Canada
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Anmore (BC)
- Burnaby (BC)
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kingston (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Niagara Falls (ON)
- Niagara-on-the-Lake (ON)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Squamish (BC)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Whistler (BC)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- Buy Canadian
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Canadian Skincare
- Churning Canada
- Quebec Finance
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos (Canadian video media)
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
I've been a Green supporter for a very long time. I even ran as a candidate for the BC Greens way back. I hate it, but I don't really have a problem with this ruling. The Greens rose to our highest levels of support when we ran a full slate of candidates across the country, and while we have on occasion chosen to not run in a few strategic ridings (don't blame us, it's FPTP), 15 ridings fewer wouldn't be a problem if we were running everywhere else.
The big caveat though is that it's really hard to run a full slate as a small party. The vetting alone is a brutal (and costly) amount of work, and getting 343 candidates mobilised in time for a short-notice election is near impossible for a small party. In other words, when election dates are controlled by the ruling party, elections (and debate rules) will inevitably favour larger parties, diminishing our democracy.
The rules seem reasonable to me, and objectively we didn't meet them, so we shouldn't be included. I just think it's worth noting exactly why we didn't meet them.
Thanks for this. I also support the Green Party and was furious they failed to meet the requirements, but blamed it on pure incompetence. Your reasoning at least explains their failure in a way that makes sense and doesn't require them to be complete crayon eating buffoons.
I still feel like as an up and coming party you have one fucking job: meet the requirements to participate, so their failure still grates on my nerves but not so much now.
Can someone explain what happened with the green party allegedly pulling candidates in strong Conservative ridings? There was an article this morning stating that as the reason for their exclusion from the debate, as they no longer met the criteria for inclusion.
This article doesn't seem to mention or rebut it at all.
This isn't an 'article'. It's a press release from the Green Party, so ofc they're not going to put ALL the info in like they should.
Yeah, I was aware of that, but the proper term eluded me in the moment. Thanks.
I guess if they actually had a leg to stand on, they probably would've included it.
I would guess they were trying to focus resources where they were more likely to be impactful.
That's fine, but then they shouldn't try and misrepresent that they're actually fielding those candidates just to meet the qualifications to be part of the debate.
Actually no, if the Greens could participate then (and I hate to say this) but the PPC should too. Neither of those parties fulfilled the minimum requirements to participate, unfoetunately .