Poilievre has historically been a very big supporter of rights to work, clearly they don't need to abandon that stance considering how poorly the NDP (the self claimed working class party that has forgotten its roots) has been doing and losing heavy ground, but as you pointed out rights to work is a major sticking point especially for pro-union backers to support the CPC
I don't expect it, but considering several of their moves of late to brand itself as the real Canadian working class party, removing their support for rights to work would practically kill off and marginalize the NDP. It would be a shrewd political move with little backlash in what should frankly be a low priority policy for Conservatives.
Poilievre has historically been a very big supporter of rights to work, clearly they don't need to abandon that stance considering how poorly the NDP (the self claimed working class party that has forgotten its roots) has been doing and losing heavy ground, but as you pointed out rights to work is a major sticking point especially for pro-union backers to support the CPC
I don't expect it, but considering several of their moves of late to brand itself as the real Canadian working class party, removing their support for rights to work would practically kill off and marginalize the NDP. It would be a shrewd political move with little backlash in what should frankly be a low priority policy for Conservatives.
Exactly. With absolutely no negatives politically you can understand why it’d be so frustrating for many to see them continue to support it, it speaks volumes as to who they are really looking out for.
At the end of the day even their support for the anti-scab bill(which they really didn’t have much of choice politically to support given that it would have passed anyways and not voting in favour would have made the CPC look like they were anti-worker) doesn’t provide much if any reassurance because right to work laws by design have the long term goal of making it so strikes won’t be able to happen in the first place.
They had rights to work in their 2021 platform, and Poilievre brought it to the table in 2012.
They will likely get elected with a large majority and be able to pass it unopposed should they wish. Would it pass a constitutional challenge, I seriously doubt it considering how section 2 d is written. It's largely seen as anti-worker despite the rhetoric of worker freedom.
It makes absolute sense to dump it. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets dropped by election time.
The Following User Says Thank You to Firebot For This Useful Post:
They had rights to work in their 2021 platform, and Poilievre brought it to the table in 2012.
They will likely get elected with a large majority and be able to pass it unopposed should they wish. Would it pass a constitutional challenge, I seriously doubt it considering how section 2 d is written. It's largely seen as anti-worker despite the rhetoric of worker freedom.
It makes absolute sense to dump it. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets dropped by election time.
It could be argued that right to work laws wouldn’t directly violate Section 2 d because you technically don’t need to pay Union dues to bargain collectively, though it would obviously make it far more difficult.
I’m less optimistic than you are that they’ll drop it before the next election, if ever, but I’ll be happily surprised if they do and as I’ve said multiple times in the past I would vote for them out of principle if they did it because it would be the first real sign that I’ve seen from that party that they are willing to be neutral on labour issues. Labour neutrality from government shouldn’t be something that needs to be a major issue politically and IMO you would see less labour disputes if companies weren’t able to rely on their political cronies enabling them to bargain in bad faith.
Speaking of companies wanting to bargain in bad faith the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are none to pleased with this legislation and are calling to on the unelected senate to quash it:
The NDP (well at least Lisa Marie Barron) are suddenly claiming to have an epiphany about the proposed October 27 2025 election date change at least for the media. It couldn't be that Canadians see the NDP as complicit with the Liberals in securing pensions for MPs that are sure to get the boot come election time. The optics of moving an election date by a week to secure pensions could not be any worse.
The NDP took part in making this election date change possible working with Liberals to create Bill C-65 and stood side by side with them.
Of course all of this is moot if the NDP grew a backbone and decided to walk on its own two feet.
While good for Barron for speaking out, will Singh make this an actual NDP requested change or will he ho hum for weeks about his concerns and suddenly explain why they voted for the bill without amendment changes and how it was necessary to get this bill through to promote democracy?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...affordability/
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his government aims to make housing more affordable for younger Canadians without bringing down home prices for existing homeowners.
Cutting shelter costs while ensuring that homeowners’ property values remain high could be viewed as contradictory, but Mr. Trudeau was adamant that property owners would not lose out.
“Housing needs to retain its value,” Mr. Trudeau told The Globe and Mail’s City Space podcast. “It’s a huge part of people’s potential for retirement and future nest egg.”
Basically, yeah. Every other time housing has become more affordable it has primarily been through nominal prices remaining relatively stagnant while inflation, wage gains, and interest rate cuts improve affordability over time.
In inflation adjusted terms, Canada's average property price is down over 20% from its peak and is on par with mid-2017:
Unfortunately it’s not politically palatable to have nominal dollar declines when in reality each year of stagnation is a 3% housing reduction. People just aren’t wired to think in real dollars.
You know he is a trifle to the social conservative on some issues when PP makes a point of saying that your views on a few issues are not that of the Conservative Party, and that the issues you want change on will not be reopened if he becomes PM.
Ah yes, the "feeling moderate, might delete later" standard rebuttal from modern conservatives trying to get elected.
That’s what you get out of that article? He isn’t saying anything like that.
Scare tactics that the Liberals have successfully used on a certain demographic of people who have fallen for it in the past. Seems those voters have learned a few things, at least that’s what the polls are telling us.
That’s what you get out of that article? He isn’t saying anything like that.
Scare tactics that the Liberals have successfully used on a certain demographic of people who have fallen for it in the past. Seems those voters have learned a few things, at least that’s what the polls are telling us.
We have the RCMP warning of civil unrest in the near future due to quality of life concerns. Yet here we are picking apart the same old BS.
Didn't PP vote against gay marriage multiple times?
Did you read the article?
Pierre’s adoptive father is gay. Also;
Quote:
As an MP, however, Poilievre did vote against same-sex marriage in Parliament in the early 2000s — votes that garnered recognition from socially conservative groups like Campaign Life Coalition.
Thirty-two Liberal backbench MPs also voted against gay marriage, including current Liberal caucus members Agriculture Minister Lawrence MacAulay and MPs Francis Scarpaleggia and John McKay.
You know he is a trifle to the social conservative on some issues when PP makes a point of saying that your views on a few issues are not that of the Conservative Party, and that the issues you want change on will not be reopened if he becomes PM.
How is this not front page news everywhere? I had to check three different CBC tabs before I could find it. Am I missing something here and this is somehow not a huge deal?
The foreign interference blow up.
The PBO coming out in committee and stating that the Liberals did their own study of the carbon tax which agreed with the PBO assesment of the negative effects on the economy (That the Liberals vigorously argued against) then the Libs imposed a gag order on the PBO disclosing the Liberal report.
The McKinsley contracting based auditor general report, that slammed the government on the contracting processes and that we are not getting value for contractors.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
