Why we need a Truth in Politics Act
A few days ago I emphasized the need, along with Andrew Coyne, for a truth in politics act. And after reading the much publicized op-ed piece written by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in Saturday's Halifax Chronicle-Herald, I can't help but think there truly is a need for this kind of legislation. Not only did his government not honour the signed 2005 off-shore agreement [Atlantic accord], Mr. Flaherty gave a woeful excuse as reasoning for not fixing the problem created by his '07 budget noting that his government does not engage in side deals. Here's his quote from the Herald:
"But there should be no misunderstanding: Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals. Equalization has been restored to a principles-based program for the first time in many years. That’s what all premiers asked us to do and that’s what all Canadians expect us to do."Interesting. I guess this government is not only willing break signed agreements, it also suffers from a bad case of amnesia on side deals. Do the right thing Minister Flaherty and honour the accord in its original form.
9 Comments:
I have to disagree, equalization is and has always been a controlling mechanism used by the federal government.
If there are not enough industries or jobs in a region then there aught to be fewer people in the region. Government should not be paying people to stay where there is no work or be dragged into the socialist make work scenarios that is what the left would do to turn the Maritimes (and the rest of the freaking country) into a soviet style welfare state.
Having said all that it goes hand in hand that a province should be entitled to all the revenue from the resources pulled from the ground and the sea under it's jurisdiction.
The choice is the maritimes to make, continued dependence on handouts from other Canadian taxpayers who are making their way in an over taxed nation or self reliance and determination to get 'er done without being the slaves of the federal dole.
So you agree with Flaherty, in that, the Atlantic accord remains the same as it did in 2005? Irt was not altered? I'm sorry, but I have to rspectfully disagree with you. This post is about truth in politics and keeping your word to a signed document, not equalization.
I think the same can be said for their gun registry promise. Scrapping it, that is.
With regard to the Atlantic Accord to tell you the truth I couldn't care less if it has changed or not. Paul "Every vote can be bought" Martin made a stinker of a deal in the hope of bribing the maritimes to vote Liberal.
I personally am thankful that the current government has the sense to recognize that and has the balls to make the tough decision that MUST be made for the good of the ENTIRE country not just one part of it.
There is a theme here, the Atlantic Accord and the Income Trust issue are examples of the Conservatives being forced to realign the market as a result of Liberal mismanagement.
It's a bloody good thing that this Country has such natural wealth at it's fingertips or we'd have gone the way of Venezuela and Zimbabwe long, long ago.
As far as the proposal of a truth in politics act just who gets to decide what the truth is?
Can you call a person a liar if he has made a call without knowing beyond a doubt what the implications of a particular act will be? Can you call a man a liar for making a mistake?
I'd hate to see how many millions the Lawyers would make or how many Royal/Public/Parliamentary Commissions would be spawned...
You could kiss the boreal forest goodbye just to print the docket.
Cheers,
This issue goes much further than a political ideology, zip. Plus, I lived in Toronto and Ottawa for years and I used to think the same as you as a an ex-pat maritimer.
However, I returned home to make a difference because that is how you make change, on the ground and with the ppl, not preaching from an ivory tower in Ontario.
This is a complex issue that can't be simplyfied through ideology.
Thx for the encouraging words, Biby Cletus.
I'm with you NB Taxpayer. If the above commenter wants to talk about Martin style promises and flip-flopping, then all he has to do is look at the moves made by Harper and flip flop Flaherty in the last year.
---Campaigned on senate reform? Appointed Fortier a couple of days into office in a minority situation.
---Campaigned on protecting marriage? Held a vote which they knew would fail.
---Campaigned on scrapping the gun registry? Have reversed their position and now see this bureaucratic mess as a positive for law enforcement officials.
---Campaigned on reducing the GST by 2 percentage points? Stop short at one.
---Said they would honour the atlantic accord. Decided that they would tinker with it instead making the region continue with equalization.
---Said they wouldn't touch Income trusts and the pensions of hard working retirees. They broke that promise and dug their fingers into that as well.
nb
I too was born a maritimer so that ivory tower bunk isn't going to wash.
Why is it wrong for the government to throw money into something like welfare but then it's okay to throw it at a province to the same ultimate end.
The equalization program was designed to give "have not" provinces a hand up during hard times. Alberta and Ontario as "have" provinces have been paying the lions share since day one.
Well now when NS, NFLD and Sask are becoming "have" provinces suddenly it turns out that some think the program should right some historical wrong, the wrong being that these provinces have been have nots for so long that they deserve to be treated like have nots even when they have?
I stand by my original statement intent and ideal. If the land can not support the people on it then they should go to a place that will support them. If they can not find a job or make a living where they live then they should move (and I don't care how many generations have lived in that place) And if you're looking for government to bail you out then you had better not have a bailer in one hand and a freaking bilge pump in the other.
Cheers,
Zip
That the easy decision, zip. Plus, to me, there is no such thing as a "have" and a "have not" province. (that is central Canada speak) There are those provinces that are underdeveloped and there are those that are functioning on all cylinders.
In other words, our provincial government must brand our province so as to realign our international image with the increasing realities of today. In more clear terms, we need to positively market and promote ourselves around the globe. And with that strategy comes the removal of the term “have-not province” wherein we put more emphasis on our competitive advantages. [i.e. our universal healthcare system, close proximity to US markets, low investment thresholds, etc.] Says Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer to a parliamentary committee on immigration a few years back, “One thing that really upset me is this. Immigrants also read the newspapers, they also listen to the media, and when our premier says we are a have-not province, you’re going to resettle your family to another part of Canada, you’re not going to go to the have-not province, you’re not even going to consider it.” And this is nothing to snicker at as branding, promoting and marketing are integral in a global economy where competition for people and investment is fierce.
Furthermore, I thought I could help NBers by being in Ottawa and pushing the cause on the hill. You can't?
The only way you can feel the pain which ppl suffer here is to listen to them at the ground level, in their churches, in the curling rinks and at the coffee shops.
People are dying for change here zip and telling them to move as their only option is defeatist and is not an option. That is why I came back here from a good jon in Ontario and why others chose to stay. We will make it work here, with or without your help.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home