2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Quirky]

Speaking of taxes, the Cdn Federation of Taxpayers reports:

Payroll taxes: The federal government is raising the mandatory Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance contributions in 2024. These payroll tax increases will cost a worker up to $347 next year.

For workers making $73,200 or more, federal payroll taxes (CPP and EI tax) will cost them $5,104 in 2024. Their employer will also be forced to pay $5,524.

Carbon tax: The federal carbon tax is increasing to more than 17 cents per litre of gas and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas on Apr. 1, 2024. The carbon tax will cost the average household between $377 and $911in 2024-25, even after the rebates, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Alcohol escalator tax: Alcohol taxes will increase by 4.7 per cent on Apr. 1, 2024. Taxes already account for about half of the price of beer, 65 per cent of the price of wine and more than three quarters of the price of spirits. This tax hike will cost Canadians almost $100 million next year.

All those taxes and nothing to show for it.

"more work needs to be done."

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Full disclosure first: my review of the evidence tells me "man made" climate change is a threat, but not the biggest threat (the biggest threat is the rise of the voices at the extremes, ie left and right, and the discord that causes). Therefore, a measured response is required.

This particular argument really bothers me. Canadians are among the worst polluters of all types, especially CO2, but we use this argument (of we're "small") to say it doesn't matter. The main reason for this is we have a standard of living very similar to the US in a much colder climate (the counterpoint being they have higher needs for cooling).

What this is really saying is "yeah, we sucked as much resources as we could to get were we are, but were not going to let you other countries do that, and we're not going to change." And then we wonder why they "hate us." I know that is a gross oversimplification, but...

By the way, a measured response would be to stop using it as a wedge issue, help Canadian companies develop and switch to alternate sources, and make a crap ton of money by leading the way. Because someone is going to.

You and I have very similar views on this topic.

I am of the opinion that climate change will be solved by science, innovation and investment; not Government regulation, command economics and manipulation of the market.

Canada's problem is we aren't innovative and we aren't a very hard-working society. We also shoot ourselves in the foot by shunning investments in our immense natural resources wealth.... which the City Slicker Gaia wannabes all view as evil.

What I find most interesting about those types is none of them have the requisite skills to survive in a World without the modern amenities brought about by Industrialization and Fossil Fuels.

I've always found it funny that Canadians act like we are a Scandinavian Country like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Etc... it's not true though.

Scandinavian Countries exploit their Natural Resources to full effect and use them to positively contribute to the development of their societies. Canada on the other hand has Latin Disease...

We exploit natural resources and then use the proceeds to build Starbucks and make sure everyone has cheap Lululemon and IPhones in the Cities. We are a lazy ass Country, which is why anything of any real value in this Country has been taken over by Americans with way bigger vision and drive than us.

The Americans also recruit our best and brightest and make them Americans.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

All those taxes and nothing to show for it.

"more work needs to be done."

The Canadian dream....

Slave away in a pointless Govt job just long enough to earn a pension and remain comfortably uncomfortable.

Someone has to pay for it though.

 

[Baz]

Adapt or die.

The earth doesn't care what canadians do, how many EVs we drive, how many heat pumps we install or how much tax we pay. There will still be forest fires, there will still be floods, tornados, droughts.

I won't be voting for a party who's 'fight' on climate "crisis" is to make the lives of its citizens more expensive without showing any meaningful results.

Adapt is what some of us are trying to do... as I said, somebody is going to make a crap load of money of the shift away from the paradigm of the last 100 years and it's too bad it doesn't look like it will be us.

I won't be voting for a party who acts like it is in the back pocket of the oil industry. Which leaves me with a problem, since I think it is time for a shift away from the liberals. So with the liberals drifting slightly left and the conservatives drifting harder right I'm not sure who moderates are supposed to vote for?

 

[dapaterson]

Adapt is what some of us are trying to do... as I said, somebody is going to make a crap load of money of the shift away from the paradigm of the last 100 years and it's too bad it doesn't look like it will be us.

I won't be voting for a party who acts like it is in the back pocket of the oil industry. Which leaves me with a problem, since I think it is time for a shift away from the liberals. So with the liberals drifting slightly left and the conservatives drifting harder right I'm not sure who moderates are supposed to vote for?

 

[Good2Golf]

I've always found it funny that Canadians act like we are a Scandinavian Country like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Etc... it's not true though.

Weather like the Nordic countries, significantly lower societal productivity like warmer climes…and an irritatingly grating (to other nationalities) preachy, self-aggrandizing image of ourselves that far too many of us actually believe.

 

[Brad Sallows]

…again, my question was on your stance whether a climate crisis exists.

It’s really a “yes” or “no” question.

Define "climate crisis". Evidence may not include the metropolises and island nations soliciting big bucks in reparations to help deal with their groundwater and tidal waters mismanagement issues, or the costs of rebuilding increasingly expensive stuff built (and re-built) in storm- and flood-prone areas (etc).

 

[Quirky]

So with the liberals drifting slightly left and the conservatives drifting harder right

You have that backwards. Liberals are further left than ever before. They are past NDP levels of socialism, which makes Jags irrelevant.

Canada's problem is we aren't innovative and we aren't a very hard-working society.

The level of entitlement in this country is disgusting considering how little output there is. It's just easier to act like a victim and wait for government handouts.

 

[Weinie]

You have that backwards. Liberals are further left than ever before. They are past NDP levels of socialism, which makes Jags irrelevant.



The level of entitlement in this country is disgusting considering how little output there is. It's just easier to act like a victim and wait for government handouts.

The Maritimes enter the chat.

 

[Good2Golf]

The level of entitlement in this country is disgusting considering how little output there is. It's just easier to act like a victim and wait for government handouts.

The Maritimes enter the chat.

[Edit: rearranged to more accurately portray the flow…]

Dude, DB could set their railway clocks by your responsiveness to Maritime behavior threads. #donteverchangeweinie

 

[Grimey]

You have that backwards. Liberals are further left than ever before. They are past NDP levels of socialism, which makes Jags irrelevant.



The level of entitlement in this country is disgusting considering how little output there is. It's just easier to act like a victim and wait for government handouts.

Today’s Cons are where the ’90s era Libs used to be.

 

[Kirkhill]

Define "climate crisis". Evidence may not include the metropolises and island nations soliciting big bucks in reparations to help deal with their groundwater and tidal waters mismanagement issues, or the costs of rebuilding increasingly expensive stuff built (and re-built) in storm- and flood-prone areas (etc).

Jobs for Dutchmen.

 

[FSTO]

Another great column from Paul Wells.

Nothing is ever a simple as the talking points. But we have no time nor inclination to decipher them.

The Conservatives and Ukraine

It's complicated.

open.substack.com

 

[Good2Golf]

Another great column from Paul Wells.

Nothing is ever a simple as the talking points. But we have no time nor inclination to decipher them.

The Conservatives and Ukraine

It's complicated.

open.substack.com

But he doesn’t dig deeper than the uncontested packaging of a CAF-specific funding with the otherwise unrelated CANUKR Free Trade refresh (not that the original was broken, it was still in effect), so…Kabuki Theatre points not only to PP, but JT as well.

 

[Happy Guy]

John Ivison: Conservative coyness about meeting NATO targets won’t cut it with President Trump​

Opinion piece by Mr. Ivison.

In brief, blame the Liberals for not meeting NATO commitments and for leaving the DND/CAF under-equipped, under-strength and lack of morale. Mr. Poilievre has not clarified his position with regards to meeting the 2% or more funding for DND/CAF.

When asked by Mr. Ivison about the Conservative's commitment to NATO and achieving 2% spending the PC spokesperson responded:

Sebastian Skamski, Poilievre’s communications director, said Justin Trudeau has left Canada to depend on Joe Biden or Donald Trump to keep the country secure.

“Common sense Conservatives support our NATO alliance and believe Canada should once again be a strong partner,” he said. “We will restore our economy and our military to … restore Canada as a reliable partner to our NATO allies.”

In the case of NATO, sources suggest that Poilievre is not skeptical about the idea of collective security; rather, he is committed to balancing the books. A promise to spend two per cent could cost up to an extra $18 billion a year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office, which estimated Canada is on track to spend $51 billion a year — or 1.59 per cent of GDP — on defence by 2026–27.

“Poilievre has said: ‘OK, but what am I not spending money on?’” said one person with knowledge of internal discussions.

Justin Trudeau has already shown his hand, telling allies that Canada will never reach two per cent, according to leaked Pentagon documents. With the NDP demanding the introduction of a national pharmacare program as the price of its support in Parliament, the Liberals are unlikely to find an extra $18 billion to spend on a file that wins few votes.

That leaves the field to the Conservatives.

Poilievre owes it to voters to provide some clarity on his intentions for defending the country’s interests. Ideally that should be a clear path to spending two per cent of GDP on defence in the short-term, and three per cent in the mid-to-longer timeframe.

If the LPC and NDP passes pharmacare, and if the CPC forms the next gov't after the next fed election, this would leave PM Poilievere with little financial wriggle room as his immediate objective would be to balance the budget and cut the national debt.

Same old, same old.

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ivison: Conservative coyness about meeting NATO targets won’t cut it with President Trump​

Opinion piece by Mr. Ivison.

In brief, blame the Liberals for not meeting NATO commitments and for leaving the DND/CAF under-equipped, under-strength and lack of morale. Mr. Poilievre has not clarified his position with regards to meeting the 2% or more funding for DND/CAF.

When asked by Mr. Ivison about the Conservative's commitment to NATO and achieving 2% spending the PC spokesperson responded:








If the LPC and NDP passes pharmacare, and if the CPC forms the next gov't after the next fed election, this would leave PM Poilievere with little financial wriggle room as his immediate objective would be to balance the budget and cut the national debt.

Same old, same old.

This is a tough one for the CPC. They (and the LPC and NDP) KNOW with 100% certainty that Canadians oppose, not just don't support, actively oppose funding the military to anything like a useful level.

Plus, there is a small but loud part of the conservative base that says that DND and the CF, as currently structured, cannot make any good use of increased funding. One smallish segment of that opposes all defence spending, on principle, as a waste, while there other, larger group says the CF must be nearly dismantled and repurposed, with almost totally new, maybe even foreign senior leadership before it gets another red cent.

 

[PuckChaser]

He has little financial room without pharmacare. We've doubled our debt and still run a 30+ BCAD deficit. That's gotta get sorted before the CAF is going to see any investment.

 

[Haggis]

If When the LPC and NDP passes pharmacare, and if the CPC forms the next gov't after the next fed election, this would leave PM Poilievere with little financial wriggle room as his immediate objective would be to balance the budget and cut the national debt.

FTFY. They will pass it because they know it will financially make it almost impossible for the CPC GoC to push any big ticket items through in their sure-to-be short time in power. Any attempt to roll back Pharmacare, even in a minor way, will result in a confidence vote.

Same old, same old.

Yes, that translates into "do whatever is necessary to stay in power".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What I'm seeing is PP is playing things close to his vest. He's being careful about stating the details and minutiae of his platform until the writ is dropped. Why give the opposition a look at your battle plan allowing them to get out ahead of your stance? He's being careful not to get too involved in everyday maintenance points that detract from his main message. If you watch question period, the Liberals are constantly trying to pry details out of him, but he's not cooperating. I think once we get into the actual election, we'll see more details and commitment from him.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

FTFY. They will pass it because they know it will financially make it almost impossible for the CPC GoC to push any big ticket items through in their sure-to-be short time in power. Any attempt to roll back Pharmacare, even in a minor way, will result in a confidence vote.

Yes, that translates into "do whatever is necessary to stay in power".

That would all depend on their numbers, no? If they have a clear majority, they can pretty well do as they please. Confidence votes aren't as scary when you have the bums in seats to vote them down. Or am I missing something?

Why do you think they will only be in power a short time?