Another point. Hockey Canada is a non profit organization as it also receives funding from the federal government the PM should be able to comment on it.

As well from what i seen on the news they are losing or lost most of the corporate sponsorships and one province Quebec says it will not send its $3.00 from every kids registration to Hockey Canada is a ton of pressure for massive changes and possible re branding.

Some of the concerns I have is Edmonton Oilers Bob Nicholson had to be supboenead to testify. From my understanding he originally refused.

This whole story is disturbing

It's certainly messed up, and seems weirder bc they refuse to step down or change. Was asking specifically you bc you hate all things trudeau

Not true when he does something good I am more than willing to point it out . Its just they are rare and I do not hate him. Im sure he is a great husband and father

Well Alberta’s new political leadership seems delightful!

Yes it is and it seems to be the outcome of a PM that has no concern for Alberta and Sask

What do you not like about her? Also I never heard you speak up on the re-elected premier in Quebec?

That's an interesting theory. Utterly decoupled from reality, of course, but interesting. When you step on it in day 1 screeching about how the unvaccinated are more discriminated against than any marginalized group she has seen in her lifetime well that is a Danielle Smith problem not a Justin Trudeau problem. I know you want to blame everything on Justin Trudeau, but sometimes when your party nominates a shitty person the people to blame is your party.

Just wait, soon they'll unearth mass burials of unvaccinated children

I would agree that comment was not the wisest

But lets see She has clearly said that Supreme Court decisions are final and will obey those including the carbon tax

Quebec Premier. Nope we dont care what the Supreme Court rules we will use The not withstanding clause

Agreed on the nomination I think its a poor choice and after 6 ballots and only 51% its not like Pierre's nomination.

Yes and we can have a special day to mark it and Danielle can go Surfing on that day

The "but but but whataboutQuebec" is such a fail. Look, I'm not a fan of Quebec's notwithstanding clause on the language act, as you know. And I'm definitely not a fan of your conservative brethren in Ontario Doug Ford also using the notwithstanding clause to meddle in local election (twice!) which you oddly never bring up in your whataboutisms. And I abhor Alberta's historical attempts to use the notwithstanding clause to attack LGBT people. But the Sovereignty Act is just terrible. Thankfully, Danielle Smith has reverse course (how embarassing) and hopefully we get some much less toothy sorta-version of her rhetoric whenever it actually comes out. But again, that is a story all about her and her failings and the Albertan conservatives who embrace that failed narrative, much as you might like to bluster how it is Justin Trudeau who is at fault whenever a conservative steps out of bounds.

Albertan's are tired of Quebec's special privileges and Justin Trudeaus agenda that aims to destroy Alberta and Saskatchewan's economies

How has Alberta used the act to destroy LGBT people. Notley brought in rules but sadly wasn't strong enough to enforce them. Many religous schools just waited her out till she was gone.

Personally, I think Danielle Smith will lose and this may be the third provincial election in a row I vote NDP

+1

And all canadians are tired to hear alberta complain about evrything while they have the highest income in Canada and still asking more from the rest of us....

As u nicely put it-> nice economic destruction....

what special privileges Quebec has exactly ?

To be clear u compare 2 things that should not be used of the clause....

" A simple majority vote in any of Canada's 14 jurisdictions may suspend the core rights of the Charter. However, the rights to be overridden must be either a "fundamental right" guaranteed by Section 2 (such as freedom of expression, religion, and association), a "legal right" guaranteed by Sections 7–14 (such as rights to liberty and freedom from search and seizures and cruel and unusual punishment) or a Section 15 "equality right".[1] Other rights such as section 6 mobility rights, democratic rights, and language rights are inviolable.

Such a declaration lapses after five years or a lesser time specified in the clause, although the legislature may re-enact the clause any number of times. The rationale behind having a five-year expiry date is that it is also the maximum amount of time the Parliament or legislature may sit before an election must be called. Therefore, if the people wish for the law to be repealed, they have the right to elect new representatives who would have the power to do so."



Now u might think using the clause for the section 2 is not ok but it is clearly acceptable from the chart itself and was build in that way.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...s_and_Freedoms

"Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation.[1] These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Section 1 of the Charter permits Parliament or the provincial legislatures to enact laws that place certain kinds of limited restrictions on the freedoms listed under section 2. Additionally, these freedoms can be temporarily invalidated by section 33, the "notwithstanding clause", of the Charter. "



You just cant use the clause on everything like u seem to think...
And that carbon tax as nothing to do with the charter.

Agreed no one feels sorry for Albertan's no sales tax, blow their wealth.

Agreed Danielle Smith is not a great candidate.

Jason Kenney actually had a great last 6-9 months

Though all those things do not change the fact Justin Trudeau sucks and Bill 21 is disgusting as it doesn't apply to Catholics

Also the facts I will not vote in all probability for Smith and voted NDP last two elections as well I never voted last two elections for a corrupt PM and a climate phony

I could be wrong, but it appears you may not like Trudeau.

Well it does apply to Catholics too .
Even this case should convince U of the contrary that Catholic do not have a free ride either as you imply .

https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/can...p-prayers.html


« Supreme Court of Canada rules Saguenay council must drop prayers

By The Canadian Press
Wed., April 15, 2015
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer.

In a unanimous decision today, the country’s top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.

The ruling puts an end to a nine-year legal battle that began with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular-rights organization against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay ».


Vast vast majority in Quebec were very happy by the Supreme Court decision which totally destroy your view in Quebec about bill 21 that this bill is to favour Catholics .
It really doesn’t .

But hey you are free to believe on stuff about bill 21 « hidden motive » that aren’t true , like anti vaxxer not believing in vaccine or denying climate change for w.e reasons they attribue to it .

This is a thread about all of Canada and not just an Alberta one.

So I definitely do not think contrasting various Provincial approaches and various leaders is an empty whatabout, just meant to distract.

I would argue a key to discussing governance WITHIN Canada is to look at governance ACROSS Canada because when you do not, when you have wide differences in both approach and criticisms, that is what leads to the type of resentments, amongst the populace we see coast to coast, all too often.

My comment is pretty specific to lozen, who has spent years doing whataboutquebec every time Alberta political leadership is failing (but oddly not whataboutOntario and its abuse of the notwithstanding clause). If you want to do some cross country comparative analysis then sure, go for it, but you aren't lozen so I'm unlikely to bring the same critique. And it isn't just this issue, lozen is well known to have a fairly short list of standard WHATABOUTISMS he regularly jumps to. Talk about anything to do with environment and climate change and he will be going WHATABOUT that BC port for American coal within 2 posts.

When it comes to climate change and me calling him a climate phony i use more than one example/whataboutism

1. worst performance of G7 countries
2. Yes shipping American Coal that US states refuse
3. has never lowered emissions in 7 years in office
4. cardboard water bottles
5. He bought a pipeline

Though Germany will be increasing emissions now that it is burning coal again

Did you really do a WHATABOUTISM in response to me noting you commonly use that WHATABOUTISM? You truly are the WHATABOUTISM king.

A forum like this is all about whatbaoutism's

So when Justin Trudeau runs his first campaign on the promise he will cancel the F35 Contract it was another reason Why I voted for him but than 7 years he decides to buy those same planes that he said were overpriced and plagued with problems I am going to point that out as they are even more money and still plagued with problems.

When Pierre becomes PM than you will be using whataboutisms

What about those whataboutisms!

Going WHATBABOUT in the future when you might do a WHATABOUTISM is pretty amusing. If Pierre gets elected, I'm probably going to critique him, but I won't need to do WHATABOUTISMS to do this.

Sorry, some people are more or less inclined to use this as part of their regular argumentative structures. You specifically are the king of WHATABOUTISMS in that this seems to be a sort of structural gut reaction to how you approach political issues, but just because you are particularly egregious at it doesn't mean everyone else is too.

So every time I bring up JT's climate strategy your excuse is but the other parties is worse. Is that a whataboutism?

Because in one instance u complain his economic and in the other u complain his environment issues when they are related .
U can’t fight climate changes without hurting the economy .

Please tell us how he could be convenient to you .
Jt not great in both because he had to compromise for both issues