Westey
Active Member
I think this is your answer.I guess I am asking what is driving his high approval rating, if we have not seen any substantial improvement in our daily life?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-cbc-funding-1.7501902
I think this is your answer.I guess I am asking what is driving his high approval rating, if we have not seen any substantial improvement in our daily life?
What do you mean?
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.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.
...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. /bleahExternal factors. Trump being the biggest. The other being Pierre Poilievre being pretty unliked right now.
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 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 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.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.
My bet is the more the US removes itself from this conflict the better luck everyone else will have of getting this straight back in to order. The dispute is better negotiated when the bully has left the room...
Sounds like a bit of lip service to somewhat quell Trump's threats against Nato.
Let's see how it goes in the courts.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.
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.Let's see how it goes in the courts.
Paywall free: https://archive.is/0AP68![]()
Opinion: Canada’s Supreme Court is about to hear the case to end all cases
The court battle over Quebec’s Bill 21 will determine whether there should be constraints on the notwithstanding clause – and whether rights are truly protected in Canadian democracywww.theglobeandmail.com
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.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.




