Letter writer ‘wrong’
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Control agendas’? (July 20).
The writer states that our wildfires are not unprecedented at all. He is wrong. This year is the most land ever burned by wildfires in Canada’s history, data from Natural Resources Canada shows.
Previous metrics peg the highest number of hectares burned in 1989 with approximately 7.6 million hectares. This year it is already at 10 million hectares and the fire season is not half over.
The writer also states that Canada’s emissions represent a mere 1.6% of man’s CO2 emissions which is true. He fails to state that Canada’s population is only 0.5% of the world population. This means that per capita the average Canadian has three times the emissions of the average person in the rest of the world.
We certainly cannot bring our emissions down to zero, but we should aim to bring it down a lot lower than 1.6%.
Brian Paleczny,
Inverhaugh
Missed the point
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Control agendas?’ (July 20).
As Peter Mandic suggested, I checked the Canadian National Fire Database and the previous Canadian record was more than 7.3 million hectares burned in 1989. This year in Canada, 10 million hectares had already burned by July 15, and we are only about a third of the way through summer!
Seems unprecedented to me any way you look at it.
Mandic went on to write that Canadians don’t need to worry about our emissions, nor about a livable future for our grandkids. I disagree!
CO2 emissions per capita in 2020 were: 13.6 tonnes for Canada, 7.8 tonnes for China (43% less than Canadians), 6.7 tonnes for Norway, 6.6 tonnes for Finland and 3.2 tonnes for Sweden. Most of the population of the last three countries live farther north than most of Canada’s population. We have no reason to be smug. As members of the world population, we should do our part to reduce our emissions to at least that of the Chinese.
Peter Mandic chose to ignore the point in my letter (‘Time to ‘Wake Up,’ June 22), that farmers have an opportunity using biologically enhanced agricultural management (BEAM), to grow healthier food more profitably and sequester carbon in the soil. Government has an opportunity to help farmers make the transition to BEAM, a known and tested technique for aggressively sequestering carbon, instead of wasting tax dollars on the fossil fuel industry to research unproven techniques for storing carbon, and worse yet, pay for a pipeline to further support a dying industry.
What’s not to like about farmers winning, the environment winning and taxpayers winning?
Ron Moore,
Hillsburgh
‘Back from the brink’
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Control agendas?’ (July 20).
Peter Mandic of Fergus writes that it’s time to get educated about climate change and our need to rely on science for the truth.
Climate scientists have been urgently pleading for the past 30 years that humans need to phase out burning fossil fuels for energy, or we will pay a shocking, Earth-changing price for dragging our heels. And here we are in 2023, burning more coal, oil and gas than ever, and – surprise? – we’re now experiencing record-high average world temperatures that have not been experienced on this planet for over 100,000 years.
We have been lucky here in southwestern Ontario so far this summer to have dodged the prolonged and suffocating heat waves that have scorched many parts of the world. Record temperatures have been nearing the limits of human survival in China, Japan, the Middle East, Italy, Greece and many southern and western U.S. states.
Even Exxon’s own scientists knew as far back as 1977 that the burning of fossil fuels could lead to catastrophic climate change, but its executives chose to bury the evidence and carry on “business as usual” making trillions in profits while playing Russian roulette with life on Earth.
Seriously, Mr. Mandic, we are indeed looking at a future that is not livable, unless we act fast on conservation and non-fossil energy solutions – many now cheaper than oil and gas – we know can bring us back from the brink.
Liz Armstrong,
Erin
’Be who you are’
Dear Editor:
RE: Axe pride, prevent hate? (June 29).
I was surprised at Mr. Brunsveld’s suggestion that the best way to prevent attacks on the LGBTQ2S+ community would be to axe Pride. He and I have disagreed in the past and that’s fair. As he says, we have freedom of expression. I would suggest he rethink his argument. I’m guessing he has not thought his all the way through.
If the logic is that we prevent violence by removing the target of the violence then it could easily be extended. In June and July of 2021, 68 Christian churches were vandalized or burned (after the discovery of unmarked graves on the sites of Residential Schools). Surely if we just axed visible churches these attacks would stop? Sound ridiculous? Now you know how I felt when I read his suggestion.
Pride is about affirming the rights of LGBTQ2S people. It is about the broader community saying love who you want to love, be who you are, live how you want to live. It is about teaching acceptance and tolerance. What happened to teaching “love thy neighbour as thyself?” What happened to (paraphrased) “let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
It seems to me that rather than axing Pride, we need to more emphatically teach tolerance, acceptance, empathy, and (gasp) even love. Mr. Brunsveld’s response reinforces the need for Pride. Rather than axing Pride to reduce violence, how about we reduce violence to reduce the need for things like Pride?
I struggle to understand how Pride, gay marriage, or other hard won rights, infringe on Mr. Brunsveld’s freedom of religion, his freedom of expression, or his parental rights. He clearly has the right to speak against Pride – I am responding explicitly to his expression. We have not infringed on his freedom of religion. He can worship as he pleases and believe what he chooses to believe.
If simply the existence of rainbow crosswalks, Pride flags, and government proclamations about Pride infringes on his freedom of religion, how do we deal with Christmas and Easter holidays for people of other faiths? His freedom does not allow him to infringe on freedoms of others. The parental rights argument is also fraught. No one is limiting his right to teach his children what he wants. He can take his kids to church. He can choose a private religious education for his children. He cannot, however, decide what all children learn in a public education system. We’re not teaching people to be gay here.
While I don’t expect that I will change Mr. Brunsveld’s mind, I felt it important to express mine. If we don’t stand up for our LGBTQ2S friends, associates and family members, who will?
Michael von Massow,
Elora
‘Masquerading’
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Wrongfully mistreated,’ July 20.
We are witnessing, in a neighbouring country, a concerted war of ideologies. Being laid waste in this conflict are the legal rights and privileges that many had enjoyed for decades. The plight of an innocent 10-year-old girl comes immediately to mind as a casualty of this social control masquerading as morality.
As an innocent child myself, I was confronted with elements of dogma, prior to the logical and reasoning aspects of my mind being fully developed. Regrettably, I now regard this as both unfair and unfortunate.
In that context, I have found it both wise and worthwhile to evolve away from childhood notions and reassess the thinking in the light of new experiences and emerging realities.
I will attempt to refute Pat Woode’s reasoning in being opposed to medical assistance in dying (MAID), point by point.
1) The use of the word ‘kill’ in this context is morally freighted and suggestive of criminality. The practice of an egregiously suffering Canadian accessing a cessation of this torment is a legal right.
2) The biased and cynical placement of quotation marks around the word safeguards, suggesting that there are none in place, is false. The fact is that the evolution of current MAID legislation has been sober, thoughtful, and incremental with plenty of limitations evident.
3) This point is entirely subjective, as it could reliably be argued that a physician could be fulfilling his or her healing role by offering compassionate release to an individual requesting it and fulfilling the legal criteria.
4) The notion of medical fallibility is an issue, but not unique to the practice of euthanasia. These potentialities have been addressed by the measured approach to the current legislation, to which I have already alluded.
5) Here, we encounter more subjectivity and bias via the claim that physicians are being pressured and this pressure is being transferred to the patient. Not a single doctor’s name or a specific instance of this practice has been cited! In the final analysis, though, choosing to end one’s life is a deeply personal decision, arrived at by rational thought and discussion with a suffering person’s loved ones and medical personnel.
I am not sure why any other Canadian, regardless of the morally righteous platform they profess to occupy, would be compelled to stick their nose into someone else’s business.
Allan Berry,
Fergus
‘Well deserved’
Dear Editor:
RE: Advertiser publisher elected chair of News Media Canada, July 20.
Congratulations to Dave Adsett for being elected chair of News Media Canada.
This organization represents hundreds of print and media outlets across Canada. It serves as an advocate for public policy.
Journalism is one of the most important ways that the public can learn of events happening in the community and in the world. It is a very important piece to our democracy.
Thanks Dave Adsett for stepping up and representing free speech and also our beautiful community.
Great job and well deserved.
Brenda Chamberlain,
Elora
‘Pig at the trough’?
Dear Editor:
RE: Advertiser publisher elected chair of News Media Canada, July 20.
While it is nice to see a local publisher step onto the national stage, his goals for that stage are disturbing to say the least.
Congratulations to the Advertiser’s publisher, Dave Adsett, for being elected to the chair of News Media Canada. Hopefully he can do some good for the news industry.
It does not look good though as he is reported as saying he wants to improve the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit. This tax credit gave $600 million taxpayer dollars over five years to the traditional media. It was a failure as the traditional media are failing fast financially. So how would Adsett improve a failure? With even more tax dollars no doubt.
The Local Journalism Initiative is a $50-million taxpayer fund paid out over five years to support local and community news. More tax dollars down the drain.
If the news industry cannot survive because Canadians are not reading and watching it and so advertisers are not placing their ads there doesn’t mean the taxpayers should be forced to support them. There are independent Canadian news sources that are succeeding and do not take a single tax dollar. That is the model that must be followed; sink or swim, just like any other industry.
When the media accepts tax dollars their views become biased toward the reigning Liberal Party who gave them the money. That makes all those who took the money suspicious in the eyes of the readers and even more people will ditch their news product.
Mr. Adsett, please explain your goals to your readers. Hopefully you are not just another toady or even worse, becoming a pig at the trough.
Jane Vandervliet,
Erin
Frustration, anger
Dear Editor:
“Be aware of your surroundings ma’am!” he said.
Did you know Elora has meter maids? Well, men in black, armed with camera phones and indestructible parking fines (I did try to rip it up, while in a rage).
Did you know that Elora has two electric vehicle charging stations in our post office parking lot, just as one enters to the left side, facing the cenotaph?
I learned these truths this past Sunday afternoon around 1:30pm. I had not been able to pick up bakery items that were ordered during the morning. Imagine my amazement upon arriving in our downtown and discovering that there were so many people, even more cars and no parking spaces.
I did a circle and then spotted an empty spot in the post office lot. Just for me and just a short walk to the bakery to get goods and back to the car. You know the rest of the story.
At first, I was puzzled. It was my license number. But why? Then it registered as the stations came into focus. Then I became upset, very upset. I left the parking lot, going the back way to Henderson Street.
And there they were, strutting their stuff, back and forth, sweat on their brows, checking for possible parking infractions. One of them did get my diatribe. But he smiled sweetly through it all, especially when I tried to rip up the stupid ticket.
My frustration, anger and emotion comes from living in our beautiful village for 53 years. I have always loved Elora. This was a first for me. Times, they are a-changing … but a parking ticket? In Elora?
Perhaps these meter men should be given special commendations or new e-bikes or something. This fine is $55 plus a convenience charge, unless one uses the QR code.
No convenient walk-ins at 1 MacDonald Square. The violation is mine, for sure, not my intention … Then why do I feel so mad, sad and violated?
Council should not even consider raising taxes. The revenue that these parking patrollers bring to the County of Wellington and the Township of Centre Wellington, etc. should more than fill the coffers!
Louise Cako,
Elora
Windscreens removed
Dear Editor:
At Mochrie and Voisin Real Estate Group we relentlessly market our client’s properties, and we carry the same philosophy over to marketing our services.
With that in mind, we make it a priority to find creative ways to ensure that our marketing also has a positive impact on other local businesses, charities or community enhancement initiatives. We would always prefer to market ourselves through community-beneficial partnerships. Always.
Recently we accepted a marketing opportunity from the Township of Centre Wellington to place our branding on the tennis courts in Fergus on a windscreen, since the tennis courts required windscreens anyway.
This partnership would provide our organization with some excellent exposure, but also secure close to $75,000 for the township over the partnership agreement for a product that was an existing necessity on the tennis courts.
The proper partnership papers were signed, the proper township approval process was followed, and the partnership was press released on May 24. A true win-win situation, or so we thought.
Although we haven’t received any negative feedback directly to our organization, there are some individuals in our community who didn’t prefer the marketing based on the letters to the editor in this paper the past few weeks, as well as some bylaw concerns brought forward to the township.
We would certainly like to apologize to anyone offended by this initiative, which was born with a “community investment” mindset.
As we and the township grow and learn together in partnership, the windscreens with our logo have been removed. We will not stop supporting Centre Wellington and its residents; it is a core pillar of our organization, but we will revisit this specific initiative with an open and creative process.
To those who wrote letters, don’t ever hesitate to reach out directly to our organization with opportunities to support our community or express concerns of any nature. Intent and impact don’t always align but we can all agree that a strong, vibrant, respectful and engaged Centre Wellington community is everyone’s priority!
Rob Voisin,
Fergus
Invasive, non-native
Dear Editor:
RE: Hiding in plain sight: is that beautiful bloom invasive? (July 20).
I was so pleased to read the gardening section and the story about invasive tiger lilies. I thought I was the only one that cared. They are an invasive non-native weed.
When we moved to where we live now, I pulled out all the tiger lilies as I was aware of the devastation they caused. We put them in the burn pit and they still grew after many burns. They grow so abundantly and knock out the native species.
I believe people actually think they are native to the area. Let’s continue to educate!
Wendy Martin,
Guelph/Eramosa