May 12
18
“Agree with thine adversary quickly…”: Rod Taylor
I have always thought it unfortunate and unwise that the Opposition feels so compelled to oppose everything proposed by the government, both federally and provincially. Of course, we all know that “holding their feet to the fire” (deemed a solemn responsibility) has more attraction if it also embarrasses the ruling party and gives those in opposition a leg up in the next election. In that sense, it can be expected as par for the course that agreement will be the least likely path chosen by the opposition when new legislation is put forward or issues are raised.
Case in point, the recent deep concern for security expressed by the Opposition over the heavy reliance on and implicit trust in various companies operating out of the Peoples’ Republic of China which apparently have a finger—or maybe two hands—in sensitive Canadian telecommunications businesses. Although I am most frequently in opposition to the federal Opposition, in this case, I think they may be onto something. It only surprises me that they have suddenly taken up the cause of national security when their leanings have always been toward a “global village” with universal rules and shared access to all the planet has to offer…especially if it involves a new government program. But I digress. This is a topic worthy of discussion and I’m glad they brought it up. In short, I agree with them. There, I said it.
I also wanted to specifically mention two policy positions about which I agree: one item from the Finance Minister and one from the Official Opposition. I often disagree with either or both and so it is important that I acknowledge their acumen when they get something right.
In the case of the Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: in the course of defending the government’s horrible, omnivorous omnibus bill—the budget implementation bill—Mr. Flaherty received a lot of flak for his assertion that those currently unemployed should not be so fussy when looking for work. In other words, in order to legitimately claim EI benefits, job-seekers would have to show that they really were unable to find paying work and would no longer be able to claim that a lower-paying job was not suitable for them or was outside their skill and interest. I think the intent of his statement was to encourage people on EI to get busy, to be willing to take opportunities that come their way and to do all within their power to be a net contributor to the system. I agree with that sentiment. I have been “between jobs” more than once. I have taken work outside my career goals. I have moved to a new location to get work. I have benefited from a varied work experience. I also have seen other workers, even friends of mine, sit home and wait for their EI to run out, rather than hit the streets looking for work. That’s just plain wrong. EI is designed to cushion the blow of an unexpected layoff. It should not be considered as an extension of benefits owed to an employee based on his or her past efforts. As low as the EI payout is, it is far above the corresponding investment from the employee, if taken to its leveraged limit (32 weeks of benefits for 10 weeks of work.)
What Mr. Flaherty actually said is, “There’s no such thing as a bad job. The only bad job is not having a job.” This was not a good quote and I can’t fully agree. There are bad jobs. There are bad employers. There are back-breaking jobs not suited to every well-intentioned individual. There are jobs with inadequate safety and environmental precautions. Taken to the extreme, Germany once considered forcing its women receiving EI to accept jobs in the “sex trade.” Now that’s a bad job. It also runs contrary to the notion of “choice.” But in general, a car salesman could pump gas if he had to. A lumber grader could stock shelves in a grocery store until a better job came along. I’ve even heard of a doctor picking fruit. The idea that people should expect to work for their bread and butter and not to coast on EI is sound and will produce better citizens.
Now as to agreeing with the Official Opposition: the NDP, with its socialist philosophy and its tendency to reject any of the moral values I hold dear, is not often the champion of causes with which I agree. However, the NDP has found a soft spot in the Conservative’s rigid armour and I agree with them that their point is valid. It’s this: the bundling together of a myriad of controversial items, including environmental issues, Old Age Security changes and policies and procedures around Employment Insurance. I have not had the time (nor have the MPs) to read this 420-page bill and respond to it intelligently. However, it seems a brutal method of ensuring passage of potentially controversial laws by sheltering them under a budget implementation bill. It presumes that all Conservative MPs will vote for the assorted items—whether or not they agree— because, being a budget bill, it becomes a confidence measure. If it fails to pass, the government could be toppled. Mr. Harper is gambling that none of his MPs will risk their political careers to vote against this huge bill, even if they do not support all of its provisions. I agree with the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals for asking that the bill be broken up, even if I would not necessarily agree with their motives.
Now, if all the parties would just work together to protect innocent human life in the womb, to restore traditional marriage and to eliminate the gold-plated MP pension plans, I would agree with them on those things as well. If not, I’ll just have to hold their feet to the fire…