News   Mar 23, 2026
 782     1 
News   Mar 23, 2026
 1.3K     0 
News   Mar 23, 2026
 1.2K     0 

PM Mark Carney's Canada

I think the issue is that PP is not a compelling alternative. He was riding high because fatigue with Trudeau was so strong. Replacing Trudeau with Carney achieved what many Canadians wanted, and many are sighing with relief that they don't need to accept PP as the alternative.
Also not to mention that the Conservatives under PP have been running an attack campaign that is currently being waged against the Carney government which was started against Trudeau after PP became leader with the help of Jeff Ballingall’s company. Same guy who runs Ontario and Canada proud pages online.
 
External factors. Trump being the biggest. The other being Pierre Poilievre being pretty unliked right now.
...I always had the uncomfortable thought that if Harris had of won, that we may ended up with PP instead. And the MAGA flip would of been of a Maple kind. /bleah
 
...I always had the uncomfortable thought that if Harris had of won, that we may ended up with PP instead. And the MAGA flip would of been of a Maple kind. /bleah
If you have to choose between the flipped situations, what would you rather have? It's hard to know what would've been better for Canada in the long-term. Without a trade war, the economy may have been better in the short-term.
 
If you have to choose between the flipped situations, what would you rather have? It's hard to know what would've been better for Canada in the long-term. Without a trade war, the economy may have been better in the short-term.
I get that...but philosophically though, I'd rather not have to choose between two undesirable states regardless if one ends up being better than the other. What gains that would be made with one would likely be wiped out by the loss and roll back of civil liberties and freedoms and while our governance is ran by unfit moronic bigots which is something we should never have to deal with. So it shouldn't be ever a choice to begin with, IMO.

...besides, it would be rather embarrassing and undignified to our national identity if we became a joke to the rest of the world.
 
With regards to the upcoming By-Election in Scarborough Southwest, I noticed a significant lack of NDP signage in the area. In fact, there is none.

Right now, the area is populated with Green Party and Liberal signage.

As everyone knows, I originally thought the NDP would gain a foothold here but the vibe I am getting currently is that it is safe Liberal although the Greens may snag a bit of the vote. The NDP have all but disappeared this go around.

I have gotten calls from the Green Party and visits from the LPC but complete silence from the NDP.

They have a candidate but I am wondering if this caught them off guard leaving them with a Candidate in name only.
 
The Prime Minister's statement on the Air Canada crash:

1000022056.jpg

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7139041

Transport Canada working with airline, FAA after fatal runway crash at N.Y. airport: minister

Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon offered condolences to all affected by an incident where an Air Canada Express passenger jet collided with a fire truck while landing at New York's LaGuardia airport late Sunday, killing the pilot and first officer and injuring others.
 
Last edited:
For some reason "Stockholm syndrome" comes to mind. But I'm not about to sit here and defend Bill 21 either. As you point out, it is aimed at one religion in particular and something tells me that women's rights is not the real reason why it was passed.
Let's see how it goes in the courts.

Paywall free: https://archive.is/0AP68
 
Let's see how it goes in the courts.

Paywall free: https://archive.is/0AP68
A good opinion piece. I find it odd that the author still argues for keeping the non-withstanding clause, but limiting it to "reasonable" use cases. The non-withstanding clause is a poison pill for the Charter. I struggle to imagine any "reasonable" cases for its use.
 
A good opinion piece. I find it odd that the author still argues for keeping the non-withstanding clause, but limiting it to "reasonable" use cases. The non-withstanding clause is a poison pill for the Charter. I struggle to imagine any "reasonable" cases for its use.
It would take a very activist Court to interpret some manner of reasonableness into a piece of legislation that contains no reference to it. The entire rationale of the NWC was to exempt legislation from the 'reasonable test' of Section 1 in the first place.
 

Back
Top