Conservative Leadership September 10th

[Nexii]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think those things can be worked out to a large degree.  There’s more controversy around the use of biotech to alter gender identity.  I think thoughtfulness and goodwill will bring resolutions, but we’re in new territory with medical advances.  I hear your concerns.  

The left gets it wrong with "your sex is whatever you believe it to be". And the right with "your sex can't be changed". It's kind of a microcosm of how polarization leads to neither side being right. Much like the EA debacle, or COVID itself, the legitimate concerns of Canadians are used as a political football. 

I believe it's going to be very tough for the left next election. There is a tendency the longer a government is in power to become more authoritarian. Like Harper after being PM for 10 years, Trudeau will be coming to the same point. If the CPC loses the next election by picking the wrong leader, they have only themselves to blame.

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They need to know that the CPC leader will uphold these basic rights or they won't vote for him.  You can't straddle the line or be vague like O'Toole was.  You need to be clear and emphatic like Harper was when he assured gay and abortion rights would not be debated in his government.

Absolutely and it's insane the CPC didn't realize this after Scheer. O'Toole did the exact same thing! I don't believe the CPC has learned the lesson even now. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

... you're fooling yourselves if you think the Freedom Convoy came out on top of that whole debacle.  

Maybe we should wait until they get out of jail first.  Maybe there'll be a groundswell of support and... and... Trudeau will step down... and... and...

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, Nexii said:

1. The left gets it wrong with "your sex is whatever you believe it to be". And the right with "your sex can't be changed". It's kind of a microcosm of how polarization leads to neither side being right.  

2. I believe it's going to be very tough for the left next election. There is a tendency the longer a government is in power to become more authoritarian. Like Harper after being PM for 10 years, Trudeau will be coming to the same point. If the CPC loses the next election by picking the wrong leader, they have only themselves to blame.

 

1. It's "gender" not "sex" and it's not an artifact of "the left".  The left cares about class politics.  LGBTQ rights are supported equally by conservatives and liberals depending on where they're from in my experience.  Harper's deputy and cabinet members voted for them long before C16.  It's ultimately about free expression although it's easy to see why some co-opt the issue for political reasons because, frankly, it's a very weird topic for people unfamiliar with it.  

The Liberals tactic of trying to own these things is divisive and hypocritical also, IMO.

2. I guess you're calling Trudeau 'left' ?  If so, then I think people will be well sick of him.  It's the Conservatives' election to win as you say.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Maybe you should stay on topic.  Just a thought. 

[Nationalist]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's "gender" not "sex" and it's not an artifact of "the left".  The left cares about class politics.  LGBTQ rights are supported equally by conservatives and liberals depending on where they're from in my experience.  Harper's deputy and cabinet members voted for them long before C16.  It's ultimately about free expression although it's easy to see why some co-opt the issue for political reasons because, frankly, it's a very weird topic for people unfamiliar with it.  

The Liberals tactic of trying to own these things is divisive and hypocritical also, IMO.

2. I guess you're calling Trudeau 'left' ?  If so, then I think people will be well sick of him.  It's the Conservatives' election to win as you say.

There's no such thing as gay or LGB...whatever "rights". The very idea is moronic and divisive. There are human "rights" we give ourselves and even those are nebulous.

The CPC is lost right now. They are overly concerned with opinions of people who despise them. They have forsaken their base and principles, in order to appeal to people who will never hold them in high regard.

The Canadian conservative craves strength and decisiveness...not wishy-washy fops. If the CPC can't bring themselves to provide that...Bernier and the PPC will.

And that's really the bottom line. So...CPCs...if you want to lead this nation...I suggest you all grow a pair and be...Conservative.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Nationalist

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Nexii said:

The left gets it wrong with "your sex is whatever you believe it to be". And the right with "your sex can't be changed". It's kind of a microcosm of how polarization leads to neither side being right. Much like the EA debacle, or COVID itself, the legitimate concerns of Canadians are used as a political football. 

I think that's true.  Both sides go way too far, but if I have to choose between a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices vs someone's right not to have transgender folk in the changeroom, I know what side I want to be on. Social conservatives will lose an all-or-nothing battle on these issues.  

4 hours ago, Nexii said:

I believe it's going to be very tough for the left next election. There is a tendency the longer a government is in power to become more authoritarian. Like Harper after being PM for 10 years, Trudeau will be coming to the same point. If the CPC loses the next election by picking the wrong leader, they have only themselves to blame.

Agreed, and that leader is Pierre Poilievre.  

4 hours ago, Nexii said:

Absolutely and it's insane the CPC didn't realize this after Scheer. O'Toole did the exact same thing! I don't believe the CPC has learned the lesson even now. 

It's guys like Pierre Poilievre that drive this sort of thinking - demagogues firing up the base of the party but completely out-of-touch with the rest of Canada.  

[Zeitgeist]

44 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I think that's true.  Both sides go way too far, but if I have to choose between a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices vs someone's right not to have transgender folk in the changeroom, I know what side I want to be on. Social conservatives will lose an all-or-nothing battle on these issues.  

Agreed, and that leader is Pierre Poilievre.  

It's guys like Pierre Poilievre that drive this sort of thinking - demagogues firing up the base of the party but completely out-of-touch with the rest of Canada.  

Basically you want a Conservative Party that is the same as the Liberal Party.  That hasn’t worked.  

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1... It's not a lie.  The Liberals get the CPC over and over on these same issues.  It's insane.  They know that the leaders cozy up with the fundamentalist base during their leadership bids, and these are issues that those folks care about.  When the Liberals bring them up in an election campaign, however, it's a line in the sand for Canadians.  They need to know that the CPC leader will uphold these basic rights or they won't vote for him.  You can't straddle the line or be vague like O'Toole was.  You need to be clear and emphatic like Harper was when he assured gay and abortion rights would not be debated in his government.  

2....Pierre Poilievre already has a huge target on his back over these issues because he's been so emphatically and clearly against them in the past.  Him winning the CPC leadership would be a gift for the Liberals and they'd have a field day dredging up old videos and quotes of his positions on these issues.  

3....I couldn't agree with you more on all of that.  To take Trudeau down and implement these changes, however, you want a sober adult rather than a demagogue like Pierre Poilievre.  Michael Chong, Jean Charest, Peter Mackay or even Patrick Brown could all win.  Pierre Poilievre will scare all but the most committed CPC lifers off.  I've voted Conservative 100% of the time provincially in Ontario and all but twice federally, but there's absolutely no f'ing way I'd vote for Poilievre.  

4....Nobody's listening because rather than provide reasonable arguments and examples of woke overreach, folks overreact and spout hyperbole and slippery-slope arguments about the downfall of white/canadian culture etc or whatever other nonsense.  

5....Global affairs are global problems.  Trudeau and Biden screwed up royally on pipelines and it will likely cause Biden problems at mid-terms.  Regardless of whether Keystone or other pipelines went forward, however, it would have had little impact on today's oil prices.  

6....No.  The Bank of Canada operates independent from government and Justin trying to dictate policy to it would faceplant.  

1... I agree in all of the times that these issues have been used against the cons, they have been refuted , just that they did a lousy job at it...And everyone in Government knows that these 2 issues are set in stone , not up for debate unless one wants to commit political suicide. Liberals took a chance and used that against the cons, and the cons failed to stress that point over and over, instead the left and center had become scared that these issues would be challenged. It was another lie, made up by the liberals...

2... My personal opinion is it is way to early in the process right now to start pigeon holing candidates.. I want to see what kind of policies they are going to stand up for, right now Pierre is the only one on the board and his support is only growing... I think that Justin has far more baggage than Pierre will ever have, and yet Justin does seem to be able to hold on to his support...

3. Jean Charest, and Peter Mackay have baggage as well ammo that the liberals could exploit, the other 2 are someone unknowns , a moot point as none of them have officially stepped into the ring and started to campaign or atleast laying out their platforms...Everyone has a line in the sand in which they will not cross, mine was O Toole after the flip flop...

4... Thats what we seem to do today over react to everything, what we are all guilty of is giving them the stage and allowing them to keep spewing this garbage, until it becomes acceptable to the point it is in our classrooms... we seem to argue over just about every topic that someone is not following the science, but where is the science in reference to all these genders, or critical race theory it is all hearsay and yet we are allowing it in our schools like it was fact...something , some where is broken...

5. Your right, but if we were not dependent on anyone for fossil fuels and the entire refining process, that is goin g to effect the price some where's down the line, that and the government could have taken taxes off to lower costs, I'm not sure what percentage of fuel is taxes last time i read it was around 27 % , that could drive the cost down a lot. other options as well like releasing reserve stocks can effect the price short term... lots of things the government could have done to help soften the blow..

6. Come on Moonbox do you honestly think after the SNC scandal that he would not be thinking of doing the same, interfering is what he does... and why would we think that he would not? did he face plant on SNC, not really a small sandal but in the end he got what he wanted, and faced very little repercussions...If it is to his advantage i would not put it be him at all... it is not the first time he has lied to Canadians he has a long list of lies, that everyone in the country knows about , and for some reason, a lot are good with, it is acceptable behavior...    

[Moonbox]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Basically you want a Conservative Party that is the same as the Liberal Party.  That hasn’t worked.  

No, I want a Conservative Party that embraces fiscal responsibility and pragmatism without embracing Boomer social conservatism or Trump-style demagoguery.  

[Infidel Dog]

Anthony Fury has good one on who's for Charest and against Poilievre and why. Here's a clip:

"

The only time the former federal Progressive Conservative leader and Quebec Liberal Premier has really come up in conversation has been in the context of: “Omg, did you hear Charest was consulting for Huawei to help them deal with the Meng Wanzhou issue?!” (Yes, he really did.)

Other than that, nobody ever talks about this guy and nobody under 45 who lives outside of Quebec even knows who he is — and yet for some reason there are over a dozen news stories right now about Charest that are hyping him up as the potential hero of the upcoming federal Conservative leadership race.

Enough about the man himself though. Because the current reanimation of Charest isn’t about him anyway. Well, it no doubt is for the potential candidate and those closest to him. But for most people invoking Charest’s name, it’s more about what he symbolizes, or — more importantly — what he doesn’t symbolize.

He’s the opposite of early frontrunner Pierre Polievre, the opposite of grassroots excitement and the opposite of populism.

 

That last word is key: Populism.

 

It means different things to different people. Some welcome it. Some fear it. But for anyone in an establishment position — for those who fancy themselves gatekeepers — what populism means to them is a potential loss of control as more people outside of the system ascend to influence and reframe the terms of debate."

People sense that it’s coming and they’re seeking to insulate themselves from it. Good luck."

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-theres-no-need-to-fear-populism-coming-to-canada

Edited March 6, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

The way I'm starting to read it it's kind of a weak tea version of the American scene with Polievre being miscast in the Trump role and Charest being cast as Biden.

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1... I agree in all of the times that these issues have been used against the cons, they have been refuted , just that they did a lousy job at it...And everyone in Government knows that these 2 issues are set in stone , not up for debate unless one wants to commit political suicide. Liberals took a chance and used that against the cons, and the cons failed to stress that point over and over, instead the left and center had become scared that these issues would be challenged. It was another lie, made up by the liberals...

The Conservatives fail on these issues because they're too worried about upsetting their fundamentalist base.  Emphatically shutting down debate on these issues is an easy way to get yourself out from underneath this Liberal tactic.  We just haven't had a CPC leader with the courage and common sense to do it yet.     

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

2... My personal opinion is it is way to early in the process right now to start pigeon holing candidates.. I want to see what kind of policies they are going to stand up for, right now Pierre is the only one on the board and his support is only growing... I think that Justin has far more baggage than Pierre will ever have, and yet Justin does seem to be able to hold on to his support...

There are always die-hards that will support their party no matter what.  They are almost irrelevant in terms of policy platforms.  Pierre has support from the base of the party but he'll prove deeply unpopular outside of that and will fail to convince the undecided voters who matter.  He's wildly out of touch with most of the rest of Canada and he's the exact sort of leadership candidate Liberal spin-masters salivate over. 

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

5. Your right, but if we were not dependent on anyone for fossil fuels and the entire refining process, that is goin g to effect the price some where's down the line, that and the government could have taken taxes off to lower costs, I'm not sure what percentage of fuel is taxes last time i read it was around 27 % , that could drive the cost down a lot. other options as well like releasing reserve stocks can effect the price short term... lots of things the government could have done to help soften the blow..

The economics of refining our oil to a scale that would make us independent for energy sailed 20-30 years ago.  Everyone sort of thinks, "Just build a refinery" but the reality is that this would require titanic sums of capital expenditure for infrastructure and refining capacity that would take us decades to recoup - just in time for green energy.  

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

6. Come on Moonbox do you honestly think after the SNC scandal that he would not be thinking of doing the same, interfering is what he does... and why would we think that he would not? did he face plant on SNC, not really a small sandal but in the end he got what he wanted, and faced very little repercussions...If it is to his advantage i would not put it be him at all... it is not the first time he has lied to Canadians he has a long list of lies, that everyone in the country knows about , and for some reason, a lot are good with, it is acceptable behavior...    

I don't think you have a very good understanding of the Bank of Canada.  Your views on this are very similar to your misunderstanding of the independence of the Courts from a few weeks ago.  The government doesn't even have a vote on the BoC's Board or decision making process.  I think you would benefit from doing a bit of research on how the Bank of Canada operates and how it's structured.  

[Infidel Dog]

Watch the Liberals and the progressives trying to pass as Conservatives start pushing for street corner, ballot boxes like the Biden "voters" had.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

 

The economics of refining our oil to a scale that would make us independent for energy sailed 20-30 years ago.  Everyone sort of thinks, "Just build a refinery" but the reality is that this would require titanic sums of capital expenditure for infrastructure and refining capacity that would take us decades to recoup - just in time for green energy.  

I don't think you have a very good understanding of the Bank of Canada.  Your views on this are very similar to your misunderstanding of the independence of the Courts from a few weeks ago.  The government doesn't even have a vote on the BoC's Board or decision making process.  I think you would benefit from doing a bit of research on how the Bank of Canada operates and how it's structured.  

1...Experts have said that we will be using oil for fossil fuels for atleast 30 years until a reasonable new energy source is found, and yes there are hundreds of projects that are on going right now, but not many of them are close to have a source of energy that can be mass produced effectively and cost effective to power an engine of some sort. And we will still need oil to produce all of the other products that will still be needed such as grease and lubricants, engine oils, etc, plastics, you name it...all of which requires refineries fossil fuels. BC is just started to build a 40 bil NG plant, with others in various stages of construction around Canada, and some how we can not build a refinery that can process bitumen... but we can spend close to 500 bil in the last 2 years, which to me would indict to me we are not that concerned with spending or deficits, but rather strangled by big lobby groups and environmentalists...

2... Perhaps you are right maybe i do not fully understand the Bank of Canada and all of it roles, just like i did not fully understand the role of the justice minister, where it clearly states that he or she must not be influenced by government in matters regarding the law. and yet that did happen right...and yet she was yanked out and sent to the back bench when she was fully supported by the law and policies laid out for the justice minister...and you know what maybe i got that all fuc*ed up as well.

I've said this a hundred times I'm here on this forum to learn, if i knew everything there was to learn i'd be spending my time on a beach with lots of naked women...using 100 dollar bills to roll joints up with...so teach me .

Quote

 The head of the Bank of Canada is the governor. While the law provides the board of directors with the power to appoint the governor, in practice they approve the choice of the government.^[52] The governor serves a fixed seven-year term which may be renewed, but recent governors have only chosen to serve a single term. With the exception of matters of personal conduct ("good behaviour") the Bank of Canada Act does not provide the government with the direct ability to remove a governor during his or her term in office. In the case of profound disagreement between the government and the Bank, the minister of finance can issue written instructions for the bank to change its policies.^[14] This has never actually happened in the history of the bank to date. In practice, the governor sets monetary policy independently of the government.

Quote

While the law provides the board of directors with the power to appoint the governor, in practice they approve the choice of the government. 

The government does and can appoint the governor of the bank... So the government does have influence over this individual, i mean they are not going to appoint anyone that does not approve of say in this case , liberal practices, or influences...they want someone that can color inside the liberal coloring book . 

Quote

In the case of profound disagreement between the government and the Bank, the minister of finance can issue written instructions for the bank to change its policies

Does not sound like an institution with complete power over itself... decisions can be over turned by government if they are not approved, In "practice" the governor sets monetary policies but if the government does not agree it can change them at any time... Telling me that the PM has no influence in this realm or any realm within Canada is wishful thinking...he has already set that precedence in the SNC matter....

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

1...Experts have said that we will be using oil for fossil fuels for atleast 30 years until a reasonable new energy source is found, and yes there are hundreds of projects that are on going right now, but not many of them are close to have a source of energy that can be mass produced effectively and cost effective to power an engine of some sort.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  The financing of economically feasible refining capacity and transportation (at the necessary scale) would take decades to earn a return positive return.  It'd be such an enormous capital outlay at the start and require so much borrowing that we'd probably never come out positive on the investment and even if it was possible we could, it's almost certainly not worth the risk.  

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

2... Perhaps you are right maybe i do not fully understand the Bank of Canada and all of it roles, just like i did not fully understand the role of the justice minister, where it clearly states that he or she must not be influenced by government in matters regarding the law. and yet that did happen right...and yet she was yanked out and sent to the back bench when she was fully supported by the law and policies laid out for the justice minister...and you know what maybe i got that all fuc*ed up as well.

You didn't understand the Supreme Court.  The Justice Minister IS part of the government so it's silly to say it wouldn't be influenced by the government.  You were confused on the role of the Supreme Court and how it was independent, just like you don't seem to understand the Bank of Canada or its governance.  

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

The government does and can appoint the governor of the bank... So the government does have influence over this individual, i mean they are not going to appoint anyone that does not approve of say in this case , liberal practices, or influences...they want someone that can color inside the liberal coloring book. 

The government doesn't appoint the BoC governor.  A council of independent directors appoints the governor for a 7 year term.  Governments come and go through the governors term. 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Does not sound like an institution with complete power over itself... decisions can be over turned by government if they are not approved, In "practice" the governor sets monetary policies but if the government does not agree it can change them at any time... Telling me that the PM has no influence in this realm or any realm within Canada is wishful thinking...he has already set that precedence in the SNC matter....

You're right in a strictly literal sense, but completely wrong in a practical sense.  Though the government could fire the governor of the bank or compel him to do something he didn't want to through written and publicized orders, that hasn't ever happened and is unlikely to happen.  These technically literal powers are similar to those of the Queen or the Governor General.  They're symbolic for practical purposes and would likely trigger a political crisis if someone tried to use them.  

Edited March 6, 2022 by Moonbox

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No, I want a Conservative Party that embraces fiscal responsibility and pragmatism without embracing Boomer social conservatism or Trump-style demagoguery.  

Ha, I think you want Liberal Party of Canada with a blue shirt.  There is no social conservativism in the Conservative Party.  Harper ended that. Canadians don’t know what social conservativism is.  We’re so left in Canada that we’re prosecuting people for not being left enough.  People up here call DeSantis a right-wing nut job for setting a three month first trimester limit in abortion. Canada is the radical faction of the US Democrats gone full-on dictatorship. Canadians will probably keep electing these ridiculous governments.  

Edited March 6, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Moonbox]

28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Ha, I think you want Liberal Party of Canada with a blue shirt.  There is no social conservativism in the Conservative Party.  Harper ended that.

Great.  Bring Harper back or someone like him.  

28 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canadians don’t know what social conservativism is.  We’re so left in Canada that we’re prosecuting people for not being left enough.  

Left and right is a relative scale.  I think you need to look up what the word "relative" means, because you clearly seem to think there's a literal and absolute definition for Left and Right, and that both are clubs that require specific credentials.  

As for Ron DeSantis, LOL is all I can say about him.  

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Great.  Bring Harper back or someone like him.  

Left and right is a relative scale.  I think you need to look up what the word "relative" means, because you clearly seem to think there's a literal and absolute definition for Left and Right, and that both are clubs that require specific credentials.  

As for Ron DeSantis, LOL is all I can say about him.  

There’s no right wing politician with a seat in Parliament to my knowledge.  Maybe half the Conservatives are centrist.  I’m a centrist and never really considered myself conservative.  The rest of Parliament is the leftmost end of what I traditionally associate with the Liberal Party of Canada.  It goes back to Justin’s first mandate, when he out-lefted the NDP to win NDP votes.  

[Moonbox]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

There’s no right wing politician with a seat in Parliament to my knowledge.  Maybe half the Conservatives are centrist.  I’m a centrist and never really considered myself conservative.  The rest of Parliament is the leftmost end of what I traditionally associate with the Liberal Party of Canada.  It goes back to Justin’s first mandate, when he out-lefted the NDP to win NDP votes.  

You don't understand what relative means, do you? 

 

 

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.  The financing of economically feasible refining capacity and transportation (at the necessary scale) would be take decades to earn a return positive return.  It'd be such an enormous capital outlay at the start and require so much borrowing that we'd probably never come out positive on the investment and even if it was possible we could, it's almost certainly not worth the risk.  

You didn't understand the Supreme Court.  The Justice Minister IS part of the government so it's silly to say it wouldn't be influenced by the government.  You were confused on the role of the Supreme Court and how it was independent, just like you don't seem to understand the Bank of Canada or its governance.  

The government doesn't appoint the BoC governor.  A council of independent directors appoints the governor for a 7 year term.  Governments come and go through the governors term. 

You're right in a strictly literal sense, but completely wrong in a practical sense.  Though the government could fire the governor of the bank or compel him to do something he didn't want to through written and publicized orders, that hasn't ever happened and is unlikely to happen.  These technically literal powers are similar to those of the Queen or the Governor General.  They're symbolic for practical purposes and would likely trigger a political crisis if someone tried to use them.  

1.  maybe your not taking into account the whole issue,  the statistics looked at the whole category of liquid fossil fuels – crude oil plus a large range of other combustible products – and it reveals that Canada’s import habit now tops $34 billion annually. this of course is only imports , it does not take into account jobs created by building pipelines, and refineries which bring in tax dollars as well, not counting all the extra Canadian jobs created to increase our demand for our own oil...you said decades before we seen a return, well in just 30 years 1.2 trillion dollars saved in import fossil fuels alone...that buys a lot of pipelines and refineries, not only would we save 1.2 trillion on imports but I'm sure our refiners could generate atleast that much in revenue from selling it to ourselves... that is a lot of donuts... So what am i missing here ? 

Canada’s dependence on imported fossil fuels reaches a whole new level - JWN Energy

2. Your right i fully own that fact i did not understand the complete running of the Supreme court, as it was not completely laid out in my sources, it failed to bridge the rest of the info from the supreme court itself, and that was my bad....The justice minister is unlike any other minister, and is suppose to be free from any interference or influence from the government when it comes to the law...and she and her position was not afforded this, was she...

Once again i am interrupting what info my source has given me, and i have laid it out for you to read...Although it is a weak source "wikipedi" it has been verified with other sources...

3.  According to the source, it does state that the law clearly reads the governor is  appointed by the board as you said, how ever it does also state "in practice they approve the choice of government" , With that in mind i went back through the many BoC governors and some are approved by the board and some are approved by the PM of the time...atleast according to the sources...

Bank of Canada - Wikipedia

 

Quote

The head of the Bank of Canada is the governor. While the law provides the board of directors with the power to appoint the governor, in practice they approve the choice of the government.^[52] The governor serves a fixed seven-year term which may be renewed, but recent governors have only chosen to serve a single term. With the exception of matters of personal conduct ("good behaviour") 

 

Stephen Poloz - Wikipedia appointed By Harper.

Governor of the Bank of Canada - Wikipedia appointed by the board.

Quote

 While the law provides the board of directors with the power to appoint the governor, in practice they approve the choice of the government

4. The one thing the government of Canada can not do is fired the BoC governor according to the law, but they can over ride any decisions they make. although it has never happened, it does not preclude it ever happening, remember thats what we said about the emergence measures act " it had never been used before" ...until Justin got a hold of it.. and while there was a small crises during the SNC or emergences measures act being used, nothing really did happen of consequence, not once but twice these never happened before have become reality, so i ask why is it not possible here with this matter..

Edited March 6, 2022 by Army Guy

[Zeitgeist]

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You don't understand what relative means, do you? 

 

 

I could talk relative, relativism, and relativity for that matter for days.  I think you’re making a point about Canadians seeing the parties as representing relative left and right positions.  I’m saying that our markers are based on old ideas of left and right that don’t exist anymore. Everyone is constantly trying to look and act woke under the woke inquisition.  Anyone who bucks that in Canada is labeled racist-fringe-Nazi.  There’s no right wing anymore and even the centre is under scrutiny.  Freedom used to be understood as a universal good.  Now even our basic constitutional rights are getting hard to defend.  Somehow Canadians have come to accept a level of government overreach that stretches the definition of democracy. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Jack9000]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

There’s no right wing politician with a seat in Parliament to my knowledge.  Maybe half the Conservatives are centrist.  I’m a centrist and never really considered myself conservative.  The rest of Parliament is the leftmost end of what I traditionally associate with the Liberal Party of Canada.  It goes back to Justin’s first mandate, when he out-lefted the NDP to win NDP votes.  

lol there is plenty of Right wing politicans in parliament dude.. and you are not a centrist .

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

1.  maybe your not taking into account the whole issue,  the statistics looked at the whole category of liquid fossil fuels – crude oil plus a large range of other combustible products – and it reveals that Canada’s import habit now tops $34 billion annually.

I am looking at the whole issue.  I think we can both agree that if oil companies know how to do something, it's how to make money.  Canada's current refineries don't even work at capacity, nor do American ones.  Why are we looking to build expensive refineries when existing capacity isn't even maxed?  Even more important, refining isn't even that profitable.  The most important and most value-adding parts of the oil industry are extraction and transportation.  Don't take my word for it either.  Here's a good article from a few years back with all sorts of ancillary references included.  You'll probably find it interesting. 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tristin-hopper-why-canada-shouldnt-refine-the-oil-it-exports

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

3.  According to the source, it does state that the law clearly reads the governor is  appointed by the board as you said, how ever it does also state "in practice they approve the choice of government" , With that in mind i went back through the many BoC governors and some are approved by the board and some are approved by the PM of the time...atleast according to the sources...

Bank of Canada - Wikipedia

The government's approval of the Bank of Canada Governor is a rubber-stamping.  The Canadian government understands very well that the Bank is not a political tool and that it's in everyone's best interest to let it do the job based on facts, research and math.  Perhaps if the Board wanted to troll Canada and appoint Vladimir Putin, maybe then the government would veto, but aside from that they're left to do their job.  Their job, of course, is economic and monetary and stability, not getting one party or another elected. 

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Stephen Poloz - Wikipedia appointed By Harper.

Nope. 

The Directors of the Bank of Canada appointed under Section 9 of the Bank of Canada Act today announced that they have appointed Stephen S. Poloz as Governor of the Bank of Canada for a seven-year term, effective 3 June 2013. Mr. Poloz will succeed Mark Carney, who is leaving the Bank of Canada on 1 June 2013.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2013/05/stephen-poloz-appointed-governor-of-bank-of-canada/

I don't mean to be rude, but you really don't know what you're talking about here.  

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Governor of the Bank of Canada - Wikipedia appointed by the board.

4. The one thing the government of Canada can not do is fired the BoC governor according to the law, but they can over ride any decisions they make. although it has never happened, it does not preclude it ever happening, remember thats what we said about the emergence measures act " it had never been used before" ...until Justin got a hold of it.. and while there was a small crises during the SNC or emergences measures act being used, nothing really did happen of consequence, not once but twice these never happened before have become reality, so i ask why is it not possible here with this matter..

Because the government can't overrule the Bank without publicly announcing what they're doing and why.  Reshuffling Cabinet and overruling the Justice Minister was a hush-hush operation and if we had more competent opposition leaders it would have likely been a career-ender for Trudeau.  The Emergencies Act probably (hopefully) WILL end Trudeau, and it doesn't look like it would have ever passed the Senate anyways.    

The Bank of Canada's independence is an important part of its credibility. The government's light hand on it is vital to maintaining confidence in the system.  A government would have little/nothing to gain from flipping that table over.

 

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I could talk relative, relativism, and relativity for that matter for days.  I think you’re making a point about Canadians seeing the parties as representing relative left and right positions.  

I'm saying that left or right is a matter of perspective and there aren't clear definitions for any of them.  The terms themselves are vague heuristics meant to simplify conversations around different sets of attitudes.  Nobody has an authoritative definition.  

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m saying that our markers are based on old ideas of left and right that don’t exist anymore. 

I'm saying that old ideas of left or right are irrelevant.  Nobody in Canada cares if the Conservatives are "left" of the Democrats in the USA, or if your grandpappy's Tories wouldn't have gone along with gay marriage.   All that matters is the current context and environment.  

[Zeitgeist]

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I'm saying that left or right is a matter of perspective and there aren't clear definitions for any of them.  The terms themselves are vague heuristics meant to simplify conversations around different sets of attitudes.  Nobody has an authoritative definition.  

I'm saying that old ideas of left or right are irrelevant.  Nobody in Canada cares if the Conservatives are "left" of the Democrats in the USA, or if your grandpappy's Tories wouldn't have gone along with gay marriage.   All that matters is the current context and environment.  

We have gay marriage and no one is taking it away.  I don’t know what social conservative issues you think the Conservatives would take up.  I don’t see any.