‘Combative rhetoric’
Dear Editor:
Pierre Poilievre’s promise to make Canada “the freest country on Earth” is another of his beguiling slogans—but it collapses under scrutiny.
His myopic vision of “freedom” is framed almost entirely as freedom from government: lower taxes, fewer regulations, and minimal public oversight. While this speaks to real frustrations about affordability and bureaucracy, it ultimately offers only a narrow, incomplete and deeply flawed notion of liberty.
Poilievre leverages grievance and personal animosity to distract from an agenda that is very likely to further reduce public services and deepen economic inequality. He has articulated his concept of freedom as a substantive contraction of the federal government, amounting to a doubling down on the good old neoliberal policies of deregulation, slashing taxes and defunding public services.
This, he claims, will “get government out of the way,” unleashing the power of the private sector. Canadians have repeatedly experienced the actual results of these austerity policies in action. They come with a steep cost: reduced access to health care and education, diminished environmental protections, deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate social services. For most Canadians, that’s not freedom – it’s neglect.
Is Poilievre unaware that Canada already ranks among the freest nations globally by most relevant measures—press freedom, democratic governance, judicial independence and civil liberties? Freedom is not simply the absence of government, it is the presence of opportunity, security, fairness and dignity.
It means protecting individuals from discrimination, not attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion under the guise of fighting “wokeness.” It means promoting supportive, vibrant communities and workplaces rich with potential and innovation.
Poilievre’s combative rhetoric pitting “elites” and “bureaucrats” against “ordinary Canadians” scorns the expertise and experience needed to address complex problems and corrodes trust in the institutions that sustain democratic life: the courts, the civil service, and the free press.
Dismissing every challenge as “gatekeeping” may be politically expedient, but reduces multifaceted societal issues to simplistic slogans. It reflects an antagonistic political discourse that is out of step with most Canadians, who want authentic, constructive dialogue.
To govern a modern democracy, one must do more than rail against bureaucracy. If Poilievre wants to build a freer Canada, he needs to tell us what that freedom really looks like, and what we’ll be asked to sacrifice in return, especially in the face of economic disruption and assaults on our sovereignty.
Jonathan Schmidt,
Elora
‘Grade 3’ math
Dear Editor:
Very simply, U.S. President Donal Trump’s tariff scheme is based on how much a country sells to the U.S. and how much a country imports from the U.S. So say a country exports $200,000 to the USA and only imports $50,000, then by dividing the imports into the exports you come up with the “Trump vision of the tariff rate.” This country is charging the U.S. 25% in this case. Which really is not a tariff, it just a difference in value, so now Trump will charge you a 25% tariff on all goods you import from the U.S.
But because American-produced products can never surpass all the products made in the world, it will most always have a deficit to most countries.
The Trump bottom line tariff amount is 10%, even if a country imports more than it exports to the U.S. Pretty simple (Grade 3) math from this so-called new administration.
Thank goodness he has not applied this to Canada this round, but hang on to your wallet, it’s not over yet.
Paul Roberts,
Fergus
‘Business 101’
Dear Editor:
Prime Minister Mark Carney is certainly well spoken, but like his predecessor tends to mislead us with his speeches. Ever wonder why U.S. President Donald Trump has never complained or had a fit like when premier Ford put tariffs on electricity?
The reason is simple: our tariffs include umbrellas, walking sticks and candles. A more extensive list can be found on the federal web site.
The bottom line in my humble opinion is that we are not being serious with the bully and like the Liberals of the past, who put us in this precarious position, we need to drive our independence.
For example, by completing the natural gas line to the west and preparing to ship LNG. India uses coal for all of its energy, contributing approximately 30% of the greenhouse gas. By converting a small percentage of coal usage will do more than we will ever do by penalizing industry here. This would create employment and increase our GDP.
The $30 billion collected from the gas tax never moved the needle on our greenhouse creation. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau thumped his chest for dropping the level but neglected to add the CO2 from forest fires.
Business 101 teaches that to depend on a major customer for business is suicide. We must work hard at creating a broader market base or continue to be the whipping post for the U.S.
Michael Fleming,
Fergus
Poilievre’s ‘idol’
Dear Editor:
RE: Only one candidate? (April 3).
Mr. Lancaster, you are right on the money. Whether you are qualified or not, if you are Conservative, you are in. This is unfortunate. As other writers have noted, this is a critical election and the future of Canada hangs on it.
For more than two years, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has modelled his political approach on Donald Trump, enjoying the time when he was supported by both Trump and Elon Musk.
Now Trump, in his effort to help Poilievre, is trying reverse psychology and saying he would rather have a Mark Carney-led Liberal government in power. Who is kidding who? Trump would rather have a like-minded politician like Poilievre in Ottawa who he can manipulate and bully into getting what he wants.
Trump wants Canada to be the 51st state and there is no way Poilievre can stand up to his idol.
Please, fellow Canadians, don’t vote on auto pilot. Think about what your choice is and if you really want to join the United States. Believe me, I spend enough time down south to know I do not.
Sandra Solomon,
Centre Wellington
‘Unaccountable’
Dear Editor:
Dear Conservatives: If you don’t want to look like Trump, don’t act like Trump.
Extreme message control from elected governments. We see it with the U.S. president. If we elect Poilievre will we see it here?
Poilievre started down this path when the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) barred the media from campaign planes and buses. This breaks a decades-old tradition of media access to party leaders as they vie for your vote. Poilievre has shielded himself. Safe from reporters reporting on unscripted moments.
It has been reported that questions after Poilievre’s speeches are limited to four in total with no follow up. CPC staffers attempt to screen reporters’ questions. They request that reporters divulge their questions, with the insinuation that declining will exclude you from the chosen four. Who gets a question is chosen last minute with party staffers holding the microphone, ready to snatch it away if things go off script. The one question allotted to the CBC in the week was taken away when the Conservatives did not agree with who would be asking it.
On the public wharf in Petty Harbour, N.L., CPC staffers shoved reporters away when they attempted to question the local candidate before Poilievre’s speech.
Campaign politics is obviously partisan, but there is a difference between partisan and unaccountable. Like it or not the media’s job is to ask party leaders tough questions that the public would like to know the answers to. Otherwise, welcome to Fox News.
Robert Mitchell,
Fergus
Tesla backlash
Dear Editor:
The actions of Tesla CEO Elon Musk have infuriated many people globally, resulting in product boycotts, demonstrations and vandalism. I wanted to share a few perspectives on this from someone who has been a Tesla customer since 2019.
First, I am as infuriated by his actions as anyone. His comment that “Canada is not a real country” and his continued focus of cutting U.S. government services like they were a poorly performing business unit, with a total disregard to the lives impacted and lost from these actions, is quite appalling.
His government role and support to the Trump administration is such a blatant conflict of interest for someone who maintains his role of CEO to companies that will benefit from many of his actions makes me realize that he has a significant lack of integrity and business ethics.
People are rightly angered by all of this. I support the peaceful demonstrations and decisions not to buy his products. There are now many other non-Tesla products on the market as good if not better and built by companies with far better business ethics.
However, along with the various boycotts and demonstrations, there are also calls for current Tesla owners to “sell their cars” and some are vandalizing Tesla vehicles. These actions are misdirected.
If I sell my car, which is depreciating in value by every hour Musk stays in his multi-dimensional roles, someone else will buy it and it will still be on the road and I will be “punished” by taking a loss in value. No impact to Tesla or Musk – just me.
Worse yet is vandalizing currently owned vehicles to make some sort of statement against Tesla. This creates an insurance headache for the owner and even further reduces the vehicle’s resale value.
I bought my original Tesla back in 2019 due to its industry-leading technology, safety and zero emissions benefit to the environment. I still believe more of us need to reduce carbon emissions that are linked to climate change. Electric vehicles, rooftop solar and other clean energy options will all help. And electrification is local. Electric energy is generated and distributed in Canada by Canadians.
Targeting current Tesla owners/drivers and their vehicles will not impact Tesla. Sure, demonstrate and convince people that now is not the time to be supporting Tesla through new purchases. That action has a direct impact on Tesla’s bottom line.
I have personally found what I believe is a better EV and I am planning to trade my current Tesla for it. But please leave current Tesla drivers and their vehicles alone. We are doing something positive for our planet and most of us are on your side!
Dale Clarke,
Fergus
‘Zombie drivers’
Dear Editor:
The recent large number of letters about the photo radar installations in town shows how serious the speeding situation really is and how low the standard of driving has become.
I never really noticed until I moved into town. Most of the letters admit to speeding but “not by much.” The fact of the matter is most people don’t seem to know what speed they are doing – I call them “zombie drivers.” They get into their car, usually late for something, and just go, with no regard whatsoever for the environment or anything else for that matter.
Some letters seemed to indicate that they could not pass a driver’s test. It is not as big a concern out on the main highways, but within town limits drivers need to understand that they must obey all speed limits all of the time and not arbitrarily decide not to do so.
Because of this bad behaviour, we are now seeing the results, with these radar sites and how traumatic they can be to your wallet. Apart from safety factors, these limits reduce both noise and emissions in town and it is up to the driver to monitor and observe these clearly-posted signs and not to randomly ignore them as many do.
So in a nutshell people: you asked for trouble and now we all have to live with it.
Mac McCulloch,
Fergus
Cameras ‘liberating’
Dear Editor:
It seems the new speed cameras in selected areas of our community have caught the attention of many people. Rather than trying to determine the real reasons for implementing them, I would suggest that the cameras are effective.
I drive past a set of these electronic policemen if you will, every day to and from work. In the first weeks after the cameras were put in place, my son, who rides with me to work, needed to remind me a number of times about the speed I was driving. It has taken some time to change my habit, but mostly I remember to drive slower.
Sometimes I forget and find myself speeding again and other times I don’t remember, but then discover that I am actually driving at the reduced speed. We are creatures of habit, you know. Imagine my surprise last week when I came through another hamlet and subconsciously found myself slowing down right to the posted speed limit. Is this change of habit not evidence that speed cameras are effective?
It seems that it is human nature to want to drive at a speed just slightly lower than the edge of getting ticketed. The speed camera debate brings this into perspective, since the Wellington County officials have been asked numerous times about the time and speed thresholds of the cameras. They have wisely declined sharing that information, since it would certainly impact the effectiveness of the cameras.
I suspect that in the early days of speed limits and enforcement, there was only a small gap between the posted and the ticketed speed, but it certainly has widened. With this ever-widening gap every driver is forced to interpret what the intended speed is in relation to the posted speed limit.
The use of speed cameras in targeted areas could well be a method to change the common perception of the posted speed limits. Let’s suppose if this program was implemented on all roads, or further yet, if our speeds were monitored utilizing GPS and vehicle technology, then traffic speeds could be maintained to consistent and safer speeds. Then the posted speed limit would become the actual maximum speed limit. I think the use of the new speed cameras is a way to accomplish that in the targeted areas.
If the advent of speed cameras is to confirm that the posted speed limit is truly the speed limit, then I welcome them and rather than finding them restrictive, I consider speed cameras liberating.
Darrell Frey,
Palmerston
‘Stop whining’
Dear Editor:
I just could not resist. I have been reading all the letters complaining about the speed cameras at our schools and the speeding tickets you received.
All I can say is, you were told “speed cameras are coming.” They posted signs at the schools saying “speed cameras are coming.”
They posted signs that say “speed cameras are here.” Yet you still chose to speed.
Pay the ticket and stop your whining.
Ken Johnston,
Fergus
Speed problem
Dear Editor:
I have read opinions on our speed cameras with some interest. It seems to me that a larger issue is being missed: that is, the reason they were introduced in the first place.
Clearly they were intended to enforce speed limits in designated areas. Many of the arguments I’ve read are around the speed limits themselves, the fines or signage, the ability of drivers to make their own decisions about how fast they may drive and when. I don’t believe these are the point, but they do add to the overall conversation.
We have speed limits because drivers, as a group, cannot be counted on to behave responsibly. Certainly, there are good and safe drivers out there, but we only have to turn a few pages, in this very paper, to find many examples of accidents, ridiculous speeding, driving with improper documentation, impaired operation, dangerous, unsafe and careless driving and more.
These speak to our enforcement of the laws we all agreed to abide by. Speed cameras are only one way of enforcing our agreed-upon speed limits.
If we don’t agree with these rules, we can work to change them. Speed cameras aren’t positive or negative, they merely record our behaviours. Simply put, if you got a ticket from a speed camera, you were breaking our agreed-on rules.
You don’t think we have a problem with speed in Wellington County? I challenge you to drive for a week, meticulously obeying the speed limits, to the kilometre per hour.
You’ll be tailgated, passed, both safely and unsafely, honked at, and maybe even receive a few hand gestures! And you will arrive at your destination within a minute or two of your usual time.
By the way, if you’re not experiencing this already, then you may well be part of the reason we need speed cameras.
Avon Giddings,
Centre Wellington
‘Falsehoods’
Dear Editor:
I am very concerned about Maple MAGA’s intimidation of the media.
Why did you get rid of fact checking? Why do you think it is okay to present a one-sided view of life? Why are you siding with MAGA? Why are you siding with Trump?
I read, walk, swim and crochet instead of watching TV. I read newspapers and fact check and then write to the powers that be.
Stop bowing to falsehoods or the ones that threaten to defund “society.”
Don’t bow down to trolls. Stand up to them. Let them threaten you, maybe do a show or article telling everyone what they said and how you did not bow down and worship them.
All I can say is you are spineless for allowing people to stomp on the truth and you are helping to spread falsehood information.
Lucy Dyment,
Fergus
Signs ‘disappeared’
Dear Editor:
RE: Only one candidate? (April 3).
A letter recently appeared mentioning that only one candidate’s campaign signs are visible in parts of Wellington-Halton Hills North.
I was involved in many election campaigns for a different party in Wellington ridings and was the “sign manager” in a couple of these.
Our experience was that typically 30% of our signs disappeared before the election including almost all those on public property (e.g. street corners) and quite a few on private property.
I would not be at all surprised if that is continuing to happen.
Mike Fich,
Erin