Canada election 2025: Moncton—Dieppe
Send this page to someone via email
Share this item on Twitter
Share this item via WhatsApp
Share this item on Facebook
Moncton—Dieppe is a federal riding located in New Brunswick.
This new riding replaces the riding previously known as Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe.
Voters will decide who will represent Moncton—Dieppe in New Brunswick during the upcoming Canadian election on April 28, 2025.
Visit this page on election night for a complete breakdown of up to the minute results.
Candidates
Liberal: Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Incumbent)
Conservative: Jocelyn Dionne
NDP: Serge Landry
Green: Marshall Dunn
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
an hour ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: Will the Supreme Court throw Legault a lifeline?
Op Eds A decision from the Supreme Court this fall could potentially reshape Quebec and Canadian politics for years to come. It could also be the political lifeline François Legault was secretly praying for. Canada's top court has announced it will begin public hearings on the legal challenge to Bill 21 in September. A record 38 groups are to testify before the justices, most of them publicly opposed to Quebec's secularism law. With his Coalition Avenir Québec trailing far behind in the polls, Legault couldn't have wished for better timing. The clock is ticking on next fall's general election, and he desperately needs a drastic shift in public opinion. It's unlikely the cabinet shuffle he promised at the beginning of summer will be enough to revive his government's fortunes. He needs much more than that. A constitutional showdown with Ottawa could be the catalyst Legault is looking for. A strong majority of Quebecers support the principle of separating state and religions. This debate has been simmering for over two decades now — remember Hérouxville, Bouchard-Taylor and the 'reasonable accommodations' crisis under Jean Charest? For many voters, especially francophones, secularism has become over the years a fundamental, non-negotiable value. When it was first adopted in 2019, Bill 21 was supported by nearly two-thirds of Quebecers. If the Supreme Court rules against it, the backlash could be fierce — and Legault may try to harness the public's anger to his advantage. In his position, a smart move might be to call a snap general election, asking for a strong mandate to defend Quebec's core values and fight for the right to legislate without federal interference. At this stage, it could be his last remaining wild card — both to save face and to salvage his party's future. At the heart of the case lies an important legal question: Can a province invoke pre-emptively Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the so-called 'notwithstanding clause' — in order to shield legislation from future court challenges? But the clause exists for a good reason. As former Quebec minister and respected constitutional scholar Benoît Pelletier once wrote: 'Contrary to what some have argued, the notwithstanding power does not undermine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, it is part of it. It is intended to ensure that collective interests are fairly taken into account.' A ruling against Bill 21 could spark a constitutional crisis the likes of which Canada hasn't seen since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord 35 years ago. For many Quebecers, it would be seen as blatant and abusive federal overreach into the province's internal affairs — a move that could even reignite debates over Quebec's place in Canada and bolster support for sovereignty. Aside from Legault, Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is likely watching with anticipation. A nationalist surge in response to the court's ruling could benefit both the CAQ and PQ — potentially at the expense of Pablo Rodriguez's Quebec Liberal Party. So it seems the Supreme Court is walking a political tightrope. There's reason to be wary when unelected judges appear poised to tell millions of people — and their democratically elected National Assembly — that they are wrong on an issue as emotionally, historically and culturally charged as secularism in Quebec — a society which, even 60 years after the Quiet Revolution, still bears the scars of centuries of domination by the then all-powerful Catholic Church. If nationalists play their cards right, the consequences of this ruling could extend far beyond the specific legal question, potentially pushing more Quebecers to seek greater autonomy or even independence from the rest of country. With just a year to go before the next provincial election, the Supreme Court's decision could prove to be a major — and risky — political turning point. The stakes are high, and Canada's unity now rests in the hands of its nine Justices.
National Observer
3 hours ago
- National Observer
How Bill C-5 adopted the language of Canada's Conservatives
In June, as Bill C-5 wound through parliament and talk of nation-building projects rose to national prominence, so did the voices of Indigenous leaders concerned by the lack of consultation. By no coincidence, June also marked a record spike in mentions of one particular term in Canadian news: 'economic reconciliation.' It's a loaded term with a range of implications, depending on the speaker. For proponents of C-5, 'economic reconciliation' encompasses Indigenous consultation, partnership and a share in the jobs and profits generated by new industrial projects under the new bill. 'Indigenous peoples are not just participants in our economy. They are rights holders. They are the original stewards of this land,' Energy Minister Tim Hodgson told the Toronto Regional Board of Trade on June 25, the day before C-5 received Royal Assent. 'If we are serious about retooling our economy, then economic reconciliation must be front and centre.' But for critics, 'economic reconciliation' is a dangerous twist on a familiar term, deployed by politicians and industry to justify a power grab. 'Economic reconciliation stalls true reconciliation,' ran the June 17 headline of an emblematic critique by Melissa Dupuis, an Innu activist and campaigner for the David Suzuki no doubt be hearing less about reconciliation and more about economic reconciliation,' Dupuis wrote,'the same threat that for years has translated to, 'Either you sign and you'll get money, or you don't sign, you get nothing, and we'll do it anyway.'' In the eye of the beholder For all its volatility, the term seems irresistible to some politicians. Conservatives — both provincial and federal — have taken a particular shine to it. For proponents of Bill C-5, "economic reconciliation" encompasses Indigenous consultation. But critics see it as a dangerous twist on a familiar term, to be deployed by politicians and industry to justify a power grab, Arno Kopecky writes. In 2018, Andrew Scheer — then leader of the federal Conservatives — began invoking 'economic reconciliation' on a regular basis, and it made it into subsequent leader Erin O'Toole's 2019 election platform. In BC's 2024 election, Conservative leader John Rustad's platform didn't mention 'reconciliation' on its own — just 'economic reconciliation.' The same was true of Pierre Poilievre's platform in this year's federal election. Since then, Doug Ford has repeatedly emphasized the importance of economic reconciliation in his efforts to gain First Nations support for mining in Ontario's Ring of Fire region. Mark Carney and his officials are also happy to invoke 'economic reconciliation.' But while Carney's election platform did mention it twice, it also discussed reconciliation five other times without that modifier. In the Liberals' platform, reconciliation means everything from funding Indigenous-led conservation and supporting the search for unmarked graves at residential schools to implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 Calls to Action. That's a far more holistic view of reconciliation than Conservatives tend to articulate. But when it comes to Bill C-5 and the current push for nation-building projects, that word 'economic' has an undeniable bipartisan appeal. By the time the bill passed at the end of June, Carney's Liberal government appeared to realize the risk it was running in alienating Indigenous leaders. It was then that Mandy Gull-Masty, the Cree Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, told reporters the prime minister would host an 'engagement session' with First Nations leaders from across the country in July. Striking a conciliatory note, Gull-Masty said it was up to Indigenous communities to set the terms. The government, she said, wanted to know: 'What does economic reconciliation mean to you?' 'Looks like marketing' Unsurprisingly, it depends who you ask. 'The concern with this focus on economic reconciliation is that it's reductive. It reduces [reconciliation] to a matter of dollars and cents,' says Bruce McIvor, a Metís lawyer and partner at First Peoples Law LLP. There are times when the consequences of a particular industrial proposal outweigh the benefits. 'It's not just about the money — it's about protecting the water and lands for future generations,' he says. Framing a proposal entirely in financial terms 'has the real potential to lead to a consequence where the government says: 'First Nation, we offered you economic reconciliation, you turned down the equity deal, so now you're just being obstructionist. You're standing in the way of the national interest, and we're going to push this project through. … I think a lot of non-Indigenous people will be receptive to that or to that argument.' That concern is shared by chief Joe and many other Indigenous leaders across Canada who have been promoting 'economic reconciliation' for years. 'I get cringy when it looks performative, it looks like marketing,' says John Desjarlais, the Métis director of the Indigenous Resource Network [IRN]. The IRN is a pro-industry group that advocates for Indigenous involvement in resource extraction, and Desjarlais has come out in support of Bill C-5. But in conversation with Canada's National Observer, he tempered that support with a cautionary note that acknowledged the tricky position Indigenous leaders across Canada now find themselves in: wanting to advance development and create wealth for their communities, yet wary of industry taking advantage of the general haste to cut unfair deals and evade environmental oversight. 'We knew we're going to be walking a tough line,' Desjarlais said. 'Expediency is possible, if there's a relationship built on mutual trust and respect. But the flip side of that is, if there is a nation that has done their due diligence and they say no, we need to respect that.' Dawn Leach, chair of the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, agrees. The board has produced multiple reports advocating for economic reconciliation; according to Leach, the term grew out of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call To Action #92, on Business and Reconciliation, which 'call(s) upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework.' Leach has dedicated much of her career to improving economic conditions for Indigenous communities, but she's wary of efforts to do so that bypass Indigenous involvement — like the crafting of Bbill C-5.. 'They want to expedite the process, and we do too,' Leach told Canada's National Observer. 'But we need to be brought in at the beginning of the process. After the election, everything took place without our people at the table.' Leach is skeptical of proponents of Bill C-5 who invoke economic reconciliation — 'it's something that's in place now to appease us' — but she doesn't feel it's too late for Carney to correct course. 'I think we can get back on track, but it's got to be really meaningful going forward from here. You can't have meetings without us.' Should that happen, Leach warned, 'that's where all the problems start. That's where all the court cases will happen.' A best case scenario? If you ask Leanne Joe, a hereditary chief with the Squamish nation, there are as many interpretations of 'economic reconciliation' as there are Indigenous communities. Chief Joe is a co-author of ' Step Into The River: A Framework for Economic Reconciliation,' a 180-page guide to this concept, published by Simon Fraser University in 2022. 'To me, it is decolonizing well-being and wealth, and looking at it from an Indigenous world view,' she said. 'My son is not wealthy because he has one dollar more in his bank account than you or I. He is wealthy because he can get out on the land, he can hunt, he can fish, he can gather, he understands place names, he understands landmarks, he understands his origin stories.' Chief Joe doesn't deny that money plays a huge role in First Nations' well-being, but even here she challenges the notion that politicians can simply cut Indigenous communities into the profits. 'It's not just about having a seat at the economic table,' she says. 'We already have that. I need to transform the table.' Asked what exactly she means by that, she doesn't hesitate: 'Let's go with the obvious: Land back, cash back. Let's begin there.' One standout example she cites is Sen̓áḵw, a huge development project in the heart of Vancouver owned by the Squamish nation. Sen̓áḵw was the original name of a seaside village the Squamish nation occupied long before Europeans arrived; in 1913, the BC government burned the village to the ground and forced its inhabitants onto a barge that was set adrift at sea. Almost a century later, in 2003, the Squamish won a decades-long legal battle that returned four hectares of the original site to the nation. In 2022, backed by a $1.4 billion loan from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — the largest in that organization's history — construction began on an 11-tower, 6,000-unit housing complex. Chief Joe is quick to acknowledge her nation's unique circumstances. 'Squamish Nation happens to be in a place that is unprecedented for our nation,' she says. 'We have gone from a state of dependency, in less than three generations, to a nation that will thrive financially.' But for all the importance of financial restitution, Chief Joe emphasizes that well-being — and reconciliation — involves far more than money. 'That's not going to solve the amount of [Indigenous] children that continue to be in care. It's not going to solve the amount of injustices in the justice system. It is not going to solve the increasing amount of Indigenous women, girls, LGBTQS+ individuals that go missing and murdered in this country.' Chief Joe doesn't remember exactly when 'economic reconciliation' entered the vernacular. The term was used in South Africa during the post-apartheid years, but it wasn't until after Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission published its report in 2015 that it started popping up here. 'It was a term that people were starting to glom onto,' she recalls. 'It's like 'reconciliation.' It's a term that just managed to land with settler Canadians, so you run with it.'
Ottawa Citizen
3 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Who decides who stays and who goes during workforce adjustment?
Article content In each individual department and agency, the responsibility to determine which positions are affected by workforce adjustment, lies with the deputy head. Article content Managers have the responsibility and authority, in consultation with human resources, to determine the merit criteria and assessment methods to be used in the SERLO process. They also evaluate and make decisions on who gets retained and who gets laid off. Article content Team leaders may be involved with the evaluation of their own team, which again exposes the process to favouritism and bias. Article content Before engaging in the SERLO process, the employer must establish a voluntary departure program for any workforce adjustment situation involving five or more employees in the same group, level or unit. Article content If five or more employees in the same work unit are deemed to be affected, the employer must determine if there any volunteers for departure with compensation. It is very important that employees understand this step prior to having to compete for their jobs. Article content Article content The SERLO process only causes more anxiety and stress to an already extremely stressful situation. It raises concerns of reprisals and the ugly truth of having to compete against a co-worker to keep your job — a job both you and co-workers have already been deemed qualified for. Article content A seniority-based process would be more transparent and equitable. Article content During DRAP (deficit reduction action plan), which was introduced by the Conservative government in 2012-14, the SERLO process was widely used to eliminate close to 40,000 jobs and it was a complete disaster. Article content If the Liberal government is intending on going ahead with the announced cuts, they would be well advised to consider changes to the SERLO process. Article content Employees in all departments and agencies are worried about their futures; however, the workforce adjustment directive provides them with certain rights and outlines the employers' obligations. Article content Article content Remember, if you receive a letter telling you your position is impacted by workforce adjustment, that does not mean you will necessarily lose your job. But you will need to understand what happens next in the process. Article content Many of the federal public service unions have updated their websites to include the latest information on the SERLO process. The National Joint Council has information available. The Public Service Commission website also includes a managers' guide that is also helpful for employees. Article content Unfortunately, workforce adjustment situations will be a reality in the federal public service in the coming months and years, and it will be very stressful. Article content If you need help, reach out to your union, a co-worker or a friend. Sometimes it helps just to talk it out.
