“Tomorrow, the Ontario legislature will debate a motion introduced by Ottawa-Vanier MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers. I am writing to you to explain why Des Rosiers’ Islamophobia motion should not be supported in its current form…” Click here to read the full media release.
Ladies and Gentlemen of Ontario:
In the coming days, Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party will attempt to grab headlines with a phony plan to tackle the budget deficit by reforming health care delivery. It will be a phony plan, because it will propose no reduction in health care spending and so will have no impact on budget expenses. Continue reading »
Ladies and Gentlemen of Ontario:
We are all being distracted. We are being manipulated. We are not being told what we need to know.
Ontario currently has by-elections underway in Vaughan and Kitchener-Waterloo that will determine whether or not Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals gain a majority government. But that’s not the major issue.
The major issue is that Ontario is facing a budget crisis, soaring debt, and a plummeting credit rating that will devastate Ontario’s economy and impoverish everyone living in the province. Yet neither Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals, nor Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives have plan to cut spending, balance the budget, and end the crisis. Continue reading »
Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A1
Michael Chan, MPP, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport
450 Alden Road Unit 5
Markham, Ontario L3R 5H4
May 22, 2012
Dear Premier McGuinty and Minister Chan:
I am writing to you today in response to a report, published late yesterday, that the Royal Ontario Museum allegedly was allowed to be used as a place of organized religious worship on May 21, 2012: the Monday of Ontario’s Victoria Day long weekend. A patron of the museum reported that, on May 21, while he was attending the museum: Continue reading »
“On behalf of Freedom Party of Ontario, an officially registered political party in the province of Ontario, I submit to you, for your consideration, Freedom Party of Ontario’s 2012 Opposition Budget…” Click here to read the full letter.
DELIVERED VIA FAX and e-MAIL
November 15, 2011
Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier:
Re: Toronto District School Board Plan for Africentric Secondary School
On January 25, 2008, I wrote to you asking that you intervene to deny public school boards the power to create race-focused schools. At the time, the issue was the opening by the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”) of an “Africentric” elementary school. Although you condemned the idea of the school, you refused to make any legislative or regulatory amendments to deny public school boards the power to open up alternative race-focused schools. Facing opposition neither from your government nor from the opposition parties in the Legislature, the Africentric elementary school opened. Continue reading »
As set out in Freedom Party of Ontario’s 2011 election platform, a Freedom government will eliminate the beer tax, the wine tax, the gasoline tax, and the health premium. One of Freedom Party’s candidates has been knocking on doors, campaigning, and asked me the following:
Have you ever been asked something to the effect: “Sounds great that FP is going to cut all these taxes, but what services are you correspondingly going to slash? What’s your hidden agenda?”
How would you address that?
Secondly, any general advice (other than stick to the planks) when it comes to doing interviews with media etc? What to avoid, emphasize, etc.?
I’ve had some amazingly positive responses from people re: FP. Even the partisan PC guy cleaning his gun was keen and interested in FP.
I replied as follows: Continue reading »
Freedom Party received an e-mail from a graduate student, K, who wrote, in part:
As a scientist-in-training, I applaud your party’s commitment to reason and in particular your suggestions to separate religious practice from schooling. However, I take issue with your party’s stance on pesticides.
There are two problems I have with this. The first is that it’s one thing to let people expose themselves to whatever toxic substance they wish, but nobody has a solid wall around their property that blocks windborn movement of pesticides, or insects (whose good health is important to birds, pollination services, and many small mammals). Consider it like having a neighbour blaring loud music at all hours of the day: their right to play loud music doesn’t override your right to be able to enjoy your property (including having a good night’s sleep).
The second I have is an issue of onus. While you argue that it is irrational to ban something that hasn’t been proven to be unsafe, I would argue the opposite: the onus is on government to regulate items that are not necessary (and really, a green lawn is not particularly necessary to one’s survival, ability to hold down a job, or have a family) that cannot be proven to be safe and impact everyone around them. Think of it like recreational drugs: I think it’s any one person’s (of age) choice to take recreational substances, but I don’t think people have the right to smoke indoors at their workplace where other people are forced to also consume that drug.
Toxicology is an immensely complicated science (and I’m appalled at the difficulties researchers in that field have with obtaining funding). And the tricky part about it is that testing on pregnant women or small children is unethical. But I think just because something hasn’t been proven to be safe, doesn’t mean it is. And we need to balance the benefits that item brings us versus the potential costs–I don’t think a green lawn is really more important than our health.
Anyway, I’m happy to hear what you think!
I replied as follows. Continue reading »
I was recently asked: “What is the Freedom Party’s plan for creating jobs?” It’s a question commonly asked of all parties. What follows is one of my answers. Continue reading »
“…I am writing both to explain why Freedom Party will not answer the questions put to it in the form, and to provide a substantive answer concerning how the Chief Electoral Officer can and must comply with the relatively new obligation set out in subsection 4.2(1) of the Election Act…” Click here to read the full letter.