Do you support public funding for faith-based schools?

[bush_cheney2004]

Segregation is a term McGuinty has thrown around to cast a dark shadow over Tory's proposal. Actually, school segregation as is properly understood in the US meant that blacks were prevented from attending white schools. When de-segregation came about the barrier was lifted...

This is false....latter school "segregation" in the US was defined by racial and ethnic profile balances within and across school district boundaries. Other forms of school segregation (e.g. gender) were readily accepted. In many such cases, "Blacks" were already in attendance in "white schools", but the desgregation battle still raged.

Segregation is not unknown in Canada, and it always puzzles me why domestic examples aren't used.

Edited September 10, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[capricorn]

Yes and all Canadian people who are not of those ethnicitis are encouraged to go to those returuants.

I love these 'food' analagies that the left always bring up when describing different ethnicities.

'It's Ok, The Jamaican's 1st, and 2nd gen immigrants causing all the murders in Toronto is just a plain ol' plate of jerk chicken! yummy!'

Lol..

Women in Muslim schools will be told to wear a head scarf. The schools will be designed to keep non mulsims out of the school. The same also goes for Sikh's.

The Catholic school board allowes everyone in and you can opt out of religion class. (I know, i went to a cathlic school. Uniform and all).

MD00, Sorry to disappoint you but I am a Conservative supporter. Not Liberal, not NDP. This has not stopped me from having an open mind in terms of coming to grips with the fact that Canada is not what it was 40 years ago. The tide has turned and we cannot turn back the clock. I prefer to look to the future than spend the rest of my life in perpetual angst.

O.K. so you don't like the food analogy. Fine by me. Pass the salsa.

[capricorn]

This is false....latter school "segregation" in the US was defined by racial and ethnic profile balances within and across school district boundaries. Other forms of school segregation (e.g. gender) were readily accepted. In many such cases, "Blacks" were already in attendance in "white schools", but the desgregation battle still raged.

Segregation is not unknown in Canada, and it always puzzles me why domestic examples aren't used.

OK. You would know better than I given you are a US citizen. I always thought that the big victory for blacks was de-segregation, allowing multi racial schools. I know all about gender segregation. I spent nine years in the Quebec primary school system in the late 50s. The girls and boys schools were separated by a chain link fence.

[mikedavid00]

MD00, Sorry to disappoint you but I am a Conservative supporter. Not Liberal, not NDP.

I'm a Conservative also, but Tory is not a Tory.

splitting up ethnicities and segregating votes is something that the Liberals do, not the cons.

The schooling thing is far too important of an issue and I would not support any party that goes this route.

[equality]

Segregation is a term McGuinty has thrown around to cast a dark shadow over Tory's proposal. Actually, school segregation as is properly understood in the US meant that blacks were prevented from attending white schools. When de-segregation came about the barrier was lifted. So that term is not applicable in the context of faith based schools as contemplated here. Catholics do not prevent non-catholics from attending their schools so where is the segregation?

Speaking of diversity. Compare it to the restaurant sector. Don't we have Chinese, Greek, French, Italian, Vietnamese, Indian, etc. restaurants? That is diversity. How dull it would be if we only allowed "Canadian food" restaurants.

The more I read opinions on this issue, the more I think the innermost objection is that Muslims schools could spring up...maybe. IMO that speaks volumes.

I took for granted that you were aware that Catholic schools are not Chartered schools and not PRIVATELY funded. If you agree to pay into the Catholic school board, you delegate a portion of your taxes to the Catholic schools; otherwise, you remain as someone who funds the public school board. Publically funded schools are built and funded based on student enrollment. If a new block of houses are built, and all of the residence who live in these houses have delegated a portion of their house taxes to the Catholic board, then a new Catholic elementary school is built in the area; however, if all of the new residence are not paying into the Catholic board then a public elementary school is built. The issue is both school boards are funded publically. The government then gives additional funding based on enrollment, high risk, special education etc. Catholic schools do not receive more or less than public schools.

When I mentioned the Jim Crow laws, I was not referring to education. I was in fact referring to what the laws did to the citizens of the United States. These laws were a clever way by a bunch of racists to segregate a group of people by making it appear that they were as free as their white counterparts. They were allowed to do the worse paying jobs, take a back seat to whites, etc. Sure their money was still good, but they were never treated as equals. By the way, I'm an independent thinker. I don't need McGuinty to teach me the meaning of the word segregation. I can also see that John Tory and his party is offering Charted schools as a manipulative way to get votes from a group of people in society who usually don't vote for PCs.

As for your analogy about restaurants, restaurants do not reflect all sectors of society. In businesses, outside of culturally authentic restaurants, there exists a diversity of people working along side each other. Workplace course are taught under the PC curriculum. These courses are suppose to prepare people for the work force. Teaching staffs are often a group of diverse people from all kinds of origins, and many of my close friends come from many walks off life with many differing views on religion, homosexuality, marriage, etc.

For the record, I have been teaching for 9 years. I have taught in three different school boards. Durham (the school board from hell once the PC devils were done) Peel (Brampton and Mississauga) and Upper Grand. (the PCs left a trail of crap all across Ontario schools: Public and Catholic alike) I have taught rural students and city students. I have taught in classrooms with White anglo-saxons, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslems, Catholics, and Jews all together. I have taught summer school and night school all over south western Ontario. MY CLASSROOM IS DIVERSITY! Because no religion of any kind is tolerated in the classroom, all students treat each other with dignity, and they spend more time learning the curriculum than waisting their time on religious intolerance. If any children from any of these groups were to leave my classroom, a great learning opportunity for everyone in the classroom would be lost. I actually went to a Catholic school when I was growing up. The Catholics in my community were the minority. The majority of the community was not tolerant of the Catholics. Our seperate schools did very little to help us as children fit in with our peers who carried the belief systems of their parents. ( you know that belief I'm referring too; the belief that they were paying for our schools with their tax dollars). Plus, there existed intolerance. Funny there existed two Catholic elementary schools and at least a dozen public ones. If students leave the public sector to go to faith based schools, they very well could face more racism and discrimation than ever before because now the opportunity for everyone to be culturally diverse would not exist. I don't teach at a Catholic school. The diversity among my students should have made that clear.

I love Canadian food: sushi, curry based dishes, somosas, french fries, perogies, etc. I haven't tried any Native dishes (I'll refer to those dishes as original Canadian food, but I did live in northern Ontario and fished and ski-dooed with all kinds of Native and French Canadians)

[equality]

There is no need for the word 'or' in the middle of the sentence. Paying for public schools and including faith based schools are not in any way mutually esxclusive. Just bring ALL the faith based schools into the public system, if they are willing to come, oblige them to teach the provincial curriculum, and allow them to teach whatever they please beyond that. Then assignement of parent taxes are not an issue.

If they are not willing to join the public system, they can still go private. i think though that you'll find people of faith are from the same financial demographic as any other group, and the mainstream simply cannot afford the cost of private schools.

It comes down to a central question: what is the role of government in education?

I think it is this: obligatory participation by every child to age 16 in a standard provincial cuuriculum,taught by provincially certified teachers.

Going further, it serves us all to have the most persons possible partcipating in a single, quality system - not a fractured, angry and financially segregated community of learning.

I agree with you completely!

[capricorn]

I took for granted that you were aware that Catholic schools are not Chartered schools and not PRIVATELY funded. If you agree to pay into the Catholic school board, you delegate a portion of your taxes to the Catholic schools; otherwise, you remain as someone who funds the public school board.

Equality, I am fully aware Catholic schools are government funded. My children went to Catholic schools, commonly known in my circles as separate schools.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate your perspective and learned from it.

Although I will be voting for the Progressive Conservative party, I think McGuinty will win the election. I expect McGuinty to do the right thing. If he opposes faith based schools (I'm not sure where he stands given his support for Catholic schools), he should take steps to stop taxpayer funding of Catholic schools.

[Rue]

In response to Argus' comments;

"Grow up. Discrimination exists throughout society at every level on every subject. "

The above comment makes no sense. Because something is wide-spread does not make it acceptable or ideal or anything else, it just makes it widespread-it doesn't legitamize it and you know it. Your arguement is if something is widespread then its o.k. Nonsense. The fact that discrimination is so blatant in favour of only one religion is unacceptable and its time you and anyone else grow up if you think such a status quo must be accepted by anyone. Canada is coming of age and this means it is growing up and has grown out of this antiquated concept that any one religion should have preference or be promoted differently then others in its public school system. Its precisely because some of us are evolving or as you would say "growing up" we choose not to remain entrenched in antiquated beliefs and systems that try impose these beliefs on others.

"The Catholic system works."

Why? Because you make a subjective pronouncement it does? It doesn't work for me or many like me who think it isn't working and violates the Charter and flies in the face of basic democractic precepts.

"It works better than the public system simply because those in charge of the public system are morons."

Well then. At least we know what your pronouncements are based upon-subjective opinions. Of course for those of us who want to construct laws and constitutional rights based on fairness and equality, such subjective feelings or opinions of yours are problematic. Some of us believe rights as to freedom and equality have to be based on consistent neutral values and not simply those you like or do not like.

"It does not ghettoize."

Of course Catholic schools "ghetto-ize" in the sense that they are selective and necessarily impose specific religious values on its students that make it impossible for students without those same religious believes to be able to attend such schools.

"You couldn't tell a Catholic school from a public school without someone telling you. "

Again this is a silly comment and some of us do know what goes on in Catholic schools and how they differentiate from the other public schools. There is a reason Argus they are called Catholic. For you to pretend they do not incorporate specific Cathoic religious practices and beliefs in their day to day functions and curriculum is silly.

"I am deeply suspicious of these smaller religious schools."

I am deeply suspicious of ANY school that claims to be public and imposes religious values. I believe school is a public domain and therefore must be neutral and remain out of the religious equation just like the state should.

From an academic perspective one teaches religion by comparing them all as equals in a curriculum that does not suggest one is better or more important then any other or has precedent over any other.

" I've heard nothing good about them."

From the sounds of it your hearing is selective.

"On the contrary, what tales do emerge, as from the likes of Irshad Manji's, who attended a Muslim school in Canada, are of incompetent teachers preaching hate and religious fanaticism to impressionable young minds. "

Like I said your hearing is selective. Interesting how you heard about the above but did not hear anything positive about Muslim schools. Should I be suprised?

"Catholics in Canada are secular minded. To a certain extent so are Jews, but the rest are not. "

Private Jewish schools are most certainly secular that is why they are private and Jewish. They specifically want to teach a Jewish religious agenda as a major part of the curriculum and inseperable from it, no different then what Catholic public schools do.

What a private school does is not the issue. The fact that it is private gives it the right to teach what it wants in terms of religion. The only issue is when you go to the public to fund it, why should I a Jew or anyone else fund it? I do not think for a second its any non Jews responsibility to fund Jewish schools just as I would expect any Muslim or Catholic or Satanist or Wiccan etc., from not expecting the public fund their schools if they want to promote specific religious beliefs but not any others.

"Growing up in Vancouver, I attended an Islamic school every Saturday. There, I learned that Jews cannot be trusted because they worship “moolah, not Allah,” meaning money, not God. According to my teacher, every last Jew is consumed with business.-Irshad Manji"

Well that's a nice quote and the point? Let me help Argus. I grew up the only Jew on a street of Irish schooled in the Catholic School system where they were taught I personally killed Jesus and would be going to hell and I was reminded of this every Christmas and Easter and despite my attempts to assure my Irish neighbours I did not kill Jesus, there were many fist fights. I obviously survived and as you lectured me before I did grow up and learned discrimination flows from religions being taught in schools. Its precisely why I am suspicious of and do not think religious schools lend to democractic or pluralistic values but tend to make people feel they have to be different and look for differences in others.

It is why for me I take on a more universal approach to religion and prefer to discuss and understand them all using the same objective model I apply to all of them. I believe sound academic curriculum does not promote one religious view over another, it presents them all as equals and in context to what they are faith systems created for and by humans who claim to have been inspired by God. Education should not be designed to impose a particular faith or way of thinking-it should teach us to be flexible and open minded and be able to see a pelthora of possibilities not just one.

That is why I and so many others whether we are Catholic, Jewish, etc., might believe no religion belongs in a school as does the current Catholic one, if it is publically funded.

I repeat again, if you believe your children as a part of the education curriculum need to learn one religion more then any other because you feel that is your religious and cultural need that can not be compromised, don't expect the state to fund it.

The only reason we are having this debate is for 2 reasons;

i-no politician will alienate the majority of voters in Ontario who like the majority of the population are Catholic and disband the Catholic public school system and stop violating the Charter of Rights;

ii-no politician has the guts to say, its wrong to fund Catholic schools publically if we don't fund all other religions in public schools equally, but since funding all religions in public schools equally is impossible, we must be fair and do away with ANY OR ALL Catholic public schools.

This is not an issue as to whether you believe in Catholicism or any other religion. This is an issue as to what should be the state's role and how it maintains fairness and equality to all not just some groups. It is also a matter of understanding the limitations of a state and once and for all understanding institutions can't be all things to all people so they have to accept such reality and avoid trying to be all things, and just concentrate on one thing that all can embrace regardless of religious values. The true test of public access is whether it does not make it possible for only some to have access and no its not possible for me as a Jew to send my child to a public Catholic school so know tax money should not be sent there just as public tax money should not be sent to Jewish schools or Muslim schools because it would be absurd to believe non believers would send children to such schools.

Grow up? I have. I no longer cling to the antiquated outmoded belief systems of an era that believed we should impose religion on people because otherwise they would go to hell.

The Catholic religion does not have a track record of tolerance in its school system in the past and while I do not doubt many Catholics are well intentioned and understand their desire for continuing the status quo, I truly believe they know they are receiving favoured status and that is just not fair.

However as a law abiding person I also understand to change the system it will require a political not legal process.

[jennie]

ii-no politician has the guts to say, its wrong to fund Catholic schools publically if we don't fund all other religions in public schools equally, but since funding all religions in public schools equally is impossible, we must be fair and do away with ANY OR ALL Catholic public schools.

Why do you say funding all religious schools publicly "is impossible"? It isn't.

They can be funded on the same basis as the Catholic schools: funded for Ontario Curriculum education, but not for religious instruction: That would be an 'extra'.

[fellowtraveller]

They can be funded on the same basis as the Catholic schools: funded for Ontario Curriculum education, but not for religious instruction: That would be an 'extra'.

You could do it that way, but only if you intend to foster stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility.

There is no need for 'extra funding' for anybody. There is no need for a Catholic board, or any other faith based board either.

Simply allow faith based schools within the public system. If the deamnd exists, allow special interest schools of any type. There are places in Canada who do that now, and it has worked out just fine. Insist that all schools teach a strong, minimum provincially mandated curriculum, that is taught by certified teachers. After that, let individual schools set whatever curriculum they please. They can teach religion, art, drama, hockey or whatever. Allow any parent to send their kids to whatever school they want, assuming the school has room. What is wrong with meeting the needs of the community, the whole community, within the public system? The obvious wrinkle - getting your kid to some specilaity school across town - is up to each parent. And - as it is now- if you choose to live on a farm or small town, you won't have access to every program.

We are a very diverse society. Why not accomodate that diversity, instead of splitting into smaller and smaller factions? And there is the significant bonus that it can and must reduce costs, by having a single large board.

[capricorn]

I saw McGuinty's TV ad slamming Tory's proposal to fund faith based schools. Looking perfectly straight into the camera with his angel eyes he says:

"The public school system is what makes Ontario, Ontario."

Any voter who does not know about his ties to the Catholic school system will be oblivious to the hypocrisy behind that statement.

Some have said that ad will come back to haunt him. I still don't think this will cost him the election. IMO a minority McGuinty government is on the horizon. Oh well, better than a majority I guess.

[M.Dancer]

I saw McGuinty's TV ad slamming Tory's proposal to fund faith based schools. Looking perfectly straight into the camera with his angel eyes he says:

"The public school system is what makes Ontario, Ontario."

I saw that as well and thought that was an incredibly weak statement. Lots of things make Ontario unique. Public schools are not one of them.

[jennie]

You could do it that way, but only if you intend to foster stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility.

There is no need for 'extra funding' for anybody. There is no need for a Catholic board, or any other faith based board either.

Simply allow faith based schools within the public system. If the deamnd exists, allow special interest schools of any type. There are places in Canada who do that now, and it has worked out just fine. Insist that all schools teach a strong, minimum provincially mandated curriculum, that is taught by certified teachers. After that, let individual schools set whatever curriculum they please. They can teach religion, art, drama, hockey or whatever. Allow any parent to send their kids to whatever school they want, assuming the school has room. What is wrong with meeting the needs of the community, the whole community, within the public system? The obvious wrinkle - getting your kid to some specilaity school across town - is up to each parent. And - as it is now- if you choose to live on a farm or small town, you won't have access to every program.

We are a very diverse society. Why not accomodate that diversity, instead of splitting into smaller and smaller factions? And there is the significant bonus that it can and must reduce costs, by having a single large board.

MHMMM? ... So how is this different from my "fostering stupidity" idea of extending public funding to faith-based schools?

[fellowtraveller]

MHMMM? ... So how is this different from my "fostering stupidity" idea of extending public funding to faith-based schools?

You want to maintain the two existing boards including one that is already faith based, and extend money to everybody else, all outside the public system. Costly costly costly and patently unfair. It just exacerbates and instituionalizes a situation that is already not satisfactory. Think of the money. Think of the children..

Actually, I think you and a couple of others are just here to defend the Catholic system, and recognize that once the glare of public scrutiny notices the inherent goofiness of the status quo, you'll be in big trouble. And about time too. I've also noticed signs of desperation on other boards and newspapers, the wind of change is blowing and not a moment too soon.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

I'm for publicly funding faith-based schools.

To compare, we've so far made an eception for Catholic schools... the only faith-based schools with public funding.

There are pros and cons to public and private schools. I'd personally abolish publicly funded education beyond the 6th grade, but that's not gonna happen, so if I am to choose for or against publicly funded faith-based schools, I'll be for it.

The plus side is that there's more control (accountability). Teachers will be required standard qualifications (minimum of a BEd and teachables in the case of 11th and 12th grade education) and the curriculum is guaranteed to be followed. There would also be accountability in terms of approaches to the curriculum and such. The other cool aspect is that a school is not required to accept public funding. It can choose to remain private.

The downside to publicly funded faith based schools can be seen in our current system with the Catholic schools...

a) Teachers are only really in it for the money (most teachers in Catholic schools are rarely practicing Catholics and are only there because it's cash in their pocket for doing what they're qualified to do)

Rivalry (Catholic schools only hire Catholics... what if we had many evangelical schools who would only hire Christian teachers from select denominations? What if a given teacher doesn't get hired at a Baptist school because he/she is, say, Anglican?)

c) Student behavior (private schools have their perks... students in the private schools typically behave better)

I can't say that the Catholic school system is great, I just like the idea of the gov't putting its nose in faith based schools who would accept public funding.

There's been talk about the school board issues... they'd have to restructure the hierarchy, otherwise too much money will be wasted on redundant administration. Then again, in some cases, school boards wouldn't be needed... Ottawa is probably only large enough for two Jewish schools and one Muslim school and I doubt you'd find publicly funded faith-based schools outside the 613, so if it's for the sake of one or two schools, the school wouldn't need a school board! Either that or have one school board for all faith-based schools that aren't Catholic (or even merge it with the Catholic school boards... then there could simply be sub-sections).

Religion and bias will be discussed in the classroom anyway, so I see no need in not funding faith-based schools. People are going to teach religions in schools, so it makes sense for parents to be able to send their children to publicly funded schools where their children can learn in an environment where their views are hopefully shared just as much as public education makes sense (if it does).

[MattWC]

Hey, have you guys seen the Green Party's position on this?

It's the only one supported by a huge majority of Ontario voters.

One single, publicly funded school system!

http://www.gpo.ca/node/225

[Keepitsimple]

Quebec gives all faith-based schools about 60 per cent of the funding public schools receive. Alberta allows faith-based schools to be fully funded as part of public boards. It also provides 60 per cent of public-school funding to private schools, including faith-based ones. Tory has suggested that Ontario only fund boards who follow the Ontario Carriculum and hire certified teachers - that seems pretty benign to me. I'm not aware of the imminent destruction of Alberta or Quebec's Public Systems nor do I hear any compalints about segregation. McGuinty is just hanging on to what he thinks is a divisive issue - but the more people understand how inclusive faith-based funding can be, the more it will begin to blow back in MsGuinty's face. Before election day, McGuinty will be seen not only as a fibber, but as an opportunistic, hypocritical manipulator. The leader's debate tomrrow night will be interesting.

[M.Dancer]

Hey, have you guys seen the Green Party's position on this?

It's the only one supported by a huge majority of Ontario voters.

One single, publicly funded school system!

http://www.gpo.ca/node/225

So the Spirograph party are for less choice and less democracy in the education System? I mean, who needs local boards that are accountable to the local parents? Sounds about right given they also unelected appointed representitives in Parliament....

[jennie]

So the Spirograph party are for less choice and less democracy in the education System? I mean, who needs local boards that are accountable to the local parents? Sounds about right given they also unelected appointed representitives in Parliament....

Now that makes sense ... though they don't clarify how they would deal with religion.

I like this too:

The Green Party believes the millions of dollars now spent on standardized testing should be spent rebuilding the education system.

After 10 years, the province should be able to demonstrate the technical validity and reliability of their assessments, but they don't. I have a feeling much of this money is being wasted on very poor quality assessments. Otherwise why will they not provide the technical information when every other assessment program in North America does?

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[equality]

MD00, Sorry to disappoint you but I am a Conservative supporter. Not Liberal, not NDP. This has not stopped me from having an open mind in terms of coming to grips with the fact that Canada is not what it was 40 years ago. The tide has turned and we cannot turn back the clock. I prefer to look to the future than spend the rest of my life in perpetual angst.

O.K. so you don't like the food analogy. Fine by me. Pass the salsa.

I'm just curious, are you conservative because you were raised this way, or are you conservative because you stand to gain in some way, finacially, from this government if elected? I find more times than not that a lot of peop le think they are going to benefit from this government because they have an exagerated view of were they stand in society. Get real and rememeber some day you will age and need health care. Do you have the funds to pay for it? If this government should see itself to be conservative, you'll need lots of funds to pay for your health care when you age. You can spew what you want, but that's reality. Reality, it's a great place--look into it!!!!@

[equality]

Quebec gives all faith-based schools about 60 per cent of the funding public schools receive. Alberta allows faith-based schools to be fully funded as part of public boards. It also provides 60 per cent of public-school funding to private schools, including faith-based ones. Tory has suggested that Ontario only fund boards who follow the Ontario Carriculum and hire certified teachers - that seems pretty benign to me. I'm not aware of the imminent destruction of Alberta or Quebec's Public Systems nor do I hear any compalints about segregation. McGuinty is just hanging on to what he thinks is a divisive issue - but the more people understand how inclusive faith-based funding can be, the more it will begin to blow back in MsGuinty's face. Before election day, McGuinty will be seen not only as a fibber, but as an opportunistic, hypocritical manipulator. The leader's debate tomrrow night will be interesting.

Where are you getting your information? I know for a fact that in Alberta teachers are being accredited after only two weeks of "teacher's college" Wow, high school and then two weeks to be able to do the job. In Quebec we have bill 101-only speak french-- I'll add please. Do yourself a favour and don't be ignorant enough to compare Ontario to other provinces (with there own rules). By the way, come on into my classroom of students (with two weeks of internet intellegence and teach my class). I'd personally love to see that. You are hanging on to B.S. to justify why you don't want to vote for a government that will destroy education. The beauty of education (or getting informed) is you learn something--go ahead and learn something!!!!

[capricorn]

I'm just curious, are you conservative because you were raised this way, or are you conservative because you stand to gain in some way, finacially, from this government if elected? I find more times than not that a lot of peop le think they are going to benefit from this government because they have an exagerated view of were they stand in society. Get real and rememeber some day you will age and need health care. Do you have the funds to pay for it? If this government should see itself to be conservative, you'll need lots of funds to pay for your health care when you age. You can spew what you want, but that's reality. Reality, it's a great place--look into it!!!!@

I just noticed your post in response to mine so I am replying now.

Since you’re curious, here’s a little bit of where I’m coming from. You ask if I was raised as a Conservative. In fact, I had never voted Conservative federally until the 2004 election. It took a while but I finally became fed up with the arrogance and sense of entitlement of the Liberals. Their visible disdain for the voters and taxpayers, confirmed when the details of Adscam came to light became too much for me to stomach. My contempt for the Liberals has since deepened. Prior to the 2006 elections, I decided to become a Conservative party member and I sent the party a donation. I had never done this in my life. I will not vote Liberal again until they prove they can lead the country and until they regain my trust. I now feel the same way for McGuinty and his Liberals.

You also ask if I have anything to gain with the election of a Conservative government. I am now 60 years old. I worked and paid taxes for 35 years. I was in the $60K salary bracket for the last 10 years of my employment and the Liberals took one third annually in income tax. I raised 2 children as a single mother and never asked for anything from any level of government. I now live on a $25,000 annual fixed pension, before taxes. Not a lot but I don’t complain. All I ask is that the government stop bleeding me so that I can maintain a minimum standard of living.

As for health care, my GP retired 3 years ago and I can’t find a new doctor. I have visited the emergency twice in my lifetime and a public clinic twice in the last 3 years. By your standards I may be “old” so I may soon need a lot more health care services. Don’t try to scare me that I may not receive that care if the provincial Conservatives are elected because I don’t believe it. At my age, I don’t scare easily. Believe me, one day you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Now equality, this is from your post of September 10, #105.

“For the record, I have been teaching for 9 years.....

If any children from any of these groups were to leave my classroom, a great learning opportunity for everyone in the classroom would be lost.”

If faith based schools are allowed under the tax funded education system, the number of students in the public system may decrease, right? Some of these students may be from your school or your classroom, right? Tell me equality, who on a personal level has more at stake here if Tory’s plan is accepted or if Tory is elected? You or me? That’s the reality.