# If Trudeau wins another 4 year term...



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Justin Trudeau currently stands at 11th place in the list of Canadian Prime Ministers for length of time in office.

If he wins and serves another 4 year term he will pass a lot of PMs and end up in 6th spot historically.

Another 4 years and he will pass notables in John Diefenbaker, Louis St. Laurent, Sir Robert Borden, Brian Mulroney, and Stephen Harper.

He likely will be a few days short of passing Jean Chretien and would need to win several more terms to catch his father Pierre Trudeau at over 15 years.

I wonder if the timing of the fall election will coincide with Trudeau moving past Stephen Harper.

To do that Trudeau has to serve another 101 days before an election and then serve a full 4 year term.

So an election in 102 days......some time after August 3rd to move past Harper on the list ?

A November election will give Trudeau a shot at moving past Jean Chretien into 5th place.









List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Justin Trudeau currently stands at 11th place in the list of Canadian Prime Ministers for length of time in office.
> 
> If he wins and serves another 4 year term he will pass a lot of PMs and end up in 6th spot.
> 
> ...


I just threw up all over my keyboard.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

unless another superstar rises, he'll be there for a while. Might have time to grow some white hair.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

In politics, I never vote for the best candidate, I always vote for the least worst.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Seems navel-gazy to me.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> In politics, I never vote for the best candidate, I always vote for the least worst.


Until we get STV, that's the only reasonable approach.

I hate strategic voting.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I vote for whoever is least likely to win, since they're all terrible.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

That would surely be the end of Canada.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

With the Microsoft Dominion voting machines built in Canada that will allow dead people to do their patriotic duty
300 years after their dead to vote will allow Trudeau to get reelected. Trudeau is following World economic forum of destroy the economy & build back better. No one goes to war when they are fat & happy. Trudeau fails to realize that the poverty he is creating is putting a lot more lives @ risk including his own then any virus could ever kill.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

My guess is a fall election with a Trudeau majority Government. The covid issue may be under control by then. The economy is improving. Besides, why waste a good election budget?

Trudeau's biggest asset in the upcoming election may well be O'Toole and the Conservatives. Their performance to date has been abysmal and shows no signs of improvement. They will have a great deal of trouble attracting star candidates, let alone getting volunteers out to work the election for them. There is a reason why they are 10 points behind in the vote rich areas of Ontario, Quebec, and BC.

Not saying that I support the Trudeau Government but I could not bring myself to vote for the Conservative Party at this juncture.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

zinfit said:


> That would surely be the end of Canada.


 Does it mean that houses going to get cheaper and more affordable for Canadians?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nothing wrong with the CPC that getting rid of the Reformers won't fix.

Small wonder Rona Ambrose looked around and said....no thanks.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Nothing wrong with the CPC that getting rid of the Reformers won't fix.
> 
> Small wonder Rona Ambrose looked around and said....no thanks.


And Baird, and Pollivere


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

I will vote for anyone who will promise affordable housing for Canadians.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Well...you can count on all of the Leaders promising affordable housing for Canadians. Plus help for the middle class, help for seniors. Essentially a pot on every stove and a chicken in every pot.

They have all promised this before. Why ruin a good election promise by actually delivering on it?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I will vote for anyone who will promise affordable housing for Canadians.


They all promise it, not one of them is putting forth the actual policies that would allow it.
To fix housing we need the Provinces to fix the housing laws to encourage development, cities to stop obstructing the creation of housing.

Nobody is going to pull rent controls, or facilitate evictions, even allowing security deposits is controversial.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Nothing wrong with the CPC that getting rid of the Reformers won't fix.


Exactly. As many of you know, I'm a rather liberal person, but I have voted Progressive Conservative before.

It's the Reform-Alliance people that I can't stand, with their imitation of American Republicans, social conservatism, anti-government values, etc. It's [American style] Reformers who have tainted this party, and they are harming the conservative movement in Canada because this style *fundamentally* doesn't fit with Canadian values.

I don't know why everyone pretends this didn't happen, but Reform-Alliance _took over_ the party and then hijacked the "Conservative" party name. It's actually a very different party today. That's why you see so many traditional, older conservative politicians who don't align with the current party.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the Liberals pledged their election platform and then proceeded to implement those policies which raised the ire of Conservatives.

For some reason they expected the Liberals to reject their own policies, reject the will of the people, and accept the Conservative agenda.

That was never going to happen. Maybe it has something to do with the denial of losing or something.

I remember the same thing when the Democrats lost to Trump and started pondering if he would institute some of the Democrat agenda.

They learned over time that wasn't going to happen either.

In politics.......to the winner goes the spoils.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Scheer left a bad taste in the mouths of many voters. O'Toole has done nothing to change that. If anything, his dilly dallying over the Sloan business has made it worse. He was so embarrassed by his climate plan that he released it just prior to the Budget so that it would not get as much air time.

When it came time to act he delayed, placing the interests of his socon Party members above the interests and values of Canadian voters.

True Blue? O'Toole is an embarrassment to those traditional (non Reform/Alliance) Conservative Party members.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Exactly. As many of you know, I'm a rather liberal person, but I have voted Progressive Conservative before.
> 
> It's the Reform-Alliance people that I can't stand, with their imitation of American Republicans, social conservatism, anti-government values, etc. It's [American style] Reformers who have tainted this party, and they are harming the conservative movement in Canada because this style *fundamentally* doesn't fit with Canadian values.
> 
> I don't know why everyone pretends this didn't happen, but Reform-Alliance _took over_ the party and then hijacked the "Conservative" party name. It's actually a very different party today. That's why you see so many traditional, older conservative politicians who don't align with the current party.


I'm honestly not seeing it, what fundamental flaws are unCanadian?
I see some social conservative elements, but they're not influential., they're not even putting forward any crazy positions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> I'm honestly not seeing it, what fundamental flaws are unCanadian?
> I see some social conservative elements, but they're not influential., they're not even putting forward any crazy positions.


The American hatred for government, trying to tear down government institutions and infrastructure.
Religiously motivated social conservatism, evangelical Christianity and religious fundamentalism in govt.
War mongering and foreign aggression.

Those are some values that don't have support in Canada, but are things that Reform-Alliance (calling themselves Conservatives) have pushed ever since Harper.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I will vote for anyone who will promise affordable housing for Canadians.


Government & affordable does not go together. Government is heavily involved in health care & education which has made both more expensive. The government has no clue about the real estate market. They think because recently homes sold for 35% more all homes are worth 35% more. What a joke, we are in the part of the cycle where higher end homes had recently been bought & sold.

To lower prices all they would have to do is not allow commission to be put on the mortgage. If you buy a million dollar house you pay 50,000 in commission. Not many buyers will pay that up front to someone for a few hours work.

There is a reason Freddie Mac is called Freddie Frankenstein. I forget the exact numbers it would take something like 1000 accountants a 100 years to follow the corrupt money trail. Money, government & corruption never go together with affordable for anything. Add to that the joke that government is efficient. Politicians are attracted to money like flies to cow pies


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The American hatred for government, trying to tear down government institutions and infrastructure.
> Religiously motivated social conservatism, evangelical Christianity and religious fundamentalism in govt.
> War mongering and foreign aggression.
> 
> Those are some values that don't have support in Canada, but are things that Reform-Alliance (calling themselves Conservatives) have pushed ever since Harper.


Well I don't think Conservatives hate government. I think they see the limits of what is practical, whereas lefties don't.

I'm not going to get into whataboutism over religion, except that I don't care if their motivation is "religious" or not, it matters if the policy is going to result in a good outcome or a bad outcome. The nature of your particular belief system, or as I prefer to call it "invisible friend", is irrelevant.

Warmongering, I think having some force capacity is useful, at times we need to deploy them.


As far as fundamental philosophy I think there is a divide there.
Some think that you have rights as a human being, and the role of government is to acknowledge them. Yes this is very "American". "We hold these truths to be self-evident " 

Some think that government grants you rights.


----------



## NewbieInvestor88 (Feb 21, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Exactly. As many of you know, I'm a rather liberal person, but I have voted Progressive Conservative before.
> 
> It's the Reform-Alliance people that I can't stand, with their imitation of American Republicans, social conservatism, anti-government values, etc. It's [American style] Reformers who have tainted this party, and they are harming the conservative movement in Canada because this style *fundamentally* doesn't fit with Canadian values.
> 
> I don't know why everyone pretends this didn't happen, but Reform-Alliance _took over_ the party and then hijacked the "Conservative" party name. It's actually a very different party today. That's why you see so many traditional, older conservative politicians who don't align with the current party.


From the last number of elections, it feels like Liberals don't win because they are more popular, it's just the PC/Conservative constantly shoots itself in the foot with a cannon... Remember Hudak's 1 million jobs?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Erin O'Toole has fallen into the same trap as Andrew Scheer due to the ideological split in the CPC party.

His stance on abortion rights for example, are problematic for a lot of people who support the woman's right to choose.

He says he will personally not support any changes to the legislation, but will allow a "free vote" among his MPs. What that says to Canadians is that if the CPC win a majority of MP's it is possible.........however unlikely, that abortion laws could be changed.

Personally, and this is only from my personal experience, I am opposed to abortion but support a woman's right to decide. It isn't a decision for me to make.

We adopted our son and are forever grateful to his "birth mom" for making the decision she made at the time. It wasn't an easy decision for her, I am sure.

That is not to say that I think a woman should be forced to make a similar decision all the time. I believe we should fully support women who have children to lower the abortion rate. It would be morally corrupt to demand women have babies and then tell them they are on their own to provide for them.

O'Toole has to be precisely clear on topics such as this. Yes or no........not that it depends on how my MPs vote.

That is one example of the conundrum for O'Toole......and any other CPC leader. The CPC hard core ideology prevents the party from winning elections.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

O'Toole, to the best of my knowledge, has been very clear. He is solidly pro choice and respects a woman's right to make her own decision. This is no different than most of our former PM's many whom were pro life on a personal level but believed in a woman's right to choose.

O'Toole's issue is that there are people in his party that want to make this a paramount issue notwithstanding the fact that a solid 58-60 percent of Canadian voters have been consistently pro choice over years of polling.

O'Toole can do the math as evidenced by his questionable carbon tax reversal plan.

The challenge is the socon influencers in the Party seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge this reality. Hence the private members bill. You only ever saw this one during the Harper regime. And that one time was in his last term when it was obvious that the Harper Conservatives would be defeated. Harper would be gone and there would be no repercussions to the lowly MP who had the nerve to speak, let alone introduce a private members bill without prior approval from the PMO.

O'Toole leaned his lesson from Scheer's disaster of an interview early on in his election campaign with French language media. Scheer subsequently became a laughing stock and it followed him throughout the campaign through to defeat. It was his 'conscription but not necessarily conscription' position (among others) that doomed his election chances.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I will vote for anyone who will promise affordable housing for Canadians.


Nice idea, but I see nothing to indicate that ANY of them give a damn, despite anything they might say. 

You have to realize that this housing bubble was created by the goverment, intentionally, to create a wealth effect and pad GDP numbers to make the economy look better than it is. Protecting that equity is job #1, while ensuring homeowners keep electing leaders who will continue these insane policies.

Any policy changes will be tailored for optics rather than substance, and will have close to zero effect on affordability. The Liberals are probably the worse offenders at pretending to care and doing basically nothing. It's almost a meme at this point. 



Douglas Todd: Ottawa falls flat while B.C. house prices take to the sky


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

We’ll work to tackle the housing crisis and build affordable housing across the country.








Making life more affordable for everyday people


Across the country, people are having a harder and harder time keeping up. They keep hearing about the economy doing well for the rich, but they’re not seeing the benefits for their families.




www.ndp.ca




We will undertake a review of escalating home prices in high-priced markets – like Vancouver and Toronto – to determine whether speculation is driving up the cost of housing.








Our Plan for Affordable Housing | Liberal Party of Canada


We will make it easier for Canadians to find an affordable place to call home. As part of our new, ten-year investment of nearly $20 billion in social infrastructure, we will prioritize significant new investment in affordable housing and seniorsfacilities. We will undertake a review of...




liberal.ca




Andrew Scheer’s four-point plan to build more homes and make it easier to buy a house


https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/22195149/9c591385d11dcbf.pdf


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> We’ll work to tackle the housing crisis and build affordable housing across the country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of those plans will fix the actual problem with a lack of housing.
Government affordable housing just turns into poverty traps.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

He may very well win another 4 years if you look at the other parties, slim pickings.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

NewbieInvestor88 said:


> From the last number of elections, it feels like Liberals don't win because they are more popular,


I think the Liberals strike the right balance as the centrists. Do you think any big corporate interests are going to support the NDP? Do you think many younger, more progressive urban adults are going to vote Conservative?

And I realize that Alberta and rural people think that they're a big deal in Canadian politics, but something like 81% of our population lives in urban areas. City dwellers also pay the most taxes, so the reality is that liberal-leaning cities fund the nation and its infrastructure. That includes Calgary and Edmonton by the way.

If we lived in 1940 and most of Canada's economy was still rural / agriculture, it would be a different story.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau and the Liberals should govern for all Canadians, but when Alberta and Saskatchewan don't have a single MP sitting in the government caucus......it makes them easy to ignore. Pierre Poilivere can give speeches that few listen to, or post videos on Youtube that only the faithful watch......but when there are discussions on where to spend the tens of billions of stimulus dollars........guess who isn't advocating for projects in their riding.

Not saying it is right......but human nature is that politicians think about their supporters desires a lot more than those who vote against them.

Expecting it to be any other way is in my opinion, rather naive and fool hardy.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think the Liberals strike the right balance as the centrists. Do you think any big corporate interests are going to support the NDP? Do you think many younger, more progressive urban adults are going to vote Conservative?
> 
> And I realize that Alberta and rural people think that they're a big deal in Canadian politics, but something like 81% of our population lives in urban areas. City dwellers also pay the most taxes, so the reality is that liberal-leaning cities fund the nation and its infrastructure. That includes Calgary and Edmonton by the way.
> 
> If we lived in 1940 and most of Canada's economy was still rural / agriculture, it would be a different story.


Do you think big corporate interests support the Liberals, other than they're the government and it's in their best interests to do so?
City dwellers get the most benefits from those taxes they pay, everything from better roads, cheaper transit, better hospitals and libraries, along with better education, and more highly paid government jobs. 

It's a natural wealth concentration effect, it's the rich get richer and more powerful. It's one of the most consistent forms of inequity, but the governments actively encourage it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Cities get better services because they are more efficient.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Cities get better services because they are more efficient.


Cities have more COVID spread because they are more efficient, and the rest of the country is bailing them out now.

There are measures we can take to equalize these imbalances, but powerful forces, in addition to the natural tendancies are working to stop them.

Look at remote learning, Ontario teacher unions were fighting like crazy to stop it, no matter the harm to students.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not convinced that remote learning is effective. I've seen it in action with young kids. It's completely unworkable. The kids gets bored and require constant adult supervision to remain engaged. Maybe for high school students.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I'm not convinced that remote learning is effective. I've seen it in action with young kids. It's completely unworkable. The kids gets bored and require constant adult supervision to remain engaged. Maybe for high school students.


Well that was actually the Ontario governments plan, they wanted to have I think 2 online classes a requirement to graduate high school, they went on strike to stop it.

I went to a small high school and had to take an extra year to get the prerequisites for my university program. Other options would have been a great benefit. The course options in big city schools are far better, and this would be a great step towards equal access to education at the high school level. 

Also I think online learning is an essential job skill these days, many companies are putting their mandatory onboarding training into online courses. It's an effective way to standardize onboarding, and ensure everyone gets the information they need. I think online learning is almost as important as basic computer literacy, and more important than typing.

Motivation is trickier, some teachers are good at it, and some are not, my 8yr old (grade 3) is reasonably engaged, and I consider that the borderline age for online learning, there are kids who clearly aren't able to handle it at that age.
I don't know what age you're observing, but it's clearly partially effective for at least the later half of elementary school.

I think in person is clearly better, the kids are feeling quite isolated, but online school is better than nothing.
I think the schools should be open, but with ICU and hospital at capacity, the optics of shutting schools is helpful.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think remote learning should be an option. I thought the controversy was making it mandatory.

I think teaching high school could be made much more effective using pre-recorded, highly effective and well-produced lectures (can be done at home) combined with knowledge/understanding checks, and use teachers/in-class time for hands-on feedback and guiding classroom discussions.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Motivation is trickier, some teachers are good at it, and some are not, my 8yr old (grade 3) is reasonably engaged, and I consider that the borderline age for online learning, there are kids who clearly aren't able to handle it at that age.


I have two nephews that are in kindergarten and Grade 2. The older one was fine, but painfully, painfully bored and the pace of the class was incredibly slow. Kindergarten absolutely requires someone to sit with the child. My parents have been the teaching assistants for them.

I think teachers interacting with students remotely doesn't work very well. But if a student is interacting with a video course (without all the incompetent teacher technical issues and troubleshooting that one kid in class that can't get their computer to work) I think that has more promise.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think remote learning should be an option. I thought the controversy was making it mandatory.
> 
> I think teaching high school could be made much more effective using pre-recorded, highly effective and well-produced lectures (can be done at home) combined with knowledge/understanding checks, and use teachers/in-class time for hands-on feedback and guiding classroom discussions.


I think having 2 mandatory online classes is a good idea.
Just like having a mandatory french and phys ed. 
I went to school with several kids who's parents though mandatory French was somehow inappropriate, and I knew 2 kids who got waivers (how I don't know) to not take French, which is a mandatory requirement in Ontario.


The thing is that they were intending to have the online classes facilitated at school anyway. so you'd go into the school, into a classroom with the computers and even have a supervisor in the classroom. But the unions opposed it as a slippery slope.

I think today, computer literacy is an essential skill.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I have two nephews that are in kindergarten and Grade 2. The older one was fine, but painfully, painfully bored and the pace of the class was incredibly slow. Kindergarten absolutely requires someone to sit with the child. My parents have been the teaching assistants for them.
> 
> I think teachers interacting with students remotely doesn't work very well. But if a student is interacting with a video course (without all the incompetent teacher technical issues and troubleshooting that one kid in class that can't get their computer to work) I think that has more promise.


yeah, it's harder for teachers to redirect smart kids remotely. I think Grade 2 is pushing it for online learning.
I know people with kindergarten and grade 1 kids, they simply gave up on it.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

sags said:


> Nothing wrong with the CPC that getting rid of the Reformers won't fix.
> 
> Small wonder Rona Ambrose looked around and said....no thanks.


Yes back to that great PC administration led by Mulruney. Getting rid of reformers means getting rid of 60% of the voters in AB and SK . Everyone talks the importance of inclusiveness until you suggest excluding millions of Canadians. Liberals believe in freedom with one qualification " you have to accept my point of view" .


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> And Baird, and Pollivere


You have to be joking. If it wasn't for Pollivere and his consistent ability to expose Trudeau for the incompetent he is no one in Canada would be able to name one person from the CPC. The Ottawa riding he has won consistently tells me the voters don't agree with your point of view.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

With two kids in high school, almost everything can be made “not mandatory”. Make a request, raise a little stink…you’ll get your way. Teachers and administrators don’t care…..they only want to teach those who want to learn.

my kids go to a Catholic school (I won’t get into why) and have substituted 2 religion classes for “student support” classes where they tutor younger students….but they still earn the religion credit. I’ve heard many kids “opting” out of grade 9 French or the mandatory Arts class Or PE.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

From my experience with religion classes at a Catholic HS, it is actually not all that bad. Even as an atheist, I was not offended by having to study/analyze the bible. Grade 12 had philosophy as the religion credit, which I thought was better. I was more offended when I had a teacher raise religious questions (ethics of cloning) in my science class. I think it can serve people well to understand religious texts even if they are not religious.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

zinfit said:


> You have to be joking. If it wasn't for Pollivere and his consistent ability to expose Trudeau for the incompetent he is no one in Canada would be able to name one person from the CPC. The Ottawa riding he has won consistently tells me the voters don't agree with your point of view.


My point of view that capable people such as Pollivere and Baird (the two I listed off the top of my head) turned down the leadership?
Are you suggesting that Pollivere isn't capable? 

Sorry, Pollivere got 46% of the vote in his riding, I think people agree he's competent.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> My point of view that capable people such as Pollivere and Baird (the two I listed off the top of my head) turned down the leadership?
> Are you suggesting that Pollivere isn't capable?
> 
> Sorry, Pollivere got 46% of the vote in his riding, I think people agree he's competent.


I thought you were saying Pollivere should be tossed by the CPC. I guess we misconstrued one another. Pierre is one of the few strengths for the CPC. I wish Baird was around as well..


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

zinfit said:


> I thought you were saying Pollivere should be tossed by the CPC. I guess we misconstrued one another. Pierre is one of the few strengths for the CPC. I wish Baird was around as well..


Naw, I was disappointed that he dropped out of the leadership race.

I really wish Baird ran, he was very well regarded within parliment, I think he would have been a good PM.
Also Baird was supporting Pollivere.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

zinfit said:


> I thought you were saying Pollivere should be tossed by the CPC. I guess we misconstrued one another. Pierre is one of the few strengths for the CPC. I wish Baird was around as well..


PP appeals to the base. He won't win over non-Conservatives. He has very high negatives.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

andrewf said:


> PP appeals to the base. He won't win over non-Conservatives. He has very high negatives.


Like what? I just think the Liberals can't stand him, because more often than not he is right in his critiques. He keeps the liberals accountable, he understands the portfolios better than anyone, he digs into the scandals and brings them to the light of day, he is quick on his feet and he is professional doing it. Tell me anyone in power who can go toe to toe in a debate with him? I'm not in the base, nor a conservative or Liberal. But that guy's performance appeals to me.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

andrewf said:


> PP appeals to the base. He won't win over non-Conservatives. He has very high negatives.


Not in Ottawa were he consistently wins elections. The Liberal have throne everything but the kitchen sink in trying to defeat him. Pierre's French is probably as good as any MP outside of Quebec.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> Naw, I was disappointed that he dropped out of the leadership race.
> 
> I really wish Baird ran, he was very well regarded within parliment, I think he would have been a good PM.
> Also Baird was supporting Pollivere.


Yes Baird would have been miles ahead of O'Tool and we would have put to arrest all the Liberal ongoing attacks based on culture issues like same sex marriage. It didn't happen and that is regrettable..


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

afulldeck said:


> Like what? I just think the Liberals can't stand him, because more often than not he is right in his critiques. He keeps the liberals accountable, he understands the portfolios better than anyone, he digs into the scandals and brings them to the light of day, he is quick on his feet and he is professional doing it. Tell me anyone in power who can go toe to toe in a debate with him? I'm not in the base, nor a conservative or Liberal. But that guy's performance appeals to me.


You're part of the base, of course you can't see it. I'm just telling you that the base loves him, everyone else not so much.









‘Skippy’ aka MP Pierre Poilievre has sunk to new low


Over the course of his short, less than stellar political career, Nepean-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre has said a number of silly and really foolish things.




ottawasun.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

zinfit said:


> Not in Ottawa were he consistently wins elections. The Liberal have throne everything but the kitchen sink in trying to defeat him. Pierre's French is probably as good as any MP outside of Quebec.


That's nice. It takes more than winning in your riding to be PM.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

andrewf said:


> You're part of the base, of course you can't see it.


No even close. I have officially declined the ballot for the last 20 years. I do not align myself with any current political party.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

andrewf said:


> You're part of the base, of course you can't see it. I'm just telling you that the base loves him, everyone else not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A dated article and his defence of Nigel Wright is correct. I recall the RCMP investigation said they couldn't recall a situation were an individual used his owe money to repay the government for the wrong doing of another. Its sort like Christs passion as a away of correcting the sins of others. Never figured out why one of Bay Streets most respected person took leave for no salary to be Harper's chief of staff. Anyways he is now the CEO of Onex Corporation one of Canada's largest corporations] and by all reports doing very well. He would have made an outstanding leader for the CPC. Funny after all the dust had settled Duffy was acquitted on all charges. The protector of the Liberal Party and Trudeau mainly the government supported media does an excellent job of diminishing far more serious Liberal scandals[ blackface, SNC and WE] and exaggerating CPC minor missteps.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You're part of the base, of course you can't see it. I'm just telling you that the base loves him, everyone else not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Over the course of his less than stellar, but highly political career, PM Trudeau has said a number of silly and really foolish things.

You're part of the base, of course you can't see it. I'm just telling you that the base loves him, everyone else, not so much.


----------



## zinfit (Mar 21, 2021)

Something that would terrify Liberals would be a full televised debate between Pierre and Justin. The non-base voter would see clearly who has a handle on things.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

zinfit said:


> Something that would terrify Liberals would be a full televised debate between Pierre and Justin. The non-base voter would see clearly who has a handle on things.


No, it wouldn't, the true believers see Trudeaus non responses as eloquent lectures explaining to the unenlightened
Not the pathetic avoidance that you see.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Over the course of his less than stellar, but highly political career, PM Trudeau has said a number of silly and really foolish things.
> 
> You're part of the base, of course you can't see it. I'm just telling you that the base loves him, everyone else, not so much.


I'm not a Trudeau fan, per se. I was strongly opposed to Harper, and his cast of goons from his time in government (PP and Kenney foremost).

In general, I would be willing to vote for a conservative party that wasn't slavishly in service of Alberta oil interests. We haven't had that option in decades. Beyond that, their deep commitment to dumb policies like mandatory minimums, anti-science/anti-data agenda, etc. are hard to swallow. Harper tried to eliminate the census. What country can run itself properly without a census?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

zinfit said:


> Something that would terrify Liberals would be a full televised debate between Pierre and Justin. The non-base voter would see clearly who has a handle on things.


Is PP that much better than Scheer? I think people underestimate Trudeau's ability to hold his own. Setting such low expectations for him that even he could surpass them has not been a winning strategy in the past.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Is PP that much better than Scheer? I think people underestimate Trudeau's ability to hold his own. Setting such low expectations for him that even he could surpass them has not been a winning strategy in the past.


What the Conservatives repeatedly fail to understand is that Trudeau is one of the most capable political operators in recent memory.

I think he's a horrible PM, and a horrible person, with poor ethics, who actually hates my country and wants to destroy it.
I think my opinion of him, in general, is lower than most CPC voters.

That being said, they repeatedly fail to realize he has fans, and due to his phenomenal political skills, has managed to survive multiple career ending scandals. He had an open revolt with cabinet ministers basically accusing him of criminal interference, and he left them in the dust.
He openly admits to accepting bribes, his supporters don't care.
His continued mismanagement of COVID19 has resulted in the deaths of many Canadians, it's just a passing yawn from his supporters.

CPC have to get over all that and realize that to Liberals those flaws aren't bad enough, if they accept that those issues even exist.

You're not going to beat Trudeau by pointing out how bad he is, or how evil his ideas are. You have to provide something better.

Pollivere is entertaining, articulate, well spoken, and rightfully critical of Trudeau. 
From the Conservative viewpoint he'd destroy Trudeau for showing him to be the pathetic, immoral leader he is.
From the Liberals, Pollivere would just be a noisy little whiner who doesn't understand the great leader he is criticising.

CPC need to realize they're not going to win by trying to tear down Trudeau.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> CPC have to get over all that and realize that to Liberals those flaws aren't bad enough, if they accept that those issues even exist.


What would Liberals accept that is bad enough? Seems to me, he is leading sheep....


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> What would Liberals accept that is bad enough? Seems to me, he is leading sheep....


You can name call all you want, you need the votes to win.

If the CPC wants to win, they need to present a vision that is compelling to swing voters. "Not as bad as Trudeau" won't work on them.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

Pierre polivere stances on gun control, legalization of marijuana, transit, and crime are enough to dissuade most of us in Toronto.

I think he’d win the debates because he’s quick witted but lose the election. Doesn’t have a lot of real world experience outside of politics either.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You can name call all you want, you need the votes to win.
> 
> If the CPC wants to win, they need to present a vision that is compelling to swing voters. "Not as bad as Trudeau" won't work on them.


What name calling? What is it that would drive liberals away from this pm?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After losing the next election, I think the CPC will split again and the Reformers will head off into obscurity. It will take years to rebuild the Tory brand.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> What name calling? What is it that would drive liberals away from this pm?


You called them sheep.

What would drive them away?
Nothing, really nothing.
Trudeau admits to bribes, assaulting women, he's openly racist and sexist, even he has no idea how many times he did blackface. I don't think there is anything he could reasonably do that would drive people away.

What they need to do is provide a compelling alternative vision. Trudeau bad isn't good enough.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A Conservative vision would be alternative but hardly compelling.

Canadians simply don't support much of anything in the Conservative ideological agenda.

What policies do the Conservatives have that Canadians would support ?


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> You called them sheep.
> 
> What would drive them away?
> Nothing, really nothing.
> ...


No different than the conservatives & NDP the Liberals do not have a compelling visions. Trudeau hates Canada, hates the people and the people keep coming back that does make them sheep. The population has no backbone. They need to stand up and officially decline to vote---- make no party a winner. Force them to change their ways. Force them to have vision to grow the country.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> You can name call all you want, you need the votes to win.
> 
> If the CPC wants to win, they need to present a vision that is compelling to swing voters. "Not as bad as Trudeau" won't work on them.


Yep. PP the sniveling weasel isn't your saviour. Baird, maybe. Honestly, I think O'Toole is sellable in Ontario. Pity he is pandering to the base rather than broadening the party's appeal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

afulldeck said:


> No different than the conservatives & NDP the Liberals do not have a compelling visions. Trudeau hates Canada, hates the people and the people keep coming back that does make them sheep. The population has no backbone. They need to stand up and officially decline to vote---- make no party a winner. Force them to change their ways. Force them to have vision to grow the country.


Meanwhile, in reality....


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> No different than the conservatives & NDP the Liberals do not have a compelling visions. Trudeau hates Canada, hates the people and the people keep coming back that does make them sheep. The population has no backbone. They need to stand up and officially decline to vote---- make no party a winner. Force them to change their ways. Force them to have vision to grow the country.


Trudeau offers a very compelling vision to enough people to get elected.

In my opinion it is a deeply flawed vision. But people like it and are voting for it.

Sheesh, I'm one of the strongest Anti Trudeau people here, and its obvious that his ideas really connect with some people. You can come up with all sorts of reasons but to deny reality is a problem.

Lets look at $10/day daycare, it's hugely problematic for a number of reasons. But for parents struggling to pay $50/day daycare it's a godsend.
Who cares that there still won't be spaces, they won't be open when you need them to, and they'll have all the problems of the Quebec program they want to copy. They just see a massive savings of $1k/month or $10k/yr, and love it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Gee.......who would have thought a political leader who addresses the people's needs would be so popular ?

Better to take the Conservative approach and tell people what they should want. Nothing like a good old Conservative led nanny state to solve problems.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

People I know vote liberal to block the cons. It's dumb but whatever keeps the harpers at bay.
The conservative agenda, if there's one, wants to bring us back to the 1800s


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> What policies do the Conservatives have that Canadians would support ?


Immigration reform.
Anti racism and anti sexism agenda.
Crime reduction
Anti poverty
Respect for Human rights
Accountability.
Addressing First Nations issues

The shocking thing is that you think anyone is against these issues.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> Immigration reform.
> Anti racism and anti sexism agenda.
> Crime reduction
> Anti poverty
> ...


Those are all liberal-type agendas, except perhaps #1.

The real cons agenda is slash programs, such as education, health care and public services in profit of multi-nationals.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

fstamand said:


> Those are all liberal-type agendas, except perhaps #1.
> 
> The real cons agenda is slash programs, such as education, health care and public services in profit of multi-nationals.


Guess someone needs to make a complete pros/cons list for each party for a true comparison.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Guess someone needs to make a complete pros/cons list for each party for a true comparison.


Liberals - encourages Racist & Sexist behaviour
CPC - against racism and sexism.
Liberals - Overload immigration support systems, fail to screen refugees, set them up for failure.
CPC- streamline immigration, reduce multiyear backlog, maintain current levels, ensure adequate resources for new immigrants.
Liberals - Create government poverty traps. Reduce entry level jobs by hiking wages
CPC- Minimize poverty traps from policy.
Liberals - Restrict and censor speech. Criminalize viewpoints
CPC- Allow free speech.
Liberals - Ignore ethics investigations
CPC- created the ethics investigator
Liberals - Don't know.
CPC- Acknowledge their rights. Insist on accounting for the use of government funds.
Liberals - Ban guns that aren't actually used in crime, fail to appoint judges, and don't jail people who commit crimes
CPC- Allow trained and licensed individuals to own guns in compliance with Provincial restrictions. Put violent criminals in jail.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Darn, knew I should have included the word "unbiased".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That list is a bunch of Conservative stretch goals and aspirations.

They will need specific policies to address the list. Where are those specific policies posted for public consideration ?

When asked what they would do differently, the Conservative leaders say......_we aren't the government so it isn't our job to provide that_.

Yea.........but that is kind of the point, since they are hopeful to take over "the job".

I think the Conservative politicians are quite comfortable in the Opposition, where they enjoy all the benefits without burdened with any responsibility.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Darn, knew I should have included the word "unbiased".


I've never heard of anyone doing an "unbiased" list.
The problem is that from a particular viewpoint the policy they are proposing can be seen in different ways.
For example, the Trudeau government is actively practicing and promoting discrimination. That is a fact.
They call it "increasing diversity", and a bunch of other words to basically justify why they're engaged in a blatant human rights violation.
To even describe the actual policy will likely have a political bias. 
I very clearly see 2 ways to describe the policy, and they're both political interpretations.


Actually I see more than 2, but the point is, that to describe it, particularly to do so succinctly means you're going to describe from a political lens. Given that I think the policy is disgusting, I describe it as such. White supremacists however would likely promote the positive aspects of their policy (as they do).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

fstamand said:


> Those are all liberal-type agendas, except perhaps #1.
> 
> The real cons agenda is slash programs, such as education, health care and public services in profit of multi-nationals.


Cut taxes, all show and no substance law and order measures, and protect O&G industry from environmental regulations. Also, general dismantling and weakening of government institutions--remember when Statscan was the object of Conservative ire under Harper, to the point that the chief statistician resigned in protest.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

andrewf said:


> Cut taxes, all show and no substance law and order measures, and protect O&G industry from environmental regulations. Also, general dismantling and weakening of government institutions--remember when Statscan was the object of Conservative ire under Harper, to the point that the chief statistician resigned in protest.


Exactly. I find our resident CPC fanboi has lost touch with reality.
Case in point, when has a conservative agenda ever have "Anti racism and anti sexism" programs at the top of their goals?
"Addressing First Nations issues" ? wow. Harper was a champion at that wasn't he.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Liberals - encourages Racist & Sexist behaviour
> CPC - against racism and sexism.
> Liberals - Overload immigration support systems, fail to screen refugees, set them up for failure.
> CPC- streamline immigration, reduce multiyear backlog, maintain current levels, ensure adequate resources for new immigrants.
> ...


Matt, this is what you call spin.

CPC--attack women's right to choose. Hostility to child care and implementing policies to increase barriers to work for women with children
CPC--lower immigration quotas. Foment suspicion with barbaric practices snitch lines. Send refugees back to be persecuted
CPC--reduce anti-poverty transfers
CPC--Muzzle scientists and forbid them from uttering the phrase 'climate change'
CPC--Complain about ethics, but break any number of election promises and bribe dying MPs for their votes.
CPC--disrespecting judges and forcing them to apply mandatory minimums without context. Turn petty criminals into seasoned pros by putting them in prison for extended stays. Jailing people for drug offenses. Complete ambivalence about harm reduction for drug addiction. Filthy addicts deserve their fate.

I mean, this is a very unnuanced way to look at things. It may seem black and white to you, but to someone else it could easily be inverted.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Cut taxes, all show and no substance law and order measures, and protect O&G industry from environmental regulations. Also, general dismantling and weakening of government institutions--remember when Statscan was the object of Conservative ire under Harper, to the point that the chief statistician resigned in protest.


As oppsed to hike taxes, all show and no substance law and order measures.
Also a general weakening of government credibility under the Liberals.

Remember when Trudeau blatantly lied and misled Canadians?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Matt, this is what you call spin.
> 
> CPC--attack women's right to choose


This isn't on the policy agenda.
Most Canadians want something done about sex selective abortions.
it's disgusting, but if you'd rather kill your daughter then let her get born, I'm glad you're not a parent.



> CPC--lower immigration quotas.


That's not the proposed policy.



> Foment suspicion with barbaric practices snitch lines.


Trying to stop the sexual mutilation of minors is a bad thing?


> Send refugees back to be persecuted


Nobody is proposing that, we should simply screen to ensure people claiming to be refugees are actually refugees.



> CPC--Complain about ethics, but break any number of election promises and bribe dying MPs for their votes.


That's not in their platform this round


> CPC--disrespecting judges and forcing them to apply mandatory minimums without context.


when you commit a serious crime, you should go to jail.
Judges are out of control and failing to protect Canadians.
I think simply getting rid of concurrent sentencing would be a huge step forward.



> I mean, this is a very unnuanced way to look at things. It may seem black and white to you, but to someone else it could easily be inverted.


Well, that's what happens when you oversimplify things, or blantantly misrepresent them.
No I see the very detailed and multiple shades of grey, but to give a summary I stick to the key points and major differentiators.

For example on immigration, Conservatives are happy with our traditional immigration increasing at a nominal rate. We just want to screen them so we don't let in too many criminals.
Nobody wants to deport legitimate law abiding refugees who aren't a risk to Canadians.
However if you come here and hurt people, I'd ask that you leave.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> For example on immigration, Conservatives are happy with our traditional immigration increasing at a nominal rate. We just want to screen them so we don't let in too many criminals.
> Nobody wants to deport legitimate law abiding refugees who aren't a risk to Canadians.
> However if you come here and hurt people, I'd ask that you leave.


And the Liberals are proposing otherwise? I must have missed their platform proposal to admit more criminal immigrants. As you say, it's not in their platform this round.

I don't know how you can with a straight face say we should take the Conservative platform at face value. Historically, they have not been bothering to even release a platform before many people cast their ballots. And they are filled with lovely platitudes about environmental protection and fighting climate change. Actions speak louder than words, and every action the CPC takes makes it clear they want to minimize impediments to increasing oil production. I honestly think this is basically priority 1 for the party in policy terms. Any sops to reducing emissions are just running cover and doing just enough to fool people into thinking they care about this file. We're still waiting for Harper's industry-specific command and control emissions reduction plan.

O'Toole's PetroPoints proposal is obviously designed to have no impact but be dressed up as something that seems like it would reduce emissions.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> And the Liberals are proposing otherwise? I must have missed their platform proposal to admit more criminal immigrants. As you say, it's not in their platform this round.


no, but they said they'd screen the refugees, and didn't.



> the CPC takes makes it clear they want to minimize impediments to increasing oil production. I honestly think this is basically priority 1 for the party in policy terms.


It should be, pump the oil out and sell it before it loses it's market value


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> no, but they said they'd screen the refugees, and didn't.


This is the official webpage about how to be a refugee:




__





Claim refugee status from inside Canada: Who can apply - Canada.ca


Claim refugee status from inside Canada: Who can apply




www.canada.ca





It clearly says that you have to be approved by a board. 

And if you're referring to Syrian refugees, this page says all of them were screened:




__





Phase 2 – Processing Syrian refugees overseas - Canada.ca


We process refugees for resettlement all the time. The challenging part of this project was the huge number of refugees we had to process and the short time we had to do it.




www.canada.ca


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

andrewf said:


> O'Toole's PetroPoints proposal is obviously designed to have no impact but be dressed up as something that seems like it would reduce emissions.


It would just encourage ppl to gas more.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Spudd said:


> And if you're referring to Syrian refugees, this page says all of them were screened:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They lied
The government reassured Canadians the screening was thorough but the CBSA audit found that was not always the case, with “a small number of files with *incomplete mandatory security screening* system checks.”









Internal government audit finds ‘gaps’ in security screening of Syrian refugees - National | Globalnews.ca


Gaps in the security screening of Syrian refugees led to dozens being admitted to Canada without proper vetting, according to a government report obtained by Global News.




globalnews.ca


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

New syrians


andrewf said:


> And the Liberals are proposing otherwise? I must have missed their platform proposal to admit more criminal immigrants. As you say, it's not in their platform this round.


Increased immigration lowers the crime rate. And the move to accept Syrian refugees when a lot of countries were not was a Classy move.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The heartbreaking photo of that little boy lifeless on the beach and the callous response from the Harper government was part of the rising tide of public resentment towards them. It was that wave of angry resolve that led to the election of Justin Trudeau.

Harper forgot that it is OUR government and Canadians were deeply offended by OUR failure to respond.

Fortunately, the mistakes that Trudeau may have committed have been while trying to do the "right" thing on behalf of Canadians.

Trying to save jobs at SNC Lavalin or provide financial aid to students through the WE charity..........are put into context and not held against him by the public.

Mistakes in judgement are forgiven when committed for the public good.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trying to save jobs at SNC Lavalin or provide financial aid to students through the WE charity..........are put into context and not held against him by the public.
> 
> Mistakes in judgement are forgiven when committed for the public good.


Not a single job would have been lost by SNC Lavelin, that was a BS excuse to interfere with a criminal trial.

The WE scandal was a purposeful disaster. 
The government has a whole summer jobs program staff that could have done it.
Also the YMCA runs one of the largest youth jobs programs in the country. They already have over 1700 locations, staffed up and ready to go, with plans policies and procedures.
WE was completely ill suited and inexperienced with this type of initiative.

These weren't "mistakes in judgement", the SNC was a purposeful criminal act, WE was just dumb, there is no reason why WE should have even been considered.


----------

