And he's out
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
It really is. If he wasn’t out being an unpredictable prick globally with special emphasis on Canada, Poilievre would have about 50% plus of the popular vote at this point, the NDP might not be afraid of losing official party status, & the Liberals probably would be…& the Bloc would be in a stronger position…& the Greens would still be trying to get to three seats instead of their usual two.
Trump has saved the Liberal bacon to be perfectly honest in this situation, just like Putin invading Ukraine at the tail end of the Ottawa Parking kerfuffle took attention off the Liberal/NDP imposing the Emergencies Act on their own citizens & freezing bank accounts, etc…
Ironically, Putin & Trump seem to be butt buddies at this point after each in their own way kept the flailing Liberals in power.
I’m sure it’s a coincidence, but it’s a hell of a coincidence…
Above is the vote projection over the last 12 months. If the conservatives win anything less than a super-majority, we’ve got Trump to thank for that.
Well that and a group of douchebags called "Protecting Canada" with their 3rd party anti-Poilievre fear mongering ads. A group made up of far-left politicians in Canada from the federal and provincial levels. Not really sure why Elections Canada is letting them get away with such gross disinformation.
Federal Court dismisses challenge of Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Jim Bronskill
Published Mar 07, 2025 • 3 minute read
OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.
Two Nova Scotia men had asked the Federal Court to declare the current suspension of Parliament illegal because there must be a “reasonable justification” for hitting the pause button.
David MacKinnon of Amherst, N.S., and Aris Lavranos of Halifax sought an order setting aside Trudeau’s January decision to advise Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.
Federal lawyers argued that Trudeau’s advice to Simon was not subject to review by the courts, and that the ultimate judgment rested with the voting public.
In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the courts do have a role to play in reviewing the advice, and it is important that it be exercised to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government.
However, he concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.
On Jan. 6, Trudeau fought back tears as he announced plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.
Trudeau also said Simon had agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean and pausing the business of the House of Commons and Senate.
He said prorogation would allow for a reset of Parliament, which had been largely paralyzed for months as the Conservatives pressed the Liberals to hand over documents related to misspending on a green-tech fund.
MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite a hearing of their application for judicial review, citing the urgent U.S. threat of steep tariffs on goods from Canada.
They maintained that Trudeau’s decision effectively denied Parliament the ability to carry out its constitutional functions in the “exceptional and compelling” circumstances posed by the tariff threat.
The applicants also argued that unwritten constitutional principles indicate Parliament, not the executive, is supreme, and that to maintain authority to govern, the government must remain accountable to — and retain the confidence of — Parliament.
Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.
He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.
However, the applicants bore the burden of demonstrating that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.
“They failed to meet that burden.”
Crampton found the applicants did not substantiate their allegation that Trudeau’s decision was “part of a stratagem designed specifically to interrupt the business of Parliament” and stymie the publicly stated intent of a majority of the House of Commons to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government.
He said MacKinnon and Lavranos did not establish when, if at all, a non-confidence vote likely would have occurred in the absence of Trudeau’s decision. They also conceded during the court hearing last month that the government enjoyed the confidence of the House at that time.
The applicants alleged that Trudeau’s decision was made “in service of the interests” of the Liberal Party of Canada as it began the process of selecting a new leader.
Crampton indicated there were several other reasons given for the decision and it was not possible to disentangle them from possibly partisan reasons.
“On their face, those other reasons related either to the business of Parliament or to what appears to be the Prime Minister’s view of the public interest,” he wrote. “It is not the Court’s role to question the merits or wisdom of those reasons.”
Crampton said that in deciding the issue, he was mindful of the emphasis the Supreme Court of Canada has placed on the courts refraining from “undue interference” with the other branches of government.
torontosun.com
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Jim Bronskill
Published Mar 07, 2025 • 3 minute read
OTTAWA — A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament, concluding the prime minister did not exceed the bounds of his authority.
Two Nova Scotia men had asked the Federal Court to declare the current suspension of Parliament illegal because there must be a “reasonable justification” for hitting the pause button.
David MacKinnon of Amherst, N.S., and Aris Lavranos of Halifax sought an order setting aside Trudeau’s January decision to advise Gov. Gen. Mary Simon to exercise her power to prorogue Parliament until March 24.
Federal lawyers argued that Trudeau’s advice to Simon was not subject to review by the courts, and that the ultimate judgment rested with the voting public.
In a ruling made public late Thursday, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton said the courts do have a role to play in reviewing the advice, and it is important that it be exercised to maintain public confidence in the institutions of government.
However, he concluded the applicants failed to demonstrate that Trudeau exceeded limits established by the written Constitution, unwritten constitutional principles or any other legal limits.
On Jan. 6, Trudeau fought back tears as he announced plans to resign as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen.
Trudeau also said Simon had agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament, wiping the legislative slate clean and pausing the business of the House of Commons and Senate.
He said prorogation would allow for a reset of Parliament, which had been largely paralyzed for months as the Conservatives pressed the Liberals to hand over documents related to misspending on a green-tech fund.
MacKinnon and Lavranos asked the court to expedite a hearing of their application for judicial review, citing the urgent U.S. threat of steep tariffs on goods from Canada.
They maintained that Trudeau’s decision effectively denied Parliament the ability to carry out its constitutional functions in the “exceptional and compelling” circumstances posed by the tariff threat.
The applicants also argued that unwritten constitutional principles indicate Parliament, not the executive, is supreme, and that to maintain authority to govern, the government must remain accountable to — and retain the confidence of — Parliament.
Crampton wrote in his ruling that he understood why MacKinnon and Lavranos might find the circumstances surrounding Trudeau’s decision to seek prorogation to be troubling.
He said this is particularly so in a broader context in which the executive branch has been increasingly drawing functions away from the legislative branch through concentration of power in the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office.
However, the applicants bore the burden of demonstrating that the prime minister’s decision, viewed in its entirety, exceeded the scope of his authority, Crampton wrote.
“They failed to meet that burden.”
Crampton found the applicants did not substantiate their allegation that Trudeau’s decision was “part of a stratagem designed specifically to interrupt the business of Parliament” and stymie the publicly stated intent of a majority of the House of Commons to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government.
He said MacKinnon and Lavranos did not establish when, if at all, a non-confidence vote likely would have occurred in the absence of Trudeau’s decision. They also conceded during the court hearing last month that the government enjoyed the confidence of the House at that time.
The applicants alleged that Trudeau’s decision was made “in service of the interests” of the Liberal Party of Canada as it began the process of selecting a new leader.
Crampton indicated there were several other reasons given for the decision and it was not possible to disentangle them from possibly partisan reasons.
“On their face, those other reasons related either to the business of Parliament or to what appears to be the Prime Minister’s view of the public interest,” he wrote. “It is not the Court’s role to question the merits or wisdom of those reasons.”
Crampton said that in deciding the issue, he was mindful of the emphasis the Supreme Court of Canada has placed on the courts refraining from “undue interference” with the other branches of government.
Federal Court dismisses challenge of Trudeau’s move to prorogue Parliament
A federal judge has dismissed a legal challenge of Justin Trudeau's move to prorogue Parliament.
The Liberals will choose a new leader tomorrow, marking the end (?) of Justin Trudeau’s decade as prime minister.
He will step down officially “in the days to come” which is super vague. On Tuesday, Trudeau said he will have a conversation with the incoming leader to determine exactly when that will happen.
apple.news
"It should happen ‘reasonably’ quickly, but there's a lot of things to do in a transition like this, particularly in this complicated time in the world," Trudeau said.
He will step down officially “in the days to come” which is super vague. On Tuesday, Trudeau said he will have a conversation with the incoming leader to determine exactly when that will happen.
The Liberals are about to choose the next prime minister. What happens next? — The Canadian Press
The Liberals will choose a new leader Sunday, marking the end of Justin Trude
On his way out the door, on a Saturday, the day before the pretence of a Liberal Leadership goat rodeo to coronate his hand picked successor…there’s this, after 9&1/2 years as PM:
‘cuz proroguation for Liberal leadership race & to hide green slush fund documents is Justin-afied.
Why now? Why on a Saturday? Why the day before the Liberal Party’s coronation of Carney you might ask? Does it have something to do with it being awarded to Irving Shipbuilding in the maritime region where the Libs are trying to shore up potential votes? Could this Justin be another coincidence?
The eventual price tag for the trio of destroyers is expected to top $22.2 billion, senior defence officials revealed in a technical briefing late Friday.
After releasing details to journalists, the federal government imposed an embargo on the release of the information until Saturday morning? Really? An embargo on the release of information after the Liberal Party already released some of it themselves?
Both the Defence Department and a spokesperson for Defence Minister Bill Blair refused to explain why a moratorium, which is usually imposed for either operational security or market sensitive information, was necessary in this case.
The existence of the multi-billion dollar contract was also revealed while Parliament remained prorogued in the aftermath of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's plan to step down ‘cuz parliamentary oversight & debate.
The information became public on a weekend, one day ahead of the Liberals choosing a new leader and the next prime minister — and just weeks ahead of an expected federal election.
Although quoted in a news release, neither Blair, nor Jean-Yves Duclos, the minister of Public Services and Procurement, were part of the technical briefing, nor were they made available to answer questions about the milestone event and the enormous price tag…’cuz Liberals campaigning on promises of massive Canadian tax dollars to specific key regions, etc…
‘cuz proroguation for Liberal leadership race & to hide green slush fund documents is Justin-afied.
Amid a flurry of last minute senate and judicial appointments, the Liberal government quietly announced Saturday it has signed an $8 billion implementation contract for the construction of the Royal Canadian Navy's new destroyers.
Why now? Why on a Saturday? Why the day before the Liberal Party’s coronation of Carney you might ask? Does it have something to do with it being awarded to Irving Shipbuilding in the maritime region where the Libs are trying to shore up potential votes? Could this Justin be another coincidence?
The eventual price tag for the trio of destroyers is expected to top $22.2 billion, senior defence officials revealed in a technical briefing late Friday.
After releasing details to journalists, the federal government imposed an embargo on the release of the information until Saturday morning? Really? An embargo on the release of information after the Liberal Party already released some of it themselves?
Both the Defence Department and a spokesperson for Defence Minister Bill Blair refused to explain why a moratorium, which is usually imposed for either operational security or market sensitive information, was necessary in this case.
The existence of the multi-billion dollar contract was also revealed while Parliament remained prorogued in the aftermath of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's plan to step down ‘cuz parliamentary oversight & debate.
The information became public on a weekend, one day ahead of the Liberals choosing a new leader and the next prime minister — and just weeks ahead of an expected federal election.
Although quoted in a news release, neither Blair, nor Jean-Yves Duclos, the minister of Public Services and Procurement, were part of the technical briefing, nor were they made available to answer questions about the milestone event and the enormous price tag…’cuz Liberals campaigning on promises of massive Canadian tax dollars to specific key regions, etc…
That would probably work. Another round of liberal government and Canada will be on par with Greece economically, and therefore a pushover. There are a lot of people in the West that see joining the US as being better economically than being fucked over by OntariOWE and Quebec.
Elections Canada, like the Senate and the Judiciary, is overflowing with unelected liberal party members.
Choosing between your country and your own financial wellbeing is difficult. But when the so called leaders of your country are deliberately destroying your livelihood for political reasons, it gets easier to change alliances.
When the BC NDP started destroying the forest industry in the 90s to appease foreign funded eco terrorist groups, and me being a third generation BC logger, I went from viewing them much like an uncle watching a retarded nephew, to outright loathing. Now I want to see them eridicated. Most of the oil producing areas feel this way about turdOWE and his ilk.
…& America with Trump is like a person with down syndrome & a loaded handgun. Which is the least worse choice?
Yet Trump still has a fifty % approval rating among Americans if recent polls are accurate .
…& America with Trump is like a person with down syndrome & a loaded handgun. Which is the least worse choice?
Well, he’s 45 days into his term with only about 1415 days to go..so maybe the honeymoon period is over.
Thirty-four percent of Americans say that the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 49% who say it is off on the wrong track. When it comes to several specific issues, Americans are more likely to say things are off on the wrong track than going in the right direction: cost of living (22% right direction / 60% wrong track), the national economy (31% right direction / 51% wrong track), national politics (33% right direction / 50% wrong track), American foreign policy (33% right direction / 49% wrong track), and employment and jobs (33% right direction / 47% wrong track).
That is a good question. We have had decades of bad government in Canada that have deliberately made life more difficult in the west, while we know there is less than 4 years of Trump.
…& America with Trump is like a person with down syndrome & a loaded handgun. Which is the least worse choice?
In the 40 some odd days of Trump, we have gotten closer to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers than we have in the last 100 years.