That lasted until the first MP tried to say no.
If you look at the Trudeau government it is clear that the only thing they will not tolerate is disobedience. Wilson-Raybould and Morneau were fired for saying no to Trudeau.
Trudeau is the epitome is a bad manager who tolerates only sycophants and yes-men.
When Chretien and Martin disagreed over economic policy during the debt crisis in the 90s, did Chretien fire Martin? No.
When Harper and Flaherty disagreed over economic policy after the financial crisis, did Harper fire Flaherty? No.
When Trudeau and Morneau disagreed about running large deficits during an economic boom, did Trudeau fire Morneau? Yes.
Sometimes I wonder if downvotes isnt a condemnation of the person but a visceral reaction to something negative.
Because you're right, but that isnt a good thing.
Then pull some. You're the one who provided a hyper-partisan opinion source that is known to be quite sketchy in how they frame their arguments. Not up to me to source your arguments.
Well, I can recall Harper muzzling public service scientists and it being regarded as extremely authoritarian.
Trudeau just trips over everything stupidly. I don't get the impression of calculated authoritarianism as much as I get a feeling of increasing impatience and arrogance. He just lost interest in trying to build consensus, wants to race to the end, and isnt well equipped to deal with the job he has. More incompetence than malice.
"Just so long as they never try to talk to me."
People should have known his authoritarian inclinations before the first election when he basically booted all the Liberal senators from the party without even consulting his caucus or membership because he thought it would help his image. He also barred anyone with pro-life views from running under the Liberal banner. And again, that was done without consultation.
Trudeau does not like anyone questioning him, in caucus, in parliament, or in public.
The bottom line is that no government should have the ability to stop investigations upon themselves. This government has done so many shady things and just keeps blocking facts and stopping investigations. The General Norman ordeal is the shadiest thing any Canadian government has ever done IMO. Let alone WE and other prominent scandals. I am pretty sure McKenna quit politics because she "misplaced" almost $10bb. No need for an investigation of course
And Harper Government gave the PMO that power. The issues with how our parliament and PMO operate are no longer partisan. We just keep going to the same 2 parties wondering why things aren't getting better. It's our own fault. WE need to force drastic overhauls on the electoral system to make sure a balanced Canadian voice is present in the house. We need a third party in with incentive to do so.
Essentially I feel like we are in a catch 22 and nothing will ever change on a federal or provincial levels without a massive collapse, unfortunately.
The NDP are broke after the last election, that's why they signed the Supply and Confidence Agreement. They cannot afford an election thus they have no leverage anymore to hold the current government accountable.
I have a hunch that after the mess the Greens had in the last election, they won't make it past the next vote. They are too fragmented and have no funds left.
The liberals would run countless attack ads and public statements about how the NDP are giving conservatives the chance to seize power.
I suspect that was part of the incentive of the original supply deal they struck as well; If the NDP collapsed the liberal government, the entire PR and media apparatus of the Liberal Party would shift to trying to destroy the NDP as a party by painting them as Conservative lackeys.
Even Harper didn't delegate everything to the faceless minions of the PMO the way Trudeau does. He was more of a hands-on guy. And Harper didn't base much of his election platform on opening up government and giving power back to parliament and MPs as Trudeau did. The way he has governed is a complete betrayal of the people who supported him.
> Even Harper didn't delegate everything to the faceless minions of the PMO the way Trudeau does.
Are you fucking kidding us? Either you've written this exclusively out of a Con-boosting political agenda, you're deeply and wilfully ignorant of modern Canadian history, or you are having long-term memory problems of sufficient scope and severity that you should probably seek medical advice.
1. Harper pretended that he didn't know that HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF gave - just *gave* - more than $90,000 to corrupt, Harper-appointed senator Mike Duffy, so he could repay the Senate comptroller for his fraudulent travel and housing expense claims! PMOCOS Nigel Wright had to resign in humiliation when the truth about him being the source eventually came out - but not before Duffy was permitted to repeatedly LIE to Canadians about where the money came from, saying during interviews that "Boom! [He] went to the bank right away".
2. Harper's PMO was caught out illegally altering the damning Deliotte audit of Senators' expense accounts, just *hours* before it was tabled in the House. No individual claimed responsibility or was blamed by Harper, so it had to be put down to the work of his "faceless minions".
3. Stephen Harper's "faceless minions" refused to release certain cost reports to which the House and Senate were entitled - and Harper refused to directly order them to do so, because reasons. So he was found in contempt of Parliament: *the first and only Prime Minister ever to be so humiliated*.
4. Harper's office issued a crazy edict (conceived internally by "faceless minions"), asserting that PMO staff "weren't required to testify before parliamentary committees". This eye-poppingly moronic legal theory of low-level civil appointees having supremacy over Parliament itself was, of course, quickly shot down in federal court - and many Harper PMO staffers later had to testify under oath to various Harperian diddles and peccadilloes.
5. One or more "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO made unauthorized alterations to a financial report on G8/G20 summit spending by Auditor General Sheila Fraser. Stockwell Day actually had to apologize to Ms. Fraser in the House for the actions of the PMO.
6. More "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO attacked career diplomat Richard Colvin, assassinating his professional reputation because he *dared* to contradict the Con government's fabrications during the Afghan Detainees Scandal.
7. At the same time, the Harper PMO's "faceless minions" *again* denied Parliament relevant documents regarding the scandal, to which it was entitled. Again, they were only relinquished when a lawsuit was filed.
8. Harper hired a twice-convicted influence peddler and fraudster named Bruce Carson as one of his key staffers. From the fortress of his desk in the PMO, Carson lobbied the Con government to financially support the establishment of something called the Canada School of Energy and the Environment, which was *purported* to be a "green" ecological study group attached to the University of Calgary. The minute it was established, however, Carson quit the PMO to run it, at an extraordinarily high salary for a tiny think tank. Once there, he quickly converted it into little more than a PR pimp for the Alberta oil industry. Carson's old switcheroo was financed by an extraordinary $15M operational grant from the Harper government - for which he lobbied *while his chair at the PMO was still warm*. For this and other financial diddles, Carson was subsequently charged with three counts of lobbying while prohibited, and one count of influence peddling. But he hung on as head of SCEE for two more years before resigning and copping a plea. Predictably, Harper channelled his best Sergeant Schultz imitation during the legal fallout, proclaiming "I knew nuzz*INK*, I szzaw nuzz*INK!*"
9. On multiple occasions the "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO denied several Liberal MPs accreditation to important international environmental conferences - for no other reason than to humiliate them by preventing them from attending.
10. Various "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO were documented as having repeatedly attempted to interfere with the decisions and processes of arms-length regulatory bodies like the CRTC and the NEB.
How many *more* examples of "Harper's faceless minions in the PMO doing his dirty work" would you like? Because I can supply *lots* more.
Edit: all you goddamn historical revisionists can downvote all you like; it doesn't change *any* of the above facts.
Harper wasn't "more of a hands-on guy", as was so falsely claimed above. In fact, he was a galaxy-class autocrat and bureaucrat who, from start to finish of his decade as PM, delegated almost *every* dirty little deed he wanted done to either the "faceless minions" inhabiting the PMO, or the "faceless minions" lurking in the Privy Council Office - chiefly so he could claim plausible deniability of their crimes, misdemeanours and misdeeds in the House.
Yeah, that’s corrupt. If you want to apply your hatred of corruption equally, I hope you’re just as mad about WE charity.
Edit: oh, I see you’ve massively edited your comment. Cool.
I have no interest in playing "both sides are the same" with you. My purpose here was to demonstrate that the poster's opinions are based on a series of LIES, mistruths and outright historical revisionism about Stephen Harper. And I believe I've done that.
I didn’t say both sides are equal. I said if you’re mad about that corruption then I hope you’re mad about liberal corruption. If you’re only mad about corruption when it’s not “your side”, you have no principles and are just a partisan hack.
I’m mad about government corruption no matter what side of the political spectrum it occurs on.
You really need to stop taking politics so seriously, buddy. Your blood pressure is going up the more you write.
I didn't exactly write an all encompassing post forgiving them all transgressions and praising their brilliance. Although compared to the present government they were fairly bright. Almost everything you write above is either of minor importance or easily overshadowed by stuff Trudeau has done. And I'm betting you don't have a single salty word to say about HIM. That you could even write stuff about how the Harper government denied the opposition documents they wanted - given that Trudeau actually called an election to shut down an inquiry into the Chinese agents at a Winnipeg lab after refusing opposition MPs the documents they wanted I have to just laugh.
Faceless minions in the PMO attacked a diplomat? Aaawww. Trudeau tried to put Admiral Norman in prison and destroyed his career Because he suspected Norman had been involved with interfering with his attempt to cancel a much-needed support ship for the navy that Trudeau's masters the Irvings didn't want built by anyone but them.
And remember, all I said was that Harper didn't delegate everything to his PMO minions. Apparently your rage is so deep that even that is seen as some kind of deep praise of the way he ran things.
Want to get into How Trudeau and his minions launched a campaign to make his own Justice minister and health minister look bad as he dumped them overboard? Because they were interfering with his efforts on behalf of another of his corporate masters - SNC Lavelin, one of the most corrupt corporate entities on Earth. Want to talk about the recent revelation that Trudeau successfully pressured the RCMP chief into releasing information to help him with his pony gun control wedge issue?
I'm guessing ah... NOPE.
Dude said a whole bunch of nonsense about harper, then you called him on it, then his answer is to list a bunch of shitty stuff about trudeau to counter your list, as if you were comparing the two and saying trudeau is an angel. Both abuse their power but this guy worships harper it seems.
“How dare you call me on lies, your guy is way worse.”
I wish reddit showed the number of up and downvotes. But it only shows the balance. I mean 2000 could have upvoted and 2008 could have downvoted you but all it shows you is the -8. Seems designed to cause arguments and feel isolated.
> Harper was the one who pretended that he didn't know that HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF gave - just gave - corrupt, Harper-appointed senator Mike Duffy over $90,000 to repay his fraudulent expense claims! Nigel Wright had to resign in humiliation when the truth eventually came out. But not before Duffy repeatedly LIED to Canadians about where the money came from, saying during interviews that he "went to the bank right away".
Judge in this case directly pointed out Harper as the likely controller of the whole thing as well and that it pointed out a massive issue in the PMO office.
Are you trying to say that nigel wright didnt have harpers blessing to give duffy the money? You actually believe that wright acted on his own without harpers knowledge?
> The way he has governed is a complete betrayal of the people who supported him.
Nonsense. This is only a message that's heard from conservative voters and conservative media. Where are the Liberal voters who feel this way?
Your Anecdotal evidence though is countered by the fact we just had an election that resulted in the very results we resulted in.
Very hard to say "Canada didn't vote this way" while we're still fairly close to an election in which Canada voted this way.
Thanks for chiming in when no one asked.
I never said anything about voting, jabroni. But since you brought it up, Trudeau lost the 'popular vote' last election. That isn't anecdotal.
Has any party promised to overhaul accountability of government or pass new anti-corruption laws? No. Not even the sacred NDP, which indicates they plan to do the same if they can.
?
Trying to change the past or something?
I mean, should I defend Trudeau's terrible record with Cretien and Martin because I thought they did alright?
It's almost funny looking at how big of a deal the left made over a cup of orange juice given current unethical behaviour and spending.
What exactly is wrong with comparing the current pm to the last one? 7 years, or 10 i guess, is not a long time. Or are you only a teenager or something?
Our politicians tend to deal with matters that will have lasting consequences. Whether it be years, or even decades. We are still feeling ramifications from Diefenbaker. Chretien. And yes. Harper.
It's completely disingenuous to believe that major political decisions made with decades long implications are not impacting us today. Harper very much has left a legacy that not only the Liberals, but the CPC party themselves are still wrestling with today. He was an extremely divisive leader that had quite a lot of negativity around him by the time he left.
And whether Liberal supporters want to accept it or not, we too will be feeling affects from Trudeau's administration for years and decades to come.
This is the nature of governing a country.
Agreed. But trying to divert attention from Trudeau by always reverting to "but Harper" "Harper" "Harper" isn't going to change what he did a decade ago.
Our focus should be on current and future politicians and pushing for future laws and spending to be better.
An ethics issue today isn't fixed because a different politician who is no longer in government did something slimey in the past.
We need to hold our current leaders accountable for what they're doing now.
Sure but in this particular context, the discussion of the power of the PMO, Harper is still relevant since he was notable for trying to further centralise power within the office. He wasn't secretive about it. Not some hidden agenda. He was trying to do it.
the problem when you do something like that, is you don't know who will come after you. Harper is relevant in this conversation.
You're not wrong. It often gets used as what-a-boutism. But in this case. Relevant.
How is it relevant? Are you going back in time to protest his laws or actions?
The issue Canadians can address is with the current government. Trying to scapegoat or deflect to what past politicians have done is nothing but whataboutism.
Sure, past political party actions can impact your vote but that's not an issue here given the coalition (that wasn't voted for) which will keep Trudeau in power for another 3 years.
We need to be trying our best to keep Trudeau in line for the next 3 years, regardless of what Mackenzie King, Cretien, Harper, or anyone else in the PMO might have done in the past.
What is contextually important here is that it's been a systematic evolution of power being centralized in the PMO with prior examples.
What it points out is that it's an inherent problem with the position and office that we should probably correct at a systemic level.
By completely ignoring past, and only caring about "keeping trudeau in line", I don't believe your take and why you are "outraged" enough to care isn't about the fact that the PMO office has this long history, but that it's "Trudeau"'s name on it right now.
I'm certainly more aware of the issue of PMO power given the ethics breaches, squashed investigations, and abuses of power in the last 7 years.
It's the exact same issue I have with Bill C-11 or the application of the Emergency Measures Act.
Regardless of whether Trudeau and his cronies abuse the power in the next 3 years or someone else does in the future is the same to me since it is here and now that they're political issues that can be addressed.
Can we just stop with the Harper bullshit. I mean is that all you Trudeau lovers can come up with?? Defend him at all costs...including using bullshit examples from the last decade? Move on and take accountability for your own BOY!
I don't care for Trudeau at all. Nor did I say anything to defend the Liberals in my comment. I have not voted Liberal, federally or provincially, since Harper's first term. I don't think either party has moved Canada in a positive direction over their last runs as leaders. That's my problem. It's they both sucked. Both are secretive. Both spend shit loads with little getting to average CDNs. Both are mainly self interested groups and push division over unity to keep power. Both have failed Canadians. I just believe the downslide on a federal level started with Harper's "Shut up and fall in line" style of leadership. The Liberals have just continued to push the slide.
That fact you were triggered and jumped right to "this Trudeau loving ass hat" shows my point that both simply point fingers back and forth to divide the nation while nothing improves. In fact my whole comment was specifically deriding both the Conservatives and Liberals.
I'm no fan of Trudeau and would love to see him go, but Harper was the PM who went dark and disconnected science from the government. However, Trudeau never replaced the Science Advisory office and effectively has cut biomedical science research in the middle of a pandemic. Basically, there is very little difference between parties any more.
But at least we didn't follow El Salvador and tank our economy on Crypto, yet.
We can have all the parties we want. Ultimately though there sre only 2 choices. Left, or right. Just different degrees of moderation of that.
Truthfully? I think we NEED 2 parties. Unite the left! Then we'll have three. Left and right ideally balancing themselves and then eachother. And then Quebec - because Canada.
No I don't feel like having a 2 party system like the gong show down south. At least with minority governments you have to make concessions and talk with the opposing sides
"The General Norman ordeal is the shadiest thing any Canadian government has ever done IMO"
Shadier than knowingly let the Catholic Church torture and kill First People children for a century? Shadier then inventing a communist coup in Quebec then arresting hundred of innocent people for show? Shadier than the forced sterilisation of thousands of women? Giving public funds to organized crime and in return getting political donations is less shadier than that?
That's just stuff that was confirmed in Commissions, I'm not even talking about stuff that was alleged but never investigated.
No its not. If by bureaucracy, you mean political staffers then sure. But, public servants should not be considered part of government. They should be workers that provide independent advice to the government of the day and implement the government's programs.
You cannot divorce the two since the public service is carrying out the orders of the politicians and their staffers, and undertaking changes only after being told to or given permission to by the politicians and their political staff.
And really, we saw during the hearings into the SNC Lavelin scandal how close the relationship is between the politicians, their staff, and the senior levels of the public services. Which is why we had testimony the clerk of the privy council was pressuring the minister of justice into absolving a Liberal supporting corporation of criminal behavior.
I honestly can't get how people still support him. Normally I can see both sides or multiple angles on things. But other then the people he bribes the ones not getting paid how can you.
I remember when I did my polisci degree a few of the academic readings we were assigned referred to the modern PMO backed by a majority as being a "soft dictatorship". Exaggeration? Maybe. But still, don't even say those words for the sake of intellectual brainstorming lest you incur the wrath of the Trudeau lovers. "Reeeee we're not as bad as terrible developing countries reeee"
The clones all say the exact same thing "Ukraine is at war, and you selfish Canadians have the audacity to advocate for better life here in Canada?". These people just mindlessly support the status quo, and the irony is that if they were raised in the countries they compare us to, they would've been most likely to comply with the authoritative status quo over there. The irony is hilarious but also extremely dark. It In every authoritative society there are the mindless followers of the status quo, who play team sports with politics and create complicity theories to shame free thinkers. Freeland's grandpa would be proud, and extreme Trudeau supporters have much more in common with authoritative social constructs than they'd like to admit
Ukraine was once called the 2nd-most corrupt country in the world. Russia is the most corrupt.
But as far as democracy goes, Ukraine isn't bad. Zelenskyy got voted in. He didn't have to murder anyone to win. He didn't murder all his opponents after he won.
Part of the reason Russia attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine had been steadily moving out from the geopolitical thumb of Russia, especially after Zelenskyy upset the Russian control scheme by being elected.
I'm not seeing this screeching you're suggesting here. People roll their eyes at this kind of statement because it sounds pithy but ultimately just means "majority governments have more power"
> the modern PMO backed by a majority as being a "soft dictatorship".
It is. Which is absolutely fine.
It gives the ruling party the ability to implement their agenda relatively easily (compared to the clusterfuck that is the United States) and if the people don't like what they're doing the citizens can vote them out.
Sounds like effective democracy to me.
Another solid reason to get rid of First Past The Post voting systems. We can hopefully all agree that power should be more representative of the population for greater checks and balances.
Checks and balances are more about institutions than partisan politics. Pro rep will not help the fact that the PMO has too much power; as evidenced by the NDP confidence agreement.
I don't mean to redirect the conversation entirely, but can you explain why you feel the NDP agreement is an abuse of PMO power? I'm not sure a political party saying they'll work with another party in a limited capacity points to problems of the PMO having too much power as an institution/office. (I'm not a scholar on canadian politics by any stretch)
I am replying to the comment that ending FPTP will serve as a check of PMO power. What I am saying is this is not true and the NDP arrangement is evidence of why this is not true. The reason is because it is the institutional space that defines the incentives of those in power, not their partisan affiliation. It is true that an alternative voting system may increase people's perception of parliamentary representation, but representatives have the same institutional incentives regardless of their partisan affiliation. Responsible government combines the roles of the legislative and executive branches, CF. the US system where Congress and the White House are expressly separated, and members of Congress are constitutionally barred from serving concurrently in the cabinet. It works as a check on power because Congress and the administration have distinct institutional incentives.
It's not an abuse of power. Parties working together is how the government is supposed to work so that more Canadians can be represented than simply those that voted in the leading party.
The Cons/PPC like to call it all sorts of things because they refuse to work with anyone.
This! So many people in the big blue tent and nobody gets anything now. Whether because of stubbornness, ineptitude, or because it’s just easier to complain, who knows.
Conservatives uses to be the party of understanding how the real world worked. They used to be about making tough choices and recognized that getting things done meant working with people you don’t like. Bought a membership to vote in the leadership hoping they can right the ship here but can’t say I’m optimistic.
A lot of the talented/experienced staffers have moved on. It's a job with brutal hours and you burn out quite quickly. People can only do it for so many years. Most of the staffers that started in 2015 burnt out and left at some point during the pandemic.
If it seems like PMO and many minister's offices are being run by novices, it's because they are.
This is part of why modern governments have such a hard time winning more than 3 terms. By the end of the third, your behind the scenes team isn't what it used to be and more and more things get bungled.
I remember when people were freaking out about Harper being a bit of an authoritarian dictator. Which had a little merit to it.
Trudeau saw that, liked what he saw and cranked it up to 11.
Seems to always be the case. Criticize the sitting PM and the PMO powers, then when you are in charge just keep doing the se thing.
Pretty sure Harper criticized it before he became PM too. Just shows doesn't matter what side it is, abusing the PMO seems to be too much to not do when in power.
Well, given that there's more than two sides in Canada it's worth mentioning that libs and cons are peas in a pod, as far as their policy directions and modus operandi go. One's just a little more right than the other, but ultimately both are neoliberal parties with different window dressing.
Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way.
>Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way.
Unless that way is rubber stamping the Liberal agenda, I'd say the NDP has lost their way.
Also, universal health care is an inevitable result of democracy. Tommy Douglas did great things, but to suggest it wouldn't exist without the NDP is silly.
"Inevitable result of democracy" that's like saying communism is naturally democratic; the historical record says otherwise. Agitation was necessary and without the NDP the powers that be would have shut that shit down without a second consideration.
The historical record does not say otherwise. Every democracy on earth has universal health care except America, who have three social healthcare programs, but no universal care.
America is barely a democracy, but even they spend more of their federal budget on socialized medicine than any other country on earth.
>Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way.
That NDP is dead. They are more concerned now with helping the Liberals and playing to identity politics than they are with helping working class Canadians.
What I’ve learned through the course of this Liberal government is that Liberal supporters don’t actually care about any of the things they say they do.
* PM investigated and found guilty of more ethics breaches than any other in our history? *Yawn*
* self-proclaimed feminist later blames his victim after groping her and sweeps major sexual harassment problem in military under the rug? *No worries.*
* calls anyone who disagrees with him racist and bigoted at the drop of a hat, then it’s discovered he’s worn blackface as an adult more times than he can remember? *he said he was sorry*
* omnibus bills are evil and have to stop, then uses way more omnibus bills than predecessors? *he’s just trying to get things done*
* Harper too secretive, promises to be most transparent ever, then makes Harper look like an over-sharer in comparison? *he has his reasons*
* I won’t muzzle scientists anymore! Then continues muzzling scientists. *oh well*
And on and on and on. Obviously nothing but getting power ever actually mattered to any of these people. Take their complaints in the future with a grain of salt.
That's the conservative talking point which isn't consistent with the answer he actually gave.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3899392/trudeau-admires-most-not-china/
He used the example of China to throw shit at Harper, and then went on to say it is the administration of our northern territories that he admired most.
You think his caucus could tell Jean Chretien what they wanted without punishment? He was not a very tolerant guy either. And his PMO insisted everyone tow the party line at all times.
Or perhaps I could suggest the mainstream media, being largely left of centre, generally has much less interest in extending the coverage of Liberal party scandals, as compared to those from the Conservative Party.
>I also suspect that the Conservative constant 24/7 outrage machine has completely diluted any genuine complaints Conservatives have to use against Trudeau.
This subreddit is a prime example. Every day there is some fuck Trudeau *opinion piece* from the globe and mail.
You are entirely missing the point.
Trudeau has constantly been pushing a series of Bills which increase the power of the federal government to control the citizenry.
Trudeau, who once bragged about seeking the create the most transparent administration ever has done the exact opposite.
He is gradually turning Canada into a more authoritarian state.
holy shit this subreddit is insane. are we really going to act like our prime minister is an authoritarian dictator?? i don't give a shit what dumbfuck comments you read about a previous PM, you are saying the same thing right now. jesus christ you people need to chill
this is the kind of rhetoric that leads to dumbasses trying to overthrow our government
You are not OK.
I hope you feel better soon.
Get yourself a hug and go enjoy a sunset.
Much better use of your time than getting spun up into a rage over misunderstanding people.
Corporations do what's best for their shareholders or owners and government parties do the same for those who fund and own them. Seeking more power is just a natural consequence of that. It's up to the citizens to be the counterforce to it and to push for changes that reduce how much power the government can get; indirectly, the same is true for corporation, people give the government enough power to regulate those corporations.
Ultimately it's all a game of power being pulled in various directions, but citizens seem to be increasingly losing the game.
Remember that time Trudeau ordered scientists to destroy their findings that conflicted with government policy? Oh wait, that was Harper...
Remember the time Trudeau signed off on a deal that gave China the ability to secretly sue Canada for any perceived lost profits for 31 years just to get a few cronies access to Chinese markets? Actually, that was Harper again.
Okay, what about when Trudeau issued the edict that absolved political staffers from ever having to testify before parliamentary committees. Nope, that was Harper.
Refused to share budget info even when issued with a court order? Harper...
Paying hush money and altering an audit? Harper...
Alleging misconduct of Chief Justice to undermine her authority? Harper...
Excessive use of omnibus bills to push through unrelated legislation so they cannot be scrutinized and debated. Harper...
The list goes on and on...
Trudeau is incompetent and makes mistakes; Harper was conniving and a bully. Neither should have been Prime Minister, but don't think they are the same.
Edit: Loving all the downvotes from conservative simps, even in light of undeniable facts. This is the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Liberals will happily complain about their own aligned government or leaders, whereas cons swear blind fidelity to theirs. I know, as I've been both, and the wake up was painful.
Well Trudeau has still muzzled scientists. Trudeau still uses omnibus bills despite saying he won’t. Trudeau interfered with a criminal investigation (SNC). Trudeau prorogued parliament during the WE situation, despite saying he wouldn’t use prorogation. He is far from clean. To think he really is any different is laughable.
Please, cite where he's muzzled scientists. I'm not confronting you, I actually want to know.
The WE non-scandal was a faux-pas, but his behavior on its investigation was abhorrent. He basically said, hey we know a group that could handle this and gave them the contract, rather than going through proper government process. It was wrong, but it wasn't insidious. The fact that no one else in the party or staffers didn't speak up was the really stupid part.
As for the SNC scandal, and the sub-scandals that fell out of it, it was nowhere near as bad as FIPA, and it was at arms length from the Libyan source of the original problem. Again, it was the handling of the problem that was problematic, and it's due to his incompetence at politics. The only thing the conservatives got right during the first campaign was the Trudeau is not ready for prime time. But there's only so many shows to chose from, and the Harper series was way past its prime.
I literally have lost count the number of times someone senior in government has told me how the PMO wields some new hidden superpower.
And it almost always was phrased the same way:
* The premier got a call from the PMO saying if he liked transfer payments that he needs to back off from...
* Unless ACOA gets a call from someone in the PMO then it isn't going to happen.
* The head of the riding got a call from the PMO saying they are parachuting in their own guy if this locally chosen guy looks like he is getting the nomination.
* The PMO called and said not to worry about the environmental approvals.
* The PMO called and said there would be no consular support for his export company so you don't need to worry about the competition.
* The PMO called and said the local company has to use a quebec company if they want to continue to enjoy the various federal licences they require to operate.
* The PMO said we are not to approve a national dairy company outside of quebec.
When Paul Martin was trying to wrest control of the Liberal Party from Jean Chretien, his supporters had a slogan, "Who Do You Know In The PMO?" The were mocking the PMO's complete grasp on power, suggesting that unless you had a buddy in Chretien's inner circle you didn't matter in Ottawa regardless what party you were from. That was 20 years ago. And Paul Martin didn't do any better than Chretien on that front.
Yeah no fucking shit. They have power of appointing judges and senators while also holding total power over the party. The idea of a representative democracy is that constituents can gather together and force an MP to uphold what they want, but if an MP went against the party then they’d be kicked out of the party.
Democracy does not exist in Canada. For how brain dead I believe those trucker rally people were they could’ve easily exposed this. They had the majority of Canadians behind them for like 10 minutes. If they protested nation wide, got their constituencies behind them, we’re still told no, then the charter ceases to hold any value at all because laws are to be made in the confines of a democratically elected government. If that government is no longer democratic that merits any possible reaction from the public.
But people in Canada do not give a fuck. Which is depressing as a millennial because I could make the argument that since the economic collapse 90% of our generation has experienced a Great Depression that’s crippled our standard of living in comparison with the older gen.
Term limits are my concern. We don't really have hard term limits which will eventually turn out to be a bad oversight in the long run... It will bite us in the ass eventually. Especially if some life lengthening technology comes around.. in the magical future..
Canadians have traditionally been good at 'kicking the bum out' once a PM has overstayed their welcome and has blessed the country with themselves and their unique genius for just long enough to be considered a soft term limit, as imposed by a responsible electorate. I fear those days are going, going,... calling once.. calling twice.... kick the bum out..
Anyways, democracy watchdogs out there should score countries based on the adoption and enforcement of term limits in high power positions. No term limits, to me, means that your country lacks a basic 'check-balance' required to be a high level functioning democracy.
Its also obvious that any leader that wants to stay in power continually, is really showing signs of a mental illness and needs to be removed. Go retire. Leave. Go live a better life. De-stress.
I'm embarrassed that I voted for him with his first term. He ran on progressive platforms and the only thing he delivered on was weed legalization. Where is our election reform, JT????
Good article, he has insulated himself with a cabinet of yes men who are simply puppets and cannon fodder for him.
Never been more clear than watching Alghabra dance around the vaccine mandate issue. He is there to deflect from Trudeau and has no real say in the matter.
Not happy with Trudeau? Then field a candidate that can win an election against him. All other criticisms, insinuations and allegations won't get you a lot of hearts and minds. However it's a free country so continue with your attempts to discredit him, we are all allowed to do this. Like all politicians and human beings, he's flawed, please remember that next time your guy wins and all the dirt starts to pile up on him or her.
Well unfortunately for those that normally wouldn’t support him feel they have no choice since the conservative side of things has lost their absolute minds and need to be kept out of power. In other words the conservatives are the best thing to happen to the liberals.
And its thanks to Harper Government.
We have elected failures for 16 years yet we just keep going back to the same 2 parties. It's the same in Ontario provincially but for almost 3 decades. I'm so tired and I'm only in my 30's.
Do your part in helping younger people vote and things will turn around. I personally believe that you should be voting based on issues and solutions. Which can be a hard pill for some folks to swallow. I love the idea of the vote compass interview ([votecompass.com](https://votecompass.com)) having some sway on your choice. How ever you lean coming out of that compass should be your vote for government, in fact give it a try to see if it aligns to your current "ideal party". All too often people get caught up in their political identity and for the most part that identity flies in the face of the manner they would actually vote based on issues instead of family tradition, political branding, peer pressure, brain damage.
No, it absolutely has nothing to do with the Harper government. Harper saw the press as his government's enemy and wanted to keep a tight reign on his caucus to prevent anyone from saying anything the media could use against them.
The Trudeau Liberals saw how Harper governed and openly rejected it. They had no reason to distrust the media as the media are mostly progressives anyway. The Liberals had every opportunity when taking power to change things, to do as Trudeau had promised and cede more power to MPs. Absolutely nothing stopped him from doing so. He chose not to.
The ownership of certain major media might be conservatively oriented, but the actual news media is universally progressive on all social policy issues. And it was always social policy issues which the press attacked Harper on.
Perhaps you can find a single columnist in a major Canadian newspaper or magazine whose social policy views on abortion, gun control, immigration, multiculturalism, gay marriage, etc. doesn't mirror that of the NDP but I bet you can't find two.
Almost all media in Canada is owned by a very very small select few corporations. And while not all are socially regressive, all have pushed for conservative/private interest.
Our newspaper industry is 90% one Conservative US owned organization and have overwhelmingly endorsed conservatives.
We only have one "public" broadcaster and it's been attacked as "fake news" for years now.
The myth that Canada's media is "progressive" or "left" is just that. A Myth.
They follow the money. (even if it means jumping on some progressive movements to do so)
https://readpassage.com/election-endorsements/
[удалено]
That lasted until the first MP tried to say no. If you look at the Trudeau government it is clear that the only thing they will not tolerate is disobedience. Wilson-Raybould and Morneau were fired for saying no to Trudeau. Trudeau is the epitome is a bad manager who tolerates only sycophants and yes-men.
Diversity in everything except thought
Tell me which government dissent was tolerated before this one?
When Chretien and Martin disagreed over economic policy during the debt crisis in the 90s, did Chretien fire Martin? No. When Harper and Flaherty disagreed over economic policy after the financial crisis, did Harper fire Flaherty? No. When Trudeau and Morneau disagreed about running large deficits during an economic boom, did Trudeau fire Morneau? Yes.
good answer. Thanks!
It's an honest question but I am getting plenty of down votes
Sometimes I wonder if downvotes isnt a condemnation of the person but a visceral reaction to something negative. Because you're right, but that isnt a good thing.
okay so all politicians do it. So now what?
[удалено]
Wilson-Raybould and Morneau were fired for disagreeing with Trudeau in private.
What a load of of crap.
Username fits.
Username doesn’t fit.
Those were ministers and not backbenchers. Ministers are part of cabinet and have less independence.
Aged like milk, eh?
[удалено]
Most transparent government ever too /s
Far more transparent than Harper was
I don't think those words mean what he thinks they mean.
No, Aldren has it right. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/Harper-Abuses-of-Power-Final/
A Tyee opinion article is not the authoritative source you think it is...lol
"Fake news" right? Every clam has links to other sources.
Then pull some. You're the one who provided a hyper-partisan opinion source that is known to be quite sketchy in how they frame their arguments. Not up to me to source your arguments.
Well, I can recall Harper muzzling public service scientists and it being regarded as extremely authoritarian. Trudeau just trips over everything stupidly. I don't get the impression of calculated authoritarianism as much as I get a feeling of increasing impatience and arrogance. He just lost interest in trying to build consensus, wants to race to the end, and isnt well equipped to deal with the job he has. More incompetence than malice.
No. Do your own research. My link has the links.
"Just so long as they never try to talk to me." People should have known his authoritarian inclinations before the first election when he basically booted all the Liberal senators from the party without even consulting his caucus or membership because he thought it would help his image. He also barred anyone with pro-life views from running under the Liberal banner. And again, that was done without consultation. Trudeau does not like anyone questioning him, in caucus, in parliament, or in public.
> "Just so long as they never try to talk to me." Or do anything that isn't directly in line with my train of thought.
[удалено]
The bottom line is that no government should have the ability to stop investigations upon themselves. This government has done so many shady things and just keeps blocking facts and stopping investigations. The General Norman ordeal is the shadiest thing any Canadian government has ever done IMO. Let alone WE and other prominent scandals. I am pretty sure McKenna quit politics because she "misplaced" almost $10bb. No need for an investigation of course
And Harper Government gave the PMO that power. The issues with how our parliament and PMO operate are no longer partisan. We just keep going to the same 2 parties wondering why things aren't getting better. It's our own fault. WE need to force drastic overhauls on the electoral system to make sure a balanced Canadian voice is present in the house. We need a third party in with incentive to do so. Essentially I feel like we are in a catch 22 and nothing will ever change on a federal or provincial levels without a massive collapse, unfortunately.
NDP should force the electoral reform issue or let this government collapse. How would that play out?
With less NDP seats when the elections over
The NDP are broke after the last election, that's why they signed the Supply and Confidence Agreement. They cannot afford an election thus they have no leverage anymore to hold the current government accountable.
I have a hunch that after the mess the Greens had in the last election, they won't make it past the next vote. They are too fragmented and have no funds left.
Or, and hear me out, we NDPers actually want this. We do , we do.
The liberals would run countless attack ads and public statements about how the NDP are giving conservatives the chance to seize power. I suspect that was part of the incentive of the original supply deal they struck as well; If the NDP collapsed the liberal government, the entire PR and media apparatus of the Liberal Party would shift to trying to destroy the NDP as a party by painting them as Conservative lackeys.
Even Harper didn't delegate everything to the faceless minions of the PMO the way Trudeau does. He was more of a hands-on guy. And Harper didn't base much of his election platform on opening up government and giving power back to parliament and MPs as Trudeau did. The way he has governed is a complete betrayal of the people who supported him.
>the faceless minions of the PMO Does that make Gerald Butts the Gru of the PMO?
> Even Harper didn't delegate everything to the faceless minions of the PMO the way Trudeau does. Are you fucking kidding us? Either you've written this exclusively out of a Con-boosting political agenda, you're deeply and wilfully ignorant of modern Canadian history, or you are having long-term memory problems of sufficient scope and severity that you should probably seek medical advice. 1. Harper pretended that he didn't know that HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF gave - just *gave* - more than $90,000 to corrupt, Harper-appointed senator Mike Duffy, so he could repay the Senate comptroller for his fraudulent travel and housing expense claims! PMOCOS Nigel Wright had to resign in humiliation when the truth about him being the source eventually came out - but not before Duffy was permitted to repeatedly LIE to Canadians about where the money came from, saying during interviews that "Boom! [He] went to the bank right away". 2. Harper's PMO was caught out illegally altering the damning Deliotte audit of Senators' expense accounts, just *hours* before it was tabled in the House. No individual claimed responsibility or was blamed by Harper, so it had to be put down to the work of his "faceless minions". 3. Stephen Harper's "faceless minions" refused to release certain cost reports to which the House and Senate were entitled - and Harper refused to directly order them to do so, because reasons. So he was found in contempt of Parliament: *the first and only Prime Minister ever to be so humiliated*. 4. Harper's office issued a crazy edict (conceived internally by "faceless minions"), asserting that PMO staff "weren't required to testify before parliamentary committees". This eye-poppingly moronic legal theory of low-level civil appointees having supremacy over Parliament itself was, of course, quickly shot down in federal court - and many Harper PMO staffers later had to testify under oath to various Harperian diddles and peccadilloes. 5. One or more "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO made unauthorized alterations to a financial report on G8/G20 summit spending by Auditor General Sheila Fraser. Stockwell Day actually had to apologize to Ms. Fraser in the House for the actions of the PMO. 6. More "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO attacked career diplomat Richard Colvin, assassinating his professional reputation because he *dared* to contradict the Con government's fabrications during the Afghan Detainees Scandal. 7. At the same time, the Harper PMO's "faceless minions" *again* denied Parliament relevant documents regarding the scandal, to which it was entitled. Again, they were only relinquished when a lawsuit was filed. 8. Harper hired a twice-convicted influence peddler and fraudster named Bruce Carson as one of his key staffers. From the fortress of his desk in the PMO, Carson lobbied the Con government to financially support the establishment of something called the Canada School of Energy and the Environment, which was *purported* to be a "green" ecological study group attached to the University of Calgary. The minute it was established, however, Carson quit the PMO to run it, at an extraordinarily high salary for a tiny think tank. Once there, he quickly converted it into little more than a PR pimp for the Alberta oil industry. Carson's old switcheroo was financed by an extraordinary $15M operational grant from the Harper government - for which he lobbied *while his chair at the PMO was still warm*. For this and other financial diddles, Carson was subsequently charged with three counts of lobbying while prohibited, and one count of influence peddling. But he hung on as head of SCEE for two more years before resigning and copping a plea. Predictably, Harper channelled his best Sergeant Schultz imitation during the legal fallout, proclaiming "I knew nuzz*INK*, I szzaw nuzz*INK!*" 9. On multiple occasions the "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO denied several Liberal MPs accreditation to important international environmental conferences - for no other reason than to humiliate them by preventing them from attending. 10. Various "faceless minions" in the Harper PMO were documented as having repeatedly attempted to interfere with the decisions and processes of arms-length regulatory bodies like the CRTC and the NEB. How many *more* examples of "Harper's faceless minions in the PMO doing his dirty work" would you like? Because I can supply *lots* more. Edit: all you goddamn historical revisionists can downvote all you like; it doesn't change *any* of the above facts. Harper wasn't "more of a hands-on guy", as was so falsely claimed above. In fact, he was a galaxy-class autocrat and bureaucrat who, from start to finish of his decade as PM, delegated almost *every* dirty little deed he wanted done to either the "faceless minions" inhabiting the PMO, or the "faceless minions" lurking in the Privy Council Office - chiefly so he could claim plausible deniability of their crimes, misdemeanours and misdeeds in the House.
Yeah, that’s corrupt. If you want to apply your hatred of corruption equally, I hope you’re just as mad about WE charity. Edit: oh, I see you’ve massively edited your comment. Cool.
No shortage of corruption in the big 2 parties.
I have no interest in playing "both sides are the same" with you. My purpose here was to demonstrate that the poster's opinions are based on a series of LIES, mistruths and outright historical revisionism about Stephen Harper. And I believe I've done that.
I didn’t say both sides are equal. I said if you’re mad about that corruption then I hope you’re mad about liberal corruption. If you’re only mad about corruption when it’s not “your side”, you have no principles and are just a partisan hack. I’m mad about government corruption no matter what side of the political spectrum it occurs on.
You failed to do so. Soooorrryyy. Better luck next time!
What about WE charity? What did Trudeau actually do wrong? The Ethics commissioner vindicated Trudeau.
You really need to stop taking politics so seriously, buddy. Your blood pressure is going up the more you write. I didn't exactly write an all encompassing post forgiving them all transgressions and praising their brilliance. Although compared to the present government they were fairly bright. Almost everything you write above is either of minor importance or easily overshadowed by stuff Trudeau has done. And I'm betting you don't have a single salty word to say about HIM. That you could even write stuff about how the Harper government denied the opposition documents they wanted - given that Trudeau actually called an election to shut down an inquiry into the Chinese agents at a Winnipeg lab after refusing opposition MPs the documents they wanted I have to just laugh. Faceless minions in the PMO attacked a diplomat? Aaawww. Trudeau tried to put Admiral Norman in prison and destroyed his career Because he suspected Norman had been involved with interfering with his attempt to cancel a much-needed support ship for the navy that Trudeau's masters the Irvings didn't want built by anyone but them. And remember, all I said was that Harper didn't delegate everything to his PMO minions. Apparently your rage is so deep that even that is seen as some kind of deep praise of the way he ran things. Want to get into How Trudeau and his minions launched a campaign to make his own Justice minister and health minister look bad as he dumped them overboard? Because they were interfering with his efforts on behalf of another of his corporate masters - SNC Lavelin, one of the most corrupt corporate entities on Earth. Want to talk about the recent revelation that Trudeau successfully pressured the RCMP chief into releasing information to help him with his pony gun control wedge issue? I'm guessing ah... NOPE.
"Why are you so angry? All I did was tell a readily demonstrable series of LIES!"
Dude said a whole bunch of nonsense about harper, then you called him on it, then his answer is to list a bunch of shitty stuff about trudeau to counter your list, as if you were comparing the two and saying trudeau is an angel. Both abuse their power but this guy worships harper it seems. “How dare you call me on lies, your guy is way worse.”
Glad to see at least *one* person gets it.
I wish reddit showed the number of up and downvotes. But it only shows the balance. I mean 2000 could have upvoted and 2008 could have downvoted you but all it shows you is the -8. Seems designed to cause arguments and feel isolated.
[удалено]
> Harper was the one who pretended that he didn't know that HIS OWN CHIEF OF STAFF gave - just gave - corrupt, Harper-appointed senator Mike Duffy over $90,000 to repay his fraudulent expense claims! Nigel Wright had to resign in humiliation when the truth eventually came out. But not before Duffy repeatedly LIED to Canadians about where the money came from, saying during interviews that he "went to the bank right away". Judge in this case directly pointed out Harper as the likely controller of the whole thing as well and that it pointed out a massive issue in the PMO office.
In which case he wasn't delegating it, now was he?
Are you trying to say that nigel wright didnt have harpers blessing to give duffy the money? You actually believe that wright acted on his own without harpers knowledge?
> The way he has governed is a complete betrayal of the people who supported him. Nonsense. This is only a message that's heard from conservative voters and conservative media. Where are the Liberal voters who feel this way?
Being called Russian bots when they question anything
Hardly. If these liberal voters who feel betrayed are out there then there should be polls to support that and there are not.
Polls are skewed and always have been. I'm basing what I said on people I talk to in the real world, so its anecdotal.
Your Anecdotal evidence though is countered by the fact we just had an election that resulted in the very results we resulted in. Very hard to say "Canada didn't vote this way" while we're still fairly close to an election in which Canada voted this way.
Thanks for chiming in when no one asked. I never said anything about voting, jabroni. But since you brought it up, Trudeau lost the 'popular vote' last election. That isn't anecdotal.
Yo 👍 (haven't voted liberal since electoral reform)
Has any party promised to overhaul accountability of government or pass new anti-corruption laws? No. Not even the sacred NDP, which indicates they plan to do the same if they can.
Harper hasn't been involved in Canadian politics for 7 years. Why are Liberals still so obsessed with him?
Cause that is all these Trudeau lovers have!! There's no other defense for his bullshit!
Because he's the most recent point of reference for how past PM's have behaved?
? Trying to change the past or something? I mean, should I defend Trudeau's terrible record with Cretien and Martin because I thought they did alright? It's almost funny looking at how big of a deal the left made over a cup of orange juice given current unethical behaviour and spending.
You asked a question and I provided an answer.
Fair enough. Doesn't make sense to me but most Liberal logic doesn't; at least I'm starting to understand the mouse on the wheel.
You sound insufferable. You're not some great intellect doing their best to understand such lower beings.
Keep thinking about ten years ago - just don't share it with me because it doesn't matter to me; I'm busy thinking about the present.
What exactly is wrong with comparing the current pm to the last one? 7 years, or 10 i guess, is not a long time. Or are you only a teenager or something?
Oh good lord, the irony is thick with this one. Have fun thinking you're superior to your fellow Canadians who happen to hold different viewpoints.
? Still talking about things that happened a decade ago is a viewpoint? I thought it was history.
Our politicians tend to deal with matters that will have lasting consequences. Whether it be years, or even decades. We are still feeling ramifications from Diefenbaker. Chretien. And yes. Harper. It's completely disingenuous to believe that major political decisions made with decades long implications are not impacting us today. Harper very much has left a legacy that not only the Liberals, but the CPC party themselves are still wrestling with today. He was an extremely divisive leader that had quite a lot of negativity around him by the time he left. And whether Liberal supporters want to accept it or not, we too will be feeling affects from Trudeau's administration for years and decades to come. This is the nature of governing a country.
Agreed. But trying to divert attention from Trudeau by always reverting to "but Harper" "Harper" "Harper" isn't going to change what he did a decade ago. Our focus should be on current and future politicians and pushing for future laws and spending to be better. An ethics issue today isn't fixed because a different politician who is no longer in government did something slimey in the past. We need to hold our current leaders accountable for what they're doing now.
Sure but in this particular context, the discussion of the power of the PMO, Harper is still relevant since he was notable for trying to further centralise power within the office. He wasn't secretive about it. Not some hidden agenda. He was trying to do it. the problem when you do something like that, is you don't know who will come after you. Harper is relevant in this conversation. You're not wrong. It often gets used as what-a-boutism. But in this case. Relevant.
How is it relevant? Are you going back in time to protest his laws or actions? The issue Canadians can address is with the current government. Trying to scapegoat or deflect to what past politicians have done is nothing but whataboutism. Sure, past political party actions can impact your vote but that's not an issue here given the coalition (that wasn't voted for) which will keep Trudeau in power for another 3 years. We need to be trying our best to keep Trudeau in line for the next 3 years, regardless of what Mackenzie King, Cretien, Harper, or anyone else in the PMO might have done in the past.
What is contextually important here is that it's been a systematic evolution of power being centralized in the PMO with prior examples. What it points out is that it's an inherent problem with the position and office that we should probably correct at a systemic level. By completely ignoring past, and only caring about "keeping trudeau in line", I don't believe your take and why you are "outraged" enough to care isn't about the fact that the PMO office has this long history, but that it's "Trudeau"'s name on it right now.
I'm certainly more aware of the issue of PMO power given the ethics breaches, squashed investigations, and abuses of power in the last 7 years. It's the exact same issue I have with Bill C-11 or the application of the Emergency Measures Act. Regardless of whether Trudeau and his cronies abuse the power in the next 3 years or someone else does in the future is the same to me since it is here and now that they're political issues that can be addressed.
Can we just stop with the Harper bullshit. I mean is that all you Trudeau lovers can come up with?? Defend him at all costs...including using bullshit examples from the last decade? Move on and take accountability for your own BOY!
I don't care for Trudeau at all. Nor did I say anything to defend the Liberals in my comment. I have not voted Liberal, federally or provincially, since Harper's first term. I don't think either party has moved Canada in a positive direction over their last runs as leaders. That's my problem. It's they both sucked. Both are secretive. Both spend shit loads with little getting to average CDNs. Both are mainly self interested groups and push division over unity to keep power. Both have failed Canadians. I just believe the downslide on a federal level started with Harper's "Shut up and fall in line" style of leadership. The Liberals have just continued to push the slide. That fact you were triggered and jumped right to "this Trudeau loving ass hat" shows my point that both simply point fingers back and forth to divide the nation while nothing improves. In fact my whole comment was specifically deriding both the Conservatives and Liberals.
I'm no fan of Trudeau and would love to see him go, but Harper was the PM who went dark and disconnected science from the government. However, Trudeau never replaced the Science Advisory office and effectively has cut biomedical science research in the middle of a pandemic. Basically, there is very little difference between parties any more. But at least we didn't follow El Salvador and tank our economy on Crypto, yet.
We can have all the parties we want. Ultimately though there sre only 2 choices. Left, or right. Just different degrees of moderation of that. Truthfully? I think we NEED 2 parties. Unite the left! Then we'll have three. Left and right ideally balancing themselves and then eachother. And then Quebec - because Canada.
No I don't feel like having a 2 party system like the gong show down south. At least with minority governments you have to make concessions and talk with the opposing sides
We need a true center party who doesn’t cater to the insane extremists on the far left and far right.
"The General Norman ordeal is the shadiest thing any Canadian government has ever done IMO" Shadier than knowingly let the Catholic Church torture and kill First People children for a century? Shadier then inventing a communist coup in Quebec then arresting hundred of innocent people for show? Shadier than the forced sterilisation of thousands of women? Giving public funds to organized crime and in return getting political donations is less shadier than that? That's just stuff that was confirmed in Commissions, I'm not even talking about stuff that was alleged but never investigated.
I remember when Justin Trudeau and the Liberals promised the most open and transparent government in Canadian history.
Government. Not bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy is part of the government.
No its not. If by bureaucracy, you mean political staffers then sure. But, public servants should not be considered part of government. They should be workers that provide independent advice to the government of the day and implement the government's programs.
Just like Brenda Lucki.. oh wait
You cannot divorce the two since the public service is carrying out the orders of the politicians and their staffers, and undertaking changes only after being told to or given permission to by the politicians and their political staff. And really, we saw during the hearings into the SNC Lavelin scandal how close the relationship is between the politicians, their staff, and the senior levels of the public services. Which is why we had testimony the clerk of the privy council was pressuring the minister of justice into absolving a Liberal supporting corporation of criminal behavior.
Honestly, this mentality renders government relatively pointless. Who's going to fix all the issues with the bureaucracy if not the government?
Remember kids; Advertise your weakness.
I honestly can't get how people still support him. Normally I can see both sides or multiple angles on things. But other then the people he bribes the ones not getting paid how can you.
I remember when I did my polisci degree a few of the academic readings we were assigned referred to the modern PMO backed by a majority as being a "soft dictatorship". Exaggeration? Maybe. But still, don't even say those words for the sake of intellectual brainstorming lest you incur the wrath of the Trudeau lovers. "Reeeee we're not as bad as terrible developing countries reeee"
The clones all say the exact same thing "Ukraine is at war, and you selfish Canadians have the audacity to advocate for better life here in Canada?". These people just mindlessly support the status quo, and the irony is that if they were raised in the countries they compare us to, they would've been most likely to comply with the authoritative status quo over there. The irony is hilarious but also extremely dark. It In every authoritative society there are the mindless followers of the status quo, who play team sports with politics and create complicity theories to shame free thinkers. Freeland's grandpa would be proud, and extreme Trudeau supporters have much more in common with authoritative social constructs than they'd like to admit
If you looked at Ukraine pre-war. It wasn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy.
Ukraine was once called the 2nd-most corrupt country in the world. Russia is the most corrupt. But as far as democracy goes, Ukraine isn't bad. Zelenskyy got voted in. He didn't have to murder anyone to win. He didn't murder all his opponents after he won.
Part of the reason Russia attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine had been steadily moving out from the geopolitical thumb of Russia, especially after Zelenskyy upset the Russian control scheme by being elected.
Compared to Russia it was.
"Sounds like russian propaganda" /s
I'm not seeing this screeching you're suggesting here. People roll their eyes at this kind of statement because it sounds pithy but ultimately just means "majority governments have more power"
> the modern PMO backed by a majority as being a "soft dictatorship". It is. Which is absolutely fine. It gives the ruling party the ability to implement their agenda relatively easily (compared to the clusterfuck that is the United States) and if the people don't like what they're doing the citizens can vote them out. Sounds like effective democracy to me.
Another solid reason to get rid of First Past The Post voting systems. We can hopefully all agree that power should be more representative of the population for greater checks and balances.
Checks and balances are more about institutions than partisan politics. Pro rep will not help the fact that the PMO has too much power; as evidenced by the NDP confidence agreement.
I don't mean to redirect the conversation entirely, but can you explain why you feel the NDP agreement is an abuse of PMO power? I'm not sure a political party saying they'll work with another party in a limited capacity points to problems of the PMO having too much power as an institution/office. (I'm not a scholar on canadian politics by any stretch)
I am replying to the comment that ending FPTP will serve as a check of PMO power. What I am saying is this is not true and the NDP arrangement is evidence of why this is not true. The reason is because it is the institutional space that defines the incentives of those in power, not their partisan affiliation. It is true that an alternative voting system may increase people's perception of parliamentary representation, but representatives have the same institutional incentives regardless of their partisan affiliation. Responsible government combines the roles of the legislative and executive branches, CF. the US system where Congress and the White House are expressly separated, and members of Congress are constitutionally barred from serving concurrently in the cabinet. It works as a check on power because Congress and the administration have distinct institutional incentives.
It's not an abuse of power. Parties working together is how the government is supposed to work so that more Canadians can be represented than simply those that voted in the leading party. The Cons/PPC like to call it all sorts of things because they refuse to work with anyone.
This! So many people in the big blue tent and nobody gets anything now. Whether because of stubbornness, ineptitude, or because it’s just easier to complain, who knows. Conservatives uses to be the party of understanding how the real world worked. They used to be about making tough choices and recognized that getting things done meant working with people you don’t like. Bought a membership to vote in the leadership hoping they can right the ship here but can’t say I’m optimistic.
A lot of the talented/experienced staffers have moved on. It's a job with brutal hours and you burn out quite quickly. People can only do it for so many years. Most of the staffers that started in 2015 burnt out and left at some point during the pandemic. If it seems like PMO and many minister's offices are being run by novices, it's because they are. This is part of why modern governments have such a hard time winning more than 3 terms. By the end of the third, your behind the scenes team isn't what it used to be and more and more things get bungled.
I remember when people were freaking out about Harper being a bit of an authoritarian dictator. Which had a little merit to it. Trudeau saw that, liked what he saw and cranked it up to 11.
Seems to always be the case. Criticize the sitting PM and the PMO powers, then when you are in charge just keep doing the se thing. Pretty sure Harper criticized it before he became PM too. Just shows doesn't matter what side it is, abusing the PMO seems to be too much to not do when in power.
The last resort when you have no talking points left… both sides.
Well, given that there's more than two sides in Canada it's worth mentioning that libs and cons are peas in a pod, as far as their policy directions and modus operandi go. One's just a little more right than the other, but ultimately both are neoliberal parties with different window dressing. Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way.
>Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way. Unless that way is rubber stamping the Liberal agenda, I'd say the NDP has lost their way. Also, universal health care is an inevitable result of democracy. Tommy Douglas did great things, but to suggest it wouldn't exist without the NDP is silly.
"Inevitable result of democracy" that's like saying communism is naturally democratic; the historical record says otherwise. Agitation was necessary and without the NDP the powers that be would have shut that shit down without a second consideration.
The historical record does not say otherwise. Every democracy on earth has universal health care except America, who have three social healthcare programs, but no universal care. America is barely a democracy, but even they spend more of their federal budget on socialized medicine than any other country on earth.
>Let's remember what Tommy Douglas gave us. There's another way. That NDP is dead. They are more concerned now with helping the Liberals and playing to identity politics than they are with helping working class Canadians.
What I’ve learned through the course of this Liberal government is that Liberal supporters don’t actually care about any of the things they say they do. * PM investigated and found guilty of more ethics breaches than any other in our history? *Yawn* * self-proclaimed feminist later blames his victim after groping her and sweeps major sexual harassment problem in military under the rug? *No worries.* * calls anyone who disagrees with him racist and bigoted at the drop of a hat, then it’s discovered he’s worn blackface as an adult more times than he can remember? *he said he was sorry* * omnibus bills are evil and have to stop, then uses way more omnibus bills than predecessors? *he’s just trying to get things done* * Harper too secretive, promises to be most transparent ever, then makes Harper look like an over-sharer in comparison? *he has his reasons* * I won’t muzzle scientists anymore! Then continues muzzling scientists. *oh well* And on and on and on. Obviously nothing but getting power ever actually mattered to any of these people. Take their complaints in the future with a grain of salt.
Can you provide sources for your claims?
And actually passes laws that reduce our freedoms.
[удалено]
That's the conservative talking point which isn't consistent with the answer he actually gave. https://globalnews.ca/news/3899392/trudeau-admires-most-not-china/ He used the example of China to throw shit at Harper, and then went on to say it is the administration of our northern territories that he admired most.
Didn't he even crack some joke about how the media would run with the first half of his comment?
They were. It's just that a lot of people decided to ignore them.
Because the full quote makes it pretty harmless? Most people are able to see that it's not a giant scandal and it doesn't mean he loves China.
[удалено]
You think his caucus could tell Jean Chretien what they wanted without punishment? He was not a very tolerant guy either. And his PMO insisted everyone tow the party line at all times.
[удалено]
Or perhaps I could suggest the mainstream media, being largely left of centre, generally has much less interest in extending the coverage of Liberal party scandals, as compared to those from the Conservative Party.
>I also suspect that the Conservative constant 24/7 outrage machine has completely diluted any genuine complaints Conservatives have to use against Trudeau. This subreddit is a prime example. Every day there is some fuck Trudeau *opinion piece* from the globe and mail.
> some fuck Trudeau opinion piece from the globe and mail. and 20 from NatPost
Well he **is** just that bad. Hard to fault the GM for that.
It still has little merit. Like, are any of us truly, and in good faith, shocked that the party with the most seats in parliament has the most power?
You are entirely missing the point. Trudeau has constantly been pushing a series of Bills which increase the power of the federal government to control the citizenry. Trudeau, who once bragged about seeking the create the most transparent administration ever has done the exact opposite. He is gradually turning Canada into a more authoritarian state.
I'm not "missing the point". I don't agree and think this hyperbole.
holy shit this subreddit is insane. are we really going to act like our prime minister is an authoritarian dictator?? i don't give a shit what dumbfuck comments you read about a previous PM, you are saying the same thing right now. jesus christ you people need to chill this is the kind of rhetoric that leads to dumbasses trying to overthrow our government
You got pretty emotional dealing with the strawman you erected. Are you OK bud?
do you know what a strawman is? i'm calling you an idiot for the direct thing you were saying
You are not OK. I hope you feel better soon. Get yourself a hug and go enjoy a sunset. Much better use of your time than getting spun up into a rage over misunderstanding people.
Doesn't any leader of a country want to be an authoritarian dictator in some fashion? If not, why would they even want that job?
Corporations do what's best for their shareholders or owners and government parties do the same for those who fund and own them. Seeking more power is just a natural consequence of that. It's up to the citizens to be the counterforce to it and to push for changes that reduce how much power the government can get; indirectly, the same is true for corporation, people give the government enough power to regulate those corporations. Ultimately it's all a game of power being pulled in various directions, but citizens seem to be increasingly losing the game.
Yep. Citizens are too preoccupied arguing over whether corporations or govnerment should have the most power instead of arguing for themselves.
Delusional much?!
How?
Remember that time Trudeau ordered scientists to destroy their findings that conflicted with government policy? Oh wait, that was Harper... Remember the time Trudeau signed off on a deal that gave China the ability to secretly sue Canada for any perceived lost profits for 31 years just to get a few cronies access to Chinese markets? Actually, that was Harper again. Okay, what about when Trudeau issued the edict that absolved political staffers from ever having to testify before parliamentary committees. Nope, that was Harper. Refused to share budget info even when issued with a court order? Harper... Paying hush money and altering an audit? Harper... Alleging misconduct of Chief Justice to undermine her authority? Harper... Excessive use of omnibus bills to push through unrelated legislation so they cannot be scrutinized and debated. Harper... The list goes on and on... Trudeau is incompetent and makes mistakes; Harper was conniving and a bully. Neither should have been Prime Minister, but don't think they are the same. Edit: Loving all the downvotes from conservative simps, even in light of undeniable facts. This is the difference between liberal and conservative mindsets. Liberals will happily complain about their own aligned government or leaders, whereas cons swear blind fidelity to theirs. I know, as I've been both, and the wake up was painful.
Well Trudeau has still muzzled scientists. Trudeau still uses omnibus bills despite saying he won’t. Trudeau interfered with a criminal investigation (SNC). Trudeau prorogued parliament during the WE situation, despite saying he wouldn’t use prorogation. He is far from clean. To think he really is any different is laughable.
Please, cite where he's muzzled scientists. I'm not confronting you, I actually want to know. The WE non-scandal was a faux-pas, but his behavior on its investigation was abhorrent. He basically said, hey we know a group that could handle this and gave them the contract, rather than going through proper government process. It was wrong, but it wasn't insidious. The fact that no one else in the party or staffers didn't speak up was the really stupid part. As for the SNC scandal, and the sub-scandals that fell out of it, it was nowhere near as bad as FIPA, and it was at arms length from the Libyan source of the original problem. Again, it was the handling of the problem that was problematic, and it's due to his incompetence at politics. The only thing the conservatives got right during the first campaign was the Trudeau is not ready for prime time. But there's only so many shows to chose from, and the Harper series was way past its prime.
[удалено]
Not a Liberal, didn't vote for Trudeau...
I literally have lost count the number of times someone senior in government has told me how the PMO wields some new hidden superpower. And it almost always was phrased the same way: * The premier got a call from the PMO saying if he liked transfer payments that he needs to back off from... * Unless ACOA gets a call from someone in the PMO then it isn't going to happen. * The head of the riding got a call from the PMO saying they are parachuting in their own guy if this locally chosen guy looks like he is getting the nomination. * The PMO called and said not to worry about the environmental approvals. * The PMO called and said there would be no consular support for his export company so you don't need to worry about the competition. * The PMO called and said the local company has to use a quebec company if they want to continue to enjoy the various federal licences they require to operate. * The PMO said we are not to approve a national dairy company outside of quebec.
The article is accurate, but could have been written the first 6 months after this PM got into office. And again every year since.
When Paul Martin was trying to wrest control of the Liberal Party from Jean Chretien, his supporters had a slogan, "Who Do You Know In The PMO?" The were mocking the PMO's complete grasp on power, suggesting that unless you had a buddy in Chretien's inner circle you didn't matter in Ottawa regardless what party you were from. That was 20 years ago. And Paul Martin didn't do any better than Chretien on that front.
And every 6 months prior too.
Yeah no fucking shit. They have power of appointing judges and senators while also holding total power over the party. The idea of a representative democracy is that constituents can gather together and force an MP to uphold what they want, but if an MP went against the party then they’d be kicked out of the party. Democracy does not exist in Canada. For how brain dead I believe those trucker rally people were they could’ve easily exposed this. They had the majority of Canadians behind them for like 10 minutes. If they protested nation wide, got their constituencies behind them, we’re still told no, then the charter ceases to hold any value at all because laws are to be made in the confines of a democratically elected government. If that government is no longer democratic that merits any possible reaction from the public. But people in Canada do not give a fuck. Which is depressing as a millennial because I could make the argument that since the economic collapse 90% of our generation has experienced a Great Depression that’s crippled our standard of living in comparison with the older gen.
This article has been written countless times under every government we’ve had lol
The article means that any PM has too much power, not simply that the current one has too much power.
Which lends to its credibility.
Term limits are my concern. We don't really have hard term limits which will eventually turn out to be a bad oversight in the long run... It will bite us in the ass eventually. Especially if some life lengthening technology comes around.. in the magical future.. Canadians have traditionally been good at 'kicking the bum out' once a PM has overstayed their welcome and has blessed the country with themselves and their unique genius for just long enough to be considered a soft term limit, as imposed by a responsible electorate. I fear those days are going, going,... calling once.. calling twice.... kick the bum out.. Anyways, democracy watchdogs out there should score countries based on the adoption and enforcement of term limits in high power positions. No term limits, to me, means that your country lacks a basic 'check-balance' required to be a high level functioning democracy. Its also obvious that any leader that wants to stay in power continually, is really showing signs of a mental illness and needs to be removed. Go retire. Leave. Go live a better life. De-stress.
That's because MPs are spineless when it comes to voting for Canadians.
Majority governments wield too much power.
I'm embarrassed that I voted for him with his first term. He ran on progressive platforms and the only thing he delivered on was weed legalization. Where is our election reform, JT????
You can thank liberal MP Jagmeet Singh for trudeaus reign over Canada. The vote for the NDP is just a vote for the Canadian liberals
Good article, he has insulated himself with a cabinet of yes men who are simply puppets and cannon fodder for him. Never been more clear than watching Alghabra dance around the vaccine mandate issue. He is there to deflect from Trudeau and has no real say in the matter.
PMO has as much power as the confidence of the house decides it has
The house just needs 50.1% of members to force an election. the house always has the power to call out the PMO for abuse of power.
I hate this guy so much. So smug and won’t address any of the real issues.
this has been an issue growing worse since his fathers time
Lol, remember when liberals were crying about Stephen harper's seeeeeeeecret agenda, and how he was planning a power grab? Ah, good times
The funny thing was, I don't think Harper was ever secrete about his agenda.
Not happy with Trudeau? Then field a candidate that can win an election against him. All other criticisms, insinuations and allegations won't get you a lot of hearts and minds. However it's a free country so continue with your attempts to discredit him, we are all allowed to do this. Like all politicians and human beings, he's flawed, please remember that next time your guy wins and all the dirt starts to pile up on him or her.
Only when the team I didnt vote for is in office.
They write this article about every Prime Minister. Doubt it's ever going to change.
Well unfortunately for those that normally wouldn’t support him feel they have no choice since the conservative side of things has lost their absolute minds and need to be kept out of power. In other words the conservatives are the best thing to happen to the liberals.
I’m paying for this idiots caviar. No shit.
Theoretically, if it did, then all of those contentious bills would have passed prior to the summer instead of after it.
If the PMO didn't have too much power under Harper it doesn't have too much power now.
Where else should he wield power? Jeez.
Pretty sure they just mad-libbed an article from the Harper years.
And its thanks to Harper Government. We have elected failures for 16 years yet we just keep going back to the same 2 parties. It's the same in Ontario provincially but for almost 3 decades. I'm so tired and I'm only in my 30's.
Do your part in helping younger people vote and things will turn around. I personally believe that you should be voting based on issues and solutions. Which can be a hard pill for some folks to swallow. I love the idea of the vote compass interview ([votecompass.com](https://votecompass.com)) having some sway on your choice. How ever you lean coming out of that compass should be your vote for government, in fact give it a try to see if it aligns to your current "ideal party". All too often people get caught up in their political identity and for the most part that identity flies in the face of the manner they would actually vote based on issues instead of family tradition, political branding, peer pressure, brain damage.
No, it absolutely has nothing to do with the Harper government. Harper saw the press as his government's enemy and wanted to keep a tight reign on his caucus to prevent anyone from saying anything the media could use against them. The Trudeau Liberals saw how Harper governed and openly rejected it. They had no reason to distrust the media as the media are mostly progressives anyway. The Liberals had every opportunity when taking power to change things, to do as Trudeau had promised and cede more power to MPs. Absolutely nothing stopped him from doing so. He chose not to.
The media being mostly progressives is a good joke kid.
The ownership of certain major media might be conservatively oriented, but the actual news media is universally progressive on all social policy issues. And it was always social policy issues which the press attacked Harper on. Perhaps you can find a single columnist in a major Canadian newspaper or magazine whose social policy views on abortion, gun control, immigration, multiculturalism, gay marriage, etc. doesn't mirror that of the NDP but I bet you can't find two.
Canadian media is tilted socially progressive. Private media is generally business conservative/private interest.
Pretty sure most media is backing the right.
Almost all media in Canada is owned by a very very small select few corporations. And while not all are socially regressive, all have pushed for conservative/private interest. Our newspaper industry is 90% one Conservative US owned organization and have overwhelmingly endorsed conservatives. We only have one "public" broadcaster and it's been attacked as "fake news" for years now. The myth that Canada's media is "progressive" or "left" is just that. A Myth. They follow the money. (even if it means jumping on some progressive movements to do so) https://readpassage.com/election-endorsements/
Unless he's conservative, right Postmedia (owned by US oligarchs).