I mean, horse race stories are somewhat interesting, but I'm curious to know what my fellow commentors think should be the key policy priorities for whomever ends up leading the CPC (or really, for anyone in federal policy).
For me, it's pretty boring stuff (which is why I'm not a politician!)
The biggest -- the fact that Canadian productivity has slowed, meaning our 'natural' level of economic growth is now about 2% compared to about 3% in the 1990s. That seems really boring to a lot of people, but it's a fundemental issue that determines everything from economic opportunities to tax revenue and spending. This is a cross-economy issue and we've seen it coming for a long time now but we do not seem to have any kind of coherent policy to address this. A lot of the issues we all tend to talk about -- deficits and budgets; inflation; affordability; sustaining social programs -- all of them end up being greatly impacted by how quickly our economy grows, which in turn is greatly influenced by our underlying productivity. How do we address this?
The next -- climate change policy. It's a global issue that -- like it or not -- represents a fundemental shift in the the global economy. It means that a bunch of traditional industries (particularly fossil fuel industries) are in 'sunset' mode and the people in them will need help over the coming decades to deal with that transition. It also means there are huge new opportunities that are emerging that Canadian companies can potentially benefit from. Understanding where we might have a competitive advantage we can leverage (and where we are too small to be a global player) is going to be a key part of both economic and environmental policy going forward. Plus, climate change means a less predictable climate. That means some pretty ugly things for our aging infrastructure as what used to be "100 year" storms start happening a greater frequency. That's a huge potential liability (think recent fires and floods) that we're simply not prepared for -- and need to get prepared, quickly.
A coherent, realistic foreign affairs policy. We've done ok on trade agreements, but recent stories highlight our lack of an executable military strategy. And, I think we need to think long and hard about what it means to be a 'middle power' in an era where China is becoming a global force, where the US may be faltering, and where Canada may really need to be increasingly nimble as to who we align and partner with -- and what principles guide those negotiations. Are we simply looking for the best deal for Canada economically? Do we care about things like human rights? How do we aspire to engage with the rest of the world? I honestly don't know and feel like we have a lot of bromides ("Canada the peacekeeper") that are based in a past that doesn't exist anymore.
There's probably more, but a government that had something interesting (and plausable) to say on those three policy issues would capture my attention. How about you?
Mike Moffatt suggests that the housing shortage in Toronto and Vancouver is a major factor. "If you're Canadian, you can either live in our most productive, innovative cities. Or you can raise a family. But you can't do both." He has data showing that families with young children have been moving out of Toronto for the last 20 years. https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1510608014360944647
Apparently the energy transition and affordable housing will be two major themes in the upcoming federal budget. (The third one is "Canada's role in the world" - more money for defence spending and cybersecurity.)
I probably should have been more specific: Canada's oil sands are a sunset industry. Growth and investment happened on the (then reasonable) assumption that demand would peak long after conventional oil production did. So, the fact that oil sands are intrinsicly more expensive to produce wasn't a big deal -- once conventional oil fields peaked, all that would be left was 'unconventional' oil -- offshore, oil sands -- all of which was more expensive to extract.
There are two problems with that thesis. The first is that efforts already in place to make our economy more energy efficient mean that demand growth in first world countries is slowing. Worse, the industry has gotten better at squeezing more oil out of conventional fields. Oil shale, which a few decades ago looked like it would never be financially feasible, seems capable of providing 'swing' production. Sure, it's more expensive than conventional oil as projects have a relatively short production life. But the upfront investment is also smaller (compared to the 20 - 40 year investment horizon for a conventional field or an oil sands project).
I agree -- I'm 55 and I doubt I'll live to see the end of the fossil fuel industry. And, I absolutely agree that market dynamics can change again (e.g. if energy stops being a fully global commodity and EU needs energy from only 'western' sources). But, right now, it looks like the oil sands projects that are in place will continue producing (the investment is already there, after all) and focus on reducing costs as much as possible and getting oil to stable markets. What's probably not going to happen is a lot more investment and growth. And, finding efficiencies tends to means fewer jobs (more automation), so from a Canadian economic perpsective, I'd call that a sunset industry -- no different than low-cost manufacturing in Ontario. It's there, but will be an increasingly smaller share of our overall economy.
Now, it there a 20 - 40 year window for growth in Canadian natural gas? Maybe. But, again, the difficult thing there is pricing the ROI on any investment, particiularly when the investment in getting to market can be very, very high. These are highly volatile markets -- it's why investment in fossil fuel production has slowed over the last half-decade or so. Who want to make a multi-billion, 30 - 50 year investment bet on a product whose price is so unpredictable?
Moore is an exceptional speaker, which has been a virtually non-existent skill on the federal scene in recent years. He actually speaks with substance instead of vague soundbites that aren't always appropriate to the context. In an era where physical appearance and social media savvy seem to be of utmost value, he wouldn't stand a chance.
As much as PP isn't leadership material, his campaign execution has been flawless. The team of Byrne and Baird should run the next CPC election campaign.
Of former politicians who could lead the CPC, I would rank Brad Wall, James Moore, Rona Ambrose, Christy Clark and John Baird as the most competent, in that order. Wall and Clark could learn performative French faster than Trudeau or Freeland could acquire problem solving skills or understand accounting or economics.
Jean "Bring out your dead" Charest has a major John Turner problem, in addition to the rest of his considerable baggage. And Brown is... a maybe okay mayor? Moore really is the best alternative to P.P..
It's almost as if the Cons pick leaders to make sure the Liberals win. Did you mean Patrick "You're old enough for me" Brown? and Jean "Huawei" Charest? What could go wrong?
You totally used the “bring out your dead” line in your recent article, didn’t you? (The one about using the term “racist” to delegitimize your opponents). I thought I saw that phrase somewhere!
While I agree Poilievre is not the leader the CPC needs, I have to question the author's (Rahim Mohamed) judgment.
He refers to the idea that Moore "has taken a principled stand against the agents of intolerance who have infiltrated right-of-centre politics over the past several years" in which he lists Jordan B. Peterson and the leaders of February’s “freedom blockades.”
This is patently absurd. We must have almost the exact opposite definitions of what the word "intolerance" means. Hey, there's a lot of re-definitions of words lately to make them say the exact opposite, so this is a possibility here.
This can only come from somebody who hasn't done their homework and is going off of some press-driven narrative. Peterson is probably among the most tolerant people on the planet. For his whole career he's been constantly pushing the importance of listening to each other, the importance of negotiation and discussion, the importance of peace over winning, and the importance of the political left and political right and the legitimacy of what they both bring to the table. He's open to everybody's input, which exactly why he puts the freedom of speech as the core to civilization because without it we end up just bashing each other over the head.
Perhaps the author is simply using the word "intolerance" here as an empty insult to attack the character of Dr. Peterson because he disagrees with him. I can't imagine an argument that could demonstrate Peterson as being intolerant.
And the Freedom Convoy being intolerant? From the beginning to the end the leaders have non-stop espoused that it is a peaceful and inclusive protest. Here's the founder, Tamara Lich -- a Metis woman -- on the Marc Patrone show on January 22 as the convoy was getting underway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc
Note she describes it as peaceful, she's working with other First Nations, and at 10:50 she says, "This is bringing people together from all walks of life, all races, all religions."
Her Twitter has been taken down, but on January 18 she tweeted, "I was just contacted by a Clanmother from the NWT. She called to express her support and the support of our FN across the country. She is reaching out to the Tribes she is connected to across Canada to organize drummers, prayers, food, shelter and anything they can do to help and support this incredibly important cause. After years of a govt working their damndest to divide us by race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc I feel it’s safe to say that we are not divided! We are all coming together for a common goal."
On January 23 she tweeted, "We are now starting to be attacked and smeared, and they're starting to say some pretty nasty things. ... So what I'm going to ask of you is to, if you are inclined, pray for them because they know not what they do. We are not here to spread hate. We are not here to create more division. We are here to stand up together and we are here to love one another, and forgive one another."
On January 24, "Did you ever think there would be a time in Canada where Quebec and Alberta would come together and unify under the virtue of #Freedom? See what happens when politicians & the media get out of the way? You guys all make me want to cry."
On January 27 she retweeted co-founder BJ Dichter's tweet that said, "Please join us in Ottawa for a peaceful and loving protest where we can rediscover freedom together."
Also on January 27, "We are going to win this by showing love for one another. Be spiritual and be kind to all those around you."
On January 28, "Calm, peaceful and with love for everyone including those we disagree with."
Also on January 28 she calls out the expected agitators and agent provocateurs, and says "Keep calm and peaceful."
"The majority of my work involves supporting several key initiatives that UWEO has spearheaded, namely: employment for persons with disabilities, employment for Indigenous youth, successful aging for seniors and community wealth building, which includes social procurement. The bulk of my work centres around community building, the fostering of partnerships to improve the quality of life of the most vulnerable or enhancing the capacity of agencies and thereby uplift our collective community engagement to make Ottawa a better city for everyone.
In these encounters, I have observed that all of the truckers I met have been, at all times, friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful. At no time have observed any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour nor have I at any time felt intimidated or unsafe. I state this as someone who was once the victim of assault on the streets of Ottawa in 2004 and who suffered PTSD as a result.
5. I have also observed that the truckers, and their supporters, are made up of the most diverse, inclusive and varied cross-section of Canadian demographics that I have ever experienced in my life. As examples, I saw a Sikh truck driver with his children, an Indigenous elder giving a blessing to the gathering, a black preacher performing a Sunday service, Canadians of all ethnicities and multiple families with their children.
6. I have observed truckers decorating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with flowers as well as guarding it. I also observed an encampment beside the Terry Fox Memorial as a means of watching watch over it. At no point have I ever seen violent or threatening behaviour.
...
9. What I have observed is not in accord with what I have seen in the media or what I have experienced directly either with the truckers, their supporters or the gathering of people on Parliament Hill. The media appears to be framing the convoy and the events around their presence in Ottawa in the most unfavourable, erroneous and distorted manner possible."
Does this sound at all intolerant? By way of comparison, the Prime Minister -- and many Liberals -- called them horrible names, said they had "unacceptable views", that they "take up space", refused to meet with them or send an envoy simply because he disagreed with their anti-mandate views, and was so intolerant that he evoked the Emergencies Act, used violence against the peaceful protestors, drove enormous costs in the tens of millions, and used fear and intimidation to silence anybody who supported them (leading to a run on the banks).
The picture of what the word "intolerance" means is what Trudeau has become, and the Liberal party under him. The mainstream media are also quite intolerant of any views or evidence that goes against their chosen politics and narratives.
The picture of tolerance is the Freedom Convoy 2022 and Dr. Peterson.
If we can't even agree on basic facts and definitions, we're doomed. You really need to do your homework. I'm no fan of the Conservative Party; I've only ever voted for them once and it wasn't in the last election. I've voted for Liberals the most in my life, and have voted NDP. But, they've gone off the deep end of intolerant, divisive, irrational, tribalistic hatred. And, they have the power.
While I would agree that de-escalation is necessary, when you have such an immoral leadership with all of the power, being a weakling opposition trying to smooth things over is not a viable answer. I don't mean that you want somebody cruel or mean. Nobody wants a Trump. What the Conservatives need is somebody assertive, ruthlessly honest, with great integrity, able to call out the bullshit with solid evidence, and ready to face down a hostile mainstream press who runs cover for the bad behaviour of the Liberals and NDP.
I don't know who that is. Poilievre has the fortitude to call them out, but he's impatient and aggressive (rather than assertive) and plays for points over integrity. Moore doesn't sound up to the job to me, but I don't know his personality that well. I don't know the candidates all that well, except Charest and Poilievre, so I haven't formed an opinion yet. But, if the author here is that bad at Peterson and the convoy, and Moore didn't do his homework, then I'm already biased against Moore. I'll try to give him a fair shot, but he's not even a candidate so it is moot.
These recent articles in The Line about the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race and who the voting members "should" elect as their leader if the CPC is to have a fighting chance at winning the next election, all seem blind to whom the people are who comprise the CPC's "Base."
The CPC "Base" is the most extreme, disaffected, and poorly informed individuals from the Right Wing of the political spectrum.
Since Reform's inception, 'conservative' MPs, fundraisers, and party officials have been stoking these people with almost daily misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda all crafted to increase fund raising.
CPC messaging is so eerily similar to grifters' and conmens' pitches that it is reasonable to conclude, unless shown otherwise, that the con is deliberate. And, CPC elites think of The Base as the marks.
Now, it is 'The Base,' the 'monster' created to raise funds, who control the CPC, and it shows in who is best positioned to become the next CPC leader.
Not only will 'The Base' choose the next CPC leader, but also it will determine by its existence and influence who will vote for the CPC's candidates in the next election.
I think that you guys are both right. I've been following Peterson for years. He is both brilliant AND full of crap. It depends on the topic. His psychological examinations of the Old Testament are really fascinating yet he doesn't think AGW is a problem. Lately I've realized that, politically, he's a knee-jerk conservative supporter. He believes any conservative is an automatic good guy and he does not apply any of his impressive critical thinking abilities to anything a conservative says. For example he seems to believe that Trump actually wrote his own books. This is coming from a top-notch clinical psychologist. Really, professor, you don't think Trump might have any personality disorders that would cause him to lie about something like that? You don't see any red flags as to why someone like that shouldn't be President? Okay....
Anyone who supports the Covid mandates which are intended to consign 15% of Canadians to the status of a permanent underclass will get nowhere in the Conservative race unless all the mandates have been permanently lifted well before September.
Really? That is the intent of the mandates? How about protecting as many Canadian lives as possible? I agree that mandates shouldn't exist. They shouldn't exist because every citizen should want to be vaccinated. It's a duty. Sadly, a small percentage of people have read some crap on the internet - often Russian crap - and have decided to doubly punish themselves. They punish themselves and then try and blame the rest of us for "persecuting" them. SMH!
Why would anyone want 10% of their people to be a permanent underclass? To what end would anyone want to bother with that 10% of complainers and whiners and in-your-face idiots?
Didn't Moore have some kind of sex scandal? If I recall correctly it was relatively minor but entering the race will inevitably bring it back to the surface. He was definitely one of the more palatable Harperistas.
As a person pretty much desperate for a Conservative leader I would vote for, PP is not, and never will be it. I consider him little more than a mouthy, whiny spin-doctor with nothing to offer the country. He's a hard no.
Anti PP columns aren't so much obligatory as fun. They pretty much write themselves and are guaranteed to get Likes from anyone who hopes the Conservatives will vote for someone electable.
This column didn't actually say much of anything about PP, except that he's run a negative campaign without anyone but Moore have a real shot against him. With the deepest respect, if you think this is the worst that can be said about PP, you should get out more.
Here's someone l think l could get behind, it's not PP.
I'd support James Moore or John Baird. I find the current roster uninspiring.
I mean, horse race stories are somewhat interesting, but I'm curious to know what my fellow commentors think should be the key policy priorities for whomever ends up leading the CPC (or really, for anyone in federal policy).
For me, it's pretty boring stuff (which is why I'm not a politician!)
The biggest -- the fact that Canadian productivity has slowed, meaning our 'natural' level of economic growth is now about 2% compared to about 3% in the 1990s. That seems really boring to a lot of people, but it's a fundemental issue that determines everything from economic opportunities to tax revenue and spending. This is a cross-economy issue and we've seen it coming for a long time now but we do not seem to have any kind of coherent policy to address this. A lot of the issues we all tend to talk about -- deficits and budgets; inflation; affordability; sustaining social programs -- all of them end up being greatly impacted by how quickly our economy grows, which in turn is greatly influenced by our underlying productivity. How do we address this?
The next -- climate change policy. It's a global issue that -- like it or not -- represents a fundemental shift in the the global economy. It means that a bunch of traditional industries (particularly fossil fuel industries) are in 'sunset' mode and the people in them will need help over the coming decades to deal with that transition. It also means there are huge new opportunities that are emerging that Canadian companies can potentially benefit from. Understanding where we might have a competitive advantage we can leverage (and where we are too small to be a global player) is going to be a key part of both economic and environmental policy going forward. Plus, climate change means a less predictable climate. That means some pretty ugly things for our aging infrastructure as what used to be "100 year" storms start happening a greater frequency. That's a huge potential liability (think recent fires and floods) that we're simply not prepared for -- and need to get prepared, quickly.
A coherent, realistic foreign affairs policy. We've done ok on trade agreements, but recent stories highlight our lack of an executable military strategy. And, I think we need to think long and hard about what it means to be a 'middle power' in an era where China is becoming a global force, where the US may be faltering, and where Canada may really need to be increasingly nimble as to who we align and partner with -- and what principles guide those negotiations. Are we simply looking for the best deal for Canada economically? Do we care about things like human rights? How do we aspire to engage with the rest of the world? I honestly don't know and feel like we have a lot of bromides ("Canada the peacekeeper") that are based in a past that doesn't exist anymore.
There's probably more, but a government that had something interesting (and plausable) to say on those three policy issues would capture my attention. How about you?
Excellent questions.
"How do we address [slowing productivity]?"
Mike Moffatt suggests that the housing shortage in Toronto and Vancouver is a major factor. "If you're Canadian, you can either live in our most productive, innovative cities. Or you can raise a family. But you can't do both." He has data showing that families with young children have been moving out of Toronto for the last 20 years. https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/1510608014360944647
There's some interesting articles in last week's Economist on the energy transition. There's going to be a lot of demand for metals like cobalt, copper, and nickel, as well as for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2022/03/26/the-transition-to-clean-energy-will-mint-new-commodity-superpowers
Apparently the energy transition and affordable housing will be two major themes in the upcoming federal budget. (The third one is "Canada's role in the world" - more money for defence spending and cybersecurity.)
I probably should have been more specific: Canada's oil sands are a sunset industry. Growth and investment happened on the (then reasonable) assumption that demand would peak long after conventional oil production did. So, the fact that oil sands are intrinsicly more expensive to produce wasn't a big deal -- once conventional oil fields peaked, all that would be left was 'unconventional' oil -- offshore, oil sands -- all of which was more expensive to extract.
There are two problems with that thesis. The first is that efforts already in place to make our economy more energy efficient mean that demand growth in first world countries is slowing. Worse, the industry has gotten better at squeezing more oil out of conventional fields. Oil shale, which a few decades ago looked like it would never be financially feasible, seems capable of providing 'swing' production. Sure, it's more expensive than conventional oil as projects have a relatively short production life. But the upfront investment is also smaller (compared to the 20 - 40 year investment horizon for a conventional field or an oil sands project).
I agree -- I'm 55 and I doubt I'll live to see the end of the fossil fuel industry. And, I absolutely agree that market dynamics can change again (e.g. if energy stops being a fully global commodity and EU needs energy from only 'western' sources). But, right now, it looks like the oil sands projects that are in place will continue producing (the investment is already there, after all) and focus on reducing costs as much as possible and getting oil to stable markets. What's probably not going to happen is a lot more investment and growth. And, finding efficiencies tends to means fewer jobs (more automation), so from a Canadian economic perpsective, I'd call that a sunset industry -- no different than low-cost manufacturing in Ontario. It's there, but will be an increasingly smaller share of our overall economy.
Now, it there a 20 - 40 year window for growth in Canadian natural gas? Maybe. But, again, the difficult thing there is pricing the ROI on any investment, particiularly when the investment in getting to market can be very, very high. These are highly volatile markets -- it's why investment in fossil fuel production has slowed over the last half-decade or so. Who want to make a multi-billion, 30 - 50 year investment bet on a product whose price is so unpredictable?
Moore is an exceptional speaker, which has been a virtually non-existent skill on the federal scene in recent years. He actually speaks with substance instead of vague soundbites that aren't always appropriate to the context. In an era where physical appearance and social media savvy seem to be of utmost value, he wouldn't stand a chance.
As much as PP isn't leadership material, his campaign execution has been flawless. The team of Byrne and Baird should run the next CPC election campaign.
Of former politicians who could lead the CPC, I would rank Brad Wall, James Moore, Rona Ambrose, Christy Clark and John Baird as the most competent, in that order. Wall and Clark could learn performative French faster than Trudeau or Freeland could acquire problem solving skills or understand accounting or economics.
Very smart. (The Atichison joke was hilarious.)
Jean "Bring out your dead" Charest has a major John Turner problem, in addition to the rest of his considerable baggage. And Brown is... a maybe okay mayor? Moore really is the best alternative to P.P..
It's almost as if the Cons pick leaders to make sure the Liberals win. Did you mean Patrick "You're old enough for me" Brown? and Jean "Huawei" Charest? What could go wrong?
You totally used the “bring out your dead” line in your recent article, didn’t you? (The one about using the term “racist” to delegitimize your opponents). I thought I saw that phrase somewhere!
Yes. Monty Python never gets old.
Conservatives don't need someone who is all things to all people. We need someone who is willing to tell us and act on, economic and social realities.
Exactly. A leader who will step up and tell the fiscal truth, while kicking the social wing of the party to the curb. 1950 is not coming back.
While I agree Poilievre is not the leader the CPC needs, I have to question the author's (Rahim Mohamed) judgment.
He refers to the idea that Moore "has taken a principled stand against the agents of intolerance who have infiltrated right-of-centre politics over the past several years" in which he lists Jordan B. Peterson and the leaders of February’s “freedom blockades.”
This is patently absurd. We must have almost the exact opposite definitions of what the word "intolerance" means. Hey, there's a lot of re-definitions of words lately to make them say the exact opposite, so this is a possibility here.
This can only come from somebody who hasn't done their homework and is going off of some press-driven narrative. Peterson is probably among the most tolerant people on the planet. For his whole career he's been constantly pushing the importance of listening to each other, the importance of negotiation and discussion, the importance of peace over winning, and the importance of the political left and political right and the legitimacy of what they both bring to the table. He's open to everybody's input, which exactly why he puts the freedom of speech as the core to civilization because without it we end up just bashing each other over the head.
Perhaps the author is simply using the word "intolerance" here as an empty insult to attack the character of Dr. Peterson because he disagrees with him. I can't imagine an argument that could demonstrate Peterson as being intolerant.
And the Freedom Convoy being intolerant? From the beginning to the end the leaders have non-stop espoused that it is a peaceful and inclusive protest. Here's the founder, Tamara Lich -- a Metis woman -- on the Marc Patrone show on January 22 as the convoy was getting underway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YATLJuopMc
Note she describes it as peaceful, she's working with other First Nations, and at 10:50 she says, "This is bringing people together from all walks of life, all races, all religions."
Her Twitter has been taken down, but on January 18 she tweeted, "I was just contacted by a Clanmother from the NWT. She called to express her support and the support of our FN across the country. She is reaching out to the Tribes she is connected to across Canada to organize drummers, prayers, food, shelter and anything they can do to help and support this incredibly important cause. After years of a govt working their damndest to divide us by race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc I feel it’s safe to say that we are not divided! We are all coming together for a common goal."
On January 23 she tweeted, "We are now starting to be attacked and smeared, and they're starting to say some pretty nasty things. ... So what I'm going to ask of you is to, if you are inclined, pray for them because they know not what they do. We are not here to spread hate. We are not here to create more division. We are here to stand up together and we are here to love one another, and forgive one another."
On January 24, "Did you ever think there would be a time in Canada where Quebec and Alberta would come together and unify under the virtue of #Freedom? See what happens when politicians & the media get out of the way? You guys all make me want to cry."
On January 27 she retweeted co-founder BJ Dichter's tweet that said, "Please join us in Ottawa for a peaceful and loving protest where we can rediscover freedom together."
Also on January 27, "We are going to win this by showing love for one another. Be spiritual and be kind to all those around you."
On January 28, "Calm, peaceful and with love for everyone including those we disagree with."
Also on January 28 she calls out the expected agitators and agent provocateurs, and says "Keep calm and peaceful."
How about the actual protest, to which as United Way worker who lives in downtown Ottawa attested to the following in court: https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Ottawa-Affidavit-C.pdf
"The majority of my work involves supporting several key initiatives that UWEO has spearheaded, namely: employment for persons with disabilities, employment for Indigenous youth, successful aging for seniors and community wealth building, which includes social procurement. The bulk of my work centres around community building, the fostering of partnerships to improve the quality of life of the most vulnerable or enhancing the capacity of agencies and thereby uplift our collective community engagement to make Ottawa a better city for everyone.
In these encounters, I have observed that all of the truckers I met have been, at all times, friendly, courteous, humble, considerate and peaceful. At no time have observed any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour nor have I at any time felt intimidated or unsafe. I state this as someone who was once the victim of assault on the streets of Ottawa in 2004 and who suffered PTSD as a result.
5. I have also observed that the truckers, and their supporters, are made up of the most diverse, inclusive and varied cross-section of Canadian demographics that I have ever experienced in my life. As examples, I saw a Sikh truck driver with his children, an Indigenous elder giving a blessing to the gathering, a black preacher performing a Sunday service, Canadians of all ethnicities and multiple families with their children.
6. I have observed truckers decorating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with flowers as well as guarding it. I also observed an encampment beside the Terry Fox Memorial as a means of watching watch over it. At no point have I ever seen violent or threatening behaviour.
...
9. What I have observed is not in accord with what I have seen in the media or what I have experienced directly either with the truckers, their supporters or the gathering of people on Parliament Hill. The media appears to be framing the convoy and the events around their presence in Ottawa in the most unfavourable, erroneous and distorted manner possible."
Does this sound at all intolerant? By way of comparison, the Prime Minister -- and many Liberals -- called them horrible names, said they had "unacceptable views", that they "take up space", refused to meet with them or send an envoy simply because he disagreed with their anti-mandate views, and was so intolerant that he evoked the Emergencies Act, used violence against the peaceful protestors, drove enormous costs in the tens of millions, and used fear and intimidation to silence anybody who supported them (leading to a run on the banks).
The picture of what the word "intolerance" means is what Trudeau has become, and the Liberal party under him. The mainstream media are also quite intolerant of any views or evidence that goes against their chosen politics and narratives.
The picture of tolerance is the Freedom Convoy 2022 and Dr. Peterson.
If we can't even agree on basic facts and definitions, we're doomed. You really need to do your homework. I'm no fan of the Conservative Party; I've only ever voted for them once and it wasn't in the last election. I've voted for Liberals the most in my life, and have voted NDP. But, they've gone off the deep end of intolerant, divisive, irrational, tribalistic hatred. And, they have the power.
While I would agree that de-escalation is necessary, when you have such an immoral leadership with all of the power, being a weakling opposition trying to smooth things over is not a viable answer. I don't mean that you want somebody cruel or mean. Nobody wants a Trump. What the Conservatives need is somebody assertive, ruthlessly honest, with great integrity, able to call out the bullshit with solid evidence, and ready to face down a hostile mainstream press who runs cover for the bad behaviour of the Liberals and NDP.
I don't know who that is. Poilievre has the fortitude to call them out, but he's impatient and aggressive (rather than assertive) and plays for points over integrity. Moore doesn't sound up to the job to me, but I don't know his personality that well. I don't know the candidates all that well, except Charest and Poilievre, so I haven't formed an opinion yet. But, if the author here is that bad at Peterson and the convoy, and Moore didn't do his homework, then I'm already biased against Moore. I'll try to give him a fair shot, but he's not even a candidate so it is moot.
These recent articles in The Line about the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race and who the voting members "should" elect as their leader if the CPC is to have a fighting chance at winning the next election, all seem blind to whom the people are who comprise the CPC's "Base."
The CPC "Base" is the most extreme, disaffected, and poorly informed individuals from the Right Wing of the political spectrum.
Since Reform's inception, 'conservative' MPs, fundraisers, and party officials have been stoking these people with almost daily misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda all crafted to increase fund raising.
CPC messaging is so eerily similar to grifters' and conmens' pitches that it is reasonable to conclude, unless shown otherwise, that the con is deliberate. And, CPC elites think of The Base as the marks.
Now, it is 'The Base,' the 'monster' created to raise funds, who control the CPC, and it shows in who is best positioned to become the next CPC leader.
Not only will 'The Base' choose the next CPC leader, but also it will determine by its existence and influence who will vote for the CPC's candidates in the next election.
I’d share the hell out of an column that told this story, if you wanted to write one
Why not get Jordan Perterson to write a column. He is being vilified without anyone knowing what he actually believes. It would be interesting.
I have to disagree. Peterson IS full of crap. He's a diva, utterly full of himself—crap if you will.
I think that you guys are both right. I've been following Peterson for years. He is both brilliant AND full of crap. It depends on the topic. His psychological examinations of the Old Testament are really fascinating yet he doesn't think AGW is a problem. Lately I've realized that, politically, he's a knee-jerk conservative supporter. He believes any conservative is an automatic good guy and he does not apply any of his impressive critical thinking abilities to anything a conservative says. For example he seems to believe that Trump actually wrote his own books. This is coming from a top-notch clinical psychologist. Really, professor, you don't think Trump might have any personality disorders that would cause him to lie about something like that? You don't see any red flags as to why someone like that shouldn't be President? Okay....
Anyone who supports the Covid mandates which are intended to consign 15% of Canadians to the status of a permanent underclass will get nowhere in the Conservative race unless all the mandates have been permanently lifted well before September.
Really? That is the intent of the mandates? How about protecting as many Canadian lives as possible? I agree that mandates shouldn't exist. They shouldn't exist because every citizen should want to be vaccinated. It's a duty. Sadly, a small percentage of people have read some crap on the internet - often Russian crap - and have decided to doubly punish themselves. They punish themselves and then try and blame the rest of us for "persecuting" them. SMH!
Why would anyone want 10% of their people to be a permanent underclass? To what end would anyone want to bother with that 10% of complainers and whiners and in-your-face idiots?
Who the heck are his staff? That’s so tone deaf it’s sad.
Didn't Moore have some kind of sex scandal? If I recall correctly it was relatively minor but entering the race will inevitably bring it back to the surface. He was definitely one of the more palatable Harperistas.
He allegedly had a Tinder profile under his real name and image. Seems like obvious trolling as a public figure would never be so literal.
Best Canadian politician internet trolling ever was against former MP Rob Anders:
https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1255942829916000256/photo/1
Yeah I read his blog daily. I often disagree with his opinions, but he is very insightful.
I think the Charest PC's plateaued at around 20 seats, but I see you point
As a person pretty much desperate for a Conservative leader I would vote for, PP is not, and never will be it. I consider him little more than a mouthy, whiny spin-doctor with nothing to offer the country. He's a hard no.
Trudeau is as populist as it gets - if it feels good do it. His brand truly is rooted in the 1970's.
Anti PP columns aren't so much obligatory as fun. They pretty much write themselves and are guaranteed to get Likes from anyone who hopes the Conservatives will vote for someone electable.
This column didn't actually say much of anything about PP, except that he's run a negative campaign without anyone but Moore have a real shot against him. With the deepest respect, if you think this is the worst that can be said about PP, you should get out more.