Just days before the 2006 election Stephen Harper made an extraordinary statement. Seeking to assure Canadians a potential Conservative majority government would be restrained from accruing “absolute power,” Harper submitted that his party would face “limits” because of “checks,” naming specifically courts, civil servants and the Senate.
His words would prove prescient. The majority government Harper’s party eventually formed in 2011 was held accountable by various democratic actors and lost 15 significant court cases, mostly for violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The assurance was justified.
Current Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is offering no such assurance. In fact, he is doing the opposite; just this week Poilievre offered encouragement to protesters promoting extreme positions on the purpose of government.
This raises the stakes of the next election as Poilievre’s politics represent a radical departure from the norms of Canadian decency, decorum and democracy.
You must log in or register to comment.
Who do you want running your country? Hitler or Stalin? At least Stalin had good intentions…
A lot of tough talk considering that the Liberals and their NDP enablers have also been hard at work accruing power and avoiding accountability:
-
“Independent” senators (go look at the ISG’s voting record)
-
Massive backlog in appointing judges (legal system is a major part of government accountability)
-
Dumping MPs who step out of line for the public good (JWR)
-
Bills such as C-10 and C-36 (killed by the 2021 election), C-11 and C-63 that lay the groundwork for heavyhanded media control
-
Violating / attempting to violate provincial autonomy (yes many of the provinces are doing a shit job but that’s not a good excuse)
-
The May 1 2020 OIC and C-21 (pretty common theme among countries that turn into dictatorships)
-
Massively contributing to conditions conducive to crime in order to justify authoritarian legislation
-
Being far more lenient on those with similar ideologies (ex. it’s understandable that churches are burned down, all the pro-Hamas protests) and more heavy handed on ideologies they oppose (ex. truckers)
Jody Wilson-Raybould should not have been removed, which Jagmeet Singh (the supposed enabler) agrees that it was a shit thing to do.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-wilson-raybould-philpott-caucus-1.5080880I also wouldn’t say there is a massive backlog of appointing judges. It’s under 1% vacancies, with 1 sub for every 5 judges. Though it’s not completely balanced, and some places/areas are pushing 10% in open benches.
https://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/judges-juges-eng.aspxWhat a disgusting comment. You should be ashamed!
Uhhh, ISG senators show a voting record with more rejections than the partisan system we had before did - even NaPost analysis shows a better result than previous senate/government voting recods (with an enormous number of nominees, which would make it easy for Liberals to consolidate power, if that was their sole goal.)
Conservative Senate leader Don Plett dismissed the ISG’s independence, pointing out that Trudeau appointees never threaten to defeat any government legislation.
Plett said ultimately he also doesn’t believe the Senate should be standing in the way of an elected government’s mandate.
“I don’t think that’s the Senate’s role. I think it’s a senator’s role to give it sober second thought and to try to improve legislation that is flawed when it comes to us.”
He both complains they don’t threaten to strike down legislation, then goes on to say he doesn’t believe their role is to strike it down, but suggest improvements. The only way they should reject a bill, as agreed by ISG members;
Simons said voting down a bill has to be a measure of last resort, although she has voted against final reading on several government bills. “If we oppose a bill, we have to have a really sound reason for doing so, that isn’t just ‘I could write a better one’.”
Now we have, in name an in voting patterns within the groups, bipartisan groups in the senate, not just “off-broadway house of commons”.
Before creating his new Canadian Senators Group caucus, Tannas said taking a partisan approach all the time felt limiting and wasn’t in line with what he wanted to do as a senator.
“That’s the part I hated. I detest the game that we’ve somehow got to be some off-Broadway version of the House of Commons,” he said.
Being far more lenient on those with similar ideologies (ex. it’s understandable that churches are burned down, all the pro-Hamas protests)
Do you put your own pants on, or does someone do it for you?
Considering that we have protesters literally calling for genocide (“from the river to the sea”) which way above and beyond what happened with the truckers… Yes, the government is playing favourites.
Sounds like you should go and forcefully insert something up your anus. I think I remember hearing about some ranch that you’d love.
-
