Yesterday it was announced that the Federal government and the Government of British Columbia have come to an agreement on funding subsidized day care in that province. This is great news for parents who have pre-school children needing care.
It is also a win for the Liberal government in a province where they are in a three way race with the Conservatives and the NDP. The Conservatives did not say boo about the agreement because they are going after different voters than the other two but the NDP was very quick to criticize the Liberals over the deal.
They were not actually able to criticize the agreement because it is a good agreement. So they criticized the Liberals by trotting out that old claim that the Liberals always promise to tackle day care but never follow through. To which it needs to be asked did you not watch the news yesterday where it was stated the two governments have an agreement? Also, did they not pay attention to the last budget which set aside a whole whack of cash to fund such agreements, saving the need to have Parliament agree to this particular one?
Some others have also pointed out that the last time the Federal government had an agreement with all of the Provinces to fund subsidized national day care the NDP joined the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecois in defeating the government that negotiated that agreement and trigger an election. An election the Conservatives won who then promptly canceled the agreement along with the Kelowna Accords which had also been negotiated by that Liberal government.
I am talking about the minority government of Paul Martin between 2004 and 2006 of course.
This is where the historical revisionists in the NDP step up. They flat out deny that they had anything to do with the canceling of these two agreements, even though they voted to defeat the government that negotiated them before they could be passed in Parliament. They blame everybody else but themselves. So here is the history of how this happened.
Between 2004 and 2006 the Martin government negotiated both agreements. All of the stakeholders for the two agreements had signed them but both needed the approval of Parliament before they could be implemented.
The Martin government introduced the enabling legislation for the two agreements in Parliament in 2005. They were working them through the House.
Late in the Fall of 2005 the Gomery Commission released its final report on the Sponsorship Scandal and it was a damning report.
(As an aside it should have been damning. I have stated several times before that I know of only two instances of real corruption in Canadian politics, one being the Sponsorship Program that lead to "Adscam" and the other being PM Mulroney taking a suitcase full of cash from Mr. Schrieber.)
The result of the damning report was the Liberal polling numbers tanked. So the Opposition Parties saw an opportunity. They had the issue that justified defeating the government and polls were saying that all of the parties would feast on the Liberals in an election. However, and this is crucial, in order for the government to be defeated ALL OF THE OPPOSITION PARTIES needed to vote against it. That included the NDP.
They duly did vote against the government in a non-confidence motion and Parliament was dissolved with the enabling legislation for both the Kelowna Accords and the National Day Care program dyeing on the order paper. In the succeeding election the Conservatives won under Stephen Harper and the rest is history.
The simple fact is both agreements could have been saved if the NDP would have voted with the government. They did not, so they had a hand in their eventual cancellation. They may not have pulled the trigger on the gun that killed both agreements but they did load it and hand it to Stephen Harper so he could do it.
I know why they voted against the government. It was on the ropes and it looked like, and it came to pass, that all of the Opposition Parties would pick up seats from the Liberals so they went for it. The other reason why they did it is if the Liberals would have been able to pass the enabling legislation for both agreements they would have been big wins for the government, the type of wins that might have saved them in a subsequent election. (Although probably not)
Note that I have no problem with the NDP voting against the government. They acted like all political parties do when they sense an opportunity to win. My problem is the denial of this fact by the NDP and its partisans and the historical revisionism they resort to in order to deny it. Before Jack Layton won the leadership of the NDP the party could claim it was the progressive conscience of Canadian politics but Jack Layton's decision to join the other Opposition Parties in defeating Paul Martin, and killing the Kelowna Accords and the National Day Care programs in the process, revoked that claim. And nothing the NDP has done since would allow it to reclaim that distinction.
Right now the NDP is just another political party in the Canadian Federal scene, playing the same game as every other party, just not as well and no amount of historical revisionism will change that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment