Initially published in the Alliston Herald on April 29, 2009
The Good: Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend the graduation ceremony of the OPP's D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program for the Grade 6 class at Alliston Union Public School. It quickly became apparent that the instructor for the program, OPP officer Harry Lawrenson, has a remarkable chemistry with this impressionable age group. The passion and conviction with which several of the students spoke, together with the conduct and behaviour of the class as a whole, seemed compelling evidence that the message got through.
The Good - Part II: A friend recently inquired whether I was upset by letters to the editor that are critical of this column. The answer: "absolutely not". The fact that someone has taken the time to express their opinion is hardly a reason to sulk. Dialogue and debate should always be encouraged. When a person is motivated to sit down and put his/her thoughts to paper, whether they be positive or negative, they should be commended. It shows they care. Our biggest enemy is apathy - when no one can be bothered we have a problem.
The Sad: One of the letter writers referred to above took issue with a recent column (Guergis says one thing and does another, April 9, 2009) where I was critical of the failure of our MP to honour her commitment to pay the costs of a newsletter that was delivered after the start of the election campaign.
The writer was apparently upset by the column and referred to my criticism as being about "some chicken-crap issue". It is sad to see an individual whose expectations of politicians has apparently sunk so low that an issue which goes to the very root of a person's character (namely, keeping your word) is described as "chicken crap".
In the same manner that apathy is a danger, so too are such low expectations of our elected representatives.
The Curious: At the most recent committee of the whole meeting, New Tecumseth town council was deluged by a dental/medical lobby urging council to reverse its earlier decision to remove flouride from Tottenham's water supply. The fervour and intensity exhibited by this group might have led some to wonder whether they were in the midst of an Elmer Gantry revival meeting.
The decision was portrayed as so critical, and the health issues so important, that I was tempted to question (tongue in cheek) whether the streets of Tottenham might soon be lined with hundreds of corpses (with bad teeth) if the decision was not reversed.
I do not feel as though I possess enough information to be either "pro" or "con" on the issue. There are, however, a couple of facts that I believe merit attention.
First, Tottenham is the only community in Simcoe County that adds fluoride to its water supply. Second, there is a body of credible medical opinion, including the head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto (Dr. Hardy Limeback), that oppose the use of fluoride in public water systems.
The issue that left me scratching my head following the several deputations was this: If fluoride in our water is so critical, where have all of these medical professionals been the past decade? They certainly haven't been lobbying for fluoride to be added to Alliston's water.
From my perspective, if the professionals can say with absolutely certainty that there are no significant health risks associated with the use of fluoride in our drinking water then it is hard to object. However, if there is the slightest bit of doubt, if there is the slightest bit of evidence that fluoride could harm our children, then surely the benefits of its use do not outweigh the risks.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Another Instance of Guergis Doublespeak
Initially published in the Alliston Herald on April 9, 2009
It certainly appears that our member of parliament does not have a very high regard for the intellectual capacity of the inhabitants of Simcoe-Grey. It is hard to reach any other conclusion when one considers the dubious “explanation” provided by Helena Guergis as to why she has chosen to ignore the commitment to have her campaign pay the costs of a four-page “householder” that was delivered in the course of the most recent federal election.
You will recall that this past September Guergis was subjected to criticism for delivering the householder after the election had been called. Guergis initially claimed that the householder had been ready several weeks prior to the election call and that it was not possible to stop. This claim, however, was exposed as less than credible when closer inspection revealed the literature referred to an event that was announced on Sept. 5, 2008 – just two days prior to the election call.
Given this little “pickle” both Guergis and her campaign manager made public pronouncements that the cost of the householder would be paid by the Guergis campaign.
Alas, when Guergis filed her election return the costs of the householder were nowhere to be found. When she was faced with the inevitable inquiries from the media, Guergis, consistent with her reputation for ducking questions, remained mute for several weeks.
This past week Guergis finally acknowledged to another newspaper that her campaign, contrary to her earlier commitment, did not pay for the householder. The reasons provided by Guergis are meandering, verbose (coming in at more than 800 words) and less than persuasive.
In effect, Guergis claims that the “auditor” advised she could not claim the householder as an election expense. Guergis apparently arrived at the same interpretation and concluded that the householder was not an election expense on the basis that it did not promote her candidacy.
First, it should be pointed out that the auditor is not associated with or employed by Elections Canada but rather a person affiliated with the Guergis candidacy. Second, Guergis appears to have completely (or selectively) ignored Elections Canada guidelines as to what actually constitutes “promotion” and thereby qualifies as an election expense.
The rules say: “the concept of promoting... a candidate in a given electoral district is defined as including naming the candidate, showing the likeness of the candidate... In addition, any item discussing the work or accomplishments of a Member of Parliament will also be considered to be directly promoting the Member of Parliament...”
Anyone who remembers the householder would be hard pressed to suggest it was not promoting Guergis pursuant to these rules. Conveniently, Guergis has selected the far less tenable interpretation as the explanation for why she will not honour her commitment.
What’s even more fascinating about the lengthy Guergis missive is that it appears to contain an acknowledgement that the householder left her hands after the election was called. Specifically, Guergis states: “...we determined also that any householder sent out within 10 days of the writ being dropped does NOT have to be declared an election expense but I still requested that we make this move...”
The statement that the householder was sent after the election call is corroborated by a letter from Andy Beaudoin, the campaign manager for Guergis, published in the Alliston Herald on Sept. 24, 2008 (17 days after the writ was dropped). Mr. Beaudoin said, “MP Helena Guergis has just released her annual fall householder. We felt it was important to inform you the costs of releasing this householder (are) covered by campaign budgets and not taxpayer’s dollars.”
Why is timing an issue? It’s because Elections Canada has been quite clear that in such circumstances a householder will be considered an election expense that should be declared.
Finally, I leave you with the following quote from Guergis that is quite remarkable and once again reflects on her credibility: “I was doing everything I could to characterize this as an election expense.”
Sadly, this appears to be but the latest example of our MP saying one thing but doing the opposite.
It certainly appears that our member of parliament does not have a very high regard for the intellectual capacity of the inhabitants of Simcoe-Grey. It is hard to reach any other conclusion when one considers the dubious “explanation” provided by Helena Guergis as to why she has chosen to ignore the commitment to have her campaign pay the costs of a four-page “householder” that was delivered in the course of the most recent federal election.
You will recall that this past September Guergis was subjected to criticism for delivering the householder after the election had been called. Guergis initially claimed that the householder had been ready several weeks prior to the election call and that it was not possible to stop. This claim, however, was exposed as less than credible when closer inspection revealed the literature referred to an event that was announced on Sept. 5, 2008 – just two days prior to the election call.
Given this little “pickle” both Guergis and her campaign manager made public pronouncements that the cost of the householder would be paid by the Guergis campaign.
Alas, when Guergis filed her election return the costs of the householder were nowhere to be found. When she was faced with the inevitable inquiries from the media, Guergis, consistent with her reputation for ducking questions, remained mute for several weeks.
This past week Guergis finally acknowledged to another newspaper that her campaign, contrary to her earlier commitment, did not pay for the householder. The reasons provided by Guergis are meandering, verbose (coming in at more than 800 words) and less than persuasive.
In effect, Guergis claims that the “auditor” advised she could not claim the householder as an election expense. Guergis apparently arrived at the same interpretation and concluded that the householder was not an election expense on the basis that it did not promote her candidacy.
First, it should be pointed out that the auditor is not associated with or employed by Elections Canada but rather a person affiliated with the Guergis candidacy. Second, Guergis appears to have completely (or selectively) ignored Elections Canada guidelines as to what actually constitutes “promotion” and thereby qualifies as an election expense.
The rules say: “the concept of promoting... a candidate in a given electoral district is defined as including naming the candidate, showing the likeness of the candidate... In addition, any item discussing the work or accomplishments of a Member of Parliament will also be considered to be directly promoting the Member of Parliament...”
Anyone who remembers the householder would be hard pressed to suggest it was not promoting Guergis pursuant to these rules. Conveniently, Guergis has selected the far less tenable interpretation as the explanation for why she will not honour her commitment.
What’s even more fascinating about the lengthy Guergis missive is that it appears to contain an acknowledgement that the householder left her hands after the election was called. Specifically, Guergis states: “...we determined also that any householder sent out within 10 days of the writ being dropped does NOT have to be declared an election expense but I still requested that we make this move...”
The statement that the householder was sent after the election call is corroborated by a letter from Andy Beaudoin, the campaign manager for Guergis, published in the Alliston Herald on Sept. 24, 2008 (17 days after the writ was dropped). Mr. Beaudoin said, “MP Helena Guergis has just released her annual fall householder. We felt it was important to inform you the costs of releasing this householder (are) covered by campaign budgets and not taxpayer’s dollars.”
Why is timing an issue? It’s because Elections Canada has been quite clear that in such circumstances a householder will be considered an election expense that should be declared.
Finally, I leave you with the following quote from Guergis that is quite remarkable and once again reflects on her credibility: “I was doing everything I could to characterize this as an election expense.”
Sadly, this appears to be but the latest example of our MP saying one thing but doing the opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)