Editor's note: This is a letter to John Weston, MP for West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. It was copied to The Chief for publication.
Thank you so much for your reply to my letter regarding right-wing values. I'm glad to see you follow the letters to the editor in our local papers.
As to your reply: I couldn't help noticing that you managed to follow the standard process of bafflegab typical of the seasoned politician. Which is: acknowledge the question, yet avoid actually addressing the question. In case you are wondering, I chose to ask direct and specific questions in the hope that you would extend to me the same courtesy in the form of your answers.
But no matter; I wasn't holding my breath.
Perhaps in the future you can gain much respect and interest from your constituents if you went way out on a limb and started explaining the real nuts and bolts behind your government policy initiatives. For instance, do you agree with Joe Oliver that certain environmental advocacy groups are akin to foreign terrorism? No - don't laugh. Perhaps you don't realize that we (your constituents) actually appreciate them holding your feet to the fire, even if they are just a bunch of cry-baby enviros. More to the point, if you guys and gals think that sicking Revenue Canada on them will knock the wind out of their sails, then what about me? Should I also be expecting a tax audit from Revenue Canada?
How about the stony silence about the steady decline of middle-class economic status in direct opposition to upper income brackets? There are so many questions and so much circumspect obfuscation rather than straight answers.
May I suggest something? Perhaps in this paper (and all the others in your constituency), you could have a weekly column of addressing the unanswered questions that are on all our minds. You could call it "The Straight Goods" or "Going Maverick" or something. I'm not sure how your bosses in the Prime Minister's Office will regard this but we (your constituents) would love it.
Now before I go, allow me to anticipate your possible reply. Indeed, you have already implied that my choice of language is inflammatory and polarizing. To that I say yes, it is inflammatory, but only if you equate inflammatory with challenging. As to being polarizing, I will state that never once have I indicated that I am ideologically entrenched. If you were to rebut my questions with wel-reasoned and factual replies that logically contradict my position, I would gladly change my mind. I mean, who wouldn't? You guys are in the driver's seat and I'd love to think you know what you're doing.
Bruce Kay
Squamish
