Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister

Pierre Poilievre for Prime Minister

Since Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership race last year, he is proving he would make a great Prime Minister here in Canada. Actually, long before he won the leadership race. For five years prior, Poilievre served within the Conservative government (opposition) as the shadow minister for finance. In this role, he quickly became known for his bulldog-like perseverance in attempting to get answers. I loved (still do) listening to him grill, talk, argue, and explain things to voters, especially regarding wrong-doings featuring the Liberal government and our current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

No Longer an Affluent Country

Unless you are a high-paid member of the Liberal party, whose spending habits defy reason and transparency, it could be argued that Canada is no longer an affluent country. Perhaps compared to other countries around the world we appear to be but things have changed. Yes, we have our share of millionaires and a few billionaires in our midst, but the average family or citizen is penny-pinching, even struggling to make ends meet. High interest, mortgage, inflation rates, and taxes mean our earned dollars don’t go as far as they used to. Pension plans are not adjusted for inflation and investments have tanked, so many seniors who thought they could retire comfortably are now scratching their heads. More money is going out than is coming in; a basic accounting issue that continues to plague us. Couples are choosing to have fewer if any, children because of the astronomical cost of living.

These are just a few of the headlines:

  • In Q3 of last year, the Bank of Canada lost money for the first time in its history. Those losses are set to continue.
  • According to a new report, the Bank of Canada is set to lose up to $8.8 billion over the next 2-3 years.
  • Trudeau Campaigning Against Alberta Demonstrates His Unfitness For National Leadership
  • ‘World Stage Trudeau’ Bears No Resemblance To The Trudeau Who Governs Canada
  • More Canadians Leaving Big Cities As Affordability Crisis Continues
  • Bank of Canada has to pay interest too on bonds held resulting in shortfall
  • Growing spending on consultants by ballooning public service is the real scandal

Many are putting their hopes in Pierre Poilievre to change this.

The following recent video shows Poilievre talking about the dire straits many Canadians are facing. He then gets into grilling Trudeau for numerous inappropriate contracts awarded to global consulting firm McKinsey over the years:

Support from Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper, former Canadian Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party supports Poilievre too and would like to see Trudeau ousted from his position.

I have watched with great concern as the Trudeau Liberals – in partnership with their NDP allies –  have weakened our country through rampant inflation, slow growth, billions in new debt, lost job opportunities, an out-of-control housing market, and refusing to fix the institutions that have been failing Canadian families

I’ve seen Pierre in action. He served as my Parliamentary Secretary and was a strong Minister in my government. In recent years, he has been our Party’s most vocal and effective critic of the Trudeau Liberals.

Pierre is winning the support of Canadians because he’s talking about the issues – especially the economic issues – that matter to Canadian families. He is proposing sound, Conservative ideas, but ones adapted for the challenges of today. And, critically, he’s bringing a new generation of Canadians into our Party.

THAT is how we win the next election.

But, in the days and weeks to come, we can expect Pierre to face a barrage of attacks and criticisms from the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP, hostile voices in the news media, and left-wing special interests determined to derail his positive message of hope and freedom

Stephen Harper, former PM

Rex Murphy on the Conservatives of the Past

In the National Post, columnist Rex Murphy wonders whether Harper is doing Pierre Poilievre a favour by endorsing him or alienating and scaring off on-the-fence voters. This is due to Harper’s unpopularity when he was voted out. I for one like(d), respect(ed), and most importantly, trust(ed) the average-looking, non-flashy, down-to-earth, intelligent, qualified-for-the-job Stephen Harper and the fact that (in the words of Murphy) “he thinks, thinks well and deeply before he acts.” What a concept!

Unfortunately, things have changed drastically since Harper and the Conservatives were voted out:

Protests took place that didn’t bring down the Emergencies Act. When trying to stamp out bigotry, it was the custom not to fund bigots in the fight against it. The administration and distribution of public money in amounts close to a billion dollars to charity-entrepreneurs was not known, and finally, perhaps most extraordinary, Alberta’s oil industry was regarded as a national benefit.
Rex Murphy

Immigration Policies

Harper though had several policies that sunk him, especially his hard stance on immigration, a point Liberals were quick to capitalize on. Liberals plan to increase the arrival of immigrants to 500,000 per year by 2025. Does anyone else feel this is super-excessive, especially in such turbulent times? Poilievre recognizes Harper’s prior unpopularity in immigrant-rich communities like Toronto, so has adopted a promise:

We will maintain the same engagements and commitment for continuous discussions around immigration [including] immigration that is based on family reunification, the recognition of foreign certificates, the scrapping of the English test, as well as the removal of bottlenecks to improving the immigration process,” 

current Conservative agenda

The problem is, as I see it anyway, that increased immigration and an economic crisis don’t meld well together. Higher cost of living, inflation rate, and housing costs are a nightmare for current citizens, how will immigrants fare? Canadian cities are already packed to the hilt. Although we do have lots of jobs available that immigrants might be more willing to fill than unemployed Canadians.

World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland

The WEF is happening right now. Don’t know about the WEF? Check out this information for specifics. Members of the Canadian Liberals love to attend, Conservatives not so much. That’s because of the controversy WEF is tainted with:

It began when an opinion article published in 2016 on the WEF’s website — entitled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better” and intended, its author says, as “a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development” — started getting attention in 2020, after WEF founder and chairman Klaus Schwab wrote his own opinion piece arguing for something he called “the great reset.”…..The “great reset” has since morphed into a conspiracy theory claiming that a cabal of global elites is planning to remake society to eliminate private property and impose an authoritarian global government…..Last week, Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre told a crowd of applauding supporters that, as prime minister, he would ban cabinet ministers from attending “that big fancy conference of billionaires with the World Economic Forum” and vowed to remove them from cabinet should they attend.

CBC

Notable Canadians attending WEF in 2023 include Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, International Trade Minister Mary Ng, and former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.

Tipping the Scale

The problem with politics and politicians is that no one party or member can possibly tick all the boxes for voters, although Poilievre comes close. The current dismal economic state of our country, as well as repeated scandals from Liberals, with Justin Trudeau leading the way, are weighing him down.

My scales are tipped, and heavy is not good.

Erasing History, Why is it so Selective?

I find it extremely annoying and disconcerting that people want to eradicate historic people and events. History is based on facts, some good and some not so good, but none that should be erased to make us feel better about ourselves. Hopefully we have evolved enough to avoid repeating the same politically incorrect transgressions.

Canadians (some) Demanding all Traces of Sir John A MacDonald be Removed

Sir John A MacDonald has been on the literal hit list in Canada lately. Schools, buildings, streets, statues, bridges, and the like are being renamed because of the belief that his federal policies were suspect when he was our Prime Minister. As our very first Prime Minister, he was instrumental in our country’s development and deserves a place in our history.

I find this obsession to erase history frustrating and ridiculous. Where do we draw the line? Who decides who was bad, really bad, bad enough to wipe them out?

Erasing history
Sir John A. MacDonald, Wikipedia

What About O.J?

These feelings of disgust were re-awakened yesterday afternoon when I was watching football and O.J. Simpson’s name came up. Inducted into the football hall of fame for his prowess on the field, he is still idolized and celebrated often by commentators and fans.

I don’t know about you, but I was totally dismayed that O.J. literally got away with murder. Twice. Talk about a travesty of justice. Yes, he was convicted in a civil suit, awarding money to the families of his victims, and spent some time in the clinker, but still got away with murder in the criminal courts.

O.J. Simpson, Wikipedia

What’s the Difference?

The point of this rant? Why is there a difference between the way we are willing to acknowledge the historic actions or behaviour of Sir John A and O.J? Why does O.J. Simpson continue to be idolized and revered when Sir John A. MacDonald and other historic figures are getting toppled from our graces, shunned, with all traces of them discarded from our lives?

Life Lessons

Learning from our mistakes should be considered valuable life lessons. We should be taught to move on and refrain (hopefully) from repeating the same mistakes. That doesn’t mean the lessons or mistakes didn’t happen and shouldn’t be acknowledged. Life lessons get chronicled in our brains, or, in some cases, our journals or diaries.

In Conclusion

It seems to me that we are offended by everything and everyone these days. If our ideologies are threatened (??) we demand all traces of the offender removed from society. If we can accept the accomplishments and talents of one man without judging him on his lifestyle, ethics, or morals, why can we not accept the valuable contributions of others?

I believe that history is in the past; we learn about people, places, and things and decide how to incorporate the good from the past into our futures. Every country in the world can dredge up unsavory actions of their leaders and heroes. It’s how the indiscretions are dealt with that should decide the success and health of the country moving forward.

Well, I feel (somewhat) better after this rant, but I would like to hear from others. Am I wrong? Or just easily offended.

Governor-General Expenses Too Much

Here in Canada, we have a (some say redundant) Governor-General position.  The person to fill this position is chosen by the Queen (or current monarch) of England, with advisement from the prime minister, as their representative of the monarchy in Canada. Predominantly ceremonial in nature, the necessity of the role has been debated for years.  Taxpayers dole out governor-general expenses to the tune of an annual salary of $288K and an annual pension payment of $140K for former position holders.  That’s pretty lucrative for a short-term position. 

The issue is even more controversial recently as expense reports (over and above her pension) for former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson were revealed by the National Post as over extravagant.  To the tune of a million dollars overly extravagant.  After her mere six-year stint as our Governor-General.

Governor General expenses

These governor-general expenses are not currently made available to the public.  In this day and age of promised transparency (at least in an election year) and accessibility to information-seeking technology (google), one would think this information would be easy to find.  Doesn’t it make you wonder what other former Governors-General are claiming as their expenses?

Our prime minister has promised to “look into it” but that doesn’t give too many people (myself included) a warm fuzzy feeling.  Especially as his priorities do not appear to be focused on the concerns of taxpayers.  I have a feeling Clarkson’s expenses are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.