‘Let down’ by mayor
Dear Editor:
RE: Tense exchange over Boreham Park at Puslinch council meeting, March 28.
Wow! I am hearing impaired and am flabbergasted, embarrassed and ashamed with the behaviour of James Seeley, the mayor of my township, and other council members.
To actually threaten Helmuth Slisarenko with calling the OPP because he tried to say he could not hear; one would expect more. Especially in current times with educated awareness of people with disabilities.
Serious matters arise at any given moment for the police. To require an officer not to be available for an emergency in our township because they are required to remove someone from a council meeting – someone insisting he cannot hear what is being said – is unbelievable. We go to the meetings to hear what is going on in our township. Many of us are seniors.
Mr. Slisarenko was told if he wanted to address the gallery, he needed to submit a delegation request form. Really? All Mayor Seeley had to do was ask council members to please speak up. To me, this was a misuse of power and disrespect for the residents of Puslinch. I do not understand why no one on council or in the gallery supported Mr. Slisarenko in the moment.
Hearing loss affects many people as they age. Elected officials are expected to have enough people skills to be sensitive and accommodating to people with disabilities of all types.
Council would do well to have a system where people in the gallery can point to their ears when they cannot hear the speaker. I’ve seen it done quite successfully in meetings and have done it myself. Speakers often are unaware their voice has dropped and there is no crime in someone pointing it out. We go to meetings to hear.
Bruce Taylor says that Mr. Slisarenko should receive a written apology. To me the residents of Puslinch Township are deserving of an apology as well; we were let down. I urge Puslinch council to address this.
Judi Morris,
Puslinch
‘Axing’ benefits the rich
Dear Editor:
RE: What’s the difference? (March 28).
In December 2023 the CBC reported that according to Statistics Canada, in Ontario 94% of households with an income less than $50,000 receive more from the rebate than they pay in carbon tax. However, only 55% of households with an income greater than $250,000 receive more from the rebate than they pay in carbon tax.
Interesting. So, who benefits most from axing the tax? The rich of course!
Pierre Poilievre and Doug Ford, who claim they are looking out for lower-income families, are really looking out for themselves and the rich. In the case of Ford, that’s no surprise and I don’t expect anything different from Poilievre if he has his way.
Two things carbon tax critics fail to mention: if the tax increases so does the rebate, and if you don’t burn fossil fuels, you don’t pay the tax.
Neither the federal nor the Ontario conservative parties have an actual plan to address the climate emergency; at least not one that can be financially evaluated. They try to obscure that fact with the smoke and mirrors of their “axe the tax” campaign. The Conservatives, with typical lack of foresight, are content to let us burn, drown, starve or be blown away.
It’s not the tax that needs to be axed.
Ron Moore,
Hillsburgh
‘Way off the mark’
Dear Editor:
RE: Please reconsider, March 21.
Sue Mckenzie suggested in her letter to the editor that daycare providers are “doing it for a pay cheque, period.”
I was insulted to read that. I am a home daycare provider and I am not in it for a pay cheque only!
I provide high-quality home daycare because I truly love working with young children. It has always been my passion. To have my own home daycare was always a dream and I am so happy that for the last 11 years I have been able to provide a warm, loving and caring environment for children.
I know the children in my care inside out because I have very strong bonds with the children and their families. They become my extended families.
I have children who have gone off to school but still request to come back and spend a day with me because they miss being here. I have stayed in contact with families even after their children go off to school because I love those kids and miss them like crazy when they go to school.
I am very proud of my daycare. I work very hard to provide a loving space where children learn and grow. I know my families do not regret using me as their childcare provider because they know I love their children.
I will also say, I was a single teen parent so I had to use daycare for my son so I could finish high school and then go to college. What would your suggestion be to people in that situation? Stay home, not have a job to support their child, not continue their education so they could put food on the table, pay rent and clothe their children?
I found your letter highly insulting to those of us who have dedicated their lives to caring for children and to suggest people shouldn’t have children if they cant stay home with them?
I know I speak for many of the amazing providers in our area; to suggest we do this to only make money, you are way off the mark there.
Kathy Veniez,
Blue-Skye Childcare
‘Worthwhile endeavour’
Dear Editor:
RE: Please reconsider, March 21.
I want to thank Sue Mckenzie for sharing her concerns about children in daycare. She brought up a lot of valid points.
I was blessed to be a stay-at-home mom. Yes, there were some lean times. But I am so thankful that I could enjoy my children in the short time I had them.
I realize circumstances don’t always allow one parent to stay at home. But I also realize that society in general doesn’t value or encourage stay-at-home parenting.
I just want to concur with Sue Mckenzie. It is such a worthwhile endeavour if you can swing it. Raising the next generation is the single most important thing you can do as a parent.
Annette Van Grootheest,
Fergus
‘Incredulous thinking’
Dear Editor:
RE: Beliefs not shared, March 28.
So there really are people like Hank Davis who think that items, such as a holy book, should not be included in a public library because those books do not represent some element of shared belief in the public sphere. I find his rationale to be extremely parochial.
First, has Mr. Davis not read the first dozen words of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where the supremacy of God is acknowledged?
Secondly, is not any public library a community’s initial source of information for research on any topic? How would Mr. Davis expect the sincerely inquisitive mind do preliminary research on world religions, a topic which is frequently the source of human conflict, unless the local library has a contingent of holy books on its shelves?
Thirdly, extending his rationale, would Mr. Davis have all books on the environment, or on climate change, or on vaccination protocol, or on child rearing, or on any myriad of topics of public interest, removed from the library simply because his beliefs on these topics are “not shared” with other members of his community?
Incredulous thinking.
David Fast,
Ariss
‘Be an advocate’
Dear Editor:
Re: County politicians hesitant to declare intimate partner violence an ‘epidemic,’ March 21.
I was surprised at the politicians of Wellington County declaring that intimate partner violence is not an epidemic right now. I was also surprised at the results of the Advertiser’s Weekly Poll, where a majority were in agreement with these politicians.
This front page news article appeared in the same issue as a police report recording 12 spousal assault charges. I have never read so many reports of spousal assault charges in one issue. That in itself is evidence of something big going wrong in our community.
I was pondering why people would disagree with intimate partner violence being epidemic in proportion to other crimes. Perhaps many people do not know what it really looks like. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, it includes emotional, sexual and financial abuse as well as the obvious visually physical one most people think of as abuse.
Think of this: it is a crime to constantly yell at your spouse or intimate partner, to threaten or criticize, to intimidate or humiliate, to make fun of their beliefs, to destroy their belongings such as throwing things in anger in front of them, or to hurt their pets or even threaten to do so. These are considered crimes in Canada.
How often have you seen this happen between couples? I’m sure everyone can think of examples. It is a crime to touch them sexually without their consent. It is a crime to withhold money or limit their access to money to control them. It is a crime to neglect to provide food, clothing, health care, and medication.
And it is obviously a crime to hit, slap, punch, pinch or kick your spouse. If you take all these criminal activities into account and the cases that actually get reported in the newspaper (the tip of the iceberg), how can anyone not agree that we have an epidemic among us? Is building more shelters for women to escape abuse really addressing the root of the problem? Is this just not making it an acceptable societal behaviour (i.e. – men have a right to mistreat women)?
If you are experiencing any of the above crimes against you, please seek help. Tell your doctor or a trusted friend. Talk about it. Don’t hide what is happening to you to protect their reputation.
Be an advocate for all these abused women!
Dahl Atin,
Drayton
‘So brainwashed’
Dear Editor:
Years ago slavery was common, then we saw the light. Years ago women were not allowed to vote, considered property, then we saw the light. Years ago Black people were segregated, then we saw the light.
Years ago doctors recommended smoking cigarettes and you could smoke anywhere, then we saw the light. Years ago gay people were sent for lobotomies, then we saw the light.
Years ago seatbelts were not mandatory, then we saw the light. Years ago having a few drinks and driving was only slightly frowned upon, then we saw the light.
In hindsight all of these advances are common sense. We knew deep down that we had to change and we fought for those changes.
Well years ago we discovered that keeping wild animals in captivity is devastating, yet we continue to allow these attractions.
Years ago we discovered the harsh gruesome and cruel truth behind factory farming, yet we continue to allow these barbaric practices. Years ago we discovered that these factory farming methods, on both land and sea, are rapidly destroying our planet, yet we continue to allow those that profit to carry on.
Years ago we discovered that meat, dairy, sugar and processed foods can lead to increased risk of chronic illnesses (cancers, high cholesterol, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, etc.), yet we continue to deny the facts. We continue to close our eyes and believe in those that profit above our common sense.
What happened to us? We have become complacent and, quite frankly, stupid. I’m not talking about the people in power. They are not the stupid ones. They are the people that control your diet, your health and your future by selling you their product regardless of how it was produced and what it means to you. You’re so brainwashed that you fight their fight for them by denouncing what we should have learned by now.
We should be looking back on these things and celebrating that we saw the light before it was too late like we did years ago.
Deb Richard,
Harriston
Gun article ‘very wrong’
Dear Editor:
RE: Gun ownership is on the rise – and gun safety should be too, March 7.
Almost everything this person reports about gun safety and laws is very wrong.
Hunters can seek permission from a farmer to hunt on their land but they do not require written permission, only the agreement of the land owner (but if there are any “No Hunting” signs they must be covered or removed just in case a passerby or hiker accidentally walks on the property).
His storage comment is inaccurate as well. Firearms and ammunition can be stored together if they are in a safe; if only stored in a cabinet then ammunition is to be stored separately. However a safe or cabinet are not defined by the act and are subject to the assessment of court officials should a legal issue arise.
His statements regarding “antique guns” is grossly wrong. Any black powder manufactured before 1898 can be considered not to be a firearm, however anything produced after that absolutely is “gun” in the eyes of the law.
His entire discussion regarding permits and transport is also wildly over simplified and quite wrong. You require a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) in Canada to purchase, transfer or transport firearms. You only need an Authorization to Transport (ATT) when moving restricted firearms to and from a port of entry, a gunsmith or an appraiser. You don’t require one to go to the range. For hunting you require a PAL and a hunting license; they are separate and distinct.
The most egregious offence is the last line of the article; it violates the very first rule of firearms safety: treat every firearm as though it were loaded. To suggest that you accept the word of anyone on the condition of a firearm is the height of ignorance and recklessly irresponsible.
I’d like to stipulate that I am speaking on my own behalf and not representing any of the clubs, boards, certifying agencies or the firearms community at large.
I’m just a concerned citizen of this country that has tired of the serious lack of professionalism and integrity in the public discourse.
Gary Drummond,
Georgetown
‘Amazing’ support
Dear Editor:
I’ve been reading letters in response to the Radium Girls play that was shown at Fergus Grand Theatre in February. As part of the production crew, I am humbled that our show ignited conversation within our community.
These signs of support are motivational, and show what an exceptional town we have created together. From reading a Letter to the Editor, to hearing someone yell “great job with the play” out their window as I walk my dog, I feel so rejuvenated and excited to be a part of this community.
It is truly a collaborative effort, and I wanted to share with everyone some quick stats that demonstrate the creativity, support, excitement, and courage in making this play:
– over 50 volunteers brought this show to life;
– six graduates from the Fergus Grand Theatre Stage Technician Apprentice Program were in the cast and crew, three women ran lighting, sound, and projections who had never worked in the booth before;
– 14 dancers took the stage and 1,468 tickets were sold over two weekends;
– nine local businesses participated in promoting Radium Girls through window displays, giveaways, and interviews. Many others put up posters in their storefront windows;
– six professionals donated their time to give guidance during our tech week;
– three Centre Wellington Chamber of Commerce Award nominations; and
– one adjudication by the Western Ontario Drama League.
The Radium Girls story is dark and gruesome, but nuanced and loving. It is a risk to share in the discomfort of a story so intimate and so hard to accept. It is one thing when we all come together for the “warm and fuzzy” times (celebrations, festivals, etc., which are great), but it feels so good that we can also connect around issues with more complexity and sadness.
In the making of Radium Girls, I can trust that there will be more creative risks taken around me. There is nowhere I would rather be, than amongst the people that I can safely do that with. Thank you to all the cast, crew, production team, Elora Community Theatre, Elora Dance and Heart, Fergus Grand Theatre, patrons, supporters, and promoters. You are amazing!
Norah Wardekk,
Elora