Like different voting systems that would lead to nobody getting majorities, I'd bet my loonie on none of the parties wanting to change the laws/rules to loose control of nomination processes, even if they would become more secure, so to speak. Who wants to give away power?
FTFYOnly a change ingovernmentconstitution will fix this nonsense.
Jamie Sarkonak: No off-ramp to diversity quotas, federal research executive says
There is no plan to end discriminatory hiring requirements for quota-bound research program — even as targets are met, Commons hearsnationalpost.com
I'll bet the power brokers are already figuring out various scenarios.
In 2024, which group is disadvantaged?
www.readtheline.ca
Likely because of the successful charter challenge. No need to create a law that by default exists. As to enshrining it as a right spelled out, probably because of the procedural nightmare to get it done.So last week the LPC and the NDP went DEFCON A (Abortion) on the premise of 47 signatures on a private members bill warrants the claim that this spells the end of a women's right to choose. As Jenn and Matt at the Line says, it seems to be very early for the "progressives" to trot out this trop so early.
The Line Podcast: Trudeau hits the abortion panic button awfully early
Sabrina Maddeaux ejects. Calgary moves fast on an encampment. Rex Murphy passes on. And much, much more in this week's episode.
Since the Morgentaler decision in the last century the Liberals have had ample opportunity to enshrine abortion rights into law but have failed to do so. Why?
Mulroney did try after the decision. Twice. The senate shot down the last try and they opted not to push their luck given the other issues they had going on.
Possible sure. It certainly gives them bait and fodder. But the simple fact is no law is required.
The rational ones do. The ones that want to stand on principle don’t care and will try (private members bills etc) and as long as they do they will be giving ammo to their opponents.
Again, no need to enshrine any laws.
I guess we want to see what we want to see. And why is the not withstanding clause in the constitution if it is not going to be use (which the Quebec Government routinely does without out any pearl clutching from the LPC)
Not at all. This is pretty cut and dry on how this came to be. The LPC was waiting for a chance to use the abortion issue and the CPC gave them an opening. Whether it works or not is another issue. It has worked before though which is likely why they took the opportunity.
Just because something is in the rules doesn’t mean you use it. Or abuse it. The QC government does use it and it does get criticized for it. Basically it allows you to do what you want even though it breaks rules and violates rights. The reason it was included was as a compromise to the provinces.
They are called on it quite a bit. Just depends on what and where you look for it.
Usually they wait until a crucial point during the election. That they are doing it so far out speaks of their desperation.
The timing question is a valid one. But why now? It could be they want to frame him early and often. The next faux pas, the next mistake helps to reinforce it. They won’t wait until campaign time. And yes they are bottom of the barrel so with nothing to lose. My guess is you will see a summer of MPs spreading that narrative. They may be trying to put the CPC and PP on the defensive and on explain mode and take them of their bread and butter messaging.
Possibly but fortunes can change. Trudeau went from 3rd to PM in 2015. Different times I get it. I’m of the same opinion that if he stays it won’t matter what happens but events can happen. And if he steps down, his replacement will use the same attacks they are using now.
He really needs a majority, anything less will put him in a precarious position.
You realize the people in the convoy were Canadians, right?
In other news, Alberta police learned from the Ottawa occupation not to allow encampments to get too comfortable.
