Internet access ought to be issue
Re: Conservatives campaign on internet access, Herald, online
I feel a bit confused by this article, opinion piece, press release or a category yet to be named. It comes across as quite partisan with heavy emphasis on the Conservative position. I'm pleased all parties have a strong position on internet access.
More high-speed rural access the better too. And I like the idea of smaller companies having an opportunity to bid on rural access.
But I find it hard to endorse the Conservative plan that doesn’t show clear benefits, not unlike competing party internet offerings that “are similarly vague and uncosted.” I hope we retain other forms of communication.
I have been deeply concerned for years about the fragility of our electrical grid that powers all our communications technology. I'm beginning to think individual or community solar installations are as critical as sweeping high-speed internet connections, rural or urban.
If we can't power up effectively, encouraging competing small company bids to provide rural access mean nothing.
Apartment idea ill-suited to Skaha
My wish is that city council does not approve of the proposed apartment development across from Skaha Lake Park.
The proposed 180 units is too many. The number of proposed parking spots at 275 is also inadequate for the size of the development and the rendering looks like something from the Soviet era.
Consider if you will, the number of events that take place in and around the marina, now including the Ironman. The streets around the park are clogged with vehicles and boat trailers through to the first week of September.
In addition, there is only one crosswalk on South Main from the park north to the Seniors Drop-In Centre.
I hope that the mayor and council will reject this proposal.
Scheer should be more forthcoming
So: Andrew Scheer’s bio said he got a bachelor’s degree from the University of Regina – but he didn’t. Scheer says he was an insurance broker – but he wasn’t. He broke Saskatchewan law when he claimed he was accredited – when he wasn’t (he was a clerk in an insurance office).
Scheer did not disclose his dual citizenship – because “nobody asked me.” Yet he is on record complaining about other politicians, including a governor general, having dual citizenship.
Scheer would not disclose during the French-language debate that he was pro-life, nor would he deny that he would not allow his MPs to put a motion to re-open debate on the subject.
Scheer made misleading statements about many issues – especially Liberal foreign aid. He is the least forthcoming of all party leaders and continuously attempts to form the most politically correct answers. He skirts the issues. No straight answers.
Scheer complains about the Liberals using two aircraft during the campaign – notwithstanding that the Liberals paid offsetting carbon charges. His answer on the Conservatives one-plane use is that it uses less fuel – but no carbon offset was paid. Laughable observations in the overall scheme of things.
Scheer’s plan is to “put more money” in our pockets, but the only people who benefit from tax credits are the people who can afford to make the initial expenditure. Too poor to enrol your children? Then you get nothing. Make no mistake – tax credits only benefit those who can afford to make the expenditure up-front, and it is a Conservative standard.
He has also stated that he will consider reducing the employers’ share of CPP – a direct benefit to wealthy shareholders – and a direct reduction of future CPP payments to seniors.
The day following the French debate Scheer said he will not allow his MPs to reopen the abortion debate. Do you believe him, with his veracity record?
Do you really believe that Scheer and the Conservatives are the party to implement policies that are in the best interest of our citizens? A country is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable. Past history speaks for the Conservative party – and it is found lacking (for other than wealthy shareholders).
One of the biggest cons of the 21st Century is Reaganomics and the “trickle-down theory” – a theory implemented by the rich for the rich. And it is embedded in Conservative policy at both federal and provincial levels. It is the wealthy who contribute to political campaigns.
Tories would just copycat the U.S.
So, let's get this straight. In the world according to Andrew Scheer, there is apparent climate change which might be man caused. Accordingly, to meet Harper-era emissions standards, Mr. Scheer would impose stern regulations on industry so as to reduce emissions, yet none of the costs of these reductions would filter through to prices at the gas pumps or our home gas meters. Yeah, right!
At the same time, Mr. Scheer will bring us a Trump-like 25% reduction to government regulation of industry.
Canada would follow America and move Canada's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Mr. Scheer declares. That should show the world who calls the shots in Canada. In another reform to foreign policy, Mr. Scheer's Canada would make U.S.-like cuts to foreign aid at the time when Canadians are richer than at any time in our past.
Next, Mr. Scheer would have Canada follow America's lead by ordering our border agency to get tough and stem the flow of refugees, asylum seekers and perhaps even qualified immigrants. Can incarceration of families with children be far off?
Let us also have a general Trump-style tax cut, says Mr. Scheer. His proposed tax cut at the lowest marginal rate is a cut to all earners, even the million-dollar guys. He couples this with a myriad of targeted tax breaks and credits. Tax reduction when we are already running deficits and the economy is steaming along? How Trumpian is that!
I do get it. Canada cannot share a continent with the world's largest and most dynamic economy without generally adopting similar monetary and fiscal policy, but it does not coerce us to be copy cats.
Canada needs to be an achiever, not a denier, in the carbon emissions battle.
Canada needs to continue to be a beacon of hope where diverse populations (of race, religion, language, dress and sexual orientation) can live in harmony while striving for a better life.
Canada needs a common sense approach to economic and social policy, not narrow populism and shoddy right-wing ideology.
Do not relax, Mr. Trudeau. Your environmental policies are better than those of your chief rival, but no home run! Liberal policies are pretty sketchy and your record of delivery on promises remains 50-50 at best.
Canada deserves better than Trump-lite or Trudeau-reformed. It is truly time for a change.
People’s Party is misunderstood
The People's Party of Canada had several of their signs broken or defaced recently in our riding.
Some of the signs were painted with a stencilled message "FASCIST" over the name of the candidate (indicating a pre-planned action rather than just random graffiti).
The People's Party has had that fascist label thrown at it before but this label is inaccurate.
The party's core principles are individual freedom, personal responsibility, fairness and respect. These are not just words, but commitments.
The very term fascist connotes yielding personal freedom for the greater good of the state; this is diametrically opposite to the PPC's fundamental beliefs.
Compare the PPC’s policies to the other parties and ask yourself which of the parties displays the trappings of the fascists (per Webster’s dictionary: centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation of business and commerce and forcible suppression of their opposition and criticism).
Destruction of PPC signs is a clear suppression of opposition.
So too was the initial decision to exclude the PPC leader, Maxime Bernier, from the debates.
Voters should inform themselves of the platform of the People’s Party and of their local candidate, Allan Duncan, in order to understand how they differ from the traditional parties.
PPC does indeed propose to make big changes to Canada’s political structure (including smaller government, freedom of expression, control of government spending, rejection of climate alarmism, regulation of immigration and rejection of globalism) but these are definitely not, in any way, fascist. Quite the opposite.