Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
https://www.thestar.com/politics/fed...f1e7584e3.html
Very interesting story / poll from Toronto Star, that Singh's and NDP's numbers fluctuating around 18-19% are not so much because they are staying stagnant, but they are gaining Liberal voters while losing NDP voters to the CPC and Liberals.
That seems to be quite a different picture than normally occurs. While the ABC mentality is in fact still occurring, if the NDP is losing a good part of their base to the CPC of all parties, it clearly means that their policies or lack of policies is alienating what should traditionally be part of their core.
Champagne socialism can only go so far before it falls flat, so too does Twitter politics when Singh is supposed to be part of a coalition and could demand meaningful changes from the government today if Liberals are not willing to do so.
Will the NDP take this as a wake up call, and provide viable solutions to Canada's issues in 2023 and make themselves a viable alternative voting option to voters who feel disenfranchised? Their NDP convention is coming up soon.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp...2023-1.6993038
|
I'm interested to see what happens with the mandatory leadership review, last time Singh received 87% support, it will be interesting to see what the trend is.
As well the Israel Palastine war is not on the itinerary because it happened too late. I expect that it will manage to rear its head.
In other news (typewriter sound in the background)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-act-1.6993720
Quote:
Canada's top court has delivered a highly anticipated judgment, writing in a majority opinion that Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is largely unconstitutional.
The IAA, previously known as Bill C-69, allows federal regulators to consider the potential environmental and social impacts of various resource and infrastructure projects. It was enacted in 2019.
The IAA has long been controversial among conservative politicians in Alberta, including former premier Jason Kenney, who frequently referred to it as the "no more pipelines act."
Writing for the majority in a 5-2 decision, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner said the process set forth in Sections 81 to 91 of the IAA were constitutional and could be separated out.
|
Quote:
Those sections involve projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands, or outside Canada, and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. Those provisions were not challenged as unconstitutional.
However, Wagner wrote that the balance of the scheme, involving "designated projects," was unconstitutional.
Under the IAA, designated projects are those projects that are set out in the regulations or are subject to a ministerial order.
"In my view, Parliament has plainly overstepped its constitutional competence in enacting this designated projects scheme," Wagner wrote.
|