Government should have learned lesson from Lyin' Brian

In light of Pinocchio's unfortunate experience, Jim Flaherty might want to check the length of his nose about now.

The finance minister asserted back in March that a majority of the Harper government's budget cuts would "relate to back office operations of government."

Two months later, it is clear that was an understatement.

The budget implementation bill - 425 pages in length - has hit like a tsunami.

It mandates the axing of 19,200 public service jobs and reduces program spending by $5.2-billion a year.

Spending reductions also will be realized from massive changes to the Old Age Security and Employment Insurance programs.

Flaherty's "back office" reference points to a growing credibility gap, resulting from the chasm between what Conservatives tell the public and what in fact is the truth.

The Harper crowd believes the public does not really care much about nitty-gritty details; it just wants the budget balanced and government to keep out of its face. So, Harper ministers say what they must, to get things done.

This is a dubious and potentially dangerous strategy. Over time voters will lose trust and Conservatives will lose votes. Credibility is not something that can just be earned back once lost.

Remember Lyin' Brian, a moniker attributed to Prime Minister Mulroney?

In the election following his political retirement, Progressive Conservatives elected just two MPs.

The Harper government's penchant for obfuscating and misleading is now well established.

An example: Defence Minister Peter MacKay's inaccurate statements in 2011 relating to procurement costs for F-35 fighter jets the government hopes to buy.

MacKay's estimate of $14.7 billion was deemed erroneous in April by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson, who put the figure at $25 billion.

Another example: Conservatives are chopping nearly $300 million from Corrections Canada by 2014-15 and have poohpoohed the prospect of prisons becoming overcrowded or unmanageable.

This, after having mandated tougher sentencing, including mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, for those who break the law. Try to square that circle.

Yet another example: On climate change, Conservatives are sticking to their target of a 17-per-cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, from 2005 levels.

This, when Scott Vaughan, federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, projected recently that based on current trends emissions by 2020 - far from being reduced - will grow by 7.5 per cent.

One more example: Environment Minister Peter Kent a few weeks ago suggested on CBC-TV that some environmental groups were involved in money laundering, a criminal offence.

Kent said the Commons finance committee is "investigating allegations that offshore funds have improperly been funnelled through - laundered if you will, that's a fairly accurate word - through Canadian organizations that have charitable status, to be used in ways that would be improper given that charitable status."

Kent has not named a single supposedly guilty charity nor withdrawn his absurd statement.

And one more example: In relation to the government's Employment Insurance reform, Flaherty opined last month there is no bad job other than having no job, that he himself drove a cab and refereed hockey to earn cash.

But the Princeton and Osgoode Hall grad neglected to mention he took those jobs while at university. In his career, he was a practicing lawyer, later an MPP, before becoming an MP.

The distinction is one Flaherty himself should have made in the interest of being forthright and credible.

The insincere remarks and obfuscations are adding up. They inevitably will catch up to the Harper government.

Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Barbara Yaffe