For my Canadian friends

[Shiftless2]

While many (most?) of the problems are the results of Trump's actions I don't want this to be lost there. Besides, Canada has a federal election coming up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Gordon Ross​

odsSotenpr0cMr633mc il6M56amh u05 6m12 5a3c911t1aaig5P:2m41u ·

COPIED FROM A FED UP CITIZEN - AN OPEN LETTER TO PIERRE POILIEVRE THAT IS A MUST READ FOR EVERYONE

Dear Pierre Poilievre,

Your constant attacks on Mark Carney are not only misleading but dangerous. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the truth about the economic challenges Canadians face today. Rising housing costs and inflation are the result of a global economic crisis, not Mark Carney's actions or the liberals actions. In fact, Canada's economy has outpaced other G7 countries in its recovery from the pandemic, with stronger growth in key sectors like natural resources, energy, and technology. While inflation and housing affordability remain issues, Canada's overall economic performance has been more resilient than many of its G7 counterparts. You know very well these issues were caused by the pandemic, disrupted supply chains, and global energy price hikes, not the policies of a man trying to address these challenges.

You falsely claim Carney "sold out" Canada by moving his company headquarters to the US. You conveniently ignore the fact that Carney stepped down from Brookfield long before that decision was made. Worse still, Carney placed his business interests in a public trust to avoid conflicts of interest - something you know well but choose to ignore when you claim Trump could leverage these conflicts against him. That is pure fiction.

When you talk about the carbon tax, you're misleading Canadians again. Carney isn't advocating for a second carbon tax, as you claim. He wants to replace the current carbon tax with one that targets big polluters and offers incentives to Canadians for greener choices. Meanwhile, you want to scrap the carbon tax altogether, without any alternative solution, an approach that would only hurt our environment and cost Canadians even more in the long run.

You've also taken the liberty of blaming Carney for blocking resource projects, yet you know full well that the political, environmental, and regulatory factors involved in these projects are far more complicated than you let on. Let's not forget, you and your party were once hesitant about pipelines too. Now, you act like you're the only true supporter of them. It's hypocritical at best.

You call the bill that imposes stricter environmental reviews for pipelines a "no new pipeline" bill, but that's not what it is. It's about ensuring that development occurs responsibly, balancing economic interests with environmental and Indigenous concerns. You can't keep pretending that unchecked corporate greed is the answer to everything.

Your refusal to obtain the necessary security clearance to receive intelligence briefings is a slap in the face to every Canadian who cares about national security. Your excuses about it being a "gag order" only make you look weak and evasive. You clearly aren't taking your responsibilities seriously, and that's concerning when you claim to be fit to lead. How can we trust you and your MPs when you refuse to find out if any of them have ties to foreign interference and influence?

Let's not forget your connections to big oil lobbyists and your financial interests in the oil and gas sector. You advocate for tax breaks and deregulation that benefit these companies, showing that your true allegiance lies with corporate profits, not the people of this country. You've become a mirror image of Trump and his ties to the fossil fuel industry, and it's becoming increasingly clear where your priorities lie.

Finally, your willingness to use the notwithstanding clause to override court decisions is both undemocratic and dangerous. It weakens our justice system and undermines the principles that make Canada strong. It's no different from the authoritarian tactics we currently see from Trump and his Executive Orders.

Pierre, your rhetoric is full of half-truths and distortions. You prioritize your political career and corporate interests while misleading the very people you claim to represent. You should be ashamed of your actions. Canadians deserve a leader who tells the truth, who puts the people first, and who doesn't exploit their fears for personal gain.

Signed,

A Canadian Citizen Fed Up With The Misinformation

 

[sear]

"Your constant attacks on Mark Carney are not only misleading but dangerous. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the truth about the economic challenges ...

A Canadian Citizen Fed Up With The Misinformation" Ross #1

I feel your pain Gordo.
Canadidly, Trump has mastered the black art of lying, parlayed it into the white house, twice !

Though I don't know the Canadian details I can imagine it may be equally chilling, for reasons other than bad lattitude.

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) [deceased]

Honesty and duplicity each are potentially powerful tools.
My overwhelming preference (yours too I gather) is honesty.

The painful banquet hall reality Mr. Ross, the one heard best at the banquet is the wisest.
The one heard most is the loudest.
They are rarely the same.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[sear]

"Invested to end 143 drinking water advisories on reserves" Poilievre #4

It would seem there's an excuse to disregard such health concerns. What priority higher than human welfare, a practical need for access to safe drinking water do they pretend to serve? $money?

 

[Shiftless2]

Re #5

Then there was Flint Michigan

 

[sear]

Re #5
"Then there was Flint Michigan" S2 #6

You read my mind?
That's precisely the example that inspired my #5.

iirc Biden's bipartisan spending package the president sent through congress early in his administration included funding for over a period of years removing such Lead sources from municipal water supplies.
Has Trump rescinded that yet?

Two reasons for Trump to do so.
a) Less government spending, more to slip to Trump's $wealthy chums in tax cuts.
b) More voters poisoned by neuro-toxic heavy metals the more low IQ voters for future Republican institutional carnage. A "win : win"? Trump seems to think so.

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Shiftless2]

Radio Free Canada​

Darin Howard · ptrnsSoeod7a2161222571i80tca0i2t9ia331th0i0g6625tt165a5laggg ·

"Canadians Know Danielle Smith Is a Traitor, Right?" The question comes from California, where Mike Brock writes one of the best substacks I know. Subtitlle: "How Transnational Ideological Loyalty Is Replacing Democratic Sovereignty"<mikebrock@substack.com>

A piece from The National Observer—which I'd never heard of before, but have now subscribed to—came across my Substack notes feed this evening. I read it. And then just had to stop and write about this.

The Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, sat on a stage in Florida alongside Ben Shapiro—a man who called Canada “a silly country” and advocated for its annexation by the United States—and discussed strategies to elect Canadian leaders who would be “solid allies” to Donald Trump. This happened at a $1,500-a-head fundraiser for PragerU, an organization that masquerades as an educational institution while functioning as a propaganda outlet, where they collectively raised over $1 million.

Let that sink in.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a Canadian provincial leader is openly coordinating with foreign political actors to influence Canadian elections in ways favorable to a foreign administration that has explicitly threatened Canada's sovereignty.

If we still possess even a minimal capacity for moral clarity, we need to call this what it is: treason. Not in the narrow legal sense that depends on specific statutory definitions, but in the fundamental moral sense of betraying one's country and its interests in favor of a foreign power.

“There was a massive conservative movement that's happening in Canada,” Shapiro said during the event. “I think the obstacles to that need to be removed. It is better for the United States to have actual solid allies running in Canada than to have some of the schmucks that have been running Canada over the past few years.”

To which Smith replied, “I think the President recognizes especially the importance of oil and gas,” adding that “We already ship about 4.3 million barrels a day of oil to the United States. We'll keep it coming.”

This conversation didn't happen in a vacuum. It occurred against the backdrop of Trump imposing costly economic tariffs on Canada and explicitly threatening to annex the country, saying in mid-March that “Canada only works as a state.” When Shapiro joked about this annexation, calling Canada “our soon-to-be 51st state,” Smith didn't defend Canadian sovereignty. She didn't express outrage at the violation of international norms this would represent. She said, "I come in peace," to loud applause from the American audience.

This is a profound betrayal that transcends ordinary political disagreement. This isn't about conservative versus liberal policies or differing visions of Canada's future. This is about whether Canada should exist as a sovereign nation at all, or whether it should subordinate its interests to those of a foreign administration.

CONTINUED

 

[Shiftless2]

Part 2
The moral emptiness of Ben Shapiro in this exchange is almost secondary to Smith's betrayal, but it deserves mention nonetheless. This is a man who built his brand on supposedly principled conservatism and logical consistency, yet here he is advocating for a foreign country to interfere in Canadian elections to install leaders who will be “solid allies” to Trump. He jokes about annexing Canada, calling it “a silly country that makes maple syrup, hockey and annoying prime ministers,” adding that “we can annex it and then just call it an outlying territory or something like Puerto Rico, but of the North.”

What principle is being advanced here? What consistent conservative value does this represent? None. It's naked power politics dressed up as ideological alignment—the assertion that Canada should be subordinated to American interests because its current leadership doesn't align with Shapiro's preferences.

The setting for this betrayal is equally revealing. PragerU isn't a university at all—it's a content factory masquerading as an educational institution. It packages ideological propaganda in pseudo-academic wrapping to give it the veneer of intellectual legitimacy. This is where Smith chose to appear—at a fundraiser for an organization that pretends to be about education while functioning as a partisan propaganda outlet. A partisan project that wants to annex the country that she represents as one of its provincial premiers.

Smith has defended her appearance by saying “the way you actually influence the decision on tariffs is you talk to American influencers.” But this wasn't a diplomatic mission to protect Canadian interests. This was active coordination to elect Canadian leaders who would prioritize alignment with Trump over Canada's own sovereignty and well-being.
Even more disturbing, Smith has refused to condemn efforts by a group of Albertans advocating for Alberta statehood within the U.S., suggesting that "a referendum on statehood would be an appropriate way to deal with separatist sentiment." This isn't just flirting with separatism; it's openly entertaining the possibility of a Canadian province becoming part of a foreign country.

The fundamental betrayal here isn't just of Canada as a political entity but of the very idea that a nation should determine its own future based on the interests and values of its citizens. Smith is advocating for a form of client-state relationship where Canadian leadership would be selected not for their commitment to Canadian interests but for their willingness to serve as "solid allies" to a foreign administration.

This raises profound questions about the nature of democratic sovereignty in an age of transnational ideological alignment. What does national interest even mean when elected officials openly subordinate their country's autonomy to foreign powers with whom they share ideological commitments? What happens to democratic accountability when politicians pledge primary allegiance not to their constituents but to foreign leaders who share their worldview?

The danger here extends far beyond Canada. What they represent is a world in which ideological loyalty overrides national duty. Where sovereignty is expendable, and democracy is optional. In this vision, the primary loyalty of the right-wing Premier of Alberta isn't to Canada or even to Alberta, but to a global right-wing movement personified by Trump.

This is why Smith's betrayal matters beyond Canada's borders. It's a window into how democracy itself is being redefined—from a system where leaders are accountable to their citizens to one where they're primarily committed to transnational ideological interests that see national sovereignty as an obstacle to be overcome.

The urgent question for Canadians is whether they recognize the gravity of what's happening. This isn't normal politics. It isn't just another example of provincial-federal tension or western alienation. It's an elected Canadian official actively coordinating with foreign actors to undermine Canadian sovereignty—and doing so openly, with apparent confidence that there will be no meaningful consequences.

If this doesn't provoke widespread outrage and condemnation across the political spectrum, it suggests that we've already normalized a level of betrayal that would have been unthinkable in previous eras. It suggests that we've accepted a form of politics where national loyalty is secondary to ideological alignment, where service to foreign interests can be repackaged as principled conservatism.

Canadians need to decide if this is acceptable. They need to decide if a provincial premier actively working with foreign political figures to elect “solid allies” to a foreign administration—while that administration threatens annexation and imposes punitive tariffs—crosses a line that demands response. They need to decide if jokes about becoming the “51st state” from someone in a position of significant power represent harmless banter or a profound betrayal of what Canada stands for.

Two plus two equals four. There are twenty-four hours in a day. And a Canadian provincial leader openly coordinating with foreign actors to undermine Canadian sovereignty while that foreign power threatens annexation is engaging in behavior that in any other era would be recognized for what it is: treason.

The moral clarity required here isn't complex. It doesn't depend on partisan alignment or policy preferences. It depends only on the basic understanding that elected officials in a democracy owe their primary loyalty to their own citizens and country, not to foreign powers who share their ideology.

If we can't achieve that minimal level of moral clarity—if we can't call this betrayal what it is—then we've already surrendered something essential to democratic self-governance. We've already accepted that national sovereignty is negotiable, that loyalty to country is optional, that service to foreign interests can be repackaged as political virtue.

Danielle Smith has made her choice clear. She has chosen alignment with Trump and Shapiro over loyalty to Canada. She has chosen to help “remove obstacles” to electing Canadian leaders who will be “solid allies” to a foreign administration that has threatened Canada's very existence as a sovereign nation.

Now Canadians must make their choice. They must decide whether such a betrayal is disqualifying for public office, or whether it represents a new normal in which national loyalty is subordinate to ideological alignment. They must decide whether Danielle Smith's actions represent a breach of trust so fundamental that it cannot be overlooked or explained away.

The answer seems obvious. But in an era where the most basic democratic norms are regularly violated without consequence, nothing can be taken for granted. The test is not just for Smith, but for all Canadians who still believe that their country deserves leaders who put its interests first.

That is, of course, my opinion from my vantage point here in Los Angeles. From a country that should be defending democratic principles, not undermining them. Sorry, Canada. For our profound moral failings.

“The first duty of a man is to think for himself” — José Martí

 

[Shiftless2]

From someone who has spent his entire adult life in Parliament ....

I don't have an original source for this, just the meme.

 

[Shiftless2]

Peter Beckett
In Canada we used to have a progressive conservative party.

As with most of the western world, it has been taken over by toxic masculinity, racism, divisive hate and chanting three word slogans.

If you had not "connected the dots" you can look at the USA to see where it leads.

In Mark Carney I see the potential of a leader of a formal coalition that would include the wide spectrum of constructive ideas in a proportionally representative Canadian government.

l also see an ability lead the discussions around building the new form of constitutional law and international agreements for western democracies made necessary by the new reality of social media and artificial intelligence.

If you consider yourself a progressive conservative and find yourself uncomfortable with what your party has become, It was Steven Harper who appointed Mark Carney as the Governor of the Bank Canada to protect us from the American financial collapse of the sub-prime lending fraud in 2008.

If there was still a progressive conservative party in Canada, Mark Carney could be leading it.

 

[Shiftless2]

Hmmmm ....

 

[sear]

Peter Beckett
"In Canada we used to have a progressive conservative party.
As with most of the western world, it has been taken over by toxic masculinity, racism, divisive hate and chanting three word slogans." #12

I can't offer more than a feeble if gentle, sympathetic palm to your shoulder Pete.
Any consolation in the deservedly powerless seeking unearned power by parasitizing already established power? It's what Trump has inflicted on the GOP.
I know of no Silver bullet. "The remedy for bad speech is good speech." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
It's not working in the U.S. either. Thanks anyway Lou.

two term parliamentary tenure limits #11

Problem solving may be a human compulsion, or perhaps merely a necessity, though some are far more skilled at it than others.
The problems of entrenched (established) bureaucratic dysfunction are familiar to those monitoring the consequences of their votes at the election polls.

Not to dismiss the problem, but acknowledge, it's possible to have an ostensible cure that's worse than the disease.
Free & fair elections are less free if the People's choice of candidates is restricted by bureaucratic rule such as arbitrary term limit.

If that seems hypocritical I can compound the hypocrisy by confessing my slight preference for U.S. presidential term limit imparted by the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment.
It did for example apparently spare the U.S. a third Reagan term. Indications of President Reagan's failing mental competence were publicly observed late in Reagan's second term.

If Canada chooses parliamentary term limits we can wish them all the best.
But such change is no panacea. And the resultant change is likely to create alternate problems. Is that "cure" worse than the disease?

 

[Shiftless2]

Canadians Against Pierre Poilievre​

We have all been working so hard to save Canada from the evil empire I thought we could use a chuckle…this gave me several
of those!

------------------------------------------------------​

https://www.facebook.com/groups/107...Yp5rT89zV0qfr3Q_h561EdzI4Cg&__tn__=<<,P-y-y-R

https://www.facebook.com/groups/107...ZYp5rT89zV0qfr3Q_h561EdzI4Cg&__tn__=<,P-y-y-R

Shari ThomasLiz Cheney/Adam Kinzinger Against Trump​

A Satire to Make Your Day!

One of my Canadian friends shared this. I don’t know who wrote it though - pretty sure they are Canadian though! It’s making Canadians laugh through this stressful time.

“The year is 2027, and the war that America launched on Canada rages on. Our first attempt at economic conquest failed in 2025, when they formed close ties with Asia and Europe to stave off the starvation effects of our tariffs. In 2026 we turned to outright military attack, in an attempt to turn them into the 51st state. We threw the first punch. In imperial.

It’s now 8 months into the conflict with the Snow Mexicans, with no end in sight.

Below is a letter from an American soldier on the front lines of the 49th parallel…

Dear Mom,

Trump thought his invasion of Canada would be swift, but it’s been tougher than any of us thought. Who knew that after deploying their entire military and reserves they’d reach the depths they did in recruitment that they did? Turning to amateur hockey players to fill their ranks. For whom violence is a hobby, and somehow seems to be about half their population.

I thought December was the worst of the frigid torture, but January has brought a fresh new hell frozen over.

We’re 55 miles south of Winnipeg, and temperatures go down to -25 degrees Celsius (a bad metric habit we plan on breaking them of if we win) these days.

Many of us Yanks are freezing to death in these sub-arctic temperatures. My platoon is fighting hypothermia by taking turns in a hot tub made out of a foxhole and geothermic heat, a technique a Canadian Prisoner of War (POW), Jean-Pierre, taught us when he got bored.

The Canadian soldiers are in t-shirts, playing bunker hockey. Damned snowbacks.

In a rather nice display of kindness, they throw mittens over to us. Well, we thought it was ‘nice’. We learned quickly that they keep our fingers from falling off due to frostbite — but it also means we can’t return fire as our trigger fingers don’t work when mitten covered. The bilingual bastards knew this.

These snowspooks knew a lot of things — like having winter fatigues that are entirely white. It turns out our camo uniforms stick out like a sore thumb in Canadian winter.

Despite not having the war chest that we have, they’re surprisingly clever. They’ve whittled down hockey sticks into shanks and are using them as bayonets in hand-to-hand combat.

These syrup-suckers trained their Canadian Geese, what they call “Cobra Chickens”, to pick our drones right out of the air. The nerds they brought in from the Canada Space Agency easily learned how to reprogram them. So they’ve found an endless source of drones, courtesy of the American government.

Their surprisingly ample supply of groundhogs from the prairies have been trained to burrow into our bunkers and drop explosives. And their beavers have successfully choked our supply of fresh water with their dams.

The toque-wearing poutine junkies learned to coat grenades with maple syrup, to stick to whatever they’re thrown at.

In some ways, they are the polite adversaries that we had hoped for. Every time they throw a Molotov cocktail made out of a Molson Canadian beer bottle into our bunkers they yell out ‘sorrey’. That’s quite polite of them. However, that good grace is entirely undone by their brutal psychological warfare.

The Canooks play Nickelback and Justin Bieber on a subwoofer, 24 hours a day, to break our morale.

They’ve been airdropping marijuana onto our side. Half my platoon has been incapacitated by the potency of their pot. Steve said, and I quote, “I’m higher than Snoop Dogg at a Willie Nelson concert” before laughing like a lunatic for 87 minutes straight.

Entering the war, they clearly knew more about us than we knew about them. They’ve dangerously tapped into our overwhelming urges for patriotic pride by having one soldier yell out the names of states and cities. “Is anyone from…North Dakota?” The minute the Dakotan pops up in pride yelling “ME!”, their sniper picks him off.

For a country that doesn’t have a lot of guns, they surprisingly have some of the best snipers in the world. As we learned far too late, 3 out of the top 10 longest sniper kills in the world are Canadian.

Thankfully, they’ve grown since their Geneva Convention days, when their official policy was ‘Fuck Around and Find Out’. I learned from our POW, Jean-Pierre (surprisingly nice guy, he taught me how to make maple taffy in the snow), that they refer to the Geneva Conventions as the ‘Geneva Suggestions’, or the ‘list of things Canada isn’t allowed to do anymore’.

I can see why the Geneva Conventions were invented in 1949 after the end of WWII. It was to stop the Canadians. They were (and are) savages, who did things like throwing canned foods into German trenches only to lull them into a false sense of security, and then lobbing grenades.

They also took no prisoners and killed the wounded.

My entire platoon is desperately hoping they keep to the Geneva Conventions should any of us be captured.

But so far they’ve adapted an even more evil-maniacal strategy when it comes to POWs. They’ve been treating them so well that they turn. When captured, they get a trip to a nice Canadian hospital and a full workup. They also teach them how to ice skate and play hockey. They feed them authentic poutine, which is a welcome treat compared to the MREs our government has been purchasing from Russia. Nobody likes Borscht, Trump.

I saw my buddy Dave the other day, he’s fighting with the Canadians now. He’s taken his new Canadian patriotism seriously, he started chanting “Build the wall!”…then he started building it.

Pfft, turncoat.

To boost morale, Trump sends us sporadic visits from Mr Beast and The Village People. Our morale hasn’t been boosted. And we’re starting to prefer even the Nickelback.

But the Canadians have been successful in keeping their spirits up. Their government has kept them entertained by Ryan Reynolds, who learned some surprisingly quippy stand-up routines — and performs them in the Deadpool outfit. And Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson has been their motivational speaker, who in a surprise move activated his Canadian citizenship to distance himself from this embarrassing war.

I have to say, there’s something paralyzingly majestic about watching the Canadian soldiers ride into battle with smiles on their faces atop their military-grade moose (mooses? meese? meeses?).

Mom, I fear we shall not be victorious and I fear for our safety. In addition to the millions of toothless amateur hockey players, who fight like angry badgers, joining their ranks — they’re calling up an even more terrifying brigade of soldiers.

Menopausal women.

These fearless she-demons are seemingly impervious to cold — and have redefined the term running amok. Hailing from Gen X, absolutely nothing instills fear into their hearts. America however continually refuses to activate our menopausal brigade, due to our conservative government and gender and age discrimination.

All of us hope not to confront these hot-flash-having lady devils in battle.

I don’t know what Trump was thinking. We can’t even beat these hosers in battle, how does he expect to keep 40 million of these hostile Zamboni-riding bastards under control if he wins?

I have to stop writing now, my fingers are so numb from frostbite that I can’t fathom why we want to take this land. It seems inhospitable, despite the occasional hospitality of the Canucks.

Mom, please send maple syrup in your next care package, Jean-Pierre is going to teach me how to make even the borscht palatable with it.

You know what, scratch that, Jean-Pierre just promised if I helped him escape he’d give me Canadian citizenship, 7 Saskatoon berry pies, and a date with Nina Dobrev.
O Canada, here I come.

Love you Mom.

Sincerely,

Barron”

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Shiftless2]

Emily Charles-Donelson​

nooeptdrSs5424a35t35ta18534fmmgh1h0lm2c9gt223hu3a80856ahh4l9 ·

Since I'm seeing people posting about how Pierre Poilievre has said he will not touch abortion in Canada (when we began taking politicians at their word I will never know – for those with functioning Hypocampuses and Cortexes, you will recall Harper made the same promises and then did the opposite), I will share some of the research I've been doing into Pierre's 20 year history as an MP, focusing this time on the abortion issue:

As with everything to do with politicians who are trying to get voted in, you need to look at the history and the nuance.

First the wording: Poilievre has promised to not legislate on abortion – that only means he doesn’t have the intention to introduce a government bill making abortion restricted or illegal. It doesn’t mean a sitting conservative MP couldn’t bring forward a bill.

And in fact, Pierre has clearly stated he would not stop any of his MPs from introducing anti-abortion legislation (and indeed his MPs have several times over the last few years tabled anti-abortion legislation and run several anti-abortion petitions).

Allowing an MP to table anti-abortion legislation and allowing a free vote would make it theoretically possible for a Conservative government to pass a law restricting access to abortion. And indeed, measures have been taken over the last decade to increase the number of anti-abortion MPs in the Conservative caucus.

When Andrew Sheer – who is staunchly anti-abortion – was elected party leader in 2017, his campaign was only successful because THREE anti-abortion groups sold thousands of Conservative Party memberships and pressured the party for strategic voting for anti-choice candidates.

So this is where the current moment gets dicey: Sheer's time as leader and the work he did with those three anti-abortion groups means that there are way more anti-abortion MPs sitting in the party currently than there were before. So when Pierre says HE wouldn’t bring forward legislation that would make abortion illegal but that he wouldn’t stop his MPs from bringing forward such a bill and having a free vote – now we’re looking at a situation where the vote FOR restricting abortion may outweigh the votes AGAINST. According to an abortion rights watchdog, all current sitting MPs are now anti-abortion.

As an example of this, in 2023 the ENTIRE conservative caucus, including Pierre Poilievre, voted YES to a bill that would have encoded fetal rights into law in Canada – a first step towards abortion bans (as noted below, the exact same strategy was tried when Harper was Prime Minister and Pierre was an MP under him – Poilievre had seen the entire thing unfold before and knew exactly what this bill was). All other parties voted unanimously against this bill (but not until its second reading after pro-choice groups had made everyone aware that the bill was a covert attempt at moving in the direction of anti-abortion legislation – the conservatives had tried to conceal it).

As another example, in response to the overturning of Roe V. Wade in the United States when people in Canada were expressing anxiety around abortion rights, Bloc Quebecois MP Monique Pauzé responded to constituents by requesting unanimous consent for a motion related to abortion in Canada and asked that "the House of Commons reiterate that a woman’s body belongs to her and her alone, and recognize her right to choose an abortion regardless of the reason.” When adopted, all MPs in the house rose to give a standing ovation EXCEPT for conservative MPs: every single one of them remained in their seats and did not even applaud. Rachael Harder, the Conservative Status of Women critic who has attended many anti-abortion rallies, did not even look up from her desk while this was taking place.

On the same day that Pierre Poilievre voted no to providing women with free contraceptives, his MP Arnold Viersen - who refers to fertilized eggs as pre-borns - raised a petition in the House of Commons to limit access to abortion in Canada. He has also verbally confirmed on various podcasts that given the chance to vote to strike down abortion laws and the right to gay marriage in Canada, he would do it. He's an example of such a conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87X1cwZ_2q8

Pierre has also said that he will use section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow the federal Parliament to pass legislation that overrides Charter-established rights and freedoms. Such a notwithstanding clause could be used on abortion rights to make abortion illegal in Canada.

According to MP Alain Rayes who recently crossed the aisle to sit as an independent due to the contradiction between what conservatives say publicly VS what he saw internally has said this:

"If you ask the leader, they'll tell you they're pro-choice. They'll affirm it, in an attempt to placate people who feel strongly, people trying to attack the Conservative Party. But that's not where the problem is. The problem is that you have, inside the organization, extremely powerful groups, members who are at the conventions and who influence the policies. In the Conservative Party, the anti-choice crowd is often calling the shots. They have a massive say in the party. There is a real threat from the Conservatives."

Those members are working to get the party to prioritize making abortion illegal.

Conservative MPs also often attend anti-abortion rallies, including Leslyn Lewis, Kyle Seeback, Harold Albrecht, Brad Trost, Arnold Viersen, Blaine Calkins, Christopher Warkentin, Damien Kurek, Dane Lloyd, Garnett Genuis, Glen Motz, Michael Cooper, Michael Lake, Shannon Stubbs, Tom Kmiec and Rachael Harder.
Pierre Poilievre also voted YES to a bill that was brought forward by an anti-choice MP Cathay Wagantall who had previously brought two anti-abortion bills forward - while she insisted this new bill was not anti-abortion, during promotions of the bill she referred constantly to the lack of abortion laws in Canada and the need to protect fetuses. She promoted it with TWO separate petitions: one that had pro-life language in it and one that had pro-choice language in it so that she could market it to both sides (and this strategy nearly worked to get it passed).

The bill was designed as a trojan horse to get the first step towards restricting abortion into the law: it gave fetuses legal rights. As she said at the time: "Canada has no abortion law. This legal void is so extreme that we don’t even recognize preborn children as victims of violent crimes." (Cathay Wagantall)

But as legal experts pointed out at the time, it was unnecessary to codify fetal rights into law because any violence done to a pregnant person is already included in such cases and brought as factors in any trial, and that codifying legal rights for fetuses into law would leave the door open to abortion bans.

This is similar to what happened with Bill C-484 in 2007, it was the same thing: if passed, it would have treated fetuses as legal persons by making them separate victims when a pregnant woman was killed or attacked. This bill made it to second reading and Harper himself voted in favour of C-484, as well as against Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s Order of Canada in 2008.

Harper also promised during his election campaign not to defund abortion, but once he got in he acted against that promise and put in measures that restricted funding causing abortion clinics to close. In 2010 he pledged money for women's health, but left abortion funding and funding for contraceptives out of is (Pierre Poilievre also voted against funding for contraceptives TWICE in the last two years).

Pierre Poilievre was publicly and loudly anti-abortion prior to becoming leader of the Conservative Party. Once he was put in place as leader in 2020, he changed his tune and said he was pro-choice. This echoes previous Conservative leaders like Harper, who say they are not anti-abortion but once they get elected, they begin pushing to dismantle abortion laws and defund clinics.

This is a good article to check out, obviously I can't post the link but I'll make it easy for people to search for it by putting the title in here to copy and paste: The inconvenient anti-choice record of ‘pro-choice’ Pierre Poilievre, Rabble

 

[Shiftless2]

 

[Shiftless2]

Keep calm and Carney on ...

 

[sear]

This post #20 comment is not based on ostensible in-depth knowledge of Canadian partisan politics.
Instead it's premised on a general understanding of the English language, in strident defense of the noble principle of conservatism; the principle, not necessarily the party.

"Conservatives have been caught cheating ..." #18

To clarify, members of the Conservative party may have been.
But conservatism itself is premised on honesty & integrity, thus antithetical to cheating.

That in turn suggests it may be in Canada as it currently is in the U.S., political parasites falsely claim the prestige of conservatism for the political benefits, but in reality have no legitimate claim to it.