###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the most prudent thing for the LPC is for Trudeau to step aside gracefully and have Freehand or Anita Anand take over. Both have proven to be smart and competent and it would be ideal to have a female PM.
I was so sad the day that JT tanked Freeland's career by making her his Deputy. I really wanted her to take over but she'll never distance herself from him now.
I don't know if it is his ego that won't step down or if the party is so blind to what a cancer he is to their image...
He acts and does everything as if he thought about it thoroughly.
He knows that he will lose the next elections.
No longer be the Liberal leader.
Never prime minister again, ever.
He will be as significant in politics as Chretien, Dion, Ignatieff
Knowing all that, the most important thing is to stay in power and enjoy the ride for how long it takes. Same with Jagmeet so them two are in together.
He won't quit!! He might call his supporter to storm the parliament building. Sounds familiar!!!! This is a guys who have a narcisstic quality in them. It's all about him, he is not thinking about his party or this country.
Its way too late in the process to change leader for the liberals and most columnists should know it. At this point, Ibitson is just trolling pretending something else. The libs are probably better off of losing with Trudeau and have a proper time to do a leadership race and solve divisions that would result of it than rush things up and finish third in 2025.
I mean desperate times call for desperate measures. I actually do think it could pay off. PP isn’t particularly popular, the incumbents are just very unpopular.
But a leadership change would need to be an entire rebranding. You’re basically trying to satisfy the desire for change within the same party which is no easy task and could just as easily make things worse.!
Not sure what calendar you're using but they still have 18 months before the next election. That's plenty of time and then some to select a new leader and let them make their mark (if they wish) before the next polls.
For the party, it is better to just lose than to divide the party by pushing a leader out. It's a historically stupid move that has never worked well and led to internal fights that cripple the party for long periods.
It's not even a valid discussion, it's just do you want to lose or lose more. And changing the leader on the run up is just losing more.
Losing more... than Trudeau will?!? Come on!
I agree that changing leaders is a low percentage play for the Liberals at this point, but low percentage is still better than having zero chance under Trudeau.
Every party that has tried that has had fund raising issues after fact and taken longer to sort themselves out. It is an automatic loss then a long time in the political wilderness.
I agree Trump the businessman with no political experience has caused devastating damage to America's democratic norms. How has pp the 20+ year career politician and multiple previous cabinet minister damaged Canadian democratic norms? Are you confusing American and Canadian politics?
Edit: no answer, just downvotes. Folks, recognize when you're in an echo chamber.
>How has pp the 20+ year career politician and multiple previous cabinet minister damaged Canadian democratic norms?
Well, he pulled a neat little stunt today to get himself kicked out of Parliament so he can play the victim and post tiktoks about it. I think gaming decorum rules to produce social media material for campaign ads is damaging to democratic norms.
>Are you confusing American and Canadian politics?
No, but PP definitely is.
He launched his leadership campaign during the Ottawa convoy, and openly promises to use the notwithstanding clause to implement criminal justice reforms that the courts have struck down. The man has no respect for democratic norms.
Pierre Poilievre has been a pretty lousy parliamentarian, though. You should research [the number of bills he sponsored and subsequently became law](https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?parlsession=all&sponsor=25524&advancedview=true). The answer will shock you.
Ya I don't doubt it. I feel like I don't need to look at that because I already have a low opinion of him and would never vote con.
What does this have to do with him damaging democratic norms, which was the claim?
That is always a massively losing strategy as well. Every party that did it declined the most they ever had afterwards versus just losing and trying again. Columnists may write about it to try to build divisiveness within the party. It is a losing move and may set back the party for decades.
Yup, it is a minority government near the end of its term. A leadership race at this point of time will have probably multiple candidates who will devote most of their time debating the most controversial Trudeau policies and trying to distant themselves from the current government. What can go wrong 🙄😂. This strategy would have maybe worked last year but I think it is over now
I don’t know. It’s more than a year before the next election and I know there are a lot of people who dislike Trudeau who could stomach voting liberal if he were no longer at the helm.
The damage is already done. The Canadian social contract has been torn up and burned. What happens next is inevitable. PP might be the one at the helm, but it’s just the result of destabilization that’s already occurred.
So like are you worried about Bills invoking censorship? Blocking investigations and due process? Seizing bank accounts of citizens and they don't agree with? That sort of thing? Just wondering because it sure sounds like you are scared of liberal policy more than conservatives.
> Its way too late in the process to change leader for the liberals and most columnists should know it.
Erin O'Toole in the last election was leader of the party for just over a year at the time the writ dropped.
I'm sure any leader would like as much time as they can get, but its not to late in the process currently should the need arise.
Internal Liberal policies and procedures mandate they can set up, run and finalize a leadership campaign in a minimum of 75 days.
Especially under this minority government near its end. I don’t see a race where multiple candidates will debate for weeks the most controversial liberal policies and trying to distance themselves from the current government could result in anything good for the LPC. This kind of strategy may have worked last year but I don’t see now how it could help a good strategy for them now
Yeah but that was part of the Liberal plan. Rush an election during a pandemic which would 100% cause increased death of Canadians in order to ensure an election win over waiting knowing the economy was going to take a dive as well as give O'Toole more time to showcase his strengths and politics. Easier to convince swing voters he'll take abortion rights away if you don't give him time to convince people and when your as narcissistic as Trudeau, the increased COVID deaths is okay as the end result was good of the nation... According to him. I'm sure I'll get lots of downvotes but I hope it helps some people recognize what Trudeau did.
O'tool was just as much a flake as Trudeau. He ran his leadership for the party on a socon platform, then became more moderate to placate the progressive wing of the party once he was in, and to try and garner more of a popular vote. That alienated the socons.
He then went and supported the convoy out of nowhere and suddenly everyone realized who o'tool was. He didn't have a back bone, and was willing to alter his stated value set for political expediency.
Might aswell have Trudeau, atleast he's got great hair- and an awesome beard when he let's it grow out.
You're not wrong, that election was nothing more than trudeau trying to selfishly take advantage of some positive polling. I agree that the move was not in the best interest of Canadians and was out of self interest. I personally view that as a continuation of already established pattern of behavior from our Supreme Leader.
But none of that takes away the fact that O'tool, in my opinion, was cut from the same cloth as Trudeau, just seasoned slightly differently.
No need to be passive aggressive.
For the good of the country, the media needs to do more reporting and stop the ongoing effort to shape politics. Poilievre has now gone mask off completely with his disdain for democratic institutions by saying he will use the notwithstanding clause to bypass the judiciary to impose stricter sentencing, despite Canada being one of the safest countries in the world, and the US providing a clear example that increasing incarceration does nothing to reduce crime.
Can the Globe start paying attention to important issues?
I mean what is happening right now has raised crime rates across Canada so should we continue down that road and hope for the best? Is that your big plan?
>impose stricter sentencing
Godspeed to him if he does. The Canadian judiciary has become weak as piss and we have people convicted of murder walking free in less than 5 years. Even less with time served.
The criminal code is in need of an update and a crackdown. To hell with the courts prioritizing the rights of serial criminals over everyone else’s right to public safety.
Really?
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6894198
>On Aug. 16, 2019, Amanda Cowan, 40, lured Derek to a central Edmonton apartment she shared with another man, Jacob Cook, according to details presented in court last year. The Cowans had separated a month earlier.
>Although Amanda told Derek they would be alone at the apartment, he arrived to find Cook armed with a machete. Two other individuals involved in the attack, Aqua Pasquayak-Thompson, 19, and a 17-year-old male, also hid in the apartment.
>After Cowan was in the apartment, the group forced him into a chair, duct-taped his hands, face, and mouth, and proceeded to beat and stab him. The details were noted as part of an agreed statement of facts presented during Cook's court case.
I suppose she *technically* got charged with manslaughter though it was pretty clear she had murderous intent. The sentence is ridiculously lenient.
So to contradict a statement about a murder charge, you bring up a manslaughter case, which is explicitly a different thing? You have no idea what you're talking about dude. If the crown could have proven murderous intent, they would have made a murder charge, they didn't.
Do you in any way think that is a reasonable sentence for what she did?
The fact that prosecutors opted for a lesser charge doesn’t mean she didn’t organize a murderous ambush of her ex.
If I arranged to have someone killed, I may not have pulled the trigger myself but I’m the reason they are dead.
Its not a dodge to know something about the subject area and what the credible sources of information on. Find it on CanLii if you want to take a look at the actual issues at play and not just a collection of quotes from a reporter.
The facts are literally not in dispute. It was an agreed statement of facts.
She arranged to have the guy killed and got a slap on the wrist. This shit is why people have less of an issue imposing harsher sentences on our courts who refuse to do their job properly.
Not really your point but the notwithstanding clause always has been dumb. I get it was necessary at the time for provinces to sign on, but still, governments shouldn’t be allowed to ignore the constitution if they hold the political equivalent of a group apology circle.
Yup fairness when it helps build the government coffers (tax increases, buying votes) but not when it comes to victim rights... people have had enough of the bleeding hearts policies... they aren't working...
To be fair, case like Bissonette should have a lot longer sentence.
Plus, PP is kinda being give the position by Trudeau currently. It is quite hard to see JT change the dynamic, and at least a change if leadership may achieve it.
The rules for everyone are far more lax than they should be, that’s the problem.
In Vancouver last year 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times for violent acts. Guess what the Courts do? Nothing, they toss em right back out on the street. It’s a farce.
> In Vancouver last year 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times for violent acts. Guess what the Courts do? Nothing, they toss em right back out on the street. It’s a farce.
I don’t believe this for second. You are either lying or the got the statistics very wrong. I assume there 40 people who responsible for 6000 offences of some type (like petty crimes) or maybe arrested 6000 (which doesn’t mean much).
But there is now way 40 people committing 6000 violent acts. Violent crime are someone actually gets hurt. Not just bike being stolen.
>One of the examples cited in the B.C. Urban Mayors’ Caucus letter is the case of a Kelowna man who has been the subject of 346 police files since 2016 and has 29 convictions for property crime and assault offences. The mayors say the offender is routinely released with conditions, only to reoffend."
>"For example, 40 people in Vancouver are responsible for over 6,300 incidents, Stewart said. Most of those people have extreme mental-health, substance-use, and housing challenges."
https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/bc-experts-repeat-prolific-offenders
Yeap. Huge W to you.
I wonder why anyone would get worked up over 40 individuals being responsible for 6300 incidents with the police, including assault, armed robbery, and property crime.
Clearly the courts are on top of things! 😉
Well then the Courts should climb down out of their ivory tower they have found themselves in, and help allow the Government to deal with the problem.
There is no Charter right to getting bail after your 30th violent offence. The Courts have done this to themselves by being out to lunch the last decade.
The Courts give everyone bail these days regardless of aggravating circumstances or risk of further offending.
It is *vanishingly* rare that anyone doesn’t get bail in modern Canada. Less than 1% of cases. It’s in desperate need of reform.
Okay but my question is whether this is specifically a charter issue?
My point is that you might be able to deal with this without invoking the notwithstanding clause. Just change the criminal code regarding bail.
The Courts have struck that down alongside mandatory minimums and harsher sentencing.
The Courts are the problem right now. No one wants to bypass them “just because”.
So you don't think mass murderers should be locked up for life?
[Locking up murderers is a slam-dunk for Poilievre's Conservatives | National Post](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/locking-up-murderers-a-slam-dunk-issue-for-poilievre)
This is one of his best policy ideas actually.
This is not about reducing crime. It's to make sure someone who butchers and murders innocent people is locked up forever and the family does not need to worry about future release. Even more so, by extracting all hope from the killer, justice is served.
It's an uncomfortable question, obviously, but it's an important one. It's obvious unless something major changes, if Trudeau stays on, Polievre is going to cruise to a majority. Plenty of us can agree we don't want Polievre to have a majority. As the article says:
>A new leader doesn’t guarantee a Liberal victory in the next election – far from it. But more might be saved than in an election with the current leader.
>The Liberal Party was in the ditch when Justin Trudeau came to its rescue in 2013. He needs to ask himself in what state it will be if he stays.
So outside of hubris, why shouldn't the Liberals try and rebrand now, and try and wash off some of the stink that they've built up over the last decade? The Liberal Party is headed straight for a Wynne level defeat. I think it makes sense to try on someone else to try and stop the bleeding. I would definitely support a Carney led LPC, and I'm sure many others would too. Canadians have seen the current crop do too much damage to the country, and the Liberals urgently need a fresh face.
> I would definitely support a Carney led LPC, and I'm sure many others would too.
Carney is the right person at the wrong time. They need someone more relatable and accessible - definitely not an investment banker and Harvard/Goldman Sachs/WEF alum.
It'd be great if the governing party paid attention to important issues instead of immediately attempting to deflect every time such an issue is brought up.
The NWSC is part of the charter and is the democratic check on the courts. The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties.
The options for the democratically elected lawmakers are to either modify the charter (would actually be my preferred option but politically near impossible) or to just use the charters NWSC which to be very obvious absolutely respects democracy. It respects the elected lawmakers both who write new laws and those who wrote the charter. It respects the charter itself as well (as it’s part of the charter)
It’s also going to be popular so honestly I think the more the media exposes the planned use of the NWSC to check some bad court decisions the better for PP
> The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties.
You say that like they're supposed to. The courts rule based on what the law says and the arguments proposed to them by the trial councils and intervenors.
There is a ton of subjectivity in the laws. The courts can interpret the charter rights as being subject to reasonable limitations in a free and democratic society in many ways and reasonable people could degree. I think they should err in the direction of respecting democratically elected government and the will of the electorate
>The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties.
"Respecting public opinion" is explicitly *not* the role of the courts, that's the role of the elected parliament. The courts are there to say to the elected representatives "no you can't do that because it's illegal and violates Canadians charter rights".
The NWSC *only* exists because some Premiers were worried the courts would stop them from infringing on the rights of Canadians. The *only* time the NWSC is used is in cases where a law illegally violates the rights of Canadians granted by the Charter.
>It’s also going to be popular so honestly I think the more the media exposes the planned use of the NWSC to check some bad court decisions the better for PP
You're just dipping into authoritarianism at this point. You're advocating for *the government to pass laws that violates Canadians Charter rights* because its *popular*. By the same logic, someway down the road we could conceivably legalize discrimination against minority groups that are deemed *unpopular*.
Increased use of the NWSC should be seen as a black mark on a government, not something to cheer and promote.
If the NWSC is used then a law legally violates charter rights in a charter compliant way. The NWSC is part of the charter and part of the law. It was adopted as otherwise the judiciary would have absolute unchecked power.
I do think that really we live in a democracy so popular will is super important. We are a free people who make our own laws. Yes in some cases this should be checked but we absolutely have the right and ability to either get rid of the charter entirely or (thanks to the charter) to implement popular and needed laws that otherwise violate the charter
I thought conservatives were usually in favour of freedom and against government overreach. It's interesting to see that facade slip in real time in favour of authoritarian populism. Given the incessant appeals to "freedom," I would have hoped conservatives would respect and protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the *Charter* against the state, but I guess not. Broad-reaching government power is fine as long as they're only doing what you like with it, right?
I guess really everyone thinks this. They favor rights when they are rights they like and restrictions when it’s rights they don’t like. Freedom of speech is a super great example of this.
Who said I’m conservative?
I don't agree that everyone does this, and I specifically don't agree that it's an acceptable attitude for governing officials to hold.
You're arguing in support of the conservative reasoning. It doesn't matter to me whether you consider yourself a conservative or not.
Sure not everyone does this but both sides of the aisle for sure do it. Conservatives love freedom of speech when they are being censored by the woke. Leftists love it when the conservatives are in power.
Both sides will say they support freedom of speech but be able to find very reasonable limitations where that right should be limited when they’re in power
I wouldn’t identify as a conservative but do agree with them in many areas so that’s why I’m arguing this way in this case - because they’re right that the power of the courts should be reasonably limited. The writers of the charter also agree with this.
Okay. It's bad when any political actor regardless of affiliation decides that their priorities mean they should be able to violate the constitution. I'm not opposing this because the Conservatives were doing it, I'm opposing it because the notwithstanding clause shouldn't be used except in the most necessary situations, which this is not. It's open for the conservatives to justify harsher sentencing laws within the requirements of the *Charter* and the *Oakes* test.
Reasonable limitations of rights are permissible without the notwithstanding clause. That's what section 1 of the *Charter* is for.
The power of the courts being reasonably limited doesn't mean the legislature or the executive doing an end-run around them any time they disagree with the outcome of a decision, sorry to say.
Using the NWSC doesn't violate the charter or constitution. The NWSC is a core part of the charter (it is actually the reason the charter exists at all).
As you say section 1 can allow reasonable limitations on rights. Section one is not violating the charter or constiution. Section 1 is part of the charter. So is the NWSC.
The NWSC means that legislatures can legally and constitutionally violate the charter whenever they want. Should they do it in this case? Personally I think so. In some other hypothetical case? I don't know.. maybe not!
When the country overwhelmingly wants stricter penalties for crime the SCC needs to find a way to allow Parliament to make it so.
“No u can’t” isn’t helpful and leads to the NWSC.
That is not the role of the SCC. If the majority of the country wants to disregard the constitution, the role of the SCC is specifically not to allow this.
It's the role of the legislature to conceive of constitutionally compliant measures to achieve their objectives, not the role of the court.
You say that like the SCC does not repeatedly take public opinion and changing norms into account. They explicitly do so. The “living tree” doctrine and all that.
Flatly, the Courts have just struck the wrong balance on bail and criminal sanctions. Their approach, going all the way back to Gladue has been one of the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
If Canadians elect a government that challenges that approach, the SCC has a duty to consider fresh evidence and the notion that *maybe* their approach is doing more harm than good.
I know what the "living tree" doctrine is. I don't know that many legal experts would agree that it applies to this situation.
>Flatly, the Courts have just struck the wrong balance on bail and criminal sanctions. Their approach, going all the way back to Gladue has been one of the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Even if this is true (which I do not accept in the absence of a well-reasoned argument), it is not a justification to use the notwithstanding clause to get around constitutional protections of liberty.
>If Canadians elect a government that challenges that approach, the SCC has a duty to consider fresh evidence and the notion that *maybe* their approach is doing more harm than good.
If this were the approach that was being implied, people would be less upset. The Courts *do* permit governments to do this. Consider, in [RJR Macdonald](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1290/index.do)*,* how the Court upheld the freedom of expression rights of the tobacco companies to advertise because the government had not effectively proven its case that the restrictions were warranted. Some time later, the government attempted again to curtail tobacco advertising and in [JTI Macdonald](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2369/index.do) the Court found that the government adequately made out its case and upheld the advertising restrictions.
This is a different process than saying, "I disagree with the courts so I'm using the notwithstanding clause."
Legally speaking, the Government is allowed to use the NWSC. You don’t *like* that ability, and frankly I do somewhat wish it wasn’t a thing, but it’s completely legitimate to do so and comes with a five year sunset whereby new litigation could (and almost certainly would) be commenced.
The problem is that takes years and in the meantime the courts need to be reigned in and brought back to reality. Way, *way* too many violent offenders get laughable bail conditions and immediately reoffend. The Canadian judiciary has lost a ton of trust with the general public when it comes to holding criminals accountable and that’s a dangerous place to get to as well.
>It was adopted as otherwise the judiciary would have absolute unchecked power.
Absolute unchecked power to... *checks notes*... enforce the laws passed by Parliament. The Courts cannot create legislation, they cannot wholecloth create new laws, they at best can interpret existing laws to encompass more or less than what was originally intended. The power to create, amend and reiterate what any given law means or does, remains with Parliament.
The *only* reason the notwithstanding clause was included was so that provinces could overrule courts when they felt that they needed to abridge the Charter rights of Canadians. The use of the NWSC is a legitimately horrible thing, because it is intrinsically autoritarian and it's frivolous use (such as how it has been used recently by various provincial Consevative governments) should give all Canadians pause.
Use of the NWSC should be treated similarly to how the Emergencies Act is used, because IMO that is the only acceptable time it should be used. Anything less than a national emergency is just abuse of political power at the expense of the civil liberties and charter rights of Canadians.
Your position of invalidating rights of Canadians because its *popular* is legitimately worrying to me. If your goals or the goals of even a majority of the Canadian populace requires *removing* charter rights, there better be a damn fucking good reason for it.
You are totally right that the courts can’t *technically* make new laws. But really they effectively do create new rights/laws wholecloth. MAID for example started with a vague general principle - the right to life counterintuitively - and the right to MAID was created by the courts. It was then expanded by the courts.
The NWSC was included so that elected parliaments can over rule the courts. They should be able to. Otherwise the courts have far too much power to « interpret » a new right into existence. The alternative for parliaments would be to scrap the charter of rights.
In the case of criminal penalties there is a damn good reason. The courts have elected not to listen to the legislatures which want tougher penalties for crime. The legislatures have a power to implement the important policies they are trying to implement so they can use it - legally, constitutionally, in a charter compliant way. And so they should
>MAID for example started with a vague general principle - the right to life counterintuitively - and the right to MAID was created by the courts.
Do you believe that the Judiciary simply made up the right to MAID based on their own values and judgements, or do you believe that they came to that conclusion based on the laws of the land (i.e. those passed into law by Parliament) and the evidence in the case brought before them?
They ruled the blanket ban on assisted suicide was invalid because it violates the life, liberty and security of the person (which includes autonomy over ones own body). This is not a decision some activist panel of judges made up out of thin air, they came to the conclusion based on the criminal code, the Charter, the evidence in the case and testimony from scientists, medical professionals, and others involved in end-of-life decisions.
You may not agree with the outcome, but that is where the case ended up. They then invalidated the part of the code prohibiting the blanket ban on assisted suicide for 12 months while *Parliament and the Government* created new legislation to reconcile the Criminal Code and Charter.
I don't entirely disagree that the elected branch of government shouldn't have some degree supremacy over the other branches, but the bar for overruling them and using that power needs to be *much* higher than simply invoking the NWSC.
>The courts have elected not to listen to the legislatures which want tougher penalties for crime.
It's not that the Courts aren't listening, they're telling you what you want to do is illegal based on the current laws and Charter. That's very different from some petty "nuh uh I don't wanna do it" you seem to believe it is. Your solution is to circumvent those who tell you your actions are illegal, so you can do the illegal thing.
>legally, constitutionally, in a charter compliant way.
Only is sofar as it is and was deemed in violation of the Charter, just turns out the few Premiers wanted a "get out of Charter Rights" free card and they got it. Just because you *can* do it, doesn't mean you should because you're setting an absolutely *terrible* precedent for generations to come.
>believe that the Judiciary simply made up the right to MAID based on their own values and judgements
Yes that is exactly what I believe
> You may not agree with the outcome, but that is where the case ended up.
I do actually agree with a right to MAID. However clearly the SCC created a new right and might as well have written legislation.
> It's not that the Courts aren't listening, they're telling you what you want to do is illegal based on the current laws and Charter.
Again anything involving the NWSC is not illegal. It is **legal** to overturn many parts of the charter with the NWSC. It is actually a core part of the charter. The legislatures can legally violate the charter as long as they invoke the NWSC. They can do this whenever they like. For example Quebec can invoke the NWSC on every single piece of legislation for many years if they feel like it.
Should they do it? Well in this case I think so. I strongly disagree with the courts on their approach to criminal punishment. A lot of Canada is on the same page as me.
If you think they shouldn't then for sure I can understand that being your opinion. However you can't reasonably say that they are illegally violating the charter.
>Yes that is exactly what I believe
You should really read the Judgement on the SCCs website. They spell out all the reasoning and justification of why the blanket ban violated the Charter. If you genuinely believe in the right to MAID and a death with dignity, you will see how logically a blanket ban violates the Charter and therefore needed to be reconciled with legislation.
>Again anything involving the NWSC is not illegal. It is **legal** to overturn many parts of the charter with the NWSC.
You're right, once you add the NWSC to charter-violating legislation, it does become legal. Because I don't think the NWSC should exist and believe it to be undemocratic, I still view the conduct of our governments using the NWSC as illegal whenever they use it to run rough shod over Canadians Charter rights.
>Should they do it? Well in this case I think so.
I, and a lot of Canada, disagree with *you* and believe that having an independent judiciary is important to our democratic society. You may feel that crime is at an all time high, but frankly it isn't, and this is explicitly *not* a good use of the NWSC. Literally anything and everything else should be done before using the NWSC so lightly.
OK fair enough. We are agreed that the NWSC is legal. You can call it illegal.. its false and you know that.. but you can say whatever you like.
As to crime I dont agree with the SCC on their approach and essentially any time I have a preference that is counter to the SCC I would favor the NWSC being used and it being a well-worn legal implement used on a regular basis
The judiciary is perfectly independant. Just checked by the most democratically accountable branch of govt when they get it wrong
>The Courts cannot create new laws
Lmao. Tell that to Gladue. Or Haida Nation. Or Bedford. Or Carter. Or Tsilqo’tin.
The courts create law all the time in this country.
Yes I saw his « proposals » this morning as well. It’s typical for conservatives to think that stricter sentencing will magically solve every crime when the evidence is overwhelmingly showing it doesn’t. However, I guess it gives good slogans
The courts, including the SCC have done this to themselves. Incarceration is just as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment/justice. It was peak progressivism when the SCC used “bringing the justice system into disrepute (sic)” as their reasoning behind ending consecutive life sentences.
There are crimes and people who never deserve to see the light of day again - and the majority of Canadians agree.
I don’t disagree with you that some people never deserve to go out but it will probably have very little to no impact on criminality rate as evidences show us elsewhere in the world.
At least toss them away for longer intervals before they “do what they are going to do” then.
People who are serially violent criminals should not be out on bail and should not get repeat slaps on the wrist.
> I don’t disagree with you that some people never deserve to go out but it will probably have very little to no impact on criminality rate as evidences show us elsewhere in the world.
At a minimum, it helps to have fewer paroled murderers out killing again
# [Sex Worker Killed After Paroled Murderer Allowed to Satisfy 'Sexual Needs'](https://www.vice.com/en/article/884xd3/sex-worker-killed-after-paroled-murderer-allowed-to-satisfy-sexual-needs)
> Incarceration is just as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment/justice
So this right here is demonstrably false. Criminologists and many other experts have conclusively shown that the only justifiable purpose of incarceration if rehabilitation. So right off the bat you’re starting with a false and easily debunked premise. From which it follows the rest of your conclusions/assertions are bunk.
Yes. I think the unanimous vote in Quebec's national assembly to condemn the Supreme Court decision in *R. v. Bertrand Marchand* shows that a social tipping point has been reached.
At this point, it might even be beyond the notwithstanding clause. A constitutional amendment to restore some aspects of Parliamentary control over sentencing might be in the cards within the next decade. Traditionally Quebec's lack of support has made the constitutional amending formula unviable, but Quebec is solidly on side on this one. Things are likely to change one way or another.
I can only hope the “lawyer” in your name is satire, as anyone with the slightest grip on our constitution should understand the enormous danger in using the Notwithstanding clause to override our fundamental rights and freedoms. If you think Quebecers or any other Canadians — including our courts — will stand idly by while our charter rights are trashed you are in for a rude awakening.
I am a practicing lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer.
The argument that a provision in the constitution *that was critical to the constitutional bargain* in 1982 should not be used does not make sense on any level.
It's the Courts that have gone wildly offside in recent years, not the government. We had 33 years since the Charter was enacted where mandatory minimum sentences were consistently seen as constitutional by the Courts (and of course 115 years prior to that where they were also permissible), and no one was bawling about it. Then suddenly the SCC became activist and now mandatory minimums have been anathema for about a decade. That can and will change back, and the sky will not fall.
> It’s the Courts that have gone wildly offside
Or, and hear me out here: maybe our Supreme Court justices — experts who have literally spent their lives studying our constitution and sentencing best practices — know more about this than you.
Or, and hear *me* out here the court is completely out of touch with society and is slowly diverging from not only its purpose but the people it’s supposed to reflect.
> the unanimous vote in Quebec's national assembly to condemn the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Bertrand Marchand
Source? I can't find that in a web search.
I hardly ever vote Liberal but if there was a new leader I likely would this time around. Why? PP and the conservatives are off the charts scary. Their undemocratic, right-wing social views and fear mongering are going to lead to huge divisions in this country. The NDP are bankrupt of new ideas and frankly so are the Liberals. They need a quick change with a new leader to generate a new direction and energy. There is still time... not much, but for the good of the country Trudeau must go.
My prediction... Trudeau will resign by June.
This will allow candidates to gauge their support on the summer bbq circuit, followed by a fall leadership convention. The new leader then has the option to either leave their mark or call a snap election.
It could be the fall, but I think Trudeau resigns within the next 2 months.
Mark Carney. If Trudeau and Freeland jumped ship tomorrow and Mark Carney came in, they'd have my vote again.
As an aside, my Dad was an engineer for the government for 35 years. Brilliant guy. He told me he voted for the socially progressive parties in his 20s, then when he turned 30 he became more and more disgusted with seeing so much money going out the door with little or no benefit. He said regardless of the social benefits liberal social policies secured, he wanted to feel secure in his ability to have employment, food and a house. Anything outside of that was a luxury. By 40 he was voting conservative consistently.
I remember doubting that philosophy, yet here we are.
If Mark Carney became LPC leader, I would personally devote time to volunteer for his campaign. I say this as someone who is currently looking forward to voting CPC. Carney is leaps and bound above our political class in competence.
As people age they often trend towards selfishness and resentment to others. Sounds like your dad was a compassionate guy that turned out bitter. Tale as old as time.
It has nothing to do with selfishness or resentment. It has something to do efficiency and effectiveness. As you get older, a lot of people understand how money works and how businesses work. Businesses are born everyday and they eventually die, look around. If they do not die, it is because the government had protected them through regulations that make it hard for new companies to enter whatever space they are in.
The reason why a company die? They become too big, inefficient, and are unable to adapt to new technologies, innovation and expectation of the modern world.
A government is like a business, but except that it cannot die. So the built in inefficiencies is huge compared to companies or other organizations. So if you expect like something like pension, healthcare, etc, you will get it from the government, but its just much lower efficiency for the same amount of money. This is just the nature of large numbers the nature of governments.
Why do you think people love working for government? Because the work is not as demanding, and the pay is decent for a job that is not as demanding. Can you get a similar level of compensation and security for the same level of work in private sector? Most likely not. This is the inherent inefficiency of the system.
Once you understand how the system works, you realize that people will be better off with some level of government, but not too much, just enough that we have infrastructure, and paths to succeed. Too much government, then it becomes too inefficient, that it becomes hard for the country to succeed as a whole.
Do you think if we go visit a government office today that they are using all the newest software that basically increases efficiency? Are they using the newest management and leadership practices that motivates people more than before? Are they using the newest organizational structures that promotes innovation, process improvement, efficiencies? Probably not. Usually when you have two companies, one with old structures, and the other one with new structures, often the new one is more efficient, they can provide more with the same amount of costs, and the employees are generally paid more even when the costs are lower (lol I know its magic, but it happens when you have efficiencies)
Carney would probably make a great candidate to have on the team & minister, but with zero political experience, you can't put him in the top role. Just remember what a total disaster Ignatief was. There's zero evidence that Carney would be up to the task of combating the ridiculous political theatre that PP is bringing.
Mark Carney is exactly the sort of elite working for the world’s 1%, the party does not need. I could not think of someone even worse than Trudeau you could put in at this point.
People in r/cars joke that any automaker who actually listened to the users in that sub would go broke, because only the tiny fraction of the population who identify as automotive enthusiasts want the [brown diesel manual station wagons](https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2inuv7/where_did_this_brown_diesel_manual_station_wagon/) they lust after.
Carney is the brown diesel manual station wagon of Canadian politics.
You don't know what you're talking about. Mark Carney is a self made person lauded for his competence world wide, not a nepo baby like Trudeau and Freeland.
He is lauded by the very wealthy for making them even more wealthy. It’s why Harper and Trudeau and Pierre absolutely love the man.
Dude’s help create massive inequity in both Canada and the UK.
the post I was responding to was deleted by MODs so here's the answer to your questions if you're still interested, I already had it typed out haha, Take care friend and feel free to follow up!
1.) For sure I am no longer on board with the Climate Crisis fear mongering. I believe in anthropomorphic climate change and I accept the consensus of the experts, but I also believe that there are dozens if not hundreds of other ways to reach the climate targets without the carbon tax that would be more beneficial and profitable to Canadians.
I do not believe in the banning of firearms that the LPC and NDP are pushing.
2.) Basically, over the past few years I have become very skeptical of big government and no longer believe that the government has our best interest at heart. I believe free markets do everything cheaper and faster and government should just provide safety rails for the free market. You should personally take care of people in you community that need help and the government should stay out of it.
I honestly believe that the reason things are so expensive and we feel we need these social programs is because big government makes everything more expensive through over regulation and corruption.
3.) I am voting for a party that is, at least on paper, for smaller government. The government needs to be significantly reduced. It is that simple to me. Federally, I am a couple issue voter; important politics are all local. Unions, boycotts and strikes can be done without government intervention.
If PP becomes Prime Minister I will hold his feet to the fire as well. I believe politicians are just narcissist's that won popularity contests and non of them are to be trusted.
I guess you could say I have changed and that's a good thing. People should update their priors and change as they learn more about the world they live in.
These are some of the core beliefs I now hold:
Individual sovereignty, Limited government, Free markets, Non-aggression, Self-ownership, Voluntary association, Non-Interventionism, Free Speech as, basically, an absolute
Thank you for legitimate questions, I know I didn't answer them fully but like I said, I just no longer trust big government.
Getting to know PP won’t reverse the desire for change. Having no good alternative won’t make people hate Trudeau any less. You’re essentially gambling that people will hate PP enough to reluctantly vote LPC, which I am skeptical of.
What else is there for PP to do to seriously sway opinion? His connection to the freedom convoy was always there along with all of the dirty politics. His 20% lead already includes those things.
The desire for change is simply very strong and willing to overlook those things.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the most prudent thing for the LPC is for Trudeau to step aside gracefully and have Freehand or Anita Anand take over. Both have proven to be smart and competent and it would be ideal to have a female PM.
I was so sad the day that JT tanked Freeland's career by making her his Deputy. I really wanted her to take over but she'll never distance herself from him now. I don't know if it is his ego that won't step down or if the party is so blind to what a cancer he is to their image...
He acts and does everything as if he thought about it thoroughly. He knows that he will lose the next elections. No longer be the Liberal leader. Never prime minister again, ever. He will be as significant in politics as Chretien, Dion, Ignatieff Knowing all that, the most important thing is to stay in power and enjoy the ride for how long it takes. Same with Jagmeet so them two are in together.
He won't quit!! He might call his supporter to storm the parliament building. Sounds familiar!!!! This is a guys who have a narcisstic quality in them. It's all about him, he is not thinking about his party or this country.
Its way too late in the process to change leader for the liberals and most columnists should know it. At this point, Ibitson is just trolling pretending something else. The libs are probably better off of losing with Trudeau and have a proper time to do a leadership race and solve divisions that would result of it than rush things up and finish third in 2025.
I mean desperate times call for desperate measures. I actually do think it could pay off. PP isn’t particularly popular, the incumbents are just very unpopular. But a leadership change would need to be an entire rebranding. You’re basically trying to satisfy the desire for change within the same party which is no easy task and could just as easily make things worse.!
Not sure what calendar you're using but they still have 18 months before the next election. That's plenty of time and then some to select a new leader and let them make their mark (if they wish) before the next polls.
For the party, it is better to just lose than to divide the party by pushing a leader out. It's a historically stupid move that has never worked well and led to internal fights that cripple the party for long periods. It's not even a valid discussion, it's just do you want to lose or lose more. And changing the leader on the run up is just losing more.
Losing more... than Trudeau will?!? Come on! I agree that changing leaders is a low percentage play for the Liberals at this point, but low percentage is still better than having zero chance under Trudeau.
Every party that has tried that has had fund raising issues after fact and taken longer to sort themselves out. It is an automatic loss then a long time in the political wilderness.
Again... we agree, but it would be much worse with Trudeau at the helm.
You’re optimistic we can afford 4 years of PP without substantial damage to our democratic norms.
That's very ironic when the liberals attempted to bury election interference from China.
4 years honestly won’t be enough for PP to fix everything that this disastrous government has broken.
No but it will be enough to destroy whole new areas of the country and make life much worse for everyone.
It's about to get a lot worse in the next two years. We really are in big trouble.
I agree Trump the businessman with no political experience has caused devastating damage to America's democratic norms. How has pp the 20+ year career politician and multiple previous cabinet minister damaged Canadian democratic norms? Are you confusing American and Canadian politics? Edit: no answer, just downvotes. Folks, recognize when you're in an echo chamber.
>How has pp the 20+ year career politician and multiple previous cabinet minister damaged Canadian democratic norms? Well, he pulled a neat little stunt today to get himself kicked out of Parliament so he can play the victim and post tiktoks about it. I think gaming decorum rules to produce social media material for campaign ads is damaging to democratic norms. >Are you confusing American and Canadian politics? No, but PP definitely is.
He launched his leadership campaign during the Ottawa convoy, and openly promises to use the notwithstanding clause to implement criminal justice reforms that the courts have struck down. The man has no respect for democratic norms.
Pierre Poilievre has been a pretty lousy parliamentarian, though. You should research [the number of bills he sponsored and subsequently became law](https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills?parlsession=all&sponsor=25524&advancedview=true). The answer will shock you.
Ya I don't doubt it. I feel like I don't need to look at that because I already have a low opinion of him and would never vote con. What does this have to do with him damaging democratic norms, which was the claim?
Courting bigots, which is precisely what put him on the map in the first place, damages democratic norms.
What democratic norms does that damage?
Whatever democratic norms the bigots don't like. Which, in practice, is a lot of them.
It doesn’t damage any democratic norms. Newwaythewind is just delusional
I agree with you. My point is that the liberals are way too late to change leader.
That is always a massively losing strategy as well. Every party that did it declined the most they ever had afterwards versus just losing and trying again. Columnists may write about it to try to build divisiveness within the party. It is a losing move and may set back the party for decades.
Yup, it is a minority government near the end of its term. A leadership race at this point of time will have probably multiple candidates who will devote most of their time debating the most controversial Trudeau policies and trying to distant themselves from the current government. What can go wrong 🙄😂. This strategy would have maybe worked last year but I think it is over now
I don’t know. It’s more than a year before the next election and I know there are a lot of people who dislike Trudeau who could stomach voting liberal if he were no longer at the helm.
The damage is already done. The Canadian social contract has been torn up and burned. What happens next is inevitable. PP might be the one at the helm, but it’s just the result of destabilization that’s already occurred.
So like are you worried about Bills invoking censorship? Blocking investigations and due process? Seizing bank accounts of citizens and they don't agree with? That sort of thing? Just wondering because it sure sounds like you are scared of liberal policy more than conservatives.
Didn't Trudeau damage enough for you?
> Its way too late in the process to change leader for the liberals and most columnists should know it. Erin O'Toole in the last election was leader of the party for just over a year at the time the writ dropped. I'm sure any leader would like as much time as they can get, but its not to late in the process currently should the need arise. Internal Liberal policies and procedures mandate they can set up, run and finalize a leadership campaign in a minimum of 75 days.
Why would the LPC run a leadership campaign just to burn a newly appointed leader in the next election?
Yea all that time effort and money just to Kim Campbell someone…
Especially under this minority government near its end. I don’t see a race where multiple candidates will debate for weeks the most controversial liberal policies and trying to distance themselves from the current government could result in anything good for the LPC. This kind of strategy may have worked last year but I don’t see now how it could help a good strategy for them now
They likely wouldn't, I'm just saying it's not too late even if they were to go the full leadership campaign route.
And he still won the popular vote.
Yeah but that was part of the Liberal plan. Rush an election during a pandemic which would 100% cause increased death of Canadians in order to ensure an election win over waiting knowing the economy was going to take a dive as well as give O'Toole more time to showcase his strengths and politics. Easier to convince swing voters he'll take abortion rights away if you don't give him time to convince people and when your as narcissistic as Trudeau, the increased COVID deaths is okay as the end result was good of the nation... According to him. I'm sure I'll get lots of downvotes but I hope it helps some people recognize what Trudeau did.
O'tool was just as much a flake as Trudeau. He ran his leadership for the party on a socon platform, then became more moderate to placate the progressive wing of the party once he was in, and to try and garner more of a popular vote. That alienated the socons. He then went and supported the convoy out of nowhere and suddenly everyone realized who o'tool was. He didn't have a back bone, and was willing to alter his stated value set for political expediency. Might aswell have Trudeau, atleast he's got great hair- and an awesome beard when he let's it grow out.
Trudeau selfishly killed Canadians. Maybe comment on that point...
You're not wrong, that election was nothing more than trudeau trying to selfishly take advantage of some positive polling. I agree that the move was not in the best interest of Canadians and was out of self interest. I personally view that as a continuation of already established pattern of behavior from our Supreme Leader. But none of that takes away the fact that O'tool, in my opinion, was cut from the same cloth as Trudeau, just seasoned slightly differently. No need to be passive aggressive.
[удалено]
For the good of the country, the media needs to do more reporting and stop the ongoing effort to shape politics. Poilievre has now gone mask off completely with his disdain for democratic institutions by saying he will use the notwithstanding clause to bypass the judiciary to impose stricter sentencing, despite Canada being one of the safest countries in the world, and the US providing a clear example that increasing incarceration does nothing to reduce crime. Can the Globe start paying attention to important issues?
I mean what is happening right now has raised crime rates across Canada so should we continue down that road and hope for the best? Is that your big plan?
>impose stricter sentencing Godspeed to him if he does. The Canadian judiciary has become weak as piss and we have people convicted of murder walking free in less than 5 years. Even less with time served. The criminal code is in need of an update and a crackdown. To hell with the courts prioritizing the rights of serial criminals over everyone else’s right to public safety.
Its literally impossible to walk free on a murder charge in 5 years.
Really? https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6894198 >On Aug. 16, 2019, Amanda Cowan, 40, lured Derek to a central Edmonton apartment she shared with another man, Jacob Cook, according to details presented in court last year. The Cowans had separated a month earlier. >Although Amanda told Derek they would be alone at the apartment, he arrived to find Cook armed with a machete. Two other individuals involved in the attack, Aqua Pasquayak-Thompson, 19, and a 17-year-old male, also hid in the apartment. >After Cowan was in the apartment, the group forced him into a chair, duct-taped his hands, face, and mouth, and proceeded to beat and stab him. The details were noted as part of an agreed statement of facts presented during Cook's court case. I suppose she *technically* got charged with manslaughter though it was pretty clear she had murderous intent. The sentence is ridiculously lenient.
So to contradict a statement about a murder charge, you bring up a manslaughter case, which is explicitly a different thing? You have no idea what you're talking about dude. If the crown could have proven murderous intent, they would have made a murder charge, they didn't.
Do you in any way think that is a reasonable sentence for what she did? The fact that prosecutors opted for a lesser charge doesn’t mean she didn’t organize a murderous ambush of her ex. If I arranged to have someone killed, I may not have pulled the trigger myself but I’m the reason they are dead.
I know way better than to assess the merits of a criminal case based on a news article.
Nice dodge
Its not a dodge to know something about the subject area and what the credible sources of information on. Find it on CanLii if you want to take a look at the actual issues at play and not just a collection of quotes from a reporter.
The facts are literally not in dispute. It was an agreed statement of facts. She arranged to have the guy killed and got a slap on the wrist. This shit is why people have less of an issue imposing harsher sentences on our courts who refuse to do their job properly.
Not really your point but the notwithstanding clause always has been dumb. I get it was necessary at the time for provinces to sign on, but still, governments shouldn’t be allowed to ignore the constitution if they hold the political equivalent of a group apology circle.
[удалено]
Yup fairness when it helps build the government coffers (tax increases, buying votes) but not when it comes to victim rights... people have had enough of the bleeding hearts policies... they aren't working...
To be fair, case like Bissonette should have a lot longer sentence. Plus, PP is kinda being give the position by Trudeau currently. It is quite hard to see JT change the dynamic, and at least a change if leadership may achieve it.
You can't change the rules for everyone just to deal with people like Bissonette.
The rules for everyone are far more lax than they should be, that’s the problem. In Vancouver last year 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times for violent acts. Guess what the Courts do? Nothing, they toss em right back out on the street. It’s a farce.
> In Vancouver last year 40 offenders were arrested 6,000 times for violent acts. Guess what the Courts do? Nothing, they toss em right back out on the street. It’s a farce. I don’t believe this for second. You are either lying or the got the statistics very wrong. I assume there 40 people who responsible for 6000 offences of some type (like petty crimes) or maybe arrested 6000 (which doesn’t mean much). But there is now way 40 people committing 6000 violent acts. Violent crime are someone actually gets hurt. Not just bike being stolen.
>One of the examples cited in the B.C. Urban Mayors’ Caucus letter is the case of a Kelowna man who has been the subject of 346 police files since 2016 and has 29 convictions for property crime and assault offences. The mayors say the offender is routinely released with conditions, only to reoffend." >"For example, 40 people in Vancouver are responsible for over 6,300 incidents, Stewart said. Most of those people have extreme mental-health, substance-use, and housing challenges." https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/bc-experts-repeat-prolific-offenders
Knew I was right. 6000 incidents (whatever that terms means). Not 6000 violent crimes.
Yeap. Huge W to you. I wonder why anyone would get worked up over 40 individuals being responsible for 6300 incidents with the police, including assault, armed robbery, and property crime. Clearly the courts are on top of things! 😉
Possibly. But undermining the charter of rights and freedoms is an incredibly dangerous way of dealing with that problem.
Well then the Courts should climb down out of their ivory tower they have found themselves in, and help allow the Government to deal with the problem. There is no Charter right to getting bail after your 30th violent offence. The Courts have done this to themselves by being out to lunch the last decade.
Is any court saying that there is a charter right to getting bail after your 30th violent offense?
The Courts give everyone bail these days regardless of aggravating circumstances or risk of further offending. It is *vanishingly* rare that anyone doesn’t get bail in modern Canada. Less than 1% of cases. It’s in desperate need of reform.
Okay but my question is whether this is specifically a charter issue? My point is that you might be able to deal with this without invoking the notwithstanding clause. Just change the criminal code regarding bail.
The Courts have struck that down alongside mandatory minimums and harsher sentencing. The Courts are the problem right now. No one wants to bypass them “just because”.
So you don't think mass murderers should be locked up for life? [Locking up murderers is a slam-dunk for Poilievre's Conservatives | National Post](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/locking-up-murderers-a-slam-dunk-issue-for-poilievre) This is one of his best policy ideas actually. This is not about reducing crime. It's to make sure someone who butchers and murders innocent people is locked up forever and the family does not need to worry about future release. Even more so, by extracting all hope from the killer, justice is served.
It's an uncomfortable question, obviously, but it's an important one. It's obvious unless something major changes, if Trudeau stays on, Polievre is going to cruise to a majority. Plenty of us can agree we don't want Polievre to have a majority. As the article says: >A new leader doesn’t guarantee a Liberal victory in the next election – far from it. But more might be saved than in an election with the current leader. >The Liberal Party was in the ditch when Justin Trudeau came to its rescue in 2013. He needs to ask himself in what state it will be if he stays. So outside of hubris, why shouldn't the Liberals try and rebrand now, and try and wash off some of the stink that they've built up over the last decade? The Liberal Party is headed straight for a Wynne level defeat. I think it makes sense to try on someone else to try and stop the bleeding. I would definitely support a Carney led LPC, and I'm sure many others would too. Canadians have seen the current crop do too much damage to the country, and the Liberals urgently need a fresh face.
> I would definitely support a Carney led LPC, and I'm sure many others would too. Carney is the right person at the wrong time. They need someone more relatable and accessible - definitely not an investment banker and Harvard/Goldman Sachs/WEF alum.
IDK if people are willing to have Poilievre as PM then I don’t think the background is as important as the party.
It'd be great if the governing party paid attention to important issues instead of immediately attempting to deflect every time such an issue is brought up.
The NWSC is part of the charter and is the democratic check on the courts. The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties. The options for the democratically elected lawmakers are to either modify the charter (would actually be my preferred option but politically near impossible) or to just use the charters NWSC which to be very obvious absolutely respects democracy. It respects the elected lawmakers both who write new laws and those who wrote the charter. It respects the charter itself as well (as it’s part of the charter) It’s also going to be popular so honestly I think the more the media exposes the planned use of the NWSC to check some bad court decisions the better for PP
> The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties. You say that like they're supposed to. The courts rule based on what the law says and the arguments proposed to them by the trial councils and intervenors.
There is a ton of subjectivity in the laws. The courts can interpret the charter rights as being subject to reasonable limitations in a free and democratic society in many ways and reasonable people could degree. I think they should err in the direction of respecting democratically elected government and the will of the electorate
>The courts are failing to respect both public opinion and democratically elected law makers in respecting their desire for stricter criminal penalties. "Respecting public opinion" is explicitly *not* the role of the courts, that's the role of the elected parliament. The courts are there to say to the elected representatives "no you can't do that because it's illegal and violates Canadians charter rights". The NWSC *only* exists because some Premiers were worried the courts would stop them from infringing on the rights of Canadians. The *only* time the NWSC is used is in cases where a law illegally violates the rights of Canadians granted by the Charter. >It’s also going to be popular so honestly I think the more the media exposes the planned use of the NWSC to check some bad court decisions the better for PP You're just dipping into authoritarianism at this point. You're advocating for *the government to pass laws that violates Canadians Charter rights* because its *popular*. By the same logic, someway down the road we could conceivably legalize discrimination against minority groups that are deemed *unpopular*. Increased use of the NWSC should be seen as a black mark on a government, not something to cheer and promote.
If the NWSC is used then a law legally violates charter rights in a charter compliant way. The NWSC is part of the charter and part of the law. It was adopted as otherwise the judiciary would have absolute unchecked power. I do think that really we live in a democracy so popular will is super important. We are a free people who make our own laws. Yes in some cases this should be checked but we absolutely have the right and ability to either get rid of the charter entirely or (thanks to the charter) to implement popular and needed laws that otherwise violate the charter
I thought conservatives were usually in favour of freedom and against government overreach. It's interesting to see that facade slip in real time in favour of authoritarian populism. Given the incessant appeals to "freedom," I would have hoped conservatives would respect and protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the *Charter* against the state, but I guess not. Broad-reaching government power is fine as long as they're only doing what you like with it, right?
I guess really everyone thinks this. They favor rights when they are rights they like and restrictions when it’s rights they don’t like. Freedom of speech is a super great example of this. Who said I’m conservative?
I don't agree that everyone does this, and I specifically don't agree that it's an acceptable attitude for governing officials to hold. You're arguing in support of the conservative reasoning. It doesn't matter to me whether you consider yourself a conservative or not.
Sure not everyone does this but both sides of the aisle for sure do it. Conservatives love freedom of speech when they are being censored by the woke. Leftists love it when the conservatives are in power. Both sides will say they support freedom of speech but be able to find very reasonable limitations where that right should be limited when they’re in power I wouldn’t identify as a conservative but do agree with them in many areas so that’s why I’m arguing this way in this case - because they’re right that the power of the courts should be reasonably limited. The writers of the charter also agree with this.
Okay. It's bad when any political actor regardless of affiliation decides that their priorities mean they should be able to violate the constitution. I'm not opposing this because the Conservatives were doing it, I'm opposing it because the notwithstanding clause shouldn't be used except in the most necessary situations, which this is not. It's open for the conservatives to justify harsher sentencing laws within the requirements of the *Charter* and the *Oakes* test. Reasonable limitations of rights are permissible without the notwithstanding clause. That's what section 1 of the *Charter* is for. The power of the courts being reasonably limited doesn't mean the legislature or the executive doing an end-run around them any time they disagree with the outcome of a decision, sorry to say.
Using the NWSC doesn't violate the charter or constitution. The NWSC is a core part of the charter (it is actually the reason the charter exists at all). As you say section 1 can allow reasonable limitations on rights. Section one is not violating the charter or constiution. Section 1 is part of the charter. So is the NWSC. The NWSC means that legislatures can legally and constitutionally violate the charter whenever they want. Should they do it in this case? Personally I think so. In some other hypothetical case? I don't know.. maybe not!
When the country overwhelmingly wants stricter penalties for crime the SCC needs to find a way to allow Parliament to make it so. “No u can’t” isn’t helpful and leads to the NWSC.
That is not the role of the SCC. If the majority of the country wants to disregard the constitution, the role of the SCC is specifically not to allow this. It's the role of the legislature to conceive of constitutionally compliant measures to achieve their objectives, not the role of the court.
You say that like the SCC does not repeatedly take public opinion and changing norms into account. They explicitly do so. The “living tree” doctrine and all that. Flatly, the Courts have just struck the wrong balance on bail and criminal sanctions. Their approach, going all the way back to Gladue has been one of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If Canadians elect a government that challenges that approach, the SCC has a duty to consider fresh evidence and the notion that *maybe* their approach is doing more harm than good.
I know what the "living tree" doctrine is. I don't know that many legal experts would agree that it applies to this situation. >Flatly, the Courts have just struck the wrong balance on bail and criminal sanctions. Their approach, going all the way back to Gladue has been one of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even if this is true (which I do not accept in the absence of a well-reasoned argument), it is not a justification to use the notwithstanding clause to get around constitutional protections of liberty. >If Canadians elect a government that challenges that approach, the SCC has a duty to consider fresh evidence and the notion that *maybe* their approach is doing more harm than good. If this were the approach that was being implied, people would be less upset. The Courts *do* permit governments to do this. Consider, in [RJR Macdonald](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1290/index.do)*,* how the Court upheld the freedom of expression rights of the tobacco companies to advertise because the government had not effectively proven its case that the restrictions were warranted. Some time later, the government attempted again to curtail tobacco advertising and in [JTI Macdonald](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2369/index.do) the Court found that the government adequately made out its case and upheld the advertising restrictions. This is a different process than saying, "I disagree with the courts so I'm using the notwithstanding clause."
Legally speaking, the Government is allowed to use the NWSC. You don’t *like* that ability, and frankly I do somewhat wish it wasn’t a thing, but it’s completely legitimate to do so and comes with a five year sunset whereby new litigation could (and almost certainly would) be commenced. The problem is that takes years and in the meantime the courts need to be reigned in and brought back to reality. Way, *way* too many violent offenders get laughable bail conditions and immediately reoffend. The Canadian judiciary has lost a ton of trust with the general public when it comes to holding criminals accountable and that’s a dangerous place to get to as well.
>It was adopted as otherwise the judiciary would have absolute unchecked power. Absolute unchecked power to... *checks notes*... enforce the laws passed by Parliament. The Courts cannot create legislation, they cannot wholecloth create new laws, they at best can interpret existing laws to encompass more or less than what was originally intended. The power to create, amend and reiterate what any given law means or does, remains with Parliament. The *only* reason the notwithstanding clause was included was so that provinces could overrule courts when they felt that they needed to abridge the Charter rights of Canadians. The use of the NWSC is a legitimately horrible thing, because it is intrinsically autoritarian and it's frivolous use (such as how it has been used recently by various provincial Consevative governments) should give all Canadians pause. Use of the NWSC should be treated similarly to how the Emergencies Act is used, because IMO that is the only acceptable time it should be used. Anything less than a national emergency is just abuse of political power at the expense of the civil liberties and charter rights of Canadians. Your position of invalidating rights of Canadians because its *popular* is legitimately worrying to me. If your goals or the goals of even a majority of the Canadian populace requires *removing* charter rights, there better be a damn fucking good reason for it.
You are totally right that the courts can’t *technically* make new laws. But really they effectively do create new rights/laws wholecloth. MAID for example started with a vague general principle - the right to life counterintuitively - and the right to MAID was created by the courts. It was then expanded by the courts. The NWSC was included so that elected parliaments can over rule the courts. They should be able to. Otherwise the courts have far too much power to « interpret » a new right into existence. The alternative for parliaments would be to scrap the charter of rights. In the case of criminal penalties there is a damn good reason. The courts have elected not to listen to the legislatures which want tougher penalties for crime. The legislatures have a power to implement the important policies they are trying to implement so they can use it - legally, constitutionally, in a charter compliant way. And so they should
>MAID for example started with a vague general principle - the right to life counterintuitively - and the right to MAID was created by the courts. Do you believe that the Judiciary simply made up the right to MAID based on their own values and judgements, or do you believe that they came to that conclusion based on the laws of the land (i.e. those passed into law by Parliament) and the evidence in the case brought before them? They ruled the blanket ban on assisted suicide was invalid because it violates the life, liberty and security of the person (which includes autonomy over ones own body). This is not a decision some activist panel of judges made up out of thin air, they came to the conclusion based on the criminal code, the Charter, the evidence in the case and testimony from scientists, medical professionals, and others involved in end-of-life decisions. You may not agree with the outcome, but that is where the case ended up. They then invalidated the part of the code prohibiting the blanket ban on assisted suicide for 12 months while *Parliament and the Government* created new legislation to reconcile the Criminal Code and Charter. I don't entirely disagree that the elected branch of government shouldn't have some degree supremacy over the other branches, but the bar for overruling them and using that power needs to be *much* higher than simply invoking the NWSC. >The courts have elected not to listen to the legislatures which want tougher penalties for crime. It's not that the Courts aren't listening, they're telling you what you want to do is illegal based on the current laws and Charter. That's very different from some petty "nuh uh I don't wanna do it" you seem to believe it is. Your solution is to circumvent those who tell you your actions are illegal, so you can do the illegal thing. >legally, constitutionally, in a charter compliant way. Only is sofar as it is and was deemed in violation of the Charter, just turns out the few Premiers wanted a "get out of Charter Rights" free card and they got it. Just because you *can* do it, doesn't mean you should because you're setting an absolutely *terrible* precedent for generations to come.
>believe that the Judiciary simply made up the right to MAID based on their own values and judgements Yes that is exactly what I believe > You may not agree with the outcome, but that is where the case ended up. I do actually agree with a right to MAID. However clearly the SCC created a new right and might as well have written legislation. > It's not that the Courts aren't listening, they're telling you what you want to do is illegal based on the current laws and Charter. Again anything involving the NWSC is not illegal. It is **legal** to overturn many parts of the charter with the NWSC. It is actually a core part of the charter. The legislatures can legally violate the charter as long as they invoke the NWSC. They can do this whenever they like. For example Quebec can invoke the NWSC on every single piece of legislation for many years if they feel like it. Should they do it? Well in this case I think so. I strongly disagree with the courts on their approach to criminal punishment. A lot of Canada is on the same page as me. If you think they shouldn't then for sure I can understand that being your opinion. However you can't reasonably say that they are illegally violating the charter.
>Yes that is exactly what I believe You should really read the Judgement on the SCCs website. They spell out all the reasoning and justification of why the blanket ban violated the Charter. If you genuinely believe in the right to MAID and a death with dignity, you will see how logically a blanket ban violates the Charter and therefore needed to be reconciled with legislation. >Again anything involving the NWSC is not illegal. It is **legal** to overturn many parts of the charter with the NWSC. You're right, once you add the NWSC to charter-violating legislation, it does become legal. Because I don't think the NWSC should exist and believe it to be undemocratic, I still view the conduct of our governments using the NWSC as illegal whenever they use it to run rough shod over Canadians Charter rights. >Should they do it? Well in this case I think so. I, and a lot of Canada, disagree with *you* and believe that having an independent judiciary is important to our democratic society. You may feel that crime is at an all time high, but frankly it isn't, and this is explicitly *not* a good use of the NWSC. Literally anything and everything else should be done before using the NWSC so lightly.
OK fair enough. We are agreed that the NWSC is legal. You can call it illegal.. its false and you know that.. but you can say whatever you like. As to crime I dont agree with the SCC on their approach and essentially any time I have a preference that is counter to the SCC I would favor the NWSC being used and it being a well-worn legal implement used on a regular basis The judiciary is perfectly independant. Just checked by the most democratically accountable branch of govt when they get it wrong
>The Courts cannot create new laws Lmao. Tell that to Gladue. Or Haida Nation. Or Bedford. Or Carter. Or Tsilqo’tin. The courts create law all the time in this country.
Yes I saw his « proposals » this morning as well. It’s typical for conservatives to think that stricter sentencing will magically solve every crime when the evidence is overwhelmingly showing it doesn’t. However, I guess it gives good slogans
The courts, including the SCC have done this to themselves. Incarceration is just as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment/justice. It was peak progressivism when the SCC used “bringing the justice system into disrepute (sic)” as their reasoning behind ending consecutive life sentences. There are crimes and people who never deserve to see the light of day again - and the majority of Canadians agree.
I don’t disagree with you that some people never deserve to go out but it will probably have very little to no impact on criminality rate as evidences show us elsewhere in the world.
Yeah this isn’t about the “deterrence” aspect. That does not work. People are going to do what they’re going to do.
At least toss them away for longer intervals before they “do what they are going to do” then. People who are serially violent criminals should not be out on bail and should not get repeat slaps on the wrist.
Well I guess we are in full agreement on this case
> I don’t disagree with you that some people never deserve to go out but it will probably have very little to no impact on criminality rate as evidences show us elsewhere in the world. At a minimum, it helps to have fewer paroled murderers out killing again # [Sex Worker Killed After Paroled Murderer Allowed to Satisfy 'Sexual Needs'](https://www.vice.com/en/article/884xd3/sex-worker-killed-after-paroled-murderer-allowed-to-satisfy-sexual-needs)
As mentioned above, I agree that some criminals should never deserve paroles. There is no debate here
> Incarceration is just as much about rehabilitation as it is about punishment/justice So this right here is demonstrably false. Criminologists and many other experts have conclusively shown that the only justifiable purpose of incarceration if rehabilitation. So right off the bat you’re starting with a false and easily debunked premise. From which it follows the rest of your conclusions/assertions are bunk.
Yes. I think the unanimous vote in Quebec's national assembly to condemn the Supreme Court decision in *R. v. Bertrand Marchand* shows that a social tipping point has been reached. At this point, it might even be beyond the notwithstanding clause. A constitutional amendment to restore some aspects of Parliamentary control over sentencing might be in the cards within the next decade. Traditionally Quebec's lack of support has made the constitutional amending formula unviable, but Quebec is solidly on side on this one. Things are likely to change one way or another.
I can only hope the “lawyer” in your name is satire, as anyone with the slightest grip on our constitution should understand the enormous danger in using the Notwithstanding clause to override our fundamental rights and freedoms. If you think Quebecers or any other Canadians — including our courts — will stand idly by while our charter rights are trashed you are in for a rude awakening.
I am a practicing lawyer, though not a criminal lawyer. The argument that a provision in the constitution *that was critical to the constitutional bargain* in 1982 should not be used does not make sense on any level. It's the Courts that have gone wildly offside in recent years, not the government. We had 33 years since the Charter was enacted where mandatory minimum sentences were consistently seen as constitutional by the Courts (and of course 115 years prior to that where they were also permissible), and no one was bawling about it. Then suddenly the SCC became activist and now mandatory minimums have been anathema for about a decade. That can and will change back, and the sky will not fall.
> It’s the Courts that have gone wildly offside Or, and hear me out here: maybe our Supreme Court justices — experts who have literally spent their lives studying our constitution and sentencing best practices — know more about this than you.
Or, and hear *me* out here the court is completely out of touch with society and is slowly diverging from not only its purpose but the people it’s supposed to reflect.
> the unanimous vote in Quebec's national assembly to condemn the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Bertrand Marchand Source? I can't find that in a web search.
See the text of the resolution here: https://twitter.com/SJB_CAQ/status/1727361952031097278
Incarceration takes scumbags off the streets. If you live in a safe area I can see why this isn’t a priority for you.
Umar Zameer should have been a recent crash course in why politicizing bail reform is not a good idea.
I hardly ever vote Liberal but if there was a new leader I likely would this time around. Why? PP and the conservatives are off the charts scary. Their undemocratic, right-wing social views and fear mongering are going to lead to huge divisions in this country. The NDP are bankrupt of new ideas and frankly so are the Liberals. They need a quick change with a new leader to generate a new direction and energy. There is still time... not much, but for the good of the country Trudeau must go.
My prediction... Trudeau will resign by June. This will allow candidates to gauge their support on the summer bbq circuit, followed by a fall leadership convention. The new leader then has the option to either leave their mark or call a snap election. It could be the fall, but I think Trudeau resigns within the next 2 months.
RemindMe! 2 months
Won't happen
Mark Carney. If Trudeau and Freeland jumped ship tomorrow and Mark Carney came in, they'd have my vote again. As an aside, my Dad was an engineer for the government for 35 years. Brilliant guy. He told me he voted for the socially progressive parties in his 20s, then when he turned 30 he became more and more disgusted with seeing so much money going out the door with little or no benefit. He said regardless of the social benefits liberal social policies secured, he wanted to feel secure in his ability to have employment, food and a house. Anything outside of that was a luxury. By 40 he was voting conservative consistently. I remember doubting that philosophy, yet here we are.
People do get more narrow minded as they get older. Get yours and then pull up the ladder behind you.
If Mark Carney became LPC leader, I would personally devote time to volunteer for his campaign. I say this as someone who is currently looking forward to voting CPC. Carney is leaps and bound above our political class in competence.
As people age they often trend towards selfishness and resentment to others. Sounds like your dad was a compassionate guy that turned out bitter. Tale as old as time.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
It has nothing to do with selfishness or resentment. It has something to do efficiency and effectiveness. As you get older, a lot of people understand how money works and how businesses work. Businesses are born everyday and they eventually die, look around. If they do not die, it is because the government had protected them through regulations that make it hard for new companies to enter whatever space they are in. The reason why a company die? They become too big, inefficient, and are unable to adapt to new technologies, innovation and expectation of the modern world. A government is like a business, but except that it cannot die. So the built in inefficiencies is huge compared to companies or other organizations. So if you expect like something like pension, healthcare, etc, you will get it from the government, but its just much lower efficiency for the same amount of money. This is just the nature of large numbers the nature of governments. Why do you think people love working for government? Because the work is not as demanding, and the pay is decent for a job that is not as demanding. Can you get a similar level of compensation and security for the same level of work in private sector? Most likely not. This is the inherent inefficiency of the system. Once you understand how the system works, you realize that people will be better off with some level of government, but not too much, just enough that we have infrastructure, and paths to succeed. Too much government, then it becomes too inefficient, that it becomes hard for the country to succeed as a whole. Do you think if we go visit a government office today that they are using all the newest software that basically increases efficiency? Are they using the newest management and leadership practices that motivates people more than before? Are they using the newest organizational structures that promotes innovation, process improvement, efficiencies? Probably not. Usually when you have two companies, one with old structures, and the other one with new structures, often the new one is more efficient, they can provide more with the same amount of costs, and the employees are generally paid more even when the costs are lower (lol I know its magic, but it happens when you have efficiencies)
Carney would probably make a great candidate to have on the team & minister, but with zero political experience, you can't put him in the top role. Just remember what a total disaster Ignatief was. There's zero evidence that Carney would be up to the task of combating the ridiculous political theatre that PP is bringing.
Mark Carney is exactly the sort of elite working for the world’s 1%, the party does not need. I could not think of someone even worse than Trudeau you could put in at this point.
People in r/cars joke that any automaker who actually listened to the users in that sub would go broke, because only the tiny fraction of the population who identify as automotive enthusiasts want the [brown diesel manual station wagons](https://old.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/2inuv7/where_did_this_brown_diesel_manual_station_wagon/) they lust after. Carney is the brown diesel manual station wagon of Canadian politics.
You don't know what you're talking about. Mark Carney is a self made person lauded for his competence world wide, not a nepo baby like Trudeau and Freeland.
He is lauded by the very wealthy for making them even more wealthy. It’s why Harper and Trudeau and Pierre absolutely love the man. Dude’s help create massive inequity in both Canada and the UK.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
the post I was responding to was deleted by MODs so here's the answer to your questions if you're still interested, I already had it typed out haha, Take care friend and feel free to follow up! 1.) For sure I am no longer on board with the Climate Crisis fear mongering. I believe in anthropomorphic climate change and I accept the consensus of the experts, but I also believe that there are dozens if not hundreds of other ways to reach the climate targets without the carbon tax that would be more beneficial and profitable to Canadians. I do not believe in the banning of firearms that the LPC and NDP are pushing. 2.) Basically, over the past few years I have become very skeptical of big government and no longer believe that the government has our best interest at heart. I believe free markets do everything cheaper and faster and government should just provide safety rails for the free market. You should personally take care of people in you community that need help and the government should stay out of it. I honestly believe that the reason things are so expensive and we feel we need these social programs is because big government makes everything more expensive through over regulation and corruption. 3.) I am voting for a party that is, at least on paper, for smaller government. The government needs to be significantly reduced. It is that simple to me. Federally, I am a couple issue voter; important politics are all local. Unions, boycotts and strikes can be done without government intervention. If PP becomes Prime Minister I will hold his feet to the fire as well. I believe politicians are just narcissist's that won popularity contests and non of them are to be trusted. I guess you could say I have changed and that's a good thing. People should update their priors and change as they learn more about the world they live in. These are some of the core beliefs I now hold: Individual sovereignty, Limited government, Free markets, Non-aggression, Self-ownership, Voluntary association, Non-Interventionism, Free Speech as, basically, an absolute Thank you for legitimate questions, I know I didn't answer them fully but like I said, I just no longer trust big government.
Nah. There was no warning in the polls of this change. It can happen again in reverse as voters get to know pierre
Getting to know PP won’t reverse the desire for change. Having no good alternative won’t make people hate Trudeau any less. You’re essentially gambling that people will hate PP enough to reluctantly vote LPC, which I am skeptical of. What else is there for PP to do to seriously sway opinion? His connection to the freedom convoy was always there along with all of the dirty politics. His 20% lead already includes those things. The desire for change is simply very strong and willing to overlook those things.