The people of Huntsville first elected me at the age of 21 to serve as their Town and District Councillor. I have lived a public life ever since. Serving on council, as Mayor, on community boards, committees, and now as your Member of Parliament.
I’m no stranger to critics. I’ve had a lot of people disagree with me over the time that I have been in public life. That’s fine. Usually I hear their point of view, they hear mine, we come away with a greater understanding of each other’s positions, I shake their hand, and we go on with our days.
This disagreement, and the opportunity to take your concerns directly to elected officials, is one of the things that makes Canada so unique and special.
Last week a group of protesters representing Climate Action Muskoka and Climate Action Almaguin decided to protest outside my office. That’s fine. That’s their right – indeed every Canadian’s right. I was participating in the Huntsville Hospital Foundation Golf Tournament at the time, and was not present in the office.
The staff who work in the Huntsville office, all three of whom are amazing mothers who work extremely hard on behalf of Parry Sound-Muskoka, allowed the group to come inside to deliver a letter to me demanding I address climate change. Fine. That’s great.
While inside, one of the protesters suggested that the staff in the office “should die.” That’s where I draw the line. Everyone is free to have their own opinions about me, about the party I am a member of, about our Prime Minister, and anyone is free to reach out to me to talk about what is on their mind.
But to suggest that the amazing staff who work in the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka’s office “should die” makes my blood boil.
Climate Action Muskoka and their affiliate, 350 Canada, said I was “publicly misrepresenting (his) constituents’ actions.” I’m not sure what fancy communications consultant wrote that statement, but here in Parry Sound-Muskoka, telling people they should die is reprehensible and disgusting.
I have met with the Climate Action groups in Parry Sound-Muskoka in the past. We always had fruitful discussions about potential solutions to climate change. We didn’t always agree, but we had respectful discussions.
Climate change is real. We need to make alternate sources of energy such as wind, solar, and nuclear, cheaper and easier to build. We need to invest in the technologies Canada needs to reach our climate targets.
I have been clear that I do not support a Carbon Tax, which raises the price of gas, groceries, and home heating, and punishes the most vulnerable in our community. I don’t support radical energy policies, like shutting down nuclear power sources, which would cause widespread blackouts and deprive people of the energy and power we all need to live.
But it seems that the Climate Action groups have become more radical and extreme. They have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by individuals who suggested that my staff “should die”.
I will keep working towards sensible climate solutions that protect this magnificent region, and can help Canada help the world. I will keep leading with hope and respect. I will do everything I can to lower the political temperature, and deliver the solutions we all need to the problems we face.
(Photo of Parliament Hill by festivio on Pixabay. Photo of Scott Aitchison courtesy of Scott Aitchison.)
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
These groups are not “independent”. They’re not “community advocacy” groups.
They partisans with a direct affiliation with the Green Party of Ontario and Green Party of Canada.
They represent far-left, fringe, catastrophist opinion. They are extremists.
They ought to be ignored.
Good on Scott for finally calling them out.
Mr. Holland, Mr. Markle and others, thank you for your edifying comments on the topic at hand.
Protecting staff from harassing/bullying comments is very appropriate – but it has received the attention necessary by your commentary, Scott.
In addition is the conversation and needed policy clarity and development on climate change.
Thanks to all who have brought this issue forward Again!
You must be very young or in denial to not have noticed that the environment is changing around us.
On July 8, I commented that a person in a climate action group made a “repugnant” comment , my word, while possibly “a little short of full charge”, my words again. I’d like to eat those words.
It now seems much more likely that the man’s comment was not to wish anyone should die. It seems there was no threat to anyone, just a genuine and heartfelt sob for an uncertain future. If global warming is not slowed or controlled, he felt we will all die. I suppose there will be controversy over what was said, exactly. But I got to thinking about how the story took flight.
From the office of a politician. From the office of a party without any stated plan of action, other than opposite to what a Liberal government might do. Which isn’t much.
After all the years of disappointment, I was lulled into, initially, believing a politician.
My bad!!
Forgot to say that I had heard that Ukraine has all the lithium needed for the EV batteries. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, would this be why Russia is intent of owning Ukraine? More What ifs??
Ageeing with everyone, it is certainly not acceptable behaviour to wish someone dead!
As regards the carbon fuel and carbon tax, it’s hard for me to know if it will work or not because in many ways it seems to be just punishing folk so they will use less energy (gas, heat, etc.) and I guess that is idea and probably worth a try for sure BUT I read that the lithium batteries for the EV vehicles cause more problem with pollution and heating the world and that when an EV vehicle breaks down that it requires a gas fired portable generator to refill it. We hear so many different stories these days – who to believe??
As well, apparently the world has been heating up for years all along and am wondering if the carbon is really the real problem as the plants, trees, etc. all need carbon dioxide – maybe we need to plant more trees, especially for those that are burning down with all the fires around (and keep our greenbelts).
I do wish for co-operation between the different parties to work on our problem of an overheating world instead of competing with each other.
Ahh Scott… the tempest in the tea cup strategy.
The storm you point at is a statement made in your office by someone caught like all of us in the jaws of climate crisis reality. Yes the reality of wildfire smoke that has been choking our breathing , and stinging our eyes might get some of us a little worried!
I guess that person, a climate demonstrator who landed in your office, may have been a little angry, and scared like many of us !
Perhaps we are all a little frustrated ,and worried that our politicians have not been willing to tackle the main cause of spiralling global temperatures, which is the burning of fossil fuels.
Scott, you decided that the demonstrator’s statement was a direct threat to your staff , at least that served your purpose to divert attention from reality.
The reality is we Canadians are facing the worst Climate Change driven wildfire season ever! The global average temperature hit 17.4 C on this July 4th, the highest ever recorded. We have already seen the tragic loss last year of a whole town in BC- Litton ,and the loss of part of Fort McMurray caused by wildfires. Just two years ago we witnessed the occurrence of a heat dome in BC which was blamed for over 200 deaths, mostly seniour citizens .
Scott, do these events not point to the reality that More people will die if politicians, if our political parties do not have a plan of action, and the will to act on that plan to lower our methane, and co2 emissions ?
. So let’s talk about Scott’s climate action plan to help Muskokans cope , adapt, and make changes that will carry us forward in a good way into the future. That future I pray, doesn’t include wearing a respirator on a regular basis like I was forced to do a week ago.
Scott, please write to the Doppler and tell us what your plans are, and what the PC party’s plans are . Maybe tell us how the PC party can actually help not hinder the present Liberal government to move ahead on climate action for all of our sakes!!
Sincerely, Kim deLagran
None of us were at the MP’s office when the incident occurred so have no idea what really happened. However there is a big difference in wishing a person was dead, than actually threatening them. In polite discourse neither should happen. Climate change is factual and is coming on far quicker than most people expected. In the past week the world has experienced several days that were the hottest ever recorded. Thus perhaps the person making the remarks became a little hot headed, there is no excuse for that, but it happens.
However it would be nice if Scott and his party would present some real solutions for climate change, rather than complain about a hot head who made some offensive remarks. At least the hot head is trying to do something about the problem, unlike Scott who along with his party is doing nothing, and is opposed to any actions that may do something about it, such as a carbon tax. If not a carbon tax, then what? I for one would like to see a pleasant climate for my children and grandchildren.
The word should have been sexist not sensitive in reference to Ms. Stewart’s comment on people threatened .
My apology for the spell check .
P.S……You females/workers/in the office , keep up the good work for the People of Muskoka……A more pleasant , helpful group would be hard to find !
Scott comments on bizarre behavior by a member of a well intentioned group and gets comments on policy and accusations on being sensitive. As for knowing what prompted the comment from the individual suggests perhaps it is alright to threaten if You disagree. I spoke at length with one of people who invited the protesters in and civil conversation ensued with several activists .The staff are not elected officials but paid workers who don’t make policy nor do they speak for the Member . The rant followed the explanation of staffs function in the office and it fact some persons tried to get the person who threatened to cease and desist his ramblings .
I have known that climate exists and has for thousands of years as shown by the ice ages . The fact that man exacerbates the situation is also well known. . Fossil fuels are a cause and perhaps an even greater source of green house gas is corporate factory farms .
Debate the solutions as you will . There is no debate about threatening innocents for any reason !
We must consider the historical perspective. Since 1800, global population and standard of living (GDP per capita) have both increased by factors of 8. As a result, global consumption of energy has increased by a factor of 16. We have been slow to learn, and 80 % of our total energy supply still comes from carbon-based fossil fuels. We have become addicted to abundant amounts of cheap fossil fuels that are now causing global warming at an alarming rate. If that is not enough, we will run out of oil and gas in about 50 years. The biggest consumers (USA, China, and the EU) will run out of domestic reserves in less than 20 years. It will take at least 20 to 30 years to replace energy from oil and gas, so we had better get started.
Regardless of the above, some people are still clinging stubbornly to energy from fossil fuels. And some are PROTESTING every type of clean energy project, bar none, whether it be solar, wind, hydro, energy from bio-waste, geothermal, big nuclear, or small nuclear. We need them all. But the time-consuming protests result in governments choosing sub-optimal solutions that miss big opportunities and which will increase the time and cost of mitigating Climate Change. An example of that is this week’s announcement by the Ford government of their intention to double the number of big CANDU reactors at the Bruce nuclear plant, when emerging small modular reactors (SMRs) would provide many more benefits and probably faster. Apparently, they feel it would be futile to try to get approval on locations for SMRs.
Some people don’t know and don’t care, so we must continue to EDUCATE. Some, like other addicts, know but don’t care enough to give up or change anything until they “hit bottom”, so we must try to TOLERATE them until they are personally affected. Some know enough and care enough to BUY SMART, and VOTE SMART for effective solutions. That group is growing but needs to grow faster. And some know, but may never care. For them we will have to LEGISLATE.
I read the Doppler report about a climate action group delivering a letter to MP Scott Aitchison. The group was hoping to urge the member to push for decarbonization. Then the comment from Bill Beatty, ‘suggesting’ the group (may have) made an apology for something. I’m not into a lot of social media, so my information may come a bit late at times. Bill Beatty’s comment seemed to disparage the entire group. I wondered what had happened.
Then I read of our MP’s outrage at a ‘remark’ made by one member of that action group, directed towards the MPs’ office staff. The ‘remark’ was repugnant, from someone, perhaps operating, a little short of ‘full charge.’ The group issued an apology, though they can’t be responsible for the actions of everyone in their midst. Our own politicians have demonstrated that to us. I hope the group cancelled the offending person’s membership.
I feel that MP Aitchison’s comment dwelt more on the ‘remark’ than the reason the group was there in the first place. He used deflection, that practice of the consummate politician. Accent on the remark, and the lemon, and not on the reason the group had come.
In her comment, Anna-Lise Kear again questioned the member on P.C. party platform, or lack of anything specific, when it comes to global warming. She never mentioned the ‘remark’, thus reducing a lot of what MP Aitchison had written, to filler.
The comment Anna-Lise Kear made, brought Hugh Mackenzie rushing to defend MP Aitchison; to bring back the dumb remark, and re-establish its deflection capability. No one condones the person having made that remark, but since MP Aitchison accented it himself, MP Aitchison should be capable of defending himself.
MP Aitchison states he feels action groups are becoming ‘radical and extreme’. I feel the same about some politicians and their fringe groups; some having made it all the way to the leadership of their party, and province.
And the bluster about, “makes my blood boil” may be somewhat foreboding, inasmuch as, climate change and global warming left unchecked, may do that to us all…. somewhere down the line.
For the person who blurted out that inappropriate remark. Sheesh!!!! My actual choice of words may not be Doppler friendly.
Couldn’t get past Scott’s ‘all three of whom are amazing mothers’ description of government staff at his Huntsville office. Why was that necessary? Does it make a difference what personal role staff assume outside of work? Why not just…’who work extremely hard on behalf of Parry Sound-Muskoka?’
Would opinions change if it were ‘three amazing fathers?’ Scott labeled the staff and publicly disclosed facts about them. And gee whiz Scott, it’s not the 1950’s, we see through your ‘oh look how progressive we are in the CPC we hire moms’.
In spite of what Mr. Aitchison said, officially Conservatives don’t believe climate change is real.
The ever popular Ostrich Solution.
Don’t be fooled.
Search “Conservative delegates reject adding ‘climate change is real’ to the policy book”
As usual, just like PP, Mr. Aitchison talks about the carbon tax and fails to mention the big rebate.
Up to $1,544/year. Depends on province.
EV owners don’t pay the tax on gas but still get the rebate.
It pays the entire yearly cost of “fuel” for an EV (FREE “fuel”), road tax if any, and helps to pay off the EV.
On top of federal and provincial purchase rebates. $12K total rebates in PQ for example.
Many people, especially low incomes, get more back in the rebate than they pay in the tax.
They buy groceries with their rebate.
Mr. Aitchison would eliminate that benefit.
And discourage EV ownership and encourage more gas guzzling and GHG spewing vehicles.
Don’t be fooled.
As usual, politicians focus on something that helps their cause. Of course, we shouldn’t be wishing people “to die”. However, we also don’t know the circumstances that led to a comment like that. Having refererred many a school yard arguement, I know that there are two sides to every story.
Conservatives need to step up and acknowedge climate change. This is the burning (no pun intended) issue of the day.
Mr. Mackenzie: While Mr. Aitchison’s commentary was ostensibly about the impropriety of wishing someone dead, it is clear that his real purpose was to downplay climate change (which he graciously acknowledges is real) by painting those concerned about climate change as extremists, and by gratuitously adding that he opposes the carbon tax (as usual, without mentioning the offsetting rebates) and, in his words, “radical energy policies”. That will give him some political points with his base. So it is fair to point out that neither he nor his party has any plan to deal with climate change. Instead of chastising Ms. Kear, you could have supported her request that Mr. Aitchison tell us his plan, in the interest of, in your words, “respectful and effective public discourse”.
Scott…I find it disturbing that the only comment so far has to do with your party’s position on climate change and not the protestor’s suggestion that one of your staff members “should die”.
I found myself troubled as to how to respond to that comment…I was gobsmacked that anyone would say that to a member of your staff regardless of their position on the Liberal’s Carbon Tax.
For the record I am not sure whether I feel the carbon tax is the correct path going forward to deal with the best strategy with climate change…even though a preponderance of environmentalists/financialists feel this is one of the best option.
Dealing with your position on creating an atmosphere of co-operation and respect with dialogue between opposing parties in the legislature is a noble endeavour on your part and I have seen that during your campaign during the Leadership Campaign and with your reaching across the aisle on occasion. But, in my opinion the biggest obstacle in your path is your leader., Pierre Poilievre.
Make no mistake Scott, as long as you’re my MP you have my support, but I really have trouble supporting your leader.
Anna-Lise. This commentary by Scott is not so much about climate change as it is about activists, wishing someone dead but you seem to have missed that. Everyone knows that climate change is a serious issue and there are a number of opinions as to how to address it. It is okay to talk about that. It is not okay to wish someone dead. in the process of doing that. Nor is it appropriate to call people names as you did in your comment. It does not help respectful and effective public discourse.
So Scott, what’s the plan for climate change from your party? Communicate this in detail. It has hardly been show-cased.
We know about your opposition to carbon tax. Has your party’s plan been vetted by other parties, by those actively involved in finding multi-pronged solutions to climate change?
What is the plan from your provincial counterpart? Crickets. (Developer Doug)
Why should we believe your “plan” is serious?