Maxime Bernier Profile picture
Aug 19, 2019 4 tweets 2 min read Read on X
1/ EC is interpreting a bad law as best it can, but this rule is still absurd. Not because we’re the only party with a different perspective which climate alarmists believe is not legitimate. But because it is arbitrary, draconian, and cannot be applied consistently.
2/ Free speech is a fundamental value for the PPC.

With its changes to the Elections Act, Lib gov has put in place a series of measures that curtail it.

The law should only regulate real partisan advertising, which is when there is mention of a candidate or party by name.
3/ The article focuses on climate change and PPC position. But there are hundreds of potentially contentious issues that could be considered partisan if this rule were to be applied consistently.

This excessive regulation of free speech has no place in a free society.
4/ Now, @theJagmeetSingh, tell us if you oppose this EC rule systematically.

Do you also oppose it if it impacts groups that promote pipelines? Lower immigration levels? That denounce socialism?

Do you really believe in free speech?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Maxime Bernier

Maxime Bernier Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaximeBernier

Nov 5, 2023
1/6

All the establishment parties support mass immigration despite its catastrophic economic impact

“Canada is continuing to see meagre job growth. But any new jobs are immediately being overwhelmed by immigration numbers that remain at all-time highs.”
nationalpost.com/opinion/first-…
2/6

The labour market is swamped with newcomers:

“in just the first eight months of 2023, Canada added 320,000 jobs, but also added 624,000 people looking for jobs.”
3/6

We’re getting poorer because of mass immigration:

“with Canada now absorbing more than one million new people each year, each Canadian’s individual share of the economic pie has continued to shrink.“
Read 6 tweets
Oct 29, 2023
Opposition to mass immigration is becoming mainstream!

In 2019, when a PPC supporter paid for billboards across the country with “Say NO to mass immigration”, everybody freaked out. Moronic talking heads said we were racist, xenophobes, white supremacists.

But now, mainstream journalist @konradyakabuski uses many of the same arguments I have used all these years and that you will find in the PPC Immigration Policy in a long article in the mainstream @globeandmail, where he cites mainstream researchers, to explain the disastrous impact of Trudeau’s mass immigration policy.

And there is no negative reaction whatsoever. How come??

BECAUSE ANYONE WITH A BRAIN NOW HAS TO ADMIT I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG!

The article is behind a paywall. For those who can’t read it, below are 12 excerpts with arguments you will recognize.
1/

Soaring immigration levels under the Liberals have not made Canada richer, or its social programs more sustainable. If anything, the opposite is true.

It will take years to ramp up investments in housing, health care, public transportation and other infrastructure to accommodate the huge influx of newcomers the country has recently taken in.
2/

The country’s productivity deficit predates the recent population surge. But there is accumulating evidence that the latter is aggravating the former.

With a bigger pool of labour to draw on as a result of immigration, many businesses will be more likely to delay or forgo productivity-enhancing investments.
Read 13 tweets
Jun 22, 2022
1/ This article gives a very revealing statistical portrait of the covid situation in Quebec.

These stats show that people under 60 in good health (with no preexisting condition) essentially had NO RISK of dying from covid — about 60 deaths out of 15k.
journaldemontreal.com/2022/06/22/le-…
2/ The official number of covid deaths in Quebec, 15,462. is itself exaggerated, since it includes both those who died WITH covid and OF covid, the first group apparently being as numerous as the first.
3/ 69% of those who died were over 80 years old, which was more than their life expectancy at birth.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 22, 2022
*À LIRE ABSOLUMENT*

1/ Malgré le discours alarmiste des autorités et des médias, les personnes de moins de 60 ans en bonne santé (sans condition préexistante) n’ont essentiellement AUCUN RISQUE de mourir de la covid.
journaldemontreal.com/2022/06/22/le-…
2/ Le nombre officiel de 15 462 décès est largement surestimé, principalement par l’inclusion des décès AVEC, et non À CAUSE de la covid, apparemment aussi nombreux.
3/ 69,2% des personnes décédées étaient âgées de plus de 80 ans, soit au-delà de leur espérance de vie à la naissance.
Read 5 tweets
May 18, 2022
1/6 L’OMS s’apprête à adopter des amendements au Règlement sanitaire international de 2005 qui régit comment elle coordonne les politiques face aux menaces sanitaires mondiales. Elle a aussi lancé des négociations en vue de l’adoption d’un nouveau traité sur les pandémies…
2/6 …qui vise à lui donner plus d’autonomie et de pouvoir de prendre des décisions.

Contrairement à ce que plusieurs ont prétendu, je ne crois pas que cela donnera à l’OMS un contrôle sur notre système de santé.
3/6 L’OMS n’a ni force policière ni armée pour imposer ses décisions et recommandations, et nous pouvons lui dire d’aller se promener si nous le voulons.
Read 6 tweets
May 18, 2022
1/4 The #WHO is set to adopt amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations governing how it coordinates policies to deal with global health threats, and has begun negotiations on a new Pandemic Treaty whose goal is to give it more autonomy and power to take decisions.
2/4 Contrary to what some have claimed, I don’t believe this gives the WHO control over our health care system.

The WHO has no police force or army to enforce its decisions and recommendations, and we can just tell them to take a hike if we want to.
3/4 What it does though is increase the influence and legitimacy of unelected global bureaucrats to dictate how we should run our affairs. It will elicit more pressure from other signatory countries to obey them, which a globalist government like Trudeau’s will gladly do.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(