You can be Canadian and have a view of the party in power. Look at how radical Peter C Neumann and Trudeau Sr were to the Diefenbaker government.

They wrote many very contentious things about that government through Cite Libre and the Neumann articles. In Canada you aren't ruled by a party in power because the party is not the ruler of the land like a tyrant but serve the public sentiment. They need consensus amongst the parliament and Senate to form a series of laws to manage. If polls show the party has consensus of the people I would say it's a measure of the public support to lead in such a way.

The sentiment is key. Last I saw the liberals have lost the public will and are in a challenging position where any unconstitutional activities may lead to a new government deciding to take constitutional action and boomerang.

The radical discussion is more just a function of a method of words. Liberals want to paint their political enemies as radicals rather than compete in the politician sphere where they are losing the will of the people to govern.

Refering to their failures is not radical. Jailing and debanking your political enemies is if the actions are unconstitutional as was the case I noted.