2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

[ArmyRick]

PP would be very hypocritical to not support an immediate election. He is definitely finding himself in a quandary I expect.

Pierre stated yesterday he wants an election ASAP or if not, return the house of commons to sit.

 

[HavokFour]

Am I the only one interested to know what the new "verb the noun" will be? I am still getting the now outdated carbon tax and anti-Trudeau ads as of this morning. Perhaps Pierre can also take this time to get that security clearance he's been dodging.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Whether or not a by-election or election is called soon is immaterial; policy is already being made by an unelected leader in the House. That sh!t is out of the horse and there's no ignoring an anti-democratic problem which ought be corrected.

People satisfied with the outcome should of course be expected to rationalize it. I suppose that respecting process and procedure after any election - the people having had their say - is at least as important as respecting it before any election.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Am I the only one interested to know what the new "verb the noun" will be? I am still getting the now outdated carbon tax and anti-Trudeau ads as of this morning. Perhaps Pierre can also take this time to get that security clearance he's been dodging.

You're complaining about old, outdated carbon tax and anti trudeau ads.

Then you bring up the Poliviere security clearance.

Doesn't sound like you're in any hurry to move on. You're just moving on from your dislikes and keeping up the anti trudeau Poliviere part.

It would be interesting to know where your saw 'current' anti trudeau ads. I haven't seen an ad with trudeau in it, in almost two weeks.

The carbon tax isn't outdated. It's still law. The consumer portion has only been temporarily reduced to zero, but the law is still on the books. Carney can raise it again, just as easy as he reduced it.

BTW, carney's press conference where he signed his 'executive order' and held it up for everyone, was a nice piece of trump role play wasn’t it? The difference being is that when trump does it, there is real action behind it. It's not distracting theater like carney's vignette.

 

[brihard]

You're complaining about old, outdated carbon tax and anti trudeau ads.

Then you bring up the Poliviere security clearance.

False comparison. Trudeau is no longer PM and Carney is getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC- we can expect to see that in the Gazette for an April 1st implementation shortly, which is the limit of what can be meaningfully and immediately done. Poilievre still has rejected obtaining a security clearance and receiving classified briefings that allow for meaningful detail on foreign interference and threats to Canada’s democratic and electoral institutions. The willing choice to remain ignorant of ‘right now’ national security threats is an issue that Poilievre has chosen to keep live.

Because one set of issues is now dispensed with or in the active process thereof, and the other has not been nor will be addressed, those aren’t equivalent, or any sort of ‘gotcha’.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

We have a system that deals with what happens when a PM steps down, dies etc. This is what is happening in real time. The system is doing what it is supposed to do.

But shouldn't it be the elected Deputy PM steps up in the role until whomever takes the reins wins an election?
Edit: by or federal

All I hear is sour grapes over the fact that Trudeau isn’t running and a more electable leader has been chosen..

Must be what you wish to hear, I'm reading the PP supporters here calling for an election asap.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

False comparison. Trudeau is no longer PM and Carney is getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC- we can expect to see that in the Gazette for an April 1st implementation shortly, which is the limit of what can be meaningfully and immediately done. Poilievre still has rejected obtaining a security clearance and receiving classified briefings that allow for meaningful detail on foreign interference and threats to Canada’s democratic and electoral institutions. The willing choice to remain ignorant of ‘right now’ national security threats is an issue that Poilievre has chosen to keep live.

Because one set of issues is now dispensed with or in the active process thereof, and the other has not been nor will be addressed, those aren’t equivalent, or any sort of ‘gotcha’.

Carney isn't getting rid of the carbon tax. The carbon program is law. That law, Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, needs to be repealed in Parliament for it to be truly gone. He just reduced the consumer portion to zero. And can raise it again after election just as easily.

This is pure misdirection. Just like the cup and pea or three card monte. It's a bait and switch.

 

[brihard]

Carney isn't getting rid of the carbon tax. The carbon program is law. That law, needs to be repealed in Parliament for it to be truly gone. He just reduced the consumer portion to zero. And can raise it again after election just as easily.

This is pure misdirection. Just like the cup and pea or three card monte. It's a bait and switch.

If you want to imagine he’ll do that, go nuts. But that’s not what I was responding to. You went after @HavokFour with a false equivalency, and I was addressing that.

 

[brihard]

But shouldn't it be the elected Deputy PM steps up in the role until whomever takes the reins wins an election?
Edit: by or federal

Must be what you wish to hear, I'm reading the PP supporters here calling for an election asap.

There’s no established “Deputy PM” position. Sometimes it exists, sometimes it doesn’t, just like every Cabinet position is essentially made up arbitrarily to fit a real or perceived need. Some are self evidently necessary and so basically always exist, others come and go, merge and split with the government of the day.

The constitutional convention for transfer of the role and powers of PM on resignation is the leader of the party currently commanding confidence in the House of Commons, so that’s what happened. In order to avoid breaking that conventional system, we’ll see an election shortly to allow that confidence to be tested and to satisfy the electorate that the PM, as is not required but nonetheless is customary, sits in Parliament.

Hypothetically, a party could establish in their party constitution that they shall have a deputy leader who, when forming government, shall be appointed to a cabinet position of deputy PM, and also that should the leader resign while in government, leadership automatically passes to the deputy leader. That would automatically create a passage from PM to Deputy on resignation while in government… But, there’s no rule that you have to be an MP to be in cabinet. Cabinet could, and at times in the past has, included Senators. Or someone not in the legislature at all, as is currently the case,

Aging the existing constitutional conventions would require formally codifying the office of Prime Minister into our written constitution. That would be opening a major can of worms.

We’ll have an election very shortly that will settle this to the satisfaction of voters.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There’s no established “Deputy PM” position. Sometimes it exists, sometimes it doesn’t, just like every Cabinet position is essentially made up arbitrarily to fit a real or perceived need. Some are self evidently necessary and so basically always exist, others come and go, merge and split with the government of the day.

The constitutional convention for transfer of the role and powers of PM on resignation is the leader of the party currently commanding confidence in the House of Commons, so that’s what happened. In order to avoid breaking that conventional system, we’ll see an election shortly to allow that confidence to be tested and to satisfy the electorate that the PM, as is not required but nonetheless is customary, sits in Parliament.

Hypothetically, a party could establish in their party constitution that they shall have a deputy leader who, when forming government, shall be appointed to a cabinet position of deputy PM, and also that should the leader resign while in government, leadership automatically passes to the deputy leader. That would automatically create a passage from PM to Deputy on resignation while in government… But, there’s no rule that you have to be an MP to be in cabinet. Cabinet could, and at times in the past has, included Senators. Or someone not in the legislature at all, as is currently the case,

Aging the existing constitutional conventions would require formally codifying the office of Prime Minister into our written constitution. That would be opening a major can of worms.

We’ll have an election very shortly that will settle this to the satisfaction of voters.

My "shouldn't it be?" was hypothetically, I should have stated that.

 

[brihard]

My "shouldn't it be?" was hypothetically, I should have stated that.

All good. It’s interesting to think about and discuss the status quo versus possible incremental or radical changes in our governmental system.

I’m a ‘minimal change to basic structures’ sort of guy myself.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you want to imagine he’ll do that, go nuts. But that’s not what I was responding to. You went after @HavokFour with a false equivalency, and I was addressing that.

I'll admit to the false equivalency, but you decided to wade into the carbon tax.

You said "Carney is getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC- we can expect to see that in the Gazette for an April 1st implementation shortly."

Carney has only reduced the current consumer portion of the carbon tax to zero. That scale can be moved up or down as the government sees fit. He is not getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC or any other means. The carbon tax is part of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. He can't repeal an act on his own. OIC or otherwise. That is properly the purview of the Legislature.

So no, Carney didn't get rid of the carbon tax on his own. He reset a price point. A price point that can be moved up or down by the sitting government whenever they want, but to get rid of it, to ensure it can't be used again, requires the law to be repealed. Carney did not do that.

If you think you've seen the last of the consumer portion of the carbon tax, under the liberals, go nuts.

 

[lenaitch]

It's the same system that the majority of the English speaking world uses. The only thing that upsets me about it is how ignorant the majority of Canadians seem to be about how our government works.

As far as changing anything, our constitution is so hard to change, it's basically written in stone. I wouldn't waste time even thinking about it.

I support the Westminster System. Having a directly elected Head of Government can lead to situations like we have south of the border right now. In our system the PM does at least eventually answer to his party, and can be removed much easier.

Any constitution or foundational legislation worth its salt is supposed to be hard to change. It's what protects them from the whims of power.

Processes are useless if they're not used when they ought to be. We have a poor constitutional framework and an unwillingness to fix it. The first purpose of a constitution for representative government is to put hard limits around what government can do, and the second purpose is to describe the structure of that government. All of it ought to be written down.

I tend to agree. My longstanding beef with our system is the concentration of power, including non-elected minions, at the PMO, reducing the members in the House to trained seals. There is no legislation to prevent or reverse this, and the party in power certainly isn't going to.

The only time the members in the House grow a pair is when they sense they are going to lose power. Straying from platform, principles, ideology, etc. has nothing to do with it.

 

[brihard]

I'll admit to the false equivalency,

Great, thanks for that.

but you decided to wade into the carbon tax.

You said "Carney is getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC- we can expect to see that in the Gazette for an April 1st implementation shortly."

Carney has only reduced the current consumer portion of the carbon tax to zero. That scale can be moved up or down as the government sees fit. He is not getting rid of the carbon tax via OIC or any other means. The carbon tax is part of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. He can't repeal an act on his own. OIC or otherwise. That is properly the purview of the Legislature.

So no, Carney didn't get rid of the carbon tax on his own. He reset a price point. A price point that can be moved up or down by the sitting government whenever they want, but to get rid of it, to ensure it can't be used again, requires the law to be repealed. Carney did not do that.

If you think you've seen the last of the consumer portion of the carbon tax, under the liberals, go nuts.

You’re right inasmuch as the statute will still exist, and that industrial pricing will still apply to some industries, I’ll accept the correction there. However the ‘axe the tax’ rhetoric for the past year has focused on what we see at the gas pump, in our home heating bills, and at the grocery store. That’s going away. Since I’m sure Carney doesn’t plan to run for only a single term if he wins, I don’t personally believe he would be reversing that. It’s proven politically untenable and that matter too.

I should have said the consumer carbon tax is done, and an OIC can absolutely do that in functional terms. That’s what’s happening as of April 1st, and that’s what Canadians will see going into the elections

 

[MilEME09]

Carney right now has 51% favorability in Quebec, poilievre has 24%. CPC chances in Quebec are almost non existent right now, and with increasing support in the GTA and southern Ontario for Carney, the CPC would have a hard chance forming anything more then a minority government, especially given historical, voters turn out has been low the last couple federal elections, which tends to favor the liberals.

 

[Good2Golf]

Carney right now has 51% favorability in Quebec, poilievre has 24%. CPC chances in Quebec are almost bon existent right now, and with increasing support in the GTA and southern Ontario for Carney, the CPC would have a hard chance forming anything more then a minority government, especially given historical lyrics voters turn out has been low the last couple federal elections, which tends to favor the liberals.

I’m putting CPC large minority with PPC support to a majority, on my bingo card.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Carney right now has 51% favorability in Quebec, poilievre has 24%. CPC chances in Quebec are almost bon existent right now, and with increasing support in the GTA and southern Ontario for Carney, the CPC would have a hard chance forming anything more then a minority government, especially given historical lyrics voters turn out has been low the last couple federal elections, which tends to favor the liberals.

CPC can win without QC; LPC can't. Look at numbers of QC seats for recent CPC election wins. Low CPC prospects in QC don't mean much. Prospects in ON matter for both.

 

[MilEME09]

CPC can win without QC; LPC can't. Look at numbers of QC seats for recent CPC election wins. Low CPC prospects in QC don't mean much. Prospects in ON matter for both.

Both are neck and neck right now in Ontario. With first past the post, it's anyone's game

338Canada Canada | Poll Analysis & Electoral Projections

338canada.com

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Carney right now has 51% favorability in Quebec, poilievre has 24%. CPC chances in Quebec are almost non existent right now, and with increasing support in the GTA and southern Ontario for Carney, the CPC would have a hard chance forming anything more then a minority government, especially given historical, voters turn out has been low the last couple federal elections, which tends to favor the liberals.

But is that anything new? QC has always been a low conservative support province.

Southern Ontario is one that I wouldn't attempt to call right now.

Matter of fact, until the writ is dropped and campaigning takes place, especially a leader debate, I don't see alot of sense speculating.

Much like the Biden/Trump debate, the whole thing can depend on that aspect alone.

 

[Remius]

I’m putting CPC large minority with PPC support to a majority, on my bingo card.

Except the CPC can’t win anything if the PPC gets enough seats to be that sort of support. PPC seats come at the expense of CPC seats.

Large CPC is still a very real outcome though and I suspect being held to a minority is the best the LPC can hope for for now.

My bingo card is not anywhere near an LPC victory yet.