r/canadaguns • u/GhostProtocolGaming • Mar 12 '26
News / Politics / Activism Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada
https://www.conservative.ca/stand-on-guard-2/The bill makes important changes to Section 34 of the Criminal Code so that force is presumed to be justified if used against an illegal intruder. Conservatives first announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle back in August, asking the government to introduce legislation in the fall session.
88
u/Spydude84 Mar 12 '26
With a liberal majority, no way this passes.
91
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
29
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 12 '26
Without a drastic change in the conservative party, they will not be getting a majority any time soon with Pierre.
It's just the conservatives saying shit to sound like they care.
I don't understand why so many seem to think the conservatives aren't politicians and even if they got a majority they wouldn't completely back track on how many promises like every politician does.
They had plenty of time when Harper was pm to make changes, did they? No, because they're just as full of shit as the liberals are.
31
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Without a drastic change in the conservative party, they will not be getting a majority any time soon with Pierre.
With respect, I pretty much disagree with your post in a couple of ways, also the timelines and framing are pretty off base. I feel like I've seen you make this post before; not that I can check with your hidden comments but I could've sworn I've responded to it and debunked it. But hey, round 2 lets go.
The whole "Pierre is bad for the party" must be the newest goal post shift I've seen now that he's passed his internal evaluation. But sure, let's wish the party would decapitate itself and turn into what the NDP is right now. Seems like a great move.
They had plenty of time when Harper was pm to make changes, did they? No, because they're just as full of shit as the liberals are.
This is just wrong, you're mixing up your timelines and ignoring that Stephen Harper didn’t have a majority government until 2011. From 2006–2011 he was running minority governments where every bill had to survive opposition parties threatening elections. Acting like he had unlimited power for a decade is just historically wrong.
Also, remind me who killed the long gun registry?
Also saying that harper didn't do anything is a full on lie / misinfo.
Off the top of my head, they did implement a number of major promises once they had the votes. They Eliminated the wasteful Long-gun registry in 2012 (2 billion dollars btw, thanks Poly and Liberals), They passed tougher sentencing laws through the Safe Streets and Communities Act (which remind me who ran back immediately?), they cut the GST from 7% to 5%, which was a direct campaign promise and balanced the federal budget by 2015 after the global recession triggered by the 2008 financial crisis. Remind me what our deficit is at now?
It's just the conservatives saying shit to sound like they care.
Oh it's conservatives bad. Okay gotcha. You make this post as if every political party doesn't have an agenda, cmon man.
I don't understand why so many seem to think the conservatives aren't politicians and even if they got a majority they wouldn't completely back track on how many promises like every politician does.
This argument is basically just cynical hand-waving. If you apply that standard consistently, it would also mean you shouldn’t believe anything the Liberals promise either, including the policies the same critics usually defend.
So your post boils down to ignoring the historical record, assume every promise is fake (because grr cons bad), and conclude Conservatives are uniquely dishonest. That’s not analysis at all it’s just partisan cynicism dressed up as an argument.
9
u/A_Kazur Mar 12 '26
Pierre looked at Doug Ford crushing the Ontario election by taking an anti-Trump protectionist stance and then decided he could do better by acting like Trump’s friend.
Regardless of which you consider the wiser financial move one of these people won and the other lost so badly polls that had called the election 99% in his favour a month prior almost forgot he existed.
He lost his own riding, lmao. He should have resigned. But no, he’s got his favourites in the leadership debates and desperately wants to achieve something.
It’s not going to work, and your comment on the NDP is hilarious, Pierre has done more to relegate the Cons to third party than anyone in living memory. He keeps losing, he alienates voters, he got Cons to CROSS THE AISLE and it’s looking likely Carney will get a majority soon. Him literally resigning would have almost certainly prevented this situation.
He is a one trick pony who can’t pivot from Trudeau. It’s crazy because the Cons had such a great opportunity to flip so many regions. (I have a huge amount of family who have been diehard NDPers their whole lives but watching Jagmeet collude with Trudeau got the so angry the only thing preventing them from voting Con was Pierre sucking up to Trump while he was starting his tariff wars and 51st state bullshit.
The Cons desperately need a new younger face who can actually hold a dynamic conversation, or they’ll guarantee a Liberal majority for the next decade.
15
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Pierre looked at Doug Ford crushing the Ontario election by taking an anti-Trump protectionist stance and then decided he could do better by acting like Trump’s friend.
Misinformation. Both major canadian parties pushed back on Trump.
Regardless of which you consider the wiser financial move one of these people won and the other lost so badly polls that had called the election 99% in his favour a month prior almost forgot he existed.
and we're in a bit of a pickle now aren't we?
He lost his own riding, lmao. He should have resigned. But no, he’s got his favourites in the leadership debates and desperately wants to achieve something.
I always see this posted and it's basically rooting for one party to decapitate itself so theres no chance of opposition in Canada. It's so undemocratic it's not even funny. I'm sure Fanjoy is feeling good now that all his constituents are getting fired / laid off, but yeah Pierre bad I guess.
It’s not going to work, and your comment on the NDP is hilarious, Pierre has done more to relegate the Cons to third party than anyone in living memory. He keeps losing, he alienates voters, he got Cons to CROSS THE AISLE and it’s looking likely Carney will get a majority soon. Him literally resigning would have almost certainly prevented this situation.
The Conservatives have long faced structural challenges in urban and Quebec ridings. No single leader can instantly flip that, he made strides in plenty of parts of Canada that the conservatives broke ground in. Also calling them the third party while looking at the current seat count is certainly a choice. But hey, vibes for everyone!
Pierre caused cons to cross? Is that what the argument is now? They definitely didn't get any kind of incentives to leave. It's funny you're framing this as Pierre bad when even NDP MPs flipped seats. If he had resigned nothing would have changed, we'd just have the conservative party collapse on itself.
He is a one trick pony who can’t pivot from Trudeau. It’s crazy because the Cons had such a great opportunity to flip so many regions. (I have a huge amount of family who have been diehard NDPers their whole lives but watching Jagmeet collude with Trudeau got the so angry the only thing preventing them from voting Con was Pierre sucking up to Trump while he was starting his tariff wars and 51st state bullshit.
If you're bound to repeat the same "Pierre supports Trump" as your core argument, there's no real discussion to be had.
The Cons desperately need a new younger face who can actually hold a dynamic conversation, or they’ll guarantee a Liberal majority for the next decade.
Cutting the head off the party is the reason we'd see a Liberal majority for another two decades.
4
u/A_Kazur Mar 13 '26
Bro it’s insane how cultist you guys are? I’m not talking about the Cons as a party I AM TALKING ABOUT PIERRE! Don’t mix them up. Beheading the party leadership?!? You understand that a healthy party goes through different leaders instead of sucking up to the same idiot who loses consistently?
You’re excusing Pierre by saying the job is hard?! Duh?!
Absolutely clearer what has Pierre done at all during the election campaign to oppose Trump, Trump tariffs, or Trump 51st state posturing? Nothing?
If this is bait you are a master.
2
u/Livid_sumo Mar 13 '26
Dawg you can type as much as you want it wont reflect the reality of the conservative party.
1
u/gamercast1337 Mar 13 '26
So let's run all our politicians on anti American rhetoric... solid idea.
-3
Mar 13 '26
[deleted]
3
5
u/A_Kazur Mar 13 '26
Uh… that’s not an accurate reflection of what happened in the least lmao? Were you around for last election? Genuinely?
2
u/gspotcowboy Mar 13 '26
It's not worth it. If we aren't arguing with bots then they have the intellectual literacy of one. They think that Carney is a radical left winger ffs
1
u/Moist-Wolverine-8531 Mar 24 '26
u/HugeFun is either a troll, an idiot, a bot, or all of the above.
He thinks India is in Southeast Asia. 🤣
0
Mar 24 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Moist-Wolverine-8531 Mar 25 '26
No, dude, it's just you... the lonely frog in the well. Observing you is both sad and funny at the same time. Goodbye. 👋
0
u/Duckriders4r Mar 21 '26
Harper never balanced the budget. As soon as he got his majority he started dismantling every government sector that would progress and improve things for everyday Canadians. Tried to dismantle our banking system to what the us has. Nothing you've said is true. Military veterans centers closed and funding slashed. Military funding slashed to a absolutely fucking pathetic level of 1.1% of GDP. Then, once the liberals got into power with trudeau, and he started putting money back into veteran centers.And the military, which the conservatives voted against in the house of commons, every step of the way. And then just a few years after that, criticizing the same prime minister who has already spent double of actual money, not in percentage of g d p.But actual money into the military and raising it to just below one point four percent of g d p now don't forget g d p.Raises all the time. Bro, you need to stop reading those conspiracy Websites.
1
u/Lumindan Mar 21 '26
I don't know why you're digging through week old threads posting misinformation. I'll humour it and break it all down because my goodness there's alot wrong here.
Harper never balanced the budget.
Objectively wrong. Harper did in fact balance the budget in 2015. There was even a CBC article indicating he did it, but here's the official government source from Canada.ca; You can argue how it was achieved (asset sales, timing, etc.), but pretending it didn’t happen just makes you look uninformed. Or did the government just lie about 1.4 billion?
As soon as he got his majority he started dismantling every government sector that would progress and improve things for everyday Canadians. Tried to dismantle our banking system to what the us has.
Do you know how you balance an insane deficit? It's called making pragmatic cuts. You can't simply afford to keep burning money if you want to actually balance a budget. People like you, who are still screaming harper bad have zero economic understand. The claim that he “tried to dismantle our banking system to what the US has” is pure fantasy. Canada’s banking system is regulated through institutions like the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions remained intact and is literally famous for surviving the 2008 crisis better than the U.S. If there was some grand deregulation scheme, he would've iced it.
Military funding slashed to a absolutely fucking pathetic level of 1.1% of GDP. Then, once the liberals got into power with trudeau, and he started putting money back into veteran centers
Throwing around percentages without context is amateur hour. Under Harper, spending rose significantly in absolute terms during the Afghanistan era. Under Justin Trudeau, yes, total dollar spending increased but that’s partly because everything gets more expensive over time and GDP grows. Saying “double the money” without adjusting for inflation, commitments already planned, or procurement timelines is meaningless spin.
And then just a few years after that, criticizing the same prime minister who has already spent double of actual money, not in percentage of g d p.But actual money into the military and raising it to just below one point four percent of g d p now don't forget g d p.Raises all the time.
I don't understand this point, so the government overspent and put us into crippling debt? Did you just selectively ignore that Trudeau's own financial staff out loud said they blew past the guard rails and we're currently in a 80 billion decifit?
It's wild that you'll criticize harper and somehow say Trudeau was good for Canada when we've had a decade of absolute dip. I also really like the "harper hates vets", remind me which government is taking them to court? Hint, it wasn't harper. Or you know, when they forgot to spend 105 million on vets and reinjected it back into the budget while people were making their claims? Oh look, it wasnt harper either
I find it especially bad you're trying to lean on the vets thing because Harper closed like 8 or 9 offices but rotated the staff. Meanwhile 'Grossly unfair': Disabled veterans take pension battle with Liberals to Supreme Court
Bro, you need to stop reading those conspiracy Websites.
I didn't realize sourcing the Canadian government's own data and CBC, global and stats Canada made me some kind of conspiracy nut. Your whole rant is partisan fanfiction with a couple of real facts stapled onto it but zero narrative context. If you dislike Harper, cool, get over it, it's been a decade. But please keep pushing that partisan 'conservatives' bad non-sense in old threads, it only shows how off base you really are.
You do not have an argument there, you have a tantrum with a few buzzwords bolted on and it's sad really.
9
u/ScanData32 Mar 12 '26
It's just the conservatives saying shit to sound like they care.
Like this very press release?
10
u/Perfect_Diamond_1128 Mar 12 '26
are we ever going to get a conservative majority ever again? or have the liberals imported too many voters at this point where its basically impossible
27
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
3
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
The Liberals won. No question. The greens are reduced to one the bloq was decimated the NDP are down to 6 and the CPC keep bleeding MPs to the Liberals because a decade of sensationalist attack politics left them in the same place they were 10 years ago but with a worse leader.
The Liberals won and with PP at the helm the CPC can only lose.
-4
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 12 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
1
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
Your comment has been removed as it has received too many reports.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/ljackstar Mar 12 '26
The only way they never get a majority again is if the country ceases to exist. As long as the liberals are in power they are going to screw somethings up and at some point people start to care. That could be next year, it could be 4 years, but it will definitely happen again.
4
3
u/thecoolernameistaken Mar 12 '26
Nah dude look at the rest of the Canadian subs. They’re praising carney for everything (lol) he’s done so far
18
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
-4
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Seriously? Look at the polls. Everyone loves Carney. PP isnt even popular with his party he just has a death grip on it and his inability to change or let go is costing us. The Liberals are going to be a majority any day now and they have the support to back it up.
15
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
PP isnt even popular with his party he just has a death grip on it and his inability to change or let go is costing us
You say us but you've done nothing but glaze Carney.
The Liberals are going to be a majority any day now and they have the support to back it up.
A majority via floor crossing multiple parties' MPs would certainly be a historic moment in Canada.
-5
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Thats because Carney has the sense to defend Canada against US rhetoric. Mans building our economy in ways Pierre cant dream of. And hes got the polls to back him up. Mans decent and popular. PP is neither.
The best way i can put it is that PP is CPC teudeau. A sensationalist party line guy. Carney just shows competency.
13
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Thats because Carney has the sense to defend Canada against US rhetoric. Mans building our economy in ways Pierre cant dream of. And hes got the polls to back him up. Mans decent and popular. PP is neither.
It's always fun to see you guys come crawling out of the woodwork. I keep hearing about building the economy but so far all we've seen is them push tax cuts (a huge cost to the budget) and agreements to CONSIDER trade deals. 80 Billion deficit btw while we're still running gun grabs and feel good virtue signalling programs btw.
The best way i can put it is that PP is CPC teudeau. A sensationalist party line guy. Carney just shows competency.
I don't even know where to start / how to address this.
It's pretty clear you're very much locked onto your party of choice, I wish you the best of luck because there's no changing your mind with these cooked partisan takes.
3
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
I keep hearing about building the economy but so far all we've seen is them push tax cuts
Theoretically more money for people to spend means a stronger economy.
and agreements to CONSIDER trade deals
Depends on the country. China? The US? Yes. South Korea? Germany? India? No. Those are real trade deals.
80 Billion deficit btw while we're still running gun grabs and feel good virtue signalling programs btw.
Yea. We should stop the buyback repeal all the OICs and the handgun freeze to pump billions back into our economy. Agreed.
It's pretty clear you're very much locked onto your party of choice,
No I voted NDP because of the gun thing I stopped voting CPC because I don't have enough hate in my heart to support what they want me to.
I wish you the best of luck because there's no changing your mind with these cooked partisan takes.
Then why did you follow me around this comment section and tell me as much 7 times?
→ More replies (0)0
u/Livid_sumo Mar 13 '26
I mean making trade deals with china (a now more stable economy then the US), settling relations with India, seeking mutual defense pacts from europe (now that the US shit the bed), and opening new weapons manufacturing partners with South Korea among other things isn't nothing. PP doesnt really have the international relations to pull that off, and most Canadians dont see our sport as a big issue unfortunately.
2
u/Livid_sumo Mar 13 '26
Agreed, its kinda not hard to beat a guy who has no expirience except politics in a time when real policy's matter. Get PP out and somebody good in.... this is obviously not working and somehow the same strategy continues.
This is getting beyond dumb
1
u/thecoolernameistaken Mar 12 '26
LOL he’s done nothing of the sort. He bent over to the states are you fucking with us?
2
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
How did he bend over? I see him trying to re-start trade negotiations but no bending over.
1
u/nikobruchev Mar 13 '26
Let's face it, most of these users hating on Carney would be singing his praises if he was standing in front of a CPC blue banner.
It's the greatest weakness of this sub and the community as a whole - rabid devotion to a party that will pay lip service to the community but never fully back us.
3
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Exactly. Hell this Stand on Guard stuff PP is dishing out he only started after the election. And there's no plan. Just more rhetoric and instances for people to get mad over. And I'll bet you he'll drop the issue as soon as it's time to start campaigning again.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Let's face it, most of these users hating on Carney would be singing his praises if he was standing in front of a CPC blue banner.
This argument assumes criticism of Carney is purely partisan, which just isn’t true. People can disagree with a politician’s policies or track record without it being blind loyalty to another party. If Carney stood under a CPC banner but held the same positions on firearms policy, central banking influence, or economic governance, a lot of the same people would still criticize him.
It's the greatest weakness of this sub and the community as a whole - rabid devotion to a party that will pay lip service to the community but never fully back us.
You could say that about any political party and reddit sub.
The real issue isn’t “rabid devotion” imo. It’s trust built from policy commitments and actions. The firearms community tends to judge parties based on who actually moves the needle on legislation, not who gives nice speeches. Historically, the party that has reversed or promised to reverse firearm restrictions has been the Conservatives, so naturally that’s where most political leverage from the community goes.
Harper killed the LGN, the Liberals decided they wanted another run at firearms votes so here we are. Not rocket science.
2
u/WeightedDips95 Mar 13 '26
This is the most brain-dead talking point you guys love to use. Its also pure projection.
Ive always been conservative, but I wasnt that bothered when Trudeau was first elected. Theyve shown me over the last 11 years what type of people they are(horrible), and Carney is a continuation of that. He even had a chance to prove us wrong but he hasnt, despite his carefully orchestrated disinfo campaign hes been waging, signing deals! which you have clearly fallen for. If hed actually step up and do the right things, I wouldnt give to sh*ts what banner he runs under.
He by ZERO measure is anything approximating a conservative. Not that that even matters, but you trying to say he is is asinine, and shows your either deeply ignorant, or lying.
0
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26
And this in the breach of parliamentary procedure how? All 3 main parties have benefited from floor crossings at one time or another. I personally don't like them, but they rep their riding and only sit with the party.
5
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
And this in the breach of parliamentary procedure how?
Did I say it was? I'm not saying floor crossing is a violation of the hard set rules, but in the spirit of it, it's certainly a bit of an odd way to win a majority.
All 3 main parties have benefited from floor crossings at one time or another. I personally don't like them, but they rep their riding and only sit with the party.
I'm of the personal belief that with how hard all parties whip their votes, a by-election should be called if they're gonna cross.
1
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26
No you didn't. You just seemed to complain about it, which is your right. I'm just sick of people complaining about it when they're party looses a seat yet are deathly quiet if not braying about it when they gain one.
The degree to which parties with a sizable war chest are able to pressure their caucus is probably one of the main problems with the Canadian parliamentary system.
→ More replies (0)0
u/thecoolernameistaken Mar 12 '26
I’d agree but bud look at the elections. He still won.
11
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Given the NDP buckled and the Bloc shit the bed, the conservatives kinda did all they could.
Historically the pendulum always swings.
-4
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Please. All the conservatives had to do was take a hard stance on the US threats like Carney did. Instead they hid from cameras for a week because US corporations are their donors.
Man said he'd sell us out for a shit NAFTA deal and everyone noticed.
8
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Please. All the conservatives had to do was take a hard stance on the US threats like Carney did. Instead they hid from cameras for a week because US corporations are their donors.
You mean to tell me the Liberals monopolized on a self made crisis and people like you ate it up? yeah that sounds about right. But sure, Conservatives bad.
Man said he'd sell us out for a shit NAFTA deal and everyone noticed.
Negotiating a deal is not the same as “selling out,” by that standard, Carney going hat in hand to the states and letting trump say whatever he wants should be held to the same standard no?
But you won't agree to that because he's your guy.
You're also just ignoring the majority of what happened during the election but hey, PP bAd CoNs BaD.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
You mean to tell me the Liberals monopolized on a self made crisis and people like you ate it up? yeah that sounds about right.
Self made? How on earth was it self made? Trump enacted tariffs for bull shit reasons. Then the LPC tried to placate him and he still kept referring to us as the 51st state and kept the tariffs up.
Negotiating a deal is not the same as “selling out,” by that standard,
It is when it's a terrible deal with no real protections from Trump violating it, again. How can we work out a trade deal with someone not willing to honour it if the mood strikes him?
You're also just ignoring the majority of what happened during the election
Enlighten me.
→ More replies (0)7
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
I wouldn't use reddit as a metric.
It's heavily astroturfed / full on echo chambers.
-4
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26
I miss the days when conservatives were logical, less triggered and willing to listen and make course corrections & improvements. Too many of this batch are unwilling to accommodate reality.
7
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
I miss the days when conservatives were logical, less triggered and willing to listen and make course corrections & improvements. Too many of this batch are unwilling to accommodate reality.
That’s a pretty selective memory of politics. Conservatives haven’t suddenly abandoned logic or reality. Political polarization has increased across the entire spectrum, not just on one side. Acting like only conservatives became “triggered” ignores how partisan politics works today.
It's kind of a backhanded comment really to only say it's one side. Then again at least partisan posting is still the same as per usual.
-1
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
Oh really. People have gotten down voted for contradicting other posts , by merely pointing out facts, that for the last several months Canadians have viewed Carney favourably. You don't have to be partisan to acknowledge reality but you do ignore it.
The fact the post that talked to actual polling data in a non-confrontational way got down voted, while at the time, the stain pushing replacement theory trash was not, is fairly indicative of the reality too many of this batch of supposed conservatives are eager to accept.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Oh really. People have gotten down voted for contradicting other posts , by merely pointing out facts, that for the last several months Canadians have viewed Carney favourably. You don't have to be partisan to acknowledge reality but you do ignore it.
and you selectively ignored the latter half of my post to where I went "political polarization has increased across the spectrum". it kinda just proves my point. Trying to smear just one group when everyone in politics does the same shit regardless of lean is exactly why you're off base.
The fact the post that talked to actual polling data in a non-confrontational way got down voted, while at the time, the stain pushing replacement theory trash was not, is fairly indicative of the reality too many of this batch of supposed conservatives are eager to accept.
People viewing Mark Carney favourably in some polls over the last few months isn’t some irrefutable truth everyone must bow to because they're just polls and polling shifts constantly. Canadians have also viewed Justin Trudeau and Pierre Pollierve favourably at times remember how that worked out? Selectively citing polls you like and calling it “reality” isn’t objectivity, it’s cherry-picking. The only poll a lot of folks care for is election day.
Pretending the downvotes were because someone pointed out facts is just a big self report. People don’t downvote because numbers exist lol they downvote when someone drops into a discussion acting smug about it or if they feel like it or if they like pressing the button. If you stroll in with a “the data proves you idiots wrong” tone, don’t act shocked when people respond accordingly or better yet, why do you even care about down votes and up votes, it's the internet lol.
is fairly indicative of the reality too many of this batch of supposed conservatives are eager to accept.
You don't really get to play the "people downvoted it! Oh my stars!" when you're also bashing conservatives in the same post. Throwing stones in a glass house right there mate.
0
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26
You're putting my criticism of many current conservatives on the same plane as those conservatives disapproving of posts criticizing replacement theory. OK. Well at least we know where you stand.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
You're putting my criticism of many current conservatives on the same plane as those conservatives disapproving of posts criticizing replacement theory. OK. Well at least we know where you stand.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of blatant 'conservatives bad' posts when it's multiple camps committing the same sin you're so eager to put on one party.
You're literally making my point with your posts.
→ More replies (0)1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Immigrants are too often working blue collar jobs and vote conservative. This is a bad take.
Tell you what get the CPC to not elect an absolute shit trump lite leader who won't blow a 22 point lead and, i don't know actually acts patriotic and not just a sellout for US corporate interests and we can talk about them in a different context than the official opposition.
For fucks sakes this patronizing horseshit of legislation just shows that they aren't done the sensationalist pony show. PP was always just right wing trudeau and the CPC hasnt changed tactics since he resigned.
4
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Tell you what get the CPC to not elect an absolute shit trump lite leader who won't blow a 22 point lead and, i don't know actually acts patriotic and not just a sellout for US corporate interests and we can talk about them in a different context than the official opposition.
I see this point being made as a smear against the conservatives constantly. If you really think the conservative leader is selling out the US while also cheering on a technocratic banker who is still supporting the companies that are actually crushing Canadian's livelihoods then I don't know what to say.
For fucks sakes this patronizing horseshit of legislation just shows that they aren't done the sensationalist pony show. PP was always just right wing trudeau and the CPC hasnt changed tactics since he resigned.
Just going to remind you we're currently in the midst of seeing multiple sensational feel good moves by the Liberals with no major benefits to the Canadian public. Did we forget the tax cut that won't help with groceries and only rack up our debt? Are we ignoring the current firearms confiscation / buyback that is literally just smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of public safety and buy quebec votes? Data surveillance laws in the name of safety? Exempting companies from laws in the name of productivity?
It's wild how hard people like you lose their shit at the Conservatives but they wouldn't be doing half the shit that's going on now.
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
If you really think the conservative leader is selling out the US while also cheering on a technocratic banker who is still supporting the companies that are actually crushing Canadian's livelihoods then I don't know what to say.
100% agree. But that's not something that the CPC will do anything about either. They will talk tax cuts for those same corporations and pretend that it'll trickle down to us while our cost of living increases, they mark up the goods even more, and their shareholders get excellent returns.
In order to keep the cost of living down we need public options that operate on a tiny profit margin where the priority is to generate cheaper goods. But that's a lefty idea and isn't going to get better under the Liberals or the Conservatives. Hell even Carneys grocery tax credit is just incentive for higher prices of goods.
All Pierre had to do was to stand with Canada against the US 51st rhetoric but he shut up for a week until polls told him what to do and keeps saying that a new trade deal should be the #1 priority as if Trump is going to stick to any trade deal.
Did we forget the tax cut that won't help with groceries and only rack up our debt?
I'll be honest I don't care about the debt. It's cheap to service and we can pay it off in a year if we actually want to but we're building infrastructure and upgrading our military and that isn't free.
Are we ignoring the current firearms confiscation / buyback that is literally just smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of public safety and buy quebec votes?
No. I know. And now Quebec isn't even complying and I have no idea why they're keeping this up. The only thing I can think of is money from the anti-gun groups.
Data surveillance laws in the name of safety? Exempting companies from laws in the name of productivity?
I don't know what you're referencing here. Source?
It's wild how hard people like you lose their shit at the Conservatives but they wouldn't be doing half the shit that's going on now.
I'm pissed because I used to vote Conservative. Now I have to swallow the buckets of hate against immigrants and LGBQT people for the same party that's trashing healthcare provincially, demonizing abortion again, going to sell of property that could be generating revenue and lowering taxes, and spewing the same 3 word slogans to tell me that Canada is the worst country in the world despite my eyes and ears telling me otherwise.
I lose my shit at the Conservatives because sense has seemed to leave the party and their goal is to win for the sake of winning and they'll do or say anything to get to that goal. They betrayed me of course I'm mad at them.
Feel free not to respond to every point you are most comments in my inbox.
3
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
You’re bundling a lot of claims together that don’t really hold up when you look at them individually. So let's go through them.
100% agree. But that's not something that the CPC will do anything about either. They will talk tax cuts for those same corporations and pretend that it'll trickle down to us while our cost of living increases, they mark up the goods even more, and their shareholders get excellent returns.
Corporate profits and grocery prices exploded under Liberal policy (Judge me by the price of groceries btw lol) as well, and policies like tax credits or subsidies often just funnel public money through corporations anyway(Heyo ArriveCan). A government cheque doesn’t magically create competition it just increases demand, which is exactly why those programs can end up pushing prices higher.
In order to keep the cost of living down we need public options that operate on a tiny profit margin where the priority is to generate cheaper goods. But that's a lefty idea and isn't going to get better under the Liberals or the Conservatives. Hell even Carneys grocery tax credit is just incentive for higher prices of goods.
Carney's grocery tax credit did absolute nothing but buy him a fresh media cycle. In actually breaks down to like an extra 30 something dollars a week at best. That isn't getting anyone out of the poor house when we have record highs of people hitting food banks. Operating under feasible budgets is the definition of conservatism, it's about reeling in government waste, people just conflated that with gutting stuff entirely.
Public Opinions aren’t some magic solution either. If the government runs the producer or retailer, the costs don’t disappear they’re just shifted to taxpayers. Canada already runs public monopolies and oligopolies in several sectors and they aren’t exactly known for being cheap or efficient. The only way to change that is to break up those monoliths, but I don't see that happening under the Liberals.
All Pierre had to do was to stand with Canada against the US 51st rhetoric but he shut up for a week until polls told him what to do and keeps saying that a new trade deal should be the #1 priority as if Trump is going to stick to any trade deal.
I mean he did. Multiple times.
CBC video clip from 11 months ago
CTV interview from the election campaign
Poilievre to Trump: 'Canada will never be the 51st state' - Clipped from 2024.
The only people he keep repeating that talking point are people pushing the same tired Liberal smear points. It took me less than 5 minutes to dig that up. Your point doesn't really hold up when both Canadian leaders pushed against trump but only one of them quietly dropped the tarriffs, or did we choose to ignore that?
Also key point, politicians don’t control what the media amplifies day to day, more importantly, prioritizing a stable trade relationship with the USA isn’t selling Canada out the U.S. is our largest trading partner by a massive margin. Any government, Liberal or Conservative, has to treat that relationship seriously whether they like it or not. This isn't about MAGA or whatever other buzzword people want to use, it's objective facts that the US is our biggest partner and they are right next door to us, the whole group of redditors who did stats 101 thinking Canada can exist without trading to the US are absolutely out to lunch. I get people don't the US because it's hip but it's not really feasible.
I'll be honest I don't care about the debt. It's cheap to service and we can pay it off in a year if we actually want to but we're building infrastructure and upgrading our military and that isn't free.
You should because debt drastically affects all Canadians and we're about to spend a shit ton just keeping up with it. Canada’s federal debt scaling into the trillions. Paying that off in a year would require either catastrophic spending cuts, massive tax increases, or both, like I'm talking complete collapse here on paper. Debt servicing is barley manageable now, but interest costs are already one of the fastest-growing parts of the federal budget and it's only going to get worse.
And as someone with unfortunate knowledge of military procurement, I have very little hope those funds will be well spent or go to the proper places. If you know, you know.
No. I know. And now Quebec isn't even complying and I have no idea why they're keeping this up. The only thing I can think of is money from the anti-gun groups.
The liberals get 3 major prongs for keeping it going (maybe 4 but I'll bonus it at the end).
They get to maintain the wedge issue, they love running the conservatives want ARs on the streets ads, they've used against Harper, they've used them against Pierre, it's a free wedge. It forces the conservatives to pick a side on what should be a non-partisan issue and makes it into one.
They get to maintain the illusion of public safety. Do you have any idea how much work and time would be required to actually crack down on the border? The amount of negative press that would pop up because certain smuggling points are NOT media friendly and the Liberals LOVE to pander. It's easier to say they're getting assault style guns off the streets then actually address crime guns. This isn't a new fact.
They get to buy those sweet suburban votes. It's not just Quebec either, there's plenty of people with zero knowledge of firearms who eat this shit up. It's pandering to their base with your tax dollars. That money could be better spent on literally ANYTHING else, like I don't know, THE BORDER?
The fourth one is more of a tin foil hat thing but I'll include it for the sake of discussion, it feels like the forced those OICs because they didn't think they'd win the election and it would put the at the time, giga majority conservative government into a really bad spot wasting time in the house to undo it all.
The poly money means nothing in the grand scheme, there are significantly bigger fish funding the Liberals.
I don't know what you're referencing here. Source?
Bill C2 is their border act which lets the cops do a bunch of invasive searches into you without any warrants. Completely unchecked btw. Source and here's the bill itself
It received a ton of blowback in the house but not a ton of media coverage. They've now brought it back AGAIN as Bill C22. Source1 and Source2
It's a Sean Fraser and Gary Anandasangaree combo piece with Carney backing it. If you can't see how problematic it is allowing the government to encroach even further into your data, location and privacy in the name of 'safety', well then I don't know what else to say.
There's also (with a quick summary, feel free to look them up and read them for yourself):
Bill C-8: Control over cyber systems, networks, utilities-power to cut/throttle
Bill C-9: Speech and ideology. Vague hate definitions used to silence dissent
Bill C-11: Regulates online content, controiling what you see and share
Bill C-63: Policing messaging, speech, online behavior
So yeah, I'm pretty worried about whats being passed and concerned they're gonna ram this shit through the house when they land a majority via floor crossing.
I'm pissed because I used to vote Conservative. Now I have to swallow the buckets of hate against immigrants and LGBQT people for the same party that's trashing healthcare provincially, demonizing abortion again, going to sell of property that could be generating revenue and lowering taxes, and spewing the same 3 word slogans to tell me that Canada is the worst country in the world despite my eyes and ears telling me otherwise.
Buddy, you've bought into the reddit hate haven't you? Let's work on that. Conservatives are campaigning on “hate against immigrants or LGBTQ people” is mostly political framing. Immigration levels, border control, and social policy debates aren’t automatically hatred they’re policy disagreements. Painting half the electorate as bigots is exactly the kind of rhetoric that makes political discourse worse and it's a great smear by the Liberals. They love their unchecked and unfettered immigration, I'm all for controlled immigration, I'm not down to import shit tons of people to suppress wages and strain our systems beyond the brink. Also saying that the conservatives are against LGBTQ is just a straight up lie / misinfo post thats caught on and it's an easy club to swing with NO substance behind it. If the conservatives were anti-lgbtq, they'd be pushing to ban gay marriage (which they havent lol, infact there's plenty of diverse folks in Conservative camp too) and stop any kind of transitioning surgery. They've asked to implement age limits and safe guards, which there SHOULD be when it comes to life changing medical work.
3
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
I ran out of characters.
spewing the same 3 word slogans to tell me that Canada is the worst country in the world despite my eyes and ears telling me otherwise.
Every political party does this. Elbows up, Canada Strong, Canada Unity, The Rupture with the US.
And objectively, Canada IS slumping right now. We're in a pretty rough economic decline, our trade is drying up, jobs are dropping away from folks, food bank numbers are at an all time high, we're suffering from a massive brain drain to the states in terms of talent (STEM oh boy!), we're running an insane deficit, we sit on a mountain of resources that we can't process because we refuse to invest in ourselves and meanwhile our government is busy virtue signaling and crying about Trump instead of actually helping people. Now sprinkle in a dose of the world being not so steady (IE: any kind of war on the other side of the world) and every Canadian is gonna pay for it. This isn't feeling, it's an objective fact.
The Liberals shooting down the Affordable food act was pretty telling where their priorities were. Maintaining a gun buyback with zero effect on Public Safety except for keeping consultants on the payroll isn't problematic to you?
I lose my shit at the Conservatives because sense has seemed to leave the party and their goal is to win for the sake of winning and they'll do or say anything to get to that goal. They betrayed me of course I'm mad at them.
Yeah you're mad, but most of your points are vibe based emotional responses not rooted in fact, that's why I'm calling you out. If you feel the party moved away from what you want, that’s fair, you vote however you want, thats the one of the best parts of being Canadian. People change parties all the time. But a lot of what you’re describing is less about concrete policy and more about the narratives that have been pushed via smears and reddit, not fact. Disagreeing with Conservatives is one thing. Pretending every problem in Canada comes from them while the parties that have governed most of the last decade are blameless doesn’t really make sense and hence why I'm responding to your posts.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Oh ho ho and here I though you said you were done with me. I'm not going to respond to all of your points FYI I'm not that bored.
Corporate profits and grocery prices exploded under Liberal policy
Yea because of Covid. Did you hear about that? Did you hear about global rampant inflation?
A government cheque doesn’t magically create competition it just increases demand, which is exactly why those programs can end up pushing prices higher.
I don't want them to send government cheques I want a public option with low markups.
That isn't getting anyone out of the poor house when we have record highs of people hitting food banks.
Yea. Did you read my comment? I agree.
Operating under feasible budgets is the definition of conservatism, it's about reeling in government waste
Well it's about cutting essential services to the point where they don't work, cutting taxes for the rich, and then not cutting spending. And if you want to talk waste let's talk military there's a shit load in there.
The only way to change that is to break up those monoliths, but I don't see that happening under the Liberals.
Yea. I said this. And it definitely won't happen under the CPC.
I mean he did. Multiple times.
Yea. After a week of silence. It really doesn't count when you wait for polling and the other guy took a firm stance.
Bill C2
They've been making amendments warrants are now required for everything I read in the article.
Bill C22
In Bill C-22, the government is proposing that police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) only be able to approach telecommunications companies and ask them if, yes or no, an individual is a client before having to get a warrant for more information. Article content
That’s a significant step back from the original proposal in C-2 that would have allowed them to approach any service provider (including those protected by privilege such as doctors and lawyers) to ask if an individual was a client, for how long, where, and if the company knew of other service providers who had dealt with that individual. All without a warrant.
The article says that they made changes and still need warrants.
But don't worry, they're also reducing the transparency in the government and the ability to assess them, not that they don't already push back against information requests but now they're full sending it.
The paper the article is referring to is not law and says it would allow for extensions in emergency situations.
Bill C-8
Probably not going to pass like that.
Bill C-9
Agreed but it likely won't pass the Supreme Court challenge.
Bill C-11
Just expands the demand that content viewed in Canada have a certain amount made in Canada. Like we do for TV services.
Bill C-63
No opinion, doesn't sound like it's getting though. If it does I doubt it'll survive the supreme court.
Buddy, you've bought into the reddit hate haven't you?
Imma not going to read that whole thing. Everything I said was hand delivered to my door by the CPC flyer last election.
The rest you're going to spend another few paragraphs saying your opinion and ignoring what I wrote so I'll do the same here.
-14
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Gravy_Tanker Mar 12 '26
Things are going so great now. More abortions!
-6
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Gravy_Tanker Mar 12 '26
Don’t look up who aborts kids the most. You’ll be very disappointed🙂
-5
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
2
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[1] Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful Comments
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
8
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Or hear me out, we base our Canadian firearms and defense laws on Canadian data and stop trying to import America policies.
JUST so you can have more and bigger guns, were fucked.
Are you lost? How much do you genuinely know about firearms ownership in Canada?
-6
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
That’s a pretty wild take. You’re basically saying you want a firearms license not because you respect the responsibility, training, and legal framework around gun ownership in Canada, but because you think you’re morally superior to everyone else who already has one. That kind of attitude is exactly the opposite of what responsible ownership is about.
Getting a PAL isn’t about being the one empathetic person with a gun. It’s about learning the law, safe handling, storage, transport, and understanding that firearms are tools that come with serious responsibilities. Plenty of decent, normal Canadians across the political spectrum already own them and manage not to turn it into some weird moral crusade.
If reading a discussion forum makes you “puke” because people disagree with your politics, you might want to work on that before worrying about whether you should be armed. Responsible gun owners don’t need to convince themselves they’re the only good person in the room. They just follow the law, handle their firearms safely, and get on with their lives.
And given how much you've spewed about the conservatives, abortion and apparently even gun ownership (in a firearms sub lol), you must be pretty puked out.
The ironic part is that the attitude you’re showing here thinking everyone else is a monster or evil while you’re the enlightened one is exactly the kind of self-righteous nonsense that makes productive conversations about firearms impossible in the first place.
Maybe go touch some grass, read up about firearms and put your partisan politics to bed for a little bit.
-2
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
When its racist inbred bullshit, that makes me puke, the fact that this sub is comfortable with it and doesnt call it out makes me puke. Bury your head in the sand.
Is that happening in this sub right now, last I checked the mods are incredibly strict in this sub when it comes to that? Are those folks in the room with us? That's an insane accusation to be making.
First off, throwing around insults like that doesn’t magically make your point stronger. It just shows you’ve run out of arguments. If there was actually rampant racism going on, you’d be quoting it and calling it out specifically. Instead you’re just vague-posting and smearing an entire community because it’s easier than engaging with people you disagree with.
Second, you keep acting like gun ownership equals racism. That’s nonsense. Firearms ownership in Canada cuts across every demographic immigrants, Indigenous hunters, sport shooters, rural families, urban collectors. Acting like the entire community is some backwoods stereotype is just lazy prejudice on your part.
Bury your head in the sand.
And the irony here is incredible, you accuse everyone else of “burying their head in the sand,” while ignoring the reality that licensed owners are vetted through the background check system administered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and monitored continuously. The people you’re insulting are literally among the most scrutinized and law-abiding groups in the country.
Maybe you need to check your bias before posting.
5
u/airchinapilot Mar 12 '26
Is that happening in this sub right now, last I checked the mods are incredibly strict in this sub when it comes to that? Are those folks in the room with us?
It sounds like you are having a decent debate here so no need to step in.
→ More replies (0)2
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
1
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
4
u/Primary_Judge Mar 12 '26
FYI, 13/50 states banned abortions. The Canadian working class pay the health care. We'd love bigger guns.
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[4] Not Relevant Content
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki_.5B4.5D_not_relevant_content
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
-1
u/BlackElmyr Mar 13 '26
So you seriously think the Liberals selectively had a plan to usher in enough immigrants with the intention to offset the voting of all other Candidans? That they've a mysterious power, guaranteeing they know that they'll all vote Liberal? That they do all this knowing it takes 5 years from entry, assuming everything works out, before they can vote? And despite all this devilishly clever long-term 3 dimensional planning, that tthey brought in legislation cutting international student permits by 61% and temporary foreign workers by 47% ?
If enough Canadians have the same magical thinking as you, the Liberals never needed to "import" foreigners. All they needed to do was dangle some string or flash some shiny objects and you folks would be too distracted to make it to the polls. Jesus, give your head a shake. You replacement theory idiots make me sick.
7
3
-4
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Hell with a liberal minority no way this passes. With a conservative minority no way this passes. The NDP, greens, Bloq and most of Canada dont want this.
Hell we don't need it. If theres a reasonable threat to you you can defend yourself with lethal force.
8
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Hell we don't need it. If theres a reasonable threat to you you can defend yourself with lethal force.
Yep and then you get your life turned upside down, have insane lawyer fees and get dragged through it for months / years. Don't forget to factor in the stress and anxiety of it all. If you're a firearms owner, you get cooked twice over.
-2
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Expect no. Thats just the narrative of this echo chamber.
9
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Expect no. Thats just the narrative of this echo chamber.
R v Cinous was 11 months.
R v Brown was 6 months.
R v Khill vs 9 years (long ass case btw)
Ian Thompson is another big one, that was like 2 or 3 years?
You know all of reddit is an echo chamber right?
How would you feel if you had to defend your family and then got pressed by the horse cops and had your life flipped? Not everyone has six figures to drop and half a year or more of time they can take off work and put their life on hold.
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
R v Cinous
2022, As you said Harper added self defence laws in 2013 so it's irrelevant to your point.
R v Brown
The Supreme Court case about automatism? What was the point you were trying to make here?
R v Khill
Yea. That's because he killed an unarmed man on his property and was only acquitted because they got rid of any Indigenous jurors. That's what's supposed to happen when you shoot an unarmed man regardless of his location. There was no actual self defence. It was a bad situation all around.
Ian Thompson
Ian Thompson was in 2013 before the Safe Communities Act.
You know all of reddit is an echo chamber right?
Yes I know. Glad that you agree this one is too.
How would you feel if you had to defend your family and then got pressed by the horse cops and had your life flipped?
Like that's what's supposed to happen. And you know, I wouldn't kill an unarmed person so it wouldn't get to court.
3
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
2022, As you said Harper added self defence laws in 2013 so it's irrelevant to your point.
Boy you're in for a rude awaken when you realize what laws got changed and adjusted in 2017 and the reality is, that wasn't far enough for self defence in Canada but under a minority government Harper couldn't push it further.
The Supreme Court case about automatism? What was the point you were trying to make here?
The point where it relates to self defence because it determined whether someone could use self-induced intoxication as a defence. Do you know anything about the case? The dude was getting smashed and breaking into peoples homes. It set the bar for other cases.
Ian Thompson was in 2013 before the Safe Communities Act.
and it doesn't change my point, just because you responded doesnt mean you actually address the point that Thompson got dragged through the coals for years. It's life ruining.
Like that's what's supposed to happen. And you know, I wouldn't kill an unarmed person so it wouldn't get to court.
Ah yeah, good ol perfect execution reddit arm chair energy right here. You're clearly infallible and would 100% take down an opponent without harming them in any way.
Absolutely cooked take.
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Boy you're in for a rude awaken when you realize what laws got changed and adjusted in 2017 and the reality is, that wasn't far enough for self defence in Canada but under a minority government Harper couldn't push it further.
So the obvious thing is that he ended with a majority why didn't he push it through?
It set the bar for other cases.
It set the bar for automatism as a defence. Not self defence.
It's life ruining.
And it was changed. You may as well be complaining about slavery. It's not the same then as it is now.
You're clearly infallible and would 100% take down an opponent without harming them in any way.
Not what I said.
Absolutely cooked take.
Huh? What does this mean?
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
So the obvious thing is that he ended with a majority why didn't he push it through?
Your guess is as good as mine but typically politicians dont revisit the same ground because it's an easy shot at them if they do.
It set the bar for automatism as a defence. Not self defence.
Did you follow the case? Genuine question. You keep repeating just what the initial change was for automatism, not the nuance behind the break ins and the attacks.
And it was changed. You may as well be complaining about slavery. It's not the same then as it is now.
Not really no, the same defensive calculus is still applied, the cops still charge heavily, the crown still presses the victim.
We're just going for full misinfo now aren't we?
Not what I said.
You realize you will still get dragged through court even if you don't kill someone. You touch a hair on them and it's in the air.
It's wild you're honestly against protecting people from being dragged through court and having their lives ruined. I guess anything to slander a party you hate lol.
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Your guess is as good as mine but typically politicians dont revisit the same ground because it's an easy shot at them if they do.
It's because they don't actually want it to be law just like how they don't care about us gun owners.
Did you follow the case? Genuine question.
I read the Supreme Court decision. Precedent isn't set by nuance. The peoples who house he broke into had the right to defend themselves.
Not really no, the same defensive calculus is still applied, the cops still charge heavily, the crown still presses the victim.
And using evidence to support your point from before you yourself said the law was changed is a waste of time.
You touch a hair on them and it's in the air.
Now who's spreading misinformation.
It's wild you're honestly against protecting people from being dragged through court and having their lives ruined.
The other option is allowing open season to kill anyone on your property. Yea I'd prefer if the lawyers examined the case.
→ More replies (0)
45
u/DoYouGetSarcasm Mar 12 '26
This is definitely a step in the right direction.
an illegal intruder
I haven't read the specifics but how do you know if someone is illegally intruding? Do they have to be convicted of something after the fact? I would want some deep thought out into his to word it better so it applies to any intruder unless they are proven to be legitimate.
43
u/GhostProtocolGaming Mar 12 '26
In Ontario, an "illegal intruder" (or trespasser) is defined as any person who enters a property without permission, lawful justification, or legal authority. This includes individuals who enter a dwelling-house (home) either through force or by using a temporarily open, unlocked, or partially opened entrance.
18
u/Nearby_Purchase_8672 Mar 12 '26
Definitely important to know how it is defined, and that this doesn't exclude because a door was unlocked
13
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 12 '26
The issue in Canada isn't what the law says is legal force or not. Because contrarily to what the conservatives say you do have the right to protect yourself.
The problem is cops lay charges regardless and then it's up to you to go through all the court proceedings to prove your innocence.
The more important and beneficial change needs to come in the way the police issue charges more than what the law actually is in regards to defending yourself. They charge before they even investigate when it comes to defending yourself in your home. That needs to change.
Because even if we had this stand your ground law, there will be plenty of times it's abused or used when it shouldn't be and you'd still be charged.
5
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
The problem is absolutely the law, not just police procedure.
Right now in Canada under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, self-defence is written in a vague, multi-factor test that gets interpreted after the fact by courts. That’s exactly why police lay charges so often the law gives them no clear standard in the moment. If the legal threshold is unclear, officers err on the side of charging and let the courts sort it out.
That’s precisely why a clearer framework like what the main topic poster posted is objectively a step forward. Laws modeled after things like Stand-your-ground law or stronger castle doctrine principles create clearer presumptions for lawful self-defence. When the law clearly states that a person defending themselves in their home is presumed justified, it reduces the ambiguity that leads to automatic charges.
We don't necessarily need a full on copy paste of stand your ground, but we certainly need to review our current system because punishing the victims in a home invasion is fucked up.
Also specifically the “it might be abused” argument isn’t serious. Every law can be abused, fraud laws, assault laws, even the current self-defence law. That’s why courts exist. The possibility of misuse isn’t a reason to keep a system where law-abiding victims risk being treated like criminals for protecting themselves.
Fixing police procedure alone doesn’t work when the underlying legal standard is ambiguous.
2
u/Del1c1on Mar 12 '26
The laws in our country around arrests and charging definetely ties the hands of police. This also includes releasing post arrest. Part of the reason we have so many repeat offenders is that unless criteria are met police and the courts have to release them with a court date.
It is absolutely ridiculous that someone would have to prove their innocence when it's supposed to be on the crown to prove guilt. Either way I would rather risk losing in court than not taking action at all and risk my family.
2
u/penny-acre-01 Mar 12 '26
Does "property" include land? Would this mean someone can shoot me if I accidentally cross their property line?
I suppose the key is in the word "presumed" which doesn't exclude someone for being tried, it just doesn't force everyone to go to court unless the crown choses to press charges? Is that it?
3
u/SummersPilgrim Mar 12 '26
Canadian laws tend to be written with the annoying up-to-interpretation term "reasonable", and I imagine this one would be the same. The factors most likely to be considered are intent and knowledge of both parties involved (specifically at the time of the incident), as well as the proportionality of the action taken.
Is A aware they were entering B's property? Were there any visual or verbal warnings issued by B to A? Did B give A reasonable time to comply to those warnings? Did B have any knowledge or suspicion of A's intentions?
Proportionality matters too. A walking across a little bit of B's lawn to get home faster is a lot different from A kicking down B's door at midnight. If B responds with an extreme escalation to violence when A has been non-violent, apologetic and compliant, that's going to be a major factor.
I too would prefer more specific language, but let's be realistic - Anyone that's unhinged enough to shoot you, no questions asked, for mistakenly crossing their properly line is not waiting for a law to be introduced to allow them to do that. They'd do it either way. (And they should be locked up for life if they do.)
2
u/Visible_Bar_6774 Mar 12 '26
I’m not particularly familiar with the case law, maybe one of the lawyers that frequents the sub will chime in. My understanding is that you’ve got good odds of being acquitted in a home invasion case if they are beyond the threshold of the home, but that this doesn’t extend to the whole property. I think the justification is that once someone passes the threshold they reasonably constitute a threat to the occupants.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
My understanding is that you’ve got good odds of being acquitted in a home invasion case if they are beyond the threshold of the home, but that this doesn’t extend to the whole property. I think the justification is that once someone passes the threshold they reasonably constitute a threat to the occupants.
Not a lawyer but the bigger issue is also that the person who defends themselves / their families gets dragged through months of court, has to pay crazy fines and deals with their life getting flipped.
Ask yourself this, could you drop six figures in lawyer fees tomorrow and put your life on hold for 6 months?
Sure you MIGHT get acquitted but that isn't gonna fix the process.
1
u/CorsicanMastiffStrip Mar 13 '26
That would be good. We do have to be careful with how it ends up defined as we should by no means be allowing someone to cause injury to someone who made a reasonable mistake and was not threatening. Someone accidentally entering someone's land is not a threat. But a stranger in your home who won't leave absolutely is.
1
u/Visible_Bar_6774 Mar 13 '26
I don’t know, I’ve never mistakenly walked into a strangers home, reasonable to assume a threat. How do you propose someone, in the midst of a home invasion, determines whether the invader is a threat? A stranger in mine will be met with 1oz centre mass.
1
2
u/demonlicious Mar 13 '26
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-270/first-reading
it's a refreshingly short read
-4
u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 12 '26
Not a fan of that, how am I supposed to know if a cop got the wrong address and broke into my house vs a criminal.
8
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
4
u/mbncolr Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26
Remember the case of Basil Parasiris in Quebec years back. Police raided a mans home, they didn’t announce they were police. Man defended his home, Officer passed away and the man was acquitted.
Edited* Ended up getting 20 months though cause he had an illegal firearm4
1
2
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 13 '26
No my point is that if I defend my house and accidentally shoot a cop who is acting legally by their knowledge but is wrong I shouldn’t be charged
1
Mar 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 14 '26
Like I said it’s my only issue with this definition. A cop by all rights could legally enter my house because he believes that there is a legal reason to enter my home. But none of us are psychic so we don’t know at 2 am if it s a criminal saying they’re a cop or a real cop if they even announce themselves to begin with
1
u/FromDeepestFathom Mar 12 '26
It’s your own home, anyone you do not permit to be in there.
But the clowns writing the legislation will somehow mess it up, or the clowns arresting, or the clowns judging. Clowns all the way down really.
0
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Oh please. Its token month where the CPC pretends we exist. This is a not thought through nothing burger.
If there's an intruder and your life is threatened you can do what this "bill" says. Its a waste of time.
0
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Dont worry about that, worry about shooty shooty the dark figure in the doorway
That argument is basically a movie-script scenario pretending to be a legal point. Canada already recognizes the right to defend yourself under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The issue people are raising isn’t “shoot anything that moves in the dark.” It’s that the current system often second-guesses victims after the fact instead of clearly protecting them when they act reasonably against an actual threat.
Shit its my dad
Thats a lazy strawman. By that logic nobody should ever defend themselves from anything because maybe they’re mistaken. The law already requires that a person’s belief in a threat be reasonable in the circumstances. If someone blindly fires at shadows, that obviously wouldn’t meet that standard. That’s already covered.
and the real sad part is that criminals already ignore the law. The only people left navigating the legal grey zone are the victims; but fuck them I guess?
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
7
5
u/Straight-Yam-4151 Mar 13 '26
The Liberal bots are out in full force in here today, doing their famous mental gymnastics to explain how it’s somehow a bad thing that the Conservatives are once again giving them exactly what they have claimed to want.
And apparently the solution is still to vote for the LPC, who’ve been in power for over a decade and openly intend to confiscate more of their property.
At this point I’m fully black-pilled on the LPC voting morons on this sub.
The one silver lining to all of this is watching them melt down every time their favourite colour bans more of their own property. It never stops being funny.
21
u/Spirited_Comedian225 Mar 12 '26
One of the few times I agree with the Cons
→ More replies (25)-1
u/Spirited-Heart-3461 Mar 13 '26
You don't agree with lower taxes, less immigration, better healthcare, castle laws, smaller goverment, less government spending and accountability for corruption?
Jeez.
3
u/Spirited_Comedian225 Mar 13 '26
Lower taxes for corporations? Want me to send you some videos of pp dancing in traditional Indian garb. I said I agree with castle laws. We are our Government. I have no problem paying tax’s and having our Government institutions well funded I don’t like waste. Accountability and corruption well Doug Ford is my premier so yes I’m sick of corruption.
0
u/Spirited-Heart-3461 Mar 14 '26
Doug Ford ain't a conservative. Neither is Tim Houston.
Government waste and corruption has been absolutely rampant for over a decade. They put this country 1.4 trillion in debt with absolutely nothing to show for it. They changed the terms of a recession. They broke the charter of rights. Scams and conflicts of interests abound. Healthcare in shambles. Energy, housing and rent skyrocketed. Cost of living cartoonish and companies are leaving Canada for countries that won't bleed them dry just like the public..
...and you're worried about Conservatives making Canada attractive for investments and businesses?
2
u/Less-Comfortable-153 Mar 12 '26
I appreciate the spirit of this law, but would this include a revisiting of the Careless Storage provisions of the Criminal Code? Because ok fine it’s presumed that you can use lethal force to defend your house, but if you can’t access the one tool that you could most realistically use to accomplish that task, how does this really move the needle? And no, I don’t want to see a complete reversal of the storage regs. I’d like to see something similar to what the State of Michigan passed a few years ago, stating that any house with children must have unattended firearms either locked in a safe, or unloaded and trigger locked. There’s a healthy middle ground to firearms storage that could be explored. In any event this discussion is moot, no chance the Liberals let this pass.
2
4
u/mischling2543 Mar 12 '26
Genuinely where was this rhetoric before the election? I'm a solid Conservative voter and even I was having second thoughts back in April with how dogshit that campaign was.
0
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Its like 2 years to an election. The Cpc gives us token shit like this when they dont have to worry about politics. This will never be apart of a platform of anyone serious.
7
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Its like 2 years to an election. The Cpc gives us token shit like this when they dont have to worry about politics. This will never be apart of a platform of anyone serious.
Misinformation. The conservatives have been pushing for self defence and home defence for long time.
Poilievre calls for more legal protection for Canadians defending homes from intruders - August 2025
Plenty of people even criticized their election campaign regarding it
Also Harper's government pushed self defense laws with the safe communities act back in 2013, or are we purposely omitting information for the 'conservatives bad' narrative?
2
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
You're kind of proving my point here. When he called for defence of homes protections he did it in August after the election. When there was nothing to campaign for. It was token shit.
He was criticized for saying he was going to use the Notwithstanding Clause for the first time on the federal level to reinstate Mandatory Minimums which was a large part of the Safe Communities Act of 2013 which the Supreme Court deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
And the Safe Communities Act created the reasonable force doctrine that Pierre criticized back in August.
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
You're kind of proving my point here. When he called for defence of homes protections he did it in August after the election. When there was nothing to campaign for. It was token shit.
Except that it was brought up in his election too. CTV and CBC ran quite a few articles saying Pierre was going to far with it. Also saying he raised the issue in after doesn’t even invalidate the position. Politicians continue to advocate for policy changes between elections all the time especially when reacting to court rulings or public safety debates. Raising a policy outside an election cycle doesn’t make it meaningless; it often means they’re trying to build support before the next legislative window, but you refuse to acknowledge that because PP bad.
He was criticized for saying he was going to use the Notwithstanding Clause for the first time on the federal level to reinstate Mandatory Minimums which was a large part of the Safe Communities Act of 2013 which the Supreme Court deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
And the Safe Communities Act created the reasonable force doctrine that Pierre criticized back in August.
You might not remember this but it went through quite a few changes in the house, the criticisms laid are what had to given up to get it passed.
Do you honestly think self defence laws are in a good place in Canada right now? That's a bold take.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Except that it was brought up in his election too.
Nothing in the article that you posted that predates the election mentions self defence.
You might not remember this but it went through quite a few changes in the house, the criticisms laid are what had to given up to get it passed.
And I don't understand why Harper didn't change them with his majority. Unless... what was my point again? Oh yea. They don't actually care.
Do you honestly think self defence laws are in a good place in Canada right now?
No. But deadly force for an unarmed nonthreatening person on your property is not the way to change.
1
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
And I don't understand why Harper didn't change them with his majority. Unless... what was my point again? Oh yea. They don't actually care.
Wrong again. Politicians don't revisit old ground for a reason.
No. But deadly force for an unarmed nonthreatening person on your property is not the way to change.
Arm chair reddit energy strikes again, playing it up to protect those oh so poor home invaders. Also if someone is breaking into your home, calling them non-threatening is pretty out there. It's like you didn't even read the article or the original post, you just jumped right in conservatives bad mode.
-1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
The post is a nothing burger to stoke the masses and the article is the same thing with more words and sensationalism.
1
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
The post is a nothing burger to stoke the masses and the article is the same thing with more words and sensationalism.
So you refuse to engage with the actual content of the thread but you'll rapidly push how bad the conservatives are?
Glad to see where you stand.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Show me actual content. This bill is fear mongering and doomed to fail.
2
u/LongRoadNorth Mar 12 '26
Who cares what they suggest? Seriously it's just posturing and show. The liberals are just shy of a majority and will likely have one after three April by-elections.
It's not like the liberals will care to even entertain this bill.
9
u/noobte Mar 13 '26
yeah and they may as well give up all their seats too and quit the government its all meaningless anyways. While we're at it lets start attending lpc rallies and voting liberal.
21
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Who cares what they suggest? Seriously it's just posturing and show. The liberals are just shy of a majority and will likely have one after three April by-elections.
There's literally no pleasing folks like you.
The conservatives are doing what they can as the opposition. They can't enact law because they're not the governing party.
So they table stuff, it gets approved or shot down. If they didn't table something you'd be using the same tired "the cons are bad, they don't offer anything to the government".
Pick a lane.
It's not like the liberals will care to even entertain this bill.
Even if they don't, the conservatives are doing what's asked if them by their constituents, people want self defense protections, this isn't new.
If the liberals shoot it down, it's ammo for future pushes. If they let it fly, it's a win for everyone.
7
u/New-Replacement-2352 Mar 12 '26
So what, are conservatives just supposed to sit down and shut up until they win an election? It’s their job to represent their voters by attempting to pass legislation.
-7
1
u/Ciggaris Mar 13 '26
The solution I’ve reached to the political climate in Canada for the foreseeable future is to take the first opportunity that presents itself to move to the US. I have zero hope that this proposed change will actually become law, our politicians are too inept and smooth brained to ever let something that makes this much sense get through.
0
u/mantafloppy Mar 13 '26
The Conservative "stand your ground" bill is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Here's the actual law.
Before anyone says "finally we can defend our homes", you already can. Let me save you the rabbit hole.
1. The burden of proof is already on the Crown.
The accused never has to prove self-defence was reasonable. The Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is basic criminal law, confirmed by the Supreme Court.
> Source: R v Cinous, 2002 SCC 29
2. There is no duty to retreat from your home. None.
The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled multiple times that a jury isn't even allowed to consider whether you could have retreated from your own home. We already have a de facto castle doctrine, it just doesn't have a catchy name.
> Source: R v Forde, 2011 ONCA 592
3. Our law is already MORE permissive than U.S. Stand Your Ground.
McGill law professor Noah Weisbord, who literally wrote the academic papers on this, says Canadian law lets you "claim defensive force more easily than in the U.S." The Harper Conservatives already reformed this in 2013 (Bill C-26).
> Source: Weisbord, McGill Law Journal
4. The Collingwood case they keep citing? The law WORKED.
Cameron Gardiner shot two armed masked home invaders and the charges were dropped, under the existing law. The real problem was prosecutorial overreach and a messy situation (drug-dealing from the house, evidence removed before police arrived). A "presumption of reasonableness" in the statute wouldn't have prevented his arrest anyway. Only a prosecution immunity provision would do that — and that's not in this bill.
> Source: CBC News
TL;DR
The proposed change is legally redundant. The Crown already has to disprove reasonableness, that's not changing. What Cobena's bill won't do is stop homeowners from being arrested and charged while under investigation. Only a US-style prosecution immunity provision would do that, and nobody's proposing that.
You're being sold a solution to a problem that Harper already solved in 2013.
> Full DOJ legal breakdown: justice.gc.ca
-5
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26
Yep. Its the time of year where they won't be hurt by this politically so they can give us our badly written, doomed from the beginning, waste of time token bill so they can pretend they're on our side.
Fuck the CPC man.
Enough incompetence. Enough MAGA lite politics. Enough culture war bullshit. Work with the LPC and fucking govern or theyll lose even more MPs.
6
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Enough incompetence. Enough MAGA lite politics. Enough culture war bullshit. Work with the LPC and fucking govern or theyll lose even more MPs.
Have they not being doing that? They've had plenty of amendments in the house. Their food affordability act got shot down by the Liberals. This will most likely get shot down.
It's funny how you demand and stamp your feet that the conservatives do something then when they do you go "NO NOT THAT LIKE, GRR PP BAD".
5
u/HappyCan7250 Mar 13 '26
I think we found another one of those liberal gun owners who poke their head in from time to time.
Harper's government also had the VZ58 reclassed as NR after being classed as prohib. Harper was actually a great PM and there's a reason the country was thriving under him vs now. You've already covered the reality of the subject quite well though.
Harper also endorses Polievre, so I have no reason to doubt that Polievre would not carry on Harper's same agenda and legacy in many ways, which had Canada thriving.
0
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Their food affordability act got shot down by the Liberals
Because it was just a name for a bill to cut all taxes that was designed to fail. Just like this bill. They don't give a shit about affordability they just want you to think they do.
It's funny how you demand and stamp your feet that the conservatives do something then when they do you go
Because the names for their bills are not the same as what the bills actually do and they're doing it in bad faith. If they were serious about lowering food bills they would go to the LPC and start talks and come up with a bi-partisan plan. But they don't because they don't actually care and they just want to stomp their feet and complain for sound bites and campaigning.
Stop reducing my arguments to PP bad or CPC bad. I have valid points to make and you know it.
1
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
Because it was just a name for a bill to cut all taxes that was designed to fail. Just like this bill. They don't give a shit about affordability they just want you to think they do.
Care to point out where in the act is was designed to fail or are you just going to regurgitate the same talking points?
People like you are never happy, the conservatives table things, you cry about it. They amend things, you cry about it, they let things pass, you cry about it.
Because the names for their bills are not the same as what the bills actually do and they're doing it in bad faith. If they were serious about lowering food bills they would go to the LPC and start talks and come up with a bi-partisan plan. But they don't because they don't actually care and they just want to stomp their feet and complain for sound bites and campaigning.
Thats what the affordable foot act was, they also amended and worked with the Liberals on the gst cut because it was better then nothing, you're so blinded by your hatred it's not even funny, it's sad.
Stop reducing my arguments to PP bad or CPC bad. I have valid points to make and you know it.
I'm not reducing your arguments, You've done a fine job outting yourself. I just pointed out the obvious.
The Cpc gives us token shit like this when they dont have to worry about politics
Oh please. Its token month where the CPC pretends we exist.
That took me less than 5 minutes to scroll through the thread. You're so partisan locked it's unreal. Half of your comments have been PP bad and CPC bad, all the points you've made aren't even grounded in fact. They're based on your feelings. I don't quite care how you feel, but I do care you're spreading objectively wrong information.
3
u/AdeptArt Mar 13 '26
Guys I am all for civil debate, just try to make sure this doesn't spiral out of hand. I'm not going to remove this or any of the previous replies but please, no name calling going forward. I have to point out that u/The_King_of_Canada did not partake in any personal attacks. Try to keep disagreement civil & respectful, please and thank you (and this goes for everyone else reading this reply).
2
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26
I'm done with it.
If they want to spout misinformation, they can do it all they want. I took a shot at debunking their rampant partisan takes. If I've broken any rules you guys can take appropriate action. I'd like to think I've been incredibly civil given the contents of this thread.
3
u/AdeptArt Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
This was precautionary more than anything. My personal take is I would rather you focus on addressing the points (which you have been doing well, btw) rather than the person (like calling him blinded by hatred, which may or may not be true but isn't strictly relevant either way). But nothing here crosses the line so don't worry about that.
Just because I've seen these things devolve into online shouting matches (and then we issue warnings/bans and nuke the thread) I wanted to put out a reminder in advance.
Thanks for your understanding.
edit: Also, just to be clear, this is no way meant to be a message targeted towards just you. I appreciate the civil response to my message. This is true for everyone else on the subreddit. We keep disagreements civil (like adults) and avoid resorting to personal attacks.
0
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
Care to point out where in the act is was designed to fail or are you just going to regurgitate the same talking points?
Putting out a bill while you are the official opposition and not getting bi-partisan support to pass it means it was designed to fail.
Thats what the affordable foot act was
Dude. It was supposed to cut taxes for food by making them except from the carbon tax, getting rid of the plastics ban, "boosting competition" with no mechanics for how, and getting rid of recycling rebates. It was a nothing burger designed to fail that wouldn't lower the cost of food.
I'll say it again. As a previous voter of their party Fuck the CPC.
6
u/Lumindan Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26
Putting out a bill while you are the official opposition and not getting bi-partisan support to pass it means it was designed to fail.
You do realize the opposition tables things all the time through out the history of Canada. I understand why you keep repeating the same line about how it's designed to fail but it really does not hold up at all.
Dude. It was supposed to cut taxes for food by making them except from the carbon tax, getting rid of the plastics ban, "boosting competition" with no mechanics for how, and getting rid of recycling rebates. It was a nothing burger designed to fail that wouldn't lower the cost of food.
Sure, I'll break it down and humour you since you clearly don't understand the act.
carbon tax
The carbon price applies throughout the entire supply chain, fertilizer production, farm fuel (partially exempt but not fully), grain drying, trucking, food processing, refrigeration, and retail logistics. Exempting food production and distribution reduces stacked costs at every stage, not just the grocery store shelf. Even small percentage reductions compound across the chain. Thats basic math.
getting rid of the plastics ban
Scrapping the plastics ban isn’t about politics like you claim, it’s about packaging costs. Many of the mandated alternatives are significantly more expensive than conventional plastic. Those costs get passed directly to consumers. Removing the ban lets producers use the cheapest safe packaging option, which matters in a business that runs on razor-thin margins.
boosting competition
Competition lowers cost, simple as is. Canada’s grocery sector is heavily concentrated on a handful of stupidly powerful bodies that make the entry point nearly impossible for the little guy. Part of the act invovled limiting anti-competitive property covenants that block competitors and strengthening Competition Bureau powers.
You can argue about how effective they’d be, but pretending there are no mechanics is just ignoring the tools government already uses in competition policy.
getting rid of recycling rebates
recycling rebates and compliance programs aren’t free. Those costs are built into packaging and distribution fees that retailers and suppliers pay which again end up in grocery prices.
A fair criticism would be that the plan might only produce modest reductions, not that it would do nothing. Those are two very different arguments. If you'd stop with the constant CPC bad takes, you'd actually be able to see how this would've been good for Canadians.
I'll say it again. As a previous voter of their party Fuck the CPC.
And there it is. Kinda says it all doesn't it.
2
u/HappyCan7250 Mar 13 '26
I think you argued your point very well.
I personally think the CPC isn't perfect, but they're our best bet to get out of the hole our country has dug itself into. It sure as hell is not the same party that ran it into the ground. CPC is also the ONLY party that made it part of their platform to repeal basically all the gun bans (the OICs at least, to repeal C21 (the original ban) would likely require a CPC majority. The OICs all could immediately and easily be repealed though, as we all know.
And just economically, we thrived under Harper. It's easy to criticize the Conservatives for "not doing anything" when they haven't been in government for over 10 years now. I think the CPC deserves a chance in government before saying "oh it's all fake promises".
The guy just has a bone to pick with CPC. He's clearly one of the guys who voted along with the elbows up crowd and voted to continue trying to seize all of our private property.
Maybe he's one of the elbows up folks who just got their license to "protect Canada" from the mythical USA invasion.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
As i said in one of my other comments i voted for the NDP. I specifically didn't vote for the LPC because of the gun ban. I didnt vote for the CPC because they kept running a sensationalist instead of a practical one. That and after 2 years of hearing Pierre say that the country sucks and its all Trudeaus fault got tiring.
I liked Harper. I like my TFSA. I like that he got rid of the Long Gun Registry. His last year sucked economically. The CAD tanked from above the USD to 80 cents. The economy free falled. In my non economist opinion its because he sold off assets that generated revenue like the Canadian Wheat Board to balance his budget while cutting tax revenue for corporations and the wealthy and he focused on selling resources rather than increasing production.
Still Harper was practical Pierre is a sensationalist.
The US isnt going to invade us. Their economy would take too much of a hit. Their businesses would lose money and thats what motivates Trump.
But i do like buying Canadian and would rather spend my money locally.
My issue with the CPC is that i feel betrayed by them. And their token firearms lines that disappear around election time aren't enough for me to swallow the rest of their platform.
0
u/HappyCan7250 Mar 15 '26
I'm glad you're at least one of the lefties who can have a cordial discussion. Both sides are guilty of pretty vitriolic rhetoric. I'm guilty of it too, so I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning. One thing we can all agree on at least is firearms are not the issue in this country.
I don't believe the CPC is "tokenist" so to say, about firearms. Even now, well after election, we still regularly see CPC MPs bringing the firearms subject up fairly regularly in the house, it just doesn't get blasted over media everywhere, you have to actually watch clips from the HOC, but they do routinely continue to bring it up, and I'm thankful for that. The party is more than Pierre, and even though Pierre isn't bringing it up, other conservative MPs continue to speak about it frequently. Conservative MPs have even attended several of the protests in recent months, which is nice to see.
I personally strongly dislike the way the NDP propped up the Liberals for the last 4 years, and that they did very little to stop Trudeau from steamrolling the bans. It was nice to see Kinew from Manitoba break from the party line and speak out against the gun bans. Maybe someday their can be some sort of alliance between CPC and NDP on some issues, but those days seem far off. I personally just dislike NDP spending and regulatory policy, they are the party of over regulation, just like the Liberals, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. I prefer to have government involved as little as possible on my life, outside of core services, I can manage the rest myself, which is very contrary to modern day Liberal and NDP policy.
Either way, thank you for the cordial reply. It is nice when, for once, opposing sides of the spectrum can share opinions without it turning toxic, which is rare.
The political theatrics in the HOC from both sides is tiring. CPC, LPC, and NDP are all guilty of it. I'm tired of political slogans from all sides. I swear the HOC sometimes is more like an elementary school playground than elected politicians making 200-300k a year. The way they scream and insult each other, from all sides, is pretty ridiculous.
1
u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26
I understand why you keep repeating the same line about how it's designed to fail but it really does not hold up at all.
It does when they don't seek bi-partisan support.
The carbon price applies throughout the entire supply chain, fertilizer production, farm fuel (partially exempt but not fully), grain drying, trucking, food processing, refrigeration, and retail logistics. Exempting food production and distribution reduces stacked costs at every stage, not just the grocery store shelf. Even small percentage reductions compound across the chain. Thats basic math.
All of which were made except later by the LPC before they removed the carbon tax by the way and prices still haven't dropped.
it’s about packaging costs.
Packaging plastics weren't affected by the ban from what I just looked up.
but pretending there are no mechanics is just ignoring the tools government already uses in competition policy.
Then it was just the typical "we need more competition" but with more words and no real action.
A fair criticism would be that the plan might only produce modest reductions, not that it would do nothing.
Modest? It wouldn't lower prices by any reasonable measure. They got rid of the Carbon tax and prices didn't go down. So someone was lying.
-5
u/willysnax Mar 12 '26
Considering how you HAVE to store your firearms and ammunition, you'd likely be in an illegal position before you ever had a chance to use it.
Pure posturing and even if it did pass (won't happen), you would end up in court, presumed guilty, trying to fight for your innocence in an uphill battle without changes to storage laws already in place.
Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how. Pure posturing.
→ More replies (11)2
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
My firearms are in a biometric safe in my bedroom that takes less than 10 seconds to access, grab a magazine on the shelf in the safe, grab the firearm, load magazine and get it into battery... It can be done very quickly with practice, and it complies with all federal regulations and laws pertaining to safe storage.
-13
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/soundssarcastic bc Mar 12 '26
Your virtue signal just went off in another subreddit, go there
-8
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)8
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Telling people to leave the country because they don't align with your political beliefs is certainly a choice.
→ More replies (10)3
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Just curious. What is it about the conservative platform you disagree with?
0
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
There's a fair bit to break down here and there's quite a bit of misinformation you've posted so let's clear that up.
Sure that sounds nice but often, like in the US these things are promised and never delivered by conservative parties, then they lower taxes on the wealthy instead and like in the US, RAISED taxes for the poor!
I never understand why people cite American politics when it comes to Canada as if it's some kind of hallowed source. You claim conservatives “promise cuts but raise taxes on the poor like in the US.” Also your claim is technically incorrect, when Stephen Harper was PM, the government cut the GST from 7% to 5%, which is literally the most progressive tax cut possible because everyone pays it. They also introduced things like the TFSA under Jim Flaherty which benefits regular savers, not just the rich. Meanwhile under Justin Trudeau Canadians got carbon taxes, payroll tax hikes, and bracket creep while deficits exploded. Spare everyone the “conservatives raise taxes on the poor” fiction. This is a commonly repeated Liberal talking point I see used by people who don't understand the subject.
maybe, sounds interesting I would have to hear more about how this just wouldn't be used as a loophole for the wealthy (Ill invest 200 mil in my sisters hair salon she runs out of her garage wink wink)
You're picking and choosing here because the current setup in Canada that has been run by the Liberals already empowers the wealthy. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. You’re pretending this is some billionaire loophole fantasy when it’s actually a common economic incentive used to encourage domestic investment. The point is to keep capital inside Canada funding businesses instead of being parked in U.S. markets. Your “$200M sister’s garage salon” example just shows you don’t understand how tax law or anti-avoidance rules work.
Infrastructure: Speed up approvals for projects like pipelines, mines, and LNG terminals Not at the expense of environmental or native issues but I do feel like drumpt has cornered us in this regard so I hope we can at least agree Carney eating shit from the voters to push this through is a win?
Ah good ol Trump bad. I had a feeling that would come up, classic. Your condition of “not at the expense of environmental or native issues” is a strawman. Nobody is proposing eliminating those processes the problem is they currently take a decade or more. Canada has resources it can’t even build because approval timelines are absurd. Meanwhile countries like the U.S. eat our lunch economically. If we had invested more heavily in the last decade into using our immense cache of resources, we wouldn't be 80 billion in deficit.
In terms of guns its mixed, I dont have my PAL, every time I get close there is another mass shooting or I get reminded how the people I would be shooting with likely hate my spouses skin color.
That's the most wild take I've seen you post and this comment is basically a pile of emotional vibes pretending to be an argument. Lawful canadian firearms owners aren't the problem in Canada, we're not the ones committing mass shootings and it's incredibly problematic that you're conflating legal ownership with illegal ownership. Also why the implication of racism? I'm a member at multiple ranges and it's incredibly diverse and the firearms community is one of the most welcoming ones I'm proud to part of.
canada has about 2.3 million licensed gun owners vetted through the system run by the RCMP, and they’re statistically one of the most law-abiding demographics in the country. If you’re judging an entire licensed community based on crimes usually committed with illegally obtained firearms, you’re already starting from a false premise. Also gun owners in Canada include immigrants, minorities, women, Indigenous hunters, sport shooters, kids and old folks, the whole spectrum. Acting like the entire community is racist because you saw some idiots online says more about your bias than theirs.
I think limitations of violent spouses owning guns or people mentally ill should always stay, in terms of the weaponry itself, while I would love to own big guns with big capacity that look really cool and scary, I understand why overall its a bad idea
Here's the knowledge gap. We already have red flag and yellow flag laws in place. You also don't quite understand the definiton of big guns and big capacity, we have pinned magazines in Canada and quite frankly, blaming the tool instead of the perpetrator shows how slanted your understanding of firearms is. We might as well ban knives, cars and pools if we're trying to play the danger game.
Does a gun with a wood stock make smaller holes in people than a conversion kit? I think not :)
and a gun is just a tool, it's upto the user to be responsible with it. We have one of the most strict and robust graduated licensing systems in the world. Functionally identical semi-auto rifles were banned by Justin Trudeau’s government based largely on cosmetic features, not mechanics. A rifle with a polymer stock and one with a wooden hunting stock can operate exactly the same way the difference is aesthetic, not ballistic. That’s been one of the main criticisms from firearms experts for years.
Also, capacity isn’t even the debate you think it is. Canada already has strict magazine limits generally 5 rounds for most semi-auto centre-fire rifles and 10 for handguns (which you can't even get now). The “big capacity scary gun” you’re imagining basically isn’t legal here already.
So the real takeaway from your comment is:
You don’t have a PAL and refuse to get educated about the systems you're criticizing, you don’t really know the laws, you’re assuming gun owners are racist And your policy position is based on vibes and aesthetics with a pinch of "GRRR CONS BAD, PIERRE BAD".
That’s not a serious argument against civilian firearms ownership or even a real discussion point, it’s just anxiety mixed with stereotypes posted in bad faith.
1
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/airchinapilot Mar 12 '26
Good luck elsewhere then.
For what it's worth, we (mods) try to maintain the rules you can see on the right side of the screen. However, you're language here is also asking for it here and could be called baiting. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but if you can't grow a thick skin here, you are honestly not going to find a better reception anywhere else.
4
Mar 12 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Cre_AK47 Name Prohibited by OIC Mar 13 '26
I agree. Their comment has been removed under rule 1: "Disrespectful/Insulting or Hateful" comment ;)
Kink shaming is not tolerated!
4
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
Thats because every time I come in here, Im greeted by reich wing politics, guns on dirty carpets with crusty cum socks and generally Maple-MAGA attitudes. You can deny it but that is the reality. Ill have to find a more liberal/neutral community, if one exists.
Sorry, but just because people lean more to the right wing of politics doesn't make them nazis. You throwing out the accusation of calling them that just shows your ignorance.
Also if Reddit is what pushes you away from getting a license in real life, you really need to disconnect.
guns on dirty carpets with crusty cum socks and generally Maple-MAGA attitudes
It's funny you keep citing MAGA when most of your comments have been enitrely negative and vibe based, the thing that is MOST MAGA if we're being frank. People have responded to you in good faith and all you've done is fling mud at them.
You can deny it but that is the reality. Ill have to find a more liberal/neutral community, if one exists.
I am denying it because people in this sub are incredibly civil and helpful. I've had plenty of debates and discussions with people. Even if I hate the paint job on their shotgun (you know who you are).
No one made you post here. You took the time out of your day to post insults and misinformation. When you got debunked you resorted to petty insults.
I get you don't like people who don't align with you politically, that's your prerogative, but smearing everyone in this sub as nazis is absolutely pants on head insane.
I say this from the bottom of my heart, you need to self reflect and do better, not for anyones sake but your own.
5
u/Rough_Increase1325 Mar 12 '26
With all due respect your comportement here and how you've demonstrated your mental state you should NOT in fact get a PAL. Politics aside, if you're so affected by difference of opinion and fully ideologue then maybe just try to find members of the firearms community that would like to take you skeet shooting or other fun activities. You should not own guns.
Because people like you make all of us look bad.
1
u/Gravy_Tanker Mar 12 '26
You’re right! We need to flood the country with more international “students” ASAP!
1
u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26
In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:
[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour
https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki_.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour
If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.
0
Mar 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Haynous Mar 12 '26
How are the Liberals better in the social department? Only thing I disagree with.
226
u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26
It'd be nice if people weren't punished for making split second decisions when it comes to defending themselves, their families and their property.