A week ago, Randy Hillier was nominated as the Ontario PC Candidate in my riding. Alas, this meant that I was not.
Needless to say, a party is bigger than any one individual, and I wish Randy well in October.
For those of you who were not present at the Perth, Ontario Arena on May 5th, here was my speech to the crowd:
"Ladies and gentlemen, Progressive Conservatives all:
I would like to begin by adding my own welcome to you here today. The first step in any change comes when people are ready to stand up for their beliefs, and make their voices heard. You have already done that by your presence here today.
Nomination speeches are as difficult to write as they are to give. In the space of a few scant minutes, you are required to say who you are, what you’ve done, and what you intend to do in the future. It is impossible to do justice to all that, so I won’t even try.
Like Mr. Brennan, I have worked alongside an MPP, and have first-hand knowledge of how Queen’s Park operates. In the time I worked for Harry Danford, who represented Hastings-Peterborough from 1995 to 1999, we worked on the Harris government’s Right to Farm Legislation, and Mr. Danford’s own bill recognizing United Empire Loyalist Day in Ontario. I am as proud of those accomplishments as Jay is of his work with Norm Sterling.
Like Mr. Hillier, I have been passionate about what I believe in, and have spoken far and wide in its defence. Seven years ago, I mounted a successful campaign in the Kingston Whig-Standard that stopped a move that would have deprived a local man of the right to use his own land to earn a living.
Our backgrounds are a matter of public record, and you have had time to know more about us than you might have wanted otherwise.I want to talk about the choice you have today, and why it matters.
The idea came from a conversation I had with someone here. When talking about this process, they had called it a ‘leadership race’, not a nomination. They also talked about electing a ‘leader’, not a candidate.
Some of you might think their comments to be confused – but I don’t. This meeting is about leadership. It is about electing someone who will lead our campaign in this riding – someone who will show leadership in the community for years to come. But it is also about the leadership you must show in the choice of candidate you make.
What does leadership mean? Do we know it when we see it?
Leadership exists in that rare connection between heart and head, where ideas are nurtured, and the will to see them through is sustained.
Leadership is about realizing that we are free to create our future, and possessing a vision of what that future can be.Leaders are prepared to stand up and offer that vision, while followers content themselves with playing it safe – in going along to get along.
Leaders do not content themselves with simply following the well worn path. Leaders do not accept that we cannot aspire to something better for ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Leadership is not about individuals, either. It is not about self-promotion or seeking of status – that is nothing more than selfish vanity. Leadership is about service to others, and not to oneself. It is about service to an idea, not to one’s ambition. It can only be measured by its raising of the common good, and not of one person’s ego.
Its legacy can be found in the improved lives and broadened opportunities of many, not in the raising of prideful monuments to the few.
Fellow Progressive Conservatives, I am here because there is a need to show leadership both here and in Queen’s Park. I am on this stage because I sincerely believe that I can provide it.
The challenges we face here, and across rural Ontario, are significant. I am under no illusions. I also believe that people are not well served when their choice is between not rocking the boat, and rocking it so violently it capsizes and sinks to the bottom.
To be part of rural Ontario is to be part of a minority – in Queen’s Park, among the public service, and in the general population. When you are in the minority, you are challenged to be more eloquent, more determined, more focused.
To sit as a rural MPP is to work with individuals who know nothing of your community, your history, your way of life, and who hold more votes – and more power – than those who understand your concerns.
You must deal with people who are prepared to spend five dollars on a cup of coffee to ensure a living wage for coffee growers on another continent, but are unwilling to recognize the financial hardship of the dairy farmer only an hour down the 401.
You can, as many have in the past, choose to go with the flow – never question, never criticize, but simply follow a well worn path until your time in the public spotlight is over. Your legacy, however, will be one of missed opportunities, and a future less promising and less secure than when you first took office.
You can also choose the path of confrontation. You can decide to fight without focus, to demand without a plan, to be aggressive without allies.
This path, too, has been tried, with many who have found themselves marginalized in the corridors of power, untrustworthy of influence and responsibility, only to languish embittered on the backbenches.
And through the combination of personal obstinance and pridefulness when it meets an equally stubborn reaction to frequent attacks, the people of a community are left with no champion, and no hope for an end to the long darkness in rural Ontario.
The reason I am in this race is because I believe in this party and this community, and I believe that our interests are worthy enough that they need to be explained and defended among those who have no knowledge or appreciation of who we are and what we represent.
Somewhere between these extremes there should be a place where people resolve to put their interests before themselves.
This may mean finding friends and allies who will help us in our challenge to sustain our farms, our schools, our hospitals and clinics, and our local governments. Sometimes, when friends and allies are few, it may mean raising one’s voice, not in hostility, but in a dogged determination.
Reasonable people can agree to disagree, and work toward compromise, but compromise should never include the future of our communities and a way of life. Knowing when to walk away from the table is as important as the negotiation itself.
On my website, in my campaign materials, and in conversations with many of you, I have made suggestions on how we can make a difference – in education, in crop insurance, in healthcare, municipal infrastructure, the local economy, and the environment.
How can we demonstrate to the people of this riding that we are fit to lead if we will not even talk about policy – the very ideas by which parties rise and fall?
My stance on issues is not a secret. I support reforms to crop insurance, and support the supply management system farmers depend upon. I want to see Highways #38 and #41 returned to provincial responsibility, as well as a plan to extend the 4-laning of #7 to Perth. I want to ensure legal protections for landowners. I want to see a commitment to our local economy, including a strategy to keeping the Hershey plant in Smiths Falls open – either by that company or by another operator. I want an investment in rural schools, including high-speed internet, so our kids have a chance to compete with those in downtown Toronto. I want a commitment to supporting more family medical practices in rural areas, offering free tuition to medical students willing to commit to a community, and by speeding up the accreditation of foreign-trained doctors to practice medicine in Ontario.
Again, when I speak of leadership, I speak of the ingrained knowledge and maturity that makes one able to navigate unchartered waters with a deft hand at the tiller. That is the leadership that a candidate must possess.
There is, however, another kind of leadership – just as important to our shared future. That is the leadership that each and every one of you must to exercise here today. You have come here either in support of one person, or as people who proudly support this party.
Regardless of what brought you here, you are here now. You have a vote, and in the privacy of a secret ballot, you will choose a candidate – potentially our next MPP.
Whatever you may have thought of your responsibility going into this meeting, I respectfully submit to you what it really is.
Your responsibility is to vote for the future of this riding and its people. Just as an MPP votes on behalf of their constituents, you are voting on behalf of not just yourself, but on behalf of every person who calls Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington home.
Regardless of who you choose, you need not justify that decision to the three people on your ballot. In fact, we are the last people you need justify your decision to.
But you must justify it to your family. You must justify it to the people you meet at church, or in your local grocery store. You must justify it to the people you meet at the gas station or the coffee shop. You must justify it to the people you meet when you attend meetings and fundraisers. You must justify it to your children and grandchildren, full of hope for their future.
Most of all, you must be able to look at yourself in the mirror and justify your decision to the person looking back at you.
In the end, leadership means sacrifice. It means sacrificing petty arguments and consuming anger in order to build a better life, and a stronger community.
This party has always done what is right for Ontario when we have placed our duty above our emotion, when we have aspired to something more. But we can only be as good as the choice you make.
I don’t confess to have all the answers, but I’m not afraid to offer some possibilities, and listen to the ideas of others. And I won’t promise that I will win every battle, but that won’t stop me from fighting them wisely and effectively.
All any of us can do is our best. For the three of us, that ends, for the moment, right now. For all of you, it begins.
Leaders, at their best, are always equal to the challenge they face. For the good of this riding, and of this party, I ask you to rise to the challenge now.
Good luck in your decision."
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Clean Water, Murky Politics
Unless you are very involved in local or provincial politics, you may have not been aware of the McGuinty government's latest response to the legacy that is Walkerton.
Justice Dennis O'Connor made a number of recommendations on how water should be regulated and protected, and the Ontario government, not wanting to appear as obstructionist, has gone ahead on a number of fronts.
People in Sydenham are well acquainted with the one scheme - a Regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that sought to impose exacting standards on tap water. Unfortunately for them, this could only be accomplished through the construction of a multi-million dollar treatment plant that is costing 270 households roughly $25,000 each to hook into, not to mention $40 a month in perpetuity. Most galling for them was the report of the province a couple of years later recommending that such measures not be imposed on communities of les than 10,000. The fact that the local MPP, Leona Dombrowsky, was the Minister who signed off on the Regulation adds more salt to the wound.
Now, the province has passed Bill 43 - the Clean Water Act, which creates new boards - "drinking water source protection committees" - who will oversee everything from water quality standards to who can access ground water in the first place.
Committees will be required to develop "protection plans" that include: policies intended to end existing threats to drinking water, and to prevent future activities from becoming threats to drinking water; a list of activities that are prohibited in certain locations within the protection area; a list of activities that are not permitted until a risk assessment has been submitted to the permit official, a risk management plan developed, and a permit issued; a list of locations where a person cannot make Planning Act applications, build, or change the use of a building without a permit; and guidelines for the issuance and renewal of permits.
Translation - the province is setting up local committees, neither answerable to Queen's Park or local municipalities, that can decide everything and anything related to ground water.
You get a building permit from your township, pay all of the fees and jump through all of the hoops. You have done everything according to the book. Unfortunately, some "committee" decides that you can't have a permit to drill a well. You want to appeal, of course, but who do you talk to?
The local township is not in charge, the Ministry of the Environment says that they are not in charge because the committee is 'arm's length', and it is not clear who you can talk to.
Even worse, what if the committee decides to go after existing wells? Where you find an existing well, you find an existing home, where people are likely making mortgage and property tax payments on. Can the committee take a perfectly habitable home and declare in uninhabitable, causing families to lose not only their homes, but the single biggest financial asset they possess?
I believe that protection of ground water is important, but so too is protection of property owners' rights, the right of citizens to redress, and the right of local governments to act on behalf of their constituents.
Creating committees not answerable to individuals or governments, who can act without explanation or justification, and can do so without being accountable to the public for their actions might clean the water, but it muddies people's lives and the democratic process.
Justice Dennis O'Connor made a number of recommendations on how water should be regulated and protected, and the Ontario government, not wanting to appear as obstructionist, has gone ahead on a number of fronts.
People in Sydenham are well acquainted with the one scheme - a Regulation from the Ministry of the Environment that sought to impose exacting standards on tap water. Unfortunately for them, this could only be accomplished through the construction of a multi-million dollar treatment plant that is costing 270 households roughly $25,000 each to hook into, not to mention $40 a month in perpetuity. Most galling for them was the report of the province a couple of years later recommending that such measures not be imposed on communities of les than 10,000. The fact that the local MPP, Leona Dombrowsky, was the Minister who signed off on the Regulation adds more salt to the wound.
Now, the province has passed Bill 43 - the Clean Water Act, which creates new boards - "drinking water source protection committees" - who will oversee everything from water quality standards to who can access ground water in the first place.
Committees will be required to develop "protection plans" that include: policies intended to end existing threats to drinking water, and to prevent future activities from becoming threats to drinking water; a list of activities that are prohibited in certain locations within the protection area; a list of activities that are not permitted until a risk assessment has been submitted to the permit official, a risk management plan developed, and a permit issued; a list of locations where a person cannot make Planning Act applications, build, or change the use of a building without a permit; and guidelines for the issuance and renewal of permits.
Translation - the province is setting up local committees, neither answerable to Queen's Park or local municipalities, that can decide everything and anything related to ground water.
You get a building permit from your township, pay all of the fees and jump through all of the hoops. You have done everything according to the book. Unfortunately, some "committee" decides that you can't have a permit to drill a well. You want to appeal, of course, but who do you talk to?
The local township is not in charge, the Ministry of the Environment says that they are not in charge because the committee is 'arm's length', and it is not clear who you can talk to.
Even worse, what if the committee decides to go after existing wells? Where you find an existing well, you find an existing home, where people are likely making mortgage and property tax payments on. Can the committee take a perfectly habitable home and declare in uninhabitable, causing families to lose not only their homes, but the single biggest financial asset they possess?
I believe that protection of ground water is important, but so too is protection of property owners' rights, the right of citizens to redress, and the right of local governments to act on behalf of their constituents.
Creating committees not answerable to individuals or governments, who can act without explanation or justification, and can do so without being accountable to the public for their actions might clean the water, but it muddies people's lives and the democratic process.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
More questions than answers
Like most parents with young children, I can be a bit obsessed about their future prospects - especially the quality of education they receive.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
My son Ethan's school, St. Patrick's in Harrowsmith, fared decently in the Fraser Institute rankings. Indeed, it was the top ranked rural school - public or separate - in the area covered by the Limestone District and Algonquin and Lakeshore District Boards.
Mind you, there were at least 10-12 elementary schools, mostly Kingston-based, that ranked higher. I took that with a grain of salt. Family income and education levels have an impact, and Kingston is a university and public service town, so incomes and education levels are no doubt higher in the city core.
Then, today, the CD Howe Institute comes up with its own rankings - designed to 'correct' for such issues as family incomes, education, and such.
Clearly, Kingston schools in the less affluent areas moved up in the rankings, and the schools in the wealthy areas held their own.
The good news was that my son's school was the top rural performer once again. The bad news is that it remained roughly int he same position as in the Fraser study.
For the longest time, I have felt that rural schools were getting shortchanged compared to their urban counterparts. The fact that urban schools - rich and poor - can shift so dramatically in the two rankings, while rural schools remain static, does not give me hope of being wrong.
It comes down to separating what is different between urban and rural schools.
We know that teachers' training is standardized in the province, and that the possibility of good and bad teachers runs equally whether it is a rural or urban school, so take that out of the equation.
We also know that the curriculum and the tests are also the same, so remove that as a factor.
We could look at family incomes, and the education level of parents, but the good folks at the CD Howe Institute have removed that difference.
Same teachers, same lesson plans, same standardized tests, and remove the family's economic and education levels as factors - urban schools can move with ease up the rankings while rural schools are glued in place.
The only factor that is not accounted for is how much we spend on rural schools compared to urban ones, or what programs and facilities are available to rural students compared to their city counterparts.
Liberal and conservative think tanks seem to differ on what makes some schools better than others. The only thing they agree on is that rural schools are mired in the middle - and that is cold comfort to any parent in this riding.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Our energy future
On the weekend, I was reading an article in the National Post about a new subdivision in Calgary - one that hopes to be the first truly energy self-sufficient community in Canada. Two developers, in partnership with the federal government, are spearheading this initiative.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
The major parts of this scheme call for houses to be R-2000 compliant, and for each garage roof to be covered by an array of solar panels.
Developments in solar panel technology, from the advent of the photovoltaic cell, to new manufacturing methods, are making solar more and more affordable. While the cost of solar electricity generation is still far and above what we pay for traditional sources, the price is about 20 percent of what it was a decade ago. Like computers, advances in technology and mass marketing, are leaving us with systems that are more powerful and less expensive. Probably within the decade we will see solar power systems that no more expensive than mainstream technologies.
This, of course, leads to the question of whether or not Ontario can benefit from all of this?
First, Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) have not been able to have generation keep pace with demand for quite some time. Add to this the fact that a significant portion of our supply comes from coal fired plants, which the government wants to shut down due to CO2 emissions.
Secondly, if you read the fine print, you realize that up to 20 percent of the power sent out over the lines is lost in transmission. This could be due to a combination of factors, including an aging power grid, or the effect of sending electricity over long distances.
Third, despite those of us who heat with electric, the peak demand is in the summer, not the winter.
Lastly, building new capacity is expensive, and usually cost overruns are the order of the day. Already the debt servicing charge on your bill can be as high as what you pay for the power you consume.
The province has already allowed for the possibility of individuals and companies to sell surplus solar generated electricity back to the grid at over 40 cents a kilowatt hour (compared to buying it at roughly 6 cents). A good deal...if you can afford it.
To be self sufficient with solar, one would have to spend up to $50,000 for the equipment and installation, making this deal only for the very wealthy.
Here's a plan.
First, have Hydro One offer a credit financing capacity for individuals and businesses to purchase solar power systems, for little or no money down.
Once the system is operational and tied into the grid, Hydro One buys the power at the going rate of 42 cents, and charges you the 5-6 cents as per normal.
The difference between what you sell and what you use would constitute the monthly payment on the system.
Most likely, you would run significant surpluses in the summer, which would pay down the system quicker. In the winter, when generation is lower, you may only generate enough for your own use. This means, however, your Hydro One bill would only relate to paying for your system, and not both the system repayment and your hydro use.
The bigger the solar arrays, the better, which makes this idea perfect for farmers. Barns have enormous roof lines and, by virtue of being near pasture land, have almost no tree cover to block sunlight.
Such a scheme could be tested in partnership with OMAFRA, where participating farms could place systems on barns and outbuildings, and the electricity generation and usage are monitored for one season. Improvements and changes could then be incorporated into a bigger plan.
At first blush, the plan, if workable, accomplishes four things:
1. It reduces or eliminates the electric bill for the participant;
2. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to bring generation capacity on-line than big mega projects, which, in turn, does not add to Hydro One's stranded debt of over $30 billion;
3. It is locally produced, so it reduces the amount of power lost in the grid, and protects areas from brownouts and major disruptions;
4. It is zero emission technology that gives us latitude concerning coal fired plants.
While I am not someone skilled in the science of this technology, we do need to explore options that will meet Ontario's demand for power, and save green - in our environment and in our wallets.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Hershey's closure announcement
The people of Smiths Falls have had it rough. For a town of less than 10,000 people, the announced closures of the Hershey chocolate plant and the Rideau Regional Centre represent a loss of over 1,000 jobs and an end to operations for the largest and second-largest employers in the community.
We talk about the up front costs - lost wages - but you really have to factor in a great deal more - lost business for suppliers, lost tax revenue for all three levels of government, and the hit on the bottom line for every local business who depends upon these workers as their own clientele.
The work of the local union leadership, Mayor Dennis Staples, MP Scott Reid and MPP Norm Sterling in lobbying Hershey executives to reconsider their position has been a mark of local leadership. Even the efforts of Premier McGuinty should be praised - after all, this is not about Liberal versus PC, but about the economic future of a community.
So what can be done for the people of Smiths Falls?
In terms of the Hershey plant, barring a reconsideration of the company's decision, now may be the time to approach other companies - both Hershey's competitors as well as other food manufacturers - about taking over the facility. Another chocolate manufacturer, such as Cadbury Schweppes or Nestle, or possibly companies such as Unilever Best Foods, might be interested in operating a modern facility, centrally placed in the most populated region of Canada, and with an experienced and educated workforce. Some thought should be given to this, and political leaders of all levels and all stripes should embrace this challenge.
Another answer is much easier for the Ontario government to undertake - indefinitely postpone the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre, and explore options for locating other government operations on the Centre's campus.
In light of Hershey's decision, and pending any resolution to the plant's fate, the decision to close the Rideau Regional Centre is unwise, badly timed, and will only serve to deepen the economic ills of Smiths Falls and her citizens.
We talk about the up front costs - lost wages - but you really have to factor in a great deal more - lost business for suppliers, lost tax revenue for all three levels of government, and the hit on the bottom line for every local business who depends upon these workers as their own clientele.
The work of the local union leadership, Mayor Dennis Staples, MP Scott Reid and MPP Norm Sterling in lobbying Hershey executives to reconsider their position has been a mark of local leadership. Even the efforts of Premier McGuinty should be praised - after all, this is not about Liberal versus PC, but about the economic future of a community.
So what can be done for the people of Smiths Falls?
In terms of the Hershey plant, barring a reconsideration of the company's decision, now may be the time to approach other companies - both Hershey's competitors as well as other food manufacturers - about taking over the facility. Another chocolate manufacturer, such as Cadbury Schweppes or Nestle, or possibly companies such as Unilever Best Foods, might be interested in operating a modern facility, centrally placed in the most populated region of Canada, and with an experienced and educated workforce. Some thought should be given to this, and political leaders of all levels and all stripes should embrace this challenge.
Another answer is much easier for the Ontario government to undertake - indefinitely postpone the closure of the Rideau Regional Centre, and explore options for locating other government operations on the Centre's campus.
In light of Hershey's decision, and pending any resolution to the plant's fate, the decision to close the Rideau Regional Centre is unwise, badly timed, and will only serve to deepen the economic ills of Smiths Falls and her citizens.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
The Campaign Trail
One of the best things about a campaign are the friendships that you form. You are often amazed by how people offer to help you in many ways - hosting get-togethers, manning phone banks, selling memberships, and a whole host of other activities.
It looks as though the push for memberships will last at least 5-6 more weeks, so all this help is greatly appreciated - especially with 4 people in the race.
When I decided to run, I wanted this campaign to be about ideas, not anger, and certainly not the status quo. This blog, I hope, will give a glimpse into some of the ideas and views that will guide me if I am fortunate enough to be our riding's next MPP.
In this day and age of 30 second soundbites and image conscious media, style often overtakes substance. Yet, substance determines whether or not a term in Queen's Park will be a success or a failure.
A nomination and an election become meaningless if they do not lead to a better outcome for a community.
It looks as though the push for memberships will last at least 5-6 more weeks, so all this help is greatly appreciated - especially with 4 people in the race.
When I decided to run, I wanted this campaign to be about ideas, not anger, and certainly not the status quo. This blog, I hope, will give a glimpse into some of the ideas and views that will guide me if I am fortunate enough to be our riding's next MPP.
In this day and age of 30 second soundbites and image conscious media, style often overtakes substance. Yet, substance determines whether or not a term in Queen's Park will be a success or a failure.
A nomination and an election become meaningless if they do not lead to a better outcome for a community.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A Seniors' Hospital of Eastern Ontario?
In my campaign brochure, I mention my intention to lobby for a network of "Seniors' Hospitals" in the province, similar to those that serve the needs of children - like Ottawa's CHEO, Sick Kids in Toronto, and the Children's Hospital in London.
This might seem to be a rather radical concept, but I do believe the idea deserves some investigation.
First, it is no secret that we have an aging population. In the next two to three decades, almost 23 per cent of Canada's population will be in the seniors' demographic. As an aside, that number was closer to 7 percent three decades ago when we initiated a great number of benefit programs.
It is also known that the majority of use of the healthcare system occurs in the later part of life. Also, the use of emergency services is far more expensive than other types of care.
On a personal note, our son was treated for a congenital heart defect at CHEO, and the quality of care and service was beyond measure. I reason that this was due to the specialization both in terms of the demographic, as well as the types of illnesses commonly treated.
If a mirror network of Seniors' Hospitals were established, they could offer services and care specifically tailored to the needs of older individuals; they could specialize in research and treatment of illnesses more common in seniors - Alzheimers, Parkinson's, arthritis, and osteoporosis, for example; and they could tap into the existing network of community based organizations, and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC's) to offer what is often referred to as a "continuum of care."
In terms of budgeting, such a network would help alleviate the strain on emergency wards and regular hospital services - and at a lower cost - as well as reduce the pressure for long term care beds, which the Ministry of Health seems to be playing catch up on all the time.
Finding a delivery model that reduces costs, but provides a service tailor-made to the needs of our fastest growing age demographic is an idea worth talking about.
This might seem to be a rather radical concept, but I do believe the idea deserves some investigation.
First, it is no secret that we have an aging population. In the next two to three decades, almost 23 per cent of Canada's population will be in the seniors' demographic. As an aside, that number was closer to 7 percent three decades ago when we initiated a great number of benefit programs.
It is also known that the majority of use of the healthcare system occurs in the later part of life. Also, the use of emergency services is far more expensive than other types of care.
On a personal note, our son was treated for a congenital heart defect at CHEO, and the quality of care and service was beyond measure. I reason that this was due to the specialization both in terms of the demographic, as well as the types of illnesses commonly treated.
If a mirror network of Seniors' Hospitals were established, they could offer services and care specifically tailored to the needs of older individuals; they could specialize in research and treatment of illnesses more common in seniors - Alzheimers, Parkinson's, arthritis, and osteoporosis, for example; and they could tap into the existing network of community based organizations, and Community Care Access Centres (CCAC's) to offer what is often referred to as a "continuum of care."
In terms of budgeting, such a network would help alleviate the strain on emergency wards and regular hospital services - and at a lower cost - as well as reduce the pressure for long term care beds, which the Ministry of Health seems to be playing catch up on all the time.
Finding a delivery model that reduces costs, but provides a service tailor-made to the needs of our fastest growing age demographic is an idea worth talking about.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Brent Cameron Announcement Speech - December 2, 2006
Dear friends:
First, I want to begin by welcoming you here today, and thanking you for taking the time to be here. I understand that everyone has busy schedules, and I appreciate your decision to be here.
Rural Ontario is in crisis. That fact should not come as any surprise to any of you here in this room. It is a part of your life, the reality you face every day. Unfortunately, it is not so clear to those in Queen’s Park who set the government agenda – and that includes those from ridings such as ours.
One can somehow understand the lack of awareness of rural issues among politicians representing square blocks of downtown Toronto. What surprises and defies explanation is the lack of awareness demonstrated by the very person who not only represents agricultural and rural issues in the Legislature, but also represents a good proportion of this constituency.
Leona Dombrowsky, despite the lofty rhetoric she used to get elected, has simply not delivered.
This riding, and the communities it represents, needs a strong and effective voice in Queen’s Park. Dombrowsky has had eight years, and two cabinet portfolios, and still has not done the job she promised. Whether she cannot, or she will not, makes little difference at this point. The important point is that allowing Leona another term in office will not change things, only allow them to get steadily worse.
The challenges of life in this part of Ontario cannot be washed over by press releases that talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. Our problems are serious, and the need to address them is real.
In a little less than a year, the people of Ontario will be heading to the polls. If Leona is not prepared to show leadership, then we must elect someone who is.
Today, I formally announce my intention to contest the Progressive Conservative Party nomination in the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, with the hope of representing this party and riding in Queen’s Park and doing a job that has long been neglected to this point.
When someone asks for support in these cases, it is fair to ask why they think they are qualified to to the job, and what they intend to do once they get there. Believe me, in discussing this decision with my family and friends, it was not taken lightly. This is a serious business, and a tough one. Unless you truly believe that you have the ability to make things happen, it is a road you should think twice about travelling.
While I may be the first to declare, I am certain that I will not be the last. It is a testament to this party and its people that some will make the decision to run. This means that you will have a choice to make, and facts to consider.
Some may argue that their understanding of Queen’s Park and how it works gives them the upper hand. Still others will tell you that experience in local government puts them closer to people and their concerns. Yet others might point to a background in business as their strength.
Now, all of them are absolutely correct as far as they go. Each has their strength and talent. But you cannot form a picture wth one piece of a puzzle, and you cannot be an effective candidate unless you possess a broader experience and a broader perspective.
I can tell you that I have been active in Conservative politics for over 26 years. I have served on riding boards, and have worked more election campaigns than I care to remember. I have done everything from door-to-door canvass in minus 30 degree weather to travelling with Prime Ministers and party leaders on national tours.
I am a graduate of Queen’s University, where I received an honours degree in political studies, and St. Lawrence College, where I obtained a Certificate in Municipal Administration.
I have worked in government, as a federal civil servant in Ottawa, and as an assistant to a member of the Ontario Legislature.
I have been a researcher in one of Canada’s leading polling firms, and have studied public policy.
I am a published author, who served on the editorial board of a daily newspaper, and was a regular columnist.
I have been involved in businesses, from a family-owned coffee shop, to participating on the board of directors of a trade promotion venture, the Commonwealth Advantage. It has taken me from boardrooms in downtown Toronto to the halls of Westminster in London.
Among my activities in the community, I served two terms as the Chairperson of Central Frontenac Community Services Corporation, a non-profit organization that provided home help and home maintenance services to seniors and youth.
Most importantly, I am a husband and the father of two, who works and helps raise a family in a community where my roots extend back to the landing of the Loyalists. I grew up on a farm that my family operated for generations, played in fields that my great-grandfather plowed with an ox team. I am proud to make that place a home for my own children.
Like so many other farm families, we struggled to do all we could to keep going – milk the cows before and after working in town, board livestock, sell off hay, raise sheep, rabbits, and nutrea, operate a sand pit in the back corner, but we lost the fight. We sold off our quota and livestock, tore down the barn, and sold off most of the pastureland. All that remains is a woodlot and the memories of a way of life lost.
There are countless others who have not lost yet, but they are holding on just barely. They need more than touching speeches about rural traditions, they need someone to step up and fight for their priorities in the halls of government.
But respect for our rural way of life goes beyond the barn and pasture. It is about a decades long neglect of rural communities and rural families. It is about the challenge of finding a family doctor, or sending your kids to a school that gets less money than one in Toronto, Ottawa, or Kingston. It is about urban policy makers who say they are so concerned about the environment they stop farmers from doing what they have done for decades, and yet conveniently lose that resolve when the GTA needs to find a place to put its trash.
It is about taking one message and making it loud and clear to those who govern Ontario. We need to say in the strongest terms possible that you have a responsibility to govern for all Ontarians, including those of us who have made our choice to stay in rural communities and support a way of life. They have an obligation not to let us become second-class citizens in what should be a first class province.
That is their responsibility, but we have one too.
Respect can only be given where it has been earned. We have already earned it by the quiet and dignified lives we lead, and the contributions we make to Ontario. We earn it by virtue of the taxes we pay, the families and communities we support, and the laws we abide by.
We have earned the right to receive respect, but to get it, we must also demand it.
We demand respect by electing people who will not accept excuses for inaction. We demand respect by refusing to negotiate away the future of our communities. We demand respect by showing bureaucrats and professional political operatives that they do not have a monopoly on the facts, or good ideas. We demand respect when we elect people who do not go along to get along.
In short, we can only demand respect when we send people to Queen’s Park that will be taken seriously. We are judged by the character and the ability of those who we elect as our standard-bearers.
Unfortunately, many an elected member travels to Toronto, excited at the chance to make a difference, only to be surrounded by numbers of bureaucrats and political operatives with countless degrees and diplomas, and years of experience navigating Queen’s Park – all with their own particular views on how things should be done. Whether it is a lack of information, or a lack of confidence, members often go along with the advice they get, never questioning whether it is the right advice, or whether it is good for the people at home.
Being taken seriously means not being afraid to say that the choices on offer are not good enough. Being taken seriously means knowing enough about the workings of government to make suggestions of your own, and to fight to get them through.
But the voters of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington can only choose from the candidates that we choose to nominate. A choice between the NDP and the Liberals is a choice between bad ideas and no ideas, so as Conservatives, this election really is ours to lose. But strength in our party and its beliefs must be matched with strength and commitment on the home front.
During this nomination campaign, and forward into the election, I will be travelling throughout this riding, meeting with as many people as possible – to talk about the issues that face this area, to hear some of the ideas and suggestions you have for the future of the community, and to share with you the reasons why I believe that I am the person to carry that agenda forward.
I do not guarantee miracles, nor do I believe that our problems will magically disappear along with the mandate of Leona Dombrowsky or Dalton McGuinty. What I do believe is that they will never disappear so long as these two continue in power, and that any real hope of a change for the better can only come from a change at Queen’s Park.
I am not afraid to work, nor am I afraid to think and challenge the powers that be. Most of all, I am not afraid to say in a clear and strong voice when something runs counter to the hopes and aspirations of this community.
What I ask of this party and this riding is to not be afraid to demand a higher standard, to raise your expectations and fight for your lives as well.
The best candidate in the world is nothing more than a name on a sign without the hard work, support, ideas and energy of others. We are always at our best when we work together. Many of you have joined this effort, and I thank you for that, but we will continue to need the help of many others.
Thank you.
First, I want to begin by welcoming you here today, and thanking you for taking the time to be here. I understand that everyone has busy schedules, and I appreciate your decision to be here.
Rural Ontario is in crisis. That fact should not come as any surprise to any of you here in this room. It is a part of your life, the reality you face every day. Unfortunately, it is not so clear to those in Queen’s Park who set the government agenda – and that includes those from ridings such as ours.
One can somehow understand the lack of awareness of rural issues among politicians representing square blocks of downtown Toronto. What surprises and defies explanation is the lack of awareness demonstrated by the very person who not only represents agricultural and rural issues in the Legislature, but also represents a good proportion of this constituency.
Leona Dombrowsky, despite the lofty rhetoric she used to get elected, has simply not delivered.
This riding, and the communities it represents, needs a strong and effective voice in Queen’s Park. Dombrowsky has had eight years, and two cabinet portfolios, and still has not done the job she promised. Whether she cannot, or she will not, makes little difference at this point. The important point is that allowing Leona another term in office will not change things, only allow them to get steadily worse.
The challenges of life in this part of Ontario cannot be washed over by press releases that talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. Our problems are serious, and the need to address them is real.
In a little less than a year, the people of Ontario will be heading to the polls. If Leona is not prepared to show leadership, then we must elect someone who is.
Today, I formally announce my intention to contest the Progressive Conservative Party nomination in the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, with the hope of representing this party and riding in Queen’s Park and doing a job that has long been neglected to this point.
When someone asks for support in these cases, it is fair to ask why they think they are qualified to to the job, and what they intend to do once they get there. Believe me, in discussing this decision with my family and friends, it was not taken lightly. This is a serious business, and a tough one. Unless you truly believe that you have the ability to make things happen, it is a road you should think twice about travelling.
While I may be the first to declare, I am certain that I will not be the last. It is a testament to this party and its people that some will make the decision to run. This means that you will have a choice to make, and facts to consider.
Some may argue that their understanding of Queen’s Park and how it works gives them the upper hand. Still others will tell you that experience in local government puts them closer to people and their concerns. Yet others might point to a background in business as their strength.
Now, all of them are absolutely correct as far as they go. Each has their strength and talent. But you cannot form a picture wth one piece of a puzzle, and you cannot be an effective candidate unless you possess a broader experience and a broader perspective.
I can tell you that I have been active in Conservative politics for over 26 years. I have served on riding boards, and have worked more election campaigns than I care to remember. I have done everything from door-to-door canvass in minus 30 degree weather to travelling with Prime Ministers and party leaders on national tours.
I am a graduate of Queen’s University, where I received an honours degree in political studies, and St. Lawrence College, where I obtained a Certificate in Municipal Administration.
I have worked in government, as a federal civil servant in Ottawa, and as an assistant to a member of the Ontario Legislature.
I have been a researcher in one of Canada’s leading polling firms, and have studied public policy.
I am a published author, who served on the editorial board of a daily newspaper, and was a regular columnist.
I have been involved in businesses, from a family-owned coffee shop, to participating on the board of directors of a trade promotion venture, the Commonwealth Advantage. It has taken me from boardrooms in downtown Toronto to the halls of Westminster in London.
Among my activities in the community, I served two terms as the Chairperson of Central Frontenac Community Services Corporation, a non-profit organization that provided home help and home maintenance services to seniors and youth.
Most importantly, I am a husband and the father of two, who works and helps raise a family in a community where my roots extend back to the landing of the Loyalists. I grew up on a farm that my family operated for generations, played in fields that my great-grandfather plowed with an ox team. I am proud to make that place a home for my own children.
Like so many other farm families, we struggled to do all we could to keep going – milk the cows before and after working in town, board livestock, sell off hay, raise sheep, rabbits, and nutrea, operate a sand pit in the back corner, but we lost the fight. We sold off our quota and livestock, tore down the barn, and sold off most of the pastureland. All that remains is a woodlot and the memories of a way of life lost.
There are countless others who have not lost yet, but they are holding on just barely. They need more than touching speeches about rural traditions, they need someone to step up and fight for their priorities in the halls of government.
But respect for our rural way of life goes beyond the barn and pasture. It is about a decades long neglect of rural communities and rural families. It is about the challenge of finding a family doctor, or sending your kids to a school that gets less money than one in Toronto, Ottawa, or Kingston. It is about urban policy makers who say they are so concerned about the environment they stop farmers from doing what they have done for decades, and yet conveniently lose that resolve when the GTA needs to find a place to put its trash.
It is about taking one message and making it loud and clear to those who govern Ontario. We need to say in the strongest terms possible that you have a responsibility to govern for all Ontarians, including those of us who have made our choice to stay in rural communities and support a way of life. They have an obligation not to let us become second-class citizens in what should be a first class province.
That is their responsibility, but we have one too.
Respect can only be given where it has been earned. We have already earned it by the quiet and dignified lives we lead, and the contributions we make to Ontario. We earn it by virtue of the taxes we pay, the families and communities we support, and the laws we abide by.
We have earned the right to receive respect, but to get it, we must also demand it.
We demand respect by electing people who will not accept excuses for inaction. We demand respect by refusing to negotiate away the future of our communities. We demand respect by showing bureaucrats and professional political operatives that they do not have a monopoly on the facts, or good ideas. We demand respect when we elect people who do not go along to get along.
In short, we can only demand respect when we send people to Queen’s Park that will be taken seriously. We are judged by the character and the ability of those who we elect as our standard-bearers.
Unfortunately, many an elected member travels to Toronto, excited at the chance to make a difference, only to be surrounded by numbers of bureaucrats and political operatives with countless degrees and diplomas, and years of experience navigating Queen’s Park – all with their own particular views on how things should be done. Whether it is a lack of information, or a lack of confidence, members often go along with the advice they get, never questioning whether it is the right advice, or whether it is good for the people at home.
Being taken seriously means not being afraid to say that the choices on offer are not good enough. Being taken seriously means knowing enough about the workings of government to make suggestions of your own, and to fight to get them through.
But the voters of Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington can only choose from the candidates that we choose to nominate. A choice between the NDP and the Liberals is a choice between bad ideas and no ideas, so as Conservatives, this election really is ours to lose. But strength in our party and its beliefs must be matched with strength and commitment on the home front.
During this nomination campaign, and forward into the election, I will be travelling throughout this riding, meeting with as many people as possible – to talk about the issues that face this area, to hear some of the ideas and suggestions you have for the future of the community, and to share with you the reasons why I believe that I am the person to carry that agenda forward.
I do not guarantee miracles, nor do I believe that our problems will magically disappear along with the mandate of Leona Dombrowsky or Dalton McGuinty. What I do believe is that they will never disappear so long as these two continue in power, and that any real hope of a change for the better can only come from a change at Queen’s Park.
I am not afraid to work, nor am I afraid to think and challenge the powers that be. Most of all, I am not afraid to say in a clear and strong voice when something runs counter to the hopes and aspirations of this community.
What I ask of this party and this riding is to not be afraid to demand a higher standard, to raise your expectations and fight for your lives as well.
The best candidate in the world is nothing more than a name on a sign without the hard work, support, ideas and energy of others. We are always at our best when we work together. Many of you have joined this effort, and I thank you for that, but we will continue to need the help of many others.
Thank you.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Canaries in the coal mine
It seems that in the eyes of officials in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the people of Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Counties live in nothing more than a large petry dish where experiments are conducted at whim.
The MOE began with their panicked attempt to address water quality in the province. Rural villages would be compelled to live under standards so strict, the only answer would be to build a water works. The plug got pulled on that experiment when another branch of the Ontario government concluded that no such system was financially viable unless there were a minimum of 10,000 customers. Unfortunately, this came too late for the approximately 250 households in Sydenham who still have to pay $20,000 apiece for the privilege of being guinea pigs. Let us remember that it was none other than local MPP Leona Dombrowsky, as Environment Minister, who signed the original flawed directive.
Now, with the five year study on the impact of tire incineration at the Lafarge Plant in Bath, it is the turn of people in south Lennox and Addington County to play the part of the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ – literally so, when this operation will be the only one legally sanctioned by the MOE.
Dombrowsky, when quizzed by Bath residents on the approval of the Lafarge project, said that it was the fault of bureaucrats, and that she would fight for an extension beyond January 5th. Unfortunately, Dombrowsky’s clout as Agriculture Minister, a member of the powerful Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet, and serving recently as Acting Premier is still not enough to convince a salaried employee of the Province of Ontario to delay this action by a few days.
With the impending closing of the border to Michigan for Toronto’s garbage, and with the rising costs of maintaining and enlarging landfills – both environmental and financial – everyone agrees that alternatives need to be explored. Clearly, incineration is being considered. But all good science is tested in the lab under controlled conditions before it is adopted for widespread use. Even new medicines undergo rigorous study and testing before they are available for prescription. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that incineration be subjected to the same methods of study before it goes into widespread use in Ontario.
Leona Dombrowsky, by her reaction, appears to be taken off guard by recent events. Yet, the members of Clean Air Bath, local newspapers, and other groups seem to have known about this situation for quite some time. Given that such application processes take years to complete, she may very well have been the Environment Minister when Lafarge first made its submission. Such ignorance is due either to a lack of information or a lack of interest. Regardless, it does little to distinguish her, or her Liberal Party, as the defenders of local interests.
The MOE began with their panicked attempt to address water quality in the province. Rural villages would be compelled to live under standards so strict, the only answer would be to build a water works. The plug got pulled on that experiment when another branch of the Ontario government concluded that no such system was financially viable unless there were a minimum of 10,000 customers. Unfortunately, this came too late for the approximately 250 households in Sydenham who still have to pay $20,000 apiece for the privilege of being guinea pigs. Let us remember that it was none other than local MPP Leona Dombrowsky, as Environment Minister, who signed the original flawed directive.
Now, with the five year study on the impact of tire incineration at the Lafarge Plant in Bath, it is the turn of people in south Lennox and Addington County to play the part of the proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ – literally so, when this operation will be the only one legally sanctioned by the MOE.
Dombrowsky, when quizzed by Bath residents on the approval of the Lafarge project, said that it was the fault of bureaucrats, and that she would fight for an extension beyond January 5th. Unfortunately, Dombrowsky’s clout as Agriculture Minister, a member of the powerful Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet, and serving recently as Acting Premier is still not enough to convince a salaried employee of the Province of Ontario to delay this action by a few days.
With the impending closing of the border to Michigan for Toronto’s garbage, and with the rising costs of maintaining and enlarging landfills – both environmental and financial – everyone agrees that alternatives need to be explored. Clearly, incineration is being considered. But all good science is tested in the lab under controlled conditions before it is adopted for widespread use. Even new medicines undergo rigorous study and testing before they are available for prescription. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that incineration be subjected to the same methods of study before it goes into widespread use in Ontario.
Leona Dombrowsky, by her reaction, appears to be taken off guard by recent events. Yet, the members of Clean Air Bath, local newspapers, and other groups seem to have known about this situation for quite some time. Given that such application processes take years to complete, she may very well have been the Environment Minister when Lafarge first made its submission. Such ignorance is due either to a lack of information or a lack of interest. Regardless, it does little to distinguish her, or her Liberal Party, as the defenders of local interests.
Welcome to my website!
My name is Brent Cameron, and I am running to
represent Progressive Conservatives in Lanark-
Frontenac-Lennox & Addington for the 2007 Ontario
general election.
Rural Ontario is falling behind. Farm families are
continuing to struggle with low commodity prices and
high production costs; rural schools are falling behind
their urban counterparts, and every day sees another
small business in L-F-L & A close its doors.
Another four years of Liberal government in Queen’s Park will just make things even worse.
What Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington, and all of rural Ontario, needs is respect. But respect is not given – it is earned.
I believe that for rural communities like ours to succeed, we need to elect leaders who understand that challenge, and are not afraid to put rural issues at the forefront of Ontario politics.
With your help, that is what I intend to take to Queen’s Park.
Brent Cameron
My name is Brent Cameron, and I am running to
represent Progressive Conservatives in Lanark-
Frontenac-Lennox & Addington for the 2007 Ontario
general election.
Rural Ontario is falling behind. Farm families are
continuing to struggle with low commodity prices and
high production costs; rural schools are falling behind
their urban counterparts, and every day sees another
small business in L-F-L & A close its doors.
Another four years of Liberal government in Queen’s Park will just make things even worse.
What Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington, and all of rural Ontario, needs is respect. But respect is not given – it is earned.
I believe that for rural communities like ours to succeed, we need to elect leaders who understand that challenge, and are not afraid to put rural issues at the forefront of Ontario politics.
With your help, that is what I intend to take to Queen’s Park.
Brent Cameron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
