My Message

To a certain degree I am motivated to enter politics because I believe that our current Member of Parliament (MP) does not represent our constituency's values.  Our current MP has acquired a list of faux pas.  Unfortunately, he needs constant vigilance because of his parochial, offensive and often uninformed, opinions. 

Example 1 Our MP asking another MP if she has considered working as a prostitute:

"I would respond to that by asking the honourable member across the way if it is an area of work [in effect, prostitution] that she has considered" said Viersen, trailing off as other MPs heckle him and one member yells "shame."     Reported by Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 04, 2020 1:20 PM MST | Last Updated: March 6, 2020 

Example 2 MP's views on social constructs that differ from his own:

"Poilievre was quick to distance himself from Viersen’s views, saying they go against the official party policy outlined in the party policy book.   In a June 3 statement, Poilievre swore to uphold gay marriage and reproductive rights if he were elected Prime Minister." 

"On June 1, Viersen put out an apology on social media, where he stressed that his views are his own and don’t represent Poilievre or the Conservative Party." 

Cole Brennan

Jun 4, 2024 5:45 PM  Rocky Mountain Outlook

Regardless as to our stance on these issues, it is crystal clear that our MP's morals do not correlate with that of the larger tent, Conservative Party.  Furthermore, I have read too many newsletters from the MP that communicate a disconnect from truth.  Be it articles on land use, labeling ingredients on consumables, human trafficking, or just about any other issue, the communiques are often riddled with misleading statements, or at the very best, exaggerations.  

Ex. 3 Our MP's stance on labeling ingredients on consumables:

Excerpts taken from our MP's newsletter regarding natural home products, dated under the 2024 Newsletters:

"He [Trudeau] is proposing significant new fees on the import, manufacture, and sale of NHPs [natural home product] whilst simultaneously imposing new labelling laws that will massively increase the cost of these products."

"Once the rules come into place, 70% of brands say they will have to pull products from the market and 1 in 5 brands are considering leaving Canada altogether. At a bare minimum, the costs of these products will rise dramatically." 

When I read this so-called 'news' I had to wonder 'why' the government took action.  Here is what I found:

"The ingredient list on a food label provides a detailed list of every ingredient or component that is contained in a product, listed in descending order by weight. This means the ingredient that weighs the most is listed first, so consumers can gain insight into the predominant elements of what they’re eating.  The ingredient list is a vital tool for consumer education and safety. It acts as a transparent window into the product, allowing individuals to understand exactly what they’re consuming, which is particularly important for those with dietary restrictions, allergies, or preferences."  Canada's Ingredient List: B2B Compliance Guide Maria Abi Hanna, February 20, 2024

This issue is non-partisan.  Yes, these guidelines were updated by a Liberal government, but it does not matter.  Canadians want to know what they are eating, it's just that simple to understand.  Our MP places himself, and anyone who follows him, on a dangerous ledge by arguing against the labelling of consumables.  Furthermore, our MP does not cite references when he makes his exaggerated claims.  I fear that our MP will overstate his knowledge regarding any sort of science based knowledge.

Ex. 4  On another matter, our MP co-signed the Buffalo Declaration

A typical pundit's review of the Buffalo Declaration goes something like this; "This is definitely not the A team, folks, and probably not the B team, either. In fact, third-string leadership is the great underlying problem of the Buffalo Project and its farcical Declaration."  Furthermore, "Important sectors of the Alberta hydrocarbon industry are facing existential threats, but instead of grappling with the difficult issues, instead of showing real leadership in the face of a significant crisis for many Albertans, the “Buffalo wing of the CPC” – as Twitter wags have tagged it – has chosen cheap populism and victimhood over pragmatic, results-oriented solutions."  Buffalo Declaration exposes utter failure of modern Alberta oil and gas leadership.  Markham Hislop,  February 22, 2020.

The authors of the Buffalo accord do not seem to realize that the pathway to a united country cannot include signs pointing to the cliffs of separation.  If the argument of separation is the only tool used for dispute resolution, then the logical outcome would be that the country ceases to exist, while provinces within themselves would likely split; Balkanization, rather than unification is the end result from these efforts.   Relationships take work, commitment and rational discourse to resolve disputes, not threats of separation as this will only weaken the state of union.

I could go on with the scathing review of our MP, but I will add just one more point of contention, and, to me this is absolutely paramount for us as we consider the upcoming election; it is highly unlikely our MP will be invited to anyone's table of decision making since his viewpoints are dramatically incongruent to his own Party.  There may be some self-realization in this comment, as why else would he take the temptation to pay for his acclamation?  That is, our MP has paid $15,000.00 to the Party to ensure there cannot be internal challenges.  This is an affront to every Canadian worker, and also, by the way, to the Conservative Party Constitution where it explicitly states that the good life we have in this nation is due, in no small part, because of an open, free market, and COMPETITION!  To me, anyone who has to pay to keep their job is advertising their true worth.  

While unabashed at pontificating how others ought to live, our MP is very capable of sacrificing his moral framework at the altar of personal financial gain.  His veil of virtuosity sheds like a snake's skin by ignoring moral code;  'Lead us not into temptation,'  are, apparently, words for you and I to follow, but not our MP.

At this time, with all that is happening in our world, we need 'All Hands On Deck' delivering relevant ideas.  Our MP's history indicates he cannot donate to the cause in any constructive way.    

1. I hereby announce a promise that I will keep.  If I win this election I will encourage this, and all constituencies, to undergo a thorough vetting process for MP candidates preceding each election.  This is the only  way to restore dignity to the MP position.

2. I will advocate a renewed discussion regarding the Senate.  It seems reasonable to have another layer of decision makers to scrutinize bills before they enter into law; in effect, I do not support the demise of the Senate.   However, as it is now, the Senators are not elected.  There is a reason for this.  Filling seats by appointment gives recognition to marginalized areas within the nation, and to groups that may be underrepresented.   However,  assigning Senate seats by appointment goes contrary to democratic ideals, and is very disrespectful to the spirit of democracy.  Too often, the appointments are used to award individuals for their patronage rather than their merit, thereby afflicting our nation every time there is a general election.  Furthermore, to nearly the whole of the geographic area, the current distribution of seats is untenable, and disrespectful.  Historically, the distribution may have made sense, but it is past due to redistribute the seats to better reflect the population of the nation.  I suggest that the Senate be comprised of both elected and appointed members.  A blend would address both selection methods.  I do not know enough to suggest an appropriate ratio of elected to non-elected Senators, but I believe there is a logical solution to this.  Perhaps, for instance, if a province is allowed 10 senators, then 5 would be appointed and 5 would be elected.   Also, regardless as to how they received their position, there ought to be term limits.  I say, no more than 8 years.

1. I would favor a complete removal of the GST charged on all new home builds.  This will incentivize construction and bring many new homes onto market.  To me, it should not matter the value of the project.  The greater the construction cost, the more GST will be collected with every transaction.  The building of a house is, in many ways, the building of a 'value added' product.  It is unjustifiable to have a tax placed on items of added value, when the tax has already been applied on those individual purchases.  No more tax on top of tax!

2. Capital Gains tax will not go away, but, I will argue fervently that this tax be reduced to 30% to increase risk tolerance.  If we want to encourage risk, which we do since this enhances growth, then we must reduce the tax burden.  Decreasing capital gains tax can actually increase the overall amount of tax collected by the government since the decreased burden incentivizes entrepreneurship, and the more entrepreneurs there are, the more taxes the government collects.  

3. Introduce a Rural Canada Tax Rebate.  One of the greatest, if unintended, transfer of wealth is from rural to urban because of post secondary education.  We encourage our youth to attend higher education schools.  This enormous financial weight often dictates the future of a student in rural Canada as the expense often plays overlord to ability.  Yes, there are on-line options.  However, a great number of programs require attendance at the institution.  In the Peace River/Westlock constituency, there are few schools of higher learning, forcing many of our kids to leave.  I do realize that the cost of post secondary education is shared, but a percentage of post secondary education is federally funded.  I ask provincial authorities to recognize their part in reducing the cost of post secondary education for rural students.  Nevertheless, I make the following argument regardless as to the government source of funding.  Consider a land owner in the city whose real estate assets increases in value with every increase in institutional capital expenditure.   These institutional expenditures are publicly funded.  But, those who live closest to the institution have an automatic land value adjustment, upward.  This, along with enhanced business opportunities, rent collection for example, makes this an unfair advantage for our urban dwellers.   I propose a "Rural Education Adjustment" to offset this expense.  Perhaps in the form of payment to the students (or families thereof) who return to rural Canada to work.  Or,  perhaps some sort of tax benefit to those who pay the rent while their child is in school.  This will achieve fiscal balance, but will also be an attractive feature of rural life. 

With a coalition of invested partners, investigate the potential of having all rail employees, along with longshoremen, deemed as essential services.  Much of our jurisdiction relies on agriculture, and much of that business is grain production.  My view is that food is a vital commodity and should not be allowed to be used as a negotiating tool during labor strife.  Tariffs already disable the capacity to plan for a successful harvest, to the point where internal strife must be mitigated proactively.  Understanding that there is a drastic need of workers to fill vacancies in the rail industry, I will work with business, and schools, and search international options to address worker shortages. 

1. Increase penalty for repeat offenders who target rural sites

2. National campaign to educate parents as to the nefarious side of social media.  Given that many apps are designed to drive people towards poor behaviors and unhealthy attitudes, we ought to intervene.  Australia, for instance, has chosen to intervene by banning some apps to those under 16 years old.  However rational it may seem to ban social media for kids, it may be imprudent, or even not possible to do so.  We want to prepare the 'child for the road, not the road for the child.'   I would be in favor of national awareness campaigns to educate all of us.  At the same time, it seems reasonable to disrupt the various platforms by some sort of regulatory agency.  I don't have all the answers here, but we do have to find a reasonable response to the on-line crimes that are becoming ever more invasive.

3. Hire more police for rural Canada

4. Support early intervention strategies (mental health support within the schools/partnering with social workers in the community)

5. Investigate why the courts seem to be bogged down to the point of not being able to try cases.

   1. community courts/restorative justice for petty, first time offenders?

   2. AI to enact judgement?

6. End cattle rustling.

Please click here for graphs www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2023001/article/00002-eng.htm 

I will not pretend by stating I know what is best for our Indigenous communities.  I will bring an open mind and engage constructively to see if there are areas where we can find improvements.  If fresh water is a concern, then let's work on that, or if we need better cell phone coverage, then we should look at that too.

Hydrocarbon combustion will be used as a primary energy source for some time.  As an Albertan I understand the desire to hold onto the 'oil patch,' but we must accept that the energy sources are evolving; we stand to lose if we do not keep up with transitional energy sources.   Energy generated by solar and wind will have its purpose, but these sources will not be enough to supply the predicted increases in energy needs.  Two energy sources that are receiving much attention are:

1. Hydrogen; an energy alternative that can be extracted from abandoned oil wells. (see Proton Technologies)

2. Nuclear; with an infusion of thought given to the thorium reactor. (see Danish advances in Thorium reactors)

We should investigate how we could be involved in steering innovative projects in our favor.

We send our troops beyond our borders to help in times of crisis, but now, our nation is in crisis.  We need an affordable solution to our homelessness and I will investigate the potential use of our Military to help with our humanitarian crisis. I propose that we use our Military to design, engineer, and build small homes for temporary use.  

Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibility of expanding the role of the military, perhaps forming a special unit to help solve this crisis.  I propose that these homes are not only built on our military bases but stationed there as well so that our homeless population has a 'built in' support system.  Here, our homeless will now have a home address, career options, and most important, a family with the over arching goal of having our homeless population reintegrate into the our communities as vital, autonomous citizens. 

I understand that the Military would require incorporation of this domestic responsibility, and I also realize that a percentage of our homeless would not be receptive candidates for this sort of intervention.  However, I think the overall concept is worth discussing.  It seems as though we have partners that contribute fragmented components to helping the homeless, but we have no mechanism that offers a holistic environment to get the job done.  I envision the Military offering up the opportunity, to those willing, a dignified re-integration into our communities.  I'll be honest here, the USA does it right by using their military for social mobility.

By investing in our vulnerable population we can achieve the NATO spending target of 2% of GDP.   A great question would be how the heck are we paying for this?  Well, I would favor our removal, or at the very least, a significant draw down in support, from the United Nations, where we spend about 2.5 billion dollars per year (this is an approximate number).  This is 6.4% of our annual military budget.  All, or a good fraction of our UN contribution could be better used by increasing our Military spending.   The UN is about as useful to world affairs as a sieve is to someone in need of a bowl.  And, we could expand this domestic expenditure to increase housing capacity, human resources, and to fund our Arctic interests.

Canada must deliver on it's promise to be an Arctic power.  If it is one domain that Canada should dominate, it is cold weather operations.  We must continue to build ice breakers, at the very least.  We must follow through with the building of a deep water sea port and demonstrate we are serious when it comes to our claim on Arctic territory.

With the rare exception, people are autonomous individuals who should be left to their own accord regarding how they choose to live, so long as their choices do not interfere with another's rights and freedoms.  I believe each of us will be faced with making very challenging decisions, and, unless asked to intervene, the government should stay out of personal decisions. 

I will strongly advocate for a re-tooling of the Federation.  The power elite must relinquish any notion that the West will continue to serve as the nation's indentured laborer.  We cannot ask certain provinces to continually  carry the financial weight of the nation without appropriate recompense; this leads to fracturing that divides along provincial lines.  Rather than instituting a transfer of wealth, we need to encourage the migration of people.  Naturally embedded in this concept is the assurance of nationally recognized credentials.  A licensed practitioner should be eligible to be licensed to practice in all parts of Canada, including Quebec, without imposition.  The same goes for all trades and professions, with perhaps very few exceptions.   

The decisions we make as an electorate may have implications for several generations.  I would like to include our youth in our discussions.  I believe that we could set up a Peace River-Westlock survey tool so that students can 'vote' on issues.  Our youth would be able to see results across our constituency and perhaps develop a greater understanding of others.  Perhaps healthy debate would result, and this would be good.

Much has been talked about regarding the media; we often comment on how we cannot trust the media, even the public broadcasts.   Frustration over this lack of intellectual integrity, many have talked of defunding the CBC altogether.  I'll admit my dissatisfaction with our national news carrier and it shouldn't be that the CBC is the news, rather than reporting it.  There is little doubt the reporting has been biased.  This is more than infuriating since we see the mess Trudeau and his Liberal governance have made while all too often, while Trudeau acted a fool, the CBC glossed over his self-aggrandizement and painted a picture of his 'sunny ways.'  Moreover, this agency's reporting is often inflammatory without investigation (think of the 'defund the police' times),  alarmist, and seen by many to have an agenda, rather than just reporting the truth. 

We should demand that the CBC become truly journalistic, and nothing more.  No political agenda or 'opinion.'  If I wanted opinion I'll go to the local coffee shop.  In the same way I ask our politicians to be accountable, so too it goes for our public news agency.  Given that our taxes fund the CBC (something like 1.4 billion dollars per year!) we should demand that we get something that defines the purpose of the Fourth Estate.  

The Fourth Estate is an important pillar that forms a stable foundation for a Liberal Democracy.  The Third Estate (commoners like me) depend on the reports given to us, so we can make informed decisions.   It is the Fourth Estate that keeps politicians, like our current MP, in check.  We need the CBC to accurately report with intellectual honesty.  

However, calls for defunding the CBC is not a smart idea.  We do not want the media in it's entirety to be owned by the rich who have their personal agenda.  Defunding the CBC will result in our news cycle being created by wealthy megalomaniacs, and this invites a myriad of concerns.  The oligarchy-plutocracy that seems to be forming in the USA can, in large measure, be attributed to the ownership of the Fourth Estate, which has, unfortunately, devolved into the Fifth Estate (social media); not more than blogs and opinion pieces these so called 'news agents' unspool events farther from reality with every sentence.  (Please note that I believe that the CBC's Fifth Estate is actually an example of journalistic professionalism.)

We should avoid the pathway taken by the USA and continue to fund the CBC, albeit at a decreased amount.  We should demand that the CBC cut the sensational, irrelevant reporting, and decrease the expense of the organization accordingly.   We want our CBC to be conscientious of the awesome responsibility it has, to report only the truth, without spin, without alarmism, without an agenda or bias.

Regardless as to where we live, we all enjoy our interactions with nature; that is, until nature reveals itself as a bit nasty.  We often think of an untouched rain forest, or bucolic mountain meadow when we think of nature, but an an attacking grizzly bear or -40 C is nature too!   We can certainly agree that humans have a complex relationship with nature.  In many ways our technological advances, made possible by modern science, have been created to keep nature harnessed.  

Nevertheless, we have a responsibility to monitor the degree to which we disturb nature.  We have the moral obligation to other creatures to ensure they too can survive.  We ought to be more than concerned as to the rate of species extinction and be very aware that as we manipulate nature, we may be the creators of our own demise.  And, we should re-think our efforts to continually expand our extraction of natural materials without rectification of lost habitat.  

There has been a call to limit development called '30x30.'  Our MP 'reported' this movement as a Liberal effort, in cooperation with the Chinese Government, to control private land.  In actuality, the 30x30 initiative is an aspirational goal set by the entire world (with the exception of 4 countries).  The goal is to set aside 30% of the world's area (marine and land) by the year 2030, to be left in it's natural state.  In these protected areas, no development would be allowed, unless there is an absolute need by that country to survive.  Again, this is an aspirational goal, not one set by any sort of law; it is not obligatory even if countries have agreed to the principle.  A recent trip to Costa Rica, a developing nation, revealed how their country has completed their obligation to the 30x30 standard.  In Canada, a post-industrial nation want-to-be, this would be an easy goal to achieve.  

However, I am all for development.  I full well realize the imposition that the rest of nature places on humanity.  Living in the northern climates teaches us in a hurry that nature needs to be controlled, or we would soon perish.  We often hear that Earth is the only habitable planet in our galactic space.  But, it should be clear that most of planet Earth is completely uninhabitable, and, without technological intervention we would soon migrate to a narrow band of latitude near the equator to survive.  

I believe we can have it all.  We can have the modern life alongside nature.  I believe technological advances will be able to provide a balance between our needs and desires.  

Regardless as to how the population feels about the anthropogenic influence on nature, it is prudent to proceed into our future as if capitalistic endeavors actualize climate change to a large degree.  We can establish new economies by this way of thinking, and pump the brakes on environmental degradation.  In some ways, we can compare our current situation of energy use to that used during the incipient stages of industrialization.  A common energy source during those early times of development was fat from whales.  Our ancestors must have realized that there must be no down-side in developing new energy sources.  In the same spirit, we can do the same.  

I am probably going to open myself up to criticism here, but I would be remiss by not stating my position on the current trade dispute with the USA.  I know I support a minority view on this, but that's okay, we must be open to contrary thoughts.  

I believe most economists would agree to the statement; "All tariffs are taxes."  As I do not support an increase in taxes, I do not agree with tariffs, or counter tariffs.  But, I do not think we should be idle, quite the contrary.  I believe our attention and capital expenditure should be drawn inward.  How can we say we support the trade dispute with the USA, and not deal with the inter-provincial tariffs?  I say, remove the inter-provincial tariffs, then, perhaps,  strategically directed counter tariffs might be required in conjunction with other US trading partners who are also under the tariff attacks.  Canada cannot withstand a one on one tariff battle with the USA.

While we initiate large scale projects in this nation, we should continue negotiating with the USA to remove those tariffs.  As we invest in our country, we ought to be scanning the world for reliable trade partners with the over arching goal to reduce our reliance on the USA.  My idea would be along the lines of passive but intelligent resistance where we continue to trade with the USA, but not poke and prod.  We cannot win a trade war with the USA, but we can be selective with our consumer purchases and choose products that are made in Canada, or from other countries.  If we cannot manufacture pipes for pipelines, then let's get our industry retooled so that we can.  If our auto industry is threatened to the point of collapse, then we ought to build something else.  As a home builder, if the economy signaled the end of profits in building houses, I wouldn't continue to build houses; maybe barns, or sheds, but not houses.  We could, in my view, have a 'made in Canada' response to the tariff threat, and significantly reduce that threat with wise investments in our country. 

If there is an action that should be taken within the very near future it is to understand that intellectual property requires protection.  We have too freely given our knowledge away without compensation.  If there is something to gain by re-negotiation of trade with other nations, this has to be a play at the onset of discussion. (For more discussion on this topic see the above 'Advocate for large scale projects.')

Trump has 1.5 years to get this right for his country before another election cycle sets in.  We can mitigate our current trade conundrum by thinking smartly, and not reacting irrationally.  We cannot forget that we do have allies within the USA and we want that to strengthen.  We have been given an opportunity to set our house right, and become the nation we ought to be.  We could have a Canada 2.0 where once again our youth would be proud to stamp a maple leaf on their backpack.  A country awakened from a state of dormancy, and apathy, to become detached, to a larger degree, from the economic strangle hold we are currently experiencing.