A Canadian dream
By Rachael Harder - MP for Lethbridge on August 6, 2021.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” This is the verse inscribed into the stone over the West window of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill. The words are strong, but I believe they are true.
Humans have the incredible ability to cast vision and to dream of what tomorrow may look like. We can envision and create a better future, not only for ourselves, but for generations to come. This is an incredible gift; it is also a weighty responsibility.
Serving as a Member of Parliament has afforded me the extraordinary opportunity to speak with so many Canadians about what kind of Canada they wish to live in. I have heard countless stories from visionaries who want to build businesses, invent new technologies, help those who are suffering get ahead, and improve our society in areas where we are falling short. All of these conversations and general observations have given me a tremendous amount of hope for this nation’s future.
It is true that many areas look quite bleak right now. The federal government has exercised an inordinate amount of autocratic power in the last year and a half. Many have posited that our democratic institutions have been assaulted by the few in power who see the checks and balances that have been set in place as mere obstacles or hurdles to avoid.
At times, it has felt discouraging to see the very pillars of our democracy being chipped away, BUT at the same time, I cannot ignore the resounding voices of resolute determination to uphold the very principles that this great nation was founded upon.
Our identity as a nation is not defined by our government, it is a result of the combined characteristics of the people who live here.
Canadians value freedom, justice, and the rule of law. They are caring, compassionate, hardworking, and generous. It is Canadians who are the problem solvers, the solution makers, and the wealth creators, not the government. It is the Canadian people who are the visionaries, the inventors, and the moral ballast of society, not a governing few in Ottawa.
“We the People” is a powerful phrase because it appropriately depicts where the strength of a nation lies: with the people. When the people (not as a collective, but as individuals) have the freedom to live up to their potential, the whole of society benefits. Conversely, when a government sees itself as holding all of the power and imposes its will onto the people, picking winners and losers based on ideology, society regresses.
Imagine what Canada would look like in five or ten years if the Canadian people were put before government and if encroaching restrictions on speech and free expression were relinquished. Imagine what it would look like if industries were championed, and an environment was created where businesses could thrive.
Imagine what it would look like if the bridles of red tape and regulation were thrown off and entrepreneurs were given the freedom to take risks, invest in themselves, and prosper!
This is the type of Canada we can create, not through government’s imposition of ideological values, but by setting Canadians up for success and creating opportunity for each and every person to reach their greatest potential, independent of the government.
Canadians are the ones who are going to make Canada strong again. I am convinced of it! You are the ones who will push this nation forward and make us once again a leader on the world stage in economics, science, resource development, innovation, support for those in need, and environmental stewardship.
There is so much potential in Canada because there is so much potential in the individuals who make up this amazing country.
Canada does not need to be reimagined, reset, or redesigned. In fact, when the Prime Minister talks about reengineering this great country, it makes me wonder what exactly he is seeing.
Is our country perfect? No, but there is nowhere else in the world I would rather live. When our leaders constantly bash our country and diminish the many incredible successes we have achieved, it begs the question, why would you lead a country you think so ill of?
A government that seeks to destroy certain sectors of society because they do not align with its value system, is not governing in the best interest of the whole, but rather in the interest of a select few.
This type of partiality is not, nor has it ever been, a characteristic of good governance.
Unleashing the potential of the Canadian people is the key to our success!
It is my hope that you will begin to dream again, that you will start to envision the Canada that you want to create for yourselves and for your children. You not only have the ability to make this country the very best it can be.
You also have the honour of carving out your place in history here.
When I dream of a bright future for Canada, I do not look at the government, I look to the Canadian people – you.
-1
We, the people, are, the government. Perhaps, it’s time for a shakeup of the two, old, tired, entitled politics…the federal Liberals and Conservatives. The ‘Mouseland’ story still applies, the false dichotomy of so-called only two political parties in Canada, neither of which “represent our best interests.” They’ve both, had their back and forth chances, for years, along with all of their scandals. It’s either, time to park votes elsewhere, or, we, the people, need to insist on more fair representation, such as, that which would be created by a form of proportional representation, with it’s checks and balances, and making sure, every vote, counts, more.
This back and forth between the Liberal and Conservative blatherings, has become more than tiresome.
you were a net neg when i voted you back to even lol had to be a diehard cons only forever robot that negged your pretty spot on comment.
i still suggest that easiest, most peaceful msg we can send this election…and it is coming…is to x out our ballots. it is a fair first step toward sending the msg that we will no longer legitimise a system that is illegitimate. real laws with real whistleblower protection with jail plus real fines would be one piece. another indeed would be proportional rep. better still would be to scuttle political parties, make the law zero dollars by anyone or anything the max political contribution allowed, and move toward a direct democracy asap. of course, to hell with lobbyists (may as well get at least some of them started on their way there now, because it will be long line should we wait until they all die). as well, we had sure best define what freedom means and determine how to entrench it. it has become fluid, subject to the whims of politicians and the mob majority.
Have you not read the Charter? Have you not read any of the Charter rulings by the Supreme Court? It’s absolutely astounding that nearly 40 years after the patriation of our Constitution, which included The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that anyone would suggest that we have not, as a body politic, defined rights and freedoms. Now, you might not like the fact that under certain circumstances individual and collective rights can be limited — as in the case of seat belt laws or COVID-19 restrictions — but that doesn’t mean that we have not defined rights and freedoms.
thanks for the entry. i find it most ironic that since our charter came to be, the courts have become increasingly narrow when it comes to preserving what are universal and inalienable rights…including what constitutes freedom.
Your comment reminds me of something I heard once, I think from that great Western philosopher Ian Tyson: “Just ’cause ya say it don’t make it so”.
I have a couple of recommendations for you. One is a book entitled The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 30+ years of decisions that shape Canadian life, by political scientist Ian Greene, and the other one, co-authored by Greene and Peter McCormick, a retired UofL prof, is on former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.
thank you for the reading suggestions.
my concern as expressed in last sentence of my initial entry is valid…and thanks also for the tyson line. it will also apply to those that choose to believe our rights and freedoms are adequately defined and unequivocally entrenched. i suggest that is not the case.
it seems anything that sec 2 looks to protect can be undone by sec 1. hence, what i refer to as the fluidity of our rights and freedoms. i suggest one might wish to reference the numerous decisions whereby violations of sec 2 have been undone by over zealous “deference” to sec 1. with that in mind, create enough “panic”, fear, and insecurity over an issue, and sec 1 can be invoked to water down and run over pretty much any rights and freedoms that must instead be upheld as inalienable in a society…at least in society that would indeed define itself as free.
i overlooked another obvious whereby any section, not just sec 2, can be undone by sec 1. not only can but very often has been to date. so, i figure where we do not have the same perspective will at least be with regard to what is freedom, and to what degrees can it be diluted.
You are correct that the limitation provision set out in Section 1 is universal.
Without knowing which particular decisions you are referring to, it’s impossible to have a discussion about whether or not the courts overstepped the line between individual rights and freedoms and the collective interest.
What I can say is that there are two provisions in the Charter that provide for overriding individual rights and freedoms in the Charter. The first is the so-called “Notwithstanding” clause (Section 33) which was promoted by Peter Lougheed, among others. That clause has been used mainly by Québec, but not exclusively.
As you know the second provision for limiting individual rights and freedoms in the name the public interest is spelled out in Section 1. That provision was used, for example, to strike down a challenge to Alberta’s seat belt law. That decision was exceedingly reasonable in my view, but I do know (but don’t agree) that seat belt laws are considered by some as government over-reach. I also know people — hard-core libertarians in the main – who hold that taxation is theft. I don’t see taxation that way, although that doesn’t mean I agree with every public spending decision.
The legal test used by the courts when asked to rule on measures that limit individual rights and freedoms in the name of the general public interest is far from arbitrary. It is systematic, analytical, evidence based, logical and rigorous. The four-part test is called the Oakes Test, named after a 1986 ruling.
All that said, it’s a matter of fact (and on the record) that from time to time individual and collective rights have been proscribed. Where any disagreement lay, it typically centres on whether or not one feels those limitations have been warranted. That assessment, if one is intellectually honest, is grounded in one’s philosophical perspective.
As a case in point, I accept the logic embedded in Social Contract Theory, which is what informs the limits provision in the Charter. I know that a minority of Canadians would prefer there to be no limits on individual rights and and freedoms, but I hold that is a recipe for chaos and dysfunction.
i appreciate your insight and knowledge. while i do not consider myself libertarian, nor anarchist, nor do i identify with any political party, i believe for a society to be free there can be no “reasonable limits” imposed on freedom other than where the rights of another would be abridged. i will stand by my position that many of our freedoms have been constricted since the charter (and i do not think that is what pierre trudeau envisioned); we had a more healthy measure of freedom for a brief period in the 1970s (after ridiculous laws outlawing homosexuality were rescinded and abortion was legalised) than we do today. sec 1 – and the oakes test is, unfortunately, fallible – is problematic, as is the notwithstanding clause. any law that restricts the right of an adult to be the sole arbiter of their body is unreasonable, unless one is using their body to infringe on the right of another. if the oakes test was sturdy, there would be no grounds for criminalising the use of and access to “drugs”, for example.
indeed, this is far too complicated and lengthy to discuss in this forum. it will be interesting to see how the courts respond to challenges against mandatory vaxes and the emerging coercive policies that in effect create a separate class of rights and franchisement for the unvaxed; however, the writing is already on the wall, so to speak, given the court has upheld the likes of mandatory blood tests for various jobs. i expect sec 1 will be again invoked, using the old “reasonable limitations” phrase. we may not see freedom and privacy quite the same, particularly if you have appreciated how sec 1 has been used to date (let alone the notwithstanding clause).
thank you for your perspective and wishing you the very best!