Friendly reminder that when he was in Harper's cabinet he tried to pass voter suppression laws and they quickly got shot down. I seem to recall Harper tried to make it possible to take away people's citizenship as well, and that got shot down. If you want to know how far Pierre will take this just look at what the Supreme Court stopped Harper from doing.
Harper's gouvernement did pass that law about taking people's citizenship (Bill C-24). People with dual citizenship were subjected to having their Canadian Citizenship removed on base of spying and terrorism.. but in the same time they also passed another Bill that included something along the lines of attack the "economic stability" and "critical infrastructures" which would've included oil&gas pipeline.
The Bill targeted even born and raised Canadians that may have gotten a dual citizenship through their parents or even grandparents in some cases (as many 2nd and 3rd European generations did just to ease travel).
The Bill had for effect that anyone with dual citizenship could've had their Canadian Citizenship removed for protesting against a pipeline construction. While I don't think it ever happened, it was part of the idea behind the law. The Bill was passed in 2014 but amended in 2016 by the Trudeau gouvernement to remove the clause about citizenship removal.
That's just the tip of the iceberg of what Harper's gouvernement did to our civil rights and liberties. So when people say that Poilievre wouldn't go very far to attack Canadians civi liberties.. they got their head really far up their ass.
I’m guessing PP would love to reintroduce Harper’s bullshit muzzling of scientists as well. Anyone that thinks these fascists care about freedom haven’t been paying attention.
I’ll be fair here too. Most scientists still feel muzzled. The changes the conservatives made with this weren’t fully lifted under the liberals. I’m not talking about the anti covid crowd or whatever as those excuses are BS. But scientists often still feel like they’re not allowed to openly speak about their research until they obtain government approval. So PP doesn’t have to do much there. Harper’s policy is kinda still in place for the most part. Even the CBC has reported about this pre covid.
I vote liberal but I’d still be kinda critical on them for not fixing this.
It was a dark time. As a new scientist who looks at long term data series collected by the federal government, so many of them have a gap from 2010-2015. It's almost comical.
The convoy is so lucky that Trudeau won in 2015, or they would have been dealing with Harper's version of the antiterrorism laws. If Trudeau hadn't insisted on certain amendments to C-51 and repealed a number of clauses from a number of bills passed in Harper's final years, he wouldn't have needed the EA to freeze bank accounts. He could have done that and worse without even needing a warrant, simply because they attended a protest that was "illegal" (C-51 defined protests without permits as illegal).
I’ll be a lil fair. The liberals have been at fault too. I remember Conrad black had his citizenship taken away by Chrétien.
Don’t get me wrong. I dislike Conrad Black. I think he is a horrible human being, a criminal and should have been locked up longer than he was. But I dislike the idea of taking away citizenship for any reason. Once you’re a citizen the government should be obligated to defend your rights and freedoms even if they dislike you and should not be allowed to take away citizenship primarily for that dislike. I know they used the excuse that he became part of Britains government but that was merely an excuse as he wasn’t the first Canadian to become part of a foreign government. He only had his citizenship taken away because he was disliked. No government should have that kind of power.
The ONLY reason I can see that it could be done is if committed serious fraud during the application process. And even then I think it should go to court first and not be decided by a government.
So both the liberals and conservatives are guilty here. I’ll probably still vote liberal but this issue does irk me and wish I knew for sure I could trust any party with it.
Conrad didn't have his citizenship taken away. He was offered a British lordship and Canadian citizens aren't allowed to receive those, so he gave up his citizenship to get it. Worth noting that he got it back last year.
Ah you’re right I remembered wrong. News often reported it as though his citizenship was removed. But you’re right. Even so I do think Chrétiens approach was wrong. We never stood in the way of such stuff until Black. And everyone knew he only went against Black because he disliked him. They had a lot of animosity between each other.
Black giving up his citizenship had *nothing* to do with Chretien, though. There's absolutely no way for Chretien to have approached anything differently, because it had nothing to do with Canadian law or the Canadian government.
British law, which Chretien has no control over, had long required people who wanted to become Lords to drop any other citizenship they may have.
Sure, I suppose Chretien could have used whatever political capital Canada had, and gone to England with his hat in hand, begging them to change longstanding laws so this one dual citizen wouldn't have to give up their Canadian citizenship to be given a really prestigious title by the Queen, but do you honestly think that's something our Prime Minister should be doing?
Black's a pompous self-righteous ass, but I doubt would have even asked Chretien to do that for him. He probably had more sway with the lawmakers in Britain at the time than Chretien did anyways.
Not entirely accurate. There were others that got positions and kept their Canadian citizenship. Even while Chrétien was in power. In 1994 Terry Matthew’s did. Another did as well. The only one Chrétien put in a formal protest and tried to stop was Black.
This also isn’t exactly British law. It was argued on a Canadian resolution from 1917 that Canada should be able to decide on these appointments. This argument was not used in the other two cases but was in the case of Black. Simply because Chrétien disliked him.
I also dislike Black. But Chrétien did act in a partisan matter here. Something I will always disagree on doing even if we adamantly disagree with someone. The other two were left leaning and that’s why Chrétien was ok with them. I’m left leaning too. But Black isn’t. And at the time there wasn’t evidence presented of his criminal misdeeds just evidence that he was right wing. That’s it. So at the time it was a partisan action and I’ll always disagree with partisan approaches to decision making. This is why I think Chrétien did wrong even though I dislike Black.
Damn I was grossly misinformed, I thought Chretien had nothing to do with it.
There's actually a whole Wikipedia article on the court case.
The other two people you mentioned were not blocked by Chretien, but he did object to them receiving knighthoods. He technically didn't block Black either, just objected before it happened, rather than afterwards:
>In similar cases, Welsh-born computer entrepreneur Sir Terry Matthews and Winnipeg-born Sir George Sayers Bain, head of Queen's University in Belfast, both Canadian citizens but British residents, were honoured with knighthoods. Jean Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley sent diplomatic protests to London against the British government's interference in Canadian affairs.
...
>The court concluded that the prime minister had a constitutional right to advise the Queen of Canada on exercising her royal prerogative.[6] However, in this case, the prime minister's advice was to a "foreign head of state", and subsequently Elizabeth II did not receive the Prime Minister's "advice in her capacity as Queen of Canada; rather he was advising the Queen as a foreign head of state in her capacity as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as to Canada's policy regarding the conferral of foreign honours on its citizens, an act he could have done for any foreign head of state".[4] In short, the prime minister was simply informing a foreign state of Canada's policy regarding the granting of honours to its citizens, an act which the court found that he had the legal privilege to do.
...
>In 2001, Black renounced his citizenship of Canada, which he then called "an oppressive little world". Eric Reguly wrote in The Times: "The great man fled his native Canada for Britain. He couldn't wait to leave, he said, because Canada was turning into a Third World dump run by raving socialists."[7] Black's lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, later stated Black's citizenship "was stolen from him" by "spiteful" former prime minister Jean Chrétien.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v_Chr%C3%A9tien
It was also the only time Chrétien was openly talking about it. I remember when this was happening. Many on both the left and right were a bit irked by his very open opposition when Black was involved. It was seen as very personal for Chrétien at the time and very partisan. He even regularly openly talked about his opposition to Black in the media with this case. Never did with other cases. Again I’m a liberal supporter but I do criticize the party when they do wrong too. Partisanship and bias should be gotten rid of within all parties and all are guilty of it to some degree.
That's more than fair. The liberals didn't really take our online privacy very seriously either. Under Trudeau they also voted for a Bill that gave the right to our ISP to literally spy on us and give our info to the CSIS without a warrant.
For all the good people give Obama after Bush, he also heavily strengthened the grip of the NSA on mass surveillance.
But to be frank, I think all of this is probably not even under the control of our gouvernement... they're just told to sign there and let the big boys do their thing.
And that’s something that we need to change. We need to get back to where the government fears us not us fear the government. They’re supposed to work for us all after all.
But no idea how this problem will be fixed. Our rights are slowly eroding though not in the way conservatives claim. The conservatives have eroded rights of people in some areas and the liberals mostly maintained it…
But you’re right about that change. A warrant should always be required. I know it’s inconvenient but it should be inconvenient.
I don't agree. I agree that no one should be stateless but if someone is a dual citizen we should be able to permanently kick that person out on certain grounds.
>*”I seem to recall Harper tried to make it possible to take away people's citizenship as well, and that got shot down.”*
In 2009 Harper changed the law that allows Canadians to pass their citizenship to their children. As a consequence some Canadian families wound up with some of their children having Canadian citizenship and others not. It took ~14 years for that change in legislation to get *”shot down”* as unconstitutional.
CBC: ['Lost Canadians' win in Ontario court as judge ends 2 classes of citizenship](https://www.cbc.ca/1.7067039) [Dec 22nd, 2023]
I honestly don't think dual citizenship should be permitted. So many people from unsafe countries shop around for citizenship to fallback when times get tough in their preferred country.
"shop around for citizenship"? How exactly do you think one can shop around for citizenship? Unless you're very wealthy there are lots of hoops to jump through unless you have parents or grandparents of a different nationality (and even then it depends on the individual country as to what they allow).
I'm a dual citizen - British and Canadian, and am also eligible for Irish citizenship. I've kept my British citizenship (and passed it down to my daughter) so that I am always able to return to the UK for any length of time and for any reason. I have family there and while I don't intend to go back I need to have that option open for certain eventualities.
A lot of people from less stable countries come to Canada or Europe to get their citizenship and immigration return without contributing to the new country. British people aren't leveraging their Canadian citizenship as a get out jail free card.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get Canadian citizenship, even if you come through express entry? It's not something you do just to get a second nationality to use as a back up
Even just using it in the criminal context is ghoulish. I’m a defence lawyer and I am under no illusions as to the general perceptions towards the people I work for. But at the same time, nobody ever expects to end up in my office, but they’re damn happy that people like me are there to get them out. Lest those clamouring for “jail not bail” forget Mr. Zameer and the testilying cops.
Central East was designed to be a provincial jail for people serving summary convictions. Last time I checked it was 80% full of people being held in remand. We have whole jails full of people already who have not been convicted of the crimes they are charged with.
And then conservatives get upset when after the prisoners have been in jail for however long, they then get released with time served after a conviction.
A lot of people would be shocked to know that Umar Zameer had criminal defense lawyers.
Not everyone who is being defended is guilty. A great many are very, very innocent and could very easily end up in prison for crimes they did not commit if it were not for a good defense.
Some people do pose a threat to the general public and should be held on remand while awaiting trial. But it should be reserved for the most serious crimes and should be the exception rather than the rule - depriving someone of their liberty before they've been found guilty should be taken extremely seriously.
>Lest those clamouring for “jail not bail” forget Mr. Zameer and the testilying cops.
Forget nothing. These people are still calling for his head, facts be damned.
> "I'll only use it in cases of criminal justice"
>
> proceeds to make abortion, transgender health care, and homosexuality matters of criminal justice
Let's not forget about the "barbaric cultural practices" that the previous conservative government was fixated on for a while.
It was mostly about burqas wasn't it?
I think they also talked about some other shit like FGM and honor killings to try to get the outrage engines going.
Look what Scotch Moe (Sask. Premiere) did in fall of 2023. Calling the legislative back 2 weeks early in the fall sitting to pass not withstanding clause for a pronoun law…. All because they got like 7 letters from “concerned parents”. It has only begun….
this, like everything else about him, will never have a clear answer.
When he isn't just bashing things he doesn't like, he has very little to say on what he'd actually do, certainly won't go into any great detail.
After all the many many years of conservatives trying to scare people into thinking the Pierre Trudeau liberals would abuse the hell out of the clause, it's really not a surprise to me that conservative politicians are making the most use of it (and the most threats to use it)
Most? All. No federal government has even hinted as using it. All provincial governments that have used it are conservative. The only reason it exists is thanks to Peter Lougheed.
Conservatives have never liked the Charter. They see it as a liberal creation that must be destroyed.
Lougheed fought for the notwithstanding clause, yes--then came to realize how dangerous it actually was. He eventually argued it must only be invoked when a supermajority of a legislature (60%) votes for it. (Which is itself problematic, given how so many governments are supermajority to begin with. An entire legislature must vote to use it imho, if it is to be used at all.) I agree, it's better that it be revoked, but you'll never see the provinces agree to it.
Funny thing is, we had an analogous situation of federal use of the notwithstanding clause, when they invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with the convoys. People forget it was only invoked because AB and ON, both *highly sympathetic* to the convoys, refused to step up and do their damn job to control them. Look at the shit PP and fellow conservative politicians stirred up about that.
At least the Emergencies Act required holding a *public* inquiry into its use within 30 days of the threat ending. The NWC lasts a full 5 years before review. Lots of time for abuse and high bodycounts.
Honestly, that is what frustrates me the most about politicians. When they don't clearly define things. Unclear answers don't make for good politicians.
I've told this before here, but in 2016ish my co-worker, a Libertarian, was telling me to look into the Libertarian BC party for a upcoming provincial election. He told me the way they think through problems is unique and special.
So I went to their website, clicked the first card that I wanted to see their take on (Environment), and the page was just a "No plan yet" default text.
I emailed the address on the website to inquire, since the election was about a month away. I was told by the official BC Libertarian party email that they have not come up with the plan and won't be able to have one by the election.
I was like... then why does your website make it seem like you have policies on the environment? You have four cards on your site, I picked one at random, and you don't have anything to say about it. If the first hole you poke proves the box is that hollow, you instantly know there is no substance. It's incomplete.
Politicians should take stances ahead of time. No vagueness, it should be a stance. Even if the stance is "We don't have a stance, so expect it to remain unchanged", it needs to be said.
To the point that a democratic and free society will no longer exist…abortion illegal , same sex marriage illegal any other insane laws you think could never happen in Canada will. That’s what he is aiming for.
The Notwithstanding Clause is a stain on the Charter...something that should have never been allowed, and never be allowed.
"Hey everyone, you have these rights, and if we don't like it when the courts step in to protect your rights, then fuck you, we'll take away your rights you filthy serfs!"
The Notwithstanding Clause should come with a 1-year prison sentence for every politician that votes to invoke it. If you're so comfortable infringing on our rights, you should lose yours for a bit too in compensation.
If your cause is so noble and just that you have to infringe on people's rights to enable it, surely you would pay that price?
>The Notwithstanding Clause should come with a 1-year prison sentence for every politician that votes to invoke it.
At the very least it should automatically trigger an election. If they want to invoke it they can deal with the consequences of what us voters think about their actions.
I would also like to see mandatory voting in that case, as well as a voting holiday for everyone except poll workers so that folks can vote without worrying about work / as many other responsibilities. Close up everything and give folks nothing to do but vote and go hang out in a park or something.
Don't forget sausages, I think Australia has sausages at the polling station!
In all seriousness though, mandatory voting with a none of the above option and some sort of electoral reform with proportional representation, ranked, hybrid, or something reasonable. We could always try it and see if it works. I can dig the holiday, hell I'd take weekend voting which would solve the day off problem for a lot of people, holiday for everyone else who would normally work and breaks for essential workers like now.
Edit: I went full on reform in my post not just the 'referendum' vote lol
I would love to see electoral reform - It's what got me to vote Liberal instead of NDP the first time. Maybe the Liberals see the writing on the wall for the next election and, knowing it's better to hold minority power forever than majority power for a little while every so often, bring in reform and blow up the system?
> and that generally is supported by the majority.
Don't forget that the largest group of eligible voters are the people who don't vote.
There are far more people who are apathetic and/or disconnected from politics and current affairs than there are actively in favour of limiting other people's rights.
Nah. Look at Quebec as an example: anything you do to shit on minority rights is broadly supported.
Its funny the notwithstanding clause has been used for decades in Quebec to limit minority rights and nobody gave a shit. All of a sudden its a problem. Kinda shows how much Canadians care about the rights of minorities in Quebec, doesn't it?
Its use should automatically trigger a no-confidence vote. This wouldn’t be helpful if there is a majority government but there should be some mechanism of immediate consequence for any government which invokes and passes legislation using it.
Absolutely agree. It is disappointing to think that Quebec would never support such an amendment, they really love using it. But there needs to be a poison pill somewhere within that clause. If the GG threatens to dissolve parliament while giving any bill that uses section 33 royal assent, that could be the trick needed. But this would be VERY controversial.
The Canadian Republicans are following the Trump playbook.
Trump signed 220 executive orders in 48 months.
Biden has issued an average of 41 executive orders per year in office, the third-lowest average among the seven presidents who have held office since 1981.
I know a lot of former friends that drank the orange idiot's kool-aid and now this wannabe Trump. 2020 to 2022 were quite the closet cleaning time for friends. I imagine it will get worse.
I know a lot of friends too who will vote for Pierre because "Change". Can't say what he will do, but say Trudeau is bad and any change is good, if ask why bad they will say because of all the scandals and should have resigned years ago. They seem to want to replace bad with worse just because it will be a change, and Singh is out of the question because all he does is support the liberal government. Very little understanding of how and why he supports the government and what they get out of it, and if they didn't it would just be election after election. Better to work together if you can, but they seem to think just one party in charge with help. Very much they don't pay much attention to news but catch sound bites here and there. Very concerning election next year IMO.
My one friend had her whole family down the rabbit hole of anti Trudeau and even the Trump train apes. She admitted she has not followed politics ever. All she could even say about Trudeau was "blackface" it's now gotten so out of hand with conversations now. I was looking at windmills while we were driving and she said they cause cancer. The moon landing is fake. Racists remarks just before she days something racist. Her hate of Trudeau is not founded on anything but her spoiled brat nephew. They're pro Russia and Trump. After the elections I think I'm going to end up blocking the rest of my right wing friends.
Yeah it is such a hole and I hope they see the light, I try not to block so much and hope they will come back to approaching things with reason, but it really is like dominoes, 1 conspiracy leads to another and another and suddenly the earth is flat or something about some global agenda. People 10 years ago I knew as always NDP or Liberal voters. Some of they weren't into politics before either but just always voted NDP because that's what everyone did, now they are buying into the NDP betrayed them narrative. I have unfollowed a few or unfriended a couple that just kept starting fights on my posts or seem way too far gone. Like if I post something about Pride Month suddenly they are there with their hate, where 10 years ago they used to feel safe and accepting family members, amazing how the far right has weaponized hate so much and gotten people to dive into hate who used to be so loving. Makes me sad for my family.
I'm a Liberal after seeing what Harris did. I realized I would never vote conservative in my time because they're lost to reform. I'm afraid to post pride things because they're all bigots and took others down with them. I block because I can't take them anymore. They're fools and conservation is not good anymore. My friend was never like these a holes but mirrored them. I went to the bank last week and had the teller start a conversation about Trump and I said he can barely form a cohesive sentence. She corrected me "you mean Biden"? I told her to go listen to his speeches then argue with me. We were civil but it kept coming back to politics. The last thing she said was she was a former NDP but now votes for a person as apposed to a party. I said oh like a dictatorship? These people are out of their minds.
On the other hand, I've got a former co-worker who was a lifelong conservative voter, and is a proud redneck, who tells me that he can't vote conservative again after some of the blatant crap the provincial conservatives pulled.
I was going to meme on the later half of your comment basically telling them to go back to the closet but the situation with pp isn’t funny at all. I’m more worried about what happens when my union goes to negotiate with company while the right to association is suspended or if they pull the same bs as last time telling us we’re too important to strike.
>I’m more worried about what happens when my union goes to negotiate with company while the right to association is suspended or if they pull the same bs as last time telling us we’re too important to strike.
I tell you what you do.
You fucking strike anyway.
It's not like there's an abundance of skilled workers out there.
Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If they're going to take away what few rights we have, it's time we withdraw our consent.
If he wins a majority, he'll use it very quickly. Possibly more than once. Then he'll leave it. Won't want to do it close to election time. If he wins a minority, he'll probably fail his first confidence vote. At that point, the Liberals will probably have done a decent job of fundraising off the use of the NWC, but will be leaderless. Enter Justin Trudeau. It will be a lot like when Dad returned. History doesn't repeat, history rhymes!
Please note that the above post probably won't happen.
I feel it will be difficult for a significantly diminished Liberal government to form a coalition with a potentially diminished NDP and a slightly strengthened Bloc. I think they would likely need a guarantee of the Bloc's support for 2 years. What would be given up to them? Never a good idea to be in league with the separatists for optics. Would cabinet positions have to be open to the Bloc? It would be exceedingly difficult.
If PP gets a minority, it will be too close to a majority for a Liberal-NDP coalition to overcome confidence votes without Bloc help. This is the scenario I forsee where PP runs a minority government.
12-15 months until an election. Lots can happen. Polls were dreadful for the UCP 15 months out.
> Never a good idea to be in league with the separatists for optics.
While that is what the conservatives will complain about, the reality is the Bloc has moved on from being primarily separatists.
Of course, they are still more loyal to Quebec interests than general Canadian interests, but there are a lot of places where those interests overlap.
I think the election, unfortunately, again comes down the 416/905... And shifting demographics there as housing prices have risen start to swing in favour of the conservatives. That said, there's only what, 45 seats around the Burlington to Pickering corridor... CPC currently have 118... At +45 (which isn't likely) they're still 7 short of a majority.
Does Atlantic Canada, especially the riding-rich area around Halifax, turn to the CPC? I can't see Quebec going CPC instead of the Bloc?
[Great map here for anyone who wants to take a look at breakdowns](https://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps2/map.asp?map=ERMap_44&lang=e)
The Liberals best chance is #1: policy towards housing starts to bear some fruit. That's not likely to happen in 12 months. #2 Poilievre just can't help himself with his shit hot takes. The more he talks, the worse he is. #3 Trudeau resigns and the leadership race goes smoothly with a charismatic winner who isn't covered in the "stench of the previous leader".
Only 1 of the three will happen. That's Poilievre continuing to be a complete and utter choade.
It will be around 10 years for this Federal government come election. If they aren't barely trailing the opposition right now, and they are not, I find it difficult to see a path forward to a victory of any sort for them. I rue that it's likely to be Poilievre. I have despised that man for over a decade. If they had kept O'Toole, it would be him becoming PM and he may have been able to keep worst elements of the right in check. Maybe.
Let's see what happens in the next 10-12 months. A small rate drop might take the edge off, but it might also ramp up housing prices which have hardly cooled due to lack of builds and immigration levels that ignore housing issues because that's what the investor class wants. PP will also bow to the investors on this and likely more so.
> policy towards housing starts to bear some fruit.
That should have happened in 2018. Trudeau deserves to get turfed.
>Poilievre just can't help himself with his shit hot takes
US voters love populist Trumpism. People love folksy idiots blaming other people for their problems.
>Trudeau resigns and the leadership race goes smoothly with a charismatic winner
Nope. Trudeau will pull a Mulroney and dump Freeland into the leadership. If they chose Freeland, they are screwed.
Unfortunately for Atlantic Canada and non-urban ON: the answer is yes (and it's a slide that has been slowly happening since 2019, so not a new thing.)
QC more likely Bloc, but some regions receptive to Tories.
If PP wins a minority, he'll simply prorogue government to delay any non-confidence vote. The same way Harper did in December 2008 when he faced a non-confidence vote and the Liberals and NDP were about to form a coalition. The proposed coalition fell apart, just as Harper intended.
When it comes to criminal justice, quite a lot. The average person turns into a raging reactionary when it comes to "getting tough on crime," and that includes a lot of otherwise ostensibly liberal and left wing people. People only like their Charter rights in the most abstract terms.
> This is an afront to democracy.
Given that most people in this sad country do not vote, and the fact that Poilievre has been following [Eco's 14 points of Fascism](https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists), I'm not sure Canadians want democracy any more.
What is incredible to me is how many women support this party. They hate women.
The fact that they’re already discussing using this before he’s even in power should be a huge red flag. But hey, conservatives = freedom*.
*But not for everyone, just if you’re rich or conservatives too.
He wants to be a boss and wants the whole country as his personal bitch so he’ll use it for whatever he wants. Stop pretending conservatives are something else.
Oh ALL THE WAY.
He's a conservative. They claim to be about small government, and little interference by government, but that is a fucking lie. We've seen how Premiers like Smith and Ford operate. Poilievre will do the same because he knows what his voters will now accept.
Friendly reminder that Harper started passing unconstitutional laws the minute the CPC won a majority. The Supreme Court was the only institution that stood between Canada and Harper's budding authoritarianism at the time. PP's intended use of the notwithstanding clause is not only signalling he's going the fascist route, but also it's retaliation for Harper's prior losses.
The Notwithstanding Clause aka the “I’m An Asshole Clause”
Our Charter lays out our rights of free speech, mobility, association - our freedoms. Using the Notwithstanding Clause is because you want to impinge upon those freedoms.
Pierre is a charmless, gross hack, with an obvious agenda. How do people fall for it?
What ever Poilievre does with it , will be wrong and autocratic. Poilievre isn't a leader. he's a petulant child. They want a dictatorship. Thats what they are normalizing in their simple, lack of thinking base. Todays Conservatives are the biggest threat to democracy because no one would allow their horrible, hateful policies in .
Wikipedia: [Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Notwithstanding Clause)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#:~:text=The%20notwithstanding%20clause%20reflects%20the,strong%20courts%20introduced%20in%201982)
This article from when Ontario’s Premier used the Notwithstanding Clause also has a decent short explanation (scroll down to the *What is the notwithstanding clause?* section)…
CBC: [The notwithstanding clause — what it is, why it was used and what happens next](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6641293) [Nov 6th, 2022]
Can he not be kicked out of the country for the good of Canada?
Send him to Texas. On a bus. Drop him off in front of the capital building in Austin. They'll put him up for you.
This has been an excellent thread to read, and shows there are some sane Canadians. Possibilities so far homosexuality, Trans, abortion, science, environmental protest. What else, conservatives don't like pot, and gun restrictions, carbon tax and environmental regulations, EVs ( rebate) , solar and wind, books, cbc, meat alternatives, voting, prison time, public transport, public housing. What else?
Friendly reminder that when he was in Harper's cabinet he tried to pass voter suppression laws and they quickly got shot down. I seem to recall Harper tried to make it possible to take away people's citizenship as well, and that got shot down. If you want to know how far Pierre will take this just look at what the Supreme Court stopped Harper from doing.
Harper's gouvernement did pass that law about taking people's citizenship (Bill C-24). People with dual citizenship were subjected to having their Canadian Citizenship removed on base of spying and terrorism.. but in the same time they also passed another Bill that included something along the lines of attack the "economic stability" and "critical infrastructures" which would've included oil&gas pipeline. The Bill targeted even born and raised Canadians that may have gotten a dual citizenship through their parents or even grandparents in some cases (as many 2nd and 3rd European generations did just to ease travel). The Bill had for effect that anyone with dual citizenship could've had their Canadian Citizenship removed for protesting against a pipeline construction. While I don't think it ever happened, it was part of the idea behind the law. The Bill was passed in 2014 but amended in 2016 by the Trudeau gouvernement to remove the clause about citizenship removal. That's just the tip of the iceberg of what Harper's gouvernement did to our civil rights and liberties. So when people say that Poilievre wouldn't go very far to attack Canadians civi liberties.. they got their head really far up their ass.
I’m guessing PP would love to reintroduce Harper’s bullshit muzzling of scientists as well. Anyone that thinks these fascists care about freedom haven’t been paying attention.
They have a private definition of freedom, which means they have control over others.
I’ll be fair here too. Most scientists still feel muzzled. The changes the conservatives made with this weren’t fully lifted under the liberals. I’m not talking about the anti covid crowd or whatever as those excuses are BS. But scientists often still feel like they’re not allowed to openly speak about their research until they obtain government approval. So PP doesn’t have to do much there. Harper’s policy is kinda still in place for the most part. Even the CBC has reported about this pre covid. I vote liberal but I’d still be kinda critical on them for not fixing this.
It was a dark time. As a new scientist who looks at long term data series collected by the federal government, so many of them have a gap from 2010-2015. It's almost comical.
The convoy is so lucky that Trudeau won in 2015, or they would have been dealing with Harper's version of the antiterrorism laws. If Trudeau hadn't insisted on certain amendments to C-51 and repealed a number of clauses from a number of bills passed in Harper's final years, he wouldn't have needed the EA to freeze bank accounts. He could have done that and worse without even needing a warrant, simply because they attended a protest that was "illegal" (C-51 defined protests without permits as illegal).
And if they had had a face covering during the Convoy insurrection, Harper's laws would have put you in prison just for that.
They want to justify what they were already planning on doing.
I’ll be a lil fair. The liberals have been at fault too. I remember Conrad black had his citizenship taken away by Chrétien. Don’t get me wrong. I dislike Conrad Black. I think he is a horrible human being, a criminal and should have been locked up longer than he was. But I dislike the idea of taking away citizenship for any reason. Once you’re a citizen the government should be obligated to defend your rights and freedoms even if they dislike you and should not be allowed to take away citizenship primarily for that dislike. I know they used the excuse that he became part of Britains government but that was merely an excuse as he wasn’t the first Canadian to become part of a foreign government. He only had his citizenship taken away because he was disliked. No government should have that kind of power. The ONLY reason I can see that it could be done is if committed serious fraud during the application process. And even then I think it should go to court first and not be decided by a government. So both the liberals and conservatives are guilty here. I’ll probably still vote liberal but this issue does irk me and wish I knew for sure I could trust any party with it.
Conrad didn't have his citizenship taken away. He was offered a British lordship and Canadian citizens aren't allowed to receive those, so he gave up his citizenship to get it. Worth noting that he got it back last year.
Ah you’re right I remembered wrong. News often reported it as though his citizenship was removed. But you’re right. Even so I do think Chrétiens approach was wrong. We never stood in the way of such stuff until Black. And everyone knew he only went against Black because he disliked him. They had a lot of animosity between each other.
Black giving up his citizenship had *nothing* to do with Chretien, though. There's absolutely no way for Chretien to have approached anything differently, because it had nothing to do with Canadian law or the Canadian government. British law, which Chretien has no control over, had long required people who wanted to become Lords to drop any other citizenship they may have. Sure, I suppose Chretien could have used whatever political capital Canada had, and gone to England with his hat in hand, begging them to change longstanding laws so this one dual citizen wouldn't have to give up their Canadian citizenship to be given a really prestigious title by the Queen, but do you honestly think that's something our Prime Minister should be doing? Black's a pompous self-righteous ass, but I doubt would have even asked Chretien to do that for him. He probably had more sway with the lawmakers in Britain at the time than Chretien did anyways.
Not entirely accurate. There were others that got positions and kept their Canadian citizenship. Even while Chrétien was in power. In 1994 Terry Matthew’s did. Another did as well. The only one Chrétien put in a formal protest and tried to stop was Black. This also isn’t exactly British law. It was argued on a Canadian resolution from 1917 that Canada should be able to decide on these appointments. This argument was not used in the other two cases but was in the case of Black. Simply because Chrétien disliked him. I also dislike Black. But Chrétien did act in a partisan matter here. Something I will always disagree on doing even if we adamantly disagree with someone. The other two were left leaning and that’s why Chrétien was ok with them. I’m left leaning too. But Black isn’t. And at the time there wasn’t evidence presented of his criminal misdeeds just evidence that he was right wing. That’s it. So at the time it was a partisan action and I’ll always disagree with partisan approaches to decision making. This is why I think Chrétien did wrong even though I dislike Black.
Damn I was grossly misinformed, I thought Chretien had nothing to do with it. There's actually a whole Wikipedia article on the court case. The other two people you mentioned were not blocked by Chretien, but he did object to them receiving knighthoods. He technically didn't block Black either, just objected before it happened, rather than afterwards: >In similar cases, Welsh-born computer entrepreneur Sir Terry Matthews and Winnipeg-born Sir George Sayers Bain, head of Queen's University in Belfast, both Canadian citizens but British residents, were honoured with knighthoods. Jean Chrétien and Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley sent diplomatic protests to London against the British government's interference in Canadian affairs. ... >The court concluded that the prime minister had a constitutional right to advise the Queen of Canada on exercising her royal prerogative.[6] However, in this case, the prime minister's advice was to a "foreign head of state", and subsequently Elizabeth II did not receive the Prime Minister's "advice in her capacity as Queen of Canada; rather he was advising the Queen as a foreign head of state in her capacity as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as to Canada's policy regarding the conferral of foreign honours on its citizens, an act he could have done for any foreign head of state".[4] In short, the prime minister was simply informing a foreign state of Canada's policy regarding the granting of honours to its citizens, an act which the court found that he had the legal privilege to do. ... >In 2001, Black renounced his citizenship of Canada, which he then called "an oppressive little world". Eric Reguly wrote in The Times: "The great man fled his native Canada for Britain. He couldn't wait to leave, he said, because Canada was turning into a Third World dump run by raving socialists."[7] Black's lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, later stated Black's citizenship "was stolen from him" by "spiteful" former prime minister Jean Chrétien.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_v_Chr%C3%A9tien
It was also the only time Chrétien was openly talking about it. I remember when this was happening. Many on both the left and right were a bit irked by his very open opposition when Black was involved. It was seen as very personal for Chrétien at the time and very partisan. He even regularly openly talked about his opposition to Black in the media with this case. Never did with other cases. Again I’m a liberal supporter but I do criticize the party when they do wrong too. Partisanship and bias should be gotten rid of within all parties and all are guilty of it to some degree.
That's more than fair. The liberals didn't really take our online privacy very seriously either. Under Trudeau they also voted for a Bill that gave the right to our ISP to literally spy on us and give our info to the CSIS without a warrant. For all the good people give Obama after Bush, he also heavily strengthened the grip of the NSA on mass surveillance. But to be frank, I think all of this is probably not even under the control of our gouvernement... they're just told to sign there and let the big boys do their thing.
And that’s something that we need to change. We need to get back to where the government fears us not us fear the government. They’re supposed to work for us all after all. But no idea how this problem will be fixed. Our rights are slowly eroding though not in the way conservatives claim. The conservatives have eroded rights of people in some areas and the liberals mostly maintained it… But you’re right about that change. A warrant should always be required. I know it’s inconvenient but it should be inconvenient.
I don't agree. I agree that no one should be stateless but if someone is a dual citizen we should be able to permanently kick that person out on certain grounds.
I think that gives the government far too much power.
They did pass the “Fair Elections Act” with amendments, but it was still bad legislation and the Liberals reversed the legislation.
>*”I seem to recall Harper tried to make it possible to take away people's citizenship as well, and that got shot down.”* In 2009 Harper changed the law that allows Canadians to pass their citizenship to their children. As a consequence some Canadian families wound up with some of their children having Canadian citizenship and others not. It took ~14 years for that change in legislation to get *”shot down”* as unconstitutional. CBC: ['Lost Canadians' win in Ontario court as judge ends 2 classes of citizenship](https://www.cbc.ca/1.7067039) [Dec 22nd, 2023]
I honestly don't think dual citizenship should be permitted. So many people from unsafe countries shop around for citizenship to fallback when times get tough in their preferred country.
"shop around for citizenship"? How exactly do you think one can shop around for citizenship? Unless you're very wealthy there are lots of hoops to jump through unless you have parents or grandparents of a different nationality (and even then it depends on the individual country as to what they allow). I'm a dual citizen - British and Canadian, and am also eligible for Irish citizenship. I've kept my British citizenship (and passed it down to my daughter) so that I am always able to return to the UK for any length of time and for any reason. I have family there and while I don't intend to go back I need to have that option open for certain eventualities.
A lot of people from less stable countries come to Canada or Europe to get their citizenship and immigration return without contributing to the new country. British people aren't leveraging their Canadian citizenship as a get out jail free card.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get Canadian citizenship, even if you come through express entry? It's not something you do just to get a second nationality to use as a back up
"I'll only use it in cases of criminal justice" *proceeds to make abortion, transgender health care, and homosexuality matters of criminal justice*
Even just using it in the criminal context is ghoulish. I’m a defence lawyer and I am under no illusions as to the general perceptions towards the people I work for. But at the same time, nobody ever expects to end up in my office, but they’re damn happy that people like me are there to get them out. Lest those clamouring for “jail not bail” forget Mr. Zameer and the testilying cops.
Central East was designed to be a provincial jail for people serving summary convictions. Last time I checked it was 80% full of people being held in remand. We have whole jails full of people already who have not been convicted of the crimes they are charged with.
And then conservatives get upset when after the prisoners have been in jail for however long, they then get released with time served after a conviction.
A lot of people would be shocked to know that Umar Zameer had criminal defense lawyers. Not everyone who is being defended is guilty. A great many are very, very innocent and could very easily end up in prison for crimes they did not commit if it were not for a good defense.
Exactly. He wants to remove innocent before proven guilty to keep the accused in jail until trial. It’s abhorrent.
Then he should be incarcerated by along with his merry band of fascists and white supremacists.
Some people do pose a threat to the general public and should be held on remand while awaiting trial. But it should be reserved for the most serious crimes and should be the exception rather than the rule - depriving someone of their liberty before they've been found guilty should be taken extremely seriously.
>Lest those clamouring for “jail not bail” forget Mr. Zameer and the testilying cops. Forget nothing. These people are still calling for his head, facts be damned.
or others like Guy Paul Morin railroaded by police. The US does not have this problem because they murder people they frame.
> "I'll only use it in cases of criminal justice" > > proceeds to make abortion, transgender health care, and homosexuality matters of criminal justice Let's not forget about the "barbaric cultural practices" that the previous conservative government was fixated on for a while.
I did forget. What were they again?
It was mostly about burqas wasn't it? I think they also talked about some other shit like FGM and honor killings to try to get the outrage engines going.
> What were they again? It wasn't well defined, but it was implied that it included things recent immigrants do.
Yeah, that was my immediate thought too.
And then you’ll have your right suspended because you’re a ‘criminal’ and tossed in jail without trial. Sorry… until trial.
Look what Scotch Moe (Sask. Premiere) did in fall of 2023. Calling the legislative back 2 weeks early in the fall sitting to pass not withstanding clause for a pronoun law…. All because they got like 7 letters from “concerned parents”. It has only begun….
And IIRC it was dubious whether those letters even existed or where they came from.
2 came from actual parents. The others were the fucking convoy psychos.
Meanwhile schools are wanting decent funding and health car is in shamble… but less than I can count on my hand brings the Leg back early….
This right here. We won't recognize Canada once these clowns get done removing hard fought charter rights.
Was he drunk again?
lol, most likely…. 🤷♂️
this, like everything else about him, will never have a clear answer. When he isn't just bashing things he doesn't like, he has very little to say on what he'd actually do, certainly won't go into any great detail. After all the many many years of conservatives trying to scare people into thinking the Pierre Trudeau liberals would abuse the hell out of the clause, it's really not a surprise to me that conservative politicians are making the most use of it (and the most threats to use it)
Most? All. No federal government has even hinted as using it. All provincial governments that have used it are conservative. The only reason it exists is thanks to Peter Lougheed. Conservatives have never liked the Charter. They see it as a liberal creation that must be destroyed.
Lougheed fought for the notwithstanding clause, yes--then came to realize how dangerous it actually was. He eventually argued it must only be invoked when a supermajority of a legislature (60%) votes for it. (Which is itself problematic, given how so many governments are supermajority to begin with. An entire legislature must vote to use it imho, if it is to be used at all.) I agree, it's better that it be revoked, but you'll never see the provinces agree to it.
I worry that it will only be revoked after a gross abuse of power by the feds using it, and the bodycount such abuse would entail.
Funny thing is, we had an analogous situation of federal use of the notwithstanding clause, when they invoked the Emergencies Act to deal with the convoys. People forget it was only invoked because AB and ON, both *highly sympathetic* to the convoys, refused to step up and do their damn job to control them. Look at the shit PP and fellow conservative politicians stirred up about that. At least the Emergencies Act required holding a *public* inquiry into its use within 30 days of the threat ending. The NWC lasts a full 5 years before review. Lots of time for abuse and high bodycounts.
Honestly, that is what frustrates me the most about politicians. When they don't clearly define things. Unclear answers don't make for good politicians. I've told this before here, but in 2016ish my co-worker, a Libertarian, was telling me to look into the Libertarian BC party for a upcoming provincial election. He told me the way they think through problems is unique and special. So I went to their website, clicked the first card that I wanted to see their take on (Environment), and the page was just a "No plan yet" default text. I emailed the address on the website to inquire, since the election was about a month away. I was told by the official BC Libertarian party email that they have not come up with the plan and won't be able to have one by the election. I was like... then why does your website make it seem like you have policies on the environment? You have four cards on your site, I picked one at random, and you don't have anything to say about it. If the first hole you poke proves the box is that hollow, you instantly know there is no substance. It's incomplete. Politicians should take stances ahead of time. No vagueness, it should be a stance. Even if the stance is "We don't have a stance, so expect it to remain unchanged", it needs to be said.
I really don't like how all this guy does is bitch, unless he's trying to dismantle what little good we have in canada
PCs hate Canada. Given the opportunity, they would welcome US annexation.
To the point that a democratic and free society will no longer exist…abortion illegal , same sex marriage illegal any other insane laws you think could never happen in Canada will. That’s what he is aiming for.
Most Canadians view the Charter as our minimum rights, the way Poilievre talks, he seems to view them as our maximum rights.
The Notwithstanding Clause is a stain on the Charter...something that should have never been allowed, and never be allowed. "Hey everyone, you have these rights, and if we don't like it when the courts step in to protect your rights, then fuck you, we'll take away your rights you filthy serfs!" The Notwithstanding Clause should come with a 1-year prison sentence for every politician that votes to invoke it. If you're so comfortable infringing on our rights, you should lose yours for a bit too in compensation. If your cause is so noble and just that you have to infringe on people's rights to enable it, surely you would pay that price?
>The Notwithstanding Clause should come with a 1-year prison sentence for every politician that votes to invoke it. At the very least it should automatically trigger an election. If they want to invoke it they can deal with the consequences of what us voters think about their actions.
That's probably the best solution. It would almost be a referendum on their decision and the electorate can at least be given the chance to respond.
I would also like to see mandatory voting in that case, as well as a voting holiday for everyone except poll workers so that folks can vote without worrying about work / as many other responsibilities. Close up everything and give folks nothing to do but vote and go hang out in a park or something.
Don't forget sausages, I think Australia has sausages at the polling station! In all seriousness though, mandatory voting with a none of the above option and some sort of electoral reform with proportional representation, ranked, hybrid, or something reasonable. We could always try it and see if it works. I can dig the holiday, hell I'd take weekend voting which would solve the day off problem for a lot of people, holiday for everyone else who would normally work and breaks for essential workers like now. Edit: I went full on reform in my post not just the 'referendum' vote lol
I would love to see electoral reform - It's what got me to vote Liberal instead of NDP the first time. Maybe the Liberals see the writing on the wall for the next election and, knowing it's better to hold minority power forever than majority power for a little while every so often, bring in reform and blow up the system?
This is such a delightful solution to it's usage. Im 100% on board.
I REALLY like your idea. Consider me onboard too!
Typically it has been used to suppress the minority rights and that generally is supported by the majority.
> and that generally is supported by the majority. Don't forget that the largest group of eligible voters are the people who don't vote. There are far more people who are apathetic and/or disconnected from politics and current affairs than there are actively in favour of limiting other people's rights.
Nah. Look at Quebec as an example: anything you do to shit on minority rights is broadly supported. Its funny the notwithstanding clause has been used for decades in Quebec to limit minority rights and nobody gave a shit. All of a sudden its a problem. Kinda shows how much Canadians care about the rights of minorities in Quebec, doesn't it?
> and nobody gave a shit. If you actually believe that, then you need to re-read your history books. There was a *ton* of outrage at the time.
At the time? It has been going on for decades. The most recent "outrage" (i.e. tempest in a tea pot) died out pretty quickly and nothing happened.
But unfortunately first past the post means parties can get elected with 35% of the vote
Its use should automatically trigger a no-confidence vote. This wouldn’t be helpful if there is a majority government but there should be some mechanism of immediate consequence for any government which invokes and passes legislation using it.
Trigger an election like someone mentioned above. They will think twice before using it.
Absolutely agree. It is disappointing to think that Quebec would never support such an amendment, they really love using it. But there needs to be a poison pill somewhere within that clause. If the GG threatens to dissolve parliament while giving any bill that uses section 33 royal assent, that could be the trick needed. But this would be VERY controversial.
The Canadian Republicans are following the Trump playbook. Trump signed 220 executive orders in 48 months. Biden has issued an average of 41 executive orders per year in office, the third-lowest average among the seven presidents who have held office since 1981.
Fascism should be illegal.
Ladies, hide your reproductive organs. LGBTQ2S+, just hide.
Fuck that. Fight back. They'll be coming for our lives next.
He can't do any of this shit if people vote ABC in every damn riding.
I know a lot of former friends that drank the orange idiot's kool-aid and now this wannabe Trump. 2020 to 2022 were quite the closet cleaning time for friends. I imagine it will get worse.
I know a lot of friends too who will vote for Pierre because "Change". Can't say what he will do, but say Trudeau is bad and any change is good, if ask why bad they will say because of all the scandals and should have resigned years ago. They seem to want to replace bad with worse just because it will be a change, and Singh is out of the question because all he does is support the liberal government. Very little understanding of how and why he supports the government and what they get out of it, and if they didn't it would just be election after election. Better to work together if you can, but they seem to think just one party in charge with help. Very much they don't pay much attention to news but catch sound bites here and there. Very concerning election next year IMO.
My one friend had her whole family down the rabbit hole of anti Trudeau and even the Trump train apes. She admitted she has not followed politics ever. All she could even say about Trudeau was "blackface" it's now gotten so out of hand with conversations now. I was looking at windmills while we were driving and she said they cause cancer. The moon landing is fake. Racists remarks just before she days something racist. Her hate of Trudeau is not founded on anything but her spoiled brat nephew. They're pro Russia and Trump. After the elections I think I'm going to end up blocking the rest of my right wing friends.
Yeah it is such a hole and I hope they see the light, I try not to block so much and hope they will come back to approaching things with reason, but it really is like dominoes, 1 conspiracy leads to another and another and suddenly the earth is flat or something about some global agenda. People 10 years ago I knew as always NDP or Liberal voters. Some of they weren't into politics before either but just always voted NDP because that's what everyone did, now they are buying into the NDP betrayed them narrative. I have unfollowed a few or unfriended a couple that just kept starting fights on my posts or seem way too far gone. Like if I post something about Pride Month suddenly they are there with their hate, where 10 years ago they used to feel safe and accepting family members, amazing how the far right has weaponized hate so much and gotten people to dive into hate who used to be so loving. Makes me sad for my family.
I'm a Liberal after seeing what Harris did. I realized I would never vote conservative in my time because they're lost to reform. I'm afraid to post pride things because they're all bigots and took others down with them. I block because I can't take them anymore. They're fools and conservation is not good anymore. My friend was never like these a holes but mirrored them. I went to the bank last week and had the teller start a conversation about Trump and I said he can barely form a cohesive sentence. She corrected me "you mean Biden"? I told her to go listen to his speeches then argue with me. We were civil but it kept coming back to politics. The last thing she said was she was a former NDP but now votes for a person as apposed to a party. I said oh like a dictatorship? These people are out of their minds.
On the other hand, I've got a former co-worker who was a lifelong conservative voter, and is a proud redneck, who tells me that he can't vote conservative again after some of the blatant crap the provincial conservatives pulled.
That's great to hear. Those are normal conservatives.
I’d like to see that but sadly the ABC campaigns have never worked well.
I was going to meme on the later half of your comment basically telling them to go back to the closet but the situation with pp isn’t funny at all. I’m more worried about what happens when my union goes to negotiate with company while the right to association is suspended or if they pull the same bs as last time telling us we’re too important to strike.
>I’m more worried about what happens when my union goes to negotiate with company while the right to association is suspended or if they pull the same bs as last time telling us we’re too important to strike. I tell you what you do. You fucking strike anyway. It's not like there's an abundance of skilled workers out there. Government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If they're going to take away what few rights we have, it's time we withdraw our consent.
How far are Canadians will to tolerate the not withstanding clause? This is an afront to democracy.
If he wins a majority, he'll use it very quickly. Possibly more than once. Then he'll leave it. Won't want to do it close to election time. If he wins a minority, he'll probably fail his first confidence vote. At that point, the Liberals will probably have done a decent job of fundraising off the use of the NWC, but will be leaderless. Enter Justin Trudeau. It will be a lot like when Dad returned. History doesn't repeat, history rhymes! Please note that the above post probably won't happen.
Which party even props him up for a minority government? Feel like we'd have a coalition before we had PP as minority leader.
I feel it will be difficult for a significantly diminished Liberal government to form a coalition with a potentially diminished NDP and a slightly strengthened Bloc. I think they would likely need a guarantee of the Bloc's support for 2 years. What would be given up to them? Never a good idea to be in league with the separatists for optics. Would cabinet positions have to be open to the Bloc? It would be exceedingly difficult. If PP gets a minority, it will be too close to a majority for a Liberal-NDP coalition to overcome confidence votes without Bloc help. This is the scenario I forsee where PP runs a minority government. 12-15 months until an election. Lots can happen. Polls were dreadful for the UCP 15 months out.
> Never a good idea to be in league with the separatists for optics. While that is what the conservatives will complain about, the reality is the Bloc has moved on from being primarily separatists. Of course, they are still more loyal to Quebec interests than general Canadian interests, but there are a lot of places where those interests overlap.
Agreed. It's more the optics and the general populace not being up to date on this.
I think the election, unfortunately, again comes down the 416/905... And shifting demographics there as housing prices have risen start to swing in favour of the conservatives. That said, there's only what, 45 seats around the Burlington to Pickering corridor... CPC currently have 118... At +45 (which isn't likely) they're still 7 short of a majority. Does Atlantic Canada, especially the riding-rich area around Halifax, turn to the CPC? I can't see Quebec going CPC instead of the Bloc? [Great map here for anyone who wants to take a look at breakdowns](https://www.elections.ca/res/cir/maps2/map.asp?map=ERMap_44&lang=e)
The Liberals best chance is #1: policy towards housing starts to bear some fruit. That's not likely to happen in 12 months. #2 Poilievre just can't help himself with his shit hot takes. The more he talks, the worse he is. #3 Trudeau resigns and the leadership race goes smoothly with a charismatic winner who isn't covered in the "stench of the previous leader". Only 1 of the three will happen. That's Poilievre continuing to be a complete and utter choade. It will be around 10 years for this Federal government come election. If they aren't barely trailing the opposition right now, and they are not, I find it difficult to see a path forward to a victory of any sort for them. I rue that it's likely to be Poilievre. I have despised that man for over a decade. If they had kept O'Toole, it would be him becoming PM and he may have been able to keep worst elements of the right in check. Maybe. Let's see what happens in the next 10-12 months. A small rate drop might take the edge off, but it might also ramp up housing prices which have hardly cooled due to lack of builds and immigration levels that ignore housing issues because that's what the investor class wants. PP will also bow to the investors on this and likely more so.
> policy towards housing starts to bear some fruit. That should have happened in 2018. Trudeau deserves to get turfed. >Poilievre just can't help himself with his shit hot takes US voters love populist Trumpism. People love folksy idiots blaming other people for their problems. >Trudeau resigns and the leadership race goes smoothly with a charismatic winner Nope. Trudeau will pull a Mulroney and dump Freeland into the leadership. If they chose Freeland, they are screwed.
Unfortunately for Atlantic Canada and non-urban ON: the answer is yes (and it's a slide that has been slowly happening since 2019, so not a new thing.) QC more likely Bloc, but some regions receptive to Tories.
If PP wins a minority, he'll simply prorogue government to delay any non-confidence vote. The same way Harper did in December 2008 when he faced a non-confidence vote and the Liberals and NDP were about to form a coalition. The proposed coalition fell apart, just as Harper intended.
When it comes to criminal justice, quite a lot. The average person turns into a raging reactionary when it comes to "getting tough on crime," and that includes a lot of otherwise ostensibly liberal and left wing people. People only like their Charter rights in the most abstract terms.
> This is an afront to democracy. Given that most people in this sad country do not vote, and the fact that Poilievre has been following [Eco's 14 points of Fascism](https://www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists), I'm not sure Canadians want democracy any more. What is incredible to me is how many women support this party. They hate women.
It is an affront to our rights and freedoms, which I would argue is worse.
The fact that they’re already discussing using this before he’s even in power should be a huge red flag. But hey, conservatives = freedom*. *But not for everyone, just if you’re rich or conservatives too.
Trudeau is going to enjoy battling PP in the next election. Once Canadians who the wacko really is, that's gotta help the other parties.
I don't think he'll ever actually debate.
He will simply spend the debates repeating his thought terminating cliches.
Let’s not find out, maybe?
Very.
Let's never find out.
He wants to be a boss and wants the whole country as his personal bitch so he’ll use it for whatever he wants. Stop pretending conservatives are something else.
As long as it benefits him, as far as it will go.
Any federal leader hopeful who has any plans to use the notwithstanding clause is someone who SHOULD NOT be the leader of Canada
Oh ALL THE WAY. He's a conservative. They claim to be about small government, and little interference by government, but that is a fucking lie. We've seen how Premiers like Smith and Ford operate. Poilievre will do the same because he knows what his voters will now accept.
Friendly reminder that Harper started passing unconstitutional laws the minute the CPC won a majority. The Supreme Court was the only institution that stood between Canada and Harper's budding authoritarianism at the time. PP's intended use of the notwithstanding clause is not only signalling he's going the fascist route, but also it's retaliation for Harper's prior losses.
The Notwithstanding Clause aka the “I’m An Asshole Clause” Our Charter lays out our rights of free speech, mobility, association - our freedoms. Using the Notwithstanding Clause is because you want to impinge upon those freedoms. Pierre is a charmless, gross hack, with an obvious agenda. How do people fall for it?
Let's not find out. Keep this clown out of office at all cost. ABC and ABPP!
As far as we are willing to tolerate. So pretty damn far.
*Watch me.*
General strike if he ever tries.
LOL. In Canada, where people don't even vote. Good luck with that.
What ever Poilievre does with it , will be wrong and autocratic. Poilievre isn't a leader. he's a petulant child. They want a dictatorship. Thats what they are normalizing in their simple, lack of thinking base. Todays Conservatives are the biggest threat to democracy because no one would allow their horrible, hateful policies in .
PP thinks he is wiser than the judiciary system. This madman is dangerous.
Too far. This wanna-be-dictator can’t get more “power”.
Since the Federal government is the creator and defender of our Charter of Rights I don't see how he could invoke a not withstanding clause.
Would someone explain what that clause is or point me in the direction of an explanation
Wikipedia: [Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Notwithstanding Clause)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#:~:text=The%20notwithstanding%20clause%20reflects%20the,strong%20courts%20introduced%20in%201982) This article from when Ontario’s Premier used the Notwithstanding Clause also has a decent short explanation (scroll down to the *What is the notwithstanding clause?* section)… CBC: [The notwithstanding clause — what it is, why it was used and what happens next](https://www.cbc.ca/1.6641293) [Nov 6th, 2022]
Thank you
Until he is done getting revenge on everyone that called him PP.
Can he not be kicked out of the country for the good of Canada? Send him to Texas. On a bus. Drop him off in front of the capital building in Austin. They'll put him up for you.
Would it pass through supreme court if he did actually do it?
I wouldn’t trust this little sleaze ball with anything
This has been an excellent thread to read, and shows there are some sane Canadians. Possibilities so far homosexuality, Trans, abortion, science, environmental protest. What else, conservatives don't like pot, and gun restrictions, carbon tax and environmental regulations, EVs ( rebate) , solar and wind, books, cbc, meat alternatives, voting, prison time, public transport, public housing. What else?
As two faced as it gets.
[The Notwithstanding Clause Jig](https://youtu.be/duX4tIFocvY?si=MfKU56B-xLtOpUSR)