Recently, a concerning tale of punished individualism sprung out of the halls of our Federal Government, led by our Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. PM Trudeau, who seems to enjoy his position as PM spends much of his time in transit, flitting from one country to the next in what he would deem appropriate, with the allegations that he is engaging in talks and visitations to improve the economy of Canada by talking business to the representatives of other countries. He is very fortunate to have the freedom to do so, even though he does it on our dime. Are the results of these flights of fancy actually resulting in benefits to Canada? What he apparently doesn’t pay attention to is that his actions and policies are having a disastrous effect on the freedoms, both economic and personally to the citizens of the country he is supposed to represent.
And now we have another problem, being that if an elected MP of our government dares to not comply with demands made by the PM or his followings, said MP could very well lose his job.
How would that ever occur, in a country such as our Canada, where the freedoms of the individual have been entrenched for such a large part of our history? Well, I have alluded to it several times in the past, as individual rights and freedoms are what should be at the forefront of any legislation and protected by those who “lead”. This is definitely not the case, and I feel that those rights and freedoms are being attacked by all levels of government.
So, where you say am I going with this? Well, we should all be concerned and all should condemn.
This year, a major component of the Canada Jobs Grant of 2018 came under public scrutiny, primarily because one of the Liberal governments policies contained within the document. The grants provided under this directive are afforded to many organizations that are non-profit to apply for, and access, funds to employ students throughout the summer months to work within their communities. Should access to these monies not be forthcoming, then programs would not be implemented, nor students receive employment.
A major proviso of the application process to access funding that was introduced by our illustrious Liberal government for this year read, ”All applicants must sign a legal attestation that certifies that their group accepts abortion, transgenderism and homosexuality.” If an organization, be it small business, churches, camps, etc., is unable to sign such a document, they are deemed ineligible for the grant funding.
In mid-March, an MP of the Conservative Party, Ms. Karen Vecchio, saw the qualification demands made by the Liberals regarding the funds being granted as discrimination, and introduced a motion which so rightly challenged the policy. When the motion came to a vote, one lone Liberal MP cast his vote in favour of said motion.
That sole voice of Liberal dissent was Scott Simms.
What makes the decision of Mr. Simms to cast his vote for the Conservative motion is, according to CitizanGO, all of the 183 Liberal MPs contacted were told to oppose the motion. This is referred to as a “whipped vote” or basically voting in the manner dictated by the party, not by what one believes to be correct and logical. This usurps the right of an MP to vote with a mind of his or her own.
MP Simms voted as he did because, as he said, ”I thought the attestation was an insensitive measure to those who felt strongly about this, whether they were pro-life or pro-choice.”
As a result of Mr. Simms decision, and knowing prior to his vote that he would be punished, he has lost his position as the Chair of the Committee of Oceans and Fisheries.
In a “fair and just society” something like this would not have occurred.
And the imposition of the caveat would not have been imposed, and some reported 1400 agencies would not be concerned that their requests for grant allowances would be denied.
And perhaps thousands of deserving students would not see summer employment taken away.
In reality, we become witnesses to the systemic disfunction of governments when individual representatives of the people, in a supposed democratic society, must obey the party line, or suffer the consequences.
Woe is us!