AGAR: No point in waiting for the throne speech — here it is

Article content

I am going to beat the government to the punch and give my throne speech today.

First, I wouldn’t have the king read my throne speech.

Why attack U.S President Donald Trump’s threat to our sovereignty, saying we are not a serious country, by having our sovereign, a man from another country, read the speech?

As we face another postal strike, I’d step in. Yes, the post office is a Crown corporation. They run their own business, but that notwithstanding, I am taking over.

No discussion about how to save the post office. We are having a discussion about what part of the post office needs to be saved and what needs to be blown up. It is not fair for taxpayers to lose billions of dollars to keep a dying business afloat.

We need a whole new model and that starts today. Once-a-week delivery is enough in today’s world and would allow a severe cutback in personnel and expenses.

I’d immediately craft the law to keep dangerous repeat offenders behind bars. A person with a conviction for a violent crime would have NO chance of bail if charged again.

Sure, they still have a presumption of innocence on the new charges, but staying in jail awaiting trial should be a consequence of the initial conviction. Actions have consequences.

I would build pipelines and lean into Canada, exploiting our considerable resources. To those people who want us off carbon fuels, I would say I agree with the idea that we should do our part in reducing carbon emissions. But I would match that to our contribution to the problem, which is negligible. There is no reason to punish the people who are not part of the problem.

When Quebec says it doesn’t want pipelines, effectively cutting off Atlantic Canada, I would say fine, it can also get along without transfer payments.

I would eliminate everything that stands in the way of building housing. Land transfer taxes, systems that forces developers to spend several years getting permission to go ahead, backing off the nimbies because while they may own their home they don’t own the neighbourhood and adopting a philosophy of build, build, build and make all other decisions based on that mantra.

To that goal, I would manage immigration at a much lower level than has been and likely will be done.

It is simple supply and demand.

I would not let anyone in who doesn’t have proof of the ability to contribute by bringing the skills we need.

As for refugees, we also cannot take all comers. We are not the world’s saviours. We take those we can and reluctantly tell the rest that we can’t help right now.

I’d also tell both immigrants and refugees that we will decide where they live for the first five years. If the courts have an issue with it, well, that is what the notwithstanding clause is for.

If we need people in Moose Jaw, then that’s where they go.

Even though I know this would be politically unpopular, I would not respond to Trump with retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs are destructive to the economy, cause unemployment and ramp up prices. Doubling up by retaliating harms Canadians, so why do it?

We’ll ride it out with Trump. We will experience damage, but we don’t have to act like him.