Update – Recent comments by Jagmeet Singh, leader of the NDP party regarding supporting the Liberal government, yet not willing to work with a Conservative government is disconcerting. This is not the mark of a party seeking democratic change, nor rightfully respecting the wishes of Canadians in the event of a Conservative minority.
Voting NDP would result in a disastrous coalition with the Liberal Party. The only alternative is to vote Conservative.
Well before the 2019 Federal election began someone somewhere decided doomsday scenario was the most practical way to sell an unpopular carbon tax. Voters are aware the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. It is a wealth transfer to UN have-not countries.
The climate emergency has been force-fed to voters this election. Protests have been organized, and controlled town halls have occurred.
Climate change front and center as the focal election issue are both irresponsible and incorrect. We have elections as a way nationally to reflect on the track record of all running incumbents, particularly the governing party. We vet new candidates and proposed policy platforms across the spectrum. It is also a time to discuss and decide on national strategies to ensure a strong economy, social and provincial areas of concern and international relations.
Guelph debates (wrongly labeled) were sponsored and organized by lobbyists and special interest groups, with agendas itself limiting free debate and actual conversations about where we see Canada headed as a nation. The debates leading up to the Chamber one were focused on pre-determined issues rather than open discussion. There was hope that the Guelph Chamber debate would deal with the issues in a broader open discussion yet alas, this did not happen.
Locally we shot ourselves in the foot. It provided an opportunity for lobbyists and special interest to decide what voters’ priorities were in the election. It also provided incumbent Lloyd Longfield a safe haven to continue to avoid unvetted questions on the Liberal track record, and why re-elect a Member of Parliament who has consistently supported his party and leader, avoided public engagement on the SNC-Lavalin, Norman, Blackface scandals, and the McClintic motion. And then the groping incident where ‘she saw it differently’. So, in effect due to the agenda of lobbyists and special interest groups the local Green’s, Liberals, and NDP they allowed a free pass to Longfield to be held accountable as any incumbent should be. Alarmingly, local discussion openly ignored any platform center to right, permitting discourse in the context of singularly focused agendas.
Democracy and unfettered public debate were trampled on. Guelph was not given the right to have an open public discussion of all issues. They certainly were not debates in the truest sense.
All candidates and their respective parties are concerned about Canada. The difference lies in how the solutions and the vision the parties have for Canada.
The overall rating of the candidates’ performance in the Chamber debate was from underwhelming to good, and worth considering as a candidate.
NDP candidate Aisha Jahangir came across sincere, and knowledgeable about the NDP platform. She wavered on questions regarding taxation yet given this is her first aim at an election, did well. She is the best candidate on the left side of the center and should be considered if voters want an MP with a more globalist approach to addressing climate change issues. With the long-standing history of the NDP of protecting workers’ rights, the party is the best choice in opposition as Canada sets to transition into new industries to lower carbon emissions.
PPC candidate Mark Paralovos knew his party platform and was successful in showing his compassion for Canada and how he feels the People’s Party is the right way to go. He wavered in some questions, yet did remarkably well in a controlled debate.
Green candidate Steve Dyck’s performance was underwhelming and not worth a nod, yet he knew the Green platform. Dyck was incorrect in facts while promoting his platform, which Longfield pointed out that tax reviews were done more than a decade past Dyck’s contention, and that the Senate (which is already established) would be a great alternative to the Green’s Council to review the tax system.
Liberal incumbent Longfield was, well – Longfield at his lackluster best. It felt more like Longfield love-in than running on the actual record of the Liberal Party. Guelph knows he is the past president of the Chamber yet he mentioned it almost every reply to questions.
Longfield incorrectly blamed Ford (is this a Liberal thing?) by stating misinformed spins on facts. He placed credit to the Liberals’ policies and funding for robust local employment figures yet the credit goes to Ford. The Ford government has added 272,000 jobs since elected. The Wynne/McGuinty Liberals made Ontario a have-not province, and Ford is turning Ontario around. September numbers boom in public sector employment masked a decrease in private sector jobs of 12,100 positions. In fact, Ontario is leading the national numbers.
Longfield blamed Ford for the cuts to veteran health care, which is untrue. The cuts lie with the Liberal government. In the Spring of 2019, the Liberal government made major adjustments to fees it reimburses to hospitals when they treat military members, which could mean some veterans may be denied health care. Under the Canada Health Act and provincial health acts, military (active and veteran) are not eligible for public health coverage under provincial plans.
The federal government is constitutionally responsible to provide comparable care to all members of the military, with more advanced medical care in surgeries or procedures provided at the same hospitals used by civilians. Then the military reimburses the cost of those services to the hospital providing the services.
Some questions allowed candidates to touch on their respective party platforms that address the economy and affordability, yet not to the extent that voters needed to hear.
None of the organized events addressed long-awaited questions voters have been asking Longfield. Avoided was the corruption of the Trudeau government, treatment of Norman, disrespect to veterans, the Trudeau blackface scandal nor the McClintic vote.
What voters have endured since September 11th is a well-planned barrage of concerted lobbying by lobbyists and special interest groups, both locally and on a national front. Canada and the world saw a child be politicized by the very parties to vote for the carbon tax “for the children” from the three left-wing parties who have consistently opposed legislation to protect Canadian children.
Across the board, all candidates did well in the Chamber debate. This was a challenge they overcame, despite questions being directed towards Longfield to showcase.
In summary, Longfield does not deserve a second term. His party-line vote records in the House of Commons aptly shows his allegiance to the party line. It definitely shows a lack of backbone and combined with the lack of engagement answering the Guelph electorate who challenged him with answers on his party’s scandals of SNC-Lavalin, Blackface, and McClintic transfer are enough to warrant a return to private life.
Guelph has a left-leaning council, and although we have made progress since the Farbridge fiasco we have a long way to go. We have a Green MP, whose primary objective is organizing protests against the government. That is not working across party lines. Does Guelph need three levels of government representation leaning far left of the political spectrum? We need to place reason and common sense ahead of alarmism quite simply.
Dyck was weak in presenting his party’s plans to combat mental health issues and increasing housing, which was disappointing given the mental health crisis and housing shortages in Guelph.
It was disappointing to see that his singular focus was bigger government through the Council the Green’s want to implement, referring to it when stumped on questions, Everything singularly focused from a green lens? Representation done well cannot be singularly focused on the environment.
So, it is a pass on Steve Dyck.
The NDP candidate is backing a leader who actually has a shot of holding opposition in the House of Commons, and Singh is a trustworthy leader with integrity (and quite personable). His reaction to the Trudeau blackface scandal was truly exceptional, and he holds his own in a debate. Aisha, although new to the political game, is believable and passionate about why she is running and what she wants to accomplish in the Federal seat.
The People’s Party is a hard sell and Mark earns respect for being the odd man out with a new party that has been attacked continuously in the media and with some local groups. Yes, the platform is aggressive yet democracy allows for a vast ray of opinion. He is a good candidate.
Ashish Sachan has presented himself well in this election and is a candidate who represents the future of Canada through a new Canadian lens. His background as a toxicologist gives a unique set of skills and education to find market-driven solutions to address climate change. His message was the most positive of the candidates, in that he has confidence in Canadians, human ingenuity to solve the climate issues with science-driven technologies, and believes we can find a better way through innovation.
Aisha, the NDP candidate is the vote to tick if you vote left of center, and representing her party led by Jagmeet Singh.
Leaning right, vote for Ashish Sachan. He is the strongest candidate in Guelph, and the Conservative Party of Canada is positioned to form the next government. The Conservative Party has laid out its plan to address climate change, yet in the context of a strong economy and affordability for Canadian families.
It is necessary to have a fiscally conservative government with opposition to hold them accountable, and one that is strong and willing to work across party lines. The only option to come to this result is to vote Conservative or NDP.
Anything else could result in a coalition of left to the far left government with no checks and balances to protect our economy, address our debt levels, restore our international reputation and move responsibly toward resolution of the vast number of issues Canadians are facing.
The only forward vote is one coming from you, your values, your individual experience and the change you need for your family. You – the voter.
This election has been riddled with parties, special interest groups and lobbyists telling Canadians what is important to us.
Take back control of this election. Your vote will determine what kind of Canada you want in future generations.
Here are the platforms below: