Relying on 20th century solutions. Come talk to me when you have some real solutions to unleash Canadian energy that doesn’t continue to destroy the planet and sell out future generations. We already can’t afford homes as it is. You’re such a clown. Don’t respond. Just piss off you loser.

Foot the bill. This even after BP disaster in the warm Gulf of Mexico cost over $45 billion. This doesn’t take into account challenges in the Canadian Arctic or rough BC coast waters that would further complicate clean up. This is just a pro O&G position. You can’t make Canada an energy superpower..

Do you know how I know you are out of your depth here? Your line of work should fully understand risk assessment and liability. Yet you clearly have no idea that the Harper-era Arctic region bill or Oil Tanker Moratorium both capped O&G liability at $1 billion for disasters, leaving Canadians to…

I’m curious, why come into my replies to regurgitate literal talking points from the campaign that Liberals adopted from conservatives. Are you incapable of original thought? Critical thinking? Or do you just love pissing all over folks Charter rights for profit? Nm, you have no have no f’in clue.

Hey bot, you spammed me twice with the same response. You sound identical to the conservatives from debates. You repeat them verbatim, check out the Hansard you absolute goober. Try not to embarrass yourself next time. EnErGy SuPeRpOwEr! You’re laughably stupid. Don’t waste my time bot.

The biggest danger here is Poilievre's attempt to expand the Overton window to federal use of the notwithstanding clause. Honestly, play it out in your head. What happens if a Liberal gov't felt emboldened now to use it, only to have a province use it in response? Welcome to a constitutional crisis.

Those n/a votes have context in the bill analysis. Long story short: The Harper-era CPC did not think housing was a top-priority concern, instead allowing the market to do its thing, just as Liberals have done for the past decade.

Bill C-264 (42-1) “An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing)” PP: n/a

Bill C-265 (42-1) “An Act to.., adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians (Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act)” PP: n/a

Bill C-245 (42-1) "Poverty Reduction Act" PP: nay

Bill C-400 (41-1) “An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians” (Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act) PP: nay

Bill C-241 (41-2) “An Act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to housing)” PP: n/a

Bill C-285 (39-1) “An Act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act (profits distributed to provinces)” PP: nay

Bill C-304 (40-2) “An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians” (Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act) PP: nay

I mean, I definitely don't disagree, but it's the typical liberal rhetoric, right? The difference being the lip service to "working Canadians" and the "middle-class". But yea, similar result regardless.