Looking back on the events of the week, Craig Oliver makes some points about minority parliaments worth considering as we go into the summer break, during a segment on CTV's PowerPlay show.
"The best interests of the country were served. That's a good thing."
Friday, June 19, 2009
(Video) Craig Oliver makes some sense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Robert Fife said Igntieff came out ahead on the national news that night.
So one guy says we should stop thinking about winners and losers, and the other guy pickes a winner.
At the end of the day I prefer Oliver's position.
I would buy that if AECL weren't up for sale, and Khadr was back in Canada, and the CBC received bridge funding instead of cutting programs, and if there weren't a big brother internet policy proposed, and more manditory minimum sentences for drug offenses, and if the needle exchange in Vancouver were guaranteed funding, and if Canadians knew what the heck was really going on in Afghanistan, and if you didn't have to get a federal court to protect your rights as a Canadian even if you are out of the country, and if we had a real plan for climate change.... its not all about EI.
I dispute that the "best interests of the country were served". I think that what happened is that we avoided an election. I'm sure that a lot of Canadians are happy about that. But I am equally sure that the thousands of newly unemployed workers, cancer patients at risk because of the isotope crisis, and countless others being victimized by incompetent governance probably feel that their best interests were completely ignored this week. I agree with Craig Oliver to the extent that in a minority Parliament, the various political parties need to find ways to reach compromises on policy in order to make our legislature functional. But, to me, it seems like Ignatieff just gave Harper carte blanche on all of the major issues without securing any meaningful concessions whatsoever.
Sandra, Devin:
E.I., Calk River and Afghanistan were all issues either started by, ignored by, or mismanaged by, the Liberals.
I'm not trying to be overly partisan here, just stating facts.
The patchwork E.I. rules regarding time to qualify for E.I. were rules imposed under Liberal Governance. The Chalk River reactor fiasco was a white elephant problem going back decades, and billions of wasted tax dollars spent on a replacement reactor that, even today, the AECL says will probably never work. Afghanistan, as you already know, was PM Paul Martin's decision, not Harper's(not a wrong one, but facts are facts).
Those are just a few items that come to mind regarding the current issues in play today. I agree that in the time Harper has been PM, that some changes and improvements could have taken place. We must also keep in mind, again not trying to be too partisan, that the reactor issue was a decades-old thorn in the Liberal's side as well. Not much real progress took place in as short of time as the Conservative Government has been in office, and, they threw billions of dollars at the problem.
Now comes Iggy, making demands for more stimulus spending, and then making loud noise about the deficit. Liberals made the E.I. rules, now Iggy is blaming Harper for them. The Liberals can't have it both ways, and not look foolish to the electorate(those with a memory of longer than an episode of Dancing With The Stars).
Are changes needed to E.I? Maybe. Chalk River, certainly. But why is Harper 'so more responsible' when the Liberals are in opposition than when they were not? Party affiliations aside, doesn't logic and accountability come into play here...... at all?
As for the CBC.... it needs to be sold, or forced to earn it's own way. When it can produce programs people are willing to watch, it will attract advertising revenue to do that.
Don't get me started on that waste of human flesh named Khadr. He needs to rot in prison where most Canadians believe he should stay.
Criminals need to be punished. Although I have very liberal beliefs about drugs, trafficking of same should remain a serious offense. Want to smoke some pot in the privacy of you own home? I don't have problem with that, but it should be permissible to grow it yourself with the condition that is to be for personal consumption. To sell it makes you a trafficker. Criminal under the law. Period.
It's the very same people who oppose drug laws that tend to make the loudest noises about gun control... but it is the drug trade that finances the smuggling of illegal guns into Canada, brought in by organized crime syndicates such as the Hells Angels.
Again, where is the logic? You can't have it both ways. And always remember the 'law of unintended consequences'
Twice Canadians have spoken with their votes who they want to govern the country. The fact it was a minority, also says they don't want the Conservatives to have carte Blanche', but it also says the Liberals need some more time in the penalty box for past misdeeds.
When we go to the polls again in the future, Canadians can elect the Liberals if they so choose. It is not up to the Liberals or a ill-conceived coalition to wrest power from a government with the mandate to govern. Until such time, the Liberals are the ones that need to compromise to the will of the people, not to the desire merely for power.
When the Liberals have the moral right to govern, only then should they ever have the levers of power, and the voters will decide that.
Post a Comment