Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

* nm at this point.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A lot of name calling for what amounts to two people talking past each other while having the most minor of disagreements because one is talking about technical procedure and the other is talking about practical function.

Could Trudeau be voted out / kicked out as party leader / PM by his own party ?

If he doesn't resign, he cannot be voted out. There's no nuances to it.

Originally Posted by Wolven

It sounds like you are unaware of what transpired to cause Trudeau to resign. Freeland's letter, followed by a closed door caucus meeting, resulted in Trudeau's resignation. The writing is on the wall that had he not resigned, then the caucus was prepared to vote him out as leader.

There may be a lot of power in being the PM but the caucus can vote you out as leader of the party (and thus remove you as PM) if you piss enough of them off.

Do you agree with this? The claim wasn't practical, it's outright wrong.

It’s also very boring.

We can go back to WFH / WFO debates

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Firebot

* nm at this point.

We have determined that was a lie.

[Ped]

Looks like the Liberals actually voted down the right to eject their leader last year.

Liberal MPs voted against adopting a formal process to eject their leader should the need arise, newly elected Liberal Caucus Chair James Maloney confirmed on Sunday.
A majority of the caucus voted down a motion to adopt the rules set out under the decade-old Reform Act.
That law was originated by Conservative MP Michael Chong to embolden individual MPs to hold their party leaders to account by allowing them to force leadership reviews, among other things.

Adopting the Reform Act rules would have given Liberal MPs a road map for such situations. That’s how the Conservatives ousted Erin O’Toole from the leadership after the Conservatives lost the 2021 election.
The rules let a fifth of the party’s MPs move to trigger a leadership review. Then, a majority vote would be required to eject the leader.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11196033/...-party-leader/


So no set procedure, and I think you saw this with Trudeau where he refused to listen to what everyone else was saying until was almost too late. If they had been able to turf him, I think they would have.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

We have determined that was a lie.

When you’ve spent a thousand words on an answer that could have been delivered in a single, agreeable sentence, what’s one more post?

[Blaster86]

Sunk-cost fallacy for an internet argument.

[CliffFletcher]

Structually and legally, it would be far easier for an autocrat to take over Canada's federal government than the U.S. What prevents it from happening is political norms and a Canadian electorate that will not (so far) tolerate a leader breaching those norms.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Structually and legally, it would be far easier for an autocrat to take over Canada's federal government than the U.S. What prevents it from happening is political norms and a Canadian electorate that will not (so far) tolerate a leader breaching those norms.

I would say it's actually a lot harder in Canada.
In Canada you need a majority of MPs who support a PM who is acting like an autocrat.

It takes very few to cross the floor, force a vote of non confidence, force an election or form government with the opposition.
Failing that, technically the senate can vote down anything passed through the House, and since they are lifetime appointments, they aren't necessarily beholden to the PM.

So for a PM to go the Trump route, they need a majority of MPs to back them, and they would likely need to stuff the Senate with cronies.

The US president has enormous power via executive order, and has Veto power, so even if congress gets off their duffs to stop him, he can just Veto whatever they vote for, and it takes I think a 2/3 majority to overturn a Veto. You need to control way fewer seats/people to do what Trump is doing vs what it would take in Canada.

[Fuzz]

And if you haven't taken over the Senate, you are not passing laws.

[Fuzz]

Two former Conservative MPs and a former Conservative candidate, representing different regions of the country, say a damning quote is making the rounds in their circles to express internal frustration.

“Pierre Poilievre has become the Justin Trudeau of the Conservative Party,” said one ex-MP, with the other two sources echoing the exact same phrase.

The sources, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis to speak freely, said the news is the topic of discussion among Conservatives today.

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2026...berals/492520/

[Coach]

I don't like the floor-crossing. Just vote for the bills you think you should. I'd rather see conservatives voting for liberal bills than MPs becoming a party that their voters didn't vote for.

[Fuzz]

Problem is they don't really have a free vote. They may as well sit as an independent and vote with the government that way. They'd be booted in short order anyway, if they started doing that.

[Johnny Makarov]

crap. so busy at work today I didn't know this until 900pm! hahaha

suck it Pierre Pomerainian! Please keep him in power rightwing deplorables!!! lol

[Johnny Makarov]

Sounds like there might be a NDP floor crosser next.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Sounds like there might be a NDP floor crosser next.

Who?

[Firebot]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canad...kade-9.7096042

Should Canada help Cuba?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DJones

The whole world would be ####ed if Trump got elected with our government system.

The house and senate are doing a poor job and not doing their jobs but the checks and balances are there. They essentially have three factions making federal decisions. We have one guy.

In Canada all of his random thoughts and executive orders would actually happen. There is no checks and balances and he could have gotten in with far less votes than he actually got. The PM is far more powerful than the President is. Like there wouldn't even be a supreme court nomination debate. He'd just do it. He'd just go to war.

Our unelected senate with life time appointments saves us in that scenario. We have a system where you can’t just capture the electorate.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Coach

I don't like the floor-crossing. Just vote for the bills you think you should. I'd rather see conservatives voting for liberal bills than MPs becoming a party that their voters didn't vote for.

I see this line repeated a lot, but MPs represent everyone in their riding, not just the people who voted for them. Jeneroux won his election by 3000 votes, and the approval rating between Carney and PP since the election has gone decidedly one-way. If an MP polls his constituents and finds the majority now favor Carney, why shouldn't they cross if they want to represent their riding more accurately?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2026...berals/492520/

Nah,

no way he pulls Katy Perry

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I see this line repeated a lot, but MPs represent everyone in their riding, not just the people who voted for them. Jeneroux won his election by 3000 votes, and the approval rating between Carney and PP since the election has gone decidedly one-way. If an MP polls his constituents and finds the majority now favor Carney, why shouldn't they cross if they want to represent their riding more accurately?

Even if the majority were to favour Carney does sitting as a Liberal represent them better? Should an MP crossover whenever the polling changes? If the NDP have a resurgence should he cross the floor to them? The ideal situation is to be independent and vote in the House based on what your constituency wants.