Letters_11-36

Back to Home Letters - September 8, 2011 Letters: Sept 8

Re: Reid’s use of tax dollars, John Wallace

Re: Reid’s use of tax dollars, John McEwen

Propane Inspections, Robin Deruchie

Re: Reid’s use of tax dollars

This article is in response to letters (Letters, Frontenac News, Sept. 1/11) attacking MP Scott Reid’s use of our tax dollars to send out constituency questionnaires. Scott recently sent out a questionnaire asking his constituents if they agreed with the federal law introduced by the previous Liberal government that allots $2.04 of tax money for every vote cast for that party during a federal election. This policy smacks of socialism, where government is the big daddy who supplies everything from the cradle to the grave. If we want support for a particular political party, let party supporters dig into their own pockets and stop expecting “Big Daddy”, at the expense of Joe Doe taxpayer, to pay for everything.

True, the $2.04 allotment for every vote cast is fair in its distribution because every party benefits, but it is not democratic. Democracy is of the people, by the people, and for the people, not of the parties, by the parties, for the parties. The $2.04 is not for the people, but for the party. It amounts to another tax grab, a tax on those who cast their ballots. If everyone who cast their vote was given a toonie, that would be for the people, and it would encourage more people to vote. Now that would be democratic. But the downside of paying people to vote would be like the old-time habit of buying votes with free booze. The exercise of our democratic right to vote should be without payment and without tax. It’s not fair and it’s not democratic to tax voters for voting and then use those taxes to support political parties some voters do not favour. Tax dollars should not be used to support bipartisan political issues. Withdrawing this undemocratic, unfair, $47 million tax grab is a good way to help reduce our federal deficit and strike a balanced budget. As I replied to Scott’s questionnaire, “Why take three years to dissolve this tax grab? Why not dispose of the whole thing immediately and save more of our hard earned tax dollars?”

I agree with the statement in one of the letters when it said that we have little say on how our tax dollars are spent. All political parties, sad to say, whether N.D.P., Liberal, or Conservative, when in power, have denied constituents adequate voice in how tax dollars should be spent. Scott Reid should be commended, not vilified, for seeking input from his constituents on how tax dollars should be spent or if proposed expenditures are favourable with the majority. If every M.P. canvassed their constituents more, our Canadian democracy would be more democratic.

Let me close with a question for those who support the $2.04 voter’s tax. Do you agree that the millions given to the “Bloc” as a result of this voter’s tax was proper, since the Bloc’s main goal was, and still is, the destruction of our Canadian confederation? If you agree, it would be like shooting yourself in the foot so you could run faster.

John Wallace

Re: Reid’s use of tax dollars

In light of Wolfe Ehrlichman's well written letter published last week (Letters, Frontenac News, Sept. 1/11): If MP Scott Reid was really "tough on crime" he would have answered a letter I sent to him on June 1, 2010, in which I asked him about an email that Mr. Randy Hillier had sent to the Hon. Leona Dombrowsky showing a picture of a dead deer with the bullet hole clearly visible and the caption: ''The attached pictures are the direct consequence of government injustice and when individuals no longer fear the tyranny of legislated abuse and intimidation. In keeping with tradition, all nuisance animals are consecutively named, enclosed are pictures of ‘Leona’."

Mr. Hillier described the e-mail as a "joke" to Steve Pakin on TVO that evening, and when I questioned Mr. Hillier about it he stated (in front of some 70 people) that he did send it and that he would be happy to “send it again". As I understand it, there was a criminal investigation conducted by the OPP that concluded that the words fail to meet the threshold of a death threat as defined by the Canadian Criminal Code. I asked Reid why this was not considered a death threat.

Further, I suggested that if his government is sincere in its efforts to “get tough on crime" the definition of a "death threat" be expanded to include "border-line correspondence” such as Mr. Hillier’s.

Conservative MP Rona Ambrose wrote me back promising to “discuss the issue with the cabinet and my caucus colleagues"; my "summer MP" Conservative Daryl Kramp sought to contact me to address the idea of making Mr. Hillier's threats a criminal offense. From MPP Randy Hillier’s office-mate and my MP Scott Reid: NOTHING.

MP Scott Reid's blatantly hypocritical claims of being "tough on crime” aside, that I received NO response what-so-ever from my MP, it is absolutely unfair that I suffer taxation without representation.

John McEwen

Propane Inspections

As most people know, before you can have a propane supplier provide you with fuel, you need your system inspected, most of the time at the property owner’s expense. If there are any repairs needed, they also must be completed at the property owner’s expense before being hooked up. The system must pass inspection before fuel can be provided. The inspection report is good for 10 years. I strongly advise everyone to request a copy of the inspection report at the time of inspection and to keep that report on file for the next 10 years in case you need it.

With the past services we received, we decided it was time to switch suppliers. I had informed the new supplier that we were inspected five years ago and could get a copy of that report. They had said it was highly unlikely I would be able to and they were right. When I requested the report from our current supplier they pulled our file and claimed the report was missing.

In our situation I am able to prove to our supplier that we have only been receiving propane from them for no more than five years since that is how long ago our house was built. Our supplier knows we had to have had the inspection or they would not have hooked us up. If there was a file to pull, then they should also know how long we have been a customer of theirs. If by chance the file does not include a date when we became their customer, the fact the house is no more than five years old still proves the inspection could not be any older than this. Even with this, our propane supplier will not provide a letter or anything to show we had an inspection done. They did, however, offer to do a free inspection if we wanted them to because they had misplaced it. I didn't feel comfortable with this since they should have no problem stating they did inspect the system and passed it. I refused to accept this and insisted on a letter from them since there is no dispute that we did have the inspection within the last five years. The response received is now that they must do an inspection to make sure we are in compliance since the report is missing. So disregarding the facts that an inspection report is good for 10 years, that our house is no more than 5 years old and that the supplier will not hook up unless the system passes inspection, they insist they must do another.

Robin Deruchie