this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
64 points (93.2% liked)

Canada

7660 readers
814 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Poilievre first introduced the private member's bill, C-278, last year when he was running for the party's leadership.

It has since been picked up by Conservative MP Dean Allison, a noted anti-mandate critic who, like his leader, supported the trucker convoy that loudly opposed the government's approach to COVID-19.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] LostWon 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

but we all know we donโ€™t vote in parties in Canada, we just vote them out

I have wished for a long time that the parties would be disbanded (as they currently exist), so only their policy platforms would remain. I feel like only then would they cut the BS and end up more like think tanks that candidates are allowed to join and work with on policy ideas ONLY (i.e. NO campaign or marketing assistance; just publicly verifiable confirmation if candidate X signed off on policy Y).

Then candidates could go on the record saying if they align with party A's economic platform on issue 1 and party B's social platform on issue 2 (and be held to account), rather than coasting on vague party affiliations while answering as little as possible. There would also be actual room for debate because they couldn't be whipped, and if they change their mind on an issue they'd be obligated to explain the reasoning.

I know this will never happen though because for generations, both Grits and Tories have found success by misleading voters, each in their usual way.