Well, we see now that, as I have been saying for some time, too many leaders in the Federal Conservative Party are no different than many of the leaders in the Liberal Party of Canada . Just more of the same swampy status quo —-political convenience not adhering to the Constitution.
One of the Leadership Candidates Pierre Poilievre is proposing a top down solution not a people , parliamentary solution to the problem he sees in higher education and freedom of speech. Before even gaining the leadership position in his party he is already proposing what most people see as what is wrong in this country—executive Government rather than parliamentary Government —the concentration of power in the executive and more recently , the last several decades, in the Prime Minister’s office.
A Prime Minister creating a Guardian, a Czar, to root out freedom of speech violations in academia. And then —is it the high schools, community colleges , vocational and technical schools———where does it end? Companies that get money from the Government? That’s just about everyone in today’s Canada. How about Education Departments and Health Departments? How about Municipal Institutions. All of this is Provincial under the Constitution.
Has Mr. Poilievre noticed —Education, his first target, is Provincial under the constitution, the constitution he alleges he is protecting ??? Section 93 of the BNA Act says
‘93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education,————‘
Just create another bureaucrat to solve the problem . Its not more spying we need , its less. And if the Constitution is being violated then we must seek redress from the Judiciary.
That’s why the Leader of the Peoples Party is in court, that’s why I am in court. That’s why other citizens are in court.
Perhaps Mr. Poilievre and his Party would like to support our legal actions . Now that would be consistent with the rule of law . And if the system fails then it is up to the people to decide on reform and what types of reform. That is , there is a process for Constitutional Reform .
And before that if Mr. Poilievre is interested he could have his people review my Magna Carta proposals advanced at the Reclaim Conference in Victoria a few weeks ago and on my blog : www.peckford42.wordpress.com
that do not involve constitutional change but reforming the present system under existing law.
Its not more bureaucracy we need, it is more adherence to the law and reforming the three levels of our democracy if that is what the is determined by —-the people through their parliaments.
And a good place to start would be in Mr. Poilievre’s own party —like having his party publish publicly annual audited financial statements , and have his party sponsor a bill in the Federal Parliament that no MP can serve in the Parliament if they have been found guilty of violating the law as determined by the Federal Ethics and Conflict of Interest Commissioner or a Court of Law.
Democracy is tough and difficult and is not amenable to quick, easy solutions and can only last with the ongoing engagement of the people , their parliament and honest political parties .
Perhaps before inflicting politically convenient, constitutionally questionable proposals without due process , Mr. Poilievre should clean up his own party first , then make reform proposals that are consistent with the written and unwritten parts of our Constitution or seek through the Constitutional Amending formula of the Constitution Act of 1982 , Constitutional Change.
By the Honourable Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland & Labrador, last living signatory to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Chairman of TBOF.