Connect with us

Opinion

What I Stand For

Published

8 minute read

What I Stand For
WHAT I STAND FOR: PARENTAL AUTHORITY
 
“Government needs to respect the right of all parents to raise their children in the way they choose.”
 
As Canadians, we want the very best for our children. We also realize that parents are best equipped to support and love their children.
 
With this in mind, government needs to respect the right of all parents to raise their children the way they choose. This includes the right to:
 
· Pass on religious beliefs
· Instill family values
· Decide on schooling
· Restrict access to their children
· Protect their child’s health
 
 
WHAT I STAND FOR: DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS
 
“Government is not the grantor of rights, rather the protector.”
 
Members of Parliament should respect and defend our rights in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
Government policies should not interfere with the ability of individuals, families or the church to make decisions within their respective sphere of influence in a manner that they deem appropriate.
 
Individuals should be able to make decisions in accordance with their personal conscience.
 
Freedom of speech, the most important Charter Right, should be protected at all costs. If Canadians are able to freely express themselves, we are able to freely callout the problems we see in our country.
 
Government must protect our right to pursue gainful employment, even in the midst of a global pandemic. All businesses are essential to those who rely on it to provide for their families.
 
Our freedom of assembly must be protected as this ensures Canadians are able to fulfill one of the most important drivers of mental health, spending time with others.
 
Families should be able to participate in the difficult decisions that impact their children and government should consider and protect parental rights in legislative decisions.
 
Churches should be able to keep their doors open to provide services to their members and to the community. Government should respect all religions and provide support to allow for religious facilities to operate safely and without fear of persecution.
 
 
WHAT I STAND FOR: COMPASSION FOR THE VULNERABLE
 
“Government has an inherent duty to enact policies that protect its citizens and their liberty.”
 
Government has an inherent duty to enact policies that protect its citizens. The absence of safety and security leads to division, the breakdown of civil society and unrest.
 
Government policies should be reviewed to ensure that they have no negative impact on the least, the lost and the last. Additionally, Canadians should be encouraged to seek the dignity of work as this provides personal fulfillment and positive contributions to society.
 
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed areas where government policy has woefully failed and must be immediately improved in order to better protect the vulnerable among us. Examples include:
 
· More stringent regulations within long-term care facilities
· Reinstituting funding to fight human-trafficking
· Fulfilling commitments to end long-term boil water advisories on First Nation reserves
· Supporting holistic treatment for those impacted by the opioid crisis
· Providing wrap-around supports for veterans
· Expand funding to pregnancy care centres
 
Providing hope for the most vulnerable should always be top of mind in society. Government can set the right tone through well-crafted policies and adequate supporting regulations.
 
 
WHAT I STAND FOR: FISCAL RESPONSBILITY
 
“It is inappropriate for government to heap debt upon the backs of our children.”
 
It simply is not realistic to continue printing money. As our national debt continues to worsen, we run the risk of inflation, devalued currency and increasing interest rates. All of these factors would significantly worsen the financial situation for the majority of Canadians, making it harder for our economy to rebound.
 
Government needs to shift away from perpetual spending and taxing. Instead, finances must be handled with prudence and in accordance with a balanced budget. This requires an understanding of the scarcity of resources and the importance of maximizing value for every dollar spent.
 
Policies such as carbon tax and the proposed new Clean Fuel Standard need to be eliminated. Discussions around estate, wealth and principal residence taxes need to end. Investors, businesses and consumers are looking for confidence at this time. New or expanded taxes do not provide this.
 
Government needs to allow businesses to return to operation. Revenues from the private sector will be required to get us through the post pandemic period and more importantly, to tackle the significant debt that has been accumulated in the government’s response to COVID-19. We need increased investor fueled production and less debt driven consumption.
 
 
WHAT I STAND FOR: ACCOUNTABILITY
 
“Elected officials should learn from constituents at in person town hall meetings every month.”
 
“I was criticized for being too much concerned with the average Canadians. I can’t help that; I am one of them!” – John Diefenbaker, 13th Prime Minister of Canada.
 
Do you know who your Member of Parliament is? Have you ever spoken with him/her?
 
If you’ve answered no to either or both of these questions, does this seem concerning to you considering this person is supposed to represent your interests on the national and international stage?
 
For far too long now, Canada has been governed by those seeking to benefit themselves, their friends, connected insiders or their political party through the position of power they were elected to.
 
It is time for a change. Members of Parliament work for you. You are the boss!
 
If elected, I commit to holding at least one monthly in person town hall meeting. We need to get back to grassroots politics where you have the ability to speak with your elected representative on a regular basis.
 
Politicians shouldn’t promise to fix every one of your concerns. That’s not possible.
 
Rather they should promise to meet with you, listen to your concerns and work as hard as possible to get government out of the way so you can solve your concerns as efficiently as possible.
 
 

I have recently made the decision to seek nomination as a candidate in the federal electoral district of Red Deer - Mountain View. As a Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA), I directly see the negative impacts of government policy on business owners and most notably, their families. This has never been more evident than in 2020. Through a common sense focus and a passion for bringing people together on common ground, I will work to help bring prosperity to the riding of Red Deer – Mountain View and Canada. I am hoping to be able to share my election campaign with your viewers/readers. Feel free to touch base with me at the email listed below or at jaredpilon.com. Thanks.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 4 years ago

Leave our Kids Alone

Federal Election 2021 / 4 years ago

Vote Splitting

Business

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Published on

By Gwyn Morgan

Mark Carney was supposed to be the adult in the room. After nearly a decade of runaway spending under Justin Trudeau, the former central banker was presented to Canadians as a steady hand – someone who could responsibly manage the economy and restore fiscal discipline.

Instead, Carney has taken Trudeau’s recklessness and dialled it up. His government’s recently released spending plan shows an increase of 8.5 percent this fiscal year to $437.8 billion. Add in “non-budgetary spending” such as EI payouts, plus at least $49 billion just to service the burgeoning national debt and total spending in Carney’s first year in office will hit $554.5 billion.

Even if tax revenues were to remain level with last year – and they almost certainly won’t given the tariff wars ravaging Canadian industry – we are hurtling toward a deficit that could easily exceed 3 percent of GDP, and thus dwarf our meagre annual economic growth. It will only get worse. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates debt interest alone will consume $70 billion annually by 2029. Fitch Ratings recently warned of Canada’s “rapid and steep fiscal deterioration”, noting that if the Liberal program is implemented total federal, provincial and local debt would rise to 90 percent of GDP.

This was already a fiscal powder keg. But then Carney casually tossed in a lit match. At June’s NATO summit, he pledged to raise defence spending to 2 percent of GDP this fiscal year – to roughly $62 billion. Days later, he stunned even his own caucus by promising to match NATO’s new 5 percent target. If he and his Liberal colleagues follow through, Canada’s defence spending will balloon to the current annual equivalent of $155 billion per year. There is no plan to pay for this. It will all go on the national credit card.

This is not “responsible government.” It is economic madness.

And it’s happening amid broader economic decline. Business investment per worker – a key driver of productivity and living standards – has been shrinking since 2015. The C.D. Howe Institute warns that Canadian workers are increasingly “underequipped compared to their peers abroad,” making us less competitive and less prosperous.

The problem isn’t a lack of money; it’s a lack of discipline and vision. We’ve created a business climate that punishes investment: high taxes, sluggish regulatory processes, and politically motivated uncertainty. Carney has done nothing to reverse this. If anything, he’s making the situation worse.

Recall the 2008 global financial meltdown. Carney loves to highlight his role as Bank of Canada Governor during that time but the true credit for steering the country through the crisis belongs to then-prime minister Stephen Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty. Facing the pressures of a minority Parliament, they made the tough decisions that safeguarded Canada’s fiscal foundation. Their disciplined governance is something Carney would do well to emulate.

Instead, he’s tearing down that legacy. His recent $4.3 billion aid pledge to Ukraine, made without parliamentary approval, exemplifies his careless approach. And his self-proclaimed image as the experienced technocrat who could go eyeball-to-eyeball against Trump is starting to crack. Instead of respecting Carney, Trump is almost toying with him, announcing in June, for example that the U.S. would pull out of the much-ballyhooed bilateral trade talks launched at the G7 Summit less than two weeks earlier.

Ordinary Canadians will foot the bill for Carney’s fiscal mess. The dollar has weakened. Young Canadians – already priced out of the housing market – will inherit a mountain of debt. This is not stewardship. It’s generational theft.

Some still believe Carney will pivot – that he will eventually govern sensibly. But nothing in his actions supports that hope. A leader serious about economic renewal would cancel wasteful Trudeau-era programs, streamline approvals for energy and resource projects, and offer incentives for capital investment. Instead, we’re getting more borrowing and ideological showmanship.

It’s no longer credible to say Carney is better than Trudeau. He’s worse. Trudeau at least pretended deficits were temporary. Carney has made them permanent – and more dangerous.

This is a betrayal of the fiscal stability Canadians were promised. If we care about our credit rating, our standard of living, or the future we are leaving our children, we must change course.

That begins by removing a government unwilling – or unable – to do the job.

Canada once set an economic example for others. Those days are gone. The warning signs – soaring debt, declining productivity, and diminished global standing – are everywhere. Carney’s defenders may still hope he can grow into the job. Canada cannot afford to wait and find out.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations

Published on

Over the past few years, I’ve had canvassers coming to my home in Toronto on behalf of a wide range of non-profits – including hospitals and mental health and homeless support organizations. The fundraisers all “wear” a noticeable post secondary student vibe. That’s hardly news.

But curiously, no matter what they’re collecting for, every last one of them uses the exact same methodology. That is, they refuse to take a one-time donation, instead insisting I sign up for six (not seven, and definitely not five) monthly payments. They don’t want me donating online through the organization’s website (explaining that they wouldn’t get credit for that). They do expect me to enter my basic information on a high-end tablet they’re carrying. When that’s done, they’ll use their smartphones to make a call to a remote agent who would take my financial information.

I only completed the process once – for the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) in Toronto. But that was mostly because, at the time, they were in the middle of quite literally saving my granddaughter’s life. I couldn’t very well say no.

Because of the paranoia that comes with my background in IT systems administration, I generally don’t participate, explaining that I never share financial information on a call I didn’t initiate. At the same time, these campaigns are not fraudulent and, with the possible exception of UNICEF, they all represent legitimate organizations. Nevertheless, they all come with the clear fingerprints of a third-party, for-profit company. Which makes me curious.

After a little digging, it became clear that a company called Globalfaces Direct was the most likely employer of the face-to-face (F2F) canvassers I’m seeing. It’s also obvious that those canvassers are paid at least partially through revenue-based commissions.

Estimating how much of your donations are actually used for charitable work can be difficult. For once thing, in the case of SickKids, it’s not even clear which organization the money is going to. There at least three related non-profit accounts registered with CRA: The Hospital for Sick Children, The Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, and the SickKids Charitable Giving Fund.

But even where there isn’t such ambiguity we have only limited visibility into an organization’s finances. Covenant House, for instance, issued receipts for $26 million in donations for 2024, but there’s no way to know how much of that came through Globalfaces Direct F2F campaigns. And there’s certainly no public record indicating how much of that $26 million was spent on commissions and overhead. CRA filings for Covenant House do report fundraising costs of $9.4 million in 2024, which was 22 percent of their total spending and 32 percent of all donations.

It’s likely that their $9.4 million in fundraising costs includes Globalfaces Direct’s canvasser commissions and overhead costs. But those are only some of the costs – which likely include events, direct mail, and other in-house efforts. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to assume that only 20-30 percent of each dollar raised through F2F canvassing is actually spent on charity work.

From the perspective of the non-profit, hiring F2F companies can generate new sources of stable, long-term income that would have been otherwise unattainable. Especially if the F2F agreement specifies withholding a percentage of what’s collected rather than charging a flat fee, then a non-profit has nothing to lose. Why wouldn’t SickKids or Covenant House sign up for that?

Of course, a lot of that will depend on how you think about the numbers. Taken as a whole, an organization that spends just 32 percent of their donations on fundraising activities is well within CRA guidelines: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it is a purpose of the charity (a collateral non-charitable purpose).” But if we just looked at the money raised through a F2F campaign, that percentage would likely be a lot higher.

Similarly, CRA also expects that: “Fundraising is acceptable unless it delivers a more than incidental private benefit.” In other words, if a private company like Globalfaces Direct were to realize financial gain that’s “more than incidental”, it might fail to meet CRA guidelines.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy way for donors to assess the numbers on those terms. So regular people who prefer to direct as much of their donation as possible to the actual cause will generally be far better off donating through an institution’s website or, even better, through a single CRA-friendly aggregator like CanadaHelps.org.

But it would be nice if CRA reporting rules clearly broke those numbers down so we could judge for ourselves.

Continue Reading

Trending

X