Letters Sept 7: After U.S. midterms, the truth will be evident; thank capitalism, not bureaucracy

After U.S. After U.S. midterms, the truth will be evident The narrative surrounding Prime Minister Mark Carney acting as the 'adult in the room' has become a defining theme of his leadership, particularly highlighted by his measured handling of recent trade friction with the United States. Although, domestic actors continue their efforts to discredit the PM and the Liberal government, last week's byelection results offer a reality check to the naysayers' narratives. Quietly, the Liberal government is expanding our market share within the defence sector, which must be a concern to the Trump administration. Additionally, Alberta's slowdown in production for routine scheduled maintenance is due to get Trump's further attention. It happens every year and everyone in the energy sector know that this event was coming – scheduled and totally normal. The Canadian crude flow is suddenly threatening to become a catastrophic crisis for the USA. Add to the fact American oil refineries are beyond red line production, and the Venezuelan oil deal will not have the positive effect Trump toots today. Because of the Trump administration's reckless and catastrophic war in the Middle East, day diesel prices have spiked, just as harvest season arrives in the U.S. The increased cost affects harvest production and cost to transport product for refinement and markets, driving costs to average Americans up, all of which occurs just before the midterms. At the end of the midterms, Americans who support him – in the U.S., as well those misfortunate outside of the U.S., will come to realize that they have been duped. William Perry Victoria How do they define conflict of interest? With the municipal election just around the corner I'm questioning a few things. One of which is campaign donations – who they come from and who accepts them. When we vote we choose to put that X beside the candidate that we believe will make decisions that closely align with what we would like to see for ourselves and our municipality. When we contribute funds to a candidate's campaign we are saying we back them and believe in them. Contributions must be given by individual residents because corporate and union contributions are not allowed. The problem I am having is that in checking contributions given to candidates last term I can see many individuals from the same companies all donating the maximum amount towards the campaigns of a number of candidates. While not technically considered a conflict of interest the optics of expectations are there and this creates a perceived conflict of interest. A perception such as this can be a conflict in itself. So here's the question I am asking myself: Do I wish to vote for a candidate that takes campaign donations from individuals of companies that have current applications, from those who bid for municipal contracts, or from those who buy or sell district property? My answer is 'no'. Taking these contributions instills in me a sense of uncertainty towards the candidate because I can never be sure that decisions are/were made without bias. It would be difficult to accept funds from someone and then try to forget it when deciding on their project, contract, or transaction. The optics of conflict of interest makes a decision I may disagree with that much harder to take. It's high time there were some changes to the election contribution rules and clearer definitions of conflict of interest. Jan Ellison Saanich Compulsory care, not free reign Shelters for drug addicts are a waste of taxpayer's money. Drug addicts will turn a new shelter space into a garbage dump within a week, and their mental health and addiction issues will not improve one iota in that space. Why do we allow drug addicts to roam freely on our streets and in our parks? The reason we don't allow our children to run amok in the streets is because they are unable to look after themselves. Drug addicts are not able to look after themselves either. You need only stroll the downtown blocks of Pandora Avenue in Victoria, or East Hastings Street in Vancouver to see this truth. Just like any other incapacitated group in our community, drug addicts need compulsory care, not free reign. If their parents are unavailable to assist them, then the community ought to provide mandatory physical and mental health care for the addict. A compulsory care facility would benefit drug addicts with warm shelter, healthy food, clean clothing, therapy, rehabilitation, and drugs as needed. Taxpayers, businesses, and our health care services would no longer suffer the harm and consequences of allowing drug addicts to roam the streets freely. The expense of compulsory care facilities would be well worth the investment. Sharon Eddy North Vancouver Thank capitalism, not bureaucracy Re: 'Governments invest in our common future,' letter, Sept. 1. The writer is grateful for the 'economic gains created by government spending from 1945 to 1980.' Boy, could he ever use a course in political economy. Government spending, especially in Britain, helped that battered country survive long enough to climb back on its feet, industrially and economically. It was also of some value in Canada as this country transformed to a more urban population. But the heavy lifting that transformed the Western nations to their preeminent status was good old 'free enterprise,' growing out of the war economy that defeated the Axis. And until Trudeau the First came to power, it was accomplished without parasitic government deficits. Meanwhile, the government 'programs' that the letter celebrates went from practical and promising beginnings to the unwieldy and insolvent empires that suck our blood today. Once-vaunted Medicare is bursting at every seam. And the 'success' of the social welfare programs is available for viewing on Pandora Avenue and in the tent cities that have colonized our parks. We didn't have any of those back in the 1960s. Meanwhile, the national debt (Trudeau the Second's gift to the nation) has soared from the billions to the trillion level, the deficit is ratcheting up by the minute, and the annual cost of servicing it is the single biggest line-item in the budget. Nor is there likely to be any relief from these numbers as long as we have our bloated public bureaucracy weighing the whole enterprise down. But it turns out that this is ok because it's not actually 'spending,' it's 'investment.' Well — that definitely is what they want you to believe. Michel Murray Saanich Why are we following the tariff trail? Re: 'Won't Canadians also be punished,' letter, Aug. 27. It's nice to see that someone gets it. The author of the letter stating that Canada is cutting its nose off to spite its face is right on point. If anyone would just take a step back from the flag-waving elbow's up rhetoric and take a critical look at what's really happening they might actually notice that an imposed tariff is a tax on your own citizens. Canadian economists expect Canada to collect $1 billion per month in tariff and the American government is poised to collect $177 billion in tariff revenue this year alone. So, explain the logic of imposing tariffs to match Donald Trump's taxing of his own people? Saying it hurts the Americans is fine but, remembering we're much like the economic variant of the mythical Country of Grand Fenwick when dealing with the American behemoth, having matching tariffs does nothing to help Canadians. Especially since our exports are still being taxed by the Americans at the stated 50% whether we impose reciprocatal tariffs or not. It seems counter-intuitive to not just sit back and let Trump tax the American people into poverty, instead of following his lead. Which, by the way, everybody in Canada is screaming is stupid? The Americans are already suffering from the Trump's tariffs so making Canadians follow suit defies all logic and it's going to take a long time for our counter-tariffs to have any effect, if they ever do. I thought we as a country were smarter than that. Kip Henderson Nanaimo Please don't tell others how to live their lives It is easy to understand why Premier David Eby would want to discourage travel to the U.S. or the purchase of American products: Anything to distract from his hapless tenure as premier. What is more difficult to fathom is the hubris of private citizens who write letters demanding the same. My daughter lives in Washington and her husband and my grandsons are American citizens. My wife and I travel to the U.S. multiple times a year and will continue to do so. Also, while we are there we will purchase anything that strikes our fancy. I have no intention of telling others where to travel and reciprocal consideration seems to be reasonable. Barry Robbins Victoria We found the Albertans! They are up-Island Re: 'Where have all the Albertans gone?,' letter, August 19. They have gone up-Island. They are all in Qualicum Beach and Parksville. Lynda Kaye Parksville Referendum would give voters their say Regarding the many recent letters about amalgamation, I have but one thing to say to the citizens of Saanich: 'Are you nuts?' Hold a referendum. I know where I would put my money. Michael Becevel Langford E-bikes can cause serious fires I have serious reservations regarding the recent introduction of Lime lithium-ion battery e-bikes. Not only does this mean more bicyclists on the road, with many ignoring the rules of stopping at stop signs and at red lights, signalling and wearing helmets, but these same lithium-ion batteries, when misused or not properly maintained, cause fires … including 'flashovers' whereby within 90 seconds the entire surrounding area is destroyed. Caveat emptor. … Buyer beware! Margot Todd Victoria SEND US YOUR LETTERS • Email: [email protected] • Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5 • Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity.