WEF concerns
Dear Editor:
We have had two robust and informative debates in advance of our national election on April 28. However, there is one important question that some Canadians feel has not been adequately answered, which is this: how closely is Mr. Carney’s position aligned with the World Economic Forum (WEF) agenda?
The WEF was founded by Mr. Klaus Schwab in 1971. Its mission statement – to improve the state of the world by engaging leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas – sounds virtuous enough, but note that it is silent with respect to the WEF’s intentions regarding sovereign nations.
Two statements by Schwab belie the supposedly noble mission. The first is his infamous proclamation that, “You will own nothing; and you will be happy.” The second relates to his admission of “penetrating” (national) governments with young WEF global leaders.
Prime Minister Mark Carney is a member of the WEF Foundation Board. No fewer than five of his appointed cabinet ministers, including Chrystia Freeland and Francois-Philippe Champagne, are WEF members, as is former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
While Pierre Poilievre has been accused of being a WEF member, the accusation is false. The WEF printed an article he wrote for a newspaper and placed it on its website. He has made it clear that his cabinet will not include any WEF members or young global leaders.
It is unsettling that we know so little about Mr. Carney’s true intentions as they relate to globalization and property ownership, because these are critical issues for Canadians. We do not want to be the 51st state, nor do we want to be “European.”
We do want the right to own our possessions and properties.
Terence Rothwell,
Wellington North
*Editor’s note: Klaus Schwab, who resigned from the WEF on Monday, never stated, “You will own nothing; and you will be happy,” nor did any other WEF member. And the WEF does not have a stated goal to remove private property. The WEF has repeatedly been a target of misinformation and conspiracy theories, particularly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
‘Antithesis’
Dear Editor:
Next Monday, April 28, we must not give the Conservative Party of Canada the reins of power. The leader of the CPC is the antithesis of a progressive thinker and does not have the whole of Canada’s interest at heart.
His anti “woke” statements that he made repeatedly until his handlers got him to tone things down, are very telling. On March 28, Poilievre stated, “A Conservative government would put an end to the imposition of woke ideology in the federal civil service and in the allocation of federal funds for university research.”
It can be inferred from this quote that Poilievre wishes to stop funding research into mitigation of discrimination against most Canadians (i.e – women, non-white, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, 2SLGBTQIA+ people). He wishes to end programs in the federal government that do the same. Is this the Canada we want?
We are dismayed by what Trump is doing to his country and to the rest of the world. Is this the future we want for Canada?
Here are a few other reasons not to vote for the CPC with Poilievre as its leader:
– he has promised to defund the CBC;
– he works hard to insulate himself from the media;
– he has not promised to maintain important social gains made under Trudeau, such as Pharmacare, the Canadian Dental Care Plan, and $10/day daycare;
– we cannot trust him to stand up for public health care;
– is he a puppet of the fossil fuels conglomerates, does he believe in anthropogenic climate change and the need to reduce our carbon footprint?;
– Poilievre has promised to put “Canada First.” Sounds great until you realize that his plan is to greatly reduce foreign aid spending;
– Poilievre says he is tough on crime and wants to use the notwithstanding clause to institute unconstitutional measures. Really? Just look how that is going in the U.S.; and
– why won’t Poilievre get security clearance?
The last thing we need in this country is a prime minister whose character is questionable, is not thoughtful, does not consider new evidence that may modify his position, denies access of the press to ask the important questions, and is focussed on appealing to his right-wing base rather than all Canadians.
Mark Carney said in his book “leadership is the acceptance of responsibility rather than the assumption of power”.
Let us vote for that.
Paula Menzies,
Fergus
Where’s the line?
Dear Editor:
Dear Liberal, I need to know, what’s your line in the sand to turn against the corrupt Liberals and their failures of the last decade?
We know it’s wasn’t the multiple blackface scandals. We know it’s not corruption. Not giving millions to a terrorist.
Not the WE scandal. Not ethics breaches. Not sexism towards subordinates. Not general incompetence. Not bypassing parliament process multiple times.
It wasn’t snubbing Indigenous people to go surfing. Not breaking promises about clean water. Not breaking promises about planting trees.
It’s not more tax. It’s not bullying and name calling. It’s not illegally invoking war measures on protesters. Not millions spent on ventilators that were never delivered and on vaccines that weren’t used and were destroyed.
It’s not yet more tax, or taxing that tax. It’s not the ArriveCan scandal. It wasn’t spending $50,000 a month in alcohol. It’s not overpriced lavish personal vacations.
It’s not even more ethics breaches. It’s not censoring what we can say and read. Not spending $12 million to hire New Zealand sharpshooters with banned rifles for a deer cull. Not an $8-million barn at our expense.
It wasn’t personally inviting and honouring the “heroics” of a Nazi war criminal. Not the SNC investigation cover up. Not accepting vacation bribes. Not the Flair Airlines scandal. Not lying about cell phone bills. Not the “other Randy” scandal. Not the catch-and-release stance on crime.
It hasn’t been the carbon scam.The NSICOP report. The Freeland step down debacle. The Green slush fund scandal.
It’s not completely trampling the charter of rights and freedoms.
Wasn’t going against their word to not prorogue parliament. Wasn’t replacing their leader at the 11th hour just so they could copy Conservative policies.
It wasn’t Carney lying about moving his company to the states. It wasn’t passing around divisive buttons at Conservative rallies.
Not promising gun laws that have been in effect since the 1980s.
And it’s sure as hell was not causing the greatest divide in our country’s history … What then?
Before you scream “that was Trudeau,” keep in mind 87% of Carney’s cabinet is unchanged.
John Shortreed,
Elora
‘Liberal puppet’
Dear Editor:
This newspaper has published yet another long winded letter to the editor from Jonathan Schmidt. It seems to me that the Wellington Advertiser has given several people their own column in the paper to voice their ill-informed political views numerous times.
Schmidt has written five such letters in recent publications. How much is Schmidt paying your paper to publish his personal political views?
Schmidt is just another Liberal puppet who wants us all to forget about 10 years of Liberal policies and mismanagement, resulting in enormous overspending, doubling of the national debt now forecasted to be $2.3 trillion, housing prices that are two to three times higher, increased poverty, increased crime while being lenient on criminals, all of which has resulted in enormous hardship for so many Canadians.
All of this and more perpetrated by this corrupt and inadequate Liberal government.
To state that Mark Carney, who has never held a seat in parliament and has been handed the prime minister’s office for one month is the kind of experienced politician Canada needs is a joke.
The Advertiser should be a paper that is impartial, so hopefully once this election is over, this is the last we hear from Schmidt.
Lanie Bryant,
Elora
*Editor’s note: The Advertiser does not receive payment for any letters to the editor that appear in the newspaper. As with all items on our editorial pages (10 and 11), letters are opinion pieces, which, by definition, are not ‘impartial.’
‘Dangerous diversion’
Dear Editor:
This week the “illiberal” government of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán enshrined constitutional recognition of only two sexes, establishing a legal basis for denying 2SLGBTQIA+ rights.
Meanwhile, closer to home, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre avows that he “knows only two genders,” yet another example of his fondness for inflammatory sound bites that align with Orbán and U.S. President Donald Trump.
It is curious that a man who so staunchly defends freedom is so eager to promote his restrictive views on a core aspect of personal identity and liberty. However, the pertinent question is not whether gender is binary or exists on a spectrum, but rather what political advantage Poilievre seeks by rhetorically targeting vulnerable and marginalized members of our communities.
Conversations about gender—its number, nature, and whether it is fixed or fluid—are complicated and thorny because they encompass both biological and cultural dimensions. Too often, these debates are cynically self-serving and deliberately oversimplified for political gain.
However, regardless of one’s personal views on the variability of sexual identity and gender expression, they have no bearing on Canada’s most pressing challenges: trade, sovereignty, housing, climate change, inflation, health care, or the impact of artificial intelligence.
Indeed, to address these problems there is an urgent need to value and leverage diversity, not to demonize it. To prosper, Canada needs bold leadership that welcomes and affirms constructive contributions from everyone and fosters respect, inclusion and cooperation.
Why, Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong, was gender identity even raised as a topic by Poilievre and your party? Surely, we are agreed on the intrinsic worth and potential of all Canadians, regardless of our diverse identities? Or is Orbán’s Hungary to be our role model?
Provoking polarizing, uninformed and spiteful debates about gender is irrelevant misdirection and a dangerous diversion. I believe Poilievre knows this. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that distraction and division have been and are precisely his goals.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora
‘Winter behind us’?
Dear Editor:
I think we can now safely say that winter is behind us.
I think we all owe a “tip of the hat” to all the workers and contractors who cleared snow from our streets, sidewalks and parking lots this past extraordinary winter. Great job all!
Paul Krabbe,
Fergus
‘Interconnected’
Dear Editor:
With an election approaching on April 28 and April 22 being Earth Day, this month is a time of rebirth, renewal and relinquishment. Taking the symbol of the Easter cross, as possibly emblematic to humanity, one arm pinned (to the cross) in suffering, the other an open embrace of comfort and welcome. We are not America. We are not “formed” on the bones of a civil war whose wounds are still remembered.
Our prosperity was not based in large portions on the forced servitude of others, though we share embarrassment for the bigotries and cruelty of another era, enacted upon Indigenous peoples.
However, we do our best to be “inclusive” rather than subjugative, despite the fact that there is no Statue of Liberty on our eastern shore – only Newfoundland, which generously lived up to its human responsibilities when called upon, in empathy.
In the midst of wars, famines, political shifts and ostracizing tariffs, an awareness is growing. Spring is a time of “pledged” responsibility for our precious world. Our hands joined in care.
There are some who see the world as a neutral place, “there for the taking.” That it’s therefore acceptable to “drill baby, drill,” to frack, to pave, to uproot and rip the natural environment.
However it is perceived, we are in it together. Interconnected. A family of humankind that must care. The same air, the same waters, the same jet streams. We pour toxic industrial fumes on top of all the natural ones, often without picking up behind, without a sense of balance.
What hope is there for the environment if we don’t work with it in reverence and respect?
Clever, insightful commentaries have been written about U.S. President Donald Trump. It is an insecure person, male or female, that needs to exercise fierce control, needs constantly the public attention and admiration. Trump, as American president, has yanked the “hand-brake” on international collaboration, on human co-operation.
Elon Musk has marketed “sustainable” transportation with Tesla, yet he is against green environmental progress.
The prime value of life is not financial efficiency. Monopoly is a board game that can become hugely distorted if it becomes the main focus of a living world. Cash flow as a tool, not a virtue or a value.
We have to believe in our place in the rhythms of nature (God’s light if you wish) – fragments of a “wholeness,” capable of tending a garden.
Bronwen Stanley-Jones,
Mount Forest
‘Give us a better life’
Dear Editor:
As we draw near to election day, we need to remember that this is an election where it is critically important for everyone who is eligible to get out and vote.
This federal election is, in some degree or another, predominantly about the American government and president. Canadians should be striving to maintain our freedom, our rights, our natural resources and our health care, among other things that the American government may try to take from us.
We should be voting for a government that is working for the people to give us a better life, not working against us and using us for personal greed and dominion.
Corruption involves groups of individuals in positions of power whose collective actions enable rule breaking of differing complexities for personal gain.
The Conservative Party seems to have had a shift in values, where they now appear to represent MAGA-style governing, conspiracy theories and regressive proposals.
Following in the tracks of far-right politics in the U.S., CPC Leader Pierre Poilievre’s tactics are designed to instigate resentments and fear and create division.
His “Canada First” agenda is a direct reverberation of Trump’s “America First”, and we can see firsthand how that is playing out across the border.
The top ballot box issue that has transfixed Canadians during this federal election is Trump and how political parties will deal with his unjustified threats and risks of destabilization.
It is extremely important to cast your vote, although more importantly to take the time to know exactly what you are voting for.
The stakes are higher than ever before and we need to maintain Canadians’ freedom and sovereignty. Demonizing marginalized groups, oppression, aggressive political leadership, and martial law are not the direction we want our country to plummet towards.
We are not here to simply make the rich more rich, as we suffer at the feet of the person we elected in the hopes they’d keep us safe and improve our lives.
We can make the choice to elect someone who will protect our freedom and our country.
Kristyn Salt,
Acton