Not a real donation
Dear Editor:
Re: Township purchases long-coveted well on Middlebrook Road, April 10.
It is important to clarify the statement in last week’s Advertiser that Nestlé Waters offered to donate the Middlebrook Road property to Centre Wellington, but the township rejected the offer. This needs explanation.
Nestlé representatives came to a December 2016 council meeting and proposed a partnership with the township. Nestlé was willing to discuss donating the property, with the township then receiving revenue from Nestlé’s use of the well.
Lawyers advised that such a partnership had potential down the road to threaten municipal financial and water security. It could put the township at risk.
Further, just a few weeks prior, the province had put in place a two-year moratorium, which was designed to give the government an opportunity to re-think all the rules regarding water permits, especially for water bottlers. By engaging in discussions about using a local well for water bottling, the township would lose credibility with the province.
The proposed partnership was not a donation by any real definition, nor was it in the township’s best interest.
The township waited eight more years for the property to be for sale.
Jan Beveridge,
Elora
‘Meet with parents’
Dear Editor:
RE: Parents pen public letter alleging ‘Black children in UGDSB are not safe, April 10.
The response by Upper Grand District School Board (UGDSB) in this article is disappointing.
Director Peter Sovran attacks the parents for voicing their concerns publicly. Although many might agree that having these matters dealt with on media platforms is less than ideal, it’s important to consider that this was not the parent’s first resort. The open letter resulted from inactivity, lack of communication and silence. It was their last resort.
This could have been entirely avoidable if board leadership responded to parent inquiries or made the time to meet them. When providing a public service, it is good practice to meet with that public after all.
It should be noted that the parent group appears to be invested and motivated to support change. These types of parents should be seen as allies, not adversaries. Engaging and partnering with them would only help the UGDSB in these matters.
Instead, we see UGDSB leadership attempt to shout them down and silence their concerns. In the article, UGDSB cites a list of accomplishments to distract from the issue at hand.
Some of the accomplishments that the UGDSB leadership listed are fantastic developments. However, many are secondary-school-centric and broad or non-specific. The parents in the article are identified as being from Rockwood, which only has an elementary school. Are BSUs (Black Student Unions), Africentric programming, and clubs available to all schools within the UGDSB, or just the one school in Guelph?
Are there plans/supports for elementary schools? Are some of these accomplishments really board-driven, or do they happen to be the product of engaged and motivated teaching staff (if they are part of a broad strategy, why do they only seem to be happening locally)?
Regardless, combating anti-Black racism is a very complex problem, but it starts with something that should be simple: have a dialogue. This conflict may have been entirely avoided if the director had met with the public he serves. Instead, he is painting them as a nuisance, which reflects a lack of leadership more than anything else.
The fix to this conflict is still relatively simple: meet with the parents, listen, and be supportive. It isn’t too late.
Derek Cobden,
Guelph
Carney like Harris?
Dear Editor:
Is Prime Minister Mark Carney Canada’s version of former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris? The similarities of a few examples are striking.
Both were closely involved in creating national problems so neither can/could distance themselves from the failures of the Biden/Trudeau administrations. Both are against the oil industry and free speech and would allow the promotion of discriminating DEI policies. Both are/were supported by the same sycophantic legislators that voted for the decisions that have failed us for too many years.
Both are/were supposedly tied in the polls with their opposition. The polls will be/were proven wrong. Both are/were supported by the mainstream media who ignore the huge successful rallies of their opposition.
Poilievre is different from Trump in his support of a national health care system, is not erratic and bombastic, and has no intention of controlling the world. Poilievre will also slash the $1.5-billion government subsidy to the CBC with its dwindling viewership.
When Poilievre becomes prime minister and repeals Bill C-69 and other anti-oil legislation, the 25% of Albertans who favour separation from Canada or joining the U.S. will have no reason to do either.
I predict that in the next few weeks, and especially after the debate, when the undecided voters learn more about Poilievre’s policies, that Carney’s Liberals will be decimated like the Harris Democrats in the U.S. and that the conservative-minded voters will give Poilievre the support he needs to win.
Vic Palmer,
Clifford
*Editor’s note: Neither Harris nor Carney have indicated they are “against” free speech. Most current election polls have Poilievre trailing Carney. Poilievre has stated he wants to maintain the CBC’s French-language programming.
Short and sweet
Dear Editor:
Please do not vote for the Liberals or NDP.
We do not need another Trudeau government.
Ron Lambkin,
Listowel
Carney and Harper
Dear Editor:
The late Jim Flaherty, finance minister in Steven Harper’s government, once stated Mark Carney “has been a superb governor of the Bank of Canada … his loss will be felt.”
And in 2009, Flaherty stated, “Mark Carney’s steady hand and quick action were instrumental in keeping Canada’s financial system stable during one of the most challenging economic periods in modern history.”
Rodger Smith,
Elora
‘Wallow in puddles’
Dear Editor:
It is time to let America wallow in the puddles.
Our great country will forge new relationships, our auto parts can be sold to many other countries, our softwood (and hardwood) will be welcomed by many other markets. We have a fantastic, knowledgeable and diversified workforce that can easily compete in the world’s market.
The American people voted (ever so barely) for this man, and now unfortunately they will suffer the circumstances.
Go ahead America, wallow in the puddle.
I pity America right now.
Wes Whitford,
Palmerston
Just do the limit
Dear Editor:
I find it interesting that so many drivers are keen to make excuses for their ignorance of posted speed limits. These signs are not suggestions but rather the legal maximum speeds.
Perhaps if there were more situational awareness on our roads the powers that be would not have to mount cameras especially in school zones. What is the big deal about reducing your speed to 40 for all of 30 seconds whether schools are open or closed?
Just drive the posted speed limit folks and you will have nothing to complain about.
Wendy Jones,
Fergus
‘Petulant teenagers’
Dear Editor:
I can’t get over the number of letters whining about the speed cameras on Belsyde Avenue in Fergus. They almost sound like petulant teenagers.
Look at the facts. The speed limit has been there for ages. The impending use of cameras was posted in the newspaper with ample time to be prepared for it. And why would the town be interested in making sure folks don’t speed on this particular stretch of road? Maybe it’s the sports complex, or maybe it’s the church, or maybe it’s the school, or maybe it’s the seniors residence.
What’s more important to us: slowing down to a speed limit safe enough to protect the citizens that use the sports complex, the church, the school and the seniors residence, or speeding up because your arrival at your destination is so vital that you can’t do the speed limit for only a few blocks?
I have a nice big V8 in my truck, but the amazing thing is, if I put my foot on the brake and slow down, it goes slower until I am allowed to put my foot on the gas and speed up again.
Too easy; slow down and follow the posted limit, or continue to fund projects with the funds generated by those terrible little cameras.
Terry Filce,
Belwood
‘Personal vendetta’
Dear Editor:
RE: Puslinch man not giving up, despite two independent decision exonerating the municipality, mayor, April 3.
While community input and civic engagement are vital to healthy local governance, there comes a point when persistent, one-sided narratives require clarification.
I am writing in response to your recent article regarding Mr. Bruce Taylor and his ongoing campaign against Boreham Park. .
Bruce Taylor has repeatedly claimed to be acting in the interest of public safety, and yet, the pattern of his concerns seems to point toward a broader dissatisfaction with simply having neighbours. Over the years, he has complained about the sound of passing trains, the local police gun range, the speed and noise of vehicles – and now, the sound of children playing in a public park.
There is a growing belief within the community that his underlying motivation is not safety, but an attempt to pressure the township into closing the park altogether to restore a personal sense of peace and quiet.
Township staff and council have taken his concerns seriously. Contrary to the narrative that nothing has been done, council has listened to his multiple delegations, reviewed engineering reports, commissioned a safety consultant, and invested time and taxpayer money into investigating and responding to his claims – even when those claims have been based on speculation or anecdotal evidence.
When professional consultants were hired to conduct a neutral, unbiased review of the park, Taylor attempted to directly influence their findings, prompting a cease-and-desist letter to preserve the integrity of the process. This was not a bullying tactic – it was a necessary boundary to ensure objective assessment.
We can all agree that safety is important. But in any public space, especially parks meant for children, there will always be some level of risk. With reasonable precautions and responsible design, public spaces can be enjoyed safely. Boreham Park meets Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act standards, has modern equipment, and is well-used by local families. That should be a point of pride, not controversy.
Ironically, much of the additional cost Taylor cites has been the result of his repeated delegations, investigations and complaints — not from poor decision-making or neglect by council.
The added costs of dealing with this issue are starting to climb, and we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for what increasingly appears to be one person’s personal vendetta.
When is enough, enough? Boreham Park is a well-loved, safe, and vibrant part of our community. Let’s allow our public spaces to serve the public – not to be held hostage by personal grievances.
Simon Smith,
Arkell
‘Kind and caring’
Dear Editor:
RE: Puslinch man not giving up, despite two independent decision exonerating the municipality, mayor, April 3.
Bruce Taylor seems like a kind and caring individual who will do his best to try and change something that he thinks is wrong. To plan and build a children’s playground (Boreham Park in Arkell) in an area where there is a ditch that is ten feet across; with eight feet of water in it that is without a high fence; is unconscionable. Children can and will get into anything and everything if they are given the opportunity. And this playground is the perfect chance for them do so.
The other day I was walking by the playground across from Centre Wellington District High School just behind the fence when I saw two women with eight young children. Then I noticed two others that were about 3 or 4 years old standing right on the edge of a two or three foot deep ditch full of water. Both women were deep in conversation with their backs turned to the children when both toddlers suddenly slipped and fell into the cold water up to their chests. I was on the other side of the fence so I yelled “Ladies!” One of them turned slowly around and looked at me. I frantically told her that the two kids had fallen in the freezing water and needed tending to. The women looked toward them and said, “Oh, they’ll be okay.”
Do what is right, fill the culvert. And a cease-and-desist letter for $1,700 – really? Stop wasting money.
And, stop telling the townspeople to shut their mouths. We have every right to speak up when we feel it is necessary. That is what democracy is. That is what Canada is. Way to go, Bruce Taylor.
Christy Doraty,
Fergus
‘The Canada I love’
Dear Editor:
The Canada I love includes Prince Edward Island, Vancouver Island, and Ellesmere Island. The Canada I love includes Athabasca Falls, Niagara Falls, and Steady Brook Falls, Newfoundland.
The Canada I love includes The Grand Parade, Halifax; Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto; and The Forks, Winnipeg.
The Canada I love includes the Saint John River Valley, the Ottawa River (Rivere des Outaoais) Valley, and the Red River Valley.
The Canada I love includes Lake Okanagan, Lake Superior, and the Bras d’Or lakes. The Canada I love includes the Skyline Trail in Jasper, the Bruce Trail in Ontario, and the Skyline Trail in Cape Breton.
The Canada I love includes Premier Danielle Smith, Premier Doug Ford, and Premier Francois Legault. The Canada I love includes the Maligne Canyon, Alberta; the Grand River Gorge, Ontario; and the Grand Falls Gorge, New Brunswick.
The Canada I love includes the petroglyphs at Kejimkujik National Park, Nova Scotia; the Agawa Rock Petroglyphs, Ontario; and St. Victor Petroglyphs, Saskatchewan.
The Canada I love includes Okanagan cherries, Niagara peaches, and Annapolis Valley apples. The Canada I love includes the Public Gardens, Halifax; Templin Gardens, Fergus; and Butchart Gardens, Victoria.
The Canada I love includes ten provinces and three territories.
The Canada I love is wonderfully diverse and joyfully complicated. The Canada I love listens to each other and cares for one another.
Peter Bush,
Fergus
‘Deeply concerning’
Dear Editor:
What I find remarkable – and deeply concerning – is how unserious Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and his associates appear in the face of the unprecedented challenges posed by Donald Trump and his enablers. Commenting on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s haircut? Really, Mr. Poilievre? Far more relevant is your track record of MAGA-style populism and oil-patch scripted spin on climate change.
Poilievre now accuses Carney of using Trump and his tariffs to “distract” Canadians. This is disingenuous. Canadians are certainly distracted, but not by Carney or his hair. Is Poilievre suggesting that we ignore the immediate threat posed by our southern neighbour’s erratic and belligerent behaviour? Danielle Smith, having already drawn the obvious and favorable comparison between Poilievre and Trump, now yucks it up in Florida with conservative “influencer” Ben Shapiro, discussing how Canada needs to elect “solid allies” of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, Preston Manning chooses this moment to emerge from retirement and revive the tired spectre of “western secession,” perhaps dreaming of Greater Montana. And Stephen Harper questions Carney’s qualifications, as though the former head of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England attained those appointments by accident. The undertone of desperation is difficult to ignore.
As he veers from Plan A to Plan B to Plan C it is increasingly obvious that Poilievre is ill-prepared to lead in these perilous times. His recently unveiled policy proposals resemble reflexive, impromptu tinkering rather than carefully reasoned strategy.
As a parliamentarian, Poilievre’s only significant legislative achievement remains the Fair Elections Act passed by the Harper government over a decade ago. And what evidence is there that Poilievre’s newly combative tone will earn respect – or positive results – from a belligerent White House led by Trump?
By contrast, Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong offers a more reassuring seriousness in both tone and substance. He has shown he possesses a deeper, more nuanced and pragmatic grasp of foreign affairs, the environment, and economics.
But he is not the leader of his party – and that is the problem. In our parliamentary democracy, party leadership matters. The proverbial buck stops in the prime minister’s office. The tone set by the prime minister resonates both at home and abroad.
Looking ahead, that tone must be serious and resolute – and our leadership, as prepared, knowledgeable and experienced as possible.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora
‘Slogans no substitute’
Dear Editor:
The sloganeer is at it again. Only this time, instead of declaring Canada “broken”, he has become, along with his wife, the promoter of a new version of Canada, redeeming us all with the promise of nirvana.
But his policies are largely based on ignoring the jurisdictional rights of municipal and provincial governments, as well as that of our justice system.
As Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre continues to ignore the issue of climate change, has he given any thought to the future of his two young children that are his props at rallies? What will their world be like? More fires, floods, and catastrophic events? Smoky air to breathe?
Pierre’s slogan solution to the U.S. tariffs is a brisk, “Knock it off!” Very intimidating to the circling Trump sycophants who could possibly make a fortune on insider trading, since they are the only group with any idea of what he will do next.
It seems Poilievre is press shy. No reporters travel with him, and only four questions from carefully selected journalists are permitted at any of his rare scrums. Maybe the “emporer is wearing no clothes!” Slogans are no substitute for real communication.
Arlene Callaghan,
Fergus
‘Self-serving party’
Dear Editor:
In case you missed it, on April 1, the Liberals blew through another $40 billion (and change). No debate. No votes. No democratic process. Just a backroom signature and poof – more billions gone. Oh, and guess who scooped up $178 million of it? That’s right, our ever-objective friends at the CBC.
Last time I checked, that’s not how our government is supposed to work. There’s this little thing called fiscal responsibility, backed by a democratic process. But the Liberals? They don’t care. They’re too busy propping up their cozy, elitist club at the top.
Anyone should give their head a shake if they’re even considering voting for that self-serving party.
Doug Vanderveen,
Belwood
‘Too many red flags’
Dear Editor:
A prime minister needs to be able to build relationships, cooperate with others and lead from a position of respect. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s trip to the Arctic showed a lack of respect for the premier, the Indigenous leaders and the citizens.
While he had decades to work on a relationship with Premier Ford, Poilievre only made a phone call when he hoped to borrow against another Conservative’s popularity and appear more progressive than he is. When dealing with the members of other political parties, Poilievre’s default position is to attack and insult. This will not translate well into the leadership skills needed as the Head of Parliament.
Poilievre’s stubborn refusal to get his security clearance has become a potential liability for his participation in world meetings and could impede his ability to continue with trading and security partnerships the Liberal team has begun building.
Poilievre talks about the Canadian dream for all Canadians, but he does not mean all Canadians. He does not recognize the existence of gender-diverse Canadians. His party would take away the decision making rights of transgender youth and their parents and choose which bathrooms and change rooms transgender women would use.
And although Pierre talks about his father’s values, he does not mention that his father began living as a gay man in the 1970s and 30 years later Pierre voted against gay marriage.
In Poilievre’s vision of Canada, you might not be Canadian, because you might not even exist.
We need a prime minister who understands complex national and international finances. CBC reported that in an attempt to Canadianize his portfolio, Poilievre bought into Vanguard. While the companies within this group are Canadian, the profits ultimately go back to America. And confusingly one of the fund’s largest components is Brookfield. If Poilievre makes these kinds of gaffes with his own financial choices, do want him holding the reigns to ours?
When you consider the attitudes and skills needed to be an effective prime minister, there are simply too many red flags that come up with Poilievre. And unfortunately for the federal Conservatives, under his right-wing leadership they no longer represent a progressive alternative. It is time to be fully aware and say no to Pierre.
Joanne Mitchell,
Fergus
Don’t be fooled again
Dear Editor:
If opinion polls are to be believed, it appears many Canadians are gullible or uninformed.
Prime Minister Mark Carney, who wants to govern alongside most of the same people that Justin Trudeau did, and has been an advisor to Trudeau since 2020, is like Trudeau in many ways.
He is woke, a climate zealot, soft on crime and on China, lacks transparency, has been caught speaking falsehoods, pushes the World Economic Forum agenda, loves the CBC, etc.
He has made it clear through his writings and as co-founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, that he wants to defund and drive out of existence Canada’s oil and gas companies, steel companies, car companies and any other sector dependent on fossil fuels.
Until recently, his main fault with the consumer carbon tax was that it wasn’t high enough (and it should have been hidden from our eyes, which he now wants to do).
Now, by stealing Conservative policies that the Liberals railed against for years, Carney has apparently fooled many into believing that he and the Liberals will be Canada’s saviour.
Canada had the second-worst economic growth rate (GDP per capita) among the 38 OECD countries during the Liberal reign.
Can Liberals really be trusted to do now what they failed to do over the past decade? Let’s not be fooled again.
Henry Brunsveld,
Puslinch
Later is ‘too late’
Dear Editor:
As a Canadian senior, I’m casting my ballot for all the young kids who are too young to vote in this election.
While the top issues grabbing headlines are Trump’s reckless tariffs, the crises of housing, health and affordability facing so many Canadians, let’s not forget the other crisis that surpasses them all: climate change.
Unless the new government we elect acts fast and fearlessly to reduce fossil fuel pollution and prepare Canada for escalating environmental emergencies, the future for our kids – and theirs – will be beyond bleak; it will be untenable.
Let’s vote to protect what we love most. Later will be too late.
Liz Armstrong,
Erin
Sign lacking?
Dear Editor:
I am writing on behalf of the public that like to know events, happenings going on at the Fergus sportsplex.
Taxpayer dollars went into installing a nice digital sign out front of the sportsplex to let the community know events happening there. I did write a few years ago to complain as there is never anything on this digital sign . Then someone heard me and started advertising events going on there.
My retired parents went by a few time and the parking lot was full, big trucks, etc. But there was nothing on the sign advertising what is happening So again, is this a waste of taxpayer dollars for this sign?
We are in 2025. Everything is run by computers, not like the old days when people physically had to change the sign themselves.
But hey, maybe the job would get done better in letting the public know events going on there.
Kelly Grominsky,
Fergus