• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

Yet they at least still play by the rules. (Mostly).

Strange that anti Québec types are more than happy to cheer on Alberta’s sovereignty aspirations or Scott Moe’s open declaration that he will break the law.

Weird.

Whose law? Was the law agreed or imposed?
 
The problem with the confederation is the federation.

Comparison chart​

Confederation versus Federation comparison chart

Edit this comparison chartConfederationFederation
SovereigntyHeld by the member states. In a Confederation, the federal government is accountable to the member states, who are the ultimate authority.Held by the federal government. In a Federation, the federal government will hold the ultimate authority and the member states will be subordinate to it.
Central AuthorityThe central authority of a confederation is usually a weak body appointed by the member states.The central authority of a federation is a federal government which governs the member states.
Powers of the Central AuthorityUsually will focus on joint foreign policy and defense matters, but rarely will have the power to do much more than that.Determined by the constitution of the federation, but will generally have rights to exercise control over the diplomatic, military, economic, and legal spheres of the member states.
Examples (According to Wikipedia)Toltec Empire, League of Mayapan, Crown of Aragon, Confederation of Madya-as, Old Swiss Confederacy, New England Confederation, Aro Confederacy, United States of America (1781-1789), Confederation of the Rhine and many moreCanada, United States of America, Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Russia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Malaysia, Australia, Sudan, and many more


There was a choice available, in 1864, between a centrally controlled, unitary federation and a confederation of independent governments voluntarily co-operating for mutual benefit. It was a fight then and it still is a fight.

Not everybody agrees where Canada and the Provinces sit on the sliding scale. The fight is currently being played out in Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. BC also goes its own way from time to time. The further east you go the more dependent the governments are on the central government.
Basically, Canada would work if it turned into an actual confederation.

Regal powers only for the federal governement, so they can finally focus on defense, foreign affairs, and monetary policy.

No Supreme Court, federal and interprovincial matters handled by the Federal Court and its appellate chamber a/r.

Institute an effective Federal Council consisting of Premiers, have Senators and provincial judges named by Premiers.

Prohibit Feds from touching health, social, and education. Let provinces fully manage immigration, justice, transportation (with caveat that provinces must allow transit of goods and services throughout), telecomms. Residual competence goes to provinces.
 
Doesn’t matter.

Still goes to my point.

What was that expression I was looking for? Something about "consent of the governed". And the difference between a leader and a commander.
 
If PP gets in, he HAS to kill the carbon tax. He is running on it. If he didn't, it would be the first big strike against his integrity. And Conservatives for some reason get no forgiveness (unlike the Liberals)
I have zero forgiveness for the broken promises of either party. I am still incredibly pissed about the lack of Electoral Reform, the lack of coherent foreign policy, the abysmal state of our Defence Policy, and the seemingly apathetic stance both have taken on economic growth.
 
I have zero forgiveness for the broken promises of either party. I am still incredibly pissed about the lack of Electoral Reform, the lack of coherent foreign policy, the abysmal state of our Defence Policy, and the seemingly apathetic stance both have taken on economic growth.
All of which will continue regardless of who is in power.
 
Yet they at least still play by the rules. (Mostly).

Strange that anti Québec types are more than happy to cheer on Alberta’s sovereignty aspirations or Scott Moe’s open declaration that he will break the law.

Weird.

I don't know where you live, but where I live most people root for Quebec sovereignty. If the referendum had asked the whole country perhaps the the result might be different.
 
I don't know where you live, but where I live most people root for Quebec sovereignty. If the referendum had asked the whole country perhaps the the result might be different.
That would be hilarious.

Imagine if Canada voted for Quebec's sovereignty before Quebec did.
 
Sorta like, "you're right, Son, we should respect you as an adult. That's why you're moving out..."
 
That would be hilarious.

Imagine if Canada voted for Quebec's sovereignty before Quebec did.

To be frank, I think everyone's lives would be easier. There would still be trade and tourism in both directions. Probably remain close allies. The RoC could re-think a lot things, wouldn't necessarily require bilingualism, re-evaluate equalization... Quebec could do whatever it wants as a nation. I see it as win/win. The Maritimes might feel orphaned... but c'est la vie.
 
All of which will continue regardless of who is in power.

You have no idea what PP will or won't do.

I am prepared to be highly disappointed, because that's what Canadian politicians are; disappointing, but I'm not going to write him off until he gets his trip to the plate and proves it.
 
You have no idea what PP will or won't do.
No one does. That’s the point. But defense spending, weak foreign policy etc etc are likely to remain what they are now.
I am prepared to be highly disappointed, because that's what Canadian politicians are; disappointing, but I'm not going to write him off until he gets his trip to the plate and proves it.
No one says you have to write him off. My own opinion is that we have crappy choices all around and I expect crappy results because of it.
 
You have no idea what PP will or won't do.

I am prepared to be highly disappointed, because that's what Canadian politicians are; disappointing, but I'm not going to write him off until he gets his trip to the plate and proves it.
Its like assessing a leadership candidate, hold no prejudices and give them every chance to succeed or fail.

I supported the Harper CPC in 2006 and after that I refused to do so for a few reasons that pertain more to me and my own views.

I like that many are giving Pierre a chance and I really hope he succeeds.
 
Its like assessing a leadership candidate, hold no prejudices and give them every chance to succeed or fail.

I supported the Harper CPC in 2006 and after that I refused to do so for a few reasons that pertain more to me and my own views.

I like that many are giving Pierre a chance and I really hope he succeeds.

I agree with your premise, generally. However, in 2015 JT deserved no such courtesy. Many of his policies were set to make a mess of things. He campaigned well and the public was fooled into thinking Harper was a demon with a hidden agenda. Economics are going to make or break a country, how are we doing economically as result of JTs efforts? And that was easily predicable.
 
I agree with your premise, generally. However, in 2015 JT deserved no such courtesy. Many of his policies were set to make a mess of things. He campaigned well and the public was fooled into thinking Harper was a demon with a hidden agenda. Economics are going to make or break a country, how are we doing economically as result of JTs efforts? And that was easily predicable.
F35s, something about a niqab, muzzled scientists.

Those are the three issues I remember from 2015. The only one that really landed for me was that last one.

Kinda pales in comparison to the trainwreck of what will have been the intervening ten years by the time of the next election.
 
Harper was too knowledgeable, confident, and introverted. The first meant he didn't need to have long meetings with endless lists of "stakeholders", each demanding time for their "Well, I feel that...". The second is often misinterpreted as arrogance. The third doesn't suit people who prefer style over substance and virtue signals over practical policy.
 
Back
Top