Usually, a bad economic situation is a big political headwind for the incumbent government. It may yet be for the Carney ministry as well. But, I think that Canadians are very well aware that this particular economic situation is being created by the fascist in Washington, so perhaps not also.
Yeah absolutely. Floor crossing is one of the few weapons that the backbencher has to check the power of party leaders. I can understand why voters would dislike it, but it has a legitimate function.
And given how much and how often everyone has lamented the erosion of power and influence of individual MPs and the concentration of power in leaders and parties, you have to ask whether you really want to introduce a new law that actually puts more emphasis on party stripe.
With floor crossing, the backbencher has an option if their leader behaves too tyrannously or otherwise unacceptably. Unhappy MPs can use it to send a strong message against a particular leader, which I think makes the party leaders tread more lightly.
I think it's important to note that while floor crossing may be a little bit of "dirty rugby" as it were, it has a function. I understand why a voter may be angry. But, floor crossing is also one of the few counterweights within our current system against the overweening power of the party leaders.
On a tangential point: We should adopt saying "hung parliament" instead of "minority parliament" and I encourage everyone to start working "hung parliament" into their day-to-day conversation.
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state? Yes it does. But many European countries have in the past defined themselves as Christian states, and as a Christian that doesn't make me responsible for the actions of those governments, nor do those governments reflect on me as a Christian.
I absolutely agree. Few things seem more likely to me to encourage antisemitism than to rhetorically make Jewish citizens of countries all over the world somehow responsible for the aggrandizing or aggressive or oppressive actions of a Middle Eastern country half the world away.
There is that Mike Tyson quote about how everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face. This is like going into a boxing match not expecting to be punched at all.
But we cannot say we need Reconciliation because the First Nations have some intangible eternal ownership of the land based in their blood. I don't believe that generally that's what is happening, but it's a potential pitfall we ought to steer around.
I guess my view is: The country desires and needs Reconciliation because it is morally right to make amends for past wrongs and because it is just to work to improve the lot of those worst off in our society, which is most usually indigenous communities.
Wasn't that something Hannah Arendt said about Adolf Eichmann? He couldn't express himself, he could speak about and articulate the reasons for his actions only in terms of cliches and slogans drawn from Nazi Party propaganda.
Of course Canada is the homeland of the indigenous peoples who lived here for thousands and thousands of years before Europeans. That's just historical fact. But we must avoid building a blood and soil myth out of that, as that never leads anywhere we want to go.
On the other, other hand, I think there is a liberal case to be made against land acknowledgements, one the Tories never make. As liberals, we ought to be averse about promoting a 'blood and soil' view that certain ethnic groups, by dint of ethnicity alone, have some special claim to some lands.
I'm of two minds about land acknowledgements. On the one hand, yeah they're generally harmless in and of themselves. On the other hand, that very harmlessness stems from their uselessness. A land acknowledgement does nothing at all to address the real and material problems of First Nations in Canada
Again, when this referendum starts I think we will be flooded with hostile propaganda from both within Canada and abroad. So it is important to note this now: Alberta separatism is not popular. Joining the US is even less so. Don't let people lie to you or mislead you on this.
Alberta - Independence Polling:
NDP Voters:
Remain: 96%
Independence: 4%
UCP Voters:
Remain: 53%
Independence: 30%
Join US: 5%
Leger / March 4, 2026
It also seems to me that we do have to understand the appeal of fascism and other reactionary thought in order to better fight against them.
When your remand population is much larger than the sentenced population, and still thousands of remanded offenders will be released because they didn't get a timely trial, I think the problems are much more with the administration of justice than the exact wording of the Criminal Code.
And that's with, as you note, approximately 10,000 cases a year dropped because they didn't receive a timely trial.
Like Stats Canada reports that in 23-24, the most recent statistics available, approximately 25,000 people were incarcerated in Canada. But only around 5,000 were actually sentenced, the other ~20,000 were simply held on remand.
Yes, true. While individual changes to bail conditions or self defence rights may be good, or bad, it really seems to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when the most direly needed changes are more infrastructural and logistical in many cases.
In general? Depends on the case and context. The justice system certainly can err too far in concern for the accused without balance with concern for public order and the safety of victims. One thing I think we would agree to is better care must be taken to incapacitate and control repeat offenders.
But I would like to see the exact text of this Conservative proposed bill. Whether the reform is good or bad depends much on its exact details.
On further reflection: I think it could be a good idea to strengthen the rights to self defence in the Criminal Code. I do agree that the system seems to currently prioritize the rights of offenders to too great a degree and not value the public order or the rights of victims enough.
But Mr. Stanley got acquitted on all charges, not even the lesser charges of manslaughter or criminal negligence, when he accidentally shot someone in the back of the head who wasn't at that time a threat. I don't think the law should shrug at that sort of thing! I think that's a bad precedent!
Mr. Stanley says he accidentally killed Mr. Boushie, that he did not mean to do it. Well, fair enough, that seems most plausible to me. You say a person should be able to defend their home and family. I agree to that too!
By Mr. Stanley's account, they had been trespassing and trying to steal things. But when he shot and killed Mr. Boushie, he was in a stationary vehicle which Mr. Stanley was turning off, and Mr. Boushie did not pose any immediate threat.
I remember the Colten Boushie-Gerald Stanley case in Saskatchewan, in which Mr. Stanley was fully acquitted when he had, in fact, by his own account killed a person by negligence with a firearm! That kind of standard, broadly accepted, is also corrosive to a peaceful society.
I suppose it depends on where you set that threshold. Do we want citizens to be able to defend themselves against an assailant? Yes. But should someone be able to shoot, let us say, a drunk who accidentally trespasses? I don't think so.
