Videodrome
Senior Member
Forgive my bluntness, but I don’t want an edgelord crypto bro as Prime Minister.
|
|
|
PM Justin Trudeau's Canada
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
afransen
Senior Member
If it makes you feel better, he is just faking it for political expediency.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Unfortunately that works....
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Look who's number two.
picard102
Senior Member
Her son is at it again. This time going after a councillor who had the gaul to say she should resign. Orchestrating a donation to a pet project of the councillors only to back out and give it to another community, so he can blame the councillor.
Videodrome
Senior Member
News.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Unless it's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms anything Trudeau enacts can be just as easily canceled by his successor. But really, no one is asking for this, just leave it alone. Canada is not a theocracy like the USA, their abortion policy has as much weight on us as whatever they do in Brazil.
afransen
Senior Member
This victory will embolden the pro-lifers in the CPC. Interim leader had to order Conservative MPs and Senators to keep their traps shut following the leak.
Northern Light
Superstar
In respect of abortion, in Canada, the politics are simply in a much different place:
Lets compare this to a recent U.S. poll:
Lets look at that in ratios, for both countries Pro Choice to Pro Life
Canada 6:1
U.S. 1.4: 1
Not the same starting place, at all.
Lets compare this to a recent U.S. poll:
Lets look at that in ratios, for both countries Pro Choice to Pro Life
Canada 6:1
U.S. 1.4: 1
Not the same starting place, at all.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Feds are doing another round of consultation on enhancing EI.
They are making it somewhat of a pain in that feedback is by email only, nothing directly online.
The page is here:
www.canada.ca
Note that there are criteria on what you must include, maximum word count and all sort of other stuff only someone not really seeking input would ask for.........
There are two themes on which feedback is being solicited:
and
Excuse the font-size, that's directly from their page.
I would encourage people to submit on the subject.
I haven't yet written mine out, but the gist will be:
Duration is fine; but Income replacement rate is too low, it should be raised to at least 65%, for the general program; should be at least 75% for both disability and parental leave.
If cost control is needed, duration in the general program could be reduced (current max 45 weeks); also the benefits rate in the general program could decline after week 13.
There needs to be a minimum weekly benefit, of no less than $300
The dependents benefit needs to cover people with non-child dependents and those whose children are dependent in some circumstances (beyond 18)
Penalties for working should be reduced, as getting a job should be encouraged.
They are making it somewhat of a pain in that feedback is by email only, nothing directly online.
The page is here:
EI Consultation: Submission guide (phase 2) - Canada.ca
We invite you to participate in this consultation by sharing with us your views related to the following themes and key questions.
Note that there are criteria on what you must include, maximum word count and all sort of other stuff only someone not really seeking input would ask for.........
There are two themes on which feedback is being solicited:
and
Excuse the font-size, that's directly from their page.
I would encourage people to submit on the subject.
I haven't yet written mine out, but the gist will be:
Duration is fine; but Income replacement rate is too low, it should be raised to at least 65%, for the general program; should be at least 75% for both disability and parental leave.
If cost control is needed, duration in the general program could be reduced (current max 45 weeks); also the benefits rate in the general program could decline after week 13.
There needs to be a minimum weekly benefit, of no less than $300
The dependents benefit needs to cover people with non-child dependents and those whose children are dependent in some circumstances (beyond 18)
Penalties for working should be reduced, as getting a job should be encouraged.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Good. Then Canadians will see their true colours and vote them into the hinterland. Trudeau's no dummy as he triggers and provokes the theocratic base of the CPC to react.
It's no surprise that English Canada was in-part populated by folks fleeing those nutbars to the south.
kEiThZ
Superstar
And yet despite the US having a clear majority in favour of access to abortion, they are moving to reduce those rights.
I don't think the risk is as low as people think in Canada. What is stopping any government from weaponizing the courts, the way that Republicans did in the US? We don't require any parliamentary consultation at all for judicial appointments. And a fixed retirement age of 75, gives any scheming government plenty of runway to remake the courts. The only difference between Canada and the US, is that we don't have an institution designed to enable minoritarian rule, as they do with their Senate. But in theory, if we got a sufficiently motivated party that managed to hold on to power for 10-15 years, they could start down the same path the Americans went.
That said, this also shows important democracy is. The Americans have been particularly apathetic about their voting for a while. And they've been less likely to prioritize rights issues when they vote. And so they are where they are. I don't expect we'll see that level of apathy in Canada, and there would probably be a swift backlash against any government that attempts to substantially roll back rights. Instead, I think the real risk is simply rolling back the offering of such services in the first place. See New Brunswick for example.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
There is no system beyond corruption, and/or corrosive behavior.
But the Canadian Court has a long-standing reputation, and so far both parties have rarely shown any inclination to politicize it..
The U.S. system of checks and balances produced what they have today.
I'm not opposed to reasonable checks and balances, but in the case of the Courts ......I'd rather see no trace of overt partisanship in the judiciary.
For the most part, we're there, here.
I'm not inclined to fix what isn't broken.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Don't let your guard down ...
Northern Light
Superstar
I wouldn't; but I don't know that there is an obvious safe-guard one can build.
Establish a super-majority rule, one party may achieve that, or perhaps 2 may misbehave...........
Or as we have seen in the U.S. just now, it would appear that at least 2 candidates either lied outright or certainly mislead questioners willfully in their confirmation hearings.
****
You can choose to protect more rights explicitly in the constitution. But doing so can be problematic. How many rights would you like to protect from legislative whim?
Surely any attempt at this would also mean the end of the 'reasonable limits' clause which is after all entirely a matter of interpretation.
Again, I'm in favour of a more robust democracy and healthy rights protection, but I don't know that you could build any system immune to those who would willfully subvert it.