Letters to the Editor

Bre-Anne Buhler and Kael Svendsen are suing the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Absolutely no sympathy

Dear Editor:

The story unveiled recently (Courier, Aug. 27) regarding two ex-foster children who are suing the Ministry of Children and Family Development must be some kind of joke.

The female in this story is the same one who just had time added to her sentence for a drug-fuelled crime spree which included a high-speed chase.

I have absolutely no sympathy.

People like this love to point the finger of blame at everyone else for their poor life choices. I have two friends I grew up with who were raised under less-than-ideal circumstances, to say the least, and both went on to become successful businessmen who own their own businesses.

When in a bad situation, people have two choices: sink into despair and hide behind a bottle and a needle, or find a way to rise above it and break the cycle.

If this doesn’t get laughed right out of the court room, and these people actually win (which wouldn’t surprise me, given the mucked up state of the legal system), this will set a precedent, and before you can say Jack Robinson, every single criminal who was brought up in the foster care system will try the same tactic.

Maybe criminals should just take responsibility for their poor choices and actions, and quit blaming everyone else for their colossal failures.

Mark Billesberger


Trump could lead us to war

Dear Editor:

Our southern neighbours are being led by a president that is sure to involve Canadians in a war that could get a lot of our young men killed. After having eliminated Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, the target now is Iran.

The situation continues to be somewhat confusing because during the Iraqi/Iranian war of 1980 to 1988, the U.S. was on the side of Iraq.When it was obvious that Iraq was going to lose, the U.S. pulled out of the conflict but maintained its forces in bases of friendly nations such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and others.

But, when the U.S. was attacked in 9/11, George W. Bush, et al decided that Iraq was to blame instead of Saudi Arabia, even though it was Saudi pilots that had flown the planes into New York’s Twin Towers.

When America invaded Iraq in 2003, its troops very quickly found their way into Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, but looked aside as locals took advantage of their hatred for Saddam and began looting the public and private properties of anyone and anything tied to the dictator.

Shops, banks, (although the dinar was worthless), even hospitals and nearly all government offices. The U.S. army sat back and watched the plundering of the ministries of planning, education, irrigation, trade, industry, foreign affairs, culture and information. They did nothing to prevent the looters from destroying or stealing Iraq’s historical treasures from Baghdad’s archeological museum.

However, the Americans put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries and guarded them from the outside with tanks, armoured carriers and Humvee jeeps — the ministry of the interior, with its wealth of intelligence information on Iraq, and its ministry of oil, with its archives and files of Iraq’s most valuable asset — its oil field locations and resources, perhaps the world’s largest, which Washington had intended to share right from the beginning with U.S. oil companies.

You must question the real reasons why the U.S. is now willing to engage in a war with Iran. Could the real motive be the capture of Iran’s oil industry, which, when captured would supply the only area state that has no oil of its own and has been pushing hard to get Trump to attack Iran on the fictitious claim that Iran has, and is prepared to use a non-existent nuclear arsenal?

Should Canada become involved, yet again, on behalf of our belligerent neighbour that seems to worry more about its own economic interests while claiming to be promoting world democracy?

Frank Martens


Ambrose set record straight

Dear Editor:

Recently, federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said that Canada “caved” in the NAFTA negotiations and “gave away the sovereignty of our system to the United States.” The NAFTA deal, he said, was “an historic humiliation.”

A day later, Rona Ambrose explicitly contradicted Scheer on NAFTA, saying: “At the end of the day, we came out doing well.” As the former interim leader of the federal Conservatives, she had no need to defend the Liberals.

Strangely, the suggestion that Canada should cave into U.S. demands was made much earlier, not by Liberals, but by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In July 2018, he urged the Liberal government to stop stalling and accept U.S. demands. However, the Canadian team remained firm and won new concessions, including a crucial concession on dispute mechanisms.

Who is Harper working for?

Harper made his NAFTA accusations during a visit to Washington in July 2018. During that visit, he spoke with powerful Republicans, including Larry Kudlow, Trump’s top economic advisor and Bob Paduchik, co-chair of the Republican national committee. Asked about these meetings, Harper said they had “some client context.”

In other words, he was representing clients as a consultant. He refused to name his clients.

Who is Scheer working for?

Scheer is regularly advised by Harper.

From the example of Ambrose, we know that the Conservative Party of Canada includes members who will not tell lies for partisan gain.

Why is Scheer not one of them?

Gary Willis


Time for us to pony up

Dear Editor:

I have been seeing the Andrew Scheer commercial where he says, “I have a plan” to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians.

I believe him.

While I don’t know his complete plan, I, like everyone else is fully aware of at least two aspects of his plan.

First, it is his plan to reduce the employers’ share of CPP (he terms it a payroll tax, notwithstanding this is not a tax — it is a reserve fund managed independently for Canadians’ retirement. The government contributes nothing).

His plan is to “force” people to save for their retirement. Of course, it will be voluntary savings. But, how do you force a person making $15 per hour to save for their retirement? This will, in fact, put money in the pockets of the poor and lower-middle class — at the expense of their retirement CPP.

But, Scheer didn’t lie.

What Scheer does disguise is that reducing the employers’ share of CPP is just another way of increasing shareholder value for the wealthy. The less expense the company has for employers’ share of CPP, the greater the profits for investors. Future retirees will require larger old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.

But, Scheer will not be around to answer for that.

Second, Scheer has made it clear that he will scrap the carbon emissions penalties, notwithstanding that most of the scientific community agree that it is the most economical and effective way to reduce emissions.

This, of course, will put money in our pockets — at the expense of the environment, our planet and our grandchildren. Since B.C. began implementing a carbon tax in 2008, carbon emissions have been reduced by 3.7% and B.C. GDP between 2007 and 2016 has risen 19%, proving that the carbon emissions penalty works with the economy.

For decades, all politicians have reduced taxes, at the expense of the country — strictly to get re-elected. Politicians have repeatedly kicked the can down the road to our children — and we, in our greed, have let it happen. It is time to pony up (especially the wealthy) for the sake of future generations.

Patrick MacDonald

West Kelowna

West should be separate

Dear Editor:

Well, I see that Unifor, a monopoly union, is advertising against the Conservative party. They are using members money to play politics.

Contrary to my own personal position, the Conservative government saved thousands of union jobs after 20088 recession.

You should ask yourself what recession, because Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s policies kept people working.

I was against saving these jobs because we would have more electric cars on the road if the Big Three went bankrupt.

Monopoly unions are losing membership and trying to steal more money from companies and workers getting way over-paid for the work that they do.

Now the reason they have hit the TV and newspaper with ads is because if Andrew Scheer gets in, he will pass a bill requiring unions to show financials and where the money goes. This law was passed under Harper, but our present prime minister cancelled this bill. The French have a great word for unions — les syndicates.

You also have to love the other re-call mandating the First Nation to provide financial statements to their members. Again, Justin Trudeau has recalled that bill.

We need to separate from Eastern Canada. We need a bill to recall the prime minister and elect our own for Western Canada .

Mike Polvere


Dash-cams compulsory

Dear Editor:

Why not make dash-cams compulsory for all new cars the way backup cameras are?

If all cars had a front and a rear facing camera and an event data recorder, police would know exactly what happened.

This would not only make sure the liability for an accident is fairly assessed, it would also greatly reduce the time roads would need to be closed for accident reconstruction.

As an added bonus it would improve the way people drive because everybody over the age of two knows, people behave better when they know they’re being watched.

A win-win for safety and keeping traffic moving.

S.I. Petersen