• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
177
Points
680
Well the CPC convention passed numerous policy amendments/additions including:

1. recognizing and accepting unreservedly a social covenant as between the government and veterans;

2. streamlining defence procurement through a non-partisan committee of Parliamentarians similar to Australia;

3. supporting small modular nuclear reactors;

4. getting tough with the Chinese Communist Party;

On the other hand it rejected amendments/additions to:

1. recognize that climate change is real and that the party is willing to act;

2. restrict the extension of limitations on euthanasia;

🍻
Reading MSM, one would think they had only 1 policy issue -- climate change. Mind you Joe/Josephine Citizen doesn't care about defence, VAC, China, etc...
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
227
Points
680
I'm sure that when the next increment of the carbon tax kicks in on April 1st, Trudeau's climate change policies will negatively impact Liberals as well.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
243
Points
630
I don’t know why they don’t just come up with a good economic plan to take advantage of green tech. The CPC doesn’t need a liberal climate plan, it just needs A climate plan. Denying it is just going to keep them in opposition long enough to cause a split and ensure that the LPC stays in power.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
651
Points
860
Climate change - literally even acknowledging the reality of it - is a perceived poison pill in their base in the prairies. They’re too afraid to touch it. Yet, in the west, they have more than enough support to risk a bit of it to pick up seats elsewhere. An economic plan that recognizes climate change doesn’t need to look like what the Libs or NDP would do. They could present it as a future-oriented economy where long term investments will open new (and coincidentally cleaner) opportunities. Resource economies could be comforted by exploring for necessary ‘tech metals’ and natural resources for an electric economy. Domestic refining capacity could help offset pipeline reticence and could capture more of the value added chain, allowing thhe prairies to profit more directly from the rest of Canada’s dependence on refined petroleum. The highly educated and skilled populations in the major cities could be leveraged to set up research hubs to help make technological and environmental advances pay... lots could be done.

Fingers in their ears on the issue will not serve them well unless they’re determined to continue to run for opposition. No easier way to paint themselves as the party of the past right now.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
570
Points
910
To be fair, the leadership of the CPC seems to get it. However, for good or ill, unlike an NDP or Liberal policy convention, the Conservative conventions are not pre-scripted affairs. The grass roots still has considerable sway.

So, for all of you decrying the “Laurentien Elite”- which is it? Does the “rabble“ get a voice, or not?

I know that the CBC will spend the next week with detailed and morally superior coverage on how ”last century” the Conservatives climate ideas are (instead of how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Liberals have become), but this is not resolution like abortion from a small group of fanatics.

This is an indication that there are actually large segments of the Canadian population that do not think Climate Change is the overwhelming issue of the day. Make of that what you will and it may well keep the Conservatives in Opposition, but do you think that those fault lines will just go away the more carbon taxes the Liberals pile on? Ultimately, it will be their problem, too.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
190
Points
680
All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
747
Points
860
All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?
R&D doesn't make your earnings for the next quarter.
 

Good2Golf

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
502
Points
1,010
Point being those who don’t consider and shape the future stand to be disappointed when the future becomes today and things aren’t set to their advantage. No company looks to R&D to help with executing the AOP for sales and revenue.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
651
Points
860
All this future stuff that could be done and isn't being done...is it because the STEM and business quants who inhabit the world of big corporations and investors and venture capital are less wise than politicians?
Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.

We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.

At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
190
Points
680
Generating electricity has detrimental effects on the environment. And to the extent anyone is fighting electrification, the blame lies squarely with the people opposed to nuclear, hydro, windmills, tidal harnesses, thermal, increasing exports of natural gas to Asia, etc; and upon the regulators who strangle development and deployment of infrastructure.

they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood.

"Learn to code!"

I agree - stop propping up industries. But also, get out of the way.

And be realistic and informed. Getting a bit dated, but still a useful reminder: Energy flows in Canada. I assume the wind/solar bar is a little thicker by now, but I also assume not by much.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
227
Points
680
Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.
I read an article recently (can't seem to find it now), that quoted one of the provincial electrical distribution CEOs stating the even a modest increase in the number of EVs in urban centres would place a disastrous strain on the delivery grid. Even after the harsh lesson delivered in 1998, Québec's and most of rural Ontario's electrical grid is still held together with gun tape and 550 cord.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
570
Points
910
Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.

We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.

At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.
Brihard-

I do not buy the “oil and gas industry is unfairly subsidized“ argument.


While that is an oil and gas industry website, the arguments are compelling. The most heavily subsidized industries in Canada are actually:

Hydro Quebec
The Film and TV industry
Auto makers

(See any kind of a pattern for federal voting intentions?)

Oil and Gas are barely a rounding error.

So, by all means- lets level the playing field and end government subsidies to industries. Period.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
651
Points
860
I don’t believe I used the word ‘unfairly’. I was pointing out that government is willing to throw (considerable) cash at certain sectors when strategically or simply politically expedient.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,233
Points
910
I read an article recently (can't seem to find it now), that quoted one of the provincial electrical distribution CEOs stating the even a modest increase in the number of EVs in urban centres would place a disastrous strain on the delivery grid. Even after the harsh lesson delivered in 1998, Québec's and most of rural Ontario's electrical grid is still held together with gun tape and 550 cord.

Meanwhile, the EVS (Eco-Virtue Signalling) movement keeps on rolling out the ironies :)


Electric vehicles expected to boost Canadian mining growth, industry panel agrees​


Mining industry insiders say opportunities for Canada are rising with world demand, technical advances and political support for electric vehicles.

 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
251
Points
880
Really a boneheaded vote. Across the board it was 46% in favour of including the provision and 54% opposed.

Interestingly the dividing line was the Ontario/Quebec border. All those to the east were in favour and all those to the west were against it. Quelle surprise, even BC voted 51% against it. Sask was the worst at 73.4% against it. NB and Que the most in favour at 71.4 and 70% in favour respectively.

😡
That was pretty disappointing to see; it didn't actually commit them to doing anything specific and should have been an easy win. Didn't think they were Leaf fans out West though to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like that.

Anyone under thirty is massively aware of it and it will affect everything going forward. Not starting to account for it in economic, security and foreign policies is just dumb. Most people older than that are worried about how it will affect their kids.

May as well just give up on anything other than a liberal govt until the CPC splits back up and dumps the Reform element.
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
141
Points
680
Meanwhile, the EVS (Eco-Virtue Signalling) movement keeps on rolling out the ironies :)


Electric vehicles expected to boost Canadian mining growth, industry panel agrees​


Mining industry insiders say opportunities for Canada are rising with world demand, technical advances and political support for electric vehicles.

What horseshit. If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk. What the actual fuck?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
490
Points
880
To be fair, the leadership of the CPC seems to get it. However, for good or ill, unlike an NDP or Liberal policy convention, the Conservative conventions are not pre-scripted affairs. The grass roots still has considerable sway.

So, for all of you decrying the “Laurentien Elite”- which is it? Does the “rabble“ get a voice, or not?

I know that the CBC will spend the next week with detailed and morally superior coverage on how ”last century” the Conservatives climate ideas are (instead of how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Liberals have become), but this is not resolution like abortion from a small group of fanatics.

This is an indication that there are actually large segments of the Canadian population that do not think Climate Change is the overwhelming issue of the day. Make of that what you will and it may well keep the Conservatives in Opposition, but do you think that those fault lines will just go away the more carbon taxes the Liberals pile on? Ultimately, it will be their problem, too.
Had a busy day so sorry it took this long to reply.

One of the main reasons I got into my local EDA executive is that I wanted to see how sausages are made at this level and I've found it an interesting process.

In January I got started on the Policy Committee, reviewed the party's Policy Declaration so that we could make recommendations for additions or amendments. Their National Defence policy was a mess so I wrote a fairly lengthy and detailed amendment to fix it. Long story short I was politely told that my work was a bit "ambitious" and then we started reviewing what was on the agenda and I got the idea of what really goes on.

Basically all these policies get developed over time from the bottom up. (although I expect I expect some are salted from the top in.) The policies are pretty much disjointed and have been built over time as the various EDAs throw things in. Once your own EDA committee produces new policies or amendments they need to get buy-in from other EDAs and once you have enough they make their way to the National side where they are reviewed by the National Policy Committee and ranked and the top ones submitted for presentation at a convention where they are discussed and voted on.
The problem that I see is that they still end up being a jumble of disjointed policies thrown together over time with many that might once have been relevant but have been long superseded by events and are no longer relevant or even accurate. A bunch of old ones were thrown out or updated at this convention but many more exist. Even worse, sometimes a policy amendment is suggested to improve a policy but then some people vote against the amendment because they don't like the original policy which then stays on the books unaltered.

Essentially it's not a very good system to trim and restate national policy at the best of times. It's pretty democratic but sometimes democracy can be pretty thick. The vote on this one issue caught me by surprise because it flies in the face of common sense and what's in the best interest of the party itself. I guess that some people just like cutting off their nose to spite their face. The one good thing is that I didn't see any SoCon issues push their way in. It's the one outcome of this convention which has given and will continue to give the Libs fuel to burn over and over again until the next election. Dumb. Plain dumb.

🍻
 
Top