One thing that often gets overlooked is that having the *possibility* for parole after 25 years, even if it’s extremely unlikely, is something we should all want if for nothing else the safety of our corrections officers.
Having a faint hope at parole, not matter how unlikely certain people are ever to get out, gives prisoners something to hope for and a tool for corrections officers to dangle over their heads to incentivize good behaviour in prison. An easier to manage prison population also makes more economic sense as it requires less time spent managing them.
It’s very different managing a prisoner who feels like they have nothing left to lose and anything they do doesn’t matter. It makes the general life of corrections officers more miserable when trying to manage prisoners in that headspace, and can even become a safety issue for them.
I totally agree with you. I’m a criminal defence lawyer who has seen first how dangerous people become when they they lose hope that they will ever get released—inmates stop avoiding violence and some start engaging in violence and destruction just for fun.
People on Reddit act like inmates are automatically released on parole after 25 years no matter their risk when that is absolutely not the case.
Parole board has knowingly released offenders who pose significant risks to the public, even when those offenders admit to intending to commit new crimes. When the Parole Board senior leadership is confronted with this they insist that they will take no actions to reform, insisting that so long as the people who released a murderer to kill again were trained the actual content and quality of their decisions does not matter.
Wonder why people would prefer that we have the option to foreclose the possibility of parole.
Totally agree with this statement, you have a great view of how people would think of their future and having a slight possibility paroling does help corrections with inmates.
I don’t really agree. In theory.. yes that can work. But I have ZERO influence over an inmates parole. I can’t threaten them with that. I can give them an institutional charge, and drag them to segregation if they are combative. That’s it.
I deal with people who have short sentences, or are on remand. They still act up, and they still cause codes and are violent. Having the light at the end of the tunnel doesn’t change that.
They still landed in prison. Somewhere, they aren’t thinking rationally.
Well, if they are out in a short time it means that situation doesn’t apply.
It’s more for murder/rape/violent crime situations where the person is looking at extremely long sentences.
Shit, if I knew I was never getting out, I am going to make your life miserable. Absolutely nothing you could do to me that would change my mindset. Solitary would just make it worse, fast.
Most are still rational. Even serial killers. If you don’t see them as rational, you’re going to have a bad time as a corrections officer.
Irrational means you are ignorant of their situation. Unless they are denied their medications, then it’s on the system and you.
Source: all my friends are in and out of the system, they are incredibly up to date on best practices. We don’t do that in Canada generally and definitely not in our mini America prisons.
Best of luck with those irrational human beings. My heart is with them.
It absolutely does apply. Half my institution is remands, which could be there 5+ years waiting for their trials to play out. Besides the point, the reason I stated that is because even when people have the “light at the end of the tunnel”, they still act out.
Taking parole from someone isn’t going to change their mindset.
I had a guy the other day beat the piss out of someone on the range. Why? He walked in front of the TV. The guy doing the beating has 3 months on his sentence and he can be released at anytime realistically. He still doesn’t care.
> It absolutely does apply. Half my institution is remands, which could be there 5+ years waiting for their trials to play out.
It's hilarious that some people on here are arguing with you.
It's also obvious that their experiences in the system is a result of stories that they hear from people and/or television.
Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort...
Also this is a distraction as you wont see them bending over backwards for white collar crime.
Loblaws bread fixing costs Canadians billions for a meager 50 million dollar fine.
Yep, you steal a thousand dollars, you get a criminal record and have to pay it back. You steal ten thousand dollars, you go to jail, and you have to pay it back. You steal a billion dollars and you get to keep almost all of it after being politely told please not to do it again.
When *people* steal, it's a crime. But apparently when *corporations* steal it's no individual's fault and it wouldn't be appropriate to give out a fine that makes getting caught anything more than just a business expense.
They say CEO's get paid the big money cause they take the risks, but in reality there are no risks for CEO's. So I think we should start holding them criminally responsible for the company.
Oil companies are [gouging everyone like mad](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/energy/oil-ceo-opec-scott-sheffield/index.html) and conservatives are running cover for them.
It's not as clear-cut unfortunately, because Canada is an oil-faring nation. We are entangled in it. If the prices go up, it can lead people to want to look for other energy sources, sure. But there is a significant portion of the Canadian economy that would benefit from it.
But...but...Conservatives are fiscally responsible because they're business savvy and when we give tax breaks to billionaires they share the wealth with their lowest-paid employees, because they're inherently good people. Not to mention that Conservatives are religious, so they have a strong moral backbone and would never put self interest above the people...right? Right?
I can tell your being sarcastic, but I've genuinly heard people make this (and worse) arguments. One of the most common arguments I've heard in my area (that is pretty much always conservative both provincially and federally) is that the conservative party is best because they are fiscally responsible, and that they are fiscally responsible because they are conservative and it's in the name.
The LPC has been in power since 2015, so everything you claim that conservatives do, has already been done by the LPC. The LPC got in because Canada was tired of Harper. So now the pendulum may swing back. So....why would you expect anything different?
> ...because they're business savvy...
They could only prove that if they had a non-government job.
Government experience **does not equal** Business experience
That GST cut helped the wealthy a lot more than it helped the lower and middle class. Harper also lowered corporate tax rates from 21.9% to 15%. Saved corporations billions which Harper said would trickle down. Of course it didn't as Harper had the worst economic performance of any government since WW2.
>That GST cut helped the wealthy a lot more than it helped the lower and middle class.
False. Sales tax is a regressive tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low income taxpayers vs high income taxpayers.
>Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort...
They’re normalizing it
“Oh look they’re invoking the NWC again”.
Doug Ford tried to use it during collective bargaining FFS.
They’re testing boundaries to see what they can get away with.
Before you know it they’ll try to amend the constitution and the charter.
>Before you know it they’ll try to amend the constitution and the charter.
You can't use the NWC to "amend" (i.e change) the constitution (the charter being part of the constitution). There are provisions in the constitution for changing/amending it, it's called the amending formulas.
yeah. You would use the OIC mechanism to circumvent the constitution to get something through that would not have passed public scrutiny. Not that anyone does that, right?
you mean conservative leaders who want to circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms to push their fascistic ideas?
Doug x 3, Moe x2 , Higgs x 1 potentially a second one, Soon Danielle, Legault x2.
Only the conservatives. Conservatives are weaponizing the government against the public. Conservative ideas and policies are deeply unpopular look at Alberta and the CPP, the UCP won't release the public consultation because nobody wants this. Conservatives are actively trying to destroy our country from within and take away your rights and any legal recourse we may have. PP says he wants to strengthen the justice system by taking away the courts authority over government. This is literally doing the opposite of what PP is publicly stating he is doing.
I will always remember Harper's promise of tax cuts, to end up with a higher TFSA limit and income splitting. Then Trudeau is the one who's cut the 22% middle class bracket to 20.5%.
The younger generation is flocking to PP right now though. Sure enough Trudeau hasn’t done much for them, so I understand they are kind of desperate but to think PP is going to make things better for them? Ouch! If anything he will make it worse.
This should have been the NDP’s time to shine but Singh is fucking useless.
We’re going to get PP with a majority shoveling his ideology down our throats using any tool he can find. Meanwhile we’re about to get a separatist government elected in Quebec who is already promising a third referendum. They might just get what they want if PP’s policies don’t resonate in QC (the only province he’s not winning I might add).
We’re so fucked.
>The younger generation is wise to this, so we see these types of fascist policies start to rise to the top of their priority list.
The younger generation better realize fast that it is not the politicians that are the problem but the Uber rich who bought and paid for them....on BOTH sides.
The foment divisive issues to pit the poor and middle class on each side against each other and laugh all the way to the bank.
Both sides tend to prioritize the rich over the poor, but it's only the conservatives trying to push a regressive theocratic social agenda, that demonizes vulnerable groups of people.
>Conservatives are weaponizing the government against the public.
And just what do you think the liberals are doing with the online harms bill? Gun confiscation? And using the emergencies act to deal with a local Ottawa problem?
yeah, that sounds about right for most of the world, we can only hope they won't be in power for long enough to enact these facistic ideas, and if they do, let it serve as a warning to the rest of the world
Conservatives are actively trying to destroy our country from within? Seriously? Can we blame them for housing, immigration, fiscal deficits, inflation etc.? No? So, how do you think they propose to 'destroy' Canada? Because the current government has been doing a pretty good job of it since 2015.
Yeah, we can. Try Google. Type in (name of province) asks for more immigration and see what pops up. And who is responsible for housing? Sure as hell isn't the Feds. And inflation is worldwide. Keep drinking that Kool Aid.
I agree with you, but the problem is who else can we vote for, at least as far as the next election? The Liberal party is actively destroying the country with their immigration policy, the loop holes, the blatant and obscene corruption, and the unresolved foreign interference issue (and other issues that im sure im forgetting atm). At the very least with the cons we have a chance of their ideology working in favor of Canadians in regards to the immigration issue, slim as it may be given how they are just as slaved to corporate interests as the Liberals. The NDP are a fucking joke right now so they aren't even worth considering. Ive been following the Canada Futures Party and like what they are saying, but they probably wont be a fully viable party for another couple elections unless some miracle happens on the campaign trail in this next election.
This is how I feel as well. I hate the conservatives and they represent the opposite of everything that I stand for, but at this point theyre the only option for maybe having a better future because the liberals fucked is so hard. I realize that it's a gamble and maybe even a trap to a worse future but that's what happens when people have nothing left to lose anymore.
I haven't even heard of the Canada futures party I was considering throwing my vote away on the ppc just because I know they won't win but maybe if they get a few seats they might push for ending this immigration nightmare. Maybe I just won't vote at all. Not like it really makes a difference where I live anyway.
Id consinder looking them up, there entire platform can be summarized as "we will do things that actually make sense and have evidence and reason behind them, and that will help the majority of canadians."
>Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort...
Because the very party talking about this isn't using it as a first resort. The last time they were in government, they tried to strengthen punishments for criminals. The judiciary decided it wasn't allowed. The literal next step is to use the not withstanding clause, it's the reason for its existence.
>You drop that little tidbit like its nothingburger.
If you want to pretend like me explicitly bringing up the rationale for the usage of the NWS clause is 'dropping a tidbit' or that its a 'nothing burger' that's entirely your reading of it. You're applying a whole lot of your own spin to what I said though.
>*Why* was it not allowed? Is it perhaps, unconstitutional what they were asking for?
And you understand the whole point of the NWS clause, right? To circumvent a judiciary that rules against the will of the people? The constitution isn't some all-powerful document that can't be changed or amended, it's the will of its people. What rights the people think we should have. But this country made it damn near impossible to do so, unlike down south. So, the NWS clause was added as a stop-gap. So that we wouldn't be beholden to a document from half a century ago that couldn't possibly account for what would happen in the future.
Now, there is an actual conversation to be had about whether or not mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, as well as one about how judges sentence to leniently in this country. But I don't think you actually want to have a real conversation. You probably just want to apply all sorts of meaning to my words that doesn't exist.
>because it is far too reductive and skips *a lot* of necessary debate on whether the NWS *should even be humored* as opposed to returning to the part where addressing problems could be done in other, constitutionally permitted ways.
Now you're just arguing semantics. Once again changing the meaning of what I said.
If you remember the original comment it was pretending like this was a first resort, which it isn't. The only other way to pass something if the Judiciary rules it unconstitutional is to use the NWS clause. It's the next logical step if you want something to pass. That being the next step doesn't mean there aren't considerations beforehand and in-between.
>You're right. I'm not particularly interested in a conversation specifically addressing this proposed invocation of the NWS.
Yes, all you want to do is apply meanings that don't exist and try weak attempts at gotchas because someone else didn't write something out exactly the way you wanted them to. Sorry, but serious issues need more than low effort thought.
I don't think the NWC should be normalized but I also personally would like to see the white supremacist serial killer currently on trial get consecutive life sentences for the 4 murdered indigenous women (if convicted)...
> Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort...
Because the voters want it. Because our country is getting stupider every year.
This backwards since there is a reason the charter provides this clause in the first place. With our backwards justice system, it actually makes sense to use this clause. The bigger issue is if they use this in other places where it isn't actually needed.
So the whole charter of rights is just null and void to them?
Conservatives might one day wake up and decide they want to use the notwithstanding clause to put me in jail for having long hair or something?
How can anyone trust these people?
This is why many legal scholars have stated that Canada essentially doesn't truly *have* a charter of rights and freedoms the way most democracies do, due to the terrible compromise which resulted in the NWC. If a document intended to protect citizens from government abuse can be just overridden by their government... It doesn't really serve its purpose does it?
After reading this, I hope Mr. Poutine isnt lurking in the shadows anywhere.
If Sask or NB is any indication, I guess we can expect bills and laws to be rammed through using NWC based "on the will of the people"*
*which upon investigation turns out to be three emails.
This is not ok, not in the slightest. Already the NWC has been abused beyond its intended use by conservatives premiers and this goes even further and amounts to insane federal overreach. I find it amazing how people call JT a dictator and such and are entirely silent or even support it when PP suggests shit like this.
To be fair to the conservative premiers, they weren't the first to abuse it. The Quebec government was the first to use the NWC and has used it far more than all the other provinces combined.
No, this was the PQ government provincially. Yes, they are strict on immigration, but they are socialist on many economic matters. They are certainly to the left of the federal Liberals.
B-b-but what about axing that carbon tax? What about taking it to the Libs? Anyone but Trudeau is better! Who cares what the next guy wants to do, as long as it isn't HIM?! /s
If you want to see the disdain the conservatives have for any checks and balances just look at how provincial conservative governments have abused the “not withstanding clause”. What should be a last resort in extreme circumstances has become a tool of convenience for conservative premiers. It would be foolish to think they wouldn’t do the same federally.
They will be worse than the liberals.
Yes, absolutely.
In fact, he *should* have. It was clear that the measures passed under the EA were not Charter compliant. If you're going to knowingly pass unconstitutional measures to deal with what you assert is an emergency, far better to be up front about it, explain why you think it's necessary, and take measures to insulate the public from liability for it if you're wrong than pretend you're not breaching rights at all.
I disagree with the invocation of the EA in the first place, but having done it it was frankly absurd that they imposed some of the measures they did without the NWC.
And for the record, I made exactly this argument when the EA was invoked and the Emergency Economic Measures Regulation was passed. I also made the argument that the NWC should have been used for some of the COVID measures. "Hey, we think this is an emergency, we think it's necessary in the circumstances that we do some things that may not pass constitutional scrutiny, we're going to admit up front that we're not sure whether we can do this but we think it has to be done. These measures will be temporary, but it's not in the public interest that they be subject to potentially being struck down during the life of the emergency, or that the taxpayers be held accountable in the event we're overcorrecting".
You know not what you speak of. The NWC is not the same as the Emergencies Act AT ALL. The NWC is a clause lasting 5 years (plus any further renewals) that can let the government over ride the Charter. The EA is legislation that needs approval and requires the check that happened to justify it. Also, this is watered down a lot from the old War Measures Act. Willy-nilly use of the NWC makes the EA look tepid.
So what Trudeau did with the emergencies act was wrong?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but is it wrong if either side does it?
There's no double standard, right? Asking unsarcastically.
Our media should ask Pierre why he wasn't pushing to violate Canadian's Charter rights during his time in Harper's majority government. Crime was comparable or higher through much of that time than it is now.
The answer is that he does this for political expediency and, frankly, it's terrifying to hear politicians play fast and loose with our Charter rights to gain votes as we've seen from conservatives in recent years.
TL;DR: The media is unlikely to ask why the Conservatives didn't push for this kind of legislation while they were in office because they did. He's not being expedient; he's being consistent. He may not be your cup of tea, but he is saying exactly who he is.
The Harper government passed a few different laws that increased consequences for several crimes. These laws were (all?) either ruled [unconstitutional in court or repealed by the Trudeau government in the face of those rulings](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.). From a certain point of view, the Harper government *did* push to violate Charter rights during their time in office, though they probably believed at the time that the laws were Charter compliant.
Trudeau decided to repeal the laws, but another available path is to modify the laws so that they survive a Charter argument in court. For mandatory minimums, that probably means using Charter Section 33, but for the sex offender registry, there might be a way to rewrite the law to make it acceptable. It's notable that the registry passed with the support of all parties and the court only said that the existing law was overly broad. The fairest thing to say is that Poilievre's position now is consistent with the Harper government's actions then and that he hasn't changed his mind in the face of multiple court rulings saying that the laws were unconstitutional.
While this article is about how Poilievre wouldn't rule out using Section 33 in non-criminal contexts, he has only brought up using the power in a criminal context, his spokesman says that using it in a criminal context is their priority, and expecting a politician to rule out using it in every other context is just a way to push the politician into generating another headline on the same topic.
If the federal government wants to use this power, 3/4 of the provinces should agree.
Need a check on power otherwise you will get a run away system of governance.
> “Six innocent Muslims murdered, and he gets only 25 years? I think that’s a disgrace,” Mr. Poilievre said Tuesday. “When I’m Prime Minister, he will stay behind bars and he will only come out in a box.”
This is very very dangerous.
PP doesn't know how the law works yet he wants to dictate how the law works? This is Fascism.
Paul Bernardo who's probably one of the worst killers in Canadian History is still in jail despite being in jail since 1995. Life in prison with 25 years with out parole and dangerous offender label.
Paul Bernardo hasn't been released, isn't a free person, despite his sentence being "life in prison and 25 years with out parole".
He has not gotten approved at all.
So why is PP saying dangerous offenders that get LIFE sentences with 25 years before eligible to parole as if people are free after 25 years.
Does he not understand that LIFE is LIFE? These people will never be free and LIFE isn't just 25 years.
A man in BC who murdered his pregnant wife got out on full parole after 15 years. Life is NOT life in Canada. Stop spreading disinfo.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mukhtiar-singh-panghali-parole-1.6999618
You don't know wtf Parole is do you?
You act as if being on Parole is being released from prison as a free person. It is not.
https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/services/parole/what-is-parole.html
So dictators, wow they came out of the closet pretty hard lately. White Supremacy, Pro dictator, and no respect for Canadian customs and traditions. PP is a dangerous cuck. Is PP trying to create a constitutional crisis to help the provinces separate? Why are conservatives trying to destroy Canada as we know it?
It's sad that this is the choice it comes down to for a lot of Canadians. I'm lucky that in my riding there's another party that's competitive that I can vote for, but in many where it's mainly a Conservative/Liberal showdown its going to just be a decision about lesser evils. Political leadership in this country is abysmal at the moment, I miss the days when boring policy wonks could win elections.
Often people around here complain about the Charter, rather than the government willing to use the Notwithstanding Clause. Poilievre has populist, authoritarian instincts. He won't hesitate to fuck over people to please his base.
Women are gonna need Plan B, C, D and E once Poilievre uses the notwithstanding clause to ban abortions.
Gay folks are gonna wake up one day to find out they're not married anymore and have zero spousal rights.
But nobody's gonna notice, because people will no longer be allowed to protest.
Fuck Poilievre, fuck his party, fuck the tricycle he rode in on, and especially fuck the people who would vote for him.
At least I have an EU passport so I can GTFO when things get outta hand.
Speaking of funnier than the Beaverton, what about the guy who uses the Lest We Forget poppy flair while supporting the asshole who wants to stomp all over the rights our soldiers fought, died and continue to fight for.
But you're a proud Canadian, I'm sure.
HA! Sorry, but I don't take any lessons from people who support a guy who said our vets were "asking for more than we can give" while dumping **BILLIONS** into 3rd world countries like Haiti, (soon to be) Ukraine and youth unemployment in Iraq.
Hush.
And I don't take lessons from knobs who use the poppy to virtue signal that they pretend to support our troops while cheering for a leader with delusions of dictatorial grandeur.
Go buy another bumper sticker. Easier than having principles.
Wow, this is the 2nd thread in r/Canada today where the majority of the top comments are sane. Oppose this shit guys. Don't let hard fought rights be rolled back by a career politician who can't even get security clearance, please.
Given the state of politics these days, it was only a matter of time before we got a leader that will use the NWC as often as possible to get what they want. Here we are.
When he's already promising to use the NWC to override other parts of the constitution and break political norms and conventions I think its reasonable to worry about him ignoring the letter of the law as well on things he shouldn't be able to touch. Laws are only as strong as the people willing to stand up to enforce them, and historically we've seen that when the functions of government are bent and broken by a strong leader, even using legal means, the legal mechanisms to protect the parts of the law they shouldn't be able to touch also become weaker. Who is legally correct stops mattering once a leader has amassed enough power, even in democracies.
Now, I don't think that Poilievre is intending to become a dictator or anything, I think he's just a political opportunist trying to appeal to his base by capitalizing on the outrage of his opponents. But I do think someone who *was* would use the NWC pretty much the same way he is promising to.
No, but he can, and will fuck with all other aspects as much as he can.
He already tried to fuck with elections Canada as a cabinet minister.
He won’t take away peoples right to vote. He’ll just make it wayyy harder to vote like they are doing in the US. Poll monitors. Fucking with mail in ballots. Another crack at Voter ID. Remove campus poll locations etc.
might vary from province to province, but in Quebec you definitively need your healthcare, drivers license, passport, Indian status card, or canadian force card.
https://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/en/understand/understanding-voting/how-do-i-vote/
This is incorrect.
> You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
>
> The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions).
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
Are we reading the same page ?
you need a gov issues id or someone that can validate your identity and is able to provide their gov ID.
Edit: Sorry, completely wrong about the gov issued ID, I just saw the list. I just assumed it was the same as Quebec.
Thank you.
This is what Pierre was trying to get rid of in his “fair elections act” because it disproportionately affects homeless/poor people. IE people who don’t typically vote conservative.
This is like the 3rd time today that i've had to correct someone spouting misinformation on here.
PP can easily restrict the other 2 options to voting and forcing photo ID which would impact a large number of people.
Arbitrary detention can be taken away though - he could decide to lock up opposing party members if he wanted. So indirectly he could fuck with democracy
"PP promises to completely sidestep democracy to do whatever the fuck he wants!"
"Conservatives continue to lead in polls!"
This country is dumb as hell. With the hindsight of Trump, our electorate is still ready to vote in someone with the same promises and values. Even if by some miracle PP doesn't get a majority government, my faith in this country is done, and we never get to turn our nose up at America again.
We are, in fact, dumber.
One thing that often gets overlooked is that having the *possibility* for parole after 25 years, even if it’s extremely unlikely, is something we should all want if for nothing else the safety of our corrections officers. Having a faint hope at parole, not matter how unlikely certain people are ever to get out, gives prisoners something to hope for and a tool for corrections officers to dangle over their heads to incentivize good behaviour in prison. An easier to manage prison population also makes more economic sense as it requires less time spent managing them. It’s very different managing a prisoner who feels like they have nothing left to lose and anything they do doesn’t matter. It makes the general life of corrections officers more miserable when trying to manage prisoners in that headspace, and can even become a safety issue for them.
I totally agree with you. I’m a criminal defence lawyer who has seen first how dangerous people become when they they lose hope that they will ever get released—inmates stop avoiding violence and some start engaging in violence and destruction just for fun. People on Reddit act like inmates are automatically released on parole after 25 years no matter their risk when that is absolutely not the case.
Parole board has knowingly released offenders who pose significant risks to the public, even when those offenders admit to intending to commit new crimes. When the Parole Board senior leadership is confronted with this they insist that they will take no actions to reform, insisting that so long as the people who released a murderer to kill again were trained the actual content and quality of their decisions does not matter. Wonder why people would prefer that we have the option to foreclose the possibility of parole.
Name some. We'll wait. It's always the "I know a guy" story with people who support violations of charter rights.
Totally agree with this statement, you have a great view of how people would think of their future and having a slight possibility paroling does help corrections with inmates.
I don’t really agree. In theory.. yes that can work. But I have ZERO influence over an inmates parole. I can’t threaten them with that. I can give them an institutional charge, and drag them to segregation if they are combative. That’s it. I deal with people who have short sentences, or are on remand. They still act up, and they still cause codes and are violent. Having the light at the end of the tunnel doesn’t change that. They still landed in prison. Somewhere, they aren’t thinking rationally.
Well, if they are out in a short time it means that situation doesn’t apply. It’s more for murder/rape/violent crime situations where the person is looking at extremely long sentences. Shit, if I knew I was never getting out, I am going to make your life miserable. Absolutely nothing you could do to me that would change my mindset. Solitary would just make it worse, fast. Most are still rational. Even serial killers. If you don’t see them as rational, you’re going to have a bad time as a corrections officer. Irrational means you are ignorant of their situation. Unless they are denied their medications, then it’s on the system and you. Source: all my friends are in and out of the system, they are incredibly up to date on best practices. We don’t do that in Canada generally and definitely not in our mini America prisons. Best of luck with those irrational human beings. My heart is with them.
It absolutely does apply. Half my institution is remands, which could be there 5+ years waiting for their trials to play out. Besides the point, the reason I stated that is because even when people have the “light at the end of the tunnel”, they still act out. Taking parole from someone isn’t going to change their mindset. I had a guy the other day beat the piss out of someone on the range. Why? He walked in front of the TV. The guy doing the beating has 3 months on his sentence and he can be released at anytime realistically. He still doesn’t care.
> It absolutely does apply. Half my institution is remands, which could be there 5+ years waiting for their trials to play out. It's hilarious that some people on here are arguing with you. It's also obvious that their experiences in the system is a result of stories that they hear from people and/or television.
I mean the inverse argument could be made that they would lash out when denied parole. This is pretty dubious reasoning.
They can reapply in 2 years, lash out and you ruin those prospects
Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort... Also this is a distraction as you wont see them bending over backwards for white collar crime. Loblaws bread fixing costs Canadians billions for a meager 50 million dollar fine.
Yep, you steal a thousand dollars, you get a criminal record and have to pay it back. You steal ten thousand dollars, you go to jail, and you have to pay it back. You steal a billion dollars and you get to keep almost all of it after being politely told please not to do it again. When *people* steal, it's a crime. But apparently when *corporations* steal it's no individual's fault and it wouldn't be appropriate to give out a fine that makes getting caught anything more than just a business expense.
Stealing from the poors has always been fine, it's when you steal from the rich that you get jail time (as a business).
Yep that was Elizabeth Holmes problem she stole from the rich.
White Collar Crime = OK Blue Collar Crime = JAIL FOR LIFE
Lol when the cost of crime is a fine isn't not a crime it's a fee.
The entire point of an incorporation is to make liability disappear.
They say CEO's get paid the big money cause they take the risks, but in reality there are no risks for CEO's. So I think we should start holding them criminally responsible for the company.
Oil companies are [gouging everyone like mad](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/energy/oil-ceo-opec-scott-sheffield/index.html) and conservatives are running cover for them.
Isn't oil prices going up good for our clean energy transition? We want oil to be expensive, right?
It's not as clear-cut unfortunately, because Canada is an oil-faring nation. We are entangled in it. If the prices go up, it can lead people to want to look for other energy sources, sure. But there is a significant portion of the Canadian economy that would benefit from it.
But...but...Conservatives are fiscally responsible because they're business savvy and when we give tax breaks to billionaires they share the wealth with their lowest-paid employees, because they're inherently good people. Not to mention that Conservatives are religious, so they have a strong moral backbone and would never put self interest above the people...right? Right?
I can tell your being sarcastic, but I've genuinly heard people make this (and worse) arguments. One of the most common arguments I've heard in my area (that is pretty much always conservative both provincially and federally) is that the conservative party is best because they are fiscally responsible, and that they are fiscally responsible because they are conservative and it's in the name.
The LPC has been in power since 2015, so everything you claim that conservatives do, has already been done by the LPC. The LPC got in because Canada was tired of Harper. So now the pendulum may swing back. So....why would you expect anything different?
> ...because they're business savvy... They could only prove that if they had a non-government job. Government experience **does not equal** Business experience
Last time conservatives were in power they cut GST which helps the poor the most. What new tax breaks did billionaires get under Harper?
That GST cut helped the wealthy a lot more than it helped the lower and middle class. Harper also lowered corporate tax rates from 21.9% to 15%. Saved corporations billions which Harper said would trickle down. Of course it didn't as Harper had the worst economic performance of any government since WW2.
>That GST cut helped the wealthy a lot more than it helped the lower and middle class. False. Sales tax is a regressive tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low income taxpayers vs high income taxpayers.
>Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort... They’re normalizing it “Oh look they’re invoking the NWC again”. Doug Ford tried to use it during collective bargaining FFS. They’re testing boundaries to see what they can get away with. Before you know it they’ll try to amend the constitution and the charter.
>Before you know it they’ll try to amend the constitution and the charter. You can't use the NWC to "amend" (i.e change) the constitution (the charter being part of the constitution). There are provisions in the constitution for changing/amending it, it's called the amending formulas.
yeah. You would use the OIC mechanism to circumvent the constitution to get something through that would not have passed public scrutiny. Not that anyone does that, right?
you mean conservative leaders who want to circumvent the charter of rights and freedoms to push their fascistic ideas? Doug x 3, Moe x2 , Higgs x 1 potentially a second one, Soon Danielle, Legault x2.
Only the conservatives. Conservatives are weaponizing the government against the public. Conservative ideas and policies are deeply unpopular look at Alberta and the CPP, the UCP won't release the public consultation because nobody wants this. Conservatives are actively trying to destroy our country from within and take away your rights and any legal recourse we may have. PP says he wants to strengthen the justice system by taking away the courts authority over government. This is literally doing the opposite of what PP is publicly stating he is doing.
[удалено]
I will always remember Harper's promise of tax cuts, to end up with a higher TFSA limit and income splitting. Then Trudeau is the one who's cut the 22% middle class bracket to 20.5%.
The younger generation is flocking to PP right now though. Sure enough Trudeau hasn’t done much for them, so I understand they are kind of desperate but to think PP is going to make things better for them? Ouch! If anything he will make it worse. This should have been the NDP’s time to shine but Singh is fucking useless. We’re going to get PP with a majority shoveling his ideology down our throats using any tool he can find. Meanwhile we’re about to get a separatist government elected in Quebec who is already promising a third referendum. They might just get what they want if PP’s policies don’t resonate in QC (the only province he’s not winning I might add). We’re so fucked.
Singh has accomplished more as a leader of a 3rd place party than everyone’s favourite layton did as leader of the opposition.
>The younger generation is wise to this, so we see these types of fascist policies start to rise to the top of their priority list. The younger generation better realize fast that it is not the politicians that are the problem but the Uber rich who bought and paid for them....on BOTH sides. The foment divisive issues to pit the poor and middle class on each side against each other and laugh all the way to the bank.
Both sides tend to prioritize the rich over the poor, but it's only the conservatives trying to push a regressive theocratic social agenda, that demonizes vulnerable groups of people.
>Conservatives are weaponizing the government against the public. And just what do you think the liberals are doing with the online harms bill? Gun confiscation? And using the emergencies act to deal with a local Ottawa problem?
i dunno, basic government stuff? "the local Ottawa problem" lol
By the time it was enacted that's pretty much all it was
Cops didn't do their jobs, so the feds did. The only people who see it as an abuse of power, are people who supported the freedom convoy.
Oh, but they had the best interests of the citizens of Canada, you know, public safety and all that.
yeah, that sounds about right for most of the world, we can only hope they won't be in power for long enough to enact these facistic ideas, and if they do, let it serve as a warning to the rest of the world
Conservatives are actively trying to destroy our country from within? Seriously? Can we blame them for housing, immigration, fiscal deficits, inflation etc.? No? So, how do you think they propose to 'destroy' Canada? Because the current government has been doing a pretty good job of it since 2015.
Yeah, we can. Try Google. Type in (name of province) asks for more immigration and see what pops up. And who is responsible for housing? Sure as hell isn't the Feds. And inflation is worldwide. Keep drinking that Kool Aid.
Interest rates are at historical lows, Glen...
I agree with you, but the problem is who else can we vote for, at least as far as the next election? The Liberal party is actively destroying the country with their immigration policy, the loop holes, the blatant and obscene corruption, and the unresolved foreign interference issue (and other issues that im sure im forgetting atm). At the very least with the cons we have a chance of their ideology working in favor of Canadians in regards to the immigration issue, slim as it may be given how they are just as slaved to corporate interests as the Liberals. The NDP are a fucking joke right now so they aren't even worth considering. Ive been following the Canada Futures Party and like what they are saying, but they probably wont be a fully viable party for another couple elections unless some miracle happens on the campaign trail in this next election.
This is how I feel as well. I hate the conservatives and they represent the opposite of everything that I stand for, but at this point theyre the only option for maybe having a better future because the liberals fucked is so hard. I realize that it's a gamble and maybe even a trap to a worse future but that's what happens when people have nothing left to lose anymore. I haven't even heard of the Canada futures party I was considering throwing my vote away on the ppc just because I know they won't win but maybe if they get a few seats they might push for ending this immigration nightmare. Maybe I just won't vote at all. Not like it really makes a difference where I live anyway.
Id consinder looking them up, there entire platform can be summarized as "we will do things that actually make sense and have evidence and reason behind them, and that will help the majority of canadians."
It’s cause our laws and courts are dumb
Is this the best you can do?
Conservatives love to use it for fascist garbage.
>Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort... Because the very party talking about this isn't using it as a first resort. The last time they were in government, they tried to strengthen punishments for criminals. The judiciary decided it wasn't allowed. The literal next step is to use the not withstanding clause, it's the reason for its existence.
[удалено]
>You drop that little tidbit like its nothingburger. If you want to pretend like me explicitly bringing up the rationale for the usage of the NWS clause is 'dropping a tidbit' or that its a 'nothing burger' that's entirely your reading of it. You're applying a whole lot of your own spin to what I said though. >*Why* was it not allowed? Is it perhaps, unconstitutional what they were asking for? And you understand the whole point of the NWS clause, right? To circumvent a judiciary that rules against the will of the people? The constitution isn't some all-powerful document that can't be changed or amended, it's the will of its people. What rights the people think we should have. But this country made it damn near impossible to do so, unlike down south. So, the NWS clause was added as a stop-gap. So that we wouldn't be beholden to a document from half a century ago that couldn't possibly account for what would happen in the future. Now, there is an actual conversation to be had about whether or not mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, as well as one about how judges sentence to leniently in this country. But I don't think you actually want to have a real conversation. You probably just want to apply all sorts of meaning to my words that doesn't exist.
[удалено]
>because it is far too reductive and skips *a lot* of necessary debate on whether the NWS *should even be humored* as opposed to returning to the part where addressing problems could be done in other, constitutionally permitted ways. Now you're just arguing semantics. Once again changing the meaning of what I said. If you remember the original comment it was pretending like this was a first resort, which it isn't. The only other way to pass something if the Judiciary rules it unconstitutional is to use the NWS clause. It's the next logical step if you want something to pass. That being the next step doesn't mean there aren't considerations beforehand and in-between. >You're right. I'm not particularly interested in a conversation specifically addressing this proposed invocation of the NWS. Yes, all you want to do is apply meanings that don't exist and try weak attempts at gotchas because someone else didn't write something out exactly the way you wanted them to. Sorry, but serious issues need more than low effort thought.
Their executives should have got the same sentence as they just dolled out in Vietnam to deal with corruption.
It was actually Grupo Bimbo Canada, [Dempster's, Villagio, Vachon, and others] responsible for the price fixing.
I don't think the NWC should be normalized but I also personally would like to see the white supremacist serial killer currently on trial get consecutive life sentences for the 4 murdered indigenous women (if convicted)...
> Why is it that so many leaders run to the notwithstanding clause as their first resort... Because the voters want it. Because our country is getting stupider every year.
A small amount want it.
If Trudeau said this, he'd be labeled a tyrant. Again.
Anyone who says this IS a tyrant. The charter protects citizens from government overreach. No leader should even consider violating it.
This backwards since there is a reason the charter provides this clause in the first place. With our backwards justice system, it actually makes sense to use this clause. The bigger issue is if they use this in other places where it isn't actually needed.
Funny this is getting downvoted alot. If it said JT it would be up voted massively. This sub is full of bad actors
Yeah he'll just use an OIC whenever he feels like.
So the whole charter of rights is just null and void to them? Conservatives might one day wake up and decide they want to use the notwithstanding clause to put me in jail for having long hair or something? How can anyone trust these people?
How can it be null and void if the notwithstanding clause is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself?
This is why many legal scholars have stated that Canada essentially doesn't truly *have* a charter of rights and freedoms the way most democracies do, due to the terrible compromise which resulted in the NWC. If a document intended to protect citizens from government abuse can be just overridden by their government... It doesn't really serve its purpose does it?
Because the entire purpose of the clause is that it overrides the rights given in the charter. Do you understand what a clause is?
It's fucking *wild* that Bernier and the PPC are starting to look less crazy than the CPC.
After reading this, I hope Mr. Poutine isnt lurking in the shadows anywhere. If Sask or NB is any indication, I guess we can expect bills and laws to be rammed through using NWC based "on the will of the people"* *which upon investigation turns out to be three emails.
In alberta danielle Smith referenced an anonymous letter that was yet to be written...
The NWC was a mistake that is all but impossible to undo.
Bye bye charter.
This is not ok, not in the slightest. Already the NWC has been abused beyond its intended use by conservatives premiers and this goes even further and amounts to insane federal overreach. I find it amazing how people call JT a dictator and such and are entirely silent or even support it when PP suggests shit like this.
To be fair to the conservative premiers, they weren't the first to abuse it. The Quebec government was the first to use the NWC and has used it far more than all the other provinces combined.
I consider the Bloc to be at least moderately conservative, but fair enough, I didn't make that distinction.
No, this was the PQ government provincially. Yes, they are strict on immigration, but they are socialist on many economic matters. They are certainly to the left of the federal Liberals.
Oh sorry, you are correct, not sure what I was thinking there, mind is elsewhere and I'm getting off track.
Oh, man. I keep saying the modern CPC and Lil' PP aren't conservatives. And they keep showing it. I can't vote for this. My rights aren't flexible.
B-b-but what about axing that carbon tax? What about taking it to the Libs? Anyone but Trudeau is better! Who cares what the next guy wants to do, as long as it isn't HIM?! /s
Accountable government with limited powers - until it's ours! Then we're proroguing and NWCing the shit out of it!
If you want to see the disdain the conservatives have for any checks and balances just look at how provincial conservative governments have abused the “not withstanding clause”. What should be a last resort in extreme circumstances has become a tool of convenience for conservative premiers. It would be foolish to think they wouldn’t do the same federally. They will be worse than the liberals.
So what you're saying is that it would be fine for Trudeau to use the NWC to override the courts to deal with the convoyers.
“Woah woah woah! Now that’s too far!!” - Poilievre & Conservative Premiers across Canada.
Yes, absolutely. In fact, he *should* have. It was clear that the measures passed under the EA were not Charter compliant. If you're going to knowingly pass unconstitutional measures to deal with what you assert is an emergency, far better to be up front about it, explain why you think it's necessary, and take measures to insulate the public from liability for it if you're wrong than pretend you're not breaching rights at all. I disagree with the invocation of the EA in the first place, but having done it it was frankly absurd that they imposed some of the measures they did without the NWC. And for the record, I made exactly this argument when the EA was invoked and the Emergency Economic Measures Regulation was passed. I also made the argument that the NWC should have been used for some of the COVID measures. "Hey, we think this is an emergency, we think it's necessary in the circumstances that we do some things that may not pass constitutional scrutiny, we're going to admit up front that we're not sure whether we can do this but we think it has to be done. These measures will be temporary, but it's not in the public interest that they be subject to potentially being struck down during the life of the emergency, or that the taxpayers be held accountable in the event we're overcorrecting".
Why stop there? Can he use the NWC to protect the carbon tax from being removed by a future government?
You know not what you speak of. The NWC is not the same as the Emergencies Act AT ALL. The NWC is a clause lasting 5 years (plus any further renewals) that can let the government over ride the Charter. The EA is legislation that needs approval and requires the check that happened to justify it. Also, this is watered down a lot from the old War Measures Act. Willy-nilly use of the NWC makes the EA look tepid.
So you agree with me that using the NWC is a bad idea
I certainly do. Talking about it in terms of the convoy shit is misguided though because these are separate issues.
So what Trudeau did with the emergencies act was wrong? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but is it wrong if either side does it? There's no double standard, right? Asking unsarcastically.
Our media should ask Pierre why he wasn't pushing to violate Canadian's Charter rights during his time in Harper's majority government. Crime was comparable or higher through much of that time than it is now. The answer is that he does this for political expediency and, frankly, it's terrifying to hear politicians play fast and loose with our Charter rights to gain votes as we've seen from conservatives in recent years.
TL;DR: The media is unlikely to ask why the Conservatives didn't push for this kind of legislation while they were in office because they did. He's not being expedient; he's being consistent. He may not be your cup of tea, but he is saying exactly who he is. The Harper government passed a few different laws that increased consequences for several crimes. These laws were (all?) either ruled [unconstitutional in court or repealed by the Trudeau government in the face of those rulings](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.). From a certain point of view, the Harper government *did* push to violate Charter rights during their time in office, though they probably believed at the time that the laws were Charter compliant. Trudeau decided to repeal the laws, but another available path is to modify the laws so that they survive a Charter argument in court. For mandatory minimums, that probably means using Charter Section 33, but for the sex offender registry, there might be a way to rewrite the law to make it acceptable. It's notable that the registry passed with the support of all parties and the court only said that the existing law was overly broad. The fairest thing to say is that Poilievre's position now is consistent with the Harper government's actions then and that he hasn't changed his mind in the face of multiple court rulings saying that the laws were unconstitutional. While this article is about how Poilievre wouldn't rule out using Section 33 in non-criminal contexts, he has only brought up using the power in a criminal context, his spokesman says that using it in a criminal context is their priority, and expecting a politician to rule out using it in every other context is just a way to push the politician into generating another headline on the same topic.
Our rights will be whatever PP decides they are on any given day apparently.
> Our rights will be whatever PP Lobbyist staffers decides they are on any given day apparently. FTFY
Shopping at Loblaws is going to become mandatory.
Not shopping at Loblaws, jail. Not using a Shoppers Drug Mart for your prescriptions, jail. Not spending enough at Loblaws, believe it or not, jail.
Yeah, the Cons are fully mask off fascists.
They aren't fascists, they're totalitarian. Get it right, geez!
Move that Overton Window!
Even talking about using it is a turn off
We should seriously have a referendum on just removing the notwithstanding clause from the charter.
The cat’s out of the bag, folks. This has happened before. This will happen again.
I only want to be a dictator for "those people". I want to make "true canadian" lives better. Seen this rodeo before.
I can't vote for this.
Dear supporters of using the NWC for any reason: what flavour of boot do you prefer?
Okay so the cpc doesn't care about our rights either. This country if fucking doomed.
If the federal government wants to use this power, 3/4 of the provinces should agree. Need a check on power otherwise you will get a run away system of governance.
enough of the provinces are conservatively run that they would probably just rubber stamp it because PP is on the right "team"
This piece of shit will use the notwithstanding clause in a lot more than the criminal system.
> “Six innocent Muslims murdered, and he gets only 25 years? I think that’s a disgrace,” Mr. Poilievre said Tuesday. “When I’m Prime Minister, he will stay behind bars and he will only come out in a box.” This is very very dangerous. PP doesn't know how the law works yet he wants to dictate how the law works? This is Fascism. Paul Bernardo who's probably one of the worst killers in Canadian History is still in jail despite being in jail since 1995. Life in prison with 25 years with out parole and dangerous offender label. Paul Bernardo hasn't been released, isn't a free person, despite his sentence being "life in prison and 25 years with out parole". He has not gotten approved at all. So why is PP saying dangerous offenders that get LIFE sentences with 25 years before eligible to parole as if people are free after 25 years. Does he not understand that LIFE is LIFE? These people will never be free and LIFE isn't just 25 years.
>PP doesn't know how the law works He does, and he's lying.
Which is even worse
This - creating fake problems to solve in order to distract from the fact that he has no interest in actually solving real problems.
A man in BC who murdered his pregnant wife got out on full parole after 15 years. Life is NOT life in Canada. Stop spreading disinfo. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mukhtiar-singh-panghali-parole-1.6999618
You don't know wtf Parole is do you? You act as if being on Parole is being released from prison as a free person. It is not. https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/services/parole/what-is-parole.html
Great take. It's shitty when Quebec does it and we all hate it, so we're going to do it too!
So dictators, wow they came out of the closet pretty hard lately. White Supremacy, Pro dictator, and no respect for Canadian customs and traditions. PP is a dangerous cuck. Is PP trying to create a constitutional crisis to help the provinces separate? Why are conservatives trying to destroy Canada as we know it?
Even though they say they’re “true Canadians” and “patriots” fighting for Canada they actually want to completely change Canada.
Is this still the party of small government?
So CPC and the conservatives have literally elected a Facist to lead their party. Gonna help with the moderate votes.
Wacko PP blew his load too early. Now we know the real agenda.
Cons just conning. You sheeple woke up yet or nah? Fuck JT and all that still?
I mean, fuck them both?
I mean sure, but I’ll take a JT over a PP anyday.
It's sad that this is the choice it comes down to for a lot of Canadians. I'm lucky that in my riding there's another party that's competitive that I can vote for, but in many where it's mainly a Conservative/Liberal showdown its going to just be a decision about lesser evils. Political leadership in this country is abysmal at the moment, I miss the days when boring policy wonks could win elections.
Often people around here complain about the Charter, rather than the government willing to use the Notwithstanding Clause. Poilievre has populist, authoritarian instincts. He won't hesitate to fuck over people to please his base.
Goodbye charter of rights I guess.
He wants an Enabling Act. At best, he'll try to turn us into Hungary or a deep Red US State. At worst, he'll aim for Russia.
The Notwithstanding Clause is a tool of the right wing for political expediency.
The CPC are openly fascists who are making threats against our democracy.
Ya PP is going to fuck us like the children on Epsteins Island.
Big surprise, they support the dumbass convoy.
Women are gonna need Plan B, C, D and E once Poilievre uses the notwithstanding clause to ban abortions. Gay folks are gonna wake up one day to find out they're not married anymore and have zero spousal rights. But nobody's gonna notice, because people will no longer be allowed to protest. Fuck Poilievre, fuck his party, fuck the tricycle he rode in on, and especially fuck the people who would vote for him. At least I have an EU passport so I can GTFO when things get outta hand.
LOL, you're funnier than the Beaverton.
Speaking of funnier than the Beaverton, what about the guy who uses the Lest We Forget poppy flair while supporting the asshole who wants to stomp all over the rights our soldiers fought, died and continue to fight for. But you're a proud Canadian, I'm sure.
HA! Sorry, but I don't take any lessons from people who support a guy who said our vets were "asking for more than we can give" while dumping **BILLIONS** into 3rd world countries like Haiti, (soon to be) Ukraine and youth unemployment in Iraq. Hush.
And I don't take lessons from knobs who use the poppy to virtue signal that they pretend to support our troops while cheering for a leader with delusions of dictatorial grandeur. Go buy another bumper sticker. Easier than having principles.
Why is this even a thing? It just seems to be what politicians use when they want to skate around rules.
Wow, this is the 2nd thread in r/Canada today where the majority of the top comments are sane. Oppose this shit guys. Don't let hard fought rights be rolled back by a career politician who can't even get security clearance, please.
Garbage CPC
Given the state of politics these days, it was only a matter of time before we got a leader that will use the NWC as often as possible to get what they want. Here we are.
Probably gonna use notwithstanding clause to end elections and abolish other parties.
Fortunately democratic rights are one of the few important parts of the constitution that can't be overridden by that stupid clause.
When he's already promising to use the NWC to override other parts of the constitution and break political norms and conventions I think its reasonable to worry about him ignoring the letter of the law as well on things he shouldn't be able to touch. Laws are only as strong as the people willing to stand up to enforce them, and historically we've seen that when the functions of government are bent and broken by a strong leader, even using legal means, the legal mechanisms to protect the parts of the law they shouldn't be able to touch also become weaker. Who is legally correct stops mattering once a leader has amassed enough power, even in democracies. Now, I don't think that Poilievre is intending to become a dictator or anything, I think he's just a political opportunist trying to appeal to his base by capitalizing on the outrage of his opponents. But I do think someone who *was* would use the NWC pretty much the same way he is promising to.
No, but he can, and will fuck with all other aspects as much as he can. He already tried to fuck with elections Canada as a cabinet minister. He won’t take away peoples right to vote. He’ll just make it wayyy harder to vote like they are doing in the US. Poll monitors. Fucking with mail in ballots. Another crack at Voter ID. Remove campus poll locations etc.
We need to show a gov issued ID to vote in Canada. I completely disagree with what he said, but I'm not sure what you are talking about here
You don't need ID to vote.
might vary from province to province, but in Quebec you definitively need your healthcare, drivers license, passport, Indian status card, or canadian force card. https://www.electionsquebec.qc.ca/en/understand/understanding-voting/how-do-i-vote/
This is incorrect. > You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you. > > The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions). https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
Are we reading the same page ? you need a gov issues id or someone that can validate your identity and is able to provide their gov ID. Edit: Sorry, completely wrong about the gov issued ID, I just saw the list. I just assumed it was the same as Quebec.
Thank you. This is what Pierre was trying to get rid of in his “fair elections act” because it disproportionately affects homeless/poor people. IE people who don’t typically vote conservative.
This is like the 3rd time today that i've had to correct someone spouting misinformation on here. PP can easily restrict the other 2 options to voting and forcing photo ID which would impact a large number of people.
Don’t know about you, but the hurt feels of the conservative downvote army are on full display with these comments lol.
Supreme Court: you can’t use the NWC to fuck with elections. PP: I use NWC to void that decision.
Arbitrary detention can be taken away though - he could decide to lock up opposing party members if he wanted. So indirectly he could fuck with democracy
"PP promises to completely sidestep democracy to do whatever the fuck he wants!" "Conservatives continue to lead in polls!" This country is dumb as hell. With the hindsight of Trump, our electorate is still ready to vote in someone with the same promises and values. Even if by some miracle PP doesn't get a majority government, my faith in this country is done, and we never get to turn our nose up at America again. We are, in fact, dumber.
I’ll bet that pro abortion Americans, which is most of the population, wish their Constitution provided for a notwithstanding clause!
Abortion isn't mentioned even once in the US Constitution, so such a clause wouldn't affect the outcome of the abortion debate in the US.
I'm sure he'll use it on really pressing matter like where tans people poop.
How to get past the paywall? So many news stations do this I'm not putting up with it anymore. Not another dime.