Newfoundlander

How? It would be impossible under the rules. You only get someone's second place votes once they drop off. Alexander isn't going to get enough support from Saxton, Obrhai, and Peterson to start leapfrogging over those in the upper tier. If polls are to be believed support for those three will only equal a few of percentage points, likely having little impact on the results. According to the Mainstreet/iPolitics poll, support for the bottom seven candidates combined doesn't even equal 9%. If their polls are accurate at all, then even after they all drop off it will only have had a small impact on the race. https://ipolitics.ca/2017/04/20/cpc-poll-oleary-still-leading-but-bernier-not-far-behind/

Yet he still fails to add anything to the race and is only a hindrance on the whole leadership process. I hope members in his former riding make someone else their candidate in 2019.

Did the other committees that looked at religious discrimination over the last few years lead to laws that stifled free speech?

Support for the top seven candidates has increased recently while the bottom seven candidates have been stagnant or fallen. Since Mainstreet started polling the undecideds have dropped significantly but support for both Bernier and O'Leary hasn't really changed much. http://ipolitics.ca/2017/04/12/oleary-still-leading-followed-by-bernier-and-scheer-poll/

What specific problems are there now?

Can't really give a proper prediction this early out and before we see the membership numbers, but I'd say Alexander will finish 9th or 10th. The only ones it seems Alexander will finish ahead of are Saxton, Obrhai, and Peterson. Whether he can finish ahead of Lemieux, Trost, and Blaney, I don't know?

One thing that should probably be happening - I've only thought about this recently and not in a whole lot of detail - is allowing those on EI to take a lower paying job but then giving them a top up so that they'd be getting paid the same amount of money as if they were just on EI. You'd only receive the top up until your EI was set to expire. There are people who'd be fine with working a minimum wage job or any job that was lower pay than their previous job, but if working means less money than not working well then what are you are going to do? Even if a job is lower pay and not in someone's particular field doesn't mean it can't be meaningful employment and help them in their hunt for another job. Even though the government would still be paying out money through EI it'd end up being a big savings if they were only making up the difference between the job's salary and what the person was getting on EI. EI has a number of dumb policies that prevent people from working. I knew of someone who had been laid off and was then accepted through EI to go back to school to do a diploma program. They were unable to go back as a student without some help from EI. So they were approved through EI, the school accepted them, but they couldn't start the program until 6 months down the road. This person had only ever worked in lower paying jobs and was interested in working before their program started. However, if they accepted a new job then EI wouldn't provide any assistance for them to go to school, even though they were approved. The person at the EI office told them their best bet was to work under the table until the time came to start school.

If you're on EI then you are suppose to be in contact with the EI and provide proof you've been applying for jobs. This doesn't seem to happen.

The only thing I know is that he wants to increase immigration. Besides that, I don't know any other policy positions by him or why he's running. Time for him to quit and let the serious candidates debate.

I don't have a clue what religion Trudeau is.

Alexander still needs to get a nice number of first ballot votes though. In 2006, Dion was in third place with 18% with Ignatieff at 29%, not an overly big gap to overcome. Alexander would need to get above Chong, Raitt, and O'Toole to have any hope of getting enough support to propel him into one of those top spots. Unless he has signed up a lot of members there's no indication he can get ahead of the current mid-tier candidates.

I'm well aware it'll come down to second, third and fourth choices. I've heard English CBC talk numerous times about who can pick up second, third choice votes.

Why?

What?

No. I don't think the whole thing will be an issue at all. However, considering how unpopular Harper is in Quebec, if it does get brought up I think a lot of Quebeckers would like the fact that Chong stood up to Harper.

Trudeau was a also celebrity candidate, just like O'Leary is.

I never said Conservatives only support racists.

I've been involved with conservative parties for years. I'm supporting him as are a number of people I know who have been involved in conservative politics.

Why would Conservatives want a non-racist who believes in climate change?

So should the Conservatives campaign on climate change being a hoax?

In 2019 it'll be 13 years since Chong quit Harper's cabinet - which considering Harper's unpopularity in Quebec will probably be a positive - do you really think it'll be an issue? I'd say it'll be as much of an issue as Bernier having been a separatist.

How is it going to be more expensive to operate a business under Chong's proposal? He will not tax trade-dependent industries or the oil and gas industry. He plans to cut taxes by $18 billion while phasing in the carbon tax over a decade. Nobody else is proposing to cut taxes that fast. Currently, we have a hidden carbon tax; they're called green subsidies and regulations and for some reason the Conservative Party has supported them and increased them. Let's gut all these regulations/subsidies and shrink the size of government.

Why shouldn't Conservatives support Chong's version of a carbon tax? Just because some people feel climate change is a hoax? Chong also has support from undecided voters, the people who actually decide the elections.

Trudeau had the same position as Chong and he won 40 seats in Quebec.

Paying California an offsetting fee is stupid. That's why Chong's policy of putting a price on the consumer side of the economy, cutting regulations and subsidies, and introducing the largest income tax cut in Canadian history makes sense. Besides any environmental impact it might have, I think any policy that helps us shift away from income taxes is important. Income taxes are the worst kind of taxation but we need revenue to run the government. Chong's plan allows people the opportunity to decide how they want to spend their money, rather than governemnts taking it before we ever see it. If we're going to argue that Canada's impact will only be minimal because other countries are bigger, then why do anything on the international stage? Why should we help fight ISIS if we're so small? Why get involved in any wars or helping third world countries?