Tag: Canadian politics

Categories
Opinions

Potential criminal will continue to make ends meet

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

Politics is a tricky game when it comes to strategic alliances. Everyone has dirty secrets, just waiting to be uncovered, the kind that can turn the ideal candidate into a political party’s worst nightmare. Politicians are like time bombs: they are waiting to explode with erratic behaviour, the kind that can either unveil their full potential or destroy it completely.

During the 2008 elections, Patrick Brazeau was Stephen Harper’s secret weapon. The Liberals were in the midst of trying to pass the Kelowna Accord, an attempt at tentatively making peace between the federal government and the aboriginal communities. In an article published in The National Post on Feb. 13, journalist Ira Basen underlined that, in the midst of the 2008 electoral fever, the soon-to-be outgoing Liberal Party had argued that only they could maintain the momentum necessary to push through with the Kelowna Accord.

At the time, by getting Brazeau on his side, Stephen Harper had found a way for the Conservatives to say that they were equally concerned for their voters, just in a different way. In other words, Brazeau was the key to Harper seeking out the swing vote in aboriginals.

Now, with his golden boy Senator being charged with both assault and sexual assault, our Prime Minister is probably secretly kicking himself. Upon hearing about the allegations, Senator Brazeau was immediately removed from the Conservative caucus. Brazeau now sits as an independent, at the back of the Senate.

Despite this, Brazeau is not truly being left to fend for himself: despite having been dismissed for his actions, the Senator will still be entitled to the $132,000 annual salary that he receives as a member of the Senate. This is exactly the kind of incident that has had the Canadian electorate questioning the pertinence of the political body that is the Senate altogether.

The number of scandals related to fraudulent expense reports for this political body is ever increasing and, to parallel recent political activity in Quebec, the more we dig, the more we uncover ugly truths.

In light of this, it only seems legitimate that taxpayers would want some sort revision made in order to establish whether we actually need a Canadian Senate. After all, if it’s going to cost $90 million to maintain annually, it better be worth every penny.

Brazeau’s case underlines the point that although we are definitely functioning in the confines of a democratic parliamentary system, perhaps we should revisit the idea of our “checks and balances” system. After all, we, responsible Canadian voters, elect the Prime Minister and, in turn, he appoints the Senators as needed. Is that constitutional to begin with? Reworking this procedure to include some sort validation system would require amending the Constitution and, necessarily, some sort of Canadian consensus on behalf of most provinces on an array of “touchy” topics. This can only make voters wonder what kind of major scandal will have to be uncovered for us to consider “updating” the Canadian political machine, once and for all.

Categories
Opinions

Baby fever on Parliament Hill

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan
Graphic by Jennifer Kwan

Ever since Prince William married Kate Middleton, the world has been abuzz about a new member to the royal family. For those of us less inclined to gossip, all this fuss over the “royal baby bump” can get pretty annoying.

But on the political stage, this little fetus is bringing up a big debate. For over 600 years, the laws of succession for the British Crown have remained unchanged. Until now.

Last December, about a week after Buckingham Palace officially announced the Duchess of Cambridge was with child, the government tabled a bill to stop the practice of giving males priority in line for the throne—and they’re asking every Commonwealth country to do the same. This would mean that should Prince William’s child be a girl, she would not be displaced if their second child was a boy.

Bill C-53, also known as the Succession to the Throne Act of 2013, has already passed through Canada’s House of Commons and is pending approval in the Senate. In Britain, it too passed swiftly through the House, but has stagnated in their upper chamber, known as the House of Lords.

In total, 16 countries have to make the constitutional changes in order for them to work in tandem. However, in at least one country, the changes are being met with resistance: Australia has a vocal conservative movement and the bill may need to be put to a vote in a national referendum.

Australian constitutional expert Anne Twomey said that “Queensland has objected to the Commonwealth’s proposed legislation, not because it objects to the potential outcome in relation to royal succession, but because it is concerned that such a law will subordinate the State Crown to Commonwealth control.”

The implications of Australia, or any other country in the Commonwealth, failing to pass the bill could have negative effects. Should a second baby be born a boy, it would mean two countries could acknowledge a different successor to the throne.

“If they don’t pass [the succession bill], there are two options,” explained Yukub Halabi, a professor of Political Science at Concordia University. “The first is that they agree on common ground. The second, if they really can’t agree, is dissolution of the Commonwealth, or that one country would leave.”

“However, it’s not really a valid possibility,” added Halabi. “It’s very unlikely that they’ll recognize two separate monarchs.”

In addition to those skeptical that the bill won’t pass, there are many who think the entire debate is unnecessary.

“There’s really no significance to it,” said Julie Michaud, administrator for the Concordia-based 2110 Centre for Gender Advocacy. “Symbolic gender equality in an unequal system doesn’t do anything for women all over the world. We should be focusing on striving for equality for all women, not just in small circles in the ruling class. I think it says something about the world that we still have symbolic, inherited power: a small family sponging off the state is unacceptable in any way.”

More importantly, why do we care so much about this in the first place? The British monarchy hasn’t held any actual power in almost a century. Whether one of them has the newest handbag or what they’re wearing as a Halloween costume, they repeatedly make headline news. For a group of people who have no talents, no legal authority, no realistic claim to power, there’s a disproportionately high amount of people who care about what toothbrush they use. Is our generation so obsessed with the idea of a Cinderella story that we’ve completely lost touch with reality?

“We have an assumption that just because something is traditional, that it’s worth protecting,” said Michaud. “What would have become of the civil rights movement then?”

Ultimately, if there’s only one thing that’s clear, it’s this: baby fever never sets on the British Empire.

Categories
Opinions

Mulcair caught between a rock and a French place

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

Political greatness, be it in Canada or anywhere else, is not something that’s easily achievable. It requires a mix of intention and charisma, the kind of persona that will make you a memorable figure.

Ask Thomas Mulcair: he’s clearly striving to establish himself, occupying his position as the predictable yet precarious choice of leader to follow in Jack Layton’s footsteps as the head of the New Democratic Party. Mulcair has been left to contend with the delicate balance that now exists in the party that took Quebec by storm during the 2011 federal elections.

This past week he’s also been extremely “media friendly.”

For what it’s worth, having the spotlight shone on him was somewhat inevitable: he is leading a party that’s between a rock and a hard place. On one hand he finds himself defending the Quebecers that helped put him in office and his patria, taking their side with understanding, attempting to underline their uniqueness. On the other hand he’s also contending with the rest of Canada, attempting to secure his party’s position as the official opposition in the face of Stephen Harper’s Conservative party.

As Thomas Walkom underlined in his column on the topic in The Toronto Star, the NDP’s stance on Quebec has been “friendlier” since 2005, when Mr. Layton decided to take a position against the Clarity Act. This act essentially stipulates that, in the case of any referendum held inside Quebec on the topic of sovereignty, the House of Commons has the right to decide whether the question that is being asked is deemed “clear enough.” It also warrants that it has the right to consider whether or not the result of such a referendum represents the vote of a “clear majority.”

Needless to say, the Clarity Act is not very popular amongst separatist Quebecers, and federal politicians have done their best not to remind us of its existence.

So this week, when Mr. Mulcair brought the subject up (with Marois abroad in Scotland), there was some notable controversy. Why not just let it be? After all, if it wants to maintain its positions, the NDP must strive to become “Canada friendly,” appealing to that considerable portion of Canadian voters that believe that Quebec should not be granted any preferential political visibility or treatment. In fact, in an editorial published by Conrad Black in the Jan. 26 edition of the National Post, Mulcair was framed as promoting an “odious species of federalism,” which encourages a vision of a fragmented Canada. In reality, the leader of the New Democrats is simply looking out for his electorate, which is exactly what a politician should be doing.

The bottom line, it seems, is that Canada will forever be a land of compromise so long as Quebec is part of it. Normally, the leader of the opposition would be expected to just deal with it. The optimist in us, however, secretly hopes that Mulcair will take the opportunity to stray from the path, supporting the people who elected him and disregarding the notion of politicians being pleasers. After all, he does have the home turf advantage, be it if for a short while. So why not use it to make himself memorable?

Categories
Opinions

The Canadian army doesn’t come cheap

Image via Flickr
Image via Flickr

Looking back at his 2012 record, most would agree that Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay didn’t have a great year.

The enormous controversy surrounding the F-35 fighter jets acquisition and his use of a search-and-rescue military helicopter to pick him up from a fishing trip caused two separate media fiascos. I guess you could say he’s starting this year right where he left off.

On Jan. 7, Postmedia News released documents it obtained alleging that provinces and municipalities will soon have to pay the federal government if they ask for the Canadian Armed Forces to participate in disaster relief efforts. Federal budget constraints would be the main reason behind this change.

Within hours, the news passed on to the various media outlets across the country, raising the ire of many columnists and politicians alike. Four days later, Mackay reassured press that ‘‘communities needing assistance will not likely be billed for those services.’’

While there is no more tangible worry for the Canadian population, the fact that Mackay was actually considering this possibility – and the public reaction that followed – points towards another interesting year for our defence minister.

Dr. Julian Schofield is a political science professor at Concordia University, specializing in strategic studies.

“This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” he told The Concordian.

According to Schofield, provinces would simply not hire the military if the services would cost them.

‘“The military is relatively unskilled except for shooting people,’” he added. ‘“Their purpose is only to enhance public confidence, it’s a [public relations] move.”

Schofield gives the example of the Great Ice Storm of 1998. Technically, the military couldn’t do much to help, but their presence comforted citizens.

For a long time, Canadians have enjoyed a sense of pride and security towards the Armed Forces. Many grew up knowing that if there was an event dire enough to require their aid, they would come.

And they have.

According to the National Defence website, the Forces operated in four provinces to support efforts against “three floods, one hurricane, and multiple forest fires,” in 2011.

To take away the peace of mind and security of citizens over a question of budget constraints should be out of the question.

In the days prior to MacKay’s statement confirming this change would not take place, federal opposition parties were also condemning the decision, according to the Montreal Gazette.

“Communities should not have to look at their wallet before deciding whether they need help in a natural disaster,’’ said NDP Member of Parliament and defence critic Jack Harris.

As Schofield said, provinces could make do without help from the army if the Ministry of National Defence insisted on charging them for their services. But how will citizens feel knowing that their own soldiers cannot be deployed to help save them because of economic concerns?

“There is a foundational expectation that our military will be there when we need it. That’s what we pay these guys for,” said MP and Liberal defence critic John McKay.

Defence minister MacKay may have conducted successful acquisitions and operations in 2012, but his public image has been tarnished by controversies throughout the year. A cabinet minister, much like the Canadian Forces, should not only do his job, but also maintain the public’s trust in his legitimacy.

Categories
Opinions

There’s no such thing as bad press

Graphic by Phil Waheed.
Graphic by Phil Waheed.

Since Harper has been Prime Minister of Canada he’s been accused many times of having a lack of transparency in office; and his administration has often been called the most private government that Canada has ever seen. Despite various complaints demanding information, Harper hasn’t changed his ways.

This time, however, his actions have crossed the line.

The Toronto Star recently learned through an access-to-information request that the Harper administration has been working for over a year now on a government owned media organization worth over $2 million. The project was called the “Shoe Store Project”. According to the Star, the new centre may be located in a former shoe store in an Ottawa mall.

Harper going through with this project is a slap in the face to the democracy a country like Canada values so much. We, as a people, deserve to know the inner workings of our government. I believe the information coming from this media outlet, if it does go through, will be absolutely useless.

Harper’s government-controlled media centre is said to “put in place robust physical and information security measures to protect the prime minister and cabinet.” According to the Star it would also be able to give the government control over which journalists attend news conferences and to do their own filming, as well as provide the filming to journalists.

This is absolutely ridiculous when you think of the changes Harper has already made regarding media relations since his election in 2006. Considering he ran on a campaign based on an open and accountable government, this is wrong.

So what exactly is Harper’s problem? Why does he have such a shaky relationship with the media? According to Centre for Constitutional Studies, by managing what is said to the press “Harper is also able to manage communication between his government and the Canadian public, limiting the possibility that the media will run off in a direction that has little to do with the message that Mr. Harper wishes to send.” Oh please.

Needless to say, many journalists in this country have been extremely frustrated since Harper’s election. This new government-owned media centre will only go further to push Canada away from democracy. Sandra Buckler, the Prime Minister’s director of communication, said that “when the government has something to say, Canadians are going to hear it.” I don’t think I need to explain what’s wrong with that statement.

As citizens, we have the right to hear what goes on during Harper’s public addresses and be able to make our own conclusions on our government. Besides, no leader should have the right to control which questions are asked of him because he is accountable to all of us.

As journalists, it is our job to inform the people. However, our job becomes extremely difficult when our calls aren’t answered, when most of us are excluded from press conferences and when what the government says is controlled by an enormous team of image-management professionals.

“It’s a privilege to govern and our duty as the press in a free society is to pick and choose the issues that we cover…by restricting access to cabinet ministers, it amounts to restricting the issues that we can cover properly,” said Emmanuelle Latraverse, Radio-Canada reporter and Press Gallery president.

Harper has been on thin ice for a while concerning his relationship with the media. We journalists have one of the most important jobs— to inform the people. Obviously, with Harper in power, it’s nearing impossible. It’s time to demand change and get projects like the “Shoe Store” taken to the curb.

Categories
Opinions

Climate injustice in Canada

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan.
Graphic by Jennifer Kwan.

Whether it be pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, the gutting of federal environmental regulations or the muzzling of some of our top climate scientists, the Harper government has done irreparable damage to our international reputation and more importantly to our ecology.

That’s not to mention an unprecedented and secretive trade deal being negotiated with China that would all but ensure the unbridled expansion of the tar sands. This would also increase Canada’s direct role in the release of GHG emissions which threaten to push the global concentration of CO2 over the edge and into dangerous territory.

It’s no secret that Harper is a friend to big oil. After all, this government continues to hand out subsidies to the tune of $1.4 billion to the fossil fuel industry even as energy companies take in record profits.

If there was ever a time for Canadians to come together to stand up and tell this government that we oppose its policies and want an end to these subsidies, this is it.

It is true that climate change will most negatively impact the world’s poorest; but the regressive environmental policies of the current government will also be felt here at home. They will also be felt in communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change; such as Indigenous communities who have lived and depended on the land for generations, ranches and farms which depend on streams and water tables, and yes, eventually the rest of us.

This is why now, perhaps more than ever, we need a new generation of climate leaders to converge and create meaningful opposition movements. Climate injustice is another form of oppression, inextricably linked to all other battles in social justice. Whether it’s the destruction of the environment, access to education or vast economic inequality we must hold our leaders accountable and ensure equity and justice for all of our citizens. Ending the fossil fuel subsidies and re-committing to the protection of our climate and environment more generally could be a first step.

This week saw historic action taken against the future of oil pipelines, and the prospect of more tankers on the B.C. coast shipping tar sands bitumen to global markets. The movement, aptly called “Defend Our Coast”, has rallied thousands of concerned citizens across British Columbia to mobilize and take action against the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. As I write this, citizens all across the province are linking arms in front of their Member of Legislative Assembly offices to show they are united in opposition to this pipeline.

This has left me thinking. After a year that saw an incredible mobilization of students in Quebec to defeat the tuition increases and ultimately the Liberal government, why not learn from that success? Let us link our common struggles from coast to coast. Radical grassroots activism has proven to work. It’s time to take direct action against the environmental record, or lack thereof, of our federal government.

This weekend I will be attending a conference called Powershift in Ottawa. There, 1500 youth from across the country will meet to discuss the future of climate change activism and how Canadians can mobilize practically to fight for our country to start taking it seriously. Speakers such as Naomi Klein, Bill Mckibben and Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois will be making key note addresses throughout the weekend. Participants will be actively lobbying MP’s, taking it to the streets and getting out their message to end big polluter handouts in every way we can. After all, Harper did promise at the G20 to do so. It stands to be one of the most important convergences of young activists and environmentalists that we’ve seen in the past decade.

We now have a chance to come together and show the Harper government we will no longer let them tarnish our reputation internationally, nor will we let them trample the ecological rights of our most at risk communities while providing subsidies to companies with soaring profits.

As Naomi Klein aptly put it, “ We are part of a groundswell, a global movement against all forms of dirty energy. It is a movement on a roll. The beautiful truth is that we have fossil fuel companies surrounded, and they’re running scared.”

Categories
Opinions

Legislation can only do so much

After 15 year-old Amanda Todd from British Columbia took her life two weeks ago because of the constant cyber-bullying she was exposed to over a long period of time, some Canadian provinces have been discussing new legislation that might have to be implemented to stop cyber-bullying all together.

According to The Calgary Herald, Alberta Education Minister Jeff Johnson is hoping to make some changes to the Education Act partly in light of the recent tragedy. The legislation will make it an obligation for school boards “to offer a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe environment.”

In an interview for the Montreal Gazette, Premier of British Columbia Christy Clark said that enforcing more laws and being stricter on cyber-bullying will be a strong statement about where Canada stands as a society.

“I think we should have a national conversation about whether or not we should criminalize cyber-bullying,” said Clark.

The national media focus has been on Todd’s story of cyber-bullying and sexual harassment since she died on Oct. 10, leaving a Youtube video that went viral soon after. Photos of Todd half-naked were posted by a stalker on a false Facebook account which led to much of the harassment from her peers and an alleged assault.

According to CBC, a concerned citizen had contacted cybertip.ca last November to report images of Todd that were online. The report was later passed to law enforcement as well as child welfare.

Here is the problem: if these groups and organizations were contacted, why wasn’t anything done then? Why does everyone start to pay attention only once everything is said and done?

Now that Canadian politicians feel motivated to do something about it, here’s some things they should do: have support groups in schools where young people can come and talk about how they feel, encourage parents and teachers to get involved, and raise more awareness about the issues with public campaigns.

If a student is being bullied, we need to have services available at schools for people to go and get help. Parents or guardians have a responsibility to get involved with an anti-bullying program or advise a teacher at school if they know their child is a victim of bullying.

Implementing more overarching laws isn’t guaranteed to produce positive results. We need more change on a local level within schools and communities.

Many teens hide behind the Internet to bully others anonymously and social networks give these bullies the opportunities to do so. I believe social networks like Facebook and Twitter should be a lot more accountable and socially responsible. Why did Facebook allow this blatant attack and breach of privacy on a minor to appear on the site? Better yet, why did no one report the inappropriate images? There is a “report” button for this very purpose at the bottom of each photo and though no information has yet been released from Facebook, it is hard to believe that Todd herself would not have tried that alternative to get the photos taken down.

Even with new legislation, there will never be a concrete end to cyber-bullying as long as bystanders and bullies continue. There will always be someone in your ear saying negative things about you. The problem will only end once the Internet is controlled in a way which does not allow these things to happen, and when people stop standing idly by as more and more young people fall victim to this awful trend.

Graphic by Jennifer Kwan

Categories
Opinions

My religion is better than yours

Photo via Flickr.
Photo via Flickr.

Oh Canada. Our country’s government is ready to cut the ribbon on a new $5 million federal office within the Department of Foreign Affairs, an Office of Religious Freedoms.

Now, I am not a political expert. However, I read a lot to stay informed, and I also have a good friend named logic. She tells me that the one thing we have no need for is the ORF, at least the one the Conservative government has planned.

Religious freedom means something different to everyone. The issue here is that the purpose of this office is so vague. Does it mean that the government is out to protect those who want to have a space to practice their beliefs? Last time I checked, this already exists; it’s called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government believes that religious minorities overseas need protection. Fine. However, many news agencies are reporting that the majority of the people involved come from a Judeo/Christian background. In fact, according to the Toronto Sun and CBC, the Department of Foreign Affairs held a “closed-door” meeting having to do with the ORF last fall, but failed to invite “Muslim, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and First Nation religious leaders.”

Well, what’s the point then? This poses a serious threat for bias within the office, and that could do much more harm than good. Whatever happened to secularity? The Canadian government isn’t supposed to be filled with missionaries.

“I think Canada doesn’t really know what to do with religion,” said Dr Susan Palmer, a sociologist and religion professor at Concordia and Dawson College.

Palmer said she believes that an office like this has “a lot of potential if people in the office are educated and not partisan.” She thinks that trained religious scholars and historians should be the ones calling the shots.

Problems with bias were seen in the 1990s when the United States opened up a similar office called the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom. The office was called out as being dedicated to not only protecting, but also promoting Christianity in other countries. If not done and dealt with properly, this is very well what could happen with the Canadian office.

Here is what we do need. First off, education. Religion is barely present in the education system. Palmer believes that providing a “solid knowledge” of world religions can be very beneficial. The media shapes a lot of what we think of certain religions, and this has obviously proven to have a negative impact.

Second, I think the government should be trying to protect people from the potential threat of religion. Work with other countries to separate church and state. People find themselves violently fighting for this, so why can’t Canada promote this in a peaceful manner? I have nothing against religion on a personal level, but those in power who use it as a manipulative tool are oppressing far too many people. While one government shouldn’t tell another what to do, I think certain circumstances call for it, especially when human rights are on the line.

The way I see it, no one should be held prisoner in the clutches of religion, and those who want to practice it should be able to do so without being persecuted by ignorant generalizations. It’s a two-way street.

Categories
Opinions

Trudeau-o-meter


Last Tuesday, Justin Trudeau announced his bid for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada at a rally held in his riding of Papineau. The position has been vacant since former leader Michael Ignatieff, stepped down following the 2011 federal election. The Liberals lost a devastating 43 seats, leagues behind the New Democratic Party which is now the official opposition with 103 seats.

The Liberal Party may be depending on Trudeau to seize the youth vote in Quebec, which has the second-highest percentage of voters aged 18-24 of any of the provinces, following Prince Edward Island, according to Elections Canada.

In a survey done by The Concordian, students were polled about the current political landscape, including their opinions on Trudeau, the federal political parties, and the party leaders themselves. The results would either support or refute the claims that Trudeau is affecting the youth vote, and whether the NDP was at risk of being unseated in the next federal election.

The answer was overwhelmingly positive. A total of 62 per cent of respondents said they are likely to vote Liberal in the next federal election, and 34 per cent said this was directly influenced by the fact that Trudeau could be the next leader of the party. It would seem that the senator-punching, Comic-Con-attending MP has struck a chord with Concordia students.

While they might have faith in him to run the party, it seems not quite as many have faith in him to run the country. Only 30 per cent of respondents believe he is suitable to be Canada’s prime minister. While this is ahead of other leaders (Stephen Harper has 14 per cent, and Thomas Mulcair has 16 per cent), 20 per cent thought that none of them were suitable for the job.

Political science students seemed to have more faith – 44 per cent of them said they believe that Trudeau would make a good prime minister. However, not a single one polled believed that Harper is suitable to lead our country.

Among women, the faith in Harper is also on a sharp decline. While 20 per cent of men think that Harper is doing well, only 7 per cent of women agreed. This may be due to the fact that several members of Harper’s cabinet – including the women’s affairs minister – voted for a motion to study fetus rights, which would have re-opened the abortion debate.

This does not mean the NDP is losing steam. Of those who said they won’t vote Liberal, 50 per cent of them said they will vote NDP (64 per cent coming from political science students). Behind Trudeau, Mulcair is in a solid second place as a prime minister pick.

It should be noted that the next federal election is still three years away – plenty of time for Trudeau to soar as the poster-child of the party, or to crash and burn clinging onto his father’s coattails. Whether this popularity is a sign of a rising trend or a blip on the radar in the wake of his hype, is anybody’s guess.

Categories
Opinions

Make way for the omnibus

Photo via Flickr.

Next up in the fall political schedule for the federal government: a new omnibus bill put forward by the Conservatives. An omnibus bill is one which includes a number of different issues within it and tends to act as a method by which unpopular legislation is passed along with the bulk of the good.

The bill, which primarily contains budget policy, is set to touch other sectors not traditionally found in budget bills including new crime legislation, the most important being new police measures to combat terrorism.

This past spring, some members of Parliament complained about the 400-page bill, which provided sweeping measures across many different disciplines, including environmental procedures, labour rights, security and pensions. The time allotted for debate on this colossal juggernaut: seven days.

This repeated move has once again bothered Canadians on all sides of the political spectrum for its violation of democratic principles. However, this is nothing new in Canadian politics, with even the revered Trudeau doing the same in the late ’60s.

Still, the move, however common, remains a stain on the democratic process. If we elect individuals to represent a collective society in order to bring together different viewpoints and share in the common journey forward as a nation, how can we pretend to have a democratic process when those individuals aren’t concerned about such key issues.

One of the simplest solutions to this omnibus problem is to split up the bills, forcing only monetary and financial policy to be dictated in the legislation. However, as many Conservative pundits have asserted, this would delay the process, as every little policy would have to be debated. What they don’t realize is that this is what is mandated in their jobs.

While Harper and his administration are not well-liked, he is an exceptionally shrewd and cunning politician. By moving forward with this form of governing early on in his mandate, the collective memory will ebb and fade away much more easily. When the time comes to actually harvest the votes, Conservatives can push forward popular legislation in order to garner another majority.

Plus, there is the obvious added benefit of not having Canadians looking too closely at the bills their legislators are passing. They can tell everyone that they are helping the economy, but they are also quietly pushing reforms to civil liberties like privacy.

The problem keeps compounding on the myriad of issues with Canadian politics. The first-past-the-post system, which entails an election that is won by the candidate with more votes than the other, does not work in this day and age.

Politicians are clinging to the old vanguard, and some Canadians are in a general disheartened state by empty promises and looming crises worldwide.

In the early ’90s, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Liberal caucus pushed through an omnibus bill. There were many politicians who complained about this governance, including a little known Reform MP.

He said: “In the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others.

“How do we express our views and the views of our constituents,” he continued, “when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.”

The name of that MP: Stephen Harper.

Exit mobile version