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

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

id just like to get away from the party domination at least in theory. In reality we know that 20 yrs from now we will be having the same debate
 
THis is the sort of headline that will make people think about voting for Team Justin:


Out on bail for sexual interference and murders the 14 year old victim.
In guess I’m missing something but what has changed regarding Indigenous violence between the past few governments? I remember reading stuff like this during the Harper govt and before.
 
Allocate them by percentage of popular vote in the province.
But have it the percentage of popular vote in the Provincial elections, not the Federal elections. That way the reps truly are representing their provincial party rather than following their Federal party leaders in the Commons.

Also, since Provincial elections are at different times than the Federal elections you'd get a constant turnover of Senators throughout the term of a Federal Government so you wouldn't be locked into a single voting scenario throughout the term of the Government.
 
But have it the percentage of popular vote in the Provincial elections, not the Federal elections. That way the reps truly are representing their provincial party rather than following their Federal party leaders in the Commons.

Also, since Provincial elections are at different times than the Federal elections you'd get a constant turnover of Senators throughout the term of a Federal Government so you wouldn't be locked into a single voting scenario throughout the term of the Government.
Precisely. And why I said half every election - give some continuity outside the provincial election cycle. Reapportion every decennial census, always rounding up to the nearest multiple of two - so a province that would receive .1 of a seat gets two until the next census.
 
That is literally already in the CPC policy and has been stated many times.

"86. Abortion Legislation: A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion."


I really don't know how that can be any more clear.
Just like Ontario NDP policy had always been "we're putting in public auto insurance" and "we won't break into negotiated contracts" - until they didn't and did (respectively) - or the federal Liberals' policy on going for a new way of electing folks - until they didn't? ;) Odd are Team Blue'll keep that tool in the tool belt, but never say never.
 
Just like Ontario NDP policy had always been "we're putting in public auto insurance" and "we won't break into negotiated contracts" - until they didn't and did (respectively) - or the federal Liberals' policy on going for a new way of electing folks - until they didn't? ;) Odd are Team Blue'll keep that tool in the tool belt, but never say never.
Just like Harper's secret agenda that he never implemented during his time as PM...

There is zero benefit to trying to legislate abortion but 100% certainty of angering both sides of the fight, as no matter what is suggested will be too restrictive, or not restrictive enough for both sides.

The abortion debate is nothing but a distraction and fearmongering by the LPC and NDP. There would have to be a cultural shift in the Canadian public for abortion to be on the table, and if that happened you can bet the LPC would be leading the charge to legislate it themselves.
 
Allocate them by percentage of popular vote in the province.
Regardless of allocation method or formula, how do we get bums in seats? Elected or appointed are the two choices (short of press gangs which are likely out of favour).
 
What I see happening is people would challenge it if written into law based off the child/fetus’ right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Just because the criminal code has a definition of when someone becomes a human doesn’t mean it will be upheld when directly taken to court. Abortion was illegal in the criminal code and it was struck down.

Odds are it would end up with a third trimester ban unless there was a serious threat to the life of the mother as the fetus/child can survive outside the mother at that point.
In order for a matter to get to the Supreme Court there has to be an initial violation of a criminal or administrative law or a civil action. I can't envision what set of circumstances would lead to a criminal charge where a fetus' Charter Rights would be argued. Maybe there is - I just can't think of one. The same for administrative law. The closest would be human rights tribunals but I don't see the grounds existing. I suppose some one or some group could try a civil action where the government is the respondent, but I'm really not that up on civil law to speculate if that is even possible. Regardless, the journey would take deep, deep pockets and might end up with the Court declining to hear it.

People can challenge what is in the law, not what's not in the law.
 
In order for a matter to get to the Supreme Court there has to be an initial violation of a criminal or administrative law or a civil action. I can't envision what set of circumstances would lead to a criminal charge where a fetus' Charter Rights would be argued. Maybe there is - I just can't think of one. The same for administrative law. The closest would be human rights tribunals but I don't see the grounds existing. I suppose some one or some group could try a civil action where the government is the respondent, but I'm really not that up on civil law to speculate if that is even possible. Regardless, the journey would take deep, deep pockets and might end up with the Court declining to hear it.

People can challenge what is in the law, not what's not in the law.
has there been rulings on embryos in Canada? Ownership? Disposal?
 
I'd like to see a reapportionment of Senate seats with half divided equally between provinces, half allocated by population (with some recognition of the territories), where half are appointed every provincial election.

That gives provincial representation plus continuity.
We already have the House for representation by population. If Senate is going to be anything, it should start by being selected by criteria other than population.
 
Just like Harper's secret agenda that he never implemented during his time as PM...
Not the same thing at all - can you link to the policy resolution for that one? ;)
... There is zero benefit to trying to legislate abortion but 100% certainty of angering both sides of the fight, as no matter what is suggested will be too restrictive, or not restrictive enough for both sides.

The abortion debate is nothing but a distraction and fearmongering by the LPC and NDP. There would have to be a cultural shift in the Canadian public for abortion to be on the table, and if that happened you can bet the LPC would be leading the charge to legislate it themselves.
Agreed, and agreed.
 
IMHO, there is no abortion issue. We have a wedge issue. Just like we don't have a firearms issue, but another wedge issue. Governments use them as a cudgel to distract the population and vilify the opposition as uncaring and out of touch barbarians. If they weren't fallback wedge issues, they would have been worked out a long time ago. But they are still here and rolled out at election time, only to be put back in the closet for four more years after every election.
 
Just a gentle reminder that Army.ca's owner has shared rules re: how to carry out political discussion on the threads.
An excerpt from the rules ....
Adjectives used to describe a political leader/figure in an attempt to attack their stance/attitudes/actions will not be tolerated (examples below) ...

Examples of unacceptable posts:
  • Justin Trudeau and his bunch of clowns...
  • Arsehole Donald Trump....
  • Kathleen Wynne is an evil witch....
Examples of acceptable posts:
  • Justin Trudeau's reluctance to appoint Senators has created a circus in the upper house.
  • Donald Trump's latest tweet is absolutely unacceptable because....
  • Kathleen Wynne's doing a great job ...
I know everyone is passionate no matter what side they're backing & fighting for. Still, we can all do better, vigourously discussing actions/initiatives without personal attacks, no matter how frustrated we are at the politician in question, whatever colour jersey they happen to wear.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
My idea is 39 Senators, three per province and territory all elected and no political affiliation .

And NO former Members of Parliament. Two five year terms maximum

Can we some how take them from the general population and not part of some class of rich or already influential class ?

I want average Canadians involved in this.
 
In 2024, which group is disadvantaged?
It's an entirely ideological definition.

In spite of a changing reality, the excluded will always be straight white males, as the others gain more power and ramp up their hatred of them.

Proof is in the pudding: as society gets more progressive, cultural-marxist discourse gets more, not less, toxic. Politics is nothing more than a power play (the post-modernists were correct on this point), rationalism is just the sugar-coating that Western civilization once maintained in days of yore.

I'm not saying anything new, of course, the underlying truth was known and well explained thousands of years ago by the Ancient Greeks.
 
Back
Top