Little effort
Dear Editor:
Our rookie MPP in Wellington-Halton Hills got a landslide victory without making a peep. What does that say about him? What does that say about us as voters?
Joseph Racinsky, I hope you put a lot more effort into representing our riding than you did into your campaign.
(Thanks to all the candidates who did put an effort in.)
Ruth Robinson,
Ariss
‘Appalling’ turnout
Dear Editor:
Isn’t it appalling that 55 per cent of Ontario’s eligible voters didn’t care enough to find time to vote on any of the four days, 12 hours each, when polls were open?
Couldn’t they see that Doug Ford took more than one page from President Donald Trump’s playbook? Ford already had a majority, so was only after another four years of control, thereby increasing provincial debt at the expense of future taxpayers, as he has with paving part of the Holland Marsh, clearing trees from Ontario Place for an elaborate, costly spa.
Rather than repair the magnificent Science Centre, it will be demolished for housing and relocated. Then he has the audacity to promise a massive tunnel parallel to Highway 401 rather than invest in public transit systems, failing health care and public education systems, or increasing hydro facilities.
On top of that, he didn’t trust any of his local candidates to participate in public debates with competing candidates.
Premier Ford certainly seems to favour his wealthy developer supporters rather than Ontario citizens in general!
Eligible citizens who fail to vote, surely lose the “right” to complain.
Louise McMullen,
Erin
‘A priority’
Dear Editor:
During the federal Liberal Party leadership debates, it was noted that we need to bring our military spending to two per cent of GDP. I agree.
The one thing that was mentioned was increasing wages. That is not practical because not only do we need equipment, we need two Arctic bases. This is a priority.
So with the people that serve our nation why would you not forgive their income tax? Yes, they should serve tax free. They can pay there share of income tax when they retire because then you are an ordinary citizen.
I believe it to be dual serving while we get the best possible people without wasteful spending. The cost or loss of income tax would be minimal.
Werner Raab,
Elora
‘Work together’
Dear Editor:
There is general agreement that Canada faces an existential challenge from the tariffs U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to impose and from the expansionist rhetoric Trump continues to voice.
At least twice in the history of Great Britain, when faced by an existential challenge, the country was led by a cabinet whose members came from a variety of political parties, working across the political divisions to face the crisis together.
In 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars a “government of all talents” was formed to face the crisis. During World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill drew together the War Cabinet, which included the leader of the major opposition party in the House of Commons. The War Cabinet even had a non-politician in its ranks, who brought a needed expertise to the conversation.
My humble proposal is that Mark Carney, since he will most likely be the new leader of the Liberal Party and therefore prime minister, immediately upon being elected leader of the Liberal Party invite Pierre Poilievre to join him in serving as prime minister, the two serving as a prime ministerial team. And that they create a Cabinet of all talents regardless of party affiliation.
The country faces a crisis, it is time for its leaders to work together towards a grand purpose, making it through this crisis.
Peter Bush,
Fergus
‘Culture-war rhetoric’
Dear Editor:
Pierre Poilievre seems to believe that Canadians have short memories. In his newly minted “Canada First” campaign it appears he is attempting to reframe his image, distancing himself from comparisons to Trump and public endorsement by Elon Musk.
But mere weeks ago he was vigorously echoing MAGA-style talking points, for example in his relentless demonization of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). He has repeatedly linked DEI to a litany of societal and economic woes, reproaching the Liberal government and “progressives” of somehow undermining the country by promoting it.
He and his political colleagues conflate DEI with “wokeness” and “quotas” but provide little substantive evidence to support their claims. Instead, DEI serves as a convenient scapegoat, a bogeyman diverting attention from the real challenges confronting Canadians: housing, healthcare, trade, employment, and the environment.
Much like certain American figures, Poilievre has labeled DEI policies “garbage” and pledged to abolish them. But what does he propose in their place? If he is so staunchly opposed to diversity, equity and inclusion, does he favour policies that might lead to the opposite: uniformity, inequity and exclusion?
It is a legitimate concern that DEI policies have at times been poorly or improperly implemented, but they at least aim to promote fairness and opportunity by expanding applicant recruitment and ensuring that defensible qualifications are used as less biased hiring criteria.
If DEI is to be discarded, what safeguards does Poilievre propose to ensure fairness in hiring and institutional access? The rights of Canadians to be diverse and live in an equitable, just and inclusive society are enshrined in our Constitution. It would be illuminating if Poilievre or Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong explained how their party’s opposition to DEI aligns with the principles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Poilievre’s calls for unity ring hollow given his history of deploying divisive identity politics. His opposition to DEI, which has closely mirrored that of Trump and his enthusiasts, is not just a misguided policy stance; it appears to be a deliberate political strategy.
It has earned him approval from the likes of Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson, but it does not make Canada stronger. It weakens us, fostering discord, inequality and dysfunction. We don’t need to look far to see the consequences of such politics.
Poilievre surely understands this. But in his pursuit of power, culture-war rhetoric has been a consistent feature of his political messaging – raising serious questions about the substance and sincerity of his broader policy platform and calls for unity.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora
Trudeau to blame?
Dear Editor:
Most Canadians of all political stripes were rightly outraged and perplexed at U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to impose 25% tariffs on most Canadian exports to the U.S. After all, he previously signed the USMCA trade agreement, which he called beneficial to the U.S. at the time.
However, one positive thing that has resulted is that it has opened many eyes to the reasons why Canada is vulnerable to these threats: i.e. the Trudeau Liberal government’s destructive policies of the last decade.
The Liberal obsession with “net-zero by 2050” climate policies such as blocking east-west pipelines has forced us to sell almost all of our oil to the U.S. at a discount. Meanwhile, a new report from the Fraser Institute, written by University of Guelph professor of economics Ross McKittrick, shows that if Canada was to fully comply with its commitments under the United Nations Paris climate agreement, it would cause extreme economic hardship while only reducing global warming by less than a hundredth of a degree Celsius by 2100.
In addition, the Liberals have recklessly wasted taxpayer dollars, much of it motivated by their woke ideology, resulting in huge deficits every year, while grossly underfunding our military. The interest on government debt alone was projected to be $54 billion in 2024, which is about the same as it collects in GST.
Canada with its wealth of natural resources, could have been one of the most prosperous countries in the world today. However, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, individual Canadians’ standard of living has grown by only 0.7% in nine years, while that of Americans’ has increased by almost 16%. These numbers from 2022 are based on GDP per person, which economists usually use as a broad measure of standard of living.
Please don’t vote Liberal/NDP in the next federal election.
Henry Brunsveld,
Puslinch
‘Windbag’ spending
Dear Editor:
Could you please keep a running tally of our windbag prime minister’s farewell spending spree? Someone has to track how many billions he’s throwing at pet projects before he’s finally out the door – because Ottawa sure isn’t.
His latest pledges? Billions for a high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto, and billions more shipped overseas to Ukraine. Where’s the accountability? Why is this reckless spending still allowed?
And to think, there’s still a few more weeks for him to inflict as much fiscal damage as possible. That’s not cool!
Doug Vanderveen,
Belwood
‘Wasting more money’
Dear Editor:
An open letter to Premier Doug Ford.
Newsflash: not everyone needs booze, or needs to go to a corner store to buy it! You seem obsessed with the product (ie. – “buck a beer” and the expensive convenience store outlet rollout).
After your costly/unnecessary election, you want to waste more?
Now you want to pull American booze from the shelves. Great symbolic move, but isn’t this wasting more money? This inventory has been bought and paid for and shipped to us, stocked and warehoused.
Sure- stop all future orders, but why not let these products just sell out, instead of paying more to repack, ship and costly store until who knows when?
Perhaps add a 25% “Buy Canadian” levee on American booze (and maybe just keep selling it if the market will bear this).
Then maybe, just maybe, use the money for something that benefits all of us.
Keith Porty,
Acton
‘Merciless measures’
Dear Editor:
I will not stand by and allow my neighbours to the south to be personally threatened. I consider electricity a basic human need. Imagine for a moment, someone threatening to take our electricity away. Imagine not having electricity for our homes, for our local businesses and for our hospitals. This type of threat can only bring more harm than good.
Doug Ford has stated, “We keep the lights on for 1.5 million homes and manufacturing (businesses) in New York, in Michigan and in Minnesota. If he (Trump) wants to destroy our economy and our families, I will shut down the electricity going down to the U.S. I am telling you we will do it.”
I have this to say: you have crossed a line Doug Ford. We need tough measures, not merciless measures.
Evelyn Gould,
Fergus
*Editor’s note: Ford has since stated that for now, he is just warning New York, Michigan and Minnesota that if the trade war persists, Ontario will add a 25% surcharge to electricity. However, he has also not ruled out cutting the flow off entirely.
Appreciated show
Dear Editor:
My husband and I attended the Active Living and Retirement Show at the Centre Wellington Community Sportsplex in Fergus last Friday.
Many thanks to all the volunteers and exhibitors who offered information about a range of services and opportunities available in our community. Everyone was so pleasant and patient in offering information to all of us seniors.
I’m sure all who attended appreciated the very many hours that went in to putting on this event.
Rose Anne Sander,
Alma
Battery storage issues
Dear Editor:
As discussions continue around battery energy storage systems (BESS) in Centre Wellington and throughout the province, I wanted to offer some information on safety and land use, recognizing the importance of addressing local questions openly and respectfully.
Ensuring the safety of neighbors and the local environment is the top priority for any BESS project.
Modern BESS facilities are designed with comprehensive safety measures to ensure reliable and secure operation. These include continuous real-time monitoring, advanced system management, and close coordination with local first responders who receive specialized training.
Like all critical energy infrastructure, these projects comply with rigorous safety standards and oversight, incorporating features such as significant setbacks between storage containers and property lines to maintain safety and respect the surrounding community and environment.
Land use is another important consideration. BESS projects are not permanent and are designed with restoration in mind. At the end of their operating life, the land can be restored to its original use, including agriculture, preserving opportunities for future generations.
At a recent community roundtable on BESS safety, I was encouraged by the thoughtful questions and input from residents.
It’s clear that Centre Wellington takes both safety and land stewardship seriously. I appreciate the opportunity to share my experience as someone who has consulted on fire safety codes for energy storage projects and witnessed the extensive precautions taken to protect both people and the environment.
As Ontario works to secure a more reliable and sustainable energy grid, I believe BESS technology can play an important role in meeting our energy needs while respecting the safety and character of the communities where these projects are located.
I look forward to continuing this dialogue and hope more residents will join in conversations with experts to learn about the safeguards in place to protect our communities.
Nick Petrakis,
Director of engineering,
Energy Safety Response Group
Sitting on the fence?
Dear Editor:
An open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
I know from your past statements that you have avoided condemning Hamas as a brutal evil terrorist organization, for whatever reason. But I plead with you to do so now that we have seen what they have done to Shiri Bibas and her family, among many other atrocities.
As I am sure you know, the remains of Shiri Bibas and her two children, Ariel and Kfir were supposed to have been returned to Israel in the latest hostage release.
It appears that the adult female corpse returned is not that of Shiri Bibas and the corpses of the two children show signs of abuse/torture. Every Canadian I have talked to is angry with Hamas and wants them to be condemned, and then hopefully eliminated from Gaza.
Please do this so that we Canadians can stand tall in our condemnation of evil, as our fathers and grandfathers did against the Nazi evil.
At present we are not standing at all, we are sitting comfortably on our fence, again.
Michael Lee,
Salem