The Next Canadian Government

[brihard]

I’m 100% a ‘homeless’ Tory.
I’m not certain I will vote for PP or maybe I accept my ballot and then return it back unmarked to the Elections Canada Official as I have done in the past.
PP is not a Mulroney or a Clark or a Charest or a Mackay in my books but he’s a Manning or a Day for certain to me - and I didn’t like them in the past and I still don’t like them now.

“Uniting the right” was a bit like two tectonic plates coming together. Contiguous to outside appearance, and it forms one body, but there’s still a fault line below the surface and sometimes it rumbles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The leaders don't actually matter as much as people seem to think. It's too bad there's no reliable estimator to put a dollar amount on the costs of the policy differences between Liberal and Conservative "administrations".

 

[IKnowNothing]

“Uniting the right” was a bit like two tectonic plates coming together. Contiguous to outside appearance, and it forms one body, but there’s still a fault line below the surface and sometimes it rumbles.

So, I had a bit of an epiphany last night. Some of the thoughts might be a little staledated, but it stemmed from putting the ratios together for Rick.

In 2022, 45/119 MP's wanted O'Toole to stay. ~47 wanted one of Brown/Aitchison/Charest OR not Poilievre/Baber/Lewis.
Going back to 2020, Mackay took 30% of the 1st ballot member vote, and had the backing of 47 MP's, more than O'Toole and Lewis combined.

That's a significant proportion of caucus.

For years the "Lewis" wing of the party has been throwing it's weight around, disproportionately.


We've had a lot of commiseration going around the last couple pages of this thread about our "orphaned" status. Maybe instead of crying in our soup we need to pull up our socks and start throwing our weight around. Maybe the "PC" Centre/Centre RIght needs to stop being free agent undecided voters, pick a home and fight to anchor it.
@Edward Campbell 's rumours are exciting to me- it shows that maybe that will start to happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Excellent. Let's split the column right before the battle. You take the west bank. We'll take the east.

Write if you get work.

 

[ArmyRick]

So, I had a bit of an epiphany last night. Some of the thoughts might be a little staledated, but it stemmed from putting the ratios together for Rick.

In 2022, 45/119 MP's wanted O'Toole to stay. ~47 wanted one of Brown/Aitchison/Charest OR not Poilievre/Baber/Lewis.
Going back to 2020, Mackay took 30% of the 1st ballot member vote, and had the backing of 47 MP's, more than O'Toole and Lewis combined.

That's a significant proportion of caucus.

For years the "Lewis" wing of the party has been throwing it's weight around, disproportionately.


We've had a lot of commiseration going around the last couple pages of this thread about our "orphaned" status. Maybe instead of crying in our soup we need to pull up our socks and start throwing our weight around. Maybe the "PC" Centre/Centre RIght needs to stop being free agent undecided voters, pick a home and fight to anchor it.
@Edward Campbell 's rumours are exciting to me- it shows that maybe that will start to happen.

I will throw my 2 cents in (or you can ignore it) "calmly". Please tag me when you want me to see a post.

Yes. There is most likely a few or a bunch of MPs that are not 100% behind Pierre vision or path forward. Will you see it now? Fuck no. The CPC is on a WAR PATH and they are crushing the LPC badly. They will stand united (I say this as I see it) until they win an election. They are way too smart and know that a crack in the wall now would absolutely be exploited by the LPC and NDP desperate campaign planners.

Once the CPC wins, I think (in other words an opinion not fact), you will see some MPs or groups of MPs push for regional or specific agendas. There will be those fighting for the west, maritimes, oil and gas, resources, agriculture, etc. It will be a real test of Pierre's leadership to harmonize the needs of all and hold the party together. I also predict that Pierre and his leadership cadre will most likely crush any talk of abortion legislation.

 

[FSTO]

Manning

He forced Chrétien to bring in the clarity act to make sure any vote for sovereignty was a clear choice.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I will throw my 2 cents in (or you can ignore it) "calmly". Please tag me when you want me to see a post.

Yes. There is most likely a few or a bunch of MPs that are not 100% behind Pierre vision or path forward. Will you see it now? Fuck no. The CPC is on a WAR PATH and they are crushing the LPC badly. They will stand united (I say this as I see it) until they win an election. They are way too smart and know that a crack in the wall now would absolutely be exploited by the LPC and NDP desperate campaign planners.

Once the CPC wins, I think (in other words an opinion not fact), you will see some MPs or groups of MPs push for regional or specific agendas. There will be those fighting for the west, maritimes, oil and gas, resources, agriculture, etc. It will be a real test of Pierre's leadership to harmonize the needs of all and hold the party together. I also predict that Pierre and his leadership cadre will most likely crush any talk of abortion legislation.

The bold is essentially what we've been discussing happening (to varying degrees), for the last 26 hours.

 

[Kirkhill]

The bold is essentially what we've been discussing happening (to varying degrees), for the last 26 hours.

Timing is everything. Some conversations might best be had after the goal line has been crossed.

 

[QV]

Imagine being upset your team is on track for a historic landslide win (apparently doing what is necessary to garner that kind of public support).

The cynic in me thinks only CAF people can find intolerable fault in winning. Just go back and look at the criticism of PP on this thread... "right wing, punchable, skippy..." no substance, just garbage and declarations of "holding my nose".

 

[ArmyRick]

The bold is essentially what we've been discussing happening (to varying degrees), for the last 26 hours.

Except it is been forwarded as "rumours"...There is a huge difference between spreading unconfirmed info or even downright BS and speculating/guessing

 

[ArmyRick]

Timing is everything. Some conversations might best be had after the goal line has been crossed.

Yes. Exactly. The only way to judge Pierre's performance as a prime minister is to let him be one first.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of reigniting a pro-anti Poilievre sh!t-storm, here is an opinion piece by Andrew Willis from yesterday's Globe and Mail:

----------​

To go from attack dog to pack leader, Pierre Poilievre must learn from CEOs​

ANDREW WILLIS
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO

When Pierre Poilievre banged on doors this summer during a Toronto by-election, the Conservative Leader was told to move on from slagging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and start talking about how he planned to do a better job of running the country.

Mr. Poilievre appears to have internalized part of the message.

Last week, he moved to slagging Mirko Bibic, chief executive officer of Bell parent BCE Inc. BCE-T, with all the vitriol previously reserved for the Liberal Leader. If personally taunting the CEO of the country’s largest telecom platform over a sloppy audio edit at Bell-owned CTV News is an indication of how Mr. Poilievre plans to work with corporate leaders, buckle up ahead of a rough economic ride.

In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.

Can Mr. Poilievre learn to act like a prime minister rather than a pitbull? If he’s willing to listen, corporate leaders feel obligated to offer their best advice on how to successfully navigate the transition.

There’s a widespread feeling among CEOs that the Trudeau Liberals are out of ideas. The chasm between Bay Street and this government can’t be bridged.

This fall, Mr. Poilievre plans to start meeting with CEOs in what will often be his first face-to-face encounters with the people who run Canadian companies. The Conservative Leader is lining up sessions with the folks who build and finance homes, sell groceries, operate cellphone and internet networks and run railways and airlines.

Mr. Poilievre’s long-overdue outreach program is commendable. It’s a sign he’s realized he has the next election in the bag, and recognized the job of being prime minister starts the day after the vote.

In the past, Mr. Poilievre viewed business through the lens of politics, as practised in the fishbowl that is Parliament Hill.

In finance circles, the one banker the Conservative Leader has reached out to is Montreal-based National Bank CEO Laurent Ferreira, part of a strategy to win votes in Quebec. Until this summer, Mr. Poilievre made a point of ignoring the other bank bosses. Pandering to one region feeds into business and public cynicism over political priorities.

Last December, Mr. Poilievre told a packed house at the Toronto-based C.D. Howe Institute that he holds Bay Street in disdain. The bankers and fund managers in the crowd all knew the Conservative Leader was talking out of both sides of his mouth, as days earlier, he was the star attraction at a fundraiser hosted by executives at investment dealer Canaccord Genuity Group Inc.

The Conservative Leader has made a point of attacking lobbyists, the only face of corporate Canada visible to a career politician, and clearly stated he won’t break bread with business groups. If Mr. Poilievre boycotts lobbyists, he needs to go the extra mile to learn what’s keeping CEOs awake at night.

To date, the historically close relationship between the Conservative Party and business community has been fractured by Mr. Poilievre’s populist approach. Going into their first meetings with the Conservative Leader, many executives question whether Mr. Poilievre is actually open to hearing what they have to say.

In the telecom sector, last week’s attacks on Mr. Bibic signalled Mr. Poilievre ignored or lacked an understanding of how Bell operates.

Mr. Poilievre faulted the telecom CEO over the company’s entirely manageable debt, without recognizing that Bell borrowed to build the fibre and 5G networks essential to a modern economy. And Mr. Poilievre bashed Mr. Bibic for paying out BCE dividends that provide income to retirees across the country. If he is willing to take personal shots at Bell’s boss, it’s safe to assume Mr. Poilievre is willing to fire broadsides at any CEO.

CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

----------​

Two things jumped out at me:

• In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.
• CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

Fire at will!

 

[brihard]

At the risk of reigniting a pro-anti Poilievre sh!t-storm, here is an opinion piece by Andrew Willis from yesterday's Globe and Mail:

----------​

To go from attack dog to pack leader, Pierre Poilievre must learn from CEOs​

ANDREW WILLIS
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO

When Pierre Poilievre banged on doors this summer during a Toronto by-election, the Conservative Leader was told to move on from slagging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and start talking about how he planned to do a better job of running the country.

Mr. Poilievre appears to have internalized part of the message.

Last week, he moved to slagging Mirko Bibic, chief executive officer of Bell parent BCE Inc. BCE-T, with all the vitriol previously reserved for the Liberal Leader. If personally taunting the CEO of the country’s largest telecom platform over a sloppy audio edit at Bell-owned CTV News is an indication of how Mr. Poilievre plans to work with corporate leaders, buckle up ahead of a rough economic ride.

In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.

Can Mr. Poilievre learn to act like a prime minister rather than a pitbull? If he’s willing to listen, corporate leaders feel obligated to offer their best advice on how to successfully navigate the transition.

There’s a widespread feeling among CEOs that the Trudeau Liberals are out of ideas. The chasm between Bay Street and this government can’t be bridged.

This fall, Mr. Poilievre plans to start meeting with CEOs in what will often be his first face-to-face encounters with the people who run Canadian companies. The Conservative Leader is lining up sessions with the folks who build and finance homes, sell groceries, operate cellphone and internet networks and run railways and airlines.

Mr. Poilievre’s long-overdue outreach program is commendable. It’s a sign he’s realized he has the next election in the bag, and recognized the job of being prime minister starts the day after the vote.

In the past, Mr. Poilievre viewed business through the lens of politics, as practised in the fishbowl that is Parliament Hill.

In finance circles, the one banker the Conservative Leader has reached out to is Montreal-based National Bank CEO Laurent Ferreira, part of a strategy to win votes in Quebec. Until this summer, Mr. Poilievre made a point of ignoring the other bank bosses. Pandering to one region feeds into business and public cynicism over political priorities.

Last December, Mr. Poilievre told a packed house at the Toronto-based C.D. Howe Institute that he holds Bay Street in disdain. The bankers and fund managers in the crowd all knew the Conservative Leader was talking out of both sides of his mouth, as days earlier, he was the star attraction at a fundraiser hosted by executives at investment dealer Canaccord Genuity Group Inc.

The Conservative Leader has made a point of attacking lobbyists, the only face of corporate Canada visible to a career politician, and clearly stated he won’t break bread with business groups. If Mr. Poilievre boycotts lobbyists, he needs to go the extra mile to learn what’s keeping CEOs awake at night.

To date, the historically close relationship between the Conservative Party and business community has been fractured by Mr. Poilievre’s populist approach. Going into their first meetings with the Conservative Leader, many executives question whether Mr. Poilievre is actually open to hearing what they have to say.

In the telecom sector, last week’s attacks on Mr. Bibic signalled Mr. Poilievre ignored or lacked an understanding of how Bell operates.

Mr. Poilievre faulted the telecom CEO over the company’s entirely manageable debt, without recognizing that Bell borrowed to build the fibre and 5G networks essential to a modern economy. And Mr. Poilievre bashed Mr. Bibic for paying out BCE dividends that provide income to retirees across the country. If he is willing to take personal shots at Bell’s boss, it’s safe to assume Mr. Poilievre is willing to fire broadsides at any CEO.

CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

----------​

Two things jumped out at me:

• In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.
• CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

Fire at will!

Worth remembering that Poilievre has never worked outside of the political establishment. The traits and approaches that are effective at swaying polls will often not overlap that traits and approaches that make an effective executive leader, which is the role he aspires to and will likely win. He’s gonna have to pivot from ‘making angry noises’, and, of course opposing to ‘getting things done effectively’. That may be a challenge with an adult life lived mostly in Parliament.

 

[dapaterson]

Worth remembering that Poilievre has never worked outside of the political establishment. The traits and approaches that are effective at swaying polls will often not overlap that traits and approaches that make an effective executive leader, which is the role he aspires to and will likely win. He’s gonna have to pivot from ‘making angry noises’, and, of course opposing to ‘getting things done effectively’. That may be a challenge with an adult life lived mostly in Parliament.

He reminds me of Copps, Nuntziata and Tobin - effective at complaining about the government in power, but ineffective at governing. Hoping that I am wrong.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CEO's are not answerable to the country or voters. Not all their actions are in the best interest of Canada. Politicians and Public Servant generally don't get businessmen, but the reverse is true as well, business people don't get government either and struggle when faced with the checks and balances that keeps government in check.

 

[OldSolduer]

I want the next Canadian government to stand up and grab itself by the balls and stand by our allies - including Israel.

 

[RangerRay]

At the risk of reigniting a pro-anti Poilievre sh!t-storm, here is an opinion piece by Andrew Willis from yesterday's Globe and Mail:

----------​

To go from attack dog to pack leader, Pierre Poilievre must learn from CEOs​

ANDREW WILLIS
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO

When Pierre Poilievre banged on doors this summer during a Toronto by-election, the Conservative Leader was told to move on from slagging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and start talking about how he planned to do a better job of running the country.

Mr. Poilievre appears to have internalized part of the message.

Last week, he moved to slagging Mirko Bibic, chief executive officer of Bell parent BCE Inc. BCE-T, with all the vitriol previously reserved for the Liberal Leader. If personally taunting the CEO of the country’s largest telecom platform over a sloppy audio edit at Bell-owned CTV News is an indication of how Mr. Poilievre plans to work with corporate leaders, buckle up ahead of a rough economic ride.

In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.

Can Mr. Poilievre learn to act like a prime minister rather than a pitbull? If he’s willing to listen, corporate leaders feel obligated to offer their best advice on how to successfully navigate the transition.

There’s a widespread feeling among CEOs that the Trudeau Liberals are out of ideas. The chasm between Bay Street and this government can’t be bridged.

This fall, Mr. Poilievre plans to start meeting with CEOs in what will often be his first face-to-face encounters with the people who run Canadian companies. The Conservative Leader is lining up sessions with the folks who build and finance homes, sell groceries, operate cellphone and internet networks and run railways and airlines.

Mr. Poilievre’s long-overdue outreach program is commendable. It’s a sign he’s realized he has the next election in the bag, and recognized the job of being prime minister starts the day after the vote.

In the past, Mr. Poilievre viewed business through the lens of politics, as practised in the fishbowl that is Parliament Hill.

In finance circles, the one banker the Conservative Leader has reached out to is Montreal-based National Bank CEO Laurent Ferreira, part of a strategy to win votes in Quebec. Until this summer, Mr. Poilievre made a point of ignoring the other bank bosses. Pandering to one region feeds into business and public cynicism over political priorities.

Last December, Mr. Poilievre told a packed house at the Toronto-based C.D. Howe Institute that he holds Bay Street in disdain. The bankers and fund managers in the crowd all knew the Conservative Leader was talking out of both sides of his mouth, as days earlier, he was the star attraction at a fundraiser hosted by executives at investment dealer Canaccord Genuity Group Inc.

The Conservative Leader has made a point of attacking lobbyists, the only face of corporate Canada visible to a career politician, and clearly stated he won’t break bread with business groups. If Mr. Poilievre boycotts lobbyists, he needs to go the extra mile to learn what’s keeping CEOs awake at night.

To date, the historically close relationship between the Conservative Party and business community has been fractured by Mr. Poilievre’s populist approach. Going into their first meetings with the Conservative Leader, many executives question whether Mr. Poilievre is actually open to hearing what they have to say.

In the telecom sector, last week’s attacks on Mr. Bibic signalled Mr. Poilievre ignored or lacked an understanding of how Bell operates.

Mr. Poilievre faulted the telecom CEO over the company’s entirely manageable debt, without recognizing that Bell borrowed to build the fibre and 5G networks essential to a modern economy. And Mr. Poilievre bashed Mr. Bibic for paying out BCE dividends that provide income to retirees across the country. If he is willing to take personal shots at Bell’s boss, it’s safe to assume Mr. Poilievre is willing to fire broadsides at any CEO.

CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

----------​

Two things jumped out at me:

• In business circles, there are well-founded concerns the prime minister-in-waiting lacks the common sense and self-awareness needed to evolve from opposition attack dog to leader of the pack. CEOs across the country, including Mr. Bibic, see themselves as nation builders. In Mr. Poilievre, they see a politician who has spent his 20-year career building up himself and his party by trying to destroy others.
• CEOs don’t expect politicians to thank them for investing in the country. They do expect a potential prime minister to base criticism – and policy – on facts. In whatever time remains before the next federal election, business leaders are willing to talk to Mr. Poilievre, to bring him up to speed on what they see as country-defining issues. Canada’s next leader needs to start listening.

Fire at will!

While I agree that Poilievre needs to smarten up and start listening, these CEOs need to learn that they aren’t oligarchs. Just because you’re rich doesn’t make you smart in things outside your lane. Just ask those guys who thought it was a good idea to visit the Titanic in a fibreglass tank controlled by an X-Box controller.

These are the same guys who convinced Harper that he had to kowtow to Beijing when he was being rightfully stand-offish. But Poilievre’s attack-dog beta-male whinging is grating and he should start to act like a mature PM in waiting.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Campbell Clark, writing in today's Globe and Mail opinion pages, says that Pierre Poilievre might be slippin' and slidin' just a bit:

----------​

Poilievre moving down a sliding scale toward admitting he’ll cut some Liberal social programs​

CAMPBELL CLARK
PUBLISHED 12 MINUTES AGO

Nine months ago, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told a television interviewer that if he were prime minister, he would not cut Liberal child care and dental care programs. Or so it seemed.

Mr. Poilievre was pressed in an interview with Quebec’s TVA network on how he’d balance the budget without cutting social programs. Journalist Emmanuelle Latraverse asked whether a Conservative government would keep daycare and dental care programs, and Mr. Poilievre said he’d work with provinces to protect the programs people receive.

But Ms. Latraverse asked again: “You will keep those programs? Or, are you committed to not cutting them?”

“We will not cut in programs that are already in place for Canadians,” Mr. Poilievre answered.

That was pretty clear. Since then, not so much. Mr. Poilievre has been ambiguous. But his words shift. He’s inching along a sliding scale toward the position – later – that that there will be cuts to some of those Liberal social programs.

On Wednesday, Mr. Poilievre’s answer about keeping the dental care program was maybe. “We’re studying it,” he told a radio interviewer.

The definitive answer, Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer said recently, will come when the party unveils its election platform. That typically doesn’t happen till the official campaign, shortly before voting day.

The reason for delay is pretty obvious. Mr. Poilievre’s Conservatives want to talk about their issues, using their talking points: Axe the Tax, Build the Homes, etc., etc. They don’t want to feed a conversation about dental care, or about social programs, that gets in the way of their message. Not until victory is all but assured.

But that description doesn’t apply to the proposed pharmacare plan to cover contraceptives and diabetes – which the Liberals negotiated with the NDP. Pharmacare legislation has not yet been passed. Mr. Poilievre has made it clear he’s against that plan, arguing it would displace private health insurance plans.

And when it comes to the dental care program and $10-a-day child care, Mr. Poilievre has at times argued those programs don’t actually exist.

That raises echoes of the way former prime minister Stephen Harper handled things when he took office in 2006. Mr. Harper argued that child care agreements the previous Liberal government had negotiated with provinces were not implemented, so they were just promises – and he wasn’t cancelling programs when he scrapped them.

In the spring, Mr. Poilievre told a Radio-Canada interviewer that the dental care program “doesn’t exist,” and that it was just a promise made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. But recently, the Liberal government has trotted out statistics to prove it now does exist: So far, 751,048 people have received covered dental care.

On Wednesday, Mr. Poilievre said Conservatives “want to find out how many people are actually going to benefit in reality” from dental care, “not the promises, the talking points.” He suggested the program had to be weighed against the economics but Conservatives would ensure the “less fortunate” could get the “essentials of life.”

That’s not very clear, but Mr. Poilievre is certainly keeping open the option of cutting back the dental care program, at least in part.

Mr. Poilievre has kept options open on child care, too – not to cancel the billion-dollar child-care agreements with provinces, but to change what they’re for.

The Liberal program aims to subsidize $10-a-day child-care spaces. But in August, Mr. Poilievre said $10-a-day “doesn’t exist right now.” Presumably, he was referring to the fact that access to $10 spots is still sketchy, and not available to everyone. But it’s also Mr. Poilievre’s way of saying that he’s not committed to subsidizing $10-a-day spots.

And he has promised that he will give provinces more flexibility – which could mean anything from raising the price of subsidized spots, for example to $20 a day, to allowing them to put the money into child-care tax credits, or removing any requirement the money be spent on daycare.

The seemingly clear answer Mr. Poilievre gave last December has shifted. He moved to ambiguity, then to expressing doubt about those social programs, suggesting they need changes, and apparently inching toward the day when he can talk about cuts out loud.

Still, the little that Mr. Poilievre has said about social programs has shifted. And it’s worth looking at the details.

In that TVA interview nine months ago, Mr. Poilievre notably said Conservatives would not cut programs that are already in place.

----------​

Old time, responsible fiscal conservatives are. applauding, quietly.

 

[dimsum]

On Wednesday, Mr. Poilievre said Conservatives “want to find out how many people are actually going to benefit in reality” from dental care, “not the promises, the talking points.” He suggested the program had to be weighed against the economics but Conservatives would ensure the “less fortunate” could get the “essentials of life.”

Apparently the “essentials of life” doesn’t include teeth, or the follow-on effects of lack of dental care.

My super-quick browse of various provincial dental plans for low income folks (which is not across the board) would suggest that in some cases, the treatment is for extraction and filling, not cleaning. I’d argue that regular cleaning would probably prevent the extraction and filling, but that’s just me.

Government Dental Programs - Canadian Association of Public Health Dentistry

caphd.ca

 

[IKnowNothing]

Old time, responsible fiscal conservatives are. applauding, quietly.​

Meanwhile, in the now, the CPC hypocritically votes for increased inflationary deficit spending by supporting the Bloc's push to bribe seniors with more social transfers.

I get that right now literally everything is about toppling the government- but at what cost? In this case if it fails and the Liberals give in it's literally billions of taxpayers dollars on a failed gambit to make PP PM a year earlier. A broken clock is right twice a day, and in this case it's the Liberals taking the stand for fiscal conservativism. A principled PM in waiting should be able to find a way to still win politically while supporting a fleeting instance of good governance.