Calling out Scheer over offside tweet
Recent letters have drawn attention to the fact that Andrew Scheer does not always tell the truth. Here is one of the worst examples (Toronto Star, Sept. 3, CTV, CBC, Sept. 2).
A rumour, started by a British tabloid, was circulating that the Liberal government was going to allow John Venables, a notorious convicted child killer, who abducted, tortured and murdered a two year old boy, to move to Canada from the UK. In June of this year, the UK authorities denied this was ever being considered as an option and stated that it would not happen. This rumour was categorically denied by the Liberal government and was even debunked by the National Post.
Notwithstanding these denials, Scheer brazenly tweeted the following on
Sept. 1: “Disturbing that this this pedophile child killer might come to Canada. Apparently this is not the first time that this has come up. As Prime minister I won’t let him come here. Where does Trudeau stand? Our country should not be a dumping ground for murderers, terrorists and perverts.”
Despite very considerable pushback from many people protesting this blatant lie, as of Sept. 10, he still had not removed the tweet.
Scheer is prepared to continue to use false information and blatantly disregard the truth for his own political purposes. Is this sort of person fit to lead the Conservative Party of Canada and lead the country?
How can we be expected to trust him and why should we believe anything that he says?
Finally and perhaps most importantly, using false material is bad enough but what sort of person uses false material about the murderer of a two year old whose parents must have had to relive this when Scheer’s tweet hit the British press. Words fail me.
Did you witness this hit-and-run?
Re: Hit and run
On Monday, Sept. 2, around 1:40 p.m. my red Chrysler 300 was hit from behind while stopped at a traffic light on Highway 97 and Edwards Road by a white pick-up towing a boat.
We were knocked into the intersection and the white pick-up turned right on Edwards from the middle lane and left the scene. There was substantial damage to our vehicle and it may be a write-off.
If anyone has any information regarding this accident could they please call the RCMP, file # 201955222.
Keep charging speculation tax
Peter Harrison from Victoria wrote about a friend who needed to pay nearly $50,000 in speculation tax (letters page, Sept. 5). In order to pay this amount of tax, the house would have to be worth around $2.5 million
And this is not even a principal residence.
I urge the provincial government to continue to charge this tax to help cool our overheated B.C. real estate prices.
Choosing energy over dairy farmers
As the writer of the “Comparing Oil with Dairy” letter, I accept the criticism of lacking a practical grasp of the dairy business — although I enjoyed Dan Needles’ “Wingfield’s World,” a charming fictional account of an ex-city slicker-turned-farmer and a must-read for all Canadians.
But, I do grasp economics, recognizing that our dairy supporter is a fan of centrally-planned economies. The praise for supply management and quotas leading to an “exquisite balance” would make Marx proud. But to many Canadians, it’s collusion, cartels, and an assault on our market-based economy. Great for producers when foreign goods are denied market access — but not so good for consumers. Perhaps that’s why the OECD estimates our dairy management system costs consumers
$2.6 billion per year.
Are there rotund dairy farmers wearing overalls stuffed with federal cash? Maybe dairy farming is the only profession aside from horse jockeys where there’s no obesity. And farmers might be wearing designer jeans instead of overalls. But, an October 2018 Maclean’s article used StatsCan data to estimate the average net worth of Canada’s 11,000 dairy producers at nearly $5 million in 2016, with annual income of $160,000. That compared to an average Canadian income of $43,500.
On oil, there were disparaging comments about $3.3 billiion of government subsidies to the energy industry, and high levels of foreign ownership. That subsidy estimate comes from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, certainly not a champion of fossil fuels. Less than half of those “subsidies” come from Ottawa to producers (much of the subsidy total is tied to lower provincial royalties), and there are some nebulous subsidy categorizations (e.g. flow-through shares). On foreign ownership, a 2017 TD report calculated that Canadian control of oil and gas production stood at 84%, and that is likely higher now as multinationals exit the pipeline-constrained Alberta market.
It was mentioned that a pipeline is in the works, thanks to the federal government, despite the opposition of both British Columbians and Albertans. That would be a distinct minority of British Columbians and Albertans. And if the federal government had originally taken a more supportive pipeline stand, it wouldn’t have been forced to wade into the pipeline ownership business.
Choosing between the struggling energy industry workers with their free market beliefs and the wealthy dairy producers reading Das Kapital? I’ll take the energy workers. Unlike Ottawa.