Oakville ON
Dec. 17, 2014
Dear Mr. Young and Mr. Joe Oliver,
I have some concerns about your government's 'low tax plan for families'.
Volume 21 of Inside Ottawa makes the statement, “The benefits in this plan are more concentrated for single parents and low income families, where the need is greatest.”
There is no explanation of how that works so I did some research. I draw your attention to the analysis of Scott Clark and Peter DeVries as found on on ipolotics.ca November 4, 2014.
They compare the circumstances of a one-earner family making income of $60 000, with two children under the age of six, with a two-earner family making the same income with children the same age. “So the one-earner couple walk away with $3,196 in the 2015 taxation – an election year.” The two-earner couple benefits less than $1000.
However, “A two earner couple in no way faces the same economic circumstances as the single earner couple with the same income.” The two-earner couple does not have the choice to allow one spouse to stay home unless they want their income cut in half. The majority of families require two people working to meet their costs of living. And child care expense is a very relevant factor, which the one-earner family does not have to pay. Childcare costs can amount to up to $1000 a month per child. These families are not 'economically equal'. This tax relief is small change when real family circumstances are considered.
Even for the lucky 15% who will benefit, an extra $9.80 a day is small change which could be better spent making good quality childcare available, for all children of working parents.
There are important problems our government could be working on. For many people employment is precarious: with intermittent contracts, part-time work and 'self-employment', which is often an euphanism for unemployed. Many of these do not register in the umemployment statistics. “Youth unemployment rate remains at around 14%. The labour force participation rate is lower today than in 2008.”
In my opinion, These tax cuts are unfair and an inappropriate vote buying ploy leading up to an election.
June Wright, Oakville ON L6L 6L9
==============================
Letter to the Star, Sept 2014
Dec. 17, 2014
Dear Mr. Young and Mr. Joe Oliver,
I have some concerns about your government's 'low tax plan for families'.
Volume 21 of Inside Ottawa makes the statement, “The benefits in this plan are more concentrated for single parents and low income families, where the need is greatest.”
There is no explanation of how that works so I did some research. I draw your attention to the analysis of Scott Clark and Peter DeVries as found on on ipolotics.ca November 4, 2014.
They compare the circumstances of a one-earner family making income of $60 000, with two children under the age of six, with a two-earner family making the same income with children the same age. “So the one-earner couple walk away with $3,196 in the 2015 taxation – an election year.” The two-earner couple benefits less than $1000.
However, “A two earner couple in no way faces the same economic circumstances as the single earner couple with the same income.” The two-earner couple does not have the choice to allow one spouse to stay home unless they want their income cut in half. The majority of families require two people working to meet their costs of living. And child care expense is a very relevant factor, which the one-earner family does not have to pay. Childcare costs can amount to up to $1000 a month per child. These families are not 'economically equal'. This tax relief is small change when real family circumstances are considered.
Even for the lucky 15% who will benefit, an extra $9.80 a day is small change which could be better spent making good quality childcare available, for all children of working parents.
There are important problems our government could be working on. For many people employment is precarious: with intermittent contracts, part-time work and 'self-employment', which is often an euphanism for unemployed. Many of these do not register in the umemployment statistics. “Youth unemployment rate remains at around 14%. The labour force participation rate is lower today than in 2008.”
In my opinion, These tax cuts are unfair and an inappropriate vote buying ploy leading up to an election.
June Wright, Oakville ON L6L 6L9
==============================
Letter to the Star, Sept 2014
There’s no question the Harper Conservative party has moved further to the right during its time in power, but the notion that the sensibility of the country has “moved with it” is the kind of right-wing ideological wishful thinking (ideas without actual facts) that has come to symbolize this party.
Years ago they created a Reform-Conservative bubble and have never stepped outside of it to find out what Canadians really want or need.
After next year’s election, either the Liberals, or a combination of Liberals and NDP, will be in power and will begin the long and difficult chore of undoing much of the legislative, democratic, social, cultural, scientific and economic damage inflicted on the country.
Edward Carson, Toronto
============================
August 3, 2014
Dear Mr. Young,
I am writing in regard to the recent 'survey' sent out in your name under parliamentary mail service.
The question asked is too simple. Is it a matter of free trade at all costs? I have included a website for your perusal.
Most of us support trade - but not the negotiating away of the rights of a national government to pass laws which protect its citizens and its environment.
Please see that this right is maintained. The dispute mechanism which is hidden from the public is not sufficient.
This survey praises the Conservative Government ; that sounds partisan to me. How does this merit use of the free postal service? How is this different from what the NDP are accused of doing?
I have taken time to write because you are our representative and I want you to know what your constituents are thinking. I hope that you will be fully informed and use your influence regarding this free trade negotiations.
Sincerely
June Wright
Oakville, L6L 6L9
==============================
June 5,2014
Scott Simms
Democratic Reform Critic,Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario
K1A 0A6
c/c Justin Trudeau
Leader Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario
K1A 0A6
Mr.Simms
As a deeply concerned citizen and a life -long Liberal supporter,I am writing to express my disappointment with your decision to vote No to an opposition amendment to the Fair Election Act Bill C-23, calling for an evidence based look at proportional representation.
I feel that there is tremendous support in Canada for an element of PR in our electoral system.You were previously a supporter of AV,the Liberal position on electoral reform in the past.However,at the February 2014 policy convention, the Liberal party passed Resolution 31,replacing that previous position and you indicated that you were willing to consider PR as at least part of the answer to electoral reform.
Consequently,I am asking for an explanation as to why you voted NO to the amendment in question.I look forward to your response, which for me and I believe many other Canadians, is a very important issue..
In the meantime, I respectfully ask that you seriously re-consider your decision and vote YES to the Amendment.
Sincerely
Helen Brown
Oakville, Ontario
=========================
May 6, 2014
Years ago they created a Reform-Conservative bubble and have never stepped outside of it to find out what Canadians really want or need.
After next year’s election, either the Liberals, or a combination of Liberals and NDP, will be in power and will begin the long and difficult chore of undoing much of the legislative, democratic, social, cultural, scientific and economic damage inflicted on the country.
Edward Carson, Toronto
============================
August 3, 2014
Dear Mr. Young,
I am writing in regard to the recent 'survey' sent out in your name under parliamentary mail service.
The question asked is too simple. Is it a matter of free trade at all costs? I have included a website for your perusal.
Most of us support trade - but not the negotiating away of the rights of a national government to pass laws which protect its citizens and its environment.
Please see that this right is maintained. The dispute mechanism which is hidden from the public is not sufficient.
This survey praises the Conservative Government ; that sounds partisan to me. How does this merit use of the free postal service? How is this different from what the NDP are accused of doing?
I have taken time to write because you are our representative and I want you to know what your constituents are thinking. I hope that you will be fully informed and use your influence regarding this free trade negotiations.
Sincerely
June Wright
Oakville, L6L 6L9
==============================
June 5,2014
Scott Simms
Democratic Reform Critic,Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario
K1A 0A6
c/c Justin Trudeau
Leader Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa Ontario
K1A 0A6
Mr.Simms
As a deeply concerned citizen and a life -long Liberal supporter,I am writing to express my disappointment with your decision to vote No to an opposition amendment to the Fair Election Act Bill C-23, calling for an evidence based look at proportional representation.
I feel that there is tremendous support in Canada for an element of PR in our electoral system.You were previously a supporter of AV,the Liberal position on electoral reform in the past.However,at the February 2014 policy convention, the Liberal party passed Resolution 31,replacing that previous position and you indicated that you were willing to consider PR as at least part of the answer to electoral reform.
Consequently,I am asking for an explanation as to why you voted NO to the amendment in question.I look forward to your response, which for me and I believe many other Canadians, is a very important issue..
In the meantime, I respectfully ask that you seriously re-consider your decision and vote YES to the Amendment.
Sincerely
Helen Brown
Oakville, Ontario
=========================
May 6, 2014
Mr Young
The Harper Government,of which you are a loyal member, has surely reached a new low with the shameful and deliberate attempt to discredit one of our finest and most upstanding citizens,namely Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan.
This contempt for the institution of the Supreme Court itself is unprecedented in this country,and the majority of the legal community is appalled at this show of malice toward a revered pillar of our judicial system whose deliberations and adherence to the letter of the law have never been called into question before in this manner.
This is a repeat of similiar attempts to discredit various other citizens.Marc Mayrand,Chief Electoral Officer,Sheila Fraser former Auditor General come to mind.They are part of a growing number of citizens who have received this sort of treatment for daring to disagree with this Government.
Mr Harper and your fellow M.P.'s would do well to thoughtfully consider critisism and differences of opinion from all Canadians,whether prominent or not.I think that they are sincerely offered in a non partisan way and are meant to be in the best interests of all Canadians.This mean spirited retaliation is unnecessary,and really does make us question the judgment of the Prime Minister and his Government.
Helen Brown
Oakville
==================================
Letter to MP Terence Young, April 15, 2014
Please withdraw this bill. We as Canadian's need to start over and do this in a democratic way from the beginning. A committee of members of all parties and some leading scholars in this field, must take time to draw it up carefully and it must be accepted by our representative in the House of Commons.
Please Mr. Young use your voice and influence on behalf of your constituents.
We want to be proud of a democratic fair elections act. This has been done in the wrong manner ; it will be our shame!
June Wright
Oakville, ON
==============================
Terence's Reply to a letter from Hart Jansson on the Reform Act
Dear Hart,
Thank you for writing to my office and expressing your views regarding the Reform Act. As a member of the House of Commons, I have been following this Bill very closely and am very passionate about it.
The Reform Act was tabled by my colleague MP Michael Chong in December 2013. The Act is an opportunity to strengthen Canada’s democracy by restoring the role of the elected MPs. It will be by realizing three main goals. First, it will allow prospective candidates to run for party nominations without the party leader’s approval. Currently, for any prospective candidate to run and be in a party nomination election, they must seek endorsement from the party leader. The Reform Act will change this so that a local nomination officer will have the authority.
Second, it will allow individual MPs to vote on whether party members should be expelled from or re-admitted to the caucus. This measure will enhance accountability by ensuring that both the party leader and a portion of the caucus confirm if they would like a certain member removed from caucus.
Lastly, the Act will give more power to the caucus with regard to leadership reviews. The Act will allow leadership review votes to take place if 15%, or more, of the caucus submits a written form to have a leadership vote (although it appears Mike Chong is flexible on this percentage being raised somewhat). If this occurs, a leadership vote will then take place under a secret ballot. This will reinforce the accountability of party leaders to their respective caucuses, and the Canadians who elect them.
These changes all re-enforce and restore conventions that have been widely interpreted. It will put these conventions into written law so that certain procedures must be followed at all times.
I personally support the Bill as I believe it will improve democracy for Canadians by empowering individual MPs. I recently conducted a poll in Oakville asking whether constituents support the bill. The results were astonishingly in favour of the Reform Act. 79% of respondents said “Yes, I think the Reform Act will improve the way Parliament functions” while 10% said “No, I do not believe the Reform Act is going to improve the way Parliament works”.
Barring significant changes, I intend to support and vote for the Reform Act when it comes to the House of Commons.
Once again I thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Terence Young
MP for Oakville
================================
To Terence Young and to The Beaver
The Harper Government,of which you are a loyal member, has surely reached a new low with the shameful and deliberate attempt to discredit one of our finest and most upstanding citizens,namely Chief Justice Beverley McLachlan.
This contempt for the institution of the Supreme Court itself is unprecedented in this country,and the majority of the legal community is appalled at this show of malice toward a revered pillar of our judicial system whose deliberations and adherence to the letter of the law have never been called into question before in this manner.
This is a repeat of similiar attempts to discredit various other citizens.Marc Mayrand,Chief Electoral Officer,Sheila Fraser former Auditor General come to mind.They are part of a growing number of citizens who have received this sort of treatment for daring to disagree with this Government.
Mr Harper and your fellow M.P.'s would do well to thoughtfully consider critisism and differences of opinion from all Canadians,whether prominent or not.I think that they are sincerely offered in a non partisan way and are meant to be in the best interests of all Canadians.This mean spirited retaliation is unnecessary,and really does make us question the judgment of the Prime Minister and his Government.
Helen Brown
Oakville
==================================
Letter to MP Terence Young, April 15, 2014
Please withdraw this bill. We as Canadian's need to start over and do this in a democratic way from the beginning. A committee of members of all parties and some leading scholars in this field, must take time to draw it up carefully and it must be accepted by our representative in the House of Commons.
Please Mr. Young use your voice and influence on behalf of your constituents.
We want to be proud of a democratic fair elections act. This has been done in the wrong manner ; it will be our shame!
June Wright
Oakville, ON
==============================
Terence's Reply to a letter from Hart Jansson on the Reform Act
Dear Hart,
Thank you for writing to my office and expressing your views regarding the Reform Act. As a member of the House of Commons, I have been following this Bill very closely and am very passionate about it.
The Reform Act was tabled by my colleague MP Michael Chong in December 2013. The Act is an opportunity to strengthen Canada’s democracy by restoring the role of the elected MPs. It will be by realizing three main goals. First, it will allow prospective candidates to run for party nominations without the party leader’s approval. Currently, for any prospective candidate to run and be in a party nomination election, they must seek endorsement from the party leader. The Reform Act will change this so that a local nomination officer will have the authority.
Second, it will allow individual MPs to vote on whether party members should be expelled from or re-admitted to the caucus. This measure will enhance accountability by ensuring that both the party leader and a portion of the caucus confirm if they would like a certain member removed from caucus.
Lastly, the Act will give more power to the caucus with regard to leadership reviews. The Act will allow leadership review votes to take place if 15%, or more, of the caucus submits a written form to have a leadership vote (although it appears Mike Chong is flexible on this percentage being raised somewhat). If this occurs, a leadership vote will then take place under a secret ballot. This will reinforce the accountability of party leaders to their respective caucuses, and the Canadians who elect them.
These changes all re-enforce and restore conventions that have been widely interpreted. It will put these conventions into written law so that certain procedures must be followed at all times.
I personally support the Bill as I believe it will improve democracy for Canadians by empowering individual MPs. I recently conducted a poll in Oakville asking whether constituents support the bill. The results were astonishingly in favour of the Reform Act. 79% of respondents said “Yes, I think the Reform Act will improve the way Parliament functions” while 10% said “No, I do not believe the Reform Act is going to improve the way Parliament works”.
Barring significant changes, I intend to support and vote for the Reform Act when it comes to the House of Commons.
Once again I thank you for taking the time to write.
Sincerely,
Terence Young
MP for Oakville
================================
To Terence Young and to The Beaver
I wish to protest in the strongest possible way the
Orwellian named Fair Elections Act Bill C23 currently being proposed by your
Government.
In spite of almost universal condemnation from credible
and non partisan sources,Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre smugly
insists that it is terrific,and will be good for Canada and Canadians if it is
passed.
I disagree. It is neither 'fair' nor 'terrific', nstead it
amounts to nothing less than a blatant attack on the independence of the Chief
Electoral Officer and Elections Canada,who of course by actually being
independent, have incurred the wrath of your Government and accordingly, their
mandate and independence must be destroyed.This office has a reputation for
fairness and unbiased oversight of our electoral system,and must be preserved
to ensure that we continue to have fair elections in Canada.
In addition, in spite of all the rhetoric as to the number
of ways a person can be identified and allowed to vote etc,it is another
blatant attempt to deny people who,in any case would not vote for a Conservative
Government, their right to vote for the party of their choice in an
election.
This Bill is nothing short of an attack on our
democracy,and I ask for your support in rejecting Bill C23,bad for Canada,bad
for all Canadians.
Helen Brown
=====================
The Star, March 19, 2014
Stephen Harper is positioning himself as the champion of democracy in his visit to Ukraine. Yet in Canada, Harper is constantly limiting and undermining our own democracy, as most recently brought to light by his abortive Supreme Court appointment.
If anything, Harper’s governing mentality and approach is close to that of Russia’s Vladimir Putin in the concentration of power in his own hands and his attempts to make parliament a toothless institution.
Let us not be fooled by Harper’s hypocritical posturing over Ukraine, or Israel for that matter, and rather focus on his actions here in Canada.
John Simke, Toronto
--------------------------------------------
How dare Harper pledge support for the Ukraine democracy when he’s destroying democracy in Canada. His unfair voter suppression legislation has garnered global attention and is internationally criticized as eroding the electoral process. Then he tries to force an illegal appointment to the Supreme Court. Harper wants to correct what he sees as an inconvenient independent Canadian judicial system.
Harper shows a pattern here and it’s not democracy.
Pendra Wilson, Vancouver
==============================
Harper shows a pattern here and it’s not democracy.
Pendra Wilson, Vancouver
==============================
Dear Terence,
I am glad your government sees the need for electoral reform and I support
MP Chong's Bill. However, I am concerned about your government's proposed fair elections act
for many reasons. I know you have heard them all numerous times as I have watched the debates
on CPAC.
My main concern is that fewer Canadians will be participating in voting as
this Bill puts impedimentsin their way and wea kens our independent Canadian Electoral Agency.
I hope you will represent the concerns of so many Canadians who fear a loss
of democracy in Canada. Scientists, Professors, learned people have joined the ranks of
everyday citizens in this concern.
Please note the latest in this Globe and Mail article by Josh Wingrove,
Scholars Denounce Conservative Governments Propposed Election Act.
My concern is that the Canadian Government has become so adversarial where
winning is paramount regardless of what happens to our country.
Please put Canada first in your deliberations.
Respectfully, Bev LeFrancois
=======================
February 8
Dear Terence,
This is not the kind of election reform we are looking for!
Please see that this bill has all democratic considerations and amendments. If this bill is rammed through a good many people will remember it and not look favourably on the Conservative Party.
We need Elections Canada to be able to command testimony.
We need public education for democracy, such as Student Vote in schools. Don't put in place obstacles to voting; people should not be disenfranchised.
Does this government want an apathetic population, who pay no attention to what is going on in government? I suppose this would make us easier to manage by the power brokers.
I don't intend to be sarcastic; I am simply asking you to use your voice, as our representative, to see that democracy is up held.
Sincerely,
June Wright,
Oakville, On L6L 6L9
====================
January 8, 2014
On Saturday, January 11, the Federal government has decreed we shall celebrate the birthday of Sir John A McDonald (b. 1815).
Sir John A, the first Prime Minister of Canada, resigned in 1873 over allegations of bribes being accepted by members of his Conservative party relating to the letting of contracts for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When the documents came to light (including proof that Sir John A himself had personally accepted $45,000), he prorogued Parliament in the hopes that the scandal would die down. It did not, and when Parliament resumed, he was forced to resign in disgrace.
Our first Prime Minister enthusiastically presided over the Indian Residential Schools that are now recognized as one of Canada's greatest shames, forcibly removing children from their families and communities and subjecting them to government sanctioned physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. In 2008, our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper apologized on behalf of the government for failing to protect these children and acknowledged that "we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow."
Under Sir John A, the bison were driven to near extinction to clear the way for European settlement in the west. Destroying the primary food source for the Plains Cree caused starvation and forced the natives on to reserves where under Treaty 6 the government had pledged to provide food aid in times of famine. Instead, Sir John A, acting as both Prime Minister and Minister of Indian Affairs deliberately withheld rations and boasted in Parliament that the natives were kept on the "verge of actual starvation." Thousands died.
So bring on the cake and candles.
Heather McCann
