, that comes from being in that position, seeing things from there, having information few others have, seeing tradeoffs that no-one else sees or feels. This is not an excuse for leaders acting like elite, special people who are better than us. It's acknowledgement of something leaders experience.
The magic happens when a leader appears who can share that perspective in words, in a way that resonates with most of our community. PP doesn't have it. Jury's not in about Carney but his work experience suggests he has an edge. (the experience I refer to has little to do with banking btw.)
Call it desperate hope maybe but I think the conservatives are more principled than the liberals. Every time liberals spend any time in government, corruption, division, frustration and resentment increase.
Carney may be a smart man, he's nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.
Canadians need something to look forward to and all the liberals are giving us is more of the same inept leadership. Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy and instead of stimulating the economy, all the liberals do is raise the limit on the credit card. Nothing good can come of that.
Carney needs to get out of the way, realize he's not the answer to everything, repeal all those inane laws that scare investors and stop blaming everyone else for the liberals' ineptitude. For their part, Canadians need to get their heads out of their ass, put the elbows down and start using their brain.
I go back and forth on that all the time. I would say that between his winning the leadership and the 2025 election he was more like Preston Mannjng (I have an unpublished essay on my computer making that case). I think he is now morphing into someone more like Stephen Harper, but the morphing (in my view) is not yet complete. And may never be.
Neither are criticisms.
I don’t think Pierre Poilievre is a populist conservative.
I think he deploys populism strategically, but no more so than any other politician, and far less than the NDP.
Like an economist, populism is exploited until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost of deployment.
Pierre has made the same mistake as many Conservative politicians that have preceded him: that being, the failure to establish the necessary framework and groundwork for a Conservative Party victory.
Conservatives are terrible at optimizing the vote, which, ironically, is not a bad trait in and of itself. The Liberals are way better at campaigning than they are at actually governing. But people vote for the best campaign.
The conservatives had some very unfortunate faux pas last spring and that's on them. The liberals didn't win the election so much as the conservatives lost it. Poilievre was very persuasive, compelling and had the best platform, unfortunately, Carney ran his campaign of fear and that was enough to make the elbows up brigade run to hide under his skirt. The conservatives not only have to convince Canadians, they also have to run against the liberals and the media party and that will always be a tall order in Canada.
I see it differently, but my riding went from NDP to Conservative, probably because of very specific local issues. So far, I think people are quite impressed with our new MP, Aaron Gunn. But I guess we’ll know for sure if an election is called and he wins/loses. I did notice that in the last election the Libs actually tried here. Normally, they’re not on the community’s radar at all.
Aaron is a tremendous addition to Poilievre’s caucus!
In my riding, a staunch, predictable Liberal stronghold, I have to confess they have an incredible ground game.
Who did? The Liberals or the Conservatives?
The Liberals have an incredible ground game.
Ken, I'd like to vote for the CPC. I'd like that balance in our zeitgeist.
I predict PP is unelectable as PM. I wish it were not so, but it it is so. The blame lies with his strategy team and as long as sad baby has the mic, he is doomed. His team are STILL fucking it up. When sad baby fades to spend his emoluments (estimated to be 4b!!, impressive graft!), it will take time to forget the missteps and politics moves too fast.
If someone needs to blame voters, blame the voters who couldn't find an electable alternative.
A very nice essay, and a stellar perspective.
"God bless Canada". One more reason I don't vote conservative, and right out of the rah-rah USA handbook. God is an opinion that belongs in the home, not the elected House of Commons.
🙄🙄🙄
Harper's legacy is FIPA. It's not a good one.
> God is an opinion that belongs in the home, not the elected House of Commons.
Cool... can you also demand that non-theist members of the House of Commons leave their worldview and ethical perspective at home and not bring them into law-making? Because that's exactly what you seem to expect theists to do.
Except of course demanding that people leave their ethics and worldview behind is stupid. The funny thing is that non-theists don't realize that's what they're doing because they assume that their ethical framework is the default norm and it's only religious weirdos who are bringing in something foreign.
Strangely, this is kind of like the progressive criticism of "whiteness". That white people just assume their cultural norms are the "universal" ones and everyone just needs to follow those for everyone to get along.
************
In a pluralistic society, people of all stripes are going to bring in all kinds of ways of viewing the world. .. and they're going to bring them into the House of Commons too.
I think you missed my point, or I didn't explain it well enough. We are all a product of our experiences. That doesn't mean we have to bring our deities with us when we go to work. Joe Biden left his religion at home. They all say "God bless America". Looking at the US today, do you need any more proof that God doesn't exist?
The golden rule covers everything, as opposed to the bible (not a single white person in the bible) which is little more than a game of broken telephone written down.
Based on how we've treated the rest of the world, as a white guy, I'd say we're assholes. We did not follow the golden rule.... definitely not written by a white guy.
I think I get your point, but I think you don’t the inherent contradiction between you bringing your own worldview into the public sphere and your demand that other people not bring in theirs.
I anticipate you saying that you’re not saying they can’t bring in their own world-view, just that they can’t bring in God.
But those are the same thing.
Your worldview excludes God, that of others includes God and that of still others is based on God, so your demand is effectively a demand to centre and prioritize your worldview as the only acceptable one in public life.
That’s fundamentally incompatible with both liberalism and pluralism.
Is there, though? Complicated to say the least, but aren't the core tenets of religion already written into common law?
The laws politicians are making now are evolutionary to what already exists. As I mentioned, Biden left his religion at home. Yes, his God guided his life, but running a country doesn't mean you get to impose your religious opinions on it. When someone again floats the idea of adding Sharia Law to Canadian law, I hope it's shot down instantly. That person didn't leave their god at the door, and ignores the wishes of the country. The same when someone tries to restrict abortion through some backdoor move. And you know there are others who, in their kitchen, would like to make homosexuality illegal again.
The concept of separation of church and state is critical to a functioning democracy. I don't care who or what anyone prays to as long as they don't try and impose it on me. To me, that means God has no place in politics. In theory, all the Gods are already found in the basic rules of a civil society. God has had its say.
But it's a fascinating debate. I'll be thinking about this for a while. Thanks.
From where I'm standing it seems like you're arguing that you (or people who think as you do) should be the arbiters of which worldviews are "acceptable" for public life. This isn't any different than arguing that you need to be a good Catholic who regularly attends mass in order to contribute to politics. It's the other side of the anti-pluralism coin.
As far as "imposing" goes, you seem to be the one trying to impose your own opinion of which views and worldviews are acceptable. Last I checked, Harper didn't try to force anyone else to say "God bless Canada". The anti-pluralist and anti-liberal force is the people trying to silence speech they don't like or force people to say the things they expect.
I see this a lot with people who don't like religion... There seems to be an underlying assumption that their "non-religious" view has inherent legitimacy while all religious views (of the same subjects) in inherently illegitimate. And from there I see a lot of insistence that people are trying to "force their religion on me"... when in fact it's the anti-religion crowd that is busy trying to force their view on everyone else and suppress everyone else's..
> The concept of separation of church and state is critical to a functioning democracy.
That's the idea that we don't have a state church... and we don't. We have freedom of religion **which you are trying to undermine**. To say that people feign irreligiosity and be silent about their religion in order to bae allowed to participate in society is the opposite of freedom of religion.
You're the one who is trying impose your views on others.
"Harper didn't try to force anyone else to say "God bless Canada"." No, he brought an Americanism into Canadian politics. That's worse. They are the last country we should be copying.
As for your last 2 paragraphs, I'm simply trying to get ahead of what is happening in the US. It doesn't have a state religion either, but there's a child rapist dictator attempting to change that. Fundamentalist religions have destroyed the Middle East and are well along in the process of destroying the US.
"when in fact it's the anti-religion crowd that is busy trying to force their view on everyone else and suppress everyone else's..". What view am I trying to force on you? I think you're now playing word games. Religion belongs in your home. Religion belongs in your church. It does not belong in schools unless you're teaching all of them (see also grooming).
Clearly, we won't be finding common ground on this. Have a nice day.
God's in the Constitution. It admittedly doesn't say which, but Canada is on a fundamental level a religious country. Doesn't mean we should over-emphasize it. Doesn't make it wrong to occasionally mention such things.
Here's my rationale....I'm tiring of people hating or killing others for how they pray, or for praying to the wrong God. I'm tired of the absolute hypocrisy attached to fundamentalist religions of every stripe. God is an unprovable opinion. I have great respect for people who have a faith. As soon as they try to impose it on others, they're assholes, hence keep it out of school unless you're teaching all of them, and out of government. I don't want God in my government. And looking at the state of the world today, if God exists, it really doesn't give a damn about anything happening on earth. It's not coming to help.
Devout (haha) atheists Stalin (between 6 and 20 million killed), Hitler (11 to 17 million killed) and Mao Zedong (40 to 80 million killed) have entered the chat.
That's what happens when God is declared unwelcome from state governance.
Before you say it, I'm certainly not advocating for a theocracy. I would argue, however, that the best of our Western ethical traditions (and some Eastern traditions) stem from religious texts and movements, the majority of which stem from Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.
What, precisely, would you replace these with, David?
The problem is people, not religion(s). People are generally assholes (to use your terminology), and it does not matter if they are atheist, agnostic, or of a faith.
That's unfixable, at least by humans. So we have to have something, some principle(s), some ideals, to strive towards.
You can go and find your 'godless society' if you wish, but count me out of it.
Hitler was a Christian, and the people he persectued proves my point to "T". Look how Muslim dictatorships are doing. Look at who is being persecuted by alleged Christians in the US? Religious based persecutuion of another religion or a chosen race.
We are all a product of our experiences. You can have a religious background and bring its ideals, and not its God(s) into your workplace. Pretty much everything is covered by the Golden Rule.
I don't know if God exists or not. I would never ask you to follow me in my "Godless" society, nor will I ever ask to join yours. I don't know what's fact. Hence, why the imposition of one or the other by force is wrong.
'Hitler was a Christian'.
Yeah, so is DJT - who told his 'beautiful Christians' that if they helped elect him, they 'won't have to vote anymore' because he would fix everything they were upset with in the USA. How very Christian that is. Evangelical Christians in the USA have largely been duped by the Republican Party for decades, culminating in the MAGA movement of the past decade. Take Jen Gerson's advice (as I did) and read The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory by Tim Alberta for details. Those evangelicals that have sold out (that is, betrayed, contradicted, and corrupted) the tenets of their own Christian Faith in an attempt to seize the keys to the secular 'kingdom, power, and glory' are assholes. I hope most of them live to realize that they have been behaving as such.
https://www.bytimalberta.com/kingdom-power-glory
The Nazi's in power deemed mainstream Christianity to be incompatible with Nazism, so they set about creating their own Nazi Official Church. Hitler was their Führer. Ipso facto - Hitler was not a Christian - he and his fellow Nazi's were assholes USING warped and distorted pieces of it to achive their evil, secular, totalitarian aims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#:~:text=German%20LDS%20church%20branches%20were,Germany%27s%2028%20existing%20Protestant%20churches.
I think you and I agree when it comes from the Golden Rule:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Golden-Rule
I generally agree with your final paragraph.
I am not your enemy, and I certainly do not consider you mine. I'm just tired of religion being scapegoated as the main reason that people behave as assholes.
I think assholes use religions as tools of oppression and control. As soon as it goes "culty", the good it could bring is the first thing extracted, and I can't comprehend how people who seem rational fall into the trap of believing. I still remember watching Ernest Angley doing his schtick on US TV, and wondering how any fool could believe that. And yet, there they are... hypocrites to the core.
HofC opens with a prayer to "Almighty God".
When a session of parliament opens, federal/provincial, do they still say the "Lord's Prayer"?
Cue the Harper haters....
Let me bite then: what do you believe is the main reason that "Harper haters" exist?
Sorry pal but I'm not going down that road again.
We have argued previously, but you certainly cannot (implicitly) deny that I am being inquisitive when I am inviting to explain a division entirely in your own words and perspective.
My perspective is that, while not perfect, Harper was the best in my lifetime, as evidenced by 10 years of progressive hair pulling over his policies. If we write an essay about his shortfalls, there will be a series of books about the numpf who followed him.
You are not obligated to answer my above question, but I will respectfully note for the record that you did not answer my question (if it was your intent to do so). What do you believe is the chief grievance of people who hate Harper?
We cannot debate whether he was the "best" if we cannot agree what his fundamental flaws were.
Sure, if you are the "right" kind of Canadian. For some of us, his legacy is the Barbaric Practices Tip Line, or making sure "Old Stock Canadians" knew they were SO MUCH BETTER than those of us who came to Canada and did our best to contribute, or was it his attempt to sell our fresh water? No wait, it must have been his introduction of his brand of nasty bitter dirty politics.... or was it the keeping of Stockwell Day as minister despite his long long record of bigotry. The list of his legacies is long and varied. Those are the legacies he is remembered for by so many Canadians.
Ken, only because you cast some doubt with "I believe 1997," I'm pretty sure the Globe and Mail article was 1996. I say this only because he came to the political science department at University of Calgary a gave a presentation on the piece right after it was published. I was a grad student and left in the summer of 1996. I remember the talk in the small conference room quite vividly.
Thank you.
An insightful article. Only when the electorate share the values of a political party is that party assured of lasting support. I fear that a goodly proportion of Canadian voters share the socialist and progressive views of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Conservative Party becomes an option only when the corruption and extremist policies of the LPC become too much to bear, even for the Liberal base.
Unfortunate that the successful formula and work Harper used federally wasn't better adapted by Kenney here in Alberta to temper the xenophobic populist side of the coin which resulted in the current wild rose authoritarian shit show.
An interesting retrospective piece on the (true) legacy of Mr. Harper. I thank him, and Ken, for the roles they played in that process of healing the schism between Reform and PC's.
One needs to ask, however - what is the current and future outlook for that legacy - that is, what will become of the Conservative Party of Canada in the short to medium term?
I know I'm uncertain about it.
I commented over on Jen Gerson's recent piece on Pierre and the CPC (summed up briefly as he/they will be proven right - just wait) that if the LPC keeps appropriating CPC policies, the latter may have peaked and could slide into redundancy/irrelevancy if Canadians continue to choose to let the Liberals do what they've been doing for over a decade.
To take it a bit further in the context of Ken's piece here, does the legacy of Harper's 'united' CPC work given the collapse of the NDP (no sign of a pulse that I can see) and the status quo of the Liberal/Bloq Quebecois dominating Ontario & Quebec? Have the CPC peaked at give-or-take 40% popular (and seat-inefficient) votes?
Restated - if the Liberals continue to play fast-and-loose with their 'principles' (hahahahahaa) to cosplay as a centre-right party to contrast themselves with both their own previous incarnation under Trudeau's leadership as well what the seemingly-stuck CPC is offering, is there anywhere for the CPC to go but down?
Perhaps Mr. Outhouse has a rabbit in his hat (CPC 'team' approach is rumoured, which I don't think Ken thinks can work), but with Comrade Avi Lewis poised to continue to steer the good ship NDP-Irrelevance into the rocks, with the Bloq a permanent feature in Quebec, and with money, Laurentian opinion, and the Canada-China 'Strategic Partnership' fairly solidly sticking with the LPC, I'm afraid that Mr. Harper's legacy may be in peril.
I hope I'm incorrect.
Perhaps as the Boomers gradually pass into their eternal reward-punishment, and assuming we are not annexed by either China or the USA, that the numbers will tip back just enough that the CPC can achive power. It would have to be a majority, given the Senate and Supreme Court.
If so, that's a decade on from today. Who will be the CPC Leader then?
Please discuss.
Is it enough to appropriate policies during the campaign and not implement them? I am torn between thinking that Liberal voters seem okay with Conservative policies when presented by the Liberal Party and figuring that Liberal voters know their party well enough to know that these are just campaign promises/lies and therefore the end justifies the means. Tough call.
Thanks for writing about this.
I heard the former Prime Minister give a speech around 2003 at an Ontario PC party convention in Ottawa. He was passionate and charismatic. The speech was about national unity and geography. I remember feeling proud to be Canadian. Years later, his passion continues to show; Canadian Geographic featured an article by him about the marvels of our provincial borders.
It is really interesting to get your recollections and insights. I read the Civitas speech a few years after it was given. The speech articulates a new Canadian conservatism. He remarks how there are different Conservative traditions in Canada. A new conservatism would include some of these traditions but not all. At the time, I felt I was the kind of conservative that was not included - a traditionalist red tory, maybe an economic nationalist - skeptical of free trade, that kind of thing, these were not in the vogue!
Will Canadian conservatism, as represented by the Conservative Party, reintroduce a conservatism that is critical of free trade with the US, and supportive of Tariffs?
Stephen Harper was the best organizer possible: he created a new conservative party.
Will Pierre Poillievre adopt an historic conservatism to be different from the Liberals?