New Canadian Party Getting Neo-Nazi Support

Jul 5, 2018
429
198
180
#51
And there lies the problem how do you distance yourself from Nazis. Why put your self in that place in the first place unless that is what he was unintentionaly aiming for
They'd support whoever was the furthest right just like the far left does....it doesn't mean he's super far right...it just means he's the closest thing to what they want...a good example would be the mall 20km from your house is closer to you then the 30 km one....but for walking distance they both are pretty far...but you'd still go for the closest one tho rgiht?
 
Likes: AfricanKing
Oct 30, 2017
959
814
225
#55
Er, there's one big distinction between Antifa and neo-Nazis.

Antifa's goal is to... fight fascism. It's literally in the name. Its methods may be needlessly violent, but if it got its way, we'd have a functioning democracy where people of different ethnicities are free to participate in society.

However, when you attract neo-Nazis, that means your policies are attractive to neo-Nazis. Do you not grasp the basic problem here? No political party's values should be appealing to white supremacists. We didn't fight WWII to let Nazis get a foothold in North America.

Thankfully, the PPC and supporters like you will ultimately be irrelevant.
Lol at “it’s literally in the name”, but whenever someone mentions the horrors of socialism/communism, then it becomes “it wasn’t real socialism, just because they call themselves socialist doesn’t mean that they are”.

Antifa are bunch of disgusting filthy evil communists. They’re whiter than the KKK. Also, they’re not fighting for minorities, they’re fighting for their evil ideology. Fuck them.
 
Last edited:
May 22, 2018
1,872
4,073
265
#56
Er, there's one big distinction between Antifa and neo-Nazis.

Antifa's goal is to... fight fascism. It's literally in the name. Its methods may be needlessly violent, but if it got its way, we'd have a functioning democracy where people of different ethnicities are free to participate in society.

However, when you attract neo-Nazis, that means your policies are attractive to neo-Nazis. Do you not grasp the basic problem here? No political party's values should be appealing to white supremacists. We didn't fight WWII to let Nazis get a foothold in North America.

Thankfully, the PPC and supporters like you will ultimately be irrelevant.
Dumbest post of the year award already won??
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,157
475
#59
...but those views can vary from far-left (as you said) to people who are 'just' solidly left but maintain that violence is sometimes necessary.
If you think that violence against your political opposition is "sometimes necessary" in a democratic state of law, you're not "just solidly left", you're a far-left militant. In other words, if you endorse ANTIFA, you're either very misguided or not a political moderate, no matter which way you look at it.

That's like saying some people who support Neo-Nazis are moderates... no, just no.
 
Last edited:
May 4, 2005
12,408
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#60
If you think that violence against your political opposition is "sometimes necessary" in a democratic state of law, you're not "just solidly left", you're a far-left militant. In other words, if you endorse ANTIFA, you're either very misguided or not a political moderate, no matter which way you look at it.

That's like saying some people who support Neo-Nazis are moderates... no, just no.
Being violent and being far left are distinctive properties and someone can be moderate-left leaning, but still willing to use violence to reach the moderately left leaning goals. Certainly, most people who use violence to reach their political goals tend to be to one of the extreme ends, because policies just a tad left or a tad right of the status quo can be achieved by other means, but there is nothing that prohobits that a moderate left (or moderate right) person think it is justifiable to try to reach those political goals with violence.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,325
462
1,085
#62
Man what a smear job from the star. Big shocker a trash leftist propaganda paper.

Anyways I'm a founding member of PPC... while I think the Rights vote is going to be split, to me Maxime represents my beliefs far better than scheer.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,371
1,676
470
Brampton, Ontario
#63
Man what a smear job from the star. Big shocker a trash leftist propaganda paper.

Anyways I'm a founding member of PPC... while I think the Rights vote is doing to be split, to me Maxime represents my beliefs far better than scheer.
Canada currently has two choices. We either go full accelerationist and crash this ship into the iceberg with Trudeau, or we slowly drive into a wall with Scheer.

1st option would definitely give the PPC more power in a future election. Numbers wise, Canadian conservatives are in the same minority like the Republicans. We have two left leaning parties and only one right wing one.

This situation is not sustainable.
 
Last edited:
Oct 1, 2006
3,057
2,374
1,090
#64
Antifa's goal is to... fight fascism. It's literally in the name. Its methods may be needlessly violent, but if it got its way, we'd have a functioning democracy where people of different ethnicities are free to participate in society.
The PATRIOT Act's goal was to be patriotic. It's in the name.

Nazis are National Socialists. They are obviously socialist. It's in the name.

That is a really tired argument in defense of Antifa fascism.
 
Last edited:
May 1, 2012
62
30
360
#65
Some of the shit in this thread is hilarious.
But not everything.
1. Fascist ideology (Italian invention) is indeed socialist and left-wing, each and every ideology that places group identity and group values above individual ones is fascist (just more or less so).
2. National Socialist party of Germany was indeed National Socialist, any "refutation" of that fact is an utter crap produced by USSR in the WWII time frame. The whole hoax was created to distance Stalin's "International Socialism" from Hitler's "National" one.
3. The whole crap about "political compass" or "authoritarianism vs freedom" etc. is also a crap. Left = authoritarian, always, Right = anarchist, always. So, contrary to all the bullshit you hear from left-wing press, Libertarians are "far-right" (aka. anarchists), Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists all of them are left, depends on how strong they strive to dictate to others how they need to think.
4. Neo-Nazis are obviously a leftist ideology: they are collectivist, they dress up in "uniform", they try to look the same and work in groups. Nothing changed.
5. The whole "white supremacists are right" is a pure delusion. It doesn't matter who exactly you hate (or love), if you it's the whole group - you're a leftist. All MAGA hats, all blacks, all Jews, etc. Any time that you place a group identity as a sole defining factor for what people should think or do - you're far-left = Fascist.
 
Jun 26, 2013
2,829
886
385
#66
The PATRIOT Act's goal was to be patriotic. It's in the name.

Nazis are National Socialists. They are obviously socialist. It's in the name.

That is a really tired argument in defense of Antifa fascism.
Here's another one:

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. It's in the name.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,371
1,676
470
Brampton, Ontario
#69
3. The whole crap about "political compass" or "authoritarianism vs freedom" etc. is also a crap. Left = authoritarian, always, Right = anarchist, always. So, contrary to all the bullshit you hear from left-wing press, Libertarians are "far-right" (aka. anarchists), Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists all of them are left, depends on how strong they strive to dictate to others how they need to think.
I disagree anarchy = right wing.

A socialist state [in practice] actually calls for the elimination of classes. True equality would stipulate all property belongs to the public and no ranking official. But the same "classless society" is what leads to the fatal flaw in all socialist societies, because there will always be someone who wants more, thus leading to a dictatorship.

Don't take this as me defending Communism/Socialism. I hate it with a passion. But by definition, anarchy is not incompatible with left wing beliefs at all. But it's also the same reason they always fail.

In the case of Nazism, it is a political position focused on race. It is not left wing or right wing, even though history shows Nazi Germany was ruled by a dictator who vehemently hated Communism. But Hitler also killed those on the right who presented obstacles to his racial purity (see night of the long knives).
 
Last edited:

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,376
253
1,025
#72
Some of the shit in this thread is hilarious.
But not everything.
1. Fascist ideology (Italian invention) is indeed socialist and left-wing, each and every ideology that places group identity and group values above individual ones is fascist (just more or less so).
2. National Socialist party of Germany was indeed National Socialist, any "refutation" of that fact is an utter crap produced by USSR in the WWII time frame. The whole hoax was created to distance Stalin's "International Socialism" from Hitler's "National" one.
3. The whole crap about "political compass" or "authoritarianism vs freedom" etc. is also a crap. Left = authoritarian, always, Right = anarchist, always. So, contrary to all the bullshit you hear from left-wing press, Libertarians are "far-right" (aka. anarchists), Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Socialists all of them are left, depends on how strong they strive to dictate to others how they need to think.
4. Neo-Nazis are obviously a leftist ideology: they are collectivist, they dress up in "uniform", they try to look the same and work in groups. Nothing changed.
5. The whole "white supremacists are right" is a pure delusion. It doesn't matter who exactly you hate (or love), if you it's the whole group - you're a leftist. All MAGA hats, all blacks, all Jews, etc. Any time that you place a group identity as a sole defining factor for what people should think or do - you're far-left = Fascist.
Nah. You've just arbitrarily labeled everything authoritarian as left, because of "Reasons".

I get that right leaning people don't want to be associated with Nazis, but pretzel logic shouldn't be used to pretend that the extreme right haven't used authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
#73
Seems like the Nazi party was instantly disavowed. So, that's really all that we ask (and to punish any elected openly Nazi members).
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#74
Seems like the Nazi party was instantly disavowed. So, that's really all that we ask (and to punish any elected openly Nazi members).
I have not seen any proof that this person or political party are Nazis. Anti immigration and nationalistic ideologies does not make you a nazi.
 
Jan 12, 2009
16,171
1,447
835
#75
I have not seen any proof that this person or political party are Nazis. Anti immigration and nationalistic ideologies does not make you a nazi.
They don't want to be affiliated with that kind, and openly say so. Yes Nazis like their ideas, but they don't want that support. That's a good basic stance, the extra details I wouldn't harp on.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#76
They don't want to be affiliated with that kind, and openly say so. Yes Nazis like their ideas, but they don't want that support. The extra details I wouldn't harp on.
According to some here it does not matter as long they follow ideologies liked by Nazis. If you are not one of these people I apolgize
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,371
1,676
470
Brampton, Ontario
#78
They don't want to be affiliated with that kind, and openly say so. Yes Nazis like their ideas, but they don't want that support. That's a good basic stance, the extra details I wouldn't harp on.
Common sense should tell you Nazis could potentially like anything but it doesn't actually mean much.

Hitler was a big fan of building highways, should Liberals now abandon building any public infrastructure for fear of getting the Nazi thumbs up?
 
Nov 5, 2016
5,201
4,120
285
I don't care where (just far)
#80
Common sense should tell you Nazis could potentially like anything but it doesn't actually mean much.

Hitler was a big fan of building highways, should Liberals now abandon building any public infrastructure for fear of getting the Nazi thumbs up?
I thought someone earlier in the thread used the “Hitler drank water” card in defense of the PPC.

Is that just the Go-To?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,371
1,676
470
Brampton, Ontario
#81
Are these actual Nazis, or are they 'Nazis'? According to some everybody to the right of Stalin is a 'Nazi', so the term really doesn't mean anything anymore.
If they were real Nazis, they would have more success trying to recreate their own Beer Hall Putsch than supporting any mainstream right wing party.

It's actually a huge joke anytime you hear Republicans or Conservatives are called Nazis, when you have people like Trump declaring he wants more immigration than ever.

The truth is both parties are the same. Republicans are Democrats and Democrats are Republicans. Just one of them takes it more moderately than the other.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Oct 24, 2017
6,132
4,979
335
#82
I thought someone earlier in the thread used the “Hitler drank water” card in defense of the PPC.

Is that just the Go-To?
Hitler also used socialist concepts he was all for collectivism. He was anti capitalistic in the end too finance his war. He was for family values etc. All these are concept every political party uses so saying that they should stop using these concepts because it attracts Nazis is utter nonsense.
 
#84
Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear someone seriously talking about Nazis in a political conversation I kind of zone out. Even if a group takes the name that doesn't make them Nazis. they are just a sad bunch of individuals trying to capitalize on a name. Political parties use it because it's the big scary for a lot of minorities and the left. Kind of the same way the right-wing use terrorist. Both are done to play on people's fears while offering protection from them.

Anyone who seriously think Nazis are a threat needs to get off Twitter and go outside.
 
Feb 3, 2018
3,322
3,330
370
33
USA
#85
Likes: zelo-ca
May 1, 2012
62
30
360
#89
Nah. You've just arbitrarily labeled everything authoritarian as left, because of "Reasons".
Every leftist in history was authoritarian. It stems directly from placing group well being above individual one.
All Socialist, Communist, Fascist, etc. talk about is how they are going to improve everyone well being in their group. Which always comes with caveat of destroying some other group(s) like: "haters", "Jews", "Christians", etc.
So it's you who arbitrary say that the current leftist movements are somehow not authoritarian, while in reality they all are.

True equality would stipulate all property belongs to the public and no ranking official.
That's still authoritarian. True anarchists are "everybody is responsible for themselves only", it's a wild-west type of ideology, no government, no rules.
Both fringe ends are a total utopia: you can never have a fully authoritarian state, and you cannot have no state at all.
Obviously reality is usually in the middle, more leftist with some groups of people controlling everything, or more rightist where people are responsible for themselves and their family only.
 
Likes: weltalldx

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,371
1,676
470
Brampton, Ontario
#90
That's still authoritarian. True anarchists are "everybody is responsible for themselves only", it's a wild-west type of ideology, no government, no rules.
Classless society would translate to no government. Private property would not exist and thus everything is owned by everyone.

But I pointed out that's the crux of why Socialism/Communism always fails. Because having no government leaves behind a power vacuum for a dictator to step in.

In an Anarchist world, the exact same thing would happen. Lawlessness would only last as long until warlords show up and start marking territory.
 
Last edited:
May 20, 2007
9,892
270
940
#91
Classless society would translate to no government. Private property would not exist and thus everything is owned by everyone.

But I pointed out that's the crux of why Socialism/Communism always fails. Because having no government leaves behind a power vacuum for a dictator to step in.

In an Anarchist world, the exact same thing would happen. Lawlessness would only last as long until warlords show up and start marking territory.
Listen, communism would be perfect if humans weren't involved, ok?

Perhaps that may be why so many people happen to die under communist regimes.
 
Feb 22, 2009
467
277
630
Ottawa, Canada
#92
The colors black and red attract Nazis, is there something wrong with those two colors?
Nazis are attracted to big black boots. Are those inherently wrong now too?



You want to know a Nazi policy? Here is one...
Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Professional_Civil_Service
Please, stop with the childish comparisons.

You know damn well what I mean. The issue is that the particular strains of anti-immigration and "Western values" policies are attractive to neo-Nazis because those policies fit parts of their agenda that are widely recognized as wrong (demanding fewer non-whites, pushing for discrimination against the non-whites who are here). They're certainly not trying to infiltrate the PPC because of its environmental policy.
 
Feb 25, 2017
280
269
210
#93
Please, stop with the childish comparisons.

You know damn well what I mean. The issue is that the particular strains of anti-immigration and "Western values" policies are attractive to neo-Nazis because those policies fit parts of their agenda that are widely recognized as wrong (demanding fewer non-whites, pushing for discrimination against the non-whites who are here). They're certainly not trying to infiltrate the PPC because of its environmental policy.
You are being intellectually dishonest and arguing in bad faith. You have intentionally conflate illegal and legal immigration as one and the same(anti immigration), then deflecting any criticism of the serious issue of illegal immigration as xenophobia. Many people aren't against immigration, they are against illegal immigration and uncontrolled immigration.

You continue using hypocrisy, inconsistency, and personal attacks to dismiss anyone who calls you out. It's frankly pretty annoying and does not encourage honest or healthy discussion.
 
Feb 3, 2018
3,322
3,330
370
33
USA
#94
Please, stop with the childish comparisons.

You know damn well what I mean. The issue is that the particular strains of anti-immigration and "Western values" policies are attractive to neo-Nazis because those policies fit parts of their agenda that are widely recognized as wrong (demanding fewer non-whites, pushing for discrimination against the non-whites who are here). They're certainly not trying to infiltrate the PPC because of its environmental policy.
So its OK when you do it but not when I dot it? Got ya. Deflect, distract, then walk it back. Or in your case double down. You clearly said something you didn't think about. Now you are upset you got called out, so you just focus blame on my post somehow.

Nah. I'm not playing your dumb games. You made a dumb as hell justification that was ignorant. Don't call my comparisons childish when you are doing the same 'unfair' comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
Feb 9, 2019
36
27
70
#95
Please, stop with the childish comparisons.

You know damn well what I mean. The issue is that the particular strains of anti-immigration and "Western values" policies are attractive to neo-Nazis because those policies fit parts of their agenda that are widely recognized as wrong (demanding fewer non-whites, pushing for discrimination against the non-whites who are here). They're certainly not trying to infiltrate the PPC because of its environmental policy.
Why is it wrong to demand fewer non-white immigrants, but right to demand more non-white immigrants? To put it another way, if [insert African country]'s immigration policies had them importing more than 90% non-blacks to the point that blacks became a minority in [insert African country,] would that be good or bad? Like it or not, the US was founded as a white country (first immigration act by the US Congress banned non-whites from becoming citizens.)
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2009
467
277
630
Ottawa, Canada
#96
So its OK when you do it but not when I dot it? Got ya. Deflect, distract, then walk it back. Or in your case double down. You clearly said something you didn't think about. Now you are upset you got called out, so you just focus blame on my post somehow.

Nah. I'm not playing your dumb games. You made a dumb as hell justification that was ignorant. Don't call my comparisons childish when you are doing the same 'unfair' comparisons.
Er, no. That's not it at all.

I'm not upset that I got "called out" (I wasn't), I'm upset that you're making facile, purposefully exaggerated claims instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. You can't actually acknowledge that the PPC and neo-Nazis are uncomfortably close in terms of ideology, so you pretend that I should be offended about uniform colors or policies that were incidental to the Nazis' ultimate goals. You literally deflected and distracted, and you have the audacity to claim I'm doing that.
 
Feb 9, 2019
36
27
70
#97
Er, no. That's not it at all.

I'm not upset that I got "called out" (I wasn't), I'm upset that you're making facile, purposefully exaggerated claims instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. You can't actually acknowledge that the PPC and neo-Nazis are uncomfortably close in terms of ideology, so you pretend that I should be offended about uniform colors or policies that were incidental to the Nazis' ultimate goals. You literally deflected and distracted, and you have the audacity to claim I'm doing that.
This is lunacy. You realize that, right? The PPC, from what I can tell, are like Republicans (of old.) Smaller federal government. Fewer regulations. Lower taxes. Either you've been lied to your entire life, or you've gone off the deep end at some point. The Nazis were not right wing. They were left wing.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
515
305
#98
Er, no. That's not it at all.

I'm not upset that I got "called out" (I wasn't), I'm upset that you're making facile, purposefully exaggerated claims instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. You can't actually acknowledge that the PPC and neo-Nazis are uncomfortably close in terms of ideology, so you pretend that I should be offended about uniform colors or policies that were incidental to the Nazis' ultimate goals. You literally deflected and distracted, and you have the audacity to claim I'm doing that.
Please point out which parts of this platform make the PPC uncomfortably close to neo-Nazis in terms of ideology.
 
Likes: matt404au
Feb 22, 2009
467
277
630
Ottawa, Canada
#99
Why is it wrong to demand fewer non-white immigrants, but right to demand more non-white immigrants? To put it another way, if [insert African country]'s immigration policies had them importing more than 90% non-blacks to the point that blacks became a minority in [insert African country,] would that be good or bad? Like it or not, the US was founded as a white country (first immigration act by the US Congress banned non-whites from becoming citizens.)
It's... really not hard. Demanding fewer non-white immigrants is racism. You literally can't question that, because it's an exclusionary policy based on race. And I haven't seen pro-immigration people specifically demand more non-white people -- they just note that having a more diverse cultural makeup is typically a good thing, and that you shouldn't exclude people based on the color of their skin.

To address your hypothetical scenario: if an African country's policies didn't specifically request white people but had the effect of mostly bringing in white immigrants, that would be fine. A country isn't defined by its skin color -- it's defined by its shared values. And we shouldn't be scared of changing demographics, of our own culture no longer being the center of the universe.
 
Feb 3, 2018
3,322
3,330
370
33
USA
Er, no. That's not it at all.

I'm not upset that I got "called out" (I wasn't), I'm upset that you're making facile, purposefully exaggerated claims instead of arguing against what I'm actually saying. You can't actually acknowledge that the PPC and neo-Nazis are uncomfortably close in terms of ideology, so you pretend that I should be offended about uniform colors or policies that were incidental to the Nazis' ultimate goals. You literally deflected and distracted, and you have the audacity to claim I'm doing that.
Yeah. No. My point is Nazis don't exist like you think they do.
You are making up some bogyman to shit on right leaning policy. But this is what you ilk does. I don't even care If some Nazis like a policy. Who gives a flying fuck?
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,950
515
305
NAZIS!!!

Immigration has become a very contentious issue in politics. We’ve seen in recent years the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe. It featured prominently in the U.S. presidential election. And it has become part of the debate in the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race.

Canada has always been a country largely open to immigration, because of its vastness and its relative youth. I believe that by and large, our immigration policy has been very successful. But we are not immune to the conflicts and social tensions happening elsewhere.

We can avoid these tensions if we stay away from ideological extremes and go back to a fundamental principle: The overarching objective of Canada’s immigration policy should be to fulfill the economic needs of our country.

In particular, it should answer the needs of sectors where there is a scarcity of manpower with specialized skills; and in more general terms contribute to increasing the number of younger workers in a society that is fast aging.

Too little immigration means we will not get as much of these economic benefits as we could. But too much immigration also has its dangers.

Our immigration policy should not aim to forcibly change the cultural character and social fabric of Canada, as radical proponents of multiculturalism want. The vast majority of Canadians rightly expect immigrants to learn about our history and culture, master one of our official languages, and adopt widely shared Canadian values such as equality of men and woman, tolerance for diversity and respect for Canadian law.

Immigrants are expected to integrate in our society, not to live in ghettos and try to replicate the way of life of their country of origin in Canada.

Of course, Canadian society is also transformed by immigration, as it has for centuries. But this has to be done organically and gradually. When it happens too fast, it creates social tensions and conflicts, and provokes a political backlash, as we can see today in several countries.

This is why I am opposed to increasing the annual intake of immigrants from 250,000 to 300,000, as the Liberal government has announced.

I am even more opposed to the proposal made by the government’s advisory council a few months ago to increase it to 450,000, which Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum said could be adopted at some point in the future.

At too high a level, immigration ceases to be a tool to economically benefit Canadians, and it turns instead into a burden. It becomes essentially a policy of social engineering for ideological purposes.

On the basis of these principles, here are the general policies I intend to pursue if I become Prime Minister.

Given that the main objective of immigration is to fulfill the economic needs of Canada, I would bring back the number from 300,000 to 250,000 as it was on average under the Harper government.

I would streamline the process for hiring specialized workers abroad. I would also put slightly more emphasis on economic immigration and slightly reduce the categories of family reunification and refugees.

It is important for New Canadians to be able to reunite with their families. This is already a large part of our immigration policy and will continue to be so. As well, Canada has to play its part in welcoming refugees from troubled areas of the world. But these two categories of immigrants bring less economic benefits to Canada than the category of economic immigrants. Welcoming refugees is actually very expensive.

To ensure our security, I would increase resources for CSIS, the RCMP and Canadian Immigration and Citizenship to do background checks on all classes of immigrants, including more face-to-face interviews if deemed necessary.

And finally, I would stop our reliance on the United Nations for refugee selection. Civil society groups that work on the ground have a much better grasp of who could successfully integrate into Canada than a big international bureaucracy. We should rely instead on private sponsorship, including by faith-based organizations. The Liberals are strangling this to make room for poorly delivered state sponsorship.

My campaign is based on free markets and small government principles. I am opposed to big government policies in all spheres of life.

Preventing our businesses from hiring the immigrant manpower they need with red tape is a big government policy. At the other extreme, mass immigration that would create social tensions and is not in the interest of Canadians is also a big government policy. A government under my leadership would find an appropriate middle ground so as to unleash Canada’s economic potential.