Admiral Beez
Superstar
Poilievre is going to win, no question. But I predict that through smart campaigning from Carney, it will be less of a margin than the chap who gave up the seat.Rural Alberta has a pretty strong aversion to the Liberals.
Poilievre is going to win, no question. But I predict that through smart campaigning from Carney, it will be less of a margin than the chap who gave up the seat.Rural Alberta has a pretty strong aversion to the Liberals.
Jesus that was a deep callback.longer than iJustine's AT&T bill.
Jesus that was a deep callback.
It's possible. I don't think it's very clear on the wording of the Charter that you have a right to run without putting any sort of skin in the game. The Charter says:This would be deemed a barrier to participation in democracy that the courts would likely shoot down. There's currently a petition going around by a CPC MP from Manitoba I believe asking for $500 to run, which would also be shot down by the courts.
Instead it would make more sense for every candidate to have a different official agent to represent them "legally" as candidates. That would resolve a lot of this, IMO.
I wonder if the not-withstanding clause would be applicable here.
I see your point with it being a barrier however it also acts a barrier if you have a ballot longer than iJustine's AT&T bill.
This has been dealt with by a number of provincial appellate courts (not sure about SCOC). Some restrictions have been ruled reasonable. The Alberta court ruled that a deposit requirement was unconstitutional.It's possible. I don't think it's very clear on the wording of the Charter that you have a right to run without putting any sort of skin in the game. The Charter says:
3 Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Does "qualified for membership" mean you can't impose any minor barriers to running?
The notwithstanding clause can't override s. 3 of the Charter.
Actually, from what I gather, the bigger threat might be from independent candidates running as locals (Bonnie Critchley, Sarah Spanier)--it could be a "Bobbi Ann Brady" circumstance awaiting PP...Poilievre is going to win, no question. But I predict that through smart campaigning from Carney, it will be less of a margin than the chap who gave up the seat.
This has been dealt with by a number of provincial appellate courts (not sure about SCOC). Some restrictions have been ruled reasonable. The Alberta court ruled that a deposit requirement was unconstitutional.
With respect to federal elections:You can waive the deposit if you live in or have some sort of concrete connection to the riding. There's probably a million ways to address the abusive nature of this without imposing any impediment on someone who is legitimately interested in running to represent the people of the riding.