On the one hand, the Prime Minister gets to say that he’s non-partisan by appointing a Conservative to the Senate. On the other hand, creating an opening in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord creates a situation where the Liberals can win another seat
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
Even if they are, so what?
If you were looking at a different country that was actively being bullied, would you argue some crap about centralizing power?
If Denmark started centralizing power in response to trumps threats to the sovereignty of greenland, then what?
You talk like this is a problem that government is responding to external existential threats in the means that are available to them.
Are you arguing the Carney government should relinquish power?
Should they decentralize their capacity to influence things inside the country?
Perhaps you can answer just this.
What is your point?
Um…its not a choice of centralization or decentralization of power. What? Those aren’t the only choices!
Point: The choice is don’t go against the Democratic process and principles.
Like when he made a partisan appointment to roles of governance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-senate-tom-pitfield-9.7261037
Following that thread, him appointing Martel to open another seat in that riding which Carney is betting goes to a liberal seat
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2026/07/07/pm-carney-poaches-conservative-mp-in-latest-batch-of-senate-appointments/
The liberal majority can already pass laws through with little discussion as we’ve seen with bill c-22 unfortunately. The majority is a democratically given centralization, for sure, but passing laws undemocratically and making partisan appointments is not the right way.
And Denmark didn’t centralize their government if you want to use that example. They increased spending, sure, but didn’t go against political norms.
I’m sorry, but when you use ‘historically’ to refer to a policy that was enacted for less than a decade in a country that is over a century and a half old it reduces your credibility for me.
My point is that existential threats override real concern about incremental gains in administrative power by the government. I used Denmark as a hypothetical and parallel example of a country that could centralize given the same condiitons, threats to sovereignty, not anything to do with what theyre actually doing.
If this is how we’re rolling over with the “existential threat” of Trump going back and forth about a 51st state, the hell is going to happen if/when an actual war breaks out?
That’s literally why the article is titled the way it is. War powers as if its wartime. But its not wartime.
Trump waging economic warfare against Canada.
Done the same and worse to Mexico. They’re neither arming up or dismantling parts of their democratic process.
Mexico capitulated to the US
Mhm
deleted by creator