P R E S S   R E L E A S E
April 8th, 2005

Non-negotiables

His Holiness Benedict the XVI, in an address to European parliamentarians on March 30, 2006 has outlined the non-negotiable principles for Catholics on social issues.

He said:

“As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

  - protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.”

The Pope’s outline mirrors very closely the principles and policies of the Family Coalition Party:

In our principles, the protection of life, from conception to natural death, is held as the most important role of government. We recognize that without life, every other right has no meaning.

As the very name of the party states, the protection of the family and traditional marriage comes as a close second. Life derives from marriage between a man and a woman, and we recognize that the family is the fundamental building block of society.

Our policy on education, which was developed as one of our first policies, calls for a parental choice system.  We recognize the fundamental role and right of parents to be the primary educators of their children.

Other policies, such as policies on health care and social assistance, are subordinate in importance to the above, although not necessarily less expensive.

We recognize that many Christians, with good intentions, but a false understanding of social economy, tend to prioritize their efforts towards poverty, homelessness and other politically correct issues, often to the very detriment of the people who are the object of their efforts.

For example, we have seen people who promote morally untenable and inconsistent “compassionate” policies, including people who care about children being “wanted” and not being spanked, but support abortion; people who care about the plea of the handicapped, but support euthanasia; people who care about the condition of drug addicts, but support free needles or free drugs for them; people who care about unwanted pregnancies, but support a free sex mentality.

Furthermore, when some “compassionate” policies have a detrimental economic effect on the nation, the first people to suffer are the poor, the homeless and the underprivileged.

As Christians and people of faith, we are individually called to love and compassion, and we cannot delegate this moral responsibility to a body of bureaucrats.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
December 21^st, 2005

Public group sex

We cannot be surprised any more about what the Supreme Court comes up with. 

Whether they are reading in the Charter a "right" that is not there, or whether they tell us that some kind of perversion, such as poedophilia, can be classified as "art", or whenever, as in today's decision, the judges of the Supreme Court are asked a question about the liberalization of sex, they do not even convincingly argue about questions of Law or constitutionality.  They just decide to re-write the laws of the land according to their enlightened opinion.

Today, the Supreme Court essentially stated that since group sex, in their opinion, does not hurt society, thus they, the Supreme Court judges, changed our laws and legalized group sex in clubs open to the public (not just in homes or hotel rooms).  So, if your daughter (as young as 14) is invited by a friend for a night out, she might end up in the middle of an orgy.  

What was unconstitutional about our existing law (voted by the majority in Parliament) forbidding a questionable behaviour for everybody? How was this law discriminatory against any one group mentioned in the Charter of Rights, such as people of different religion, sex or color?  Does it matter to them what the Charter actually says, anyway?

Why even try to analyze their pronouncements?  Unfortunately Canada will be at their whims until the whole Court is replaced and the method of appointment revised.

Why do we need a federal Parliament, if the Supreme Court judges are the final authors or our laws?

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
November 11^th, 2005

Risky behaviour has consequences 

Ontario's health Minister George Smitherman, who openly declared his own "different" sexual tendencies, in a recent public address said  that alcohol and drug abuse, depression and HIV/AIDS are more common among people with different sexual orientations.

As a result, he promised to introduce discrimination in favour of these people in Ontario's health care system.

As reported by the Canadian Press, he admitted that "Much of this is behavioural in nature and it does require a health-care system that is responsive to [their] needs"

In two short phrases the health minister has clarified several important points:

One: The behaviour of people with "different sexual orientations" is risky.

Two: Their behaviour is "different" (not normal).

Three: It is a behaviour (it is not congenital).

Four: It has costly health consequences.

However, the health minister himself may have a conflict of interest when proposing government sponsored programs singling out homosexuals.

An impartial health minister would have also revealed that this is the only risky behaviour which seems to be politically acceptable: No government money is spent in order to discourage this behaviour through public education and prevention (as we have done for smokers, alcoholics or drug addicts). In fact, people who have suggested that homosexuals can change, have been accused of "homophobia" and charged by Human Rights Tribunals.

As we have done with drinking and driving, an impartial health minister would have suggested special laws restraining those behavioural aspects of people with "different sexual orientations" that may be dangerous to third parties, especially young teen-agers.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
May 18^th, 2004

Budget Bungle

     After several outrageous trial balloons, none of which flew, we finally were presented with a budget on May 18th, by Finance Minister Greg Sorbara. The budget has been sagging even faster than the balloons. We never expected that the current government could break their promises, increase taxes, spend more, de-list healthcare services, run up a deficit and increase Ontario's debt all at the same time!

This government has added or increased 50 new fees, such as healthcare premiums and driving license fees. These fees, for the average family, amount to a tax increase of 24%. In spite of that, the health services covered by OHIP are down and we have deficits of $6.2 Billions for the past year and $2.2 Billion for this coming year.

Let's assume that the $5.6 Billion figure advertised by this government when they took office was true.  They finished their first year with a deficit of $6.2 Billion: This means that they did nothing about the deficit for seven months!

In addition, they projected an increase in revenue (higher taxes) of about $6 Billion this coming year!

By far the most damaging and incredible admission, which Mr. Sorbara repeated twice during the budget speech, is that the budget was "inconsistent with our election commitments", and that they added health premiums, which "we promised not to do." In his own words, they did not maintain their promises. In the words of MP John Baird, this amounts to "massive election fraud": Mr. McGuinty 

a)    signed a declaration that he would not increase taxes, and 

b)    promised that, failing point a), he would call a referendum. 

Since both a) and b) were ignored, should we declare the election null and void? Would we ever believe what they "promise?"
Apart from an economic debacle for Ontario, this is a demonstration of the moral collapse of a party.

Mr. Sorbara says: "which option did we have?" - Sir, the option was to keep your promise, by de-listing abortion services, reducing expenses and reduce unessential bureaucracy.  Ontarians might have pardoned you for the costs of SARS and the blackout (approximately $1.2 Billion) in last year's budget. But $8.4 Billion deficit in two years PLUS another $6 Billion in tax increases this coming year? That is over $14 Billion off the mark! Not even Bob Rae's $9 Billion dollar deficit budget of 1991 compares to this. You didn't do it on purpose? You didn't plan to deceive voters during the election? 

The projected four-year Liberal budget shows how the costs of healthcare are growing closer to 50% of the budget every year. This is unsustainable. Structural changes to healthcare are needed.  Our party's solution is to use the Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) model for restructuring healthcare.  The Liberal government has no solution. 

Finally, since the money for healthcare is so tight, why did the government de-list essential services for eyesight, physiotherapy and chiropractics, but continue to pay for abortions? God help us!

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
September 24, 2003

It's about time for democracy

In last night's debate, "all three party leaders" as the media likes to call them, have come short of innovating ideas, but all of them still miss to represent the moral majority.

On issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, the country is divided 50/50.  "All" party leaders agree that taxpayers should continue funding abortions.  None of them will use the notwithstanding clause to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

So who represents the other 50%?

We think the Family Coalition Party does.

The major media, by refusing to open up the debate to other party leaders, has deprived the voters of Ontario of a more interesting debate where innovative ideas on Education, Health care and taxation  are heard.  More importantly, the media has deprived the voters of their democratic right to vote freely.

In a country that declares itself a model of democracy, the media has to bear the responsibility of deciding "for" the voters which their choices are.

The former Soviet Union had similar free elections, where you could vote for any party of your choice, but only the Communist party had access to the media.

Since "all" three parties in Ontario have similar programs, is our media just as blind to voters rights?

Of particular concern is the fact that one of the participants in the media consortium is the CBC.  As a public broadcasters the CBC should give equal time to all registered parties before and during elections.  The media cannot assume that a party like the Family Coalition Party, if given equal coverage would not have reached the same level of support or even surpassed the NDP, for example.

Time has come for serious democratic reforms, such as electoral reform, reform of political party financing, and especially establishing the independence between the judicial and the legislative branches of government.

This last point is a criteria used by Amnesty International to determine whether a country is or is not free.

Our party would help Ontario and Canada to escape from judicial activism, fake majority governments and media interference in the democratic process.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
September 20, 2003

Skirting the marriage issue

On September 18th the Family Coalition Party of Ontario confirmed the nomination of 51 candidates, for the upcoming provincial election, an increase of 38% over the previous provincial election. Interest in the party has increased significantly since the election was called, as voters are becoming increasing frustrated by attempts by both Eves and McGuinty to skirt the issue of same sex marriage.

As a result, the Family Coalition Party anticipates making large gains this election as throughout the campaign both the Conservatives and the Liberals have claimed that marriage is a federal issue as an excuse to remain inactive. 

The Ontario government should have appealed the Ontario Court of Appeal decision and should use the notwithstanding clause to protect its current definition of marriage.

Provinces also have complete control over marriage registration. A Family Coalition party government would pass a law that would only permit registration of heterosexual marriages and would use the notwithstanding clause, to protect this law from court interference, if necessary.

Giuseppe Gori, leader of the Family Coalition Party, says: "While the Conservatives and Liberals attempt to deceive Ontario voters, those voters who believe in the sanctity of marriage will turn in droves to the Family Coalition Party.   In 1990 the Family Coalition Party received over 110,000 votes and determined the result in 11 ridings.  In this election, the major parties may suffer the same consequences."

Gori continues: "In the meantime, the Canadian television networks are organizing a debate between the three major parties and seem oblivious to the right of voters to know the position of all parties, not just those that match their beliefs.  Democracy is not served when the only parties invited to the debate are those that have nothing to contribute on such an important and controversial issue."

In addition to strong support for the traditional definition of marriage the Family Coalition Party is calling for the following government reforms during this election campaign:

• Full choice in education – Allow full education funding to follow a student to the school of a family’s choice.
• Tax relief for low-income workers and families: Increase in the personal and spousal income tax exemptions to $14,000, and introduce an additional specified income tax deduction for each dependent child.
• Health care reform: Introduce Medical Savings Accounts to control health care costs, while ensuring access to health care for all who need it.
• Electoral Reform: Introducing an element of proportional representation to reduce voter alienation and to ensure that all voters are represented in the legislature.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E
July 17, 2003

Parliament dismantles traditional marriage

The proposed federal legislation⁽¹⁾ presented by the Canadian Parliament to the Supreme Court is not in the interest of Canada.  In addition, neither courts nor government has jurisdiction on the issue.

Marriage is an institution in Natural Law, recognized by the Church and only lately by governments.

It provides for complementary, but different roles for a man and a woman.  The state merely recognizes this institution as a special contract between the two parties, because it benefits society (See first government "WHEREAS" below).

The government proposed re-definition of the institution of marriage dismantles an important institution defining the foundation of families based on the different roles of mother and father.  The proposed legislation is unjustified, as homosexual couples already enjoy equal benefits with respect to married couples.

The Family Coalition party urges the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario at their first opportunity to invoke Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding clause) to ensure that current laws regarding equality rights are maintained, until:

A.  The precise limits of the Supreme Court of Canada are defined, so that the traditional freedom of the people to make its laws through our parliamentary democracy is maintained, and

B.  The current process Supreme Court and Lower Court judges are appointed is reviewed in order to have experienced and unbiased judges sitting on the Bench.

In the meantime, while the matter is in front of the Supreme Court, the Family Coalition party calls on the Ontario government to refuse any same-sex marriage registration.

=030=

(1) Motion sent from the Government of Canada to the Supreme Court, dated July 16, 2003:

"1. Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada?  If not in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, section 1 of the proposal, which extends capacity to marry to persons of the same sex, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not in what particular or particulars, and to what extent?

3. Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs?"

The proposal:

"Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes

WHEREAS marriage is a fundamental institution in Canadian society and the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to support that institution because it strengthens commitment in relationships and represents the foundation of family life for many Canadians;

WHEREAS in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and equality consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, access to marriage for civil purposes should be extended to couples of the same sex;

AND WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

1. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
2. Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs."

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

June 10, 2003

Court uses pretext to declare marriage unconstitutional

The argument used by the Court of Appeal in declaring the current definition of marriage unconstitutional was that it infringes on the equality section of the Charter (Section 15).

This argument is fictitious.

People who choose to live in homosexual relationships already possess equal benefits in Ontario, such as employment benefits and spousal benefits.

Declaring the current definition of marriage unconstitutional does not further anyone's cause, but exposes the judges zeal in transforming their role from arbiters of law to makers of law (judicial activism).

Marriage is an institution originally created by God, which provides for complementary, but different roles for a man and a woman.  The state merely recognizes this institution as a special contract between the two parties, because it benefits society.

A similar contract, the employment contract between an employer and an employee, is recognized and enforced by the state.

Would it be justified for an employee to appeal to the courts claiming that current employment contracts infringe on "equality" because they do not allow two employees to be on both sides of the deal?

Both marriage and employment have been instituted to define relationships between two parties with different roles.

If two employees are so inclined to enter in some contractual relationship between each other, this is not, by definition, an employment relationship.

In the same way, the courts had already invented "homosexual unions" for the purpose of granting equal benefits to homosexual couples. 

The re-definition of the institution of marriage is wrong, as it trashes an important institution defining the foundation of families based on the different roles of mother and father, and is unjustified, as homosexual couples already enjoy equal benefits with respect to married couples.

The Family Coalition party asks the Premier of Ontario Ernie Eves to invoke Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding clause) to ensure that the current definition of marriage be maintained in Ontario.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

May 17, 2003

PC Platform may exacerbate confrontation

One of the major promises in yesterday's PC Platform is the proposal to end all labour disruptions during the regular school year by making teachers' strikes illegal.

The Family Coalition Party of Ontario has an alternative to confrontation.  Free parental choice.

"It is true that confrontation between teachers and School Boards has been very disrupting for many years and that a new approach is needed" says Family Coalition Party leader Giuseppe Gori, "however, the Tory's authoritarian approach may not fix the problem and indeed it may exacerbate the confrontation. "

The Family Coalition Party favours a policy to reduce confrontation by allowing more de-centralization and competition between public and private schools by introducing parental choice in education through a voucher system.

Teachers in public schools would still have the right to strike, but if the parents were unhappy with the reasons of the strike they would possibly consider bringing their vouchers somewhere else.

The Family Coalition Party claims that their education policy would also foster more competition among schools, higher standards of education and more co-operation between parents and educators, as schools and teachers would compete for the parents' vouchers.  Schools would also be more responsive to the ideas of parents.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

January 29, 2003

Doctrinal Note gives definite guidance

The Doctrinal Note made public on January 16, 2003 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is a very important document that is going to change the attitude of Catholics towards political involvement in Canada.

The document, titled "Doctrinal Note on some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in political life", highlights both the personal responsibility of each Catholic and the responsibility of Catholic organizations not to support political parties and laws which contradict the Church on fundamental moral questions.

1. Individuals are not permitted "to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals".

2. Organizations founded on Catholic principles are instructed not to repeat past mistakes "in which support has been given to political forces or movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the Church on fundamental ethical questions".

We find this document very strong on these points.  However, some may argue that it leaves the door open to supporting an individual "good" candidate within a political party that has official policies against the teaching of the Church.  Currently this includes all political parties in Ontario with the exclusion of the Family Coalition Party (see www.OntarioCoalition.com).

Some Catholics (especially those who have supported in the past one of the major political parties) may want to claim that they can still support individual "good" candidates within those parties. However, now they would have to show that:

a.      Their membership money and/or donation to an individual campaign, which is required to be able to vote for a candidate at a nomination meeting or in a leadership contest, does not support the party as a whole.

This is not the case.  A portion of the membership fee, even if paid to a local riding organizations goes to the party and is used to promote anti-Catholic policies.  In addition, any money spent by each candidate enhances the visibility of the party name and the chances of the party as a whole.

b.      Voting for a "good" candidate at election time does not support the party as a whole.

Again this is not the case, as one more candidate elected in a party may mean the difference between governing and being in the opposition, or between being the party in opposition versus being the third party.

Given the above Doctrinal Note, we do not see an escape route for the Canadian Church, nor for organizations founded on Catholic principles, to remain "neutral" in the current political debate in Ontario and in Canada.   Given the seriousness of the family and life issues at stake (promotion of homosexual lifestyles, re-definition of marriage, abortion on demand, cloning and euthanasia, to name a few) the Family Coalition Party expects unqualified support from the Catholic Church and from pro-family, pro-life organizations in Ontario during the upcoming Ontario election.

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

December 2, 2002

Romanow report: Very questionable

Where does the Federal government get the authority to even propose spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on health care when health care by Constitution is a Provincial matter?

The report suggests to increase taxes by several hundreds of dollars per taxpayer per year and increase spending towards all sorts of "programs" and elective procedures.  Canada is already the biggest per-capita spender in the world. Just increasing money without reforming the system has not worked for other nations.

Romanow proposes a more communist health plan that anywhere else in the world.  His report essentially recommends to remove more money and decisional power from families, obliged and willing to take care of their members, and to channel it to some centralized government which spends it without compassion, responsibility or accountability.

When nations like Sweden are backtracking from "free" state-provided healthcare, why is the Canadian government still buying into an archetype Russian-style solution?  Does it have to do with the PM's image and heritage?

The health care reform proposed by the Family Coalition party would include the choice by the Provincial Government of the most competitive health insurance plan, while allowing taxpayers to opt out and choose their own.

Why is it that in all other areas we are advised not to throw good money after the bad, but in Healthcare it is O.K. to pour money into a system that needs a serious reform?  Would not health care reform have to come first?

The Family Coalition party proposes a reform to health care that would introduce a Medical Savings Account system, where taxpayers are well covered and, at the same time, have an incentive to save money into their own RRSP.

Giuseppe Gori, leader of the Family Coalition party, commented: "We are very wary of a report which interferes with provincial jurisdiction, at a time when a serious look at the healthcare system by the Provinces is overdue."

P R E S S   R E L E A S E

 June 17, 2002
Budget Blues

The Conservative budget figures clearly demonstrate two things:  That we have a serious problem with the Health care system and that neither the government nor the opposition are willing to tackle the problem.

The figures show that, in spite of the Conservatives' efforts to balance the budget without recurring to tax increases, health care spending has gone up by a massive $1.7 Billion.  This represents a seven percent increase from just a year ago, bringing healthcare closer to 50% of all program expenses.

Where is it going to end?  Are we going to spend all of our money in taxes, or all of our taxes on Health care?

With our aging population, and an untenable trend in medical cost increases, even Health Care Minister and leadership contender Tony Clement sounded the alarm.  Dr. David Gratzer has written innumerable articles and a book ("Code Blue") to wake us up on the imminent crisis.

But the government of Ernie Eves has chosen to play a waiting game, at least until the next election.

What a lost opportunity for him to show leadership and earn votes by his actions!  Eves instead has chosen to shift his policies where the votes are, but with little result, as the Liberal opposition is not losing strength and hospital queues are not shortening.

There is no solution to Health care spending without a radical transformation.

The Family Coalition Party has proposed a system of Medical Savings Accounts combined with the use of public as well a private insurance.

Asked whether his party would support privatisation of health care, Giuseppe Gori, leader of the Family Coalition Party had this to say: "I think that all other options that maintain the principle of universality should be explored. Of all the products and services we use, from food to pleasure items, from insurances to office services, the one we value the most is health care.  It is also the one were we spend most of our money.  Is it not remarkable that it is the only service where we have a serious problem with delivery, costs and quality of service?  Is it not time to realize that the monopoly of health care delivery, just as any other monopoly does not solve, but worsens the problem?"

The Family Coalition Party proposes to consider MSAs and explore other alternatives, before the well runs dry.

 P R E S S   R E L E A S E

 April 5, 2002
Davies faces Eves

The Family Coalition Party of Ontario (Ontario Coalition) has endorsed the candidacy of Mr. David Davies for the Dufferin – Peel – Wellington - Grey by-election scheduled for May 2.  Mr. Davies, a retired businessman and farmer, and past trustee with the Upper Grand District School Board, is running in an essentially unnecessary  by-election called to formally allow Eves to sit in the Ontario Legislature.

Under a proposal presented to the Speaker by the Ontario Coalition, the Representation Act could be easily changed to allow the leader of any party receiving more than five percent of the votes across Ontario to sit in the Legislature and effectively represent all of Ontario and not just one riding. 

In addition to a much needed series of electoral reforms, Mr. Davies, a resident of Orangeville, will challenge Mr. Eves on the main issues facing Ontarians: Health care, facing higher costs and an aging population; Education facing a crisis of quality while teachers' morale is low and resources are few.  Taxation and economy, more and more a burden on families whose members are forced to seek occupation, sometimes more than one job, outside the home.

The Ontario Coalition has unique and proven policies on these areas: Medical Savings Accounts, preserving the principle of universality in health care.  Parental choice to revamp interest of parents and teachers in the children's learning progress, and taxation reforms alleviating the burden to families by raising the taxable income level to the minimum wage level and by restoring equality of taxation between one-income and two-income families. 

“My reasons for running in this by-election”, Davies declares, "are to speak up for ordinary families and citizens who are so marginalized by the social tax policies of Ontario's Tories, Liberals and NDP."  Davies continues: "It is my hope to encourage the very discouraged core constituency supporting responsible, loving and hard working parents, families and our social structures."

The Ontario Coalition leader, Giuseppe Gori, stated: “We’re very excited to have Dave representing us in this by-election. He’s an excellent candidate, and is going to raise the profile of the Ontario Coalition at a time when conservative values are less and less represented by the Ontario PC party.” 

Davies, as a Reform candidate in the 1997 federal election, received 30% of the popular vote in his riding. "This is evidence," Gori says "that the Ontario Coalition is becoming the new provincial home for those Canadian Alliance voters who are not comfortable with a left-leaning PC party.  Ernie Eves' PC matches federally with Joe Clark's PC and not with Steven Harper's CA."

Over the past ten years, the innovative policies of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario have matured and cover all areas of Provincial politics.  Dedicated to the promotion of family values, the Ontario Coalition is the only provincial party that supports pro-life policies. The party endorses a slate of targeted tax cuts for families and business, advocates the use of Medical Savings Accounts for Medicare and proposes a province-wide voucher system in education.

PRESS RELEASE

Increasing Minimum Wage – The Creative Way

At the Progressive Conservative leadership convention a number of protestors gathered to voice their opposition to a number of different policies.  One sign that caught my attention demanded that the minimum wage be increased to $10/hr.

I certainly admire the intention of the protestors that carried that sign. Unfortunately if this idea were enacted, a number of workers who make minimum wage would find themselves without work. This would hardly improve their economic situation. Regardless something must be done to help our working poor.

It is for this reason that I introduced a policy motion calling for an increase in the provincial personal income tax exemption to $14,000 a year at the recent Family Coalition Party annual general meeting. This would remove all minimum wage workers from the provincial income tax rolls – as they should be. After all, how can we justify a government ordering a business to pay a worker $6.85 an hour - because that is what a worker requires to pay for the basic necessities - and then turn around and tax that very same wage. I was quite pleased when the members of the Family Coalition Party recognized these worker’s struggles and this hypocrisy and voted for this motion unanimously.

Indeed this action would not only end this instance of government hypocrisy but would also remove a tremendous burden upon the working poor. An Ontario worker working full-time for the minimum wage pays up to $1,341 a year (9.4% of their income) in provincial and federal income taxes.

The only possible objection to providing this needed relief is the cost. At this time we should take a step back and remind ourselves that if this same minimum wage earner is lucky enough to find an apartment where the rent is just $510/month (good luck) that this worker would still only have $6000 for the whole year for food, transportation, utilities and clothing. As a result before we object ‘what about the costs’ we must carefully scrutinize government budgets and ensure that all expenditures are more urgent than providing even a small amount of breathing space for our working poor.

However a review of the Ontario budget finds many areas of questionable spending:

1) $390 million is spent on culture, tourism and recreation. While cultural events are great and the participation of Ontarians should be encouraged this should definitely be a private discretionary expenditure.  

2) Mounds of duplication in government. One example is the existence of health ministries or departments at the federal, provincial, regional and local levels of government. Each government service should be delegated to the appropriate level of government thus only requiring one level of bureaucracy – not as many as four.

3) End corporate welfare. Ontario has done an excellent job to ensure that we will soon have some of the lowest corporate tax rates in North America. This is another in a list of great selling points as to why it is a good idea for corporations to operate in and bring jobs to Ontario. There is certainly no need for government handouts to corporations – yet this is still happening.

A serious review of these three areas and others would find the savings required without adversely affecting any core government service. In addition, since most of this money will be returned to lower and middle income earners, most of it is likely to be spent by the recipients. This will generate increased economic activity and thus provide compensating tax revenues.

Indeed too often people aim to solve problems by throwing more money around – or in the case of the minimum wage ordering that businesses pay more. However if the personal exemption were increased to $14,000 at both the federal and provincial levels, it would be the equivalent of an 83-cent or 12% increase in the minimum wage without any additional burden being placed upon the employer. This would be a great step in the right direction. The Family Coalition Party has recognized the need to ensure that those who struggle to get by keep all of their money. I hope all other parties will make the same recognition sooner rather than latter. 

Alex Cassar

Calculation Notes:

Calculation  #1 Current Income taxes paid:

Annual Minimum wage = 6.85 *2000 hrs = $13,700 +4% vacation pay ($548)

Total = $14,248

Tax calculation:

I assumed that this worker is single with no deductions available other than personal exemption and credits for CPP and EI contributions.

Using tax preparation software I determined that the correct contributions for this worker are - CPP $462 and EI $321. I therefore entered this information into tax preparation software, income= $14,248, EI $321, CPP $462 and found that total income tax is $1,341.

 

Calculation #2: Minimum wage budget:

Total income = 14268
Less: tax =        (1341)
CPP =                 (462)
EI =                      (321)
Rent =               (6120) (510/mnth)
All other items= 6024

 

Calculation #3: Equivalent raise required for same impact:

At the $14,000/yr salary level the combined marginal tax rate is 22.2%

Therefore for a raise to have the same impact as the elimination of income tax for these workers we need to pay $1,341 + the tax on this additional income.

Determined as follows:

Amount of required increase – 0.222 (Amount of required increase) = ($1341)/(2000 hours*1.04)

0.778 (Amount of required increase) = 0.64471

Amount of required increase = 0.64471/0.778

Amount of required increase = 82.8 cents/hr

PRESS RELEASE

August 29, 2001

Ray Scott Throws His Hat in the Provincial Ring

Toronto -- The Family Coalition Party of Ontario has introduced its candidate for the Beaches - East York by-election scheduled for September 20. Ray Scott, a teacher with