‘Not so sure’
Dear Editor:
RE: Very specific advice, June 12.
I came across Jim Clark’s letter and found it an interesting read. He definitely had specific advice for the new prime minister. Even though he didn’t vote for Mark Carney, he gave him credit for “finally bringing a business-like approach to government.”
Clark then listed seven priorities that Carney has set to accomplish. Two project management tools were mentioned by Jim: a Gantt chart and SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound). I am sure that Jim is not the only one to know of these well established and proven methods.
Starting in 2020, Carney was an informal advisor for the Liberal government on the COVID-19 pandemic economic response and four years later became chair for the Liberal Party task force on economic growth in September of 24.
So, for 4.5 years Carney had an opportunity to advise the government to incorporate the business management tools Clark has mentioned. I am just assuming that Carney is aware of said tools. Is it just now that Carney is prime minister he will “finally bring a business-like approach to government?”
I am not so sure that this is going to happen. The real question could be why have previous governments not done so or if they have how did it fail? What did they do wrong? We are where we are financially due to financial decisions and policies over the last 10 years. Over the last 4.5 years did Carney have no impact or influence on financial matters as he advised, to whatever capacity he was engaged in?
Some hold him as the economic Messiah to put Canada back on its feet financially, but it is very limited as to how a government can be run business like.
If I get a chance, I’ll send a letter underlining the benefits of the Gantt chart and SMART approach to the prime minister and he can decide if they are of any use.
Michael Thorp,
Mount Forest
‘Read carefully’
Dear Editor:
The government has tabled a bill in the House of Commons under the guise of border security and much else. Bill C2 has some common sense matters in it. However there are other things that lead me to question the planned intent. Talk about going after criminal organizations is fine and good but what defines a criminal organization? And what about sweeping powers and warrantless matters like opening mail, freezing bank accounts – broad powers potentially started by law enforcement alone.
Yes, some law enforcement support this. Of course they do.
The question needing to be asked is does or should law enforcement be given more power than they have already? There is no clear mention of what is widely supported: a mandatory removal of bail for criminal use of a firearm. And I don’t mean legal firearms owners, but the likes of car thieves out by lunchtime.
The use of financial measures noted above is reminiscent of the Freedom Convoy protests, during which many people had their bank accounts frozen, sometimes in error under warrantless Emergency Act orders.
I advise everyone to read carefully this law and be sure that you want your government and law enforcement to have such power, under the guise of “public safety.”
Doak McCraney,
Guelph
Flag ‘shame’
Dear Editor:
The brains of Centre Wellington were out late last night.
A number of flags being flown by homeowners along the street were torn down by the local anarchists.
It’s a shame that a statement of pride in one’s country needs to be destroyed by those who have none.
Dave Scharman,
Elora