Here is the list of Candidates who have failed to meet our expectations.
Our criteria for determining suitability for Leadership of the Conservative Party, Leader of the Opposition and potential Prime Minister, are non partisan ideals that every Canadian should believe in:
Candidates should support at minimum:
- Individual Freedom
- Privacy Rights
Candidates should also have
- Political Experience
- Sound Policies
Coincidentally, the ideals we expect candidates to support can be mapped directly to principles of the Conservative Party of Canada. Every candidate on this list fails to meet at least 2 of these criteria, and have declared policies or made statements that directly conflict with the Conservative Party of Canada Constitution.
Kevin O’Leary withdrew from the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race on April 26th, 2017. Hours before the final debate, he realised he didn’t speak French and decided that the job would best be left to those willing or able to speak both official languages.
Kevin O’Leary has endorsed Maxime Bernier.
Maxime Bernier has proposed to abolish the capital gains tax.
We understand why Kevin O’Leary is in favour of Maxime Bernier. As a wealthy investor, most of O’Leary’s income is capital gains.
Do you believe you should be paying tax while someone as wealthy as Kevin O’Leary is paying NO tax!?
We suspect that we will be seeing a lot more of Kevin O’Leary in Canada if Maxime Bernier wins.
In fact, we predict it will be at least 183 days per year.
Former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan and Immigration Minister is one of the more controversial candidates. As Immigration Minister he introduced Bill C-24, defining conditions for stripping Canadians of their citizenship. Specifically names Canadians who were either born out of the country, or born in the country and either have attained or eligible for citizenship from another country. The implication is that those eligible to have their citizenship revoked, could be treated as second class citizens, regardless of whether they are aware of their eligibility of foreign citizenship. The conditions of revocation are very specific, and unlikely to be affect most Canadians, but the precedent has been set that identifies some citizens as less Canadian than others, and potentially at risk to losing it.
Like Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander has a narrow view of Canadian values. Together they announced the Barbaric Cultural Practices Tip Line in the 2015 election. As a followup, Alexander pledged to institute an RCMP Task force to enforce the Zero Tolerance of Barbaric Cultural practices act. He believes that the oath of citizenship should be with face uncovered, effectively barring the Niqab and other face coverings and asking Canadians to sell their religious beliefs to their new country. A revised statement from Alexander indicates that citizenship judges should have the power to make exceptions to this, but has not published guidelines or criteria to outline that process.
Each of these cases speak volumes about Alexander’s bias, together they provide context to the policies he enacted as Immigration Minister. Despite promising to reduce application wait times, in most cases, they increased. Prior to his tenure as Immigration Minister, temporary work permit applications would take roughly 2 weeks, by August 2105, the processing time was 4 months. That’s 8 times as long. Similar increases occurred for most other immigration streams. Spousal sponsorship processing times ballooned to over 2 years. Imagine 2 years without your husband, wife or best friend. Or watching them fall into depression, because they are unable to contribute to your marriage because they are ineligible to work for those 2 years. This can irreparably strain relationships.
The most concerning thing about Chris Alexander’s leadership bid is the reports that he was neither in control as Immigration Minister, nor acting on his own. The Globe and Mail reports that
Mr. Alexander struck many as a politician trying to find his way, or work his way up, rather than a minister in charge – someone, in the words of one observer, who takes orders rather than gives them.
The same article states that previous Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, appeared to be in command of revamping the Temporary Foreign Workers program.
If either of these allegations are an accurate reflection of Chris Alexander as a politician, we will always be wondering who will be behind him pulling the strings. If they aren’t true, than Alexander is really adjusting immigration policies to suit his bias, which has severely impacted Canadians as collateral damage.
In a race of 14 candidates, Pierre Lemieux does little to distance himself from the others. His policies are mostly inline with the other candidates. Repeal of any carbon tax, increased military spending, increased screening for immigrants and updating gun control laws to better support owners.
Where Pierre Lemieux sets himself apart from the other candidates is his identity is a social conservative, it is the cornerstone of his campaign. At each debate he has made that stance a point of pride, lamenting that there is no place for his socially conservative views in the current Conservative Party.
His voting history reflects that commitment. He has voted against same-sex marriage and assisted suicide. He is adamantly pro-life, and has promised to revisit the subject of abortion in the name of democracy. While he does have a point in that a democracy all issue should be open for debate,the supreme court has ruled that restricting abortions is unconstitutional. To follow through on this promise, the Constitution would have to be amended. Lemieux appears to be taking an alternate approach beginning the abortion discussion by objecting to “Gender Selective Abortions.” Which is a practice that has been documented by unbalanced birthrates among immigrants from certain cultures. There is no doubt that Lemieux will use this avenue to make a case for restricting abortions.
We do not agree with the practice of Gender Selective Abortion, but we believe that any culture that supports it will eventually diminish itself as a result of the population imbalance it creates.
Family, Democracy and Security are the pillars of Lemieux’s campaign. For most candidates, a belief Democracy does not needs to be explicitly stated. For Pierre Lemieux, a social conservative at odds with the country’s trajectory, Democracy is opportunity to put his beliefs in the spotlight. Many of the stances Lemieux takes on social issues appear to be rooted in an intolerance of beliefs held by others. He views legislation like C-16 (Transgendered rights Bill) and M-103 (Motion condemning Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination) as an affront to free speech and has promised to repeal C-16 if elected.
His claims that supporting political correctness impedes upon free speech are unfounded. It is still possible to have free speech on all topics in the era of political correctness. The language used to convey one’s point of view may change under the glare of political correctness, but that doesn’t require the message to change. Political correctness is just a warning that hate speech (no matter how free it is) will not be tolerated.
Lemieux hasn’t publicly stated why he is opposed to using gender neutral pronoun to describe a trans person if requested to. Nor has he detailed how exactly a motion to denounce systemic racism and religious discrimination impedes free speech. The rest of his social policies follow this pattern of declaring a position, without explaining that position or indicating how he will act on it.
While Lemieux presents himself of a man of integrity, we find his motives to be disingenuous. His social conservative beliefs drive his campaign, but he appears to be opposing hot button issues with weak arguments to build support for his currently unpopular beliefs.
Brad Trost is running to prove his social conservative values still resonate with the Canadian population. Values shared by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister who believed that political parties should refrain from taking official positions on issues of conscience. Trost does not agree with this sentiment and is trying to bring them to forefront. It is an uphill battle for him. These values are not even shared by the Conservative Party of Canada. The party may be a big tent party appealing to conservatives of all stripes, but its constitution explicitly states the party believes in socially progressiveness. They are the focus of his campaign, to the point where he is nearly blind to every other issue. Trost does have a stance on some other issues, but again they are mostly social issues. Out of 13 issues listed on his campaign website, 8 of them are issues of conscious. The 5 that aren’t, are mostly consistent with the other candidates. He is for increased Military Spending, and reformed gun laws. Where he stands out is that he wants to privatize the CBC, not dismantle it, reform it or shut it down like some of the others.
He is also against any form of carbon tax. Not because he believes there are better ways to protect the environment, not because he thinks the provinces should manage it, but because he denies that climate change is the result of human activity. Trost is a geophysicist by trade, the exact kind of scientifically educated professional you would expect to support the theory that climate change is the result of human activity.
Trost’s campaign web site has content that could have come directly from a right wing media outlet like Sun News Network or Fox News. His policy documents are all open letters in direct opposition to a bill or policy enacted by the Canadian Government that would be more at home in the Op-Ed page than in as official campaign material. His claims are bombastic and carry an alarmist tone. Trost picks the same fights as Lemieux, but is not trying to hide his social conservative motives for doing so. In fact nearly every single one of Trost’s policy points are on social issues. The closest he gets to an economic position is that he is opposed to Carbon tax, but Trost’s opposition to the Carbon tax comes in part from his outright denial of man-made climate change.
Every criticism we’ve raised about Pierre Lemieux goes double for Brad Trost. Trost deserves some credit for his directness, you know exactly where he stands, and what his motivation is. His positions are intolerable in every sense of the word.
Peterson is another businessman with no political experience who appears to be in the race to help himself. His campaigns promises are few and far between. The few promises he has announced are:
- Eliminate Corporate Taxes
- Reduce individual income tax to a 15% flat fee
- Increase the GST to 9%
- “Smarter Immigration Policies.
- Increase Immigration targets by 50%
In essence, Mr. Peterson is promoting Trickle Down Economics. A system of policies that could potentially stimulate the economy by reducing the burden on business owners. With the hope that the increased gains are passed down to the workers. This has been tried and proposed many times and never seems to work. Currently Canada makes about 20% of it’s income from Corporate taxes. 11% from the GST (which is 5%). Doubling the GST income covers only half of the revenue lost from eliminating corporate taxes (assuming Canadians purchase the same pre-tax value of goods over a year. To cover the rest of the difference, Canadians would have to spend purchase 50 % (in pre-tax dollars) than they did the previous year. Mr. Peterson says give every one a flat tax rate of 15%. But that won’t impact Canadians in the lowest tax bracket who are making less than 45,000 each year, which is more than 50% of Canadians.
In short the math just doesn’t seem to add up, if anything his economic platform is tailored to greatly reduce the taxes owed by Peterson and his very rich friends without making up for the shortfall.
We find Rick Peterson to be lacking in terms of sound policies and experience.