Conservative party leadership race

[scottish]

Now that Erin O'toole has been deposed, there's a leadership race starting with an election planned in September.

The two frontrunners are likely Pierre Poillievre and Jean Charest.    Pierre is a colourful character who is well known for arguing with the government in the house.   He also spent some time hanging out with the freedom convoy in Ottawa last month.   

Jean Charest is a former leader of the old Conservative party, and a former (Liberal) premier of Quebec.   I don't remember much about Jean Charest - we were living in western Canada in the '90s and not paying a lot of attention to federal politics.   He does seem to have something to say other than "Conservatives good, Liberals bad", unlike the bulk of the party which seems to be stuck on this mantra.

Lately I've realized that you can have a much bigger influence on politics by voting in the leadership elections.    In this case, you have to be a conservative party member by June 3.   It costs $15 for one year.   

The next leader of the conservative party may turn out to have a critical role in Canadian politics.   The current Liberal government will be 12 years old (assuming the Liberals wait the full 5 years to call another election) and voters will be getting tired of them.    Heh, many voters are already tired of Trudeau.   To us, this seems like a good chance to weigh in on the leadership race.

Does anyone else have opinions on this topic?

[techwiz]

Between the two I would rather see Jean Charest as the leader. I am not a member, but you make a good point of be able to have more impact $15 is not much money.  Guess I can't complain about my choices if I do not actively help select the next leader.  I do worry about joining a party and getting on the mailing/calling list for all the fund raisers. 

[Mighty Eyebrows]

As long as the current Western base for the party demands abolishing carbon taxes as a marker of "true" conservatism, they are a no-go party for any voter with half a brain. It is too bad, since the Liberals need a solid (fiscally-conservative) opposition too keep them losing the plot. However, Poillievre is a posturing attack rabbit with no ideas of his own.

Carbon taxes are the most "free market" and transparent way of pricing externalities that minimizes distortions to the economy. It boggles my mind that the conservatives have chosen that hill to die on.

[RetiredAt63]

The old PC party was somewhat small "l" liberal socially, especially the Red Tories.  I had the privilege of voting for Flora MacDonald when I was in university.  (I'm more to the left now, but voting for her was great). The present Conservative party is basically Reform, as far as I can tell.  O'Toole was trying to move the party a bit more to center and look at where that got him. 

At this point will anyone who might vote for a O'Toole/Charest type party trust them to be able to manage their own caucus and not get back-stabbed? 

Eventually I think they will end up splitting.  Charest would do better to do a Bernier* and start a more progressive Conservative party.  It would probably do better than Bernier's has done.

Seriously, we do not have a socially liberal fiscally conservative party in Canada.  The recent Conservatives are not fiscally conservative, they just don't like a federal government that has money to spend on social issues.


*How can anyone vote for him?  His record as a cabinet minister was not great, and his security breaches were irresponsible and otherwise horrifying.

[RetiredAt63]

Lately I've realized that you can have a much bigger influence on politics by voting in the leadership elections.    In this case, you have to be a conservative party member by June 3.   It costs $15 for one year.   

Does anyone else have opinions on this topic?

I did that once.  I joined the provincial Liberal Party so that I could vote on our local riding candidate.  The party brass were planning to parachute a candidate into our (safe) riding, when we had an amazing local candidate.  She got masses of people to join, she won the nomination, she won the riding, and the party brass learned that our riding might be safe but was not to be taken for granted.  I let my membership lapse and never heard from them again.

[Margie]

Over the years I have voted for all parties...though I do lean conservative.  I think the last politian that seemed to actually care about people was Jack Layton and I hadn't voted NDP since I was 18.   I like Maurice from the green party, he seems smart and honest. 

At this point, I am not sure any political party deserves my vote or my attention.  I can not believe the things that have happened in Canada over the past few years.

I will not vote Liberal if JT is still there.  I thought his chatter about blue collar workers being rapists and then correcting a woman who said mankind...He interrupted her and said "we say people kind'   Honestly, I laughed so hard; what a dork.  Then, his horrific speech about non vaccinated taking up space who shouldn't be tolerated and being racist, etc.  He is not a leader who is interested in bringing people together. 

That said, I hope the conservative party just gets on with it.  Pick someone and let the healing begin.  I also hope they do not allow the abortion debate to be restarted...it is literally a non-starter...I can't believe people allow themselves to be so engrossed in one topic.  (I am reluctantly pro-choice but would never want a woman to be shamed or have it be made harder for her to acquire one if she needed it). 

After watching/reading a lot from political leaders all over the world for the past two years I am honestly starting to wonder if all elections are rigged.  Hard to believe these people are the best of the best. 

I guess we will see what happens...the next federal gov't has such a massive hole to crawl out of; I wouldn't wish the job on my worst enemy.

[scottish]

I think the election "rigging" takes place in the way parties select candidates.     I remember supporting Christine Elliot in the Ontario PC leadership race & I was a little skeptical that Doug Ford actually won.   In the end, Ford turned out to be a lot better than we expected...  but it was a pretty low bar.

Justin Trudeau was a breath of fresh air after 10 years of Stephen Harper.   But he only took about 6 months to turn stale!   Lately he's been outright divisive.   I don't really understand why the party doesn't punt him.   He's so hard to take seriously now - everything he says sounds like he practiced it in front of a mirror for an hour.

It would be fascinating to have an insider's view into how the political parties actually operate.   Who are the people calling the shots in terms of who can be a candidate?   And what process do they follow (informal or not) to make those decisions?

[Margie]

@scottish

I agree 100%!

I am actually getting a bit nervous if Canada doesn't get it together we are going to see a brain drain like the early 90s.  The young people I know, smart, motivated, hard working, are all taking a good look at the rest of the world to see where they could have the best life. 

I have never been a member of a political party and would never join one now.  I am not sure I could be a positive member!  I am turned off of politics for now. 

[daverobev]

The only comment I can make is that Poilievre just seems absolutely abhorrent. I would not vote Tory with him at the helm, just like I would not vote UK Tory with Boris Johnson leading.

I can't undersand how Trudeau has messed up so badly, but it seems like he has. It began with abandoning election reform. I think he's quite liked outside Canada, but yeah he's divisive inside.

Agree that Layton was good. RIP. An actually decent human being on all fronts. Singh is ok but still full of shit ("we believe universal healthcare should be universal to include dental and optical! *with this massive list of things excluded").

[scottish]

@scottish

I agree 100%!

I am actually getting a bit nervous if Canada doesn't get it together we are going to see a brain drain like the early 90s.  The young people I know, smart, motivated, hard working, are all taking a good look at the rest of the world to see where they could have the best life. 

I have never been a member of a political party and would never join one now.  I am not sure I could be a positive member!  I am turned off of politics for now.

Tell me about it.   Both my kids have STEM degrees (2020 and 2022) and they are both heading to the west coast of the US for work.    Not only are the salaries much higher than in Canada, the tech companies generally have much more interesting (and technical) work than we see in Canada these days.

I was taken aback when Calgary started trumpeting about how it's attracted Amazon tech jobs when Amazon announced they were opening a data center in Calgary.    Sometimes it seems like the days of Canadian tech companies like Avro, BNR, Newbridge and Blackberry are coming to an end...

[Dee]

Is Charest actually a serious contender? I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party would choose a leader who used to be a *Liberal* premier. I guess I will have to wait and see...because I will not be joining the party to vote for the leader.

[RetiredAt63]

Is Charest actually a serious contender? I find it hard to believe that the Conservative party would choose a leader who used to be a *Liberal* premier. I guess I will have to wait and see...because I will not be joining the party to vote for the leader.

He was a federal cabinet minister in the PC Mulroney government. Of course that makes him way too left wing for a lot of present-day Conservatives.  And I don't even remember him being a Red Tory (he may have been, I just don't remember it).  The big fuss was when the Quebec Liberals chose a PC Federal minister as a leader.  He is just going back to his roots, except the Conservative Party as it is now is nothing like the PC party he left.

Really, so often the provincial and federal parties of whatever name often share nothing more than the name, the policies are quite different.  Which isn't surprising because federal and provincial spheres of power are so different.

[GuitarStv]

Charet seems to be the most moderate of the conservative candidates running.  It's why I don't believe he's a serious contender - O'Toole tried to advance a more centrist approach the party hated him for it.  They're going hard right for sure.  Makes me think it's Poillievre's position to lose.

I could see a good deal of support going to Leslyn Lewis.  She's an extreme evangelical/religious social conservative which seems like a good match for where the party is at the moment.  Being an English only speaker would likely hurt her electability, as would the general unpopularity of these views outside of the conservative party.

[rocketpj]

IIRC Charest was the leader of the Federal Conservatives after Kim Campbell resigned, largely because he was one of the only 2 remaining members in the House.  He then departed for provincial politics for a couple of decades.

If Poilevre wins the Conservatives will be in the wilderness for another decade.  While the Conservatives under Harper learned a lot from the success of the Republicans to our south, they also learned that the Canadian political system isn't quite as susceptible to being gamed and so were at least somewhat limited. 

We also distort our electoral landscape and over-represent rural regions, but not to the same absurdities (i.e. 600,000 Wisconsinites having the same number of Senators as Texas or California).  Choosing a hard right firebrand will ensure they don't win seats in any of the cities, and the vast majority of Canadians live in cities.  They will absolutely sweep Southern Alberta.

Conservatives in Canada are stuck between 2 impossibilities.  They have a hard right wing base who hate government (except when they demand subsidies) and are extremely vocal.  If they pick someone representing that group they turn off the rest of the country.  If they pick someone who appeals to the rest of the country, the hard right wing gets angry and betrayed.  I grew up in Alberta, it is easy to feel like you are getting a raw deal when everyone around you feels the same as you, and you don't imagine that people elsewhere disagree.

I strongly suspect Trudeau will take his walk in the snow before next Spring.  He needs to leave sooner than later to give Christia Freeland time to run the place for awhile before another election.  She is the smartest person in the room for the most part, and as far as I can tell has been doing all the heavy lifting for most of the last 5-8 years anyway.

[scottish]

Charet seems to be the most moderate of the conservative candidates running.  It's why I don't believe he's a serious contender - O'Toole tried to advance a more centrist approach the party hated him for it.  They're going hard right for sure.  Makes me think it's Poillievre's position to lose.

I could see a good deal of support going to Leslyn Lewis.  She's an extreme evangelical/religious social conservative which seems like a good match for where the party is at the moment.  Being an English only speaker would likely hurt her electability, as would the general unpopularity of these views outside of the conservative party.

In your analysis, it sounds like we're going to have a Liberal government for the forseeable future.    A Conservative party lead by PP would be unelectable, and a Conservative party led by Charest would self destruct the same way it did with O'toole.    I find it hard to imagine the conservatives selecting a black woman as their leader, but even if they did, she's no more electable than PP.

[daverobev]

...Christia Freeland time to run the place for awhile before another election.  She is the smartest person in the room for the most part, and as far as I can tell has been doing all the heavy lifting for most of the last 5-8 years anyway.

Oh that would be awesome, she's great.

[GuitarStv]

Charet seems to be the most moderate of the conservative candidates running.  It's why I don't believe he's a serious contender - O'Toole tried to advance a more centrist approach the party hated him for it.  They're going hard right for sure.  Makes me think it's Poillievre's position to lose.

I could see a good deal of support going to Leslyn Lewis.  She's an extreme evangelical/religious social conservative which seems like a good match for where the party is at the moment.  Being an English only speaker would likely hurt her electability, as would the general unpopularity of these views outside of the conservative party.

In your analysis, it sounds like we're going to have a Liberal government for the forseeable future.    A Conservative party lead by PP would be unelectable, and a Conservative party led by Charest would self destruct the same way it did with O'toole.    I find it hard to imagine the conservatives selecting a black woman as their leader, but even if they did, she's no more electable than PP.

I see a few possible scenarios playing out as the Conservative party continues it's race to extremism.

- First scenario is as you outline.  Most Canadians are unimpressed with the hard right climate change denying, nationalist, anti-abortion, anti-public school, pro-religion stance that they seem hell-bent on taking.  The Liberal party won't quite have a lock on power, but they'll probably be in charge with the need to pander to NDP demands from time to time.  I'd be OK with maintaining the status quo in this manner if it weren't for the tendency to political parties in power for too long to kinda rot from the inside.

- Second scenario (or maybe more of an addendum to number one) goes more or less like the first for a while . . . but eventually the corruption becomes so bad that we do actually vote in the new crazy far-right wing Conservative party simply in reaction to the excesses caused by too much governing time by the Liberal party.  I think that this would be bad times for the country as a whole, and while it would remove the rot it would be a heavy price to pay.

- Third scenario (or second addendum) goes more or less like the first for a while . . . but the NDP move more to the center and over time they more or less become the official opposition.  Seems less likely, but I see this slight leftward shift as something that would probably be good overall for the country.

- Fourth scenario (and least likely) is that the Conservatives move back to fiscal, rather than social conservatism.  They present policy based on sensible financial plans, and again become a viable alternative to the Liberals.  Don't see this happening with the current Conservative party makeup - but I can hope.

[scottish]

It looks like a big step towards your first scenario today...

Jagmeet has agreed to support Justin  until 2025.  (this government is brought to you by the letter J)

I wonder what it will take to get this hard right nonsense out of the conservative party.   Maybe they could split into a reform party and a more progressive conservative party.   :-)

[AO1FireTo]

Pierre for the win

[scottish]

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

[RetiredAt63]

After watching the fiasco that was the freedom convoy, I am against any leader of any party who wants to be divisive.  Which means PP is someone I would not want to see as a party leader.  Of course after what his caucus did to Erin O'Toole, nasty and divisive and revengeful seems to be the guiding spirit of the present Conservative Party.

From my social-liberal-leaning viewpoint, the people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals are never going to find a home in the present Conservative Party, it is controlled by former Reform principles. They were Red Tories even in the old PC Party. They will need to start a new party or split from the present Conservatives.  The worst mistake they made was merging the Reform and old PC parties.

My parents grew up on the prairies and were both pretty liberal for their day, their ashes must be making little whirlwinds in their urns* at present prairie politics.

*Hard to roll in your grave if you were cremated, we need more colourful expressions.

[GuitarStv]

Pierre for the win

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

Two days, and he still hasn't been able to come up with anything.  Sounds about right.

[afulldeck]

From my social-liberal-leaning viewpoint, the people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals are never going to find a home in the present Conservative Party, it is controlled by former Reform principles. They were Red Tories even in the old PC Party. They will need to start a new party or split from the present Conservatives.  The worst mistake they made was merging the Reform and old PC parties.

So which is more import liberal leaning or fiscally conservative? For me it starts with fiscal policy. Nothing else matters until that gets fixed first. Under strong fiscal policy you can achieve more social aims-because you can pay for them. What is happening to Canada is a disaster.

[scottish]

From my social-liberal-leaning viewpoint, the people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals are never going to find a home in the present Conservative Party, it is controlled by former Reform principles. They were Red Tories even in the old PC Party. They will need to start a new party or split from the present Conservatives.  The worst mistake they made was merging the Reform and old PC parties.

So which is more import liberal leaning or fiscally conservative? For me it starts with fiscal policy. Nothing else matters until that gets fixed first. Under strong fiscal policy you can achieve more social aims-because you can pay for them. What is happening to Canada is a disaster.

Yeah no kidding.   Justin seems perfectly happy to repeat the lessons of the '80s and '90s.

The problem here is that neither the Liberals or the Conservatives have demonstrated particularly good fiscal responsibility.    The Chretien government was probably the most fiscally responsible one we've seen in the last 50 years, and they were liberals.

@RetiredAt63, in terms of divisiveness, both Justin and Pierre have demonstrated an ability to try and divide people.   I'm not sure which one is worse.   By this metric, the only acceptable candidate becomes Jagmeet Singh...

[RetiredAt63]

From my social-liberal-leaning viewpoint, the people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals are never going to find a home in the present Conservative Party, it is controlled by former Reform principles. They were Red Tories even in the old PC Party. They will need to start a new party or split from the present Conservatives.  The worst mistake they made was merging the Reform and old PC parties.

So which is more import liberal leaning or fiscally conservative? For me it starts with fiscal policy. Nothing else matters until that gets fixed first. Under strong fiscal policy you can achieve more social aims-because you can pay for them. What is happening to Canada is a disaster.

Yeah no kidding.   Justin seems perfectly happy to repeat the lessons of the '80s and '90s.

The problem here is that neither the Liberals or the Conservatives have demonstrated particularly good fiscal responsibility.    The Chretien government was probably the most fiscally responsible one we've seen in the last 50 years, and they were liberals.

@RetiredAt63, in terms of divisiveness, both Justin and Pierre have demonstrated an ability to try and divide people.   I'm not sure which one is worse.   By this metric, the only acceptable candidate becomes Jagmeet Singh...

Well yeah, you want politics and politicians to make sense?  As far as I can tell, the qualities that make someone electable are not necessarily the qualities that make them a good MP or PM. The self-confidence that makes someone think they can run a country (or a province) makes me start thinking Dunning-Kreuger Effect.

[Missy B]

From my social-liberal-leaning viewpoint, the people who are fiscal conservatives and social liberals are never going to find a home in the present Conservative Party, it is controlled by former Reform principles. They were Red Tories even in the old PC Party. They will need to start a new party or split from the present Conservatives.  The worst mistake they made was merging the Reform and old PC parties.

So which is more import liberal leaning or fiscally conservative? For me it starts with fiscal policy. Nothing else matters until that gets fixed first. Under strong fiscal policy you can achieve more social aims-because you can pay for them. What is happening to Canada is a disaster.

Red Tory here, and I agree. Fiscal policy is critical. Sort your business and economy and far less people will need your social programs, and you'll have the money to support those that do.

I followed the strategy the OP noted in their original post. I did some math and figured that my leadership vote had about 200X more impact than my MP vote. Possibly more, because the complex structure of the conservative leadership party gives votes to candidates riding by riding, and my riding of Vancouver Centre is not exactly a Tory stronghold. (they will take this riding from Hedy Fry's cold, dead hands. They could actually run her corpse and it would win. I'm not even kidding. And for our riding she does.... sweet FA)

Anyway, I figured if everyone who marched against Donald Trump after he got elected had instead joined the Republican party and voted for someone else, they wouldn't have been marching.

I thought $15 was a good investment to do my bit against Canadian Trump-wannabees.

Assuming they set it up the same way again, I'll vote for (if he's running again) Mike Chan in the first round and Charest on the second.

[FLBiker]

We're just permanent residents (about a year and a half away from being able to apply for citizenship) so we can't vote yet but I've read this thread with interest.  As an American, I have to say that Canada's political system seems extremely functional by comparison.  I'm sure it isn't perfect, but I love the short election cycles (and the lack of the money spent on long ones).  I also love having more than two parties, as I really think it helps alleviate some of the tendency to extremism that we're currently seeing in America.  And I'll definitely keep in mind this idea of registering for a party to vote in the leadership election -- there's nothing like that in the US.

It's interesting to me, too, to read about how Canadians feel that their country is headed in the wrong direction.  I don't know enough to disagree with that (I have no idea what living here was like 10, 20 or 50 years ago) but coming from America it seems pretty good.  America is a better place to make money, but that's about it in my opinion.  At the risk of being a downer, I have somewhat of a sense that everywhere is heading in the wrong direction.  A lot of my coworkers are in the UK, and it's not all wine and roses over there, either.

We've been here (Nova Scotia) for almost 2 years, and I think our only real gripe is with healthcare -- we still don't have family doctors.  At the same time, we live near a hospital and have used the ER a couple of times and it has been very prompt.  Plus, our new Conservative government recently implemented Maple tele-health for all of us without doctors.  We haven't used that yet, but I appreciate that.

[Mighty Eyebrows]

...but coming from America it seems pretty good.

Yes, it is pretty good here. Humans always focus on the negative and social media has amplified the loudest voices.

Inevitably, we all have strong opinions on the political system that we can actually vote in. My opinions of other countries get less strong with distance!

(Reading books like Enlightenment Now (Pinker) or Factfulness (Rosling) are good for perspective on how good we do have it, despite the world not being as perfect as we would wish).

[AO1FireTo]

Pierre for the win

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

Two days, and he still hasn't been able to come up with anything.  Sounds about right.

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

[scottish]

Pierre for the win

Hey tell us more, what do you like about Pierre?

He seems to have some sensible economic ideas about more value added in the resource sector and encouraging more companies to open satellite plants.   Cutting back on deficit spending would be a big win in my book.    Is that it?

Two days, and he still hasn't been able to come up with anything.  Sounds about right.

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

We strive for 2 9's over here!

PP's primary agenda is focused on freedom.    And his secondary agenda seems to be to replace the CAD with Bitcoin.   But Canada doesn't have a freedom problem on any measurable scale.     You wanna see a freedom problem, go to Russia, China, Ukraine, North Korea, South Africa, Hungary, Brazil ...         The problems we have are things like the Liberals spend like a Gen-Z with her first credit card, the conservatives want to appeal to a small minority (not a fringe though!) on the right and politicians are busy being divisive.   Where the hell has the middle gone?

and get off my lawn!

[erp]

...

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

Could you elaborate on why you think getting rid of the CBC is a good thing? I can definitely relate to being weary of the Liberals, but it seems to me that CBC is a huge public good and hasn't been particularly well loved by the libs either.

I'd like to see it funded much, much better on a 10+ year time cycle. I'd like journalists to be insulated from reprisal when they're critical of the current party in power, and very long funding cycles could provide more certainty there. Furthermore - better funding would let media actually report on things that matter rather than the things which are motivated by profit margin, imagine a world where regardless of political beliefs people could more or less trust CBC.

I'd absolutely be down with some sort of panel/increased hiring of more right leaning voices as well, if your concern is that the institution is too biased. I have immense respect for the classically conservative ideologies from the past generations, and I'm certain that there are some equivalent writers today (maybe they could poach from the economist or something).

I feel like in a world where disagreements over basic fact are becoming very common, and there's a niche media source for every fringe topic, we'd be well served by having a publicly funded and credible Canadian source that does real journalism. CBC is a long way from being perfect at this, but it's also the only institution which is even close.

[GuitarStv]

...

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

Could you elaborate on why you think getting rid of the CBC is a good thing? I can definitely relate to being weary of the Liberals, but it seems to me that CBC is a huge public good and hasn't been particularly well loved by the libs either.

I'd like to see it funded much, much better on a 10+ year time cycle. I'd like journalists to be insulated from reprisal when they're critical of the current party in power, and very long funding cycles could provide more certainty there. Furthermore - better funding would let media actually report on things that matter rather than the things which are motivated by profit margin, imagine a world where regardless of political beliefs people could more or less trust CBC.

I'd absolutely be down with some sort of panel/increased hiring of more right leaning voices as well, if your concern is that the institution is too biased. I have immense respect for the classically conservative ideologies from the past generations, and I'm certain that there are some equivalent writers today (maybe they could poach from the economist or something).

I feel like in a world where disagreements over basic fact are becoming very common, and there's a niche media source for every fringe topic, we'd be well served by having a publicly funded and credible Canadian source that does real journalism. CBC is a long way from being perfect at this, but it's also the only institution which is even close.

Yep.  I'm on board with this, and also a fan of the CBC.  I believe that properly managed, the CBC could change from it's current state into a bit of a cultural powerhouse similar to what the UK has done with the BBC - creating programming of merit and interest to most Canadians, advancing Canadian culture, and generating a profit.

[FLBiker]

Another fan of the CBC here.  I'm not a big news follower, but I do use their new app sometimes.  And I really like Gem as a free streaming service.  It isn't perfect, but it's quite good considering it's free.  Plus, I am extremely pessimistic about how profit-driven news media turns out, having seen how the American experiment is going.

[AO1FireTo]

...

Ah sorry didn't realize there was a Service Level Agreement on responses.  What's not to like, fiscally conservative, speaks both French and English fluently which is mandatory, took Trudeau to task over the WE scandal, wants to get rid of the CBC, actually spoke to the truckers without calling them derogatory names, is young but has years of political experience.  Funny as hell, JustinFlation!!!

Could you elaborate on why you think getting rid of the CBC is a good thing? I can definitely relate to being weary of the Liberals, but it seems to me that CBC is a huge public good and hasn't been particularly well loved by the libs either.

I'd like to see it funded much, much better on a 10+ year time cycle. I'd like journalists to be insulated from reprisal when they're critical of the current party in power, and very long funding cycles could provide more certainty there. Furthermore - better funding would let media actually report on things that matter rather than the things which are motivated by profit margin, imagine a world where regardless of political beliefs people could more or less trust CBC.

I'd absolutely be down with some sort of panel/increased hiring of more right leaning voices as well, if your concern is that the institution is too biased. I have immense respect for the classically conservative ideologies from the past generations, and I'm certain that there are some equivalent writers today (maybe they could poach from the economist or something).

I feel like in a world where disagreements over basic fact are becoming very common, and there's a niche media source for every fringe topic, we'd be well served by having a publicly funded and credible Canadian source that does real journalism. CBC is a long way from being perfect at this, but it's also the only institution which is even close.

Yep.  I'm on board with this, and also a fan of the CBC.  I believe that properly managed, the CBC could change from it's current state into a bit of a cultural powerhouse similar to what the UK has done with the BBC - creating programming of merit and interest to most Canadians, advancing Canadian culture, and generating a profit.

In a perfect world with unbiased coverage, maybe the CBC could be the lone beacon of truth.  The reality is, it's funded by the government and the one in power (any party) has too much influence on the narratives.  I have zero confidence they are, or will be unbiased.  It's sad, we don't really have many sources of accurate information, that's why I treat most of what I read today as at least partly fiction.  At best CBC is a luxury we can no longer afford at a price tag of $1B/year.  Canada already has the highest Debt to GDP ratio in the world by a long shot.  We need to start making some tough choices, although the current Liberal/NDP government will continue to borrow like a drunken 1st year university student who was never taught how to handle their first credit card.  Not sure Pierre or anyone in the Conservative party really has the guts to do what needs to be done, they will likely just keep kicking the problem down the road for our kids to deal with.  Maybe I long for some type of financial accountability, perhaps I am wrong and I'll ignore the $40B/year of interest we are paying on the national debt.  I would assume most people in this group are making the sacrifices to get ahead in their personal finances.  Time for our government to do the same.  To me the CBC is like cable TV, it's nice to have, but if you can't afford it, time to cut the cord.  Or maybe Modern Monetary Theory will work, I hope it does, looks like we'll find out.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/debt-to-gdp-continues-to-rise-around-world/

[techwiz]

Canada already has the highest Debt to GDP ratio in the world by a long shot. 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/debt-to-gdp-continues-to-rise-around-world/

The reference you posted is talking about change in Debt to GDP ratio from Q4 2019-Q32020. According to this source https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country Canada is sitting at 21st in the world so we are far from being the highest debt to GDP country. In my opinion Debt to GDP ratio is not really a good source of how well a country is doing or if they can support a national news service.   

[AO1FireTo]

Canada already has the highest Debt to GDP ratio in the world by a long shot. 

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/debt-to-gdp-continues-to-rise-around-world/

The reference you posted is talking about change in Debt to GDP ratio from Q4 2019-Q32020. According to this source https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country Canada is sitting at 21st in the world so we are far from being the highest debt to GDP country. In my opinion Debt to GDP ratio is not really a good source of how well a country is doing or if they can support a national news service.   

The massive spending during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a near doubling of the federal debt, which is projected to reach $1.25-trillion in 2022-23.  Our payments to service this debt is larger than any one government program.  I will agree that eliminating the CBC would only be a drop in the bucket to start to correct this.  Time to start cutting all non essential spending.  The truth is we will likely have to start cutting into programs that actually affect people lives unless we get this under control.  Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver the 2022 federal budget on today at 4 p.m. ET.  It will be disaster, with more spending that will further fuel inflation.  This is a smart group, what should the government do?

[GuitarStv]

In a perfect world with unbiased coverage, maybe the CBC could be the lone beacon of truth.  The reality is, it's funded by the government and the one in power (any party) has too much influence on the narratives.  I have zero confidence they are, or will be unbiased.  It's sad, we don't really have many sources of accurate information, that's why I treat most of what I read today as at least partly fiction.  At best CBC is a luxury we can no longer afford at a price tag of $1B/year.

I'm going to push back a little bit on this.  I work in private sector broadcast right now, and know several people involved with the CBC.

The argument that 'the one in power' has 'too much influence on the narratives' is simply not true any way that I look at it.  The government has no say at all in day to day operations, news stories covered, etc.  The CBC is managed by a board of directors who are appointed by the Governor General of Canada.  The Conservative party has made allegations of bias in the past that were fully investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

Rather ironically, in 2013, Stephen Harper's C60 bill was passed which reduced the separation of CBC and government (it gave the PMs cabinet power to approve salaries and job perks).  This of course has the potential to increase bias of the organization . . . and I'd like to see it reversed to reduce the possibility of potential future political interference.

[AO1FireTo]

Good points, welcome your perspective on the separation from the government.  Doesn't change the fact the government, who is deeply in debt funds it for $1B/year.  It's not an essential service and if it cannot sustain itself, it's not a viable entity.

Perhaps we need a new thread on how to balance the budget, or what programs are essential.

[GuitarStv]

Good points, welcome your perspective on the separation from the government.  Doesn't change the fact the government, who is deeply in debt funds it for $1B/year.  It's not an essential service and if it cannot sustain itself, it's not a viable entity.

Perhaps we need a new thread on how to balance the budget, or what programs are essential.

I'd argue that having a reliable, publicly funded news source that is kept at arms length from the government is absolutely an essential service.  A democracy cannot function without an informed electorate.  One just needs to look at the United States today to see how fully privatized news directly causes political extremism.  The CBC is absolutely a public good - similar to libraries.

But no television broadcaster in Canada can sustain itself.  We have laws requiring broadcast of a certain percentage of Canadian content.  This content is always a money loser.  That's true for the CBC, but it's also true for every private broadcaster in the country.  We subsidize private broadcasters more than a billion dollars (https://themeafordindependent.ca/1031-in-defence-of-the-cbc/) a year to cover their losses for this content.  Unless your goal is the total elimination of Canadian television content from the air . . . we're going to be paying for it.  (And if your goal is the total elimination of Canadian content, I'd suggest you look at the economic data regarding how much economic activity will be lost nationally by doing this.  Estimates I've read are somewhere around 1.7 billion a year.)

[daverobev]

+1 for the CBC holy shit.

Nothing is unbiased, but the CBC and the BBC are at least concerned about bias and do what they can to avoid it. Nothing is perfect, but a publicly funded public broadcaster is head and shoulders... and entire body above anything else.

Would you rather your news owned by Jeff Bezos or one of his ilk?

"If both sides say you're wrong you must be doing something right".

And while I agree that the Liberals have spent way too much money on... well, public bribes - childcare benefit is too generous, the amount given out to people who didn't need it during lockdown was too generous... the current conservatives are just.... yuck.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm also a supporter of the CBC.  I would like it to be more at arm's length, as it used to be.   It's amazing how many things Harper did that don't seem very old-style Conservative.

Basically governments supply services that are necessary to keep a country running.  This means services to all, not just the big markets where private companies can make money. The CBC and Canada Post are 2 obvious examples.   High speed rural internet is also a service that may need government support - I used to be rural (not remote, just farm country) and internet service was way behind what cities have.

[poxpower]

I'd argue that having a reliable, publicly funded news source that is kept at arms length from the government is absolutely an essential service.

An unbiased news source is not a thing that can exist.
Wanting state controlled/funded media is a Banana Republic move.

A democracy cannot function without an informed electorate.

The electorate of no country is, or has ever been "informed" about politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dBMb1rKomI

But no television broadcaster in Canada can sustain itself. 

That's because they suck. Go on their youtube channels and read the comments, they're hilarious.

I'd suggest you look at the economic data regarding how much economic activity will be lost nationally by doing this.  Estimates I've read are somewhere around 1.7 billion a year.)

If something is actually profitable, it doesn't need taxpayer dollars.

[poxpower]

Would you rather your news owned by Jeff Bezos or one of his ilk?

Yes because then I can stop watching it and it costs me 0$.
Just how I didn't watch the latest Star Wars movie, because the other 2 were garbage.

Isn't it awesome that none of my tax dollars ( I hope ) go to making more garbage media I don't want to watch?

[GuitarStv]

I'd argue that having a reliable, publicly funded news source that is kept at arms length from the government is absolutely an essential service.

An unbiased news source is not a thing that can exist.
Wanting state controlled/funded media is a Banana Republic move.

All news sources come from people, and all people carry inherent biases in some direction or other.  That's why there wasn't a mention of 'unbiased news source' in my posting.  That said, the CBC is an accurate and fair news source by most measures.  Is there some specific claim or concern that you have with it's impartiality?

We've already established that the CBC is not state controlled.  I agree that having state controlled media would be a bad thing.  It appears that you're conflating them here, but there's a significant distinction between state control and public funding - they're not at all the same thing.

A democracy cannot function without an informed electorate.

The electorate of no country is, or has ever been "informed" about politics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dBMb1rKomI

Fundamentally, democracy depends upon an informed electorate.  A better informed electorate will make better decisions - and leads to a fundamentally stronger democracy.  The inverse is also true.  Is this ever perfectly achieved (or likely to be perfectly achieved)?  Hell no!  I'd be the first to agree that there are many roadblocks to perfection on this front.  But I'd argue that lack of perfection this shouldn't be the enemy of progress that we all benefit from.

But no television broadcaster in Canada can sustain itself. 

That's because they suck. Go on their youtube channels and read the comments, they're hilarious.

If every single contestant in private industry is a failure, then that's usually an indication of a failure of private industry to address a need.  You seem to be unintentionally arguing for greater rather than less state spending on media here.  :P

I'd suggest you look at the economic data regarding how much economic activity will be lost nationally by doing this.  Estimates I've read are somewhere around 1.7 billion a year.)

If something is actually profitable, it doesn't need taxpayer dollars.

This is true.  If the goal of running the CBC was only to generate profits only, then yeah . . . it's going about the business all wrong.  They could import all of their programming from US content and significantly increase viewership as US shows tend to be more popular than Canadian ones.  They could revamp their news division to a more profit oriented, fact-loose 'outrage model' like that of Fox News and increase viewership.

Would that profit result in a better outcome?

[poxpower]

We've already established that the CBC is not state controlled. 

The control you get over them is proportional to the money you give. It's a huge conflict of interest to have an organization that is supposed to report on the state's misdeeds being funded by the same state.
The state has no business funding media or culture. That's extremely far down the totem pole of things you can argue the state's job should be.

Fundamentally, democracy depends upon an informed electorate.  A better informed electorate will make better decisions - and leads to a fundamentally stronger democracy.

You don't get that with state media or schools. You get the reverse.

If every single contestant in private industry is a failure, then that's usually an indication of a failure of private industry to address a need.  You seem to be unintentionally arguing for greater rather than less state spending on media here.  :P

People not wanting things is evidence that you should DEFINITELY NOT fund those things.

This is true.  If the goal of running the CBC was only to generate profits only, then yeah

That's the goal of every human endeavor.  Profit is a measure of repeatable behavior over time.
If the CBC is not profitable, it means they are managing themselves poorly or people think they're garbage.

In either case they should disappear, not get more money.

[GuitarStv]

We've already established that the CBC is not state controlled. 

The control you get over them is proportional to the money you give.

[/quote]

The CBC receives the majority of their funding from public sources.  Were your comment above true, the majority of programming / broadcast decisions would therefore be made by the Canadian government.

Do you have any evidence of state control over specific CBC programming / programming decisions to support your hypothesis?

Fundamentally, democracy depends upon an informed electorate.  A better informed electorate will make better decisions - and leads to a fundamentally stronger democracy.

You don't get that with state media or schools. You get the reverse.

Not sure I'm reading you correctly here.  You believe that public education results in a weak democracy?  If so, based upon what data?

[poxpower]

Were your comment above true, the majority of programming / broadcast decisions would therefore be made by the Canadian government.

It means they will have a huge inherent bias towards defending the government in general and this will almost undoubtedly grow worse over time.

Do you have any evidence of state control over specific CBC programming / programming decisions to support your hypothesis?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-CBC-is-a-biased-broadcasting-institution?share=1

The thing with media bias is people who support the viewpoint of the biased media just see it as "the truth".

CBC blocks commenting on youtube too.
A publicly funded "unbiased" news organization that prevents its citizens from criticizing it.

Not sure I'm reading you correctly here.  You believe that public education results in a weak democracy?  If so, based upon what data?

I have no idea what a "strong democracy" is supposed to mean or look like.

From the CBC itself:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/costofliving/let-s-get-digital-from-bitcoin-to-stocktok-plus-what-low-literacy-means-for-canada-s-economy-1.5873703/nearly-half-of-adult-canadians-struggle-with-literacy-and-that-s-bad-for-the-economy-1.5873757

One in six people in Canada can't pass the most basic literacy test. That's LITERALLY THE ONE JOB OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.
If they did NOTHING ELSE, in TWELVE YEARS, that's the ONE THING they should do.

And they can't.

How do you think they're doing with the rest of what they teach?

Like the video I previously posted shows, people have zero knowledge of civics in whatever country you tend to poll. Again after 12-14 years of compulsory and EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE public education. ( 13 500$ USD per kid, per years in the USA )

There's no metric by which you can say public education is a success.

I can go on with this forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hZylJp-pHo&t=1s

Just watch this. But again. There's endless hours of this. Endless.

[RetiredAt63]

We've already established that the CBC is not state controlled. 

The control you get over them is proportional to the money you give. It's a huge conflict of interest to have an organization that is supposed to report on the state's misdeeds being funded by the same state.
The state has no business funding media or culture. That's extremely far down the totem pole of things you can argue the state's job should be.

Fundamentally, democracy depends upon an informed electorate.  A better informed electorate will make better decisions - and leads to a fundamentally stronger democracy.

You don't get that with state media or schools. You get the reverse.

If every single contestant in private industry is a failure, then that's usually an indication of a failure of private industry to address a need.  You seem to be unintentionally arguing for greater rather than less state spending on media here.  :P

People not wanting things is evidence that you should DEFINITELY NOT fund those things.

This is true.  If the goal of running the CBC was only to generate profits only, then yeah

That's the goal of every human endeavor.  Profit is a measure of repeatable behavior over time.
If the CBC is not profitable, it means they are managing themselves poorly or people think they're garbage.

In either case they should disappear, not get more money.

I would argue the opposite.  Governments should be supporting culture and the arts, especially in a country basically made up of immigrants.  We don't have 4-10 thousand years of history (except for First Nations)  You are half my age - you are the product of a Canada that has supported Canadian arts and culture.  I remember when CANCON was introduced - suddenly we could hear Canadian artists instead of all imports. Canadian bands could make it at home instead of hoping to make it in the US and then be recognized here.   

Governments also supply services to all citizens, not just those where it is easy to do.  That costs.  That means internet, TV and radio, mail, all the basics.  As someone who has paid residential low density rates for hydro and internet, I can tell you prices go up and up the more difficult it is to deliver services.  That means businesses are less and less likely to provide them.   Provincially education and health care are the most obvious.  The role of government services is not to make a profit, it is to serve the citizens, all of them.  This is true whether we are discussing, federal, provincial or municipal governments.  In reality if the government services were not there, the upper middle class and wealthy would get most of them, but the rest of the population? 

[Mighty Eyebrows]

But I'd argue that lack of perfection this shouldn't be the enemy of progress that we all benefit from.

Well said.

@poxpower, I don't find any of your arguments persuasive. Just randomly lashing out at things you don't like is not any kind of constructive political stance.

[poxpower]

I would argue the opposite.  Governments should be supporting culture and the arts, especially in a country basically made up of immigrants. 

If there's a cultural product I want, I'll buy it.
There's another word for government controlled culture: Propaganda.

I can tell you prices go up and up the more difficult it is to deliver services.

Yes that's economics and awesome.
Otherwise you'd have 50 people being taxed to subsidize high speed internet to some crackpot who wants to live on an iceberg.

"But it's my human right to have internet, that thing that didn't exist until the 1990s".

I don't find any of your arguments persuasive. Just randomly lashing out at things you don't like is not any kind of constructive political stance.

Literally what you just did lol.