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

Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,243
Points
910
“Coalition to Protect Canada”…??

3:32am local time. Exhausted. But damnit this sounds too dumb to not Google right now 😅
Near as I can figure from the sparse info available, they are a “public interest group” of progressives, whose sole goal is to ensure that Conservatives never form Government again.

Of course, they are entirely opaque on who the funding comes from (I would bet that the lion’s share is almost certainly foreign). And really, only one party benefits: the LPC.

Naturally, if the CPC even so much as gets a Christmas Card from a Republican, the CBC goes nuts, with 24/7 coverage about the evils of foreign influence in Canadian politics.

Something like this? The lack of curiosity from the CBC news department speaks volumes…
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,492
Points
890
I can’t find anything on them from some cursory check. Nothing recent on Google or Twitter. Can’t find a website.

That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,670
Points
1,160
That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.
…because under fear of severe verbal chastising by the Ethics Commissioner, the Liberals will suddenly become transparent (like they promised in 2015…
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
555
Points
910
That’s one of the challenges about the writ not having dropped; the restrictions and conditions around election spending have yet to come into effect. At this point it’s a free for all.
The campaign has been well underway for several months now.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
998
Points
1,060
Trudeau's pulling out the big guns, if this doesn't scream election announcement in the next few weeks I don't know what does.

Trudeau: “Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion"

“It’s time men stop telling other men that it’s okay for them to decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies.”

 
Last edited:

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
630
He points the finger at men as the big, bad ogres but there are numerous groups associated with, and headed by women who also oppose anything goes abortion. But they never get mentioned or any headlines at all.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
433
Points
930
We haven't reached the point where we divide people into sub-groups. That comes later.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
514
Points
940
Given how polling is showing the gap between the two parties is growing, it's no wonder the liberals are playing that card. It's there is case of tight race break glass card, every time. Each time the Cpc doesn't react enough to put the issue to bed.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,670
Points
1,160
Actually they (CPC) react too much in the sense of providing too much (more) information than just saying ‘what I support…’ and leave it at that. If Scheer had answered the same way as Trudeau, it would have been done and dusted years ago…(Trudeau’s personal own believe I’d Roman Catholic compliant right to life, but he’s smart to couch his words in unassailable “women shouldn’t have to be told by men how to manage their own bodies” phrasing. O’Toole’s response remains closer to Scheer’s response than to Trudeau. Just agree with the PM because it is the right answer for the great majority of Canadians. This incessant desire by CPC leaders yo them keep talking and explain, ‘but if’…just slides then back into the mainstream Canadians’ penalty box. Sure, CPC-donating members will like it, but that won’t provide much consolation for the next four years as they bemoan why they didn’t get elected.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,160
Points
940
Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
74
Points
430
Trudeau's pulling out the big guns, if this doesn't scream election announcement in the next few weeks I don't know what does.

Trudeau: “Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion"




So basically restating what Erin O'Toole said the other day, just without the mention of the federal government having no authority to dictate health care spending to provinces.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
630
Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.
It may be written in the book but the cons. have a hidden agenda!
 

hattrick72

Member
Reaction score
29
Points
380
Simple enough is to say "If we got a big enough petition (name some very large number) from Canadians to reopen the discussion, then we honour that, until then the issue is off the table regardless of what any individual MP says" You also state that the CPC allows people to have different ideas and say them because that is democracy and freedom of speech, but the parties agenda is right here in this book.
After the Liberals released their OIC on riffles/guns, what would stop another party from releasing an OIC on abortion? I say this because the law that was made was struck down at least partially and what we do now doesn't follow what the law intended.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,492
Points
890
After the Liberals released their OIC on riffles/guns, what would stop another party from releasing an OIC on abortion? I say this because the law that was made was struck down at least partially and what we do now doesn't follow what the law intended.
Because the law as currently written expressly provides for the classification and regulation of firearms by Orders in Council. That's how firearms regulations worked already. There was already a statutory provision, court tested, that makes that a regulatory mechanism. I don't think there's a lot of understanding, generally, about how statute and regulations interact. Things can be criminalized by regulation, yes, BUT only where there is an enabling statute, passed by legislature, that makes it an offense to breach regulations passed by OIC. This approach allows for better nimbleness and flexibility when things change. A couple other real life examples- changes to impaired driving law in the past few years created a regulatory power to define blood concentrations of certain drugs as was done for a long time already with alcohol. While for alcohol it's a nice easy 'over .08', because we're dealing with a single known substance, there are hundreds of drugs out there and they're constantly changing, along with evolving science. Creating a statutory provision to allow regulatory definition of blood drug content makes it easier to deal with each one as the science settles, rather than having to pass a bill each time some guy creates a new mix of crap in their kitchen and gets high off of it. Another off the wall example - it's an offense to violate Canadian sanctions against the Syrian government. The Special Economic Measures Act (statute) creates an authority for an OIC to define prohibited (sanctioned) activity, but the statute still creates the offense. This let's the government tighten or loosen sanctions through simple regulation rather than having to go to Parliament each time. So that's the sort of system that's in play with guns, and other things as well. Note that I'm not defending the wisdom of the approach on that specific issue of guns- just describing the legal mechanics.

Provision of abortion is a health matter, and so, in the sense that it's a regulated medical practice, is regulated by the provinces. The criminalization of abortion, as was previously the case, was an exercise of the constitutional authority vested in the federal government to pass criminal law. The practice was criminalized through the mechanism of requiring there to be a certificate issued by a 'Therapeutic abortion committee', which WAS a provincially regulated entity. The Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing abortion in the absence of such a certificate was a violation of a woman's life, liberty, and security of the person under the Charter.

The Morgentaler ruling made it very clear:

State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an infringement of security of the person.

This breach was not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. In effect, the government does not get to criminalize abortion. Any regulatory roundabout that attempted to achieve the same ends not in an aboveboard manner would be subject to legal challenge and would fail.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,670
Points
1,160
So basically restating what Erin O'Toole said the other day, just without the mention of the federal government having no authority to dictate health care spending to provinces.
👍🏼

Exactly. Welcome to Canadian politics. Lead, follow or watch from the sidelines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top