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

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

Love this article -

NP Comment

Chris Sankey: Why, as an Indigenous-Canadian, I will be voting Conservative in the next election​

Author of the article:
Chris Sankey, Special to National Post
Publishing date:
Aug 15, 2022 • 9 hours ago • 5 minute read • 435 Comments

Over the last seven years, I have had to take a long look in the mirror. As an Indigenous person, I ask myself, “What do I aspire to be? What do I want for my family? What do I want for my children and my grandchildren?” The troubling policies brought forth by Canada’s Liberal government have infuriated me. I am now genuinely worried for my children’s future.

A child should have a safe place to grow up and be free to dream. In the current political environment, however, it has become increasingly difficult to see myself, my family and my children’s dreams become a reality.

I would like to dispel the divisive and ignorant presumption that conservatives are against Indigenous values because they support pipelines. In fact, support for responsible resource development is widely held across Indigenous communities.

We are supposed to be headed down a path of reconciliation. But for many on the left, including the federal government, the only valid reconciliation is that which adheres to their woke narrative. We are living with a Liberal government that is hell-bent on emphasizing ideology over practical, real-world solutions. That is why I am voting for the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) in the next election.

My values align with those of the conservative movement: less government and more private-sector involvement. I remember my late mother once said she’d wish the government would just leave us alone. She was right.

The conservative movement believes in putting the future back into the hands of families and communities. CPC leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre’s promise to get out of the way of First Nations so they can have “control of their own lands and their money” in order to promote economic prosperity is a message I can relate to. After all, I spend most of my time helping Indigenous communities find a balance of economic opportunities and cultural needs.

Although there are bad actors of all political stripes, in my experiences, those who vote CPC are not racist people, despite how they are often portrayed on the left.

Conservatives put their heads down and get to work. They don’t waste time talking about feelings. They see an issue and seek to solve it. And they are offering solutions that differ from the failed policies of the Liberal government.

Historically, there have been many government policies, instituted by both parties, that have harmed Indigenous people. But as with all things, time heals all wounds and people change. So does policy. People always want to associate the CPC with Sir John A. MacDonald, because his governments launched the residential schools. The boarding schools were not mandatory at the time, but became compulsory years after his death.

Both parties have bad track records in dealing with First Nations. Indian agents had dictatorial powers over our people and our reserves. Oftentimes, those powers were abused. But surely John A. Macdonald could not be in all places at all times, holding all government officials to account. In fact, he was oddly more progressive on Indigenous policy than many of his contemporaries.

On the eve of the North-West Rebellion of 1885, Macdonald proposed to extend voting rights to Indigenous people — a measure that Canada wouldn’t adopt until 1960. “I hope to see some day the Indian race represented by one of themselves on the floor of the House of Commons,” he wrote to Peter Jones, a Mississauga Ojibwa chief and a personal friend of the prime minister’s. Liberal MP David Mills ridiculed the policy, arguing that it would allow Indians to “go from a scalping party to the polls.” Ultimately, Macdonald was able to enfranchise some Indigenous-Canadians, a right that was later taken away by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier.

Under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals opened new residential schools, while pushing a white paper that threatened to eliminate Indian status. Why aren’t Canadians tearing down and cancelling his statues and removing his name from streets and buildings?

The Conservative voting base shares a lot in common with most Indigenous people. They both love to hunt, fish, trap, look after the land, farm and work in the trades. We are about family and community and we value traditions. We work for a living. More importantly, we are already working together, especially in remote communities and northern work camps. Indeed, many people in the private sector vote Conservative because they believe in free enterprise. They are the ones who employ many of our friends, families and communities.

I have had the privilege of working alongside many individuals from all political parties. There is one thing that jumps out: we rely on each other to make ends meet in our northern communities. But it is common for Indigenous people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and northern British Columbia to vote Conservative, with the exception of the North Coast and Haida Gwaii in B.C., which tend to vote NDP.

However, in recent election cycles, in the B.C. riding of Skeena — Bulkley Valley, the Conservatives lost to the NDP by much slimmer margins than they have in the past. Does that make northerners and Indigenous people alike racists? I think not. I have given the shirt off my back to help people any way I can, regardless of race. I am not a sellout. I am human.

Indigenous people were entrepreneurs long before the word existed. We bartered and traded with our neighbours through a corridor we called “grease trails.” That is the Indigenous way, and it aligns with conservative values. So why would we wait on the government to build a brighter future for us? Why would we wait for a government cheque when we are more than capable of bringing in revenues on our own?

The conservative movement aligns with my values: less government, more free thinking and the ability to dream big. It is for my children, family, community and, more importantly, for future generations that I am going to vote for the Conservative Party of Canada in the next election.

National Post

Chris Sankey is a former elected councillor for the Lax Kw’ Alaams Band and a business leader.
 
Under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the Liberals opened new residential schools, while pushing a white paper that threatened to eliminate Indian status. Why aren’t Canadians tearing down and cancelling his statues and removing his name from streets and buildings?

There’s an awkward question asked by someone whom Trudeau Fils has no right to silence…not that he won’t try to passive-aggressively gaslight Sankey somehow.
 
Giving a name to moderate (?) Conservatives. Centre Ice . . .

Moderate conservatives are worried, but what are they going to do about it?​

Speaking to a gathering of self-described "Centre Ice Conservatives" in Edmonton on Thursday, former British Columbia premier Christy Clark offered a tidy explanation for why the people in the room had come together.

"When you look across the country, what we see are political leaders rushing to the fringes. Political leaders of all political stripes – they're all trying to get right to the edge," she said. "And you are trying to do the exact opposite. You are trying to preserve that middle political path that has saved Canada so many times and that has preserved our country."

The only question now is how Centre Ice Conservatives — or any other group of dissatisfied centre-right conservatives — might go about doing that.

Though a possible name change was teased at the end of the day's discussions, the group currently known as Centre Ice Conservatives was founded by Rick Peterson, a former investment banker who ran for Conservative leader in 2017 and finished 12th (he also briefly entered the Conservative leadership race in 2020, but dropped out after two months).

"We are a platform that intends to be a strong, bold and proud voice for the centre-right of Canada's political spectrum," Peterson explains on the group's website.

. . .

And what's a movement these days without its own web presence.

 
I also found this passage informative

Historically, there have been many government policies, instituted by both parties, that have harmed Indigenous people. But as with all things, time heals all wounds and people change. So does policy. People always want to associate the CPC with Sir John A. MacDonald, because his governments launched the residential schools. The boarding schools were not mandatory at the time, but became compulsory years after his death.

Both parties have bad track records in dealing with First Nations. Indian agents had dictatorial powers over our people and our reserves. Oftentimes, those powers were abused. But surely John A. Macdonald could not be in all places at all times, holding all government officials to account. In fact, he was oddly more progressive on Indigenous policy than many of his contemporaries.

On the eve of the North-West Rebellion of 1885, Macdonald proposed to extend voting rights to Indigenous people — a measure that Canada wouldn’t adopt until 1960. “I hope to see some day the Indian race represented by one of themselves on the floor of the House of Commons,” he wrote to Peter Jones, a Mississauga Ojibwa chief and a personal friend of the prime minister’s. Liberal MP David Mills ridiculed the policy, arguing that it would allow Indians to “go from a scalping party to the polls.” Ultimately, Macdonald was able to enfranchise some Indigenous-Canadians, a right that was later taken away by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier.
 

I suspect that Godin is not alone in those thoughts of floor crossing or leaving caucus.

Not to mention party members with influence who might be working in the background that may be musing on a split or something else.

I myself wouldn’t mind seing red tories or blue liberals take the LPC back to the Center. Because I suspect the CPC won’t be the ones to do that under PP.
 
The last time politicians tried something different than what the voters selected, it ended badly for those politicians.
 
The whole point of a representative democracy is that the demos is represented. The intent is to resolve disputes without resorting to swords or the mace.

Contrary opinions need to have their voice in parliament. And the contrarians can be expected to win, sometimes, occasionally or often. Otherwise parliament loses legitimacy and the demos resorts to swords and maces.
 

I suspect that Godin is not alone in those thoughts of floor crossing or leaving caucus.

Not to mention party members with influence who might be working in the background that may be musing on a split or something else.

I myself wouldn’t mind seing red tories or blue liberals take the LPC back to the Center. Because I suspect the CPC won’t be the ones to do that under PP.

It's definitely a tricky one. Sticking to my homeground, in rural midwestern Ontario we've got Nater (Perth-Wellington), Ruff (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound), and Lobb (Huron-Bruce).

Nater has endorsed Charest, Lobb and Ruff are each part of the minority of MP's that are largely sitting on the sidelines. Lobb endorsed McKay in 20, Ruff O'Toole. It's fair to say that among the group of representatives there is a fairly strong PC/ centre-right lean, and not much appetite for PP's populism, Trumpism, etc.

But that being said, those are conservative stronghold ridings, B-G-OS Blue since 04, H-B since 08. All three ridings flirted with ~60% CPC + PPC vote in 2021, all had higher than baseline convoy support, all have a fairly strong anti-Trudeau sentiment.

I think each would stand a good chance of winning as a theoretical PC. 50/50 at best as an independent. As an incumbent Liberal after crossing the floor- I have my doubts.
 
Last edited:
It's definitely a tricky one. Sticking to my homeground, in rural midwestern Ontario we've got Nater (Perth-Wellington), Ruff (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound), and Lobb (Huron-Bruce).

Nater has endorsed Charest, Lobb and Ruff are each part of the minority of MP's that are largely sitting on the sidings. Lobb endorsed McKay in 20, Ruff O'Toole. It's fair to say that among the group of representatives there is a fairly strong PC/ centre-right lean, and not much appetite for PP's populism, Trumpism, etc.

But that being said, those are conservative stronghold ridings, B-G-OS Blue since 04, H-B since 08. All three ridings flirted with ~60% CPC + PPC vote in 2021, all had higher than baseline convoy support, all have a fairly strong anti-Trudeau sentiment.

I think each would stand a good chance of winning as a theoretical PC. 50/50 at best as an independent. As an incumbent Liberal after crossing the floor- I have my doubts.
Godin could I think. He only won his seat with 51 percent. So in theory him crossing the floor would likely give him the win. He’d get the LPC, disaffected CPC vote. That may be part of his calculus.
 
PP being compared to Trump? Seriously guys? Current and ex-military people, please shake your heads.

You know what really damages Canada? Its people who keep focusing on guys like PP as some sort of "frothing angry Hitler-like" populist and in my views, some are implying he is all the "bad" things (he is white therefore racist, he is pro-Canadian therefore anti-indigenous, he is pro-economy therefore his a sellout for large corporations, etc).
And then IGNORE the worst Prime Minister of all Canadian history, Justin Trudeau. Focus. Please.
-SNC Lavalin
-Firing JWR for doing her job
-Lost several female MPs because of his ideology
-Went from Majority party to minority party
-Called an election when he said he wouldn't
-Agra Khan gift receiving
-Two ethics violations convictions
-Elbowing collegues
-WE scandal
-The list keeps going and going

FOCUS. At this point a brain dead baboon could do a better job of running this nation then the current clown. Will PP do a better job if elected to lead the party and eventually the nation? Hell yes. He could come in sh*t faced drunk everyday and still do better.
 
PP being compared to Trump? Seriously guys? Current and ex-military people, please shake your heads.

You know what really damages Canada? Its people who keep focusing on guys like PP as some sort of "frothing angry Hitler-like" populist and in my views, some are implying he is all the "bad" things (he is white therefore racist, he is pro-Canadian therefore anti-indigenous, he is pro-economy therefore his a sellout for large corporations, etc).
And then IGNORE the worst Prime Minister of all Canadian history, Justin Trudeau. Focus. Please.
-SNC Lavalin
-Firing JWR for doing her job
-Lost several female MPs because of his ideology
-Went from Majority party to minority party
-Called an election when he said he wouldn't
-Agra Khan gift receiving
-Two ethics violations convictions
-Elbowing collegues
-WE scandal
-The list keeps going and going

FOCUS. At this point a brain dead baboon could do a better job of running this nation then the current clown. Will PP do a better job if elected to lead the party and eventually the nation? Hell yes. He could come in sh*t faced drunk everyday and still do better.
I just went through the last few pages and didn’t see PP being compared to Trump. He pretty much has his own brand of populism. One based on anger and protest. His campaign is big on slogans and not big on actual policy.

Now that may change once he becomes leader but he really does not have much policy wise right now. Some of us would like to see an effective leader with a chance to win.

Harper lost to Trudeau.
Scheer lost to Trudeau.
O’Toole lost to Trudeau.

Yes. “ Anyone should be able to beat Trudeau “. We’ve heard that every time and yet like a poor marksman, they keep missing the target.

I’d like someone that can beat Trudeau. I don’t think PP is the guy that will do that. He’s divided party beyond repair I think. Not sure why you would tell current and ex military people to shake their heads. Many are indeed sharing their heads but not for the reasons you might think.

And none of this is an endorsement of Trudeau. But it might be an indictment of a party we’d like to see aspire to power instead of perfecting second place all the time.
 
Would you really ?
I do yes. I thought the last guy could. But was wrong. If the party had given him a chance rather than turf him and put themselves in a divisive leadership race, I think he had the potential to get there.

I like Scott Atchison more than I like Charest but I think both would be better choices than PP. Both are my only ballot choices.

Rona Ambrose was and is my preferred leader for the CPC but that ship has sailed for now.
 
I like Scott Atchison more than I like Charest but I think both would be better choices than PP.
The issue is that neither is great.
I love Aitchison's tone and philosophy, but he's so rough around the edges and while he gets points for a fairly robust platform, some of the actual ideas are... questionable.

Meanwhile Charest is pretty much perfect, but just too stigmatized. Both the Laurentian aspect and the "Liberal", PP's very skillful spin machine has made it almost impossible for a Charest led CPC to stay together.

The only way I see this working out well for the CPC and Canada is if PP is smarter than he has shown to date and both
A- has a solid platform of real ideas and a beneficial agenda that he's keeping close to his chest
B- can use his skill to keep the mob on board while he pivots and enacts it
 
I think PP's main problem is that he is trying to win the Party, without a plan to win the country. All of his rhetoric, sloganing, speeches, etc. drum up support within the farther corners of the party; but are met with indifference or skepticism from the electorate.

Its all well and good to have the best CONOP with your fellow staff, but in the end, you're not convincing them, you're convincing the boss. The boss in this case are the 40ish Million people you're trying to convince to vote for your party.

The same thing happened in the NDP. Singh was touted as the new face to lead the NDP into a second Orange Crush, with massive party support for his Leadership bid. He instead has fallen flat with Canadians and the NDP is suffering for it.

The question becomes how much more Canadians are willing to hold their nose with our current elected government. Unless the CPC and NDP provide a viable option, we're where were are for the foreseeable future.

I think Atchison and Charest would have far more appeal to Canadians than PP, however, I said the same about O'Toole. Whoever is selected as CPC Leader will have little time to relish their success once Parliament resumes in the autumn.
 
The issue is that neither is great.
I love Aitchison's tone and philosophy, but he's so rough around the edges and while he gets points for a fairly robust platform, some of the actual ideas are... questionable.

Meanwhile Charest is pretty much perfect, but just too stigmatized. Both the Laurentian aspect and the "Liberal", PP's very skillful spin machine has made it almost impossible for a Charest led CPC to stay together.

The only way I see this working out well for the CPC and Canada is if PP is smarter than he has shown to date and both
A- has a solid platform of real ideas and a beneficial agenda that he's keeping close to his chest
B- can use his skill to keep the mob on board while he pivots and enacts it
There is a school of thought that PP’s current populist leaning is a means to undercut and destroy the PPC. I think he might be politically savvy enough to concoct that sort of thing.

The issue is can he or will he try to unite the party under a broad banner or will he double down on his current path.

And has there been enough damage done that he can’t actually unite the party.

It’s going to take a lot for me to vote his way. As an MP and as PM.
 
There is a school of thought that PP’s current populist leaning is a means to undercut and destroy the PPC. I think he might be politically savvy enough to concoct that sort of thing.

The issue is can he or will he try to unite the party under a broad banner or will he double down on his current path.

And has there been enough damage done that he can’t actually unite the party.

It’s going to take a lot for me to vote his way. As an MP and as PM.
O'Toole tried a similar play and it blew up pretty hard in his face.

When you're as fractured as the CPC/PPC; going from slightly right of centre to "what in the Jesus Christ was that?" right, you're not going to win everyone in the party. The key to a majority lies in the centre. There are enough Blue grits unhappy with the LPC that are willing to flip; only if they can be sure that the lunatics won't get hold of the asylum.
 
There is a school of thought that PP’s current populist leaning is a means to undercut and destroy the PPC. I think he might be politically savvy enough to concoct that sort of thing.
That may well be the case. And I do appreciate that he's read the room and (unlike Lewis) has been increasingly leaning away from the WEF/ COVID grievance angle and finding newer and (somewhat) more legitimate issues to stoke anger at.

Personally I hate the constant misrepresentation and oversimplification of issues to form attacks, but if it's actually a form of "weaning" people back to reality to keep them under the tent... it makes it more palatable.

But I'd much prefer a principled, grounded in reality, solution based, "This is why I'm better" leader to a "Trudeau sucks" soundbite machine
 
Back
Top