[gristle]

. That does not in itself grant him a mandate to implement wildly unpopular (let's say hypothetical) policies, especially policies he did not campaign on. You seemed to be suggesting that it's the Conservatives' turn to do whatever the hell they want. I don't see it that way.

There is nothing that prevents a minority government from attempting to introduce legislation that might be considered unpopular by some portion of the population. It's up to the opposition to stop such legislation from being passed. There are plenty of opportunities to do so in our system.

 

[kEiThZ]

You totally missed my point. My point is that Harper could very well have gotten a majority with the share of the popular vote he had in Oct 2008, had the vote splits gone his way. So, he could have had a majority with some 37% popular support. That does not in itself grant him a mandate to implement wildly unpopular (let's say hypothetical) policies, especially policies he did not campaign on. You seemed to be suggesting that it's the Conservatives' turn to do whatever the hell they want. I don't see it that way.

That's not what I said and you know it. The Conservatives deserve a chance to govern and implement some of the policies they put forward in the election. I can't say I am a fan of all their policies. But having won the election I think they should have their shot at governing without the Opposition turning every bill into a vote of confidence and threatening an election at every turn. I doubt I am the only Canadian that feels this way. I am fairly sure this sort of gamemanship is exactly why the Liberals are so moribund in the polls. Not to say that the Conservatives aren't guilty of this, but at the end of the day it's Iggy's call on when to pull the trigger and if he keeps holding the gun to Harper's head it only makes him look bad.

One area that I found particularly abhorrent was the Conservatives' plan to unilaterally change our political financing rules with no warning, without campaigning on the issue, without consultation, and merely to stack it in their own favour. Frankly, I expect more such shenanigans if they are granted a majority, and I don't believe that's acceptable merely because it's their 'turn' to do stupid, irresponsible, reckless things with our government.

I would suggest you go talk to an Albertan about the NEP and ask them how responsible and thoughtful they think that Liberal led policy was. Most certainly the Conservatives have made their share of bone-headed mistakes. But to suggest that the tendency to err or to conduct themselves a little arrogantly is the purview of Conservatives alone is a little bit over the top. A Conservative majority would be just as dictatorial as a Liberal one. No more. No less. The only reason you can't accept a Conservative dictatorship for four years is because you don't like some of their policies. At least admit that. However, that does not mean that most Canadians think that way. I am willing to bet that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the more likely it is that Canadians will see them as (and expect them to be) a reasonably moderate rightist government.

In addition, my fear of what Harper would do with a majority is not unfounded. Whatever you believe Harper is now (middle of the road pragmatist, most likely), ten years ago (when he didn't have much to lose), he was the head of the NCC, and saying some very radical things about how he viewed federalism, Canada, Quebec, the role of government, etc. Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe lobbyist Harper of ten years ago than dying-to-get-a-majority Harper of 2009, when I'm trying to get a sense of his candid views and desired policy direction. Same goes for members of his cabinet. Do some research on Jason Kenney.

I really doubt they'll be as 'scary' as you say....unless they want one term in office and nothing for the next two decades. They've already had that spell once. I sincerely doubt that they want a repeat of it.

And unlike you I am not going to count everything a politician says when they were some think tank leader a decade ago. I don't think its fair when Iggy gets tagged with stuff he said on CPAC half a decade ago and I don't think its unfair when some leftist dredges up some speech by Harper a decade ago when he as advocating for some group. As has been pointed out here, if this was our standard years ago, we would not have elected Trudeau (long thought to have Communist sympathies) during the height of the Cold War. I am willing to accept that people change, the country changes and policies change. Now that he has the reins of power, I am willing to bet that they have tempered Harper the NCC activist who didn't have to actually implement policies and face the consequences of such policies. In fact, the very thing you criticize, the power for power's sake is exactly what acts as a brake on their more radical tendencies. On the one hand, you complain that there's Conservatives policies you'd like to see (on the fiscal side for example), and on the other you worry that they might actually implement Conservative ideas?

I am curious though. What 'scary' policies do you think they will attempt? And what could they actually pull off (that's really extreme) without causing riots in the streets? Do you really think Canadians are so docile that they would elect a Conservatives and then let them put in policies that they consider 'scary'?

Secondly, while the Red Book was in some ways a disaster, it is quite a contrast to the non-platforms the CPC released in 2006 and 2008, yet still managed to break numerous, major promises like income trust taxation. The Liberals in 1993 made some promises that would not have made for particularly good policies. The biggest one is the elimination of the GST. Given that the country was facing a debt crisis, beyond the fact that the GST is a sensible tax, fulfilling that promise would not have made sense and I'm happy they didn't.

So when the Liberals break a promise, it's for the good of the country? But when Conservatives do it, though they are acting in the best interests of the country (they were trying to prevent the federal tax base from disintegrating when they U-turned on the Income Trust issue) they are being irresponsible?

 

[afransen]

Gristle:

Way to take the statement out of context. Very illuminating.

 

[afransen]

That's not what I said and you know it. The Conservatives deserve a chance to govern and implement some of the policies they put forward in the election. I can't say I am a fan of all their policies. But having won the election I think they should have their shot at governing without the Opposition turning every bill into a vote of confidence and threatening an election at every turn. I doubt I am the only Canadian that feels this way. I am fairly sure this sort of gamemanship is exactly why the Liberals are so moribund in the polls.

More accurately, the Conservatives won the most seats. They didn't win the election, in the sense that they have a full mandate to implement their platform. They won the right to seek the support of Parliament to implement their platform, or whatever compromises they can negotiate. They almost lost that right in December. Alas, that's how minorities are supposed to work. The problems we've had with minorities recently are due to the government behaving as if they had a majority. It's not the opposition that has been declaring every bill a matter of confidence. That has been the Conservatives, for years. I'm not claiming that the Liberals are angels. I'm not particularly partisanly Liberal, although I do have a special loathing for the current crop of conservatives. It is well-earned.

I would suggest you go talk to an Albertan about the NEP and ask them how responsible and thoughtful they think that Liberal led policy was.

I'll be first to agree that NEP was a dumb idea. Thirty year old policies from dead prime ministers hardly seem relevant to the present. It was before my time, but I would have disagreed with the policy if I had been around for that debate.

A Conservative majority would be just as dictatorial as a Liberal one.

One quibble. Although neither party would enjoy the support of a majority of Canadians, I'd imagine that most Liberal policies from Chretien's run were supported by a majority. I'm not convinced that this would be the case for a hypothetical Conservative majority. They only need to convince 35-40% of the population the vote for them, and since there is only one party right of the centre, there is really no where else for disaffected CPC supporters to go. Due to the nature of the bases of each party, with the CPC representing centre-right to hard right and social conservatives, and the Liberals being a mushy-middle pragmatist party, it is more natural for Liberal majorities to propose relatively broadly supported policies, since they are vulnerable to both the left and right.

The only reason you can't accept a Conservative dictatorship for four years is because you don't like some of their policies. At least admit that.

I believe I've said as much.

However, that does not mean that most Canadians think that way. I am willing to bet that the longer the Conservatives are in power, the more likely it is that Canadians will see them as (and expect them to be) a reasonably moderate rightist government.

I believe most Canadians disagree with many of their principles. At any rate, there is a natural tension between the red Tories from the old PC wing and the social-conservative guns-and-god crowd that made up the social conservative wing of the Reform Party. That group has seen nothing from their time in power so far, and if they don't see results, I don't see why they would continue to lend their support to the Conservatives. I was comfortable voting for the PCs. I am not comfortable with anything approaching unchecked power to the Conservatives until I am satisfied that that faction is expunged from the party.

I really doubt they'll be as 'scary' as you say....unless they want one term in office and nothing for the next two decades. They've already had that spell once. I sincerely doubt that they want a repeat of it.

I don't think it would necessarily be twenty years. 1993-2006 was 13 years, and the Conservatives were already a force in 2003. And that was after the complete meltdown of the PC party in 1993. I think the Conservatives are likely to accept the fact that if they get a majority, it will be their last term in government for another spell of Liberal rule. They can spend that term governing as Liberals only to be defeated anyway because it's time for a change, or they can cross some items off their wish list. I'm not saying that they are going to do anything really crazy like privatizing health care or re-instituting capital punishment, but I would not be at all surprised to see some remarkable ill-advised policies that would cause considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left, and possibly centre. After all, there is likely at least 20% of the population that would be happy to see such policies implemented, so they need not spend too long in the wilderness.

And unlike you I am not going to count everything a politician says when they were some think tank leader a decade ago. I don't think its fair when Iggy gets tagged with stuff he said on CPAC half a decade ago and I don't think its unfair when some leftist dredges up some speech by Harper a decade ago when he as advocating for some group. As has been pointed out here, if this was our standard years ago, we would not have elected Trudeau (long thought to have Communist sympathies) during the height of the Cold War. I am willing to accept that people change, the country changes and policies change. Now that he has the reins of power, I am willing to bet that they have tempered Harper the NCC activist who didn't have to actually implement policies and face the consequences of such policies. In fact, the very thing you criticize, the power for power's sake is exactly what acts as a brake on their more radical tendencies. On the one hand, you complain that there's Conservatives policies you'd like to see (on the fiscal side for example), and on the other you worry that they might actually implement Conservative ideas?

Well, let's just say that it isn't only things that he said off the cuff ten years ago. The CPC do drop hints to their base about what they would really like to do, except (aw shucks) their hands are tied by the opposition. That, and the threat of imminent election if they touch any hot-button issues are what keep the Conservatives right on top of the Liberals. Their base finds it infuriating. They keep supporting the CPC because they are waiting for that magic majority when they can get what they expected.

I don't see intelligent tax policy as being a particularly conservative position. If it is viewed that way, it's merely an indication of how out to lunch the left is these days. I'm inclined to higher levels of taxation than what we see today, and improvements in the welfare state. I am also inclined toward intelligent taxation policy to help pay for it without undue economic consequences. That's why I support corporate income tax reductions. Not because I want smaller government, per se.

I am curious though. What 'scary' policies do you think they will attempt? And what could they actually pull off (that's really extreme) without causing riots in the streets? Do you really think Canadians are so docile that they would elect a Conservatives and then let them put in policies that they consider 'scary'?

I would expect an abortion bill (a stealth bill was on the order papers until shortly before the fall election), roll-backs in gun control, increased sentencing/focus on 'punishment' in crime legislation, insane copyright legislation (which also died on the order papers due to the election), dismantling of perceived 'liberal' bureaucratic institutions like the Law Commission of Canada, handing over of more civil liberties in the name of security/law enforcement (see proposed law to allow police monitoring of internet traffic without a warrant), more arts and culture cuts, particularly the CBC.

So when the Liberals break a promise, it's for the good of the country? But when Conservatives do it, though they are acting in the best interests of the country (they were trying to prevent the federal tax base from disintegrating when they U-turned on the Income Trust issue) they are being irresponsible?

Beyond the fact that the way the policy was announced and implemented was ill-advised, causing substantial shock (and loss of capital) to investors, I am not convinced that the policy change was even necessary. A moratorium on new trusts, and a distant requirement to change to a corporation would have accomplished much the same goal, without destroying tens of billions of dollars of wealth, especially among retired investors. It's a red herring to suggest that tax leakage was or was going to become a major problem. The analyses I've seen suggested that the effect was not particularly large.

 

[Brandon716]

Since Chretien was the last relevant Liberal leader and led the nation so long its a prudent move for a campaign that needs zest.

 

[kEiThZ]

Since Chretien was the last relevant Liberal leader and led the nation so long its a prudent move for a campaign that needs zest.

For once. Agreed. Though I always wonder if Liberals look at the 90s in the same way that US Republicans look at the Reagan years. Chretien's politics should inspire them. But I don't know how much of that era's policies are relevant today.

 

[kEiThZ]

More accurately, the Conservatives won the most seats. They didn't win the election, in the sense that they have a full mandate to implement their platform. They won the right to seek the support of Parliament to implement their platform, or whatever compromises they can negotiate. They almost lost that right in December. Alas, that's how minorities are supposed to work. The problems we've had with minorities recently are due to the government behaving as if they had a majority. It's not the opposition that has been declaring every bill a matter of confidence. That has been the Conservatives, for years. I'm not claiming that the Liberals are angels. I'm not particularly partisanly Liberal, although I do have a special loathing for the current crop of conservatives. It is well-earned.

This comes off as just Liberal propaganda to those of us who aren't partisan. Should we hold Iggy to the same standard as well on his comments on torture, the Iraq War and the monarchy? You can't have it both ways here. Either Harper is an evil neocon out to build a firewall around Alberta AND Iggy is a torture supporting neo-Imperialist who despises the monarchy, OR just maybe they have both become mature politicians who have ditched the firebrand rhetoric that comes with being a policy wonk at a think tank or an academic with books to sell.

One quibble. Although neither party would enjoy the support of a majority of Canadians, I'd imagine that most Liberal policies from Chretien's run were supported by a majority. I'm not convinced that this would be the case for a hypothetical Conservative majority. They only need to convince 35-40% of the population the vote for them, and since there is only one party right of the centre, there is really no where else for disaffected CPC supporters to go. Due to the nature of the bases of each party, with the CPC representing centre-right to hard right and social conservatives, and the Liberals being a mushy-middle pragmatist party, it is more natural for Liberal majorities to propose relatively broadly supported policies, since they are vulnerable to both the left and right.

Again. This comes off as spin that basically says the Left has an automatic right to rule Canada. When the Liberals win with 35% of the vote they can do whatever they want because they won a 'majority'. But when the Conservatives win anything with 35% of the vote they aren't supposedly representative of all Canadians and therefore have no right to implement any Conservative policies? Gimme a break. We have a system of simple majorities in Canada. You come out on top, you get to lead. If the left really fears the Conservatives that much, why don't they take down the government right now and propose a Liberal-NDP coalition at the polls? But, of course, Canadians by and large are just as weary (if not more) of NDP hard leftists as they are of the hard right faction of the CPC. This is why the coalition was not acceptable to them. They didn't give a majority to the Conservatives because of its faction and they aren't going to give power to a coalition where another faction has a disproportionate amount of power either. So we're stuck where we are....

I would expect an abortion bill (a stealth bill was on the order papers until shortly before the fall election), roll-backs in gun control, increased sentencing/focus on 'punishment' in crime legislation, insane copyright legislation (which also died on the order papers due to the election), dismantling of perceived 'liberal' bureaucratic institutions like the Law Commission of Canada, handing over of more civil liberties in the name of security/law enforcement (see proposed law to allow police monitoring of internet traffic without a warrant), more arts and culture cuts, particularly the CBC.

If that's what you think the Canadian population identifies as 'scary' I'd suggest that you are out of touch with the average voter, especially the one who don't have a 416 area code. Most average folks don't really give a hoot about the Law Commission of Canada, and they would probably support tougher 'punishment' in the Criminal Code. They might be touchy about gun control but they probably don't care about copyright legislation all that much. I am even willing to bet that the average Canadian doesn't care much for the CBC either outside of Hockey Night in Canada and a Peter Mansbridge hosted 'The National'. If they moved to Global or CTV, so would the viewership in a hearbeat. The only really sensitive issues I see on your list that might piss people off are the civil liberties reductions and the arts and culture cuts (and that too largely an issue in a certain province).

This is exactly why the vision of 'scary' Harper is coming apart. He's not dismembering the country. He isn't privatizing health care. He isn't banning abortion or overturning same sex marriage rights. And he's not legalizing concealed handguns. Anything short of that is pretty much a wash for the average Canadian. The only people who get riled up over that and find it 'scary' are partisan leftists. That's the simple truth of the matter. The Liberals aren't going to win any votes over defending the Law Commission of Canada.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I dunno how we get to there from here, given the pathological dislike most Torontonians have for Conservatives and the lack of love Albertans have for Liberals, but in the long run, our national unity depends on such compromises.

It's going to have to be a moderate (Lib or Con) with a background like this:

Lib
- From the West, can speak French WELL

Con
- Max Bernier pre-scandals or someone like Brad Wall

However, the Libs could again win big without Alberta by riding the mystique of a Justin Trudeau....I don't think the Cons could pull anything similar with Ben Mulroney, l.o.l.

 

[gristle]

Gristle:

Way to take the statement out of context. Very illuminating.

You were the one alluding to wildly unpopular hypothetical policies. That's not very illuminating.

Find me on government that operated solely on its list of campaign promises.

 

[Tewder]

More accurately, the Conservatives won the most seats. They didn't win the election, in the sense that they have a full mandate to implement their platform. They won the right to seek the support of Parliament to implement their platform, or whatever compromises they can negotiate.

... but that's just what they've done, as lately as recently working with the NDP on employment insurance. Look, all parties face the same advantages and disadvantages in a minority government position. These are simply the rules of the game. We still need a government to govern. The nation cannot continuously go from one lame-duck administration to another. Ideally a minority one does at least have to be more responsive to negotiation with other parties to get its platform across. No harm no foul.

In the meantime, however, has Iggy's posturing - or that of Dion before - been received by Canadians as anything other than the willful power-hungry opportunism it is? No. Lines in the sand and bold statements of 'refusing' to work with the Harper Conservatives are transparantly disingenuous and are not what Canadians want to hear right now.

I'm not claiming that the Liberals are angels. I'm not particularly partisanly Liberal, although I do have a special loathing for the current crop of conservatives. It is well-earned.

... but nothing is as well earning of our enmity than the theft of taxpayer funds perpetrated by the federal Liberal party, surely! The Ontario provincial liberals are just as bad, bleating poverty when it comes to funding yet all the while squandering billions on questionable consulting fees. Those are our new subway lines they squandered, among other possibilities!! The fact that people aren't marching in the streets demanding blood makes me shake my head. Yet many voters in Toronto will continue to turn a blind eye because of irrational fears that Harper will turn Canada into Nazi Germany. It just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the Conservatives wouldn't be just as capable of the same nasty business as the now-complacent Liberals but we have to at least maintain some semblance of oversight and retribution, don't we?

I believe most Canadians disagree with many of their principles. At any rate, there is a natural tension between the red Tories from the old PC wing and the social-conservative guns-and-god crowd that made up the social conservative wing of the Reform Party. That group has seen nothing from their time in power so far, and if they don't see results, I don't see why they would continue to lend their support to the Conservatives. I was comfortable voting for the PCs. I am not comfortable with anything approaching unchecked power to the Conservatives until I am satisfied that that faction is expunged from the party.

As Keithz says there is really nowhere else for the minority extreme faction of the right wing to go. They could splinter off and be like the NDP but probably wouldn't have much more of a voice that way either...

I have to say that I find your point of view quite hyperbolic for a non-partisan person. This is Canada for god sakes, do you truly think that Harper is going to enact such grievously oppressive or damaging legislation? This alarmist rhetoric reminds me of what we heard from opponents of gay marriage, that the sky would fall if it were passed. Fortunately the world kept turning, and I'm sure even many of them would be hard-pressed to say that their way of life has come to an end. I think we need to have a better fundamental understanding of who we are as Canadians in order to make better choices. The threat of extremism in Canada just shouldn't be getting the attention it seems to keep getting.

I don't see intelligent tax policy as being a particularly conservative position. If it is viewed that way, it's merely an indication of how out to lunch the left is these days. I'm inclined to higher levels of taxation than what we see today, and improvements in the welfare state. I am also inclined toward intelligent taxation policy to help pay for it without undue economic consequences. That's why I support corporate income tax reductions. Not because I want smaller government, per se.

I think it's good to have opposing tensions of policy on this issue, one party pushing for tax breaks and responsible spending and another party pushing for adequate social funding and responsible taxation. Canada hopefully benefits from this tension, hopefully falling somewhere in the middle. The problem arises when we walk too complacently for too long down one direction over the other which leads to either taxation abuse and the squandering of public funds on the one hand to the irresponsible cutting of funding on the other. We need the viewpoint of both parties and we need as voters to have the perspective that allows us to see when the pendulum has swung too far, needing a little correction.

I would expect an abortion bill (a stealth bill was on the order papers until shortly before the fall election), roll-backs in gun control, increased sentencing/focus on 'punishment' in crime legislation, insane copyright legislation (which also died on the order papers due to the election), dismantling of perceived 'liberal' bureaucratic institutions like the Law Commission of Canada, handing over of more civil liberties in the name of security/law enforcement (see proposed law to allow police monitoring of internet traffic without a warrant), more arts and culture cuts, particularly the CBC.

Again, like Keithz I feel that your assessment of the Conservatives is a little dated. It is not the 'white' christian 'old boys club' your assumptions would seem to indicate it to be. Yes, there are still trace elements of that but have a closer look at their memebers and their supporters and you will see people of all colours, belief systems and ethnic backgrounds. People who basically just got tired of only one perceived choice for Canada. Many of the issues you talk about above are wedge issues that nobody has any interest in touching, no matter what the personal leanings of any politician might be.

Toronto needs to lighten up on its rhetoric on all these issues. Like Quebec it needs to learn to wield its voting power to leverage as much out of the political parties as it can get. If not we'll just continue to be the overlooked sad sack at the table while the spoils go to everybody else.

 

[afransen]

This comes off as just Liberal propaganda to those of us who aren't partisan. Should we hold Iggy to the same standard as well on his comments on torture, the Iraq War and the monarchy? You can't have it both ways here. Either Harper is an evil neocon out to build a firewall around Alberta AND Iggy is a torture supporting neo-Imperialist who despises the monarchy, OR just maybe they have both become mature politicians who have ditched the firebrand rhetoric that comes with being a policy wonk at a think tank or an academic with books to sell.

Iggy-as-torture-supporter is a red herring. He never expressed support for it. He wrote some thought experiments. Comparing it to Harper's 'firewall' op/ed piece is disingenuous. Iggy may well be a republican. I don't think it matters, since it is impossible to modify our constitution.

Again. This comes off as spin that basically says the Left has an automatic right to rule Canada. When the Liberals win with 35% of the vote they can do whatever they want because they won a 'majority'. But when the Conservatives win anything with 35% of the vote they aren't supposedly representative of all Canadians and therefore have no right to implement any Conservative policies? Gimme a break. We have a system of simple majorities in Canada. You come out on top, you get to lead. If the left really fears the Conservatives that much, why don't they take down the government right now and propose a Liberal-NDP coalition at the polls? But, of course, Canadians by and large are just as weary (if not more) of NDP hard leftists as they are of the hard right faction of the CPC. This is why the coalition was not acceptable to them. They didn't give a majority to the Conservatives because of its faction and they aren't going to give power to a coalition where another faction has a disproportionate amount of power either. So we're stuck where we are....

Indeed. But, I don't think the Liberals have an automatic right to govern as they wish, either. I have a hard time recalling a policy that wasn't broadly popular (supported by at least 50%) from the Chretien era. Maybe EI reforms (which were quite unpopular in the East)?

If that's what you think the Canadian population identifies as 'scary' I'd suggest that you are out of touch with the average voter, especially the one who don't have a 416 area code. Most average folks don't really give a hoot about the Law Commission of Canada, and they would probably support tougher 'punishment' in the Criminal Code. They might be touchy about gun control but they probably don't care about copyright legislation all that much. I am even willing to bet that the average Canadian doesn't care much for the CBC either outside of Hockey Night in Canada and a Peter Mansbridge hosted 'The National'. If they moved to Global or CTV, so would the viewership in a hearbeat. The only really sensitive issues I see on your list that might piss people off are the civil liberties reductions and the arts and culture cuts (and that too largely an issue in a certain province).

I was identifying things that concerned me. I know Canadians don't give a hoot about copyright legislation (or they won't until they have to prove they paid for every song on their ipod in order to bring it across the border, and be subject to searches of any electronic device they own). If you reduce everything down to Joe Sixpack, there are many things they wouldn't care about. You could scrap OAS, CPP, etc. since Joe Sixpack is in his 30s and 40s.

On the other hand, I think more Canadians than you give credit for would be concerned about plans to try and sentence 14 year olds as adults, capital punishment, not counting pre-trial days in confinement toward time served, etc.

This is exactly why the vision of 'scary' Harper is coming apart. He's not dismembering the country. He isn't privatizing health care. He isn't banning abortion or overturning same sex marriage rights. And he's not legalizing concealed handguns. Anything short of that is pretty much a wash for the average Canadian. The only people who get riled up over that and find it 'scary' are partisan leftists.

Well, that and anyone who actually cared about empirical results from policies, rather than just their gut feeling/truthiness of how these things should work out (because the meth-head who is breaking into houses to feed their addiction is weighing the risks of going to prison and that extra year of jail time will dissuade them).

Also, he hasn't done any of those things yet, because those are issues that the opposition could fight and win an election on. Harper doesn't have the breathing room to pass unpopular policies well in advance of an election, the kind of breathing room he'd have leading a majority. I don't know why you believe that Harper would behave the same way with a majority as he would with a minority. Conservatives don't believe that, why would you?

That's the simple truth of the matter. The Liberals aren't going to win any votes over defending the Law Commission of Canada.

That still pretty cynical. So any institution or policy that the average Canadian doesn't understand isn't worth preserving? I suppose we don't need that pesky access to information act, or the privacy act, the parliamentary budget officer, financial regulations, etc. I don't see why we need a representative democracy, if that's the view. Might as well govern by referendum, and only implement policies that the average Canadian cares enough about to pass.

Let's face it. The average Canadian hardly even votes, much less pays any kind of attention at all to what his or her government is doing on their behalf. That doesn't mean that the business of government is unimportant, or institutions are not worth preserving.