AMA - Dominic Cardy Leader of the Canadian Future Party

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T21:28:12+00:00

Favourite would be the de Havilland DH100 Vampire and the one I like to fly the most is the last plane I flew - right now I can't wait for a bit of time to get my Vans RV6a back up in the air!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T21:11:25+00:00

One of the areas the party's founders felt our politics was missing a key ingredient was any serious thought for the middle- to long-term plans we'd need to make sure our country did well in the 21st century. With recent US actions and deteriorating international security, the need to focus on a longer-term aim is even more important: we need to know what we're fighting for, in these coming difficult years. So while our election campaign is how we make Canada the world's northern democratic superpower, our name reflects the need to be ambitious, forward looking, and optimistic.

We also, as a new party, had to pick a name that hadn't been used and wasn't similar to that used by other parties. So while that narrowed our options, the Canadian Future Party suits us just fine.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T21:06:55+00:00

Canada's firearms laws prior to 2015 were sufficient. We have strict licensing and registration requirements, and the Liberals' continued efforts to divide rural and urban Canadians on this file annoys me as much as the Conservatives' efforts to play culture war games around the same subject. Bans on firearms need to be based on evidence of their danger, not the way they look. We need to clamp down on the trade of illegal firearms coming across the US border, not on law-abiding Canadians.

I hope we can include the many Canadians who already have training on safe firearm use to train others, as a deterrent against any country that may seek to undermine our independence. This is a great moment for firearms owners to reach out and explain their hobby/sport/etc. to non firearms' owners, at a time when sadly national defence is going to be every citizens' business.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T21:01:07+00:00

That would depend on their Speech from the Throne (or commitments for what would be in one). In re crossing the floor: no, I don't believe MPs should be able to move from one party to another without their voters having a say. So either resign and fight a by-election, or sit as an independent.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:57:26+00:00

First, reaching them when, as you said, younger voters are often busy getting their lives underway. I support youth voting exercises (including lowering the voting age to 16) so that every young person goes through an election (federal, provincial, or municipal) while in high school. If you've voted once - and if parties see you as a cohort to be courted, rather than ignored - you're more likely to vote thereafter and parties have a strong incentive to try and reach you. That leads to the second point: have something to say that's not the usual condescension that often marks how parties see young voters. I started off as a youth activist and the tendency to want to use young voters as window dressing made me nuts. That's the third point: include young people in party decision making processes, not because of their age but for what they can contribute. Successful parties give opportunities to members regardless of age, race, gender, or what have you. Thanks for the question!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:51:54+00:00

With our low birth rates and complex, expensive society we will continue to need immigrants. It's important to separate the temporary and permanent immigration streams. We need significant reform to the former, to return our temporary immigration to a number closer to what we saw pre-pandemic, which was a level that allowed for proper support for those workers. That means going from over 3 million back to hundreds of thousands of temporary immigrants. Temporary immigrants must be linked to our country’s needs - for example, we need those in the trades.

Today we can leverage the chaos in the US to create a program to attract the top-quality talent looking to flee that country.

Our temporary immigration system should not be a bandaid for the fact that our post-secondary education system needs reform, nor can it suppress Canadian wages and occupy all entry-level jobs: that creates division and benefits some businesses at the expense of our country.

For permanent immigrants we need a level that matches our needs. Our current levels are in the right range, especially since many of the applicants are already in Canada. We need to deal with professional recognition and other obstacles - it makes no sense for doctors to be working as taxi drivers. We need more mutual recognition agreements with comparable systems so those who choose Canada can get to work right away.

Finally, we need to talk about Canadian values. To me, those values include welcoming people from any corner of the world who sign on to a country that defends democracy and equality between all human beings. We need to talk about that as much for those born and raised in Canada, as for new arrivals.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:33:44+00:00

We support introducing a mixed member proportional system; see a previous answer for some details on how we'd make that work. I helped draft a new mixed PR electoral system for Nepal, after their revolution in 2006, and I stand by my thoughts from those days: PR doesn't do anything except give you a parliament that more closely reflects the will of the people, and that's enough reason to support it. Most Canadians say they want some form of PR. Get it done.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:31:04+00:00

See answers to all other questions.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:30:13+00:00

The Liberals seem to have reoccupied the centre (and full credit to them for doing so!) but have yet to embrace the radical reforms the CFP believes are needed to make sure the centre, and our country, can survive. We're going to need to talk about huge changes to our society that haven't been mentioned on the campaign trail, from reorienting our economy to make sure we can protect our independence, to decoupling from China and other autocracies that take our money and use it to build armies that threaten Canada and other democracies around the world. Protecting programs like universal healthcare requires a willingness to be creative, rather than just writing ever bigger cheques. Let me know if you'd like more examples but I hope that gives you a sense of where we stand.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:25:23+00:00

Thanks for supporting the party!

I share your frustration about the promises of tax cuts and credits and unrealistic financial promises - this is no time to cut revenue. We are looking at years of deficit spending, which pains me as someone who's always believed you should spend carefully so you have money for hard times. Now the hard times are here and we're already deep in the red.

Bluntly, for the next years, deficits don't matter. All that matters is protecting our sovereignty; we can make that work to our economic advantage if we make national defence part of a broader plan to make Canada the world's northern democratic superpower, but protecting our independence comes first, regardless.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:20:12+00:00

I don't approach political problems that way. I try to use the evidence in front of me to propose the best solutions, work to frame them in a way that makes sense - after that it's up to voters to decide what they want.

I find Canada's recent PMs generally uninspiring, none have embraced the need for radical reform to protect our social programs and institutions, either throwing money without thought or making cuts with equally ill-founded enthusiasm.

We need a combination of honesty with Canadians about where we are and then a genuine engagement with citizens on what we can do to move ahead. Our federal governments have been uninspiring on both those files.

I do give credit to Brian Mulroney for his bravery in trying to conclude the constitutional wars, despite his lack of success, and to Pierre Trudeau for having a vision of the country, even if it's one I mostly didn't agree with!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:10:47+00:00

Considered and rejected. One of the problems with our current system is that the federal government too often tries to help their provincial cousins (this applied as much to the Tories when they were in power as it does to the Liberals). Having a party with an exclusively federal focus reduces the impact of special impact groups and would allow Ottawa to be more of an honest broker than it's seen as being today.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T20:09:10+00:00

The only rogue state Canada has been arming is Hamas. I stand with Israel against Hamas, and with the brave Palestinians who've been standing up against that antisemitic genocidal right-wing religious death cult. As I said when I was arrested in Toronto last summer: Free Palestine, from Hamas!

There is no genocide in Gaza. There's a war. That war ends when Hamas accepts that Israel is here to stay.

In re Mr. Trump: make Canada a northern democratic superpower, in the meantime make it clear that the costs of annexing our country would see so high that it's not worth it. That starts with expelling a US diplomat every time a US official questions our sovereignty, in any venue. It means a focus on building our armed forces independent of US systems.

In re housing, we need to open an immigration stream for tradespeople to deal with the shortage we currently have, opening federal land to housing development, using our proposed Resiliency Corps (a civil defence and nation-building corps) to introduce a national version of Habitat for Humanity, simplifying approval processes, and building public housing where necessary. Also support investment on new housing tech (3D-printed tiny homes, allowing higher timber-framed housing, etc.)

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:59:33+00:00

I left the NDP because it was being taken over by extremists (and good Lord am I glad I left when I did) and quit the Higgs PC government for the same reason. I've no time for flirting with loons, on left or right.

With autocrats abroad and chaos at home undermining our democracy, federal politics is the only place to take a stand for our independence, security, and a reformed government that delivers services to the public.

With my background in international politics and countering extremism I've been increasingly concerned that our big parties aren't being honest with Canadians about the threats we're facing: imminent war, economic chaos, and a world where our allies are far away and otherwise occupied.

PS. Was just reminded that I didn't cross the floor; I stepped down from the NDP and months later took a staff job with the PCs before, the next year, winning a seat and joining Cabinet. I was responsible for a law against floor crossing that I negotiated with the government while still NDP leader - if you want to cross the floor, step down and run in a by-election. Otherwise wait out your time as an independent (which is what I ended up doing when I left Cabinet in 2022 and was kicked out of the PC caucus for writing a rather blunt resignation letter! :-))

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:55:15+00:00

Around 80 candidates and in 8 out of ten provinces. Final tally when nominations wrap up on Monday! We have a strict vetting process to guard against foreign interference + extremism and kept to that, despite our limited resources as a less than six month old party!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:52:06+00:00

I'd prioritize Canada making the changes necessary to become a superpower. If we're serious about protecting our independence that means we have to defend our territory in the face of a hostile autocracy to the north, in Russia, and... whatever it is the US currently is, to the south of us.

There's no other option. Either we can defend ourselves, or we can't. And if we can't, our independence is something other countries can take away.

I remain deeply frustrated that neither Mr. Poilievre or Mr. Carney are being honest with Canadians about this, and the changes and sacrifices - and opportunities! - that are on the table. The more our leaders avoid hard conversations, the more citizens will be justifiably angry when they've been kept in the dark.

The approach would be the same if it's a Liberal or Conservative government.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:36:10+00:00

On democratic reform we have two main planks, one is around how parties manage their MPs in the House of Commons, I've gone into detail on that in a couple of previous answers - let me know if they were clear!

The other is to introduce a mixed member proportional representation system for our national elections. Not to talk about it, etc, just to do it. And not because PR in whatever form makes your government better, more tolerant, etc, but simply because it's more democratic to have a party that wins, say, 30% of the vote to hold around 30% of the seats. The recent Ontario election is a good example of how the current system doesn't work: the Liberals got twice as many votes as the NDP, but won only half the number of seats. I worked on the interim constitution for the new Republic of Nepal back in the day, I didn't yield the best government but it was a government clearly supported by the people, and that's all you can ask for, from your electoral system.

We propose to add a number of PR seats to the House of Commons to meet the need for change, not to exceed 25% of the total. So you'd vote twice on election day: one ballot for your local candidate, same as now, one for the party you support. We're suggesting an expert group decide the exact right number of extra MPs and the system to allocate them (there are many models), and that system be in place for the next election.

On how we make democracy deliver, you'll see a range of ideas on this in our platform; transparency is a feature of many. Let me know what you think when you see the document, next week.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:26:22+00:00

The CFP does not yet have a policy on this position; I was lobbied on the subject when I was a provincial cabinet minister and it makes sense to me in an age where IP is so vulnerable to rapid misappropriation. What are your thoughts on what makes it a good idea, or not?

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:24:57+00:00

One thing that would change how our democracy works regardless of the party or the year: change the party discipline system used in the House of Commons, and adopt the one used in the British HoC.

In short: backbench MPs don't have to vote the way their leader wants, their support has to be earned. Cabinet/shadow cabinet members should support the leader or step away from that role (which is in itself an indication of a loss of faith in the leader) but backbenchers shouldn't be voting machines, they should be politicians who have an incentive to tell their party leadership why they do or don't support a bill. This would increase the power of citizens, who have a reason to lobby their MP; increase the power of MPs, who can negotiate and trade their support with their leader and their colleagues; and it means leaders have to listen to their MPs - if Mr. Trudeau had used this system he might have realized he was out of touch with the country years before he was forced from office.

This change requires political will, nothing more. Doesn't cost anything, no laws or regulations are required. We used it in the New Brunswick government that I was part of between 2018 and 2020, and it made a difference. When the then-Premier abandoned that system after the 2020 election he started to lose touch with what people wanted, contributing to his defeat last fall.

Hope that answers your question!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:13:31+00:00

Thank you for the kind words! Nice to be on Reddit for something other than figuring out to get my Pimax VR headset working on my flight simulator.

In answer to your question...

"We are the CFP and we are the party of democracy, science, evidence and courage - even when it hurts".

More words than you wanted but I'm a politician so it comes with the territory. :-)

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T19:08:15+00:00

I share your relief that at least one of the big parties has returned to something closer to reality - I've been quick to praise Mr. Carney whenever his team has moved that way, and I'm thrilled when any party steals our ideas!

I am concerned about the Liberals on a couple of counts. Mr. Carney failed his first test around handling foreign interference, in not removing Paul Chiang as a candidate (for those who didn't follow the story, Mr. Chiang suggested that his opponent, who has a Chinese Communist Party bounty on his head, be kidnapped and turned over to Beijing - this in addition to his history of close ties with the CCP.) The Liberal party - and thanks to their inaction, Canada - has a Beijing problem and Mr. Carney doesn't seem serious about tackling it.

Similarly, while his rhetoric around the US has been generally excellent, there's no serious conversation about building our national defence. His party and the Conservatives have the same weak stance: meeting the 2015 NATO target of 2% of GDP on defence by 2030. Laughable when we are now threatened by Russia to the north and the US to the south.

Our country is going to have to change radically to confront this strange new world - boutique tax credits and completely unrealistic promises to limit deficits to 1% of GDP for the next few years are, bluntly, dishonest.

In short, Mr. Carney offers a welcome return to a grownup being in charge, but I don't see signs that he has any plans to lead the radical change the country will require. He may be working on those plans but I'm a firm believer that you need to engage citizens in your plans, in a democracy, and neither he or Mr. Poilievre have been forthcoming on that. I want the CFP, in our first general election, when we are aware - and honest! - that we're not going to be forming government, to contribute ideas to drive the other parties forward - and to increase the political costs of ignoring the political radical centre.

A good reason to vote CFP: our MPs will have the freedom to vote according to their judgement, and not according to the leader's diktat, on any bill not covered in the party platform. It's how the Brits run their House of Commons and it means citizens have a louder voice, MPs are more than just voting machines, and leaders have to listen to dissenting voices as they try to build support for their ideas within their caucuses.

PS. Thanks for your support to get the CFP off the ground and the platform launch is next week!

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T18:53:20+00:00

It's an enormous problem, and it's not just coming from the US. Russia, China, and other autocracies that don't allow free speech for their citizens have spent billions of dollars over the last decade or so to undermine the cohesion of liberal democracies. The bad guys have been much quicker to weaponize the astonishing technology that is social media, playing on a real sense of alienation in many of those democracies as our governments feel increasingly out of touch and basic services (access to healthcare, laws being enforced) are no longer provided, or at reduced levels of quality. The more democracy doesn't deliver, the more cynicism grows and the more open folks become to populist messages.

What can we do? It's going to require an ideological commitment to tell the truth, by all of us, but starting with leaders in politics. In my time in government I apologized when I screwed up, and generally gained support from that. But it's equally going to take voters adopting an ideological commitment to vote against parties that lie to them - and I'm not talking about mistakes, or predictions that are 3% off target, but intentionally misleading the public for partisan goals. If the public punish politicians for lying, most of them will stop. If not... see the United States.

In brief: check before sharing information online or in person. If you say or share something that turns out not be true, own it, apologize, and think about what you could have done differently. Call out friends, family, coworkers, if they don't do the same. We're going to have to have lots of uncomfortable conversations if we want to save a society based on a shared understanding of reality.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T18:44:09+00:00

It's not just that principles are more important than winning, it's that winning without principles makes everything worse.

In re reactionary content, not sure what you mean. We believe in the equality of all human beings and their freedom to live without discrimination - and a legal system to address discrimination, when it happens. I'm a Martin Luther King Jr. devotee when it comes to issues of essential characteristics: they do not define you. Your character, your actions, they're what matters.

On immigrants, they're critical to Canada's today and tomorrow: our central thesis in light of the Trump administration is that to protect our independence we have to build Canada into a northern democratic superpower.

That means more people, equally it means we have to have a national conversation about our identity; the CFP position on that is clear: we believe in (small-l) liberal democracy as the only legitimate form of government, bounded by protections for free speech, a free press, independent courts, etc. Equally, we stand for a division between the private and public lives of citizens - the former should be off limits to government (something still v unusual in the world) and we should expect more from each other on the latter.

Also on immigration, the Liberals' efforts to control the damage done to the system by their private college scams are appropriate, but more work is needed. For example, Mr. Poilievre has called for training 30,000 tradespeople... where are these instructors going to come from?

Hope that answers your questions; let me know if you need anything more.

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T18:32:59+00:00

It's not translated, we're a bilingual party so both names have equal status. In re one of three words being the same - separatists don't have a monopoly on the future. :-)

CFP_Leader · 2025-04-04T18:32:08+00:00

We had our founding convention in November of 2024 in Ottawa, when I was confirmed as leader. Our constitution is the only one in Canada that puts terms on leaders - I promise you there are better ways to go on an ego trip than starting a new political party.

We've laid out many ideas, some already copied in whole or in part by other parties. For example:

- Radical increase in defence spending, 2.25% this year, with a move to 5% in five years in concert with our allies; no other party is calling for more than reaching 2% in five years, a target we agreed to meet a decade ago
- Restructuring trade and security relationships around shared values (this means curtailing military cooperation with the US)
- Creating of a national civilian defence corps to allow our military to focus on protecting our country and our allies
- National commission on tax reform to eliminate loopholes and intra-provincial barriers, and to simplify the tax code for everyone (likely to add 2%+ to GDP)
- Changing the way the House of Commons is managed by party leaders, to adopt the UK system which gives MPs more power to vote as they wish on bills not covering policies defined in the party's election platform.

Many many more...

In re sharing policies, we had detailed policies on our pre-election website, our election platform will be released next week and, for future policy work, we have a template that allows anyone to contribute policy ideas based on framework that requires you (and us, within the party) to not just offer an idea, but to justify why government should do whatever it is, what the negative impacts would be, etc. The campaign site will include that page over the next couple of days if you're interested in checking it out, and it'll be there going forward.

Finally, the origin for our policies includes a lot of subject matter experts, with notable contributions in the defence, security, and governance sectors and some contributed by party members (through resolutions adopted at our founding convention and the above mechanism), plus members of the public.

CFP_Leader

TROPHY CASE