- On the down side of the current state of Parliament, we've now confirmed exactly how concerned the Cons are about having unelected, unaccountable Senators override the will of democratically-elected representatives. And the principle involved goes far beyond the procedural trick used to call a vote without any apparent notice.
- Brian Topp is far too generous in describing handling of the Afghanistan extension. But he's absolutely right in noting the need for an honest debate:
If the truth is that Canada is recommitting to the Afghan war – despite fundamental misgivings – in service of our relationship with the United States, then let this be said, clearly and without weasel words, so that Canadians can think about its implications.- Frances Russell nicely highlights the ultimate effect of free trade agreements.
If the government has negotiated an arrangement with Mr. Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, then (to use some familiar words from our conservative friends) let it be done in the light of day for Canadians to judge – so that both the Conservatives and Mr. Ignatieff and his team can be held accountable.
The proper place for Mr. Harper to speak seriously and in detail about his war policy is in Parliament. The proper means for the Conservative government and its apparent Liberal partner to make this decision is by a vote in the House of Commons. I therefore couldn't agree more with my learned friend Norman Spector, who writes about these issues here.
The Prime Minister owes the people of Canada a detailed explanation that speaks to the real issues; a clear policy for the future; and a vote in their Parliament. We are governed by our Parliament, not by a king.
- Finally, there's always reason to wonder whether progressives do more harm than good to their long-term interests by using conservative framing. But Paula Mallea's "tough on taxpayers" looks like a keeper when it comes to reversing the tide of gratuitous crime bills.
No comments:
Post a Comment