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.
I thought that whole segment of the population has moved from covid vaccines to abortion to drag story time to blocking trans rights to blocking kids gender rights, so they’re several “crusades” removed from this, and yet they’re dragging this up again?
For what? Points with people in the slow lane? People studying up for their conservatism fascist turn SATs? Or just to dredge some more outrage for his new look party of “no new ideas, just point the finger and be obnoxious”?
It’s looking a lot like the latter. I hope people see through it, or get tired of it, but we all know we don’t vote in parties in Canada, we just vote them out.
And yet somehow we never vote them out by voting for the party out of the top three that would do the most to improve people’s lives. We just bounce back and forth between the options we know to be bad.
Unfortunately, I think vaccine mandates remain a sore spot for many in the electorate. I try to go out of my bubble and keep conservative or right-leaning friends/acquaintances, and it’s surprising how often this still comes up.
I hope your “sore spot” friends die of horrible diseases that are easily prevented, then, and that you and yours are kept safe from their ignorant incompetence.
I mean, Pierre being a shittier more out of date version of the American right wing is pretty on brand for him. People say he’s a President’s Choice brand Trump, but that’s unfair, he’s more of a Great Value brand DeSantis really.
Fuck, that is a good one.
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.