Dear Editor:
Pierre Poilievre’s promise to make Canada “the freest country on Earth” is another of his beguiling slogans—but it collapses under scrutiny.
His myopic vision of “freedom” is framed almost entirely as freedom from government: lower taxes, fewer regulations, and minimal public oversight. While this speaks to real frustrations about affordability and bureaucracy, it ultimately offers only a narrow, incomplete and deeply flawed notion of liberty.
Poilievre leverages grievance and personal animosity to distract from an agenda that is very likely to further reduce public services and deepen economic inequality. He has articulated his concept of freedom as a substantive contraction of the federal government, amounting to a doubling down on the good old neoliberal policies of deregulation, slashing taxes and defunding public services.
This, he claims, will “get government out of the way,” unleashing the power of the private sector. Canadians have repeatedly experienced the actual results of these austerity policies in action. They come with a steep cost: reduced access to health care and education, diminished environmental protections, deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate social services. For most Canadians, that’s not freedom – it’s neglect.
Is Poilievre unaware that Canada already ranks among the freest nations globally by most relevant measures—press freedom, democratic governance, judicial independence and civil liberties? Freedom is not simply the absence of government, it is the presence of opportunity, security, fairness and dignity.
It means protecting individuals from discrimination, not attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion under the guise of fighting “wokeness.” It means promoting supportive, vibrant communities and workplaces rich with potential and innovation.
Poilievre’s combative rhetoric pitting “elites” and “bureaucrats” against “ordinary Canadians” scorns the expertise and experience needed to address complex problems and corrodes trust in the institutions that sustain democratic life: the courts, the civil service, and the free press.
Dismissing every challenge as “gatekeeping” may be politically expedient, but reduces multifaceted societal issues to simplistic slogans. It reflects an antagonistic political discourse that is out of step with most Canadians, who want authentic, constructive dialogue.
To govern a modern democracy, one must do more than rail against bureaucracy. If Poilievre wants to build a freer Canada, he needs to tell us what that freedom really looks like, and what we’ll be asked to sacrifice in return, especially in the face of economic disruption and assaults on our sovereignty.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora