Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Brussels Post, 1979-07-11, Page 2BRUSSE LS Oft TAR tO WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1979 Serving Brussels and the surrounding community. Published each Wedhesday afternoon at Brussels, Ontario By McLean. Bros. Publishers Limited Evelyn Kennedy - Editor Pat Langlois - Advertising Member Canadian Community Newspaper Associat n and Ontario Weekly Newspaper Association *CNA Subscriptions (in advance) Canada 510.00 a Year. Others 520.00 a Year. Single Copies 25 cents each. A SCENIC VIEW OF THE BRIDGE IN BRUSSELS Behind the scenes Be careful by Keith Roulston Some weaknesses It is now evident to all who live in Brussels that sewer construction is progressing. This work of course blocks off many roads in the village and traffic has to be re-routed. The workmen provide signs stating road closed with arrows pointing to the new route. But sometimes, for some strange reason, people choose not to obey the signs and proceed up the closed road anyway. Doing so can not only endanger their lives but possibly the lives of the sewer workmen as well, not to mention the inconvenience if the sewer workers have to figure a way out for the person who does this. Taking a chance on a road closed sign isn't worth the risk of a life. After all how much trouble is it to take a new route to your destination! By doing so, you are taking pre-cautionary measures and not making trouble for the workmen. And now that there are big holes in the street it is also time to warn children to walk on the sidewalks (although they always should walk on the sidewalks wherever possible) and not play near these big sewer ditches, Taking chances while the sewer work is going on is not a good idea for either children or adults. UT MIL WPM, 102 Brussels Post The recent embarassment over federal government's proposal to move the Cana- dian embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem points out again the weaknesses in our present system of government. Prime Minister Clark under our voting system could quite easily say that the Canadian people supported him in his decision. After all, the move had been part of the package of promises and policies he had promised to implement if elected. After all he had just received a mandate from the electorate only a few days before the volcano of controversy erupted. It was clear though that few Canadians did support the new government's policy. As the controversy went on support grew just because people didn't like the pressure being imposed through threats by Arab countries, but on the whole people just didn't see that the gain for Israel was worth all the fuss for Canadians. Eventually the government backed away from the decision as much I think because of the reaction in Canada as because of the pressure of the Arabs. But the problem remains. According to our system the Clark government felt it had a mandate from the Canadian people to put into action the policies it espoused when it was elected. In this particular case, however, probably most of the people who voted for the government (and it was still fewer than voted for the Opposition parties) voted because of the party's proposals. They voted more against the government in office than for the policies of the man who wanted to replace the government. Probably there are some policies that the majority of the voters supported. The idea of being able to deduct mortgage payments from income tax was probably appealing even though many claim it will hurt the poor and help the rich. Likewise the pledge to cut 60,000 civil service jobs was probably attractive to many voters. But the more obscure policies likely did not have such support, policies such as the embassy move and the plan to sell Petrocart to the private sector. But flow is the voter to get all the messages he wants over to the politicians. The voters gave a message that they didn't want the Liberal government but in doing so gave a false assurance to the Conservatives that they had the support of the people for their policies. Likewise in the 1974 election the voters sent a message apparently that they didn't *ant the policy of the. Conservatives for wage and price controls and were willing to put up with the Liberals for another term to ,be rid of those policies. What happened of course was that the Liberal government discovered a year later that wage and price controls were neces- sary to break the inflation psychology and brought in the policy they had won the election by opposing. The problem is, how do we get all our messages across to the government? There are those who tell of a brave new world brought about by microelectronics which would allow instantaneous polling of the voters on any particular subject. Using home computer terminals feeding into a national communications system they say the voters would be able to flash their opinions to the legislators on any issue. Now that would be true democracy. But would it be good for the country? I guess I betray my true feelings when I say I'm not sure it would. If we really have a faith in democracy we should applaud such a move to get government by the people. But the potential for abuse is just as strong. True democracy would depend on a wise, well-informed voter for every decis- ion to be made. Are our voters wise enough and truly well informed enough to make those decisions, especially in our very complicated world today? If we had such a system would we need politicians at all and if we didn't have them then who would present all the various sides of every issue so people could really examine the quest- ion thoroughly? And then there are the times when what the people want is not necessarily the best for them or for the rest of the world. Before the Second World War the American people were in an isolationist mood and wanted to stay out of the wars already going on in Europe and the Pacific. But they couldn't escape those wars and eventually got involved with a good deal of loss of life of their own citizens. If they had been involved earlier, perhaps the war might have been shorter, fewer people might have perished. There is no perfect government system. No matter what technological or commun- ications miracles that may come we won't find a solution to all the ills of politics. We can only try to be as wise as we can and elect legislators who are as wise as possible, That means they will choose policies that are wise and be wise enough to know when they have chosen the wrong policy and change their minds. Adv./edit:lel IS to:opted on the condition thel in the event at a typographical error the athrectising emulated by the ernoneo6s together *Ith reasonable allowance for signiture„ will not be char§ed for but the balance of the actsilertisernent be paid for at the applicable late. WM* reoty effort *ill be rheas tO Insure they are handled with care, the lo.stitts,hets cannot be responsible for the return of Unsolicited manuscripts or photoss.