Re. Patrick MacDonald’s letter What would Poilievre cut? Castanet, Dec. 5)
I don't understand why letter writer Patrick MacDonald doesn't want the government of Canada to balance its budget?
He sounds all hot and bothered that if (federal conservative leader Pierre Poilievre) become prime minister, Poilievre would do just that.
Isn't a balanced budget a good thing? Isn't paying down our debt a good thing? Isn't getting proper service for the taxes we pay a good thing? Isn't having our government live within its means a good thing?
I am certainly not a member of Poilievre’s inner circle, but what things might he cut in order to balance the budget? Perhaps not giving $30 billion to two huge multinational car companies to build two battery plants in Ontario. Perhaps not spending billions on a system to pay its employees—a system which the former Conservative Stephen) Harper-led government recommended against eight years ago, and which still doesn't work. Perhaps not increasing the number of federal employees by 100,000 (25%) in just eight years.
Also, erhaps not giving WE Charity $45 million to hand out $1 billion of taxpayers money willy-nilly or giving millions to a known racist and anti-Semite to deliver "anti racism training" to our media companies - and then failing to get it back. Perhaps not wasting millions in legal fees litigating against the children (now adults) from residential schools or spending $6,000 per night on a hotel suite, when much cheaper options were available and then lying about it for months. Perhaps not allowing the governor general to charge $77,000 for three days worth of limo service, even though the event being held was only 500 meters from her hotel.
Perhaps not increasing the money supply so fast it drove inflation to the highest level in 40 years. Or allowing 500,00 newcomers a year into the country, thus driving up the demand and cost of everything from health care to housing.
And, most importantly, unlocking the economic potential of the natural resources of our country - oil, minerals, lumber, grain - in order to create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and, in the process, generating billions in taxes and royalties with which to fund health care, our military and our way of life.
If Poilievre was to do these things as prime minister, then a vote for him would be a vote in the right direction.
MacDonald seems to think that Poilievre is the devil incarnate with a "thirst for power" and who can't be trusted with the keys to the realm. He must know something that is not obvious to the rest of us.
Lloyd Vinish, Kelowna