Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
|
So I guess the biggest benefit from the current form is that it has exposed negative spending trends among some bands and drawn back the curtains on some of the abuse of funds in these communities. So I think there is merit to this act, but I don't think his actual is to repeal the law entirely.
A quote from that very same article from Trudeau:
Quote:
|
“Actually, I wouldn’t keep the legislation in place. I would work with First Nations to make sure that a proper accountability act that would have disclosed any excesses we see, but is done in a way that is respectful of the First Nation communities.”
|
So saying he is going to scrap it is deceitful. Nowhere in that article do they quote Trudeau as saying he will ditch the transparency act. The argument he makes is that in it's current form the act does not fairly treat first nations as independent of the government and forces first nation bands to report revenue much like government institutions such as universities. I agree with Trudeau that in it's current form the act serves to treat each band as an arm of the government whereby each individual is kinda working for the government in the need to report earnings sense.
Do I think that first nation bands should revert to no transparency? Absolutely not. But in it's current iteration it is not totally fair to those in higher authority in these community groups. It would be like me wanting to know what the pastors/priests/ministers make in churches around the country for the sake of comparison. Is that really something that needs to be shared with the entire country? I don't know.
What I do believe is that pulling back the blinds on everything is not always the best solution. While we all want open transparency in the affairs that concern us, some of us don't need to know intricate details about other people's affairs that needn't concern us. And sometimes sharing too much can cause harm.
TL;DR, do not keep the law in the same form it currently is, make revisions, keep open transparency to the people of each first nations community, I hate deceitful titles.
Also, if you want to start an open and prosperous debate on a subject, and while I applaud your passion for the political position you support, please take note of your own signature. If you start a political conversation calling out a member of the opposition party you lose face value when people can immediately identify you with another party that is just looking to beat up on a person who has different perspective. If you want to save face and be reasonable, when you propose such a question try including some points for both sides of the debate to demonstrate to your audience that you are open to discussing the merits of each alternative. Such may include "hey you know he might have a point on this one that we have not seen before, and reviewing legislation may offer a new alternative that only came up once this was originally implemented" or "It might not be the best to change it because it already works".