I absolutely agree with him. Pierre Trudeau did make changes that Canadians have had to live by for decades. And that is exactly what the Liberals are doing right now, again. Conservatives have to reverse those changes as soon as they get the chance to do so. Conservatives need to stand up for themselves and do the right thing without second guessing.
Part of the baby boomer generation and I totally agree with you!I don’t understand those of my generation that are not concerned about the kind of country we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.Do they not care about the generations to follow ?Come on people let’s get behind the conservatives
Yes me too, who are those of our generation and where did they grow up bc it seems it was in a different Canada. My friends and myself would completely agree with this guy, it should have been done a long time ago!
What we miss is that the world's "democracies" are going to a globalist one world order. To get there they have created uniparties within these western countries democracies. We see our leaders during elections as window dressing of what we want in our countries. Undoubtedly after the election the window dressing backdrop comes off for everyone to see the globalist store inside. But we aren't allowed into that globalists store to change or talk to anyone about their agendas they have planned for our "democracy "
Globalists = 1 world government = UN/WEF agenda 2030/2050 = Davos = Buildeberg = the 300 = CBDC'S = electronic ID = Great Reset = nanotechnology = Convid 19 = plandemic = depopulation agenda = death = NIH = CDC = FDA = CIA = Moderna = Gain of Function = Health Systems = MAID = Euthanasia = SATANISTS = destruction of religion = Lie-brals = Slavery of Society = you with own nothing and be killed.
the state needs to stay out of our freedoms, stop giving our hard earned tax money to other institutions and countries, stop giving money to Marxist organizations such as trans mutilation surgeries, under age sex changes, etc. enough is enough! stop this insanity
Anthony's side conversations are very distracting. That aside, interesting discussion, a bit all over the place around the subject of modern conservatism, but entertaining.
I am a long-time, card-carrying Conservative Party of Canada member and yes, that means I'm old. But I think it is fundamentally bigoted to assume all young Conservatives think alike and all old Conservatives think alike and never the twain shall meet. I think it's like what the Liberals did to try to suppress individual differences within experiences when they made Lynn Beyak take down all stories by graduates of the IRS who were grateful for the education they got and that they credited their survival to, because it didn't support the narrative of the bad IRS. In the same way, Anthony's young Conservatives versus old Conservatives is a bit lazy, as it does this to avoid having to deal with nuance and individual differences. Also, with PM Macdonald, why must he be saint or sinner, why not a nuanced human being with both good and not so good ideas? Put all of it in context and make sure especially young people understand why revisionism is so unfair.
Canadian conservatives are progressives right up to the point where it starts to pinch; then they realize their mistake once it it too late. They support Employment Equity until it becomes DEI. They support global warming until it becomes a climate crisis. They support socialism in health care until the ERs are over-stuffed and the wait lists are unmanageable. Canadian conservatives will never do anything radical enough to actually address the underlying problems.
Woody Allen once said that the problem with socialism is too many meetings. Folks who think that all good things come from government have endless time and energy to go to all of the meetings where everything is decided. People who have a rich private life outside of politics don't have the time to fight culture wars against relentless progressives. This is why conservatives have always in the past and always will in the future lose the long march through the institutions. That is a battlefield designed for progressives.
The path to long-term success for conservatives is to change the terrain, to slash and burn the political institutions which are the air progressives breathe. Eliminate 100% of the funding to NGOs. Hack away at the Crown corporations, the government agencies, the bureaucracy. Reduce the tax code to at most 10 pages to make it impossible for progressives to recreate the political infrastructure within which they thrive (and grift).
Canadian conservatives do not have the guts to even begin the job they need to do, because most of them are closet socialists, too - "moderate" socialists, though.
The radical agenda conservatives need to embrace is freedom. It also happens to be a neutral agenda. The New Right talk a big game, but they don't have the balls to do something really radical that is required. Let me illustrate with two items: education and immigration.
1. Education: a free education system would abolish government-run schools and promote private education instead. Give out school vouchers that would allow parents to decide for themselves what educational priorities get emphasized for their children. This would also solve the endless culture war arguments about what should be taught in schools, since everyone could pick a school that best reflects their own values.
2. Immigration: No foreigner should be allowed into Canada (except on a temporary tourist visa) unless they have a *private* sponsor - a private citizen, a private business, a private cultural association or church group. The private sponsor would be responsible for the immigrant until they gain Canadian citizenship. That is the *only* way to know that the number of foreigners coming into Canada is a number the Canadian people accept.
These are both libertarian policies. Conservatives tend to dismiss libertarians as some kind of pie-in-the-sky idealists, but as these policies illustrate, we are really very pragmatic. Much more pragmatic than conservatives, who have pie-in-the-sky notions of beating progressives at their own game. Conservatives do not think radically enough; they do not want to slash government power back root and branch. So they will always live under its thumb.
I wish there were less interjections Brian. I enjoy you very much but Anthony Koch is very knowledgeable & well spoken with many good points. Very good session. Thank you
I agree with Anthony that the Conservative Party (united with old and young) should run on a vision for Canada, a transformational vision. I think the party should recognize what is coming from the combination of AI that is fast replacing labour, including in the civil service, and pitch a reform of Canada's welfare system. Poilievre claims to be a big fan of Friedman economics, so he should pitch Friedman's (and Segal's and Eggleton's) ideas for a negative income tax system sufficient to replace all Canada's current welfare programs including welfare, disability, OAS, shelter systems, food banks, etc. with a system of financial entitlements based on income tax returns. If it were administered by (competent) CRA software, like income tax rebates currently are, it would save taxpayers $millions because it would make both Ottawa welfare bureaucrats and provincial welfare bureaucrats obsolete. The biggest cost of poverty is its administration, the increases in salaries and benefits the middle-class bureaucrats' unions keep advocating for to keep down our poorest veterans of war and victims of crime, and that needs more and more poverty all the time to grow the bureaucracy. Friedman's idea is to give everyone enough to purchase market value rental real estate, food, communications and transportation, etc., THEN LEAVE THEM ALONE. (Welfare workers could transfer their meddling skills to criminal justice which should be a growth industry under a new Conservative national narrative.) Make mandatory at least one year of national service for every single Canadian, regardless of age and ability. This will build solidarity around a common purpose.
Poilieve should get out in front of the inevitable and prepare for what AI and other trends like climate change will have on the old settlement lifestyle (there are more DPs today than ever before in human history) and be creative. It may no longer be practical to try to sell home ownership in a world where migration is increasingly the norm, not only for those from third worlds but also those who work in remote industry and those who will find themselves unemployed by AI and will want to move from Toronto or Montreal to more affordable places like Regina or even other countries, or who will find migratory lifestyles better suit their new situations. Poilievre should pitch a Friedman economy that treats our poor with dignity and doesn't violate their human rights like the current system does. Then be a libertarian Conservative and cut not only the civil service in half but also our elected officials. Cut parliament in half and give back a lot of the administration government now handles to the people.
I wish Poilievre would listen and carpe diem before a liberal like Karina Gould does it (and does it like a communist instead of like a libertarian).
In so far as it is possible, if we are to remain a free people, we must embrace free, open, civil and substantive debate of the issues of our time. Rudyard Griffiths at Munk Debates says it is getting harder and harder to get people to debate because of the sometimes dangerous backlash on social media and of course, look at what happened to poor old Salman Rushdie. That means young conservatives must rein in their interests in labelling everyone who does not think in lockstep as liberals. It also means, and I agree with Anthony here, they/we must get involved at the provincial and municipal levels. I took our City (Kawartha Lakes) to divisional court to oppose a bylaw that none of the city councillors caught or objected to, a bylaw that would have given the mayor and any anonymous complainant the right to investigate a complaint by the same complainant about a member of a Committee, Task Force, or Board, that together and in secret, the mayor and the anonymous complainant would "investigate" then recommend to council, without ever sharing the evidence of the "investigation" or the name of the complainant, to fire the accused and impugned Committee, Task Force or Board member. The accused member would enjoy no right to disclosure of the evidence used against them, no right to know or to question their accuser, no right to present their own evidence and call their own witnesses, and no right to a fair and open hearing of the facts before City Council in its role as tribunal under the law. I heard via the council grapevine that councillors laughed at me and said the appeals judges would just throw out my application for a judicial review but thank goodness, the appeals court agreed with me. I didn't even hire a lawyer and the judges still agreed with me because the right to a presumption of innocence is fundamental to a free democracy. And yet only I noticed - not one councillor either noticed or objected - and I had to take it to court to get their attention and get it changed. Something similar is happening currently with a movement called "Elect Respect". Councillors in Ontario are signing on in droves because they think it will promote respect for free speech. But they want to use it to give council the right, on a 2/3 vote majority, to fire any councillor whose exercise of free speech they deem offensive and disrespectful. They say they want this done to encourage minorities to run for office but to me, that looks suspiciously like some organization wanting to run ideological minority candidates who don't want their ideas to be challenged by free and civil debate. Councillor Lisa Robinson joined the Elect Respect movement even as the leaders plotted to use it to get her fired, even after her fellows had already docked her an outrageous numbers of months' pay for speaking the interests of her constituents out loud, views her fellow councillors disapproved of. It is vital for a new conservative movement to get involved at the municipal level and to challenge law making that undermines democracy.
I don't support mandatory minimums because I believe in freedom and that must include the freedom of our judiciary to use discretion in the application and interpretation of the law. I disagree with Brian about Richard Wagner, whose decisions I think are pretty much legally perfect. I think he is one of the most ethical SCC chief justices Canada has ever had. Re. mandatory minimum sentences for child porn, I always worry about the child sex abuse survivor who copes with his trauma by drawing it. That qualifies as possession of child porn. Do you really want that 18 year old put into general population in one of Canada's prisons because our judges no longer enjoy the discretion to apply and interpret the law vis-a-vis sentencing according to the facts of each individual case?
I think if the "new conservatives" want to win, they must abandon their exclusivity, their "well, if you don't agree, then you're a liberal" nonsense, and their "all old people are senile, therefore we'll run Canada Proud ads that promote illiterate tweens bullying the votes of their elders". Bad idea.
There has never been a "Canadian dream" of working hard and buying a house. Almost all wealth has always been inherited. Some Canadian youths today are fabulously successful - e.g., Aidan Gomez and others in the entrepreneurial field making AI and/or apps especially but also others who see change and address it with industry. For the rest of us, including old Conservatives, there has never been a world in which if we work hard, we will always get a big house and an easy life. The fact is there has always been discrimination, glass ceilings, early deaths, divorces, injury and cancer and reprisal against others who are perceived to threaten, despite hard work. In my experience, if you say no to corruption, you might as well kiss monetary success goodbye because you'll get blacklisted. At other times, there have been wars and natural disasters that interfere with the alleged Canadian dream of hard work, a big house and a fat and easy life.
It was cringe to watch Jamil Jivani try to rationalize not feeding children by saying that watching his neighbour's child starve "broke his heart" but he'd be damned before he gave that kid a sandwich to save his life. Feeding children at school has always been around but we've never before made it available to kids whose parents feed them just fine but who want pizza instead of the lunch their mama made them. Means test it, as it has always been means tested. The Liberals say means testing stigmatizes but it nowhere near stigmatizes like hunger does. I came from an upper middle-class home with a mother who I've diagnosed, in retrospect, with bulimia by proxy. We always had enough money but she was obsessed with me being fat, so she fed me one meal a day complemented by laxatives. The school and the summer camp both got involved and tried to feed me. Finally, my mother relented and agreed to let me have a half pint of milk at morning recess, provided it was skim and not full fat. I can tell you that milk at recess made a huge bloody difference and I didn't care who knew I wasn't outside playing at recess because I was inside drinking the milk. I was just grateful to have something in my belly. Jamil Jivani's argument that parents should be responsible for feeding their own kids and the rest of us should just watch child abuse, let it break our hearts, but do nothing is the wrong one because kids have no control over what their parents do and it is just plain wrong to watch kids suffer from hunger when we can feed them.
No mention of Trudeau pushing bilingualism which has a result that so many civil servants are Quebeckers. Also limited talent pool to become prime minister, usually givernor general, high level judges.
This young man has it down, I also feel Harper's. Failures to stack the Senate, courts, and force through major infrastructure projects. If his government had set stronger laws that couldn't be easily undone...we wouldn't be here 11 years later talking about another Liver government 🙄
I absolutely agree with him. Pierre Trudeau did make changes that Canadians have had to live by for decades. And that is exactly what the Liberals are doing right now, again. Conservatives have to reverse those changes as soon as they get the chance to do so. Conservatives need to stand up for themselves and do the right thing without second guessing.
Part of the baby boomer generation and I totally agree with you!I don’t understand those of my generation that are not concerned about the kind of country we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.Do they not care about the generations to follow ?Come on people let’s get behind the conservatives
Yes me too, who are those of our generation and where did they grow up bc it seems it was in a different Canada. My friends and myself would completely agree with this guy, it should have been done a long time ago!
What we miss is that the world's "democracies" are going to a globalist one world order. To get there they have created uniparties within these western countries democracies. We see our leaders during elections as window dressing of what we want in our countries. Undoubtedly after the election the window dressing backdrop comes off for everyone to see the globalist store inside. But we aren't allowed into that globalists store to change or talk to anyone about their agendas they have planned for our "democracy "
Globalists = 1 world government = UN/WEF agenda 2030/2050 = Davos = Buildeberg = the 300 = CBDC'S = electronic ID = Great Reset = nanotechnology = Convid 19 = plandemic = depopulation agenda = death = NIH = CDC = FDA = CIA = Moderna = Gain of Function = Health Systems = MAID = Euthanasia = SATANISTS = destruction of religion = Lie-brals = Slavery of Society = you with own nothing and be killed.
the state needs to stay out of our freedoms, stop giving our hard earned tax money to other institutions and countries, stop giving money to Marxist organizations such as trans mutilation surgeries, under age sex changes, etc. enough is enough! stop this insanity
Anthony's side conversations are very distracting. That aside, interesting discussion, a bit all over the place around the subject of modern conservatism, but entertaining.
I am a long-time, card-carrying Conservative Party of Canada member and yes, that means I'm old. But I think it is fundamentally bigoted to assume all young Conservatives think alike and all old Conservatives think alike and never the twain shall meet. I think it's like what the Liberals did to try to suppress individual differences within experiences when they made Lynn Beyak take down all stories by graduates of the IRS who were grateful for the education they got and that they credited their survival to, because it didn't support the narrative of the bad IRS. In the same way, Anthony's young Conservatives versus old Conservatives is a bit lazy, as it does this to avoid having to deal with nuance and individual differences. Also, with PM Macdonald, why must he be saint or sinner, why not a nuanced human being with both good and not so good ideas? Put all of it in context and make sure especially young people understand why revisionism is so unfair.
1/
I think all of this is why Alberta wants to leave Canada, but we need to fight instead
Canadians need to organize and push Conservatives on these issues as well like education, the justice system (the courts), immigration etc.ll
Canadian conservatives are progressives right up to the point where it starts to pinch; then they realize their mistake once it it too late. They support Employment Equity until it becomes DEI. They support global warming until it becomes a climate crisis. They support socialism in health care until the ERs are over-stuffed and the wait lists are unmanageable. Canadian conservatives will never do anything radical enough to actually address the underlying problems.
Woody Allen once said that the problem with socialism is too many meetings. Folks who think that all good things come from government have endless time and energy to go to all of the meetings where everything is decided. People who have a rich private life outside of politics don't have the time to fight culture wars against relentless progressives. This is why conservatives have always in the past and always will in the future lose the long march through the institutions. That is a battlefield designed for progressives.
The path to long-term success for conservatives is to change the terrain, to slash and burn the political institutions which are the air progressives breathe. Eliminate 100% of the funding to NGOs. Hack away at the Crown corporations, the government agencies, the bureaucracy. Reduce the tax code to at most 10 pages to make it impossible for progressives to recreate the political infrastructure within which they thrive (and grift).
Canadian conservatives do not have the guts to even begin the job they need to do, because most of them are closet socialists, too - "moderate" socialists, though.
The radical agenda conservatives need to embrace is freedom. It also happens to be a neutral agenda. The New Right talk a big game, but they don't have the balls to do something really radical that is required. Let me illustrate with two items: education and immigration.
1. Education: a free education system would abolish government-run schools and promote private education instead. Give out school vouchers that would allow parents to decide for themselves what educational priorities get emphasized for their children. This would also solve the endless culture war arguments about what should be taught in schools, since everyone could pick a school that best reflects their own values.
2. Immigration: No foreigner should be allowed into Canada (except on a temporary tourist visa) unless they have a *private* sponsor - a private citizen, a private business, a private cultural association or church group. The private sponsor would be responsible for the immigrant until they gain Canadian citizenship. That is the *only* way to know that the number of foreigners coming into Canada is a number the Canadian people accept.
These are both libertarian policies. Conservatives tend to dismiss libertarians as some kind of pie-in-the-sky idealists, but as these policies illustrate, we are really very pragmatic. Much more pragmatic than conservatives, who have pie-in-the-sky notions of beating progressives at their own game. Conservatives do not think radically enough; they do not want to slash government power back root and branch. So they will always live under its thumb.
Think big! Free yourselves!
I wish there were less interjections Brian. I enjoy you very much but Anthony Koch is very knowledgeable & well spoken with many good points. Very good session. Thank you
What a great conversation thank you to you both this was very base!
I agree with Anthony that the Conservative Party (united with old and young) should run on a vision for Canada, a transformational vision. I think the party should recognize what is coming from the combination of AI that is fast replacing labour, including in the civil service, and pitch a reform of Canada's welfare system. Poilievre claims to be a big fan of Friedman economics, so he should pitch Friedman's (and Segal's and Eggleton's) ideas for a negative income tax system sufficient to replace all Canada's current welfare programs including welfare, disability, OAS, shelter systems, food banks, etc. with a system of financial entitlements based on income tax returns. If it were administered by (competent) CRA software, like income tax rebates currently are, it would save taxpayers $millions because it would make both Ottawa welfare bureaucrats and provincial welfare bureaucrats obsolete. The biggest cost of poverty is its administration, the increases in salaries and benefits the middle-class bureaucrats' unions keep advocating for to keep down our poorest veterans of war and victims of crime, and that needs more and more poverty all the time to grow the bureaucracy. Friedman's idea is to give everyone enough to purchase market value rental real estate, food, communications and transportation, etc., THEN LEAVE THEM ALONE. (Welfare workers could transfer their meddling skills to criminal justice which should be a growth industry under a new Conservative national narrative.) Make mandatory at least one year of national service for every single Canadian, regardless of age and ability. This will build solidarity around a common purpose.
Poilieve should get out in front of the inevitable and prepare for what AI and other trends like climate change will have on the old settlement lifestyle (there are more DPs today than ever before in human history) and be creative. It may no longer be practical to try to sell home ownership in a world where migration is increasingly the norm, not only for those from third worlds but also those who work in remote industry and those who will find themselves unemployed by AI and will want to move from Toronto or Montreal to more affordable places like Regina or even other countries, or who will find migratory lifestyles better suit their new situations. Poilievre should pitch a Friedman economy that treats our poor with dignity and doesn't violate their human rights like the current system does. Then be a libertarian Conservative and cut not only the civil service in half but also our elected officials. Cut parliament in half and give back a lot of the administration government now handles to the people.
I wish Poilievre would listen and carpe diem before a liberal like Karina Gould does it (and does it like a communist instead of like a libertarian).
5/
In so far as it is possible, if we are to remain a free people, we must embrace free, open, civil and substantive debate of the issues of our time. Rudyard Griffiths at Munk Debates says it is getting harder and harder to get people to debate because of the sometimes dangerous backlash on social media and of course, look at what happened to poor old Salman Rushdie. That means young conservatives must rein in their interests in labelling everyone who does not think in lockstep as liberals. It also means, and I agree with Anthony here, they/we must get involved at the provincial and municipal levels. I took our City (Kawartha Lakes) to divisional court to oppose a bylaw that none of the city councillors caught or objected to, a bylaw that would have given the mayor and any anonymous complainant the right to investigate a complaint by the same complainant about a member of a Committee, Task Force, or Board, that together and in secret, the mayor and the anonymous complainant would "investigate" then recommend to council, without ever sharing the evidence of the "investigation" or the name of the complainant, to fire the accused and impugned Committee, Task Force or Board member. The accused member would enjoy no right to disclosure of the evidence used against them, no right to know or to question their accuser, no right to present their own evidence and call their own witnesses, and no right to a fair and open hearing of the facts before City Council in its role as tribunal under the law. I heard via the council grapevine that councillors laughed at me and said the appeals judges would just throw out my application for a judicial review but thank goodness, the appeals court agreed with me. I didn't even hire a lawyer and the judges still agreed with me because the right to a presumption of innocence is fundamental to a free democracy. And yet only I noticed - not one councillor either noticed or objected - and I had to take it to court to get their attention and get it changed. Something similar is happening currently with a movement called "Elect Respect". Councillors in Ontario are signing on in droves because they think it will promote respect for free speech. But they want to use it to give council the right, on a 2/3 vote majority, to fire any councillor whose exercise of free speech they deem offensive and disrespectful. They say they want this done to encourage minorities to run for office but to me, that looks suspiciously like some organization wanting to run ideological minority candidates who don't want their ideas to be challenged by free and civil debate. Councillor Lisa Robinson joined the Elect Respect movement even as the leaders plotted to use it to get her fired, even after her fellows had already docked her an outrageous numbers of months' pay for speaking the interests of her constituents out loud, views her fellow councillors disapproved of. It is vital for a new conservative movement to get involved at the municipal level and to challenge law making that undermines democracy.
4/
I don't support mandatory minimums because I believe in freedom and that must include the freedom of our judiciary to use discretion in the application and interpretation of the law. I disagree with Brian about Richard Wagner, whose decisions I think are pretty much legally perfect. I think he is one of the most ethical SCC chief justices Canada has ever had. Re. mandatory minimum sentences for child porn, I always worry about the child sex abuse survivor who copes with his trauma by drawing it. That qualifies as possession of child porn. Do you really want that 18 year old put into general population in one of Canada's prisons because our judges no longer enjoy the discretion to apply and interpret the law vis-a-vis sentencing according to the facts of each individual case?
I think if the "new conservatives" want to win, they must abandon their exclusivity, their "well, if you don't agree, then you're a liberal" nonsense, and their "all old people are senile, therefore we'll run Canada Proud ads that promote illiterate tweens bullying the votes of their elders". Bad idea.
3/
There has never been a "Canadian dream" of working hard and buying a house. Almost all wealth has always been inherited. Some Canadian youths today are fabulously successful - e.g., Aidan Gomez and others in the entrepreneurial field making AI and/or apps especially but also others who see change and address it with industry. For the rest of us, including old Conservatives, there has never been a world in which if we work hard, we will always get a big house and an easy life. The fact is there has always been discrimination, glass ceilings, early deaths, divorces, injury and cancer and reprisal against others who are perceived to threaten, despite hard work. In my experience, if you say no to corruption, you might as well kiss monetary success goodbye because you'll get blacklisted. At other times, there have been wars and natural disasters that interfere with the alleged Canadian dream of hard work, a big house and a fat and easy life.
It was cringe to watch Jamil Jivani try to rationalize not feeding children by saying that watching his neighbour's child starve "broke his heart" but he'd be damned before he gave that kid a sandwich to save his life. Feeding children at school has always been around but we've never before made it available to kids whose parents feed them just fine but who want pizza instead of the lunch their mama made them. Means test it, as it has always been means tested. The Liberals say means testing stigmatizes but it nowhere near stigmatizes like hunger does. I came from an upper middle-class home with a mother who I've diagnosed, in retrospect, with bulimia by proxy. We always had enough money but she was obsessed with me being fat, so she fed me one meal a day complemented by laxatives. The school and the summer camp both got involved and tried to feed me. Finally, my mother relented and agreed to let me have a half pint of milk at morning recess, provided it was skim and not full fat. I can tell you that milk at recess made a huge bloody difference and I didn't care who knew I wasn't outside playing at recess because I was inside drinking the milk. I was just grateful to have something in my belly. Jamil Jivani's argument that parents should be responsible for feeding their own kids and the rest of us should just watch child abuse, let it break our hearts, but do nothing is the wrong one because kids have no control over what their parents do and it is just plain wrong to watch kids suffer from hunger when we can feed them.
2/
No mention of Trudeau pushing bilingualism which has a result that so many civil servants are Quebeckers. Also limited talent pool to become prime minister, usually givernor general, high level judges.
This young man has it down, I also feel Harper's. Failures to stack the Senate, courts, and force through major infrastructure projects. If his government had set stronger laws that couldn't be easily undone...we wouldn't be here 11 years later talking about another Liver government 🙄
Interesting that Without Diminishment wrote the very same thing today
https://open.substack.com/pub/withoutdiminishment/p/joshua-hart-will-the-conservatives?r=8ahwm&utm_medium=ios