LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The importance of political rhetoric

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: The importance of political rhetoric

Dear Editor and those considering reading this letter,

The reason for my letter today is because I received Mr. Guy Lauzon’s recent campaign newsletter.

While I do not prescribe specifically to any political party at this point, I keep myself well-informed in terms of what each party ideology actually is, what the party actually says they will do, what the party does, and who they choose to place in leadership positions. I can only express my disappointment that Doug Ford was elected as party leader for the PC provincial government for the simple reason that his family history in politics is a colourful one – as Toronto City Mayor Rob Ford was videotaped literally smoking crack, Doug Ford supported and tried to undermine then current Chief of Police Bill Blair and the law. If I take into consideration the rash and seemingly illogical decisions he has made on many important subjects, not to mention getting easily investigable facts wrong, I feel alongside my millennial counterparts, that he does not reflect the type of metered, careful leadership that our province requires. Despite my belief that the individual is a poor choice, I do not disagree with the notions of the Progressive Conservative government in terms of maintaining economic order. Although it is counterintuitive for Ford et. al. to be fighting to make hydro a public good once again, when the party ideology clearly stands for private goods and services in a competitive market. It seems to me that hydro is a necessity, in Canada we always have access to electricity with the exception of major weather events, and that it comes at a decent price if you are conservative with your usage.

To return back to the topic of the recent newsletter; I am perturbed with the shamefully obvious rhetoric abused throughout. It would be thoroughly appreciated by myself, as well as many others I am sure, if the type of name calling and gossipy rhetoric used to slander other parties was kept to a tasteful minimum. While I appreciate receiving these newsletters, and would like to hear what Mr. Lauzon is actually doing, I am uninterested in becoming infuriated with the lack of responsibility taken for the actions of all parties within the government. To assume that the PC party in the same place would not have incurred debt, is to assume that one is God. That is to say, debt is a common factor in every election, for every leading party, and in some ways can be used to alleviate future debts. Let me give you an example, when you go to the grocery store and need one onion that costs $2, but you can get a bag of 5 onions for $4, would you get into $2 worth of debt by using your credit card instead of debit so that you would save $8 in the future? Any logical person would come to the conclusion that spending the extra $2 is a reasonable expense that will save you money in the long run, seeing as onions are relatively often used (by my use, anyway). Better yet, consider the debt students get into so that they can potentially get a job that would pay them better, so that they can have a good standard of living, and by extension pay more tax. So, tell me how investing in social services like OSAP and childcare, and providing free medication to the public so that they can be in a better position to pay more taxes in the future is a bad thing. I fail to see under a reasonable government, how that is justification for blame and finger pointing.

May I also add that contrary to popular belief, I rather enjoy paying my taxes. I like having social services available to those who need it, I like having police, paramedics, doctors and nurses who are able to live good home lives, I like to drive down my gravel road knowing that while I’d prefer a paved road other people who live

on busier streets get to enjoy that instead, and I believe that incomes should inflate alongside the cost of goods. With reason and an understanding of a good social structure, one can come to the conclusion that taxes are, in fact, a good thing. One need not even look, although it is helpful to, at examples of countries who do not pay much tax and in turn don’t have the social benefit of helping and being helped by each other. On the contrary there are plenty of examples of countries that pay more tax than we do, but give back to the people in terms of social benefits – such as “free” education, low-price childcare so that women can monetarily justify working, “free” healthcare, government mandated vacation times, etcetera. In countries who have these social benefits there is increased reported happiness and mental, physical and social well-being. These are all good things, this leads to a population that can easily carve a path for themselves which reflects personal abilities and interests as opposed to making career decisions based on potential standard of living improvement. Now, Canada is not far from being one of these socially progressive countries, and I fear that too often a rhetoric of dislike towards taxes is brandished about without proper consideration of the great benefits.

As for the use of a quotation by Justin Trudeau, “rising gas prices are “exactly what he wants”, I’m certain I don’t need to explain to the damage that taking quotations out of context will do, as it is clearly intended damage. Yes, rising gas prices means that there is a greater demand than is available – something a competitive market thrives on, I will add – but considering global warming and investments in bio-fuels, as well as the rise in availability of electric cars, is it not a good thing to discourage a necessarily bad thing? Sure, where individuals are dependent on gas to get to work, it is difficult, but we’re talking about putting pressure on big companies and individuals to do the right thing and to evolve beyond the pointlessly environmentally bad implications of gas. In Vietnam they have figured out how to use pig feces to create a bio-fuel that reduces the use of coal or wood burning in homes, in turn decreasing CO2 emissions and by extension increasing health and wellness. They do this in their backyards. I’m sure in rural Canada, with the plethora of meat production, there is plenty of feces to use in the same manner. Is that not an investment in the future that perhaps should be encouraged? If Vietnam can figure that out, why can’t a country as great as ours, nay a province as great as ours, do so as well?

Change cannot happen over night, it must be gradual, it must be planned and it must be encouraged. Rather than energy spent pointing fingers at each other, I’d like to see my municipal, provincial and federal governments come together to use their political ideologies and individual abilities such that good, progressive, and productive decisions are made in such a way that they reflect democracy.

To conclude, I am very grateful, Mr. Lauzon, for the hard work you do and the personal sacrifices you make every day to lead our district and to care for the individuals within it.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this letter.


Eden Lewis

Share this article